Help desk
< February 21	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 23 >

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.

February 22

Professional Developmental Football League

Has anyone done any research on the Professional Developmental Football League? This is a new professional league starting this spring which takes players from 10 teams across the country from Seattle to Miami and gets them into pro camps.

Do some research on this league and see if you think this will warrant a page on Wikepedia.

Thank you,

JJ Fayed Head Coach Utah Argos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.30.68.100 (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JJ, thanks for writing about this. I found several reliable sources about the league from 2009 and 2010, and a few from this year. I also saw the league's website and Facebook. Good luck to the Argos (but please don't tell the other teams that I said that)! --76.189.111.199 (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, JJ. It might not be clear what 76.189 is saying. They are saying that it looks as if there are enough sources to warrant such an article: I don't think they are saying that they will write one, and indeed it is unlikely (though possible) that anybody will do so just because you have mentioned it here. Wikipedia is created by volunteers, who write what they get interested in writing.

If you would like to see such an article, I have three suggestions:

try writing it yourself: start by reading your first article.
ask at WT:WikiProject Football and see if anybody there is interested in creating it
use the process at WP:Requested articles (but there is a big backlog there).

Good luck! --ColinFine (talk) 10:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

creation of templates

How do you create templates? Vegas30 (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of templates? See WP:TEMPLATE and WP:TM. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Geer

Hello. I created the article Wesley Geer, and the photograph that I'd originally submitted with this article has been erased. I have re-submitted the photograph several times, but it continues to be erased. Can you please help me to understand why this is happening, and help me submit a photograph to my article that will stay, permanently?

Thank you,

-Jennifer Grutzmacher Jgooch5150Jennifer Grutzmacher 02:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgooch5150 (talk • contribs)

Jennifer, you submitted Wes Geer, which was declined on August 28, 2012, because Wesley Geer was already created by Beatz2010 on September 4, 2010. But I see you've been editing Wesley Geer. I'm confused... are you both Jgooch5150 and Beatz2010? Because you said Wesley Geer is "my article". --76.189.111.199 (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The duplicate article at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wes Geer used to display the photo File:WesLubbockApr2012.jpg, but this was deleted because its licensing information was incomplete - the Commons deletion log entry contains links to some pages that may be helpful. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The usual problem with photos is that people don't realise that Wikipedia has to assume that every photo is copyright, and therefore may not be used, unless it is explicitly stated either to be in the public domain, or to be specifically licensed by the copyright owner. --ColinFine (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for help re access

Hi,

I sent an email a few days ago and haven't heard from anyone. I assume you're busy, but just want to make sure my request wasn't lost somehow.

There is a page on me. I just did a television interview and the host asked a question that was based on a false premise. When I corrected it, she said, "Oh, you can't trust Wikipedia," or something close to that. That made me curious, so I went to the page and saw that there have been some changes in the information about me, largely updates. But a couple of things are wrong, so because I've corresponded with you folks in the past and found you very helpful, I thought I'd ask to be allowed to correct the few little things that are wrong.

Please let me know if I should be going about this in another way.

Thanks.

Mike Farrell

PS - Since you've suggested I not post my email address here, I won't, but will hope you can figure out how to get back to me.

Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.20.180 (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike. Which Mike Farrell are you claiming to be? I assume you are Mike Farrell from M*A*S*H because you're writing from Kansas City, Kansas, and I read that he has been starring in play there. Also, to what address did you send your email? Thanks. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Mike, I have advised the biographies of living persons noticeboard and administrator Wifione of your message here. I'm sure that Wifione or one of the other great editors here or at the noticeboard will be happy to assist you. Feel free to post additional comments here or at either of the two other pages. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, I'd be happy to help, but I need to know what the problematic "fact" is. I have a guess, but it's only a guess. I can be emailed via this link (but I think you'd have to create an account to use it). Yworo (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Yworo... he can't use that link to email you unless he creates an account. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Farrell did indeed contact us through OTRS, and I've asked that his email be handled by a volunteer to avoid inadvertent disclosure of personal information. That said, I also do not know at this point what the issue with the article is, if it's something minor and Mr. Farrell is comfortable with this venue then I see no problem. It's up to him. We are always concerned about privacy but at the same time we don't want to unnecessarily complicate things. I just want to make sure he knows that we did receive his message. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, FRF. He is Mike Farrell, correct? Yworo, unless I'm overlooking it I don't see where Mike mentioned anything about a "fact". I do see where he wrote that "a couple of things are wrong" and that he wants "to correct the few little things that are wrong". Thanks guys. Hopefully, Mike we be back to reply. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Farrell, you may edit your article. It is not against policy. As long as the content being removed is not accurate and you are not disruptive, edits by the subject are allowed.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should provide more clarity to Mike if he's going to edit the article himself, just to prevent any problems with the potential removal of reliably-sourced content. I don't want any editors who are unaware of this situation to give Mike a hard time considering they won't know who he is, whether he edits as an IP or creates an account. ;) But I'll bet the disputed content is not sourced, or poorly sourced. Mike, feel free to read our conflict of interest guidelines with regard to making any changes to your article yourself. (I assume that's you; no one's confirmed it yet.) In any case, it sounds like you would prefer to have others make your requested edits, which is not only fine, but very commendable. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page hitting the template limit

The last few templates on List of cathedrals in the United States are not displaying -- I understand that's because the page uses so many templates that it hits the template limit, presumably due to the fact that the {{coord}} template is used to identify the location of every cathedral on the list. (Actually, the cathedrals in states beginning with T, U, V, and W, and U.S. territories don't have their coordinates shown yet, so the template will probably need to be called on even more in the future.)

What's the best way to deal with this situation in this particular case? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For some background, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Long lists. I tried doing a null edit on the page, to see whether that would make the missing coordinates appear, but I keep getting a time-out error. The best way to deal with this may be to split the list into smaller chunks (by region? by alphabetical groups of states?) and make the current page a "Lists of ..." index page; but perhaps someone else has a better suggestion. You might try asking at the WikiProject talk page I've linked above. Deor (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the co-ordinates that aren't displayed; you're also missing the references because the {{reflist}} doesn't work. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure, I copied South Carolina (where things start going wierd) to a sandbox and it was fine. Guess it's the TLIMIT.Naraht (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I got {{reflist}} to work by adding "|4" to it. It's still one looong column though.--Auric talk 01:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that a "coord quick" template, with limited capabilities, can be constructed for use in this situation. I'll try to have a look tomorrow. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citations on linked pages

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Citations on linked pages

My question concern citations.

Myers Motors NmG makes the following claim: "The Myers Motors NmG (formerly the Corbin Sparrow)..." with a citation to [ http://www.electric-bikes.com/cars/ready.html#Myers ]

List of production battery electric vehicles#Microcars makes the same claim: "MM NmG, previously named Corbin Sparrow..."

(Both MM NmG and Corbin Sparrow are redirects to Myers Motors NmG.)

User:N2e tagged the above claim with a citation needed tag.[1] and when I removed it[2] reverted me[3], citing WP:CIRCULAR.

So, is the link to MM NmG, which has a citation supporting the claim sufficient, or does it need to be cited on List of production battery electric vehicles as well? If the second cite is not needed, what policy page should I quote in order to convince N2e of this? If it is needed, is this just for "list of" articles or does it apply to disambiguation pages as well? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:N2e is correct. Every article must comply with WP:V by itself. We cannot rely on a citation in article A to support an uncited claim in article B because article A is subject to editing (or even deletion) independently of article B. The simplest way to solve it would be to simply copy the cite - after you've verified that it does in fact support the claim. Roger (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Guy. I don't understand why you removed the cn tag in List of production battery electric vehicles#Microcars. Because it was cited in the other article? Simply because a particular piece of content is cited in one article doesn't mean it doesn't need to be cited in other articles that contain the same content. It does. Just remember that we can never use Wikipedia as a source for itself. ;) Having said that, I don't doubt at all that the information on that website is correct, but whether it is considered a reliable source is a separate issue. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So we should CN tag every entry in List of armoured fighting vehicles by country? There is no citation for the Nahuel being a medium tank or for it being from the World War II era. And we should CN tag every entry in List of automobile manufacturers of France? There is no citation for ACMAT being founded in 1958. And every entry in List of cars with non-standard door designs? No citation for the Mercedes-Benz 300SL having gullwing doors. And we should CN tag every entry in List of Soviet computer systems? No citation for the MOS operating system being a Soviet clone of Unix in the 1980s. In fact, in list after list, I see many many entries with no citations other than the citations on the Wikipedia pages they link to. WP:V says that "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." You can read the citation at the Mercedes-Benz 300SL article and check whether it has gullwing doors.[4] I don't see anything in WP:V that mandates another copy of the citation at List of cars with non-standard door designs. With all due respect, before I believe that all the entries on 90% of the lists on Wikipedia need to be tagged, I would like to see a policy page that directly addresses this question. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy. Per WP:VERIFY:

"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." (emphasis added) (see lead of WP:VERIFY)
"Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (see WP:CHALLENGE)
"Do not use articles from Wikipedia or from websites that mirror its content as sources, because this would amount to self-reference." (see WP:CIRCULAR)

Because N2e added the cn tag, that content needs to be sourced. If N2e agrees to remove the tag, then you're fine. Otherwise, as Roger explained above, "The simplest way to solve it would be to simply copy the cite - after you've verified that it does in fact support the claim." Btw, there are actually 10 cn tags at List of production battery electric vehicles. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I am going to focus on the one cn tag. We are all smart enough to generalize any answer we arrive at to the others. I am also going to assume for the sake of argument that this particular source (electric-bikes.com) is reliable; if it isn't that is another issue and I would just have to pick another cn tag as an example so I can keep discussing whether this alleged policy actually exists.)

Re: "Because User:N2e added the cn tag, that content needs to be sourced", the claim IS sourced. List of production battery electric vehicles#Microcars makes the claim: "MM NmG, previously named Corbin Sparrow..." and the source is at MM NmG: "The Myers Motors NmG (formerly the Corbin Sparrow)...".[5] The question is where it has to be sourced, not whether it has to be sourced.

Anyone who thinks it isn't sourced is not paying attention. The question at hand is whether it has to be sourced on the List of production battery electric vehicles#Microcars page. or whether sourcing it at MM NmG suffices.

Furthermore, you cannot use "Because User:N2e added the cn tag" as an argument when discussing the question of whether N2e adding the cn tag is supported by Wikipedia policy. That is begging the question -- a form of circular reasoning.

Also, "any material challenged" is not a magic phrase making any and all cn tags allowable. For example, if you make a claim on a Wikipedia page and follow it with a solid citation, I cannot simply add a cn tag after your citation saying it is "material challenged" (by me). So if anyone is about to claim that removing cn tags is never allowed, don't bother because sometimes removing cn tags is allowed.

Re: "Do not use articles from Wikipedia or from websites that mirror its content as sources, because this would amount to self-reference." (see WP:CIRCULAR)", this argument depends on redefining self-reference withoutn the "self" and redefining "WP:CIRCULAR" as meaning "not a circle."

The WP:CIRCULAR argument is completely bogus. Read the policy. You cannot use "because Wikipedia says so" as a citation. You cannot use "because website X (which got the information from Wikipedia) says so" as a citation. You certainly can use "because electric-bikes.com says so" as long as electric-bikes.com is an independent and reliable source. (whether it actually is is another issue; see above). Again, the question is where, not whether.

And yes, I know that a simple solution would be to duplicate the reference, but does any policy say that I have to? I am interested in what our policy is, not in this particular example. Deleting the cn tag is also simple, but does any policy say whether I can do that? That is the question. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy. Rather than repeatedly rehashing the same points, I think it would be best for me just to allow some very experienced editors the opportunity to provide their input. I simply wanted to quote the policies that appear most relevant to the issue. Roger's thinking on the matter seems to be precisely in line with mine, but perhaps you will find others who agree with you. In any case, if you are not satisfied and feel the need to pursue this matter further, I can definitely understand that. I appreciate your passion for editing. Good luck and have a great weekend! 76.189.111.199 (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:76* asked me to look at this. Technically, I think Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Citing sources says that you need to use inline citations in the list article itself if the information is challenged with a {{cn}} tag. For quotes, challenged/likely to be challenged or contentious information, a general reference to a WP page isn't good enough, even if there's an inline citation in that particular WP page. Hope this helps. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The policy that you're looking for, Guy, is WP:V which states: "All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed" (emphasis added). Adding a cn-tag is clearly a challenge to the claim and in order to retain the challenged material in the article it needs an inline citation. What is the citation supposed to be inline with? Clearly it should be the line containing the challenged claim. It's true that it doesn't say that it has to be in the same article or even on Wikipedia for that matter, but we have to use common sense here. The plain meaning of the policy is clear. -Thibbs (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In List of subcultures many linked articles don't address the status of "subculture". We had to request citations for most entries, just to keep the list under control. -Enric Naval (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was specifically asked to comment here. My opinion is simple: If a statement needs a cite, and the cite exists in another Wikipedia article, AND you have access to that source so you can confirm what it says, there is no compelling reason to oppose its addition. It could be added by either the person who added the cn tag, or the person who added the statement, or really anyone else. I'll not get into that specific pissing contest over whose "responsibility" it is, but I can't support any argument which claims that Wikipedia articles are better when we specifically refuse to add available, reliable references to them. --Jayron32 00:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI... Guy Macon started this discussion at the Village Pump. I just wanted everyone to be aware that there are two simultaneous discussions going on. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[The following is a direct copy of my post at the village pump] Erm. Common sense should prevail here. Firstly, whilst tag bombing is indeed disruptive, consider using {{Refimprove}} on the whole article then raising the specific concerns on the article's talk-page; much less uncivil. Secondly, examine some of Wikipedia's best work, such as our featured lists. You can then model your behaviour accordingly --Senra (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help with referencing article

I had an article rejected twice for lack of references. Article name ohlson38. . Unfortunaltey there aren't many more than what I provided. I added still more some 14 days ago but I had no response nor did I get any other form those who rejected the article. Would you please help what I can still do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohlson38 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the {{reflist}} template to it so that the references are actually visible. It needs some cleaning up (and WP:NAMED would help to handle the multiple references to the same place) but I would say it has enough references now to establish notability. I suggest you do what it says in the older box and "When you are ready to resumbit, click here" - it is unlikely to get reviewed again until you do so. --ColinFine (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Author

I am surprised you do not have info about me, 18 pages on google, author, speaker, voice over talent, very involved with addiction/alcoholism/recovery. How can we get one started?

http://www.capecodpublishing.com

http://www.gordonrouston.com

Book: MY MIND HAS A MIND OF ITS OWN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.240.46 (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Header added and comment reformatted --ColinFine (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gordon. Wikipedia is created by volunteers, and so it contains what people have been interested in writing articles on. If you belive that you pass Wikipedia's criteria for notability - which is about whether reliable sources, independent of you have written in depth about you - then there can be an article on you, though you should not be the one to write it. The first couple of pages of google results about you all seem to be either sites affiliated with you, or contributory sites such as blogs and directories, which are not regarded as reliable for Wikipedia purposes; but I haven't investigated further, so the sources may exist.

Your best bet is either to post a request - with independent sources - at WP:Requested articles (though there is a backlog there); or to see if you can find somebody at WT:WikiProject Addictions and recovery who would be willing to write one. --ColinFine (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though it's not determinative—we look for substantive treatment in reliable sources entirely independent of a subject of an article to show whether a subject is notable and information sufficient to sustain an article is verifiable through such reliable independent sources—the fact that the main publication noted through the links you provided is published through a vanity press (Tate Publishing & Enterprises), is taken as an indication of non-notability. Looking for reliable sources, I was not able to find anything but a Cape Cod Times article containing a brief mention among other local authors. This is not in any way an assessment of your or the book's merits but most people in the world, including myself, are not notable as we use that word here. If there are other third-party sources out there, you would know better than us where to find them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

editing conflict

attempted to make additions to a subject & apparently someone else was doing so at the same time - resulting in bold "red flag" on entry page... have no idea how to correct this ... no errors showed up in preview

This article Help:Edit conflict may help explain the issue you may have had. If you only intend to make a few changes and get an edit-conflict, just go back and make them again . In future, try to only edit small sections of an article rather than a whole article. This can help to avoid such conflicts. If you are planning to make a large number of changes to a whole article, open the article for editing, add {{In use}} to the top of the article, then save the article. Open the article for editing again and make your changes, not forgetting to remove the {{In use}} template before saving for the second time --Senra (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was in Saint Patrick Day Pride in Syracuse, New York

G'day Blokes I'm Sir.Quala I was in Saint Patrick Day Pride in Syracuse may times how do seen U the Photos 2 add 2 Wikipedia and others I have lost of pitchers of me in Saint Patrick Day Prides — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.94.121 (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be asking about uploading images to Wikipedia. Standard advice follows:

If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy.
If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information. I hope this helps.--ukexpat (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OP did inquire at OTRS, but I did not find an article about him or the event, so I didn't see the point of uploading an image.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 23:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wynwood Arts District

I request to post a link to a facebook page. The page is only designed to showcase the local Artist of Wynwood. What this does is let's people who look Wynwood up and want to see who the artist are, can do so. My page, Artist of Wynwood is not to promote an event, or anyone specific. I really want people to know who the soul and drive of our community are and what they do. Can I post the page https://www.facebook.com/artistofwynwood ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artist of Wynwood (talk • contribs) 17:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the help page for the English-language version of Wikipedia. We here are not responsible for what happens on Facebook. However my understanding is that you can post almost anything you like on your own Facebook page. Maproom (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, links to social media sites are not permitted, see WP:ELNO #10.--ukexpat (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you should not post links to Facebook pages in Wikipedia articles, and "really want people to know that ... " is precisely what we mean by promotion, and is not permitted in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ARTICLE ON HOMBRES INACCURATE

Sirs, this article about the Hombres it TOTALLY inaccurate. Can you tell me how to edit this article and print the real truth about The Hombres, as referred to in the present article is not even close to the real truth. I was the one that started the group from scratch. BB Cunningham, Jr. and Gary McEwen didn't even join the group until we had been trying out different musicians for almost a year. I, Jerry Masters, was the founder and leader of The Hombres, who were before called The Daytonas. We were a road group representing Ronnie and The Daytonas on the road, since there never was an active group called Ronnie and The Daytonas. After tiring of pretending to be someone else, we changed our name to The Hombres approximately one year before the song "Let It All Hang Out" was released.

I can verify all these changes if I'm helped by someone who can tell me how to edit the article.

Please help me get this corrected since I, as well as many in the world hold Wikipedia to the highest esteem. Help me continue that editorial and supposedly accurate Wikipedia info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.81.111.45 (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have a conflict of interest so please request those edits on the talk page at Talk:The Hombres providing reliable sources. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced information on the page may be removed, but you should not add your own information unless it is verifiable from published reliable sources. As ukexpat says, explaining on the talk page what you think should be removed and what added is a good first step. --ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Academy CT edit

I have recently edited Oxford Academys page and have had my edits deleted and cited as vandalism. None such has occured, what I posted is 100% accurate. Police did respond to an altercation with a student, the building was destroyed by arson etc. I dont understand why I'm being cited for vandalism? I have proof of my statements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.176.255 (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that "proof" comes from a reliable source the please cite it, but you will have an uphill battle getting these edits to stick.--ukexpat (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits look like a personal attack on the institution, which is no doubt why somebody took them for vandalism. You need a reliable published source for such claims in order to be allowed to add them to Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional message

Is there any policy or guideline against spreading a promotional message right before one's user name? For instance: Wikipedia is the best! Lova Falk talk 19:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I mean every time I sign. Wikipedia is the best! Lova Falk talk 19:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGNATURE doesn't appear to have anything *specifically* against it, but it might be viewed as problematic, especially if not obviously part of the signature. Also, you'll need to watch out for the 255 character limit.Naraht (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not me who feels like doing this, but another user seems to do this and I would like to ask him to stop and refer to some guideline. Lova Falk talk 19:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the WP:SIG guideline does indirectly specify that a promotional signature is banned via the username policy. Does a policy trump a guideline? See the WP:SIG#Dealing with problem signatures section which states
Wikipedia's Username policy describes accepted practices and behavior in naming and operating a user account on Wikipedia that apply to both usernames and signatures. A purpose of your signature is to identify you as a contributor. If your signature is unnecessarily confusing or inaccessible, editors may request that you change it. An editor with a confusing signature may be blocked sooner than usual for other inappropriate behavior such as disruption or vandalism, if their confusing signature contributes to the disruption.
— WP:SIG#Dealing with problem signatures

--Senra (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I was a bit doubtful about saying who it was, because I didn't want to expose this obviously good faith editor, but I understand that it will make things clearer. It is User:MPSchneiderLC, who seems to write >> Jesus Loves You! before his signature. And I take offense. Lova Falk talk 19:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an option in preferences to turn those off? If there isn't it may be a nice feature to add.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wikipedia should be a religion-neutral place and readers/editors should not need to be familiar with preferences options to shield themselves from religious messages. Lova Falk talk 20:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erm. Be careful. Such messages may not be part of an editors signature in which case, there is no policy preventing such messages except (at a push) the WP:CIV policy --Senra (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any technical way to tell whether it is part of their signature or not? And does it really matter whether it is an automatic add as part of the signature or something which he adds by hand every time? Note, I've gone back through his edits and there is a clear starting point: Every message September 28th 2012 and later has the Jesus Loves You and every one September 27th and before doesn't.Naraht (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The world will run a lot smoother if you just let stuff like this roll off your back. You don't really have a right to be shielded from the fact that some Christians think Jesus loves you. It's not really provocative, it's not saying "non-Christians suck", it's not terribly in your face. Just let it go, would be my advice. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly to do here is not clear but such a signature is a form of proselytizing, something I am constantly being bombarded with and find invasive and repulsive. If my signature said "your god, of whatever stripe, is a fictitious being", it would not go over well, and quickly.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a rhetorical device, or do you really not see a difference between his tagline and your example? Yes, I would prevent you from adding that to your signature, because it isn't at all the same. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have so far stopped short of commenting on anything other than the policies and guidelines in this matter. It does, however, seem to me that the reason such promotional signatures (or signature prefixes) are bad is because of the polarised debates they can lead to. Wikipedia may (or has) become the repository of all knowledge, including on theological topics, but its editors should remain neutral at all times. Any editor message which promotes or attempts to promote an unbalanced position could be viewed as, and in my opinion is, uncivil and disruptive. Such messages may be innocent such as "Vote <insert politician here>", antagonistic such as "There is no <insert deity here>" or benign "Eat ~~Waffles~~<insert food here>". But, whatever is being promoted, someone somewhere will take offence. And there, my friends, be demons! (or is that "here be dragons!"?) --Senra (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see little difference at all. You may be unfamiliar with how often that slogan in particular is used for aggressive proselytizing. It is a statement that God is real and his living embodiment's name is Jesus, and he loves YOU (if only you could see the light). Not that I think "I am a Christian!" belongs in a signature either, but this is nothing like that sort of more neutral declaration of personal belief. It is directed outward at the reader.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not appropriate to bombard other editors with a reminder about one's religious beliefs – especially in the context of implicit proselytizing – as a part of every single statement one makes in every single interaction on Wikipedia. This shouldn't need a policy rationale, but ruleslawyers can also refer to WP:SOAPBOX. ("Wikipedia is not for...[a]dvocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise."

That said, has anyone made a polite approach to MPSchneiderLC on this? He may not realize how irritating or offensive some people will find this sort of thing, either in general or (particularly) in the context of the back-and-forth of an editing disagreement. (Ask him to imagine ending every phrase in real-life conversations with Jesus loves you.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have. User_talk:MPSchneiderLC#Please_refrain Lova Falk talk 11:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and with reasonable civility. He seems to have removed it from his sig as of at least 20 hours ago. FWIW, I don't think it belongs either, though I don't have a problem with a less obtrusive single symbol (cross, Star of David, etc.) if someone really has to tell the world. It just seems more likely to make people think you have an agenda. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problems paying

It seems you have encountered some problems when you paid at that time

Please try to pay again by clicking this link .Oque significa essa frase em portugues! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.39.189.67 (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

De acordo com o Google Translate, que significa "Parece que você encontrou alguns problemas quando você paga na época. Por favor, tente pagar novamente clicando neste link". Maproom (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits not saving

Why is it when I add a name to a list and hit save it doesnt save? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.184.155 (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what do you mean by "name" and "list"? By save, I assume you mean when editing a page. Can you please provide an example so that we can more easily assist you? Frigid Ninja 23:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is a freebie response

Hi Wikipedia,

I apologize in advance if this is not the proper contact for this issue/question. I noticed the wiki answers response to "what is a freebie" is "a freebie is something you get for free." As someone who runs a freebie site <redacted>, I thought you may find it helpful to reference my page that provides details about what a freebie is <redacted>.

If you ever wanted to expand the explanation, please feel free to link to my site or contact me for further insight.

Best regards,

Kelli — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.75.220 (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_freebie at WikiAnswers. That site is not associated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation which runs Wikipedia. A wiki is just a type of website. There are thousands of unrelated wikis. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]