Help desk
< January 17	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 19 >

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 18

Martin Degville

martin degville date of birth not as published it is 27.01.1958 his facebook page evan says this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.123.233 (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That date is referenced to what appears to be a reliable source, though I haven't got the book to check. Facebook is not a reliable source (to be frank, it is not unknown for people to "massage" their ages - though this would not appear to be the usual direction). If you can find a reliable source, independent of Degville or his publishers and agents, for the 1958 date, you could add it to the article with that reference; but you should probably not remove the 1961 date unless there is an overwhelming preponderance of sources that say 1958. In that case you should discuss it on the article's talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article says 28 November 1961. http://www.dellam.com/english/SP/SPUTNIKWORLD%20LIMITED.html says 27 January 1958. I also found sources saying 27 January 1961. I don't know what is right. Can you give a Facebook link with the date? PrimeHunter (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pathetic that you guys are instrumental in....

It's pathetic that you're instrumental in the deletion of Sheikh Imran Nazar Hosein's wikipedia page. I'd like an explanation as to why that page was taken down. Was it an order from Tel-Aviv? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.8.70 (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AGF. Come back when you can rephrase your question. --Jayron32 01:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent deletion was for being a copy of copyrighted material. It had previously been deleted for lacking references. RJFJR (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:RiseOfMann/Nick Savoy

I have created a draft for Nick Savoy, one of the leaders in the field of seduction. I am requesting guidance in properly citing references to this article since I am new to the editing scene. From my research there were prior articles written about Nick Savoy that were deleted for advertising and not having proper sources; thus I am trying to avoid this. I am in no way affiliated with Nick Savoy, just believe he is worthy of an article due to his popularity and relevance to modern culture.

Any help is greatly appreciated!

RiseOfMann (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Start at Referencing for Beginners RudolfRed (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creating account

I noticed in the Swonder Ice Arena (Evansville,IN) page, it says the place is home to the Rollergirls of Southern Indiana. This league doesn't exist anymore. When I went to edit, it prompted me to sign in...I needed to create an account but the page to create an account only had the option of "log-in issues"...or something along those lines. I need to log-in to get rid of that dated information. Please and Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.76.194.165 (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try: Special:UserLogin/signup.--ukexpat (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason why you cannot edit Swonder Ice Arena from an IP. In order to edit the first section, you need to pick the 'Edit' tab from the top of the page. Thank you for improving the article: if you wanted to do more to improve it, it is badly in need of some references: as it is, a reader has no way of knowing whether information in the article is reliable, or whether it is out of date, or mistaken, or the result of vandalism. --ColinFine (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP's see MediaWiki:Anoneditwarning which since November has been more aggressive in encouraging login. It includes "Please log in or sign up". Maybe the poster thought it was required. Use the "sign up" link to create an account. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my page deleted.

My page, Matty Staudt, was deleted and it seems it was a speedy delete by the foundation. I work in media and it is importan that I have my page up. Can this be remedied? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.199.2 (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't deleted by the Foundation, it was deleted by a volunteer editor, after another volunteer editor proposed it for deletion under the WP:PROD process. The reason for the proposal was that you do not appear to pass WP:GNG.

Just incidentally, it wasn't "your" page; it was a page about you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It wasn't speedy and it wasn't by the foundation but by a volunteer editor with high user rights. Matty Staudt was nominated for deletion per Wikipedia:Proposed deletion with argument "Not notable." See Wikipedia:Notability (people). The article was unsourced, nobody objected to deletion and after a week it was deleted. Even though the page may have been about you, it is not your page. We are an encyclopedia and our articles have to satisfy our criteria. It is not a factor that the subject wants to have a biography (although it can be a factor if they want it to be deleted). However, anybody can go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion and request undeletion of an article deleted per Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. It may then be nominated for deletion under another process. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is important to you is not necessarily what is important to Wikipedia. promotion of any kind is forbidden in Wikipedia. That is why the criterion of notability is applied: only topics which have already been written about in reliable organs may have articles in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are other places for you to create a bio such as WikiBios (unrelated to Wikipedia).--ukexpat (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is US State News September 27, 2006 and Mobile Internet October 1, 2009. There may be other source material. Given that 70.239.199.2 is contesting the prod and this new source information, perhaps we can send the article to AfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While the general rule is that anyone can context a prod, given that the only objection is the subject, who shouldn't be directly contributing anyway, I think it would be a process waste to restore it only to inevitably delete at AfD.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curious enigma

At the time of writing, the Wikitrends web site appeared to indicate that our article Curiously recurring template pattern was the most visited English Wikipedia page today, this week and this month. I am curious to understand why. Is there a way of determining where this traffic was coming from? --Senra (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

stats.grok.se shows similar.--ukexpat (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was also asked at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 107#Why this article is viewed so much? with the below reply. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Normally these peaks are the result of a mistake in some code someone's made that ends up requesting the page over and over again. Given the subject matter I think that's likely in this case. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. @PrimeHunter's link indicates a possible reason why this article has had so many page views. Is there any feasible way of determining where the traffic was coming from? --Senra (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation sovereign rights of a nation

Not only I'm going to rate your app as not useful and very bad, I'm also going to spread the word that you are politically inclined and are doing someone's (in my case putins) dirty job of convincing or confusing world to believe in his geopolitical ambitions. There is no "republic of abkhazia" on planet earth! There is region called Abkhazeti in Georgia and there is region Samachablo in Georgia. Just because they are occupied by putinist Russia it does not change what is recognized by civilized world to be reality! Regretfully Alla Wagner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.196.245 (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you refer to our article Abkhazia then it says "The Georgian government and the majority of the world's governments consider Abkhazia a part of Georgia's territory." But it also mentions a few countries which recognize it as the Republic of Abkhazia. Whether you agree with the recognition or not, Wikipedia shouldn't hide the fact that some countries recognise it. See also International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia which says "Georgia and the vast majority of other countries of the world do not recognise their independence and officially consider them as sovereign territory of the Georgian state". PrimeHunter (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't actually care what you think. As far as WP is concerned the only opinions that matter are those that have been published by Reliable Sources. Roger (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Principality of Sealand which has an article here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger: I beg to differ. We do care what our potential new editors think; we do not bite the newcomers. However, it is of course true that one of our guidelines requires editors to use reliable sources to back up claims such as Abkhazia is not a republic --Senra (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is the more relevant policy here. We mention both sides in the dispute over Abkhazia but don't take sides. The poster didn't refer to a specific article but if there is an article stating there is a "republic of abkhazia" without mentioning that its status is disputed then please tell us. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concede that "we don't care" was probably not the most diplomatic way to put it, but it is in fact true per WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. Roger (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really find the "we don't care" very, very insulting to all the contributories to Wikipedia.--Notadicht (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]