Help desk
< June 6	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 8 >

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.

June 7

I have duplicate users

I registered for wikipedia through the Hebrew wikipedia. There is supposed to be a single sign in policy for all wikis (or so I have been led to believe). At some point, I changed my user name - and now I am left with different user names on the Hebrew and English wikipedias. I would like to have only ONE. My name on he.wikipedia.org is TMagen - how do I replicate it here? TsipiMagen (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To succesfully unify your accounts you need to request that your account is renamed on all the wikis that you edit individually, not just one. See Wikipedia:Changing username for how to do it here on English Wikipedia. Spinning Spark 11:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do TsipiMagen (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request removal of items in history from 2007

Hi, I've had a Wikipedia account since 2007 and recently have become interested in being more active on Wikipedia and have started contributing to articles related to subjects I am familiar with; mostly related to internet technologies, as I work as a web developer by trade. Unfortunately for me, when I look at my list of user contributions, there are some history entries under my account from when I first created it which i do not remember. I would not be surprised if I did do these, but honestly, I was very much a different person in 2007 and some parts of my past are better off forgotten. I would really hate for one of my professional colleagues to stumble across this list and see these old entries, to the extent I'm actually considering I may have to close this account and set up a new account, but I'd hate to do that because, well I'd rather just not have to do that.

I don't know if it's even possible, but I'd like to beg and plead to an administrator, in hopes that somebody can help me hide or remove these old entries associated with my account. The entries I'm referring to are pretty much everything in the year 2007.

Thank you very much David Condrey (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions cannot be deleted, as they must be attributed to someone. But you can abandon your old account completely and make a fresh start by creating a new one. Read Wikipedia:Clean start. You will though have to wait for four days and make ten edits before being auto confirmed. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 07:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I were thinking of hiring you as a web developer, I would not be at all concerned about your interests of seven years ago. But I would be worried by the banner at the top of your user page, "This user page is best viewed at 1280x 1024 resolution". A good web developer creates pages that look good at all reasonable user settings, rather than asking the user to change his screen resolution. Maproom (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you do keep the account, rather than going for a clean start, you might want to request WP:oversight on this edit which seems to contain your phone number (possibly not or maybe it's out of date).--Otus scops (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Marsden - posting error

Hi - Wiki indicates I was born in Stratford. Ontario Canada. Please change to the correct information - born in Toronto, Ontario Canada.

Thanks.

d — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.95.242 (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out this error. I have removed "Stratford" from the article. I have not added Toronto, since Wikipedia articles should only contain facts that have been reliably published elsewhere - the idea is that readers should be able to check everything for themselves. If your birth place has been published somewhere, then please post at Talk:David Marsden so that someone can update the article. For an uncontroversial detail such as this, a page on your own website would be a good enough reference. -- John of Reading (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

name missing

I just looked on your page for list of world war 2 vets still living and don't see my uncle. His name is Gordon MacLeod and is my fathers' brother. He is living in Westville, Nova Scotia in a nursing home with his wife who is a british war bride. I know my uncle was born in October 1920 so this year he will be 94. He served overseas in the Canadian Army, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewster79 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we have an article that is a list of WWII veterans. Can you provide a link?

Maybe you are looking at Wikipedia category page. This will only include people who pass WP:GNG and have an article about them on Wikipedia - it is not supposed to be a list of all veterans. Formerip (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page is List of surviving veterans of World War II where the OP has already attempted to add the entry. The selection criterion for that list is notability which mostly means they have Wikipedia entries. However, there are a few that have shown notability by citing reliable sources discussing them. Is your uncle famous for anything? Spinning Spark 01:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors on Draft:Bernardo Ruiz (filmmaker)

Reference help requested. Thanks, Quiet Pictures (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your first problem was that each <ref> tag needs a closing </ref> tag. I've added one where it was missing. You also need to be aware that Wikipedia pages can't be used a references, see WP:CIRCULAR. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying someone who committed act of vandalism or causing moral anguish to another by editing a Wikipedia article

If anything like this happens, is it possible to identify the perpetrator? Does Wikipedia have any legal remedies in place to deal with these kinds of situations? 01:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.155.145 (talk)

Contributors who edit Wikipedia for the purpose of harassment will generally be indefinitely blocked from editing; their edits will generally be deleted from public view.

If the contributor edited without signing into an account, then their IP address (and the time of the edit) will be visible and thus interested parties can pursue their own remedies.

If not, I'm not sure and will defer to wiser opinions... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Can we figure out who it is? Yeah, that is likely within reason. Is there legal action? Probably not in most cases... See WP:LEGALTHREATS. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 10:04 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Wikipedia itself / the Wikimedia Foundation will unlikely to take any legal action against most vandals- there are hundreds if not thousands of vandal attacks every day. The subject of an article may attempt to take action against a vandal, but they would likely have a very hard time proving a case in court.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, identification is possible (example). -- Hoary (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only process we have on-wiki for identifying users is the CheckUser tool which is only available to a small number of trusted editors and is used to establish that the same editor is using multiple accounts abusively. The IP addresses and other information are not revealed on-wiki by checkusers. However, the Foundation might reveal it as a result of a court order, and the ISP or organisation owning the IP might likewise identify the individual. Spinning Spark 10:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to further muddy the waters, I'll mention that although what Spinning Shark says above is correct, Checkuser is only used/necessary for registered users. An IP editor as already stated can be traced geographically using all sorts of freely available tools - two of which are at the bottom of their talk page. Although that doesn't personally identify them, it does reveal a bit about them. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that Checkuser is only needed for registered users, but is used for two kinds of sock-puppetry. It can be used either to see whether two registered accounts are being used by the same person, or to see whether IP addresses are being used by a registered user. In either case, the sock-puppetry could be for block evasion, or to stuff the non-ballot box on a deletion discussion, or for other reasons. The usual sanction will not be legal action, but blocks. (A blocked user who uses either named sock-puppets or IP sock-puppets is likely to be indeffed.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About (Article) Adrán Silva Moreno

Adrian Silva Moreno was´t just a freelance, at the moment when he was treacherously murdered, he was working for us www.global-mexico.com since April 2012, so he was a Real (formal) duly reporter accredited for us, we have documents filed at the government of Mexico (Secretaria de Gobernación) endorse it as a reporter, not just as a "freelance". Is a fact that you don´t have the right information, for that reason I beg you to change Adrian´s status, because we are a formal printed newspaper and have a web page, our registration information filed at the Government of Mexico is: Certificado de Licitud de Titulo y Contenido No. 15691, datos de Dirección general en derechos de autor numero 04-2012-080810135000-101, exp CCPRI/3/TC/12/19622. Please discuss the case with your staff and Tell them to get in touch with us at contacto@global-mexico.com so that we can provide the evidence that you need, thus you can corrected the word “freelance”, as I said, we have all the legal papers to prove what I said.

The link about Adrián: Adrián Silva Moreno — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaddad (talk • contribs) 06:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we don't respond by e-mail and Wikimedia staff generally do not take part in editing articles. The editing is all done by ordinary people on a volunteer basis. We take our information from published reliable sources. If you can point to a published work then please post it on the article talk page. Whatever "evidence" you may hold is a primary source and should not form the basis of a Wikipedia article. Spinning Spark 12:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sign up

I am trying to create an account but, every time I enter a letter, a number or symbol under user name, I get a box saying "please choose a different name." Help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.92.32 (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep typing. If you just type "a" the system will realise that there is already a User:A and inform you, but by the time you get to "a merry christmas to Rudolph and all his friends" you will probably find that there is not already User:a merry christmas to Rudolph and all his friends and the system will let you have it. Spinning Spark 13:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WHY ARE ONLY redirected results given by Wikipedia

why does Wikipedia refuse to allow +non-redirected results ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.83.242 (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example of what you mean? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WHY DO PEOPLE ALWAYS SHOUT ON THIS HELPDESK? If you are trying to find the page you were redirected from, there is a small blue link underneath the title of the page you were redirected to. Spinning Spark 14:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being banned from a page

If you get into a discussion with another editor, resulting in them banning you from their page - what is the accepted course of action if you then follow up with something that requires you to inform them of your actions and intent?

Do you abide by their wishes and do nothing, or inflame them by posting?

The reasons for my question are obvious, and I don't ask for input regarding anything other than the actual question above, thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I presume we are talking about user talk pages? If someone has asked you to stay away from their page and you don't need to be on their page then it is only polite to comply. We are much more relaxed about what goes on in user space than elsewhere. However, user talk pages are provided for the purpose of allowing communication with other editors and users do not have the power to control who posts on them. The user talk page does not belong to the user, it belongs to the community, same as any other page. If you have a need to communicate with the user, such as delivering one of the user warning templates or an AFD notification, then that is exactly what the page is for. If the user tries to prevent this then there may be a behavioural problem that needs dealing with.

On the other hand, issues with articles can (and usually should) be dealt with on the article talk page. There is really no need to take an article issue directly to a user, and if they don't want you to—then don't. Spinning Spark 17:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, talk pages. As per procedure I was required to inform a user of my actions via their talk page, despite them previously banning me from said page. They reverted the notification with the summary of "This editor obviously has comprehension difficulties, he or she is banned form this page" which seemed a bit unfair, nay insulting, hence my request here for clarification. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you were required to post to their talk page, such as to notify them that you had reported them at a noticeboard, then you are required to post to their talk page. If they then insult you, then administrators who look into the issue that you raise may take note of the personal attack, and they should look out for the incoming boomerang. Were you notifying them of a report at a noticeboard? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen users add a request for someone else to notify the other user to their noticeboard posts when they've been asked not to visit a person's talk page. Depending on the message left and the entire history of the issue, a polite note should almost always be fine. --Onorem (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - Dispute resolution, the topic of which is what led the editor to ban me from his page - albeit 4 minutes prior to my required post. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified the editor of the discussion here and at WP:DRN. Had the notice that you posted referred to dispute resolution, or to an edit war? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The notice referred to DRN: [1] Removed here with the queried comment.

Given the direction this thread is heading and the detail involved, I'd like to stress that I'm not after any comment on the actual topic - my original question is still the issue - if you are banned from a users talk page, are you within your rights to post a notice when required by Wikipedia process? Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are required to post to an editor's talk page, then you are required to post to an editor's talk page. A so-called ban from an editor's talk page is not really a ban of any of the types defined by the Wikipedia banning policy, which include site bans, topic bans, and interaction bans. An editor does not have the right to ban you from his talk page. Respecting his request to avoid your talk page is a courtesy. In the case in point, Wikipedia policy outranks courtesy. Also, the statement that he was removing a bogus edit war notice is incorrect, because it was a dispute resolution notice. The one situation in which you are truly banned from an editor's talk page is if the ArbCom or the community has imposed an interaction ban, in which case posting to the other party's talk page will result in a block, and if there is an interaction ban, you shouldn't be taking the other editor to dispute resolution or to a noticeboard. As Spinningspark said, the user talk page does not really belong to the user, but to the community. If you are required to post to the editor's talk page, you are required to post to the editor's talk page, never mind the non-binding request to avoid posting. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, since BMK is arguing that the inclusion of the image is against consensus and that there is nothing to resolve at dispute resolution, I would suggest that the next step is a Request for Comments, which can establish a new consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Users removing notices from their talk page should be ignored, that is a perfectly ok thing to do. We simply take that as evidence that they have read the notice. If they remove it with an impolite edit summary I would recommend ignoring that too. You can work yourself into a frenzy trying to get them censured for it if you want, but my recommendation would be ignore it and move on to something more productive. Spinning Spark 23:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the OP was working himself into a frenzy about the incivility. He was only asking whether he was justified in putting the notice in the first place, which he was, because he isn't really banned from the other editor's talk page. The only questionable conduct was the incivility by the other editor. Since the other editor also has stated that he is planning to ignore the dispute resolution, I have suggested an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert has summed it up admirably. I just wanted to know the procedure for banned Vs required. As for the other issue, despite remarkable bad faith on the part of BMK regarding my motives, he has since replaced the image with another, rather than removing it full stop. I'm happy with that outcome, and won't be taking it any further. BMK's personal issues are just that - personal, and I doubt I'll make a difference there, nor am I bothered. We've agreed in the past, and disagreed in the past - it will probably continue in that vein. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Purtill, St. Norbert Football Coach

Please correct the following: 2002 season - SNC did not play in the ncaa national play-offs. Delete the comment on losing in the playoffs. Also, that would make Jim Purtill's playoff record 1-10, not 1-11. Thank you

This can be verified on the SNC football website under schedules, 2002 shows no games played after the season final. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:770E:99F0:D464:22CE:E101:39E0 (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reliable source for this information, you can edit the article yoruself, being sure to provide a cite to your source. Spinning Spark 17:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

question about where to post requests about changes/additions/etc needed to 2 pages

Ok, simple question (Sorry for pia tmi & wasted time). i want to know where to post suggestions about updating/editing info, better more accurate sources, and how to point out changes needed to the 2 pages (including adding info and sources about the Nautilus sub and changes that need to be made to reduce the offensive and inaccurate materials on the Asperger's page that have offended several disabled people who are claiming/and said they'll sue over that page if they get rich).

-Anonymousfemale — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymousfemale (talk • contribs)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymousfemale (talk • contribs) 16:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

This post is too long to read. Please simplify, or it will be ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Anonymousfemale: Every article has a talk page, which is the place to discuss changes. Just click the "Talk" tab above the article. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions and Watchlist are missing

Just wondering if there is some technical error going on. 30 min ago things were fine, I refreshed the page and lost all my contributions and watchlist. Any tips? Thanks! DVMt (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've probably checked this, but did you by any chance accidentally log out? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The editor may also have been logged out by a glitch without hitting the log out button. When I see that my watchlist has disappeared, I also notice that I am not logged in (and, if I didn't notice and tried to edit, I would be editing as a 71.*.*.*). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phone Question

why do some phone say space is going low please remove some data to ensure stability of the phone when you have the external memory that has a lot of space — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.122.108.62 (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does this question has to do with using Wikipedia from a smart-phone? If so, someone who edits Wikipedia from a smart-phone may be able to answer. If this question is about smart-phones in general, please try the Reference Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Davison, i Resigned from Ferencvarous not sacked ! Please make sure this is corrected, many thanks Bobby

Bobby Davison

I Resigned from Ferencvarous not sacked , please correct this

Many thanks

Bobby — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.127.78 (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Post your comments to the article talk page, Talk: Bobby Davison, providing a reliable source stating that you resigned rather than were fired. If you don't have a reliable source, in Wikipedia's terminology, and if the article does have a reliable source, your request will likely be ignored. Your own account is not considered to be a reliable secondary source in Wikipedia's terminology, so find a newspaper article or other reliable source. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC article cited says 'dismissed' [2] - so yes, we'd need a published source to the contrary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Barry

rick barry ...e ABA stands as the highest career total for a player in any professional league...NO...WILT CHAMBERLAIN....50 POINTS PER GAME...FYI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.209.44 (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably thinking of Chamberlain's 50.4 points per game in the 1961–62 NBA season. His career NBA average was 30.1 points per game, a little less than Barry's career ABA average. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Ross

Evening All, I recently made some quite large changes to two pages, namely Jason_King_(radio) and Joel Ross. Since the edits to the latter, a number of IP users have taken exception to a single (sourced and well publicised) paragraph I have added and are removing it on a regulary basis [3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. I have attempted to warn the users about their edits. The reason I am calling for help is this culminated this evening in a newly registered user (User:Expessman89) removing the paragraph again, and adding an unsourced claim [10] (which would seem to be something only Ross would know). As this is a BLP I'm cautious over where to go with this, and how to advise new / IP editors. Many thanks for your time on this one. -LookingYourBest (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few suggestions. First, engage in discussion on the article talk page, Talk: Joel Ross. I don't see any discussion either by you or by the IPs. Second, you may either request Dispute Resolution or open a Request for Comments to get consensus as to whether to add the paragraph. Third, since the IPs are reverting the addition without edit summaries and without discussion, you may request semi-protection at Requests for Page Protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thank you very much for those suggestions, I'll give them a try. -LookingYourBest (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lichfield Gazette (Staffordshire UK)

We are a news gathering publication for our town established in 2008. We run 50% editorial each month in an A4 80 page publication. I have endeavoured to publish an article in the past on Wikipedia but had it refused. Our rival publication has it's own page article on Wikipedia but is part of a larger organisation. Can you help us with getting our own article published? We are recognised by District Council, City Council and Lichfield Cathedral, all who regularly contribute to the magazine. www.lichfieldgazette.co.uk

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.213.9 (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subjects of articles in Wikipedia must meet some basic requirements - essentially that reliably published third party sources not related to the subject of the article have considered it worth covering in a non-trivial manner. If your publication has been the topic of discussion by others, then you can bring those sources and follow the process here to request an article. If it hasnt, then, no we cannot help you get an article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a directory nor promotional platform.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should articles contain link back to disambiguation page?

If the primary entry for a name, such as John Smith, is a disambiguation page, is it expected, optional, or not permitted that the fully disambiguated articles should contain hatnotes or links back to the disambiguation page? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You will probably get an answer here but you might also ask at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation page. MarnetteD | Talk 22:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They generally shouldn't contain hatnotes. See WP:NAMB. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors on Draft:Ayzenberg

Reference help requested. Hi - I was told that I have a missing reference list, but it looks to be included to me and I am unsure how to fix it. Can you help? Thanks, CaroJC9 (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To editor CaroJC9: When you add <ref>...</ref> tags in the article, you do not have to repeat them at the end. Someone else has already removed them, and that fixed it. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would have been me, and my computer froze up and crashed in the middle of me explaining that. Anyways, happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]