Help desk
< September 4	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 6 >

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.

September 5

Remove Old title

Hi there,

Can I remove the old title after moving it to a new article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LeewayHertz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeshtakyar (talk • contribs) 03:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think OrangeMike has just deleted the page for you, but in future you can place the template {{db-author}} on the page. SpinningSpark 09:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CApTCHA

Hi, I cannot edit any article because CAPTCHA fails everytime. I've tried it at least a dozen times. I know I am entering the right text then it goes wrong. I'm using a mobile device... Is there any solution? 191.163.63.188 (talk) 06:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can request an account. See here: WP:RAC for more information. 1999sportsfan talk to me 07:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Column width in References section

What is the preferred format for column width when a single (long) list of references can best be shortened to 3 columns to save a lot of white-space? |3 or |30em ? (Can't find anythink in the help pages). Thanks. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use the "30em" format, since this adapts itself nicely to varying screen widths. This is mentioned at Template:Reflist#Columns. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding autobiography to the Wikipedia Notable Academics

Wikipedia Notable Academics

I would like to have my father's autobiography published in the notable academics. I have read the qualification guidelines and think that he qualifies as his work has been widely cited. You can check this by googling Roy B Mefferd Jr. He is in the Who's Who in America and Who's Who in America in Science.Greenho (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenho: the place to request an article is WP:RA. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request to approve article Ollia Rarisame

Dear Team,

I have written one article yesterday with title Ollia Alexandra Rarisame, she is a public feature in fashion industry. I have seen many fashion designers who are not that famous and still have a page on Wikipedia. But my article was not approved. Kindly check with it. I have followed all policies and is ready to provide any proof of whatever i have mentioned there in the article.

Looking forward for your kind action on it.

Regards Mukul Jain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukul91086 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider using the WP:Articles for creation system until you have learned your trade. Fiddle Faddle 11:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is [now] a draft at Draft:Ollia Alexandra Rarisame. I have removed the controversies section per WP:BLP as it was completely unreferenced.--ukexpat (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

tor

after seeing the program on bbc 2 last night ,I would like to become a part of the tor movement to stop snoopers.how can i acheive this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.30.115 (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you use a search engine to find out what to do. Fiddle Faddle 11:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Amazon

Is it acceptable, when listing publications, to link the book title to what Amazon has to say about the book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scruple (talk • contribs) 12:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not; reviews at Amazon are notoriously not reliable sources in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disappeared page

Hi, I'm tearing my hair out, so any help gratefully received! I was working on expanding Gesta pontificum Anglorum on 2nd Sept. I was referring to Gesta Regum Anglorum whilst doing so. Both are important medieval texts written by William of Malmesbury I have come back today to finalise my draft edits and Gesta Regum Anglorum seems to have disappeared and is redirecting back to William of Malmesbury. I can't find any trace of it in deleted pages logs or any of the page histories or discussion pages?! Now going slightly mad and wondering if it was ever there, but it definitely was. Can anyone help me establish if it has been moved/deleted and why? - this is a bit beyond me, but if it can be restored (if there was no adequate reason for its removal) without me having to recreate the page that would be preferable! Irisbox (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~The edit history of Gesta pontificum Anglorum shows that it was directed William of Malmesbury on 27 February 2007.~~ It seems to have been fixed as I was typing. Quite how, is also beyond me. Maproom (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Regum, not pontificum, illustrating my point below about confusion! Pontificum has been an article since 2010. Regum has been a redirect since 2007 and that hasn't changed at all, not even when you were typing. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The history says that the redirect from Gesta Regum Anglorum was generated on 27 Feb 2007, and (as you say) there is no record of anything earlier in the deletion log. I see that your Wikipedia account was created only 18 months ago, so when do you think that you were looking at an unredirected Gesta Regum Anglorum? - David Biddulph (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(after multiple edit conflicts) Gesta Regum Anglorum has been a redirect to Billy Malmesbury's article since 2007 and there are no deletions in its history (as an admin, I can see deleted edits, but there are none to see here). I can only think that you have misremembered, thinking there was an article about GRA when there was only ever a redirect, perhaps getting momentarily confused with this or that. Of course, you know what your next challenge is... to turn GRA from a redirect into an article! Bencherlite ^Talk 13:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you were thinking of Historia Regum Britanniae? Maproom (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! That does look familiar! Thank you! Although GRA is linked to on Malmesbury's page, which then redirects back to itself so I guess the link must have been added before the redirect and that's why i'm confused! It has been a long week... I'll get busy making an article about GRA as well in that case, thought it best to check there wasn't any sort of weird vandalism going on. Hopefully doing so will result in something conflict free that won't end up being redirected again though! Thank you all for your help!Irisbox (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Order of precedence between ANI and DRN

If an issue has been raised more or less simultaneously, by different editors, at both WP:ANI and WP:DRN which process takes priority? Should the lower priority process be stopped/suspended until the other process has concluded or should it simply be closed as moot/redundant? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI and DRN are supposed to deal with different issues: ANI is for requests for admins to deal with user behaviour, DRN for resolution of content disputes. As soon as the behavioural issue is resolved at ANI, resolution of the content dispute should be deferred to DRN.--ukexpat (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK so first deal with the ANI case, let the DRN issue wait. The issue concerns an editor pushing a fringe political agenda against consensus. If the ANI case determines that misbehavior has taken place and the editor gets sanctioned, the DRN issue becomes moot anyway. Is that correct? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DRN is voluntary and non-binding. ANI can be binding. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, but it doesn't answer the question. Should the DRN process be stopped/suspended until after the ANI process is completed? Yes or No. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would say no. ANI will not rule on content disputes, so the dispute will still exist, and need resolving, whatever ANI do to the fringe editor. Of course, if they block him/her it may be necessary to postpone the DRN until the block expires so the editor can actually take part, otherwise you will be resolving nothing. SpinningSpark 18:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, the DRN process will be closed or deferred by the dispute resolution volunteers if there is an ANI process, because DRN does not attempt to resolve a content dispute unless the parties are seeking a collaborative content dispute resolution. It isn't a matter of DRN being a "lower priority" process, so much as that content dispute resolution isn't feasible if there are conduct issues (including alleged conduct issues). Robert McClenon (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFRICA FASHION WEEK LONDON

Dear Sir/Madam, I would like to bring to your immediate attention the following information regarding Africa fashion Week London. Africa Fashion Week London (AFWL) was founded in 2011 by Founder Ronke Ademiluyi and her brother Co – Founder Kamari Ademiluyi. Africa Fashion Week London is a platform that celebrates London’s unique and diverse cultural heritage, topped with the flamboyant mixing of Western and African culture through fashion, at the same time promoting Africa’s rich ethnic culture and interpreting it into contemporary design.

Africa Fashion Week London is also leading the drive in putting the ‘FUN INTO FASHION’, with designers who are influence by African patterns. Please check out our website www.africafashionweeklondon.com. Ps. We have NOTHING TO DO WITH Africa fashion Week New York nor Adiree as currently mentioned in wiki – ‘Africa Fashion Week (London) is produced by Adireé Fashion Agency, partners and sponsors to bring African designers to the fashion capital of London.’ YES we AFWL handed out flyers in Westfield in 2012, YES we are an annual event, YES we have collaboration with Africa Fashion Week Sweden and Africa Fashion Week Amsterdam which we attended this year 2014, but We are not produced by or have any association with Adiree nor Africa Fashion Week NewYork.

Our history of events are :

Africa Fashion Week London 2011 - 1st Edition – The Gibson Hall, 13 Bishopsgate, London EC2N 3BA.
Africa Fashion Week London 2012 – 2nd Edition – Spitalfields Market, 16 Horner Square, Spitalfields, London E1 6EW.
Africa Fashion Week London 2013 – 3rd Edition – The Old Truman Brewery - Ely's Yard, 15 Hanbury Street, London E1 6QR.
Africa Fashion Week London 2014 – 4th Edition – Olympia Kensington - Hammersmith Road, Kensington, London W14 8UX.

Kindly change this on Wiki as our fans, clients and customers are confused as to why there is different information on our website – www.africafashionweeklondon.com and wiki.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Africa Fashion Week London (talk • contribs) 14:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not here to be a directory of your organizations events. It also seems likely that your organization fails to meet the basic requirements for a stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This apparently relates to Africa Fashion Week London - currently a two-sentence stub with a single reference so it's notability is not at all clear. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, it looks like there is a whole swarm of these! Africa Fashion Week Paris , Africa Fashion Week New York -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this UN Newsletter a reliable source? [1] It showcases several of the "Africa Fashion Weeks" and so maybe a consolidated topic could be created to meet WP:GNG? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Checking veracity of edit

Hello, could somebody check if this revert of mine was correct? In other words, does this Google Books link mention Julius Caesar? I can't read it with my screen reader, but the edit that added that name seemed suspicious to me. Graham87 14:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham87: Revert was good. No "Julius" or "Caesar" found in book. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast guys! That link is only to a preview copy - some pages are missing. A separate Google search of "Neonatal teeth" AND "Caesar" produces plenty of authentic dentology (?) sites which state that Caesar did have natal teeth ... Hogyn Lleol (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The sites I found using a straight Google search don't seem to be either medical or historical reliable sources. Graham87 15:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that the fact might be true, but the editor merely copied an existing citation rather than provide a genuine reference to the fact. SpinningSpark 18:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Henri - Eulabee Dix in Wedding Gown image

I am with the Museum of Nebraska Art and noticed the image of Eulabee Dix on your site and am wondering if there is anyway to credit our Museum as we hold the original painting, here is the link: Eulabee Dix The work has been in our permanent collection since 1978 and would greatly appreciate it if we could be credited. Please let me know if there is anything else you need or if I can provide any further information. I not used Wikipedia too much and did not readily see where I can add that information myself.

Robert Henri Portrait of Miss Eulabee Dix (Becker) in Wedding Gown oil on canvas, 1910 Museum Purchase

Thank you, Gina Garden Museum of Nebraska Art — Preceding unsigned comment added by Museum of Nebraska Art (talk • contribs) 17:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not place credits in article space. Click on the photo for the "credit" information associated with the image. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know the current ownership or location of the original of a copyright expired artwork is not relevant to the publication of photographs of the work. The file page on Wikimedia Commons does not include any mention of the Museum of Nebraska Art. There is no reason why the image could not be included in the article about the Museum of Nebraska Art with a suitable caption. However, given your conflict of interest you should not be the one who adds it to that page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added the painting to the article's Collection section. 65.210.65.16 (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joust Videogame

Thank you help desk. Please see my inquiry below

Good evening. My name is Lonnie McDonald I hold multiple World Records in the Videogame Joust. A quick search on my name :Lonnie McDonald Joust on Google will reveal my expertise.

I am also close personal friends with the original Joust Development team and have direct contact with them on a continual basis.

I noticed that there seems to be an ongoing battle about Joust information.

As I am arguably the premier expert on Joust Who can you tell me who decides what content is kept or decided what is included.

I have noted that major sections have been deleted.

Have a great day!

Sent from my iPhone

Lonnie McDonald — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:803:1401:8827:96A8:5D36:863B (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Content decisions are determined by the consensus of the Wikipedia editors based on Wikipedia's content policies which include verifiability of content as having been published in a reliable source and not editor's interpretation or personal knowledge and whether or not the content is presented in a neutral point of view and represents the mainstream academics view of the subject and is not too little or too large emphasis on any particular item. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joust Videogame

This is my second post.

I have read your response to the first.

As I see it by your wiki standards 1. If a known expert gives you testimony you don't care 2. If the developer gives you information you don't care

It seems you decided subjectively what you think the documentation can and should be. ... And from viewing other sources what you choose is not clear cut in every situation.

I would like to speak to the presumed subject matter expert that believes this an acceptable method of preveying the truth to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:803:1401:C187:6BE4:73:EAF8 (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do "presumed subject matter expert". Instead, we draw on reliable, neutral third-party sources who do not have a conflict of interest. The developer of the game obviously has a grave conflict of interest. A champion in that particular game has a subtler but no less profound conflict of interest. Books and magazines are less likely to fall prey to the biases which inevitably affect us when we discuss something dear to us. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joust question 3

I have read your 2 responses.

I completely disagree with your sourcing.

If you went to a legal case and sited an expert or developer your information would be great evidence. Articles and others farther from the source of the truth are worth far less as evidence.

So you are subjectively accepting minimal information by not using subject experts.

Yes I am considered a legal expert in many subjects. Who on Wiki is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:803:1401:C187:6BE4:73:EAF8 (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, user with an IPV6. Like almost everything on Wikipedia, our procedures and criteria are determined by consensus. If you think these can be improved, you are welcome to try and change the consensus - but do it by argument, not by going against the current consensus. The best place to do that would be at one of the departments of the Village pump - probably, the 'proposals' section, but the 'policy' section is worth looking at as well. .

The reason for our current rules, as I understand it, is that since Wikipedia may be edited by anybody, there is always the possibility of mistake, bias, or deliberate misinformation in our articles. The user's protection against this is that we require everything to be referenced to a reliable published source. (Yes, this is an ideal: we are aware that there is plenty of material which is not so referenced, and falls short of our ideals: this is another consequence of having an open, collaborative project. But some of us do our best to rectify that when we find it, are at least mark it to warn readers that the material is unreferenced). If we took material just because you, or any other expert, said it was so, then a random reader tomorrow, or next month, or in five years time, would have no way of determining whether it was correct.

And yes, we are also aware that sometimes published reliable sources get it wrong, or are out of date. This is a problem, but our consensus has settled that verifiability, not truth is the goal. Again, you may try to change that consensus if you wish, but I don't think you will be very successful. See perennial proposals. --ColinFine (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joust question 4

I have read all three responses.

I understand your thinking. Many times in creating curriculum for courses we must site evidence. You may also agree as a community that a source is a subject matter expert.

Regardless, my original concern was the mass deletion of information.

I request that the community look over the recent deletion of the Joust sections on Game play and 30th Anniversary and see if the information is should be placed back in the wiki on Joust.

The information is verifiable through many online sources.

Thanks. Also please look at the legal rules of evidence as I described. I believe it will assist many in legally verifing information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.4.213 (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop opening new sections every time you reply, we like to keep conversations together. Wikipedia is not a court of law and legal rules of evidence are completely irrelevant. We have our own guidelines. We can explain those guidelines to you on this help desk, but they do not get made or altered here as already explained to you. We do not accept unpublished material from claimed experts becaause there is no process in place for verifying editors identities, and any such process would conflict with our privacy policy in any case. Again, that is not something for arguing to change on the help desk. SpinningSpark 12:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joust 5

I see no way of linking these messages using my iPhone. So you will have to accept my apologies. 1. I asked that the deletions be examined by the group Wiki- not address When will I get an answer ? Thank you

2. I explained the laws of evidence Wiki explained they don't care about legal evidence. If wiki claims to have expert referencing material on the WwW Then it most certainly is accountable to legal evidence.

If it claims it is not I bet someone will eventually challenge that in a law suit. I respectfully lsuggest as a group that this is brought before the powes that be for review.

3. I have asked who your subject matter expert is. Wiki No answer I repeat it. Who is Wikis expert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.4.213 (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) Wikipedia article content, help desk, etc are run by volunteers. Someone will answer you when someone who knows the answer sees your question and has time to respond.

2) No "Laws of evidence" apply at Wikipedia, we are not a court. We are governed by our policies , one of which is that people who threaten or imply legal action may not participate in Wikipedia while such threats / actual suits are open.

3) see number 1. Wikipedia does not recognize claims of "experts". We base our content on what "experts" have published. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and note that communication is easier if you create an account. It is free and more anonymous than editing via an IP. People will be able to communicate on your page, and you will receive notifications when someone mentions your name, and you can create a watchlist to see when pages you are interested in have been edited by others. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and the way to "connect" conversations is to click the [edit] after the section header. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Examining the edit which removed the now disputed material,[2] I have to agree with it. The material was completely unsourced with WP:BLP violations. WP:BURDEN (which is part of Wikipedia's verifiability policy) states that the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who wants to add or restores material. Since you have provided no such source, it cannot be restored. You can claim to be whoever you want to be (Wikipedia has no way to vet such claims), but so long as you don't provide a published, reliable source, then the material won't be restored. —Farix (t | c) 12:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joust more and more

Thank you for your response. There is not an edit on iPhone mobile platform

I will wait for an answer on why the content was deleted. I would guess it shows who deleted it and why ...somewhere correct?

As to legal, I simply told you the facts. Whether Wiki chooses to abide by common legal rules of evidence is Wikis choice as are the potential ramifications that one might point out. Neither was a threat. Just facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.4.213 (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of the article is a tab that says "History". It records every edit, who made it, when they made it , and likely an explanation. see WP:DIFF. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and your continued blustering about legalities when you have been told that they do not apply and we dont take kindly to intimidation by threats of legal consequences is setting you up for a potential block. stop now. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IP's legal bluster has been reported at ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Thanks to whoever refactored this into one section.

Lonnie MacDonald ... your question has been answered. Repeatedly asking will not change that answer. The folks here are unpaid volunteers who are giving up their time to try to help people, and your repeated posts becoming abusive. If you wish to discuss the article the place to do it is here: Talk:Joust_(video_game). NE Ent 14:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]