Help desk
< January 26	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 28 >

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 27

Referencing errors on George Selden (author)

Reference help requested. How do I fix the reference for The Guardian online. I had the date, and the article had choices of memorable books by several well-known authors. The one I cited from that article (on George Selden) was from Edmund White, who chose "The Story of Harold." The article discussed it.

I should add that George Selden--actually George Thompson--was a friend and neighbor of mine. I'd also read "The Story of Harold" and had the opportunity to discuss it with him.

Thanks, Carlianschwartz (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Carlianschwartz:, fixed it for you. The section had 2 "ref" tags immediately after each other, the second one was misplaced (too early, before the first ref was finished). See WP:Referencing for beginners for more information on Wikipedia references. GermanJoe (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Rising: Watchtower (The Film)

I manage the music composer (Oleksa Lozowchuck) who is currently scoring the Dead Rising: Watchtower film http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Rising:_Watchtower. This can be verified at https://pro-labs.imdb.com/title/tt3816458.

Music by Steve Jablonsky is not correct. Please change it to Music by Oleksa Lozowchuck.

Thank you, Keith C Anderson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.5.8 (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I changed it. (I don't have a reliable source either way for who composed the music, but the source I do have (unreliable as it is) is IMDb and they say Lozowchuck.) Herostratus (talk) 11:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bio for ElizaBeth Gilligan

[Re: Elizabeth Gilligan] ―Mandruss ☎ 09:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the subject of this article, I would like to note that the webpage of that name in the title and first section, my name is "misspelled." My legal name (and, therefore, used) is "ElizaBeth Gilligan." That capitalize B in the middle of the ElizaBeth is not only accurate but legal. I am not Elizabeth Gilligan, who is using all of my credits, etc. Could someone take care of this? This means something to me financially, so I would appreciate your attention to this little b problem.

Thanks! ElizaBeth Gilligan — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaceG (talk • contribs) 08:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this request is justified. There is a redirect from ElizaBeth Gilligan to Elizabeth Gilligan, justified in the redirect page by reference to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). But that policy page has the very clear proviso "unless the title is a proper noun". Ms Gilligan's forename is spelled with an upper-case B in most (not all) of the independent sources I have looked at. I would rename the article and make the redirect go the other way; but I know from experience that making such changes "over a redirect" is difficult/impossible without admin powers. (I am puzzled by the "using all of my credits" statement, but renaming the article seems correct anyway.) Maproom (talk) 09:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The B is also uppercase in three of the references already in the article. I requested a technical move. If this violates policy somehow, I assume the request will be rejected. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it seems justified and should be done. Question: I did this minor edit: [1] but it doesn´t show in the article, is that "forbidden" by the code somehow? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Fixed it here. You had changed the wrong B. What gets displayed is second. The parameter that is passed to the template is the first one. Dismas|^(talk) 11:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The id change was good too, since it determines the heading on the target isfdb.org page without any change to the remainder of the page. Fixed. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duh and thanks, Dismas! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To the original poster. For some things involving requests by the subject of the article, Wikipedia would require verification of identity (To make sure that that the posting isn't by say Anne McCaffery pretending to be you.) But for this, given that 3 of the 4 references (and a good number of the other entries that come up in google) use the upper case B, I don't think this is one of them. It is in the process at this minute of being taken care of, normally the change could be done by any user, but there is a special part of this that requires an administrator to delete the redirect from ElizaBeth Gilligan before we can move the page there. After the page is moved to a new place, any editor can go in and change the rest of the article to reflect the Capital B.Naraht (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the OP's wishes and opinions are really that relevant here. So it doesn't matter whether the posting was made by ElizaBeth Gilligan, Anne McCaffery, or Kim Jong-il; verification is not necessary. Whoever it was has drawn our attention to the incorrect title of an article, and this should be corrected. Mandruss has taken the first step towards achieving this, I hope the rest will follow soon. Maproom (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom is correct. Even if the OP could prove they are ElizaBeth beyond doubt, that wouldn't count for anything, and that's why I omitted any mention of this thread in the tech move request. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is only the second tech move I have requested. IIRC, the first took about three hours. This one (at ElizaBeth Gilligan) is now at 27 hours. Does anyone know how long these generally take? Did I do the request correctly? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You must have - it's now been done. Maproom (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another satisfied customer. Thanks all. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References not showing up

Some of the citations in User:William Harris/sandbox are refusing to show up in the reflist, it's a referencing method I'm not really familiar with so I have not been able to find the gremlin. Please help. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

|refs=, not |references=. Fixed. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Deaths - Lee Spick

Someone needs to edit the Deaths 2015 page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_in_2015

For January 26, 2015 there is a listing for Lee Spick, a former snooker player who died of liver cancer. On the Deaths page it reads as follows: "Lee Spick, 34, English snooker player, swallowed a snooker stick.[4]". Listing a cause of death as "swallowed a snooker stick" is highly inappropriate and needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.187.110 (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone the bad edit and warned the vandal. Thank you for drawing attention to this. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial policy

What the heck is this?

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/01/24/wikipedia-declares-war-on-women-gives-anti-feminist-males-control-over-gender-and-sexuality-entries/

This is utterly ridiculous. Please stop making yourselves look foolish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.17.148 (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see #Wikipedia part of Anti-Womens rights movement, above. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either the author of that article is extraordinarily ignorant, or the article contains lies. Don't believe everything that you read on the Internet. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have my name removed from a page from 7 years ago.

Hello, secen years ago my name was posted in a talk page. Is there any way to have it removed? Searching google brings people to that page. Rhank you. BF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:9980:3AC:C189:467E:AE8E:3D21 (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which page? --Jayron 32 15:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't answer Jayron's question. Go to WP:OVERSIGHT and follow the contact details there. - X201 (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERSIGHT would be the best choice in some situations but so far we don't have indication that the situation is within Wikipedia:Oversight#Policy, or that anything more is needed than to edit out the name from the current version. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we don't know. I was taking the approach of, seeing as we can't identify it, direct the user straight to OverSight to avoid the Streisand Effect on this page. - X201 (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:X201 dealt with it nicely. GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stratton St Margaret

Hello this article is wrong someone has added this

Current status

Stratton hosted the final of the 2012 Olympic games football tournament on the astro at Ruskin Junior School. 150,000 people saw Team GB beat Brazil 37-0, making it the best attended Olympic event in history

This isn't correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.55.60.202 (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone the edit which added that text. Unfortunately the rest of the section has no references at all, so it is hard to tell whether anything in the section is true. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What page should I go to?

What is the best page that I should go to, if a content dispute cannot be resolved on an article's Talk Page? I placed an "Admin Help" tag on the article Talk Page, and some editor accused me of being disruptive. In a nutshell, this is the issue. The Tom Brady article makes no mention whatsoever about the DeflateGate controversy. I have added material that is well sourced (CNN, for example) and worded neutrally. And editors on that page (and its Talk Page) keep deleting it. The article has absolutely no mention of this incident (about which, clearly, there are tons of reliable sources reporting). And, in fact, Tom Brady himself held a press conference about this very topic. Needless to say, the article (and its Talk Page) are mostly attended to by Brady fans. I feel that it is indisputable that this "huge" topic should merit some mention on the Tom Brady page. To not mention it at all smacks of POV. Violates neutrality. And leaves a glaring omission. And, in a nutshell, fans of Brady want to white-wash the article of any mention whatsoever of the topic. So, where should I be going with this question? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I believe that's the place to start for understanding how to handle content disputes. Can't testify to that from personal experience, since I've yet to need it (I've always been able to reach a resolution in article talk, let someone more experienced handle the DR process, or just given up on the issue). ―Mandruss ☎ 21:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are angry. Anyone at the history of Tom Brady can see that you are angry. You used BLOCK CAPITALS in edit summaries. That is SHOUTING, and is not a way to get other editors to listen. Calm down, and don't make it obvious that you are angry. Also, avoid using loaded words such as "white-wash". Comment on content, not contributors. It appears that, by putting the "Admin Help" template on the page, you were expecting an administrator to make a content judgment. If not, what admin help did you want? I didn't see a conduct issue, except the minor one that you were shouting. As advised, read the dispute resolution policy. It advises you to start by discussing on the talk page. You did. That didn't work, both because of judgment as to what is proper emphasis and how to interpret the policy on biographies of living persons, and because then you started shouting. It then advises various follow-up procedures. The one that can get editors who are not already Patriots or Brady fans and who are not already watching the article is a Request for Comments, and follow the advice on how to publicize the RFC. Be sure to word the RFC in a neutral fashion, which in turn means that you should calm down before you compose the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new Wikipedia page

How does one go about creating a Wikipedia page for a topic not yet covered? Does it involve 1) finding a gap 2)being sure the topic is "encyclopedic" in nature 3)creating the page via sandbox 4) submitting the finished sandbox-page for consideration for publication by an editorial board? Thanks! John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathetes5150 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes" to Items 1, 2, and 3 in your list. "No" to Item 4. There is no editorial board. After the article is "good enough", you can simply post it. Others will try to delete it, if necessary. Or others will add to it and help edit and improve the article. A suggestion that relates to your Item Number 4: before posting your (proposed) article, you can ask a more experienced editor or an Administrator to look it over and give you some feedback, suggestions, etc. So, that is an "informal" version of your Item Number 4, which does not "formally" exist on its own. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to read this page: Wikipedia:Your first article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathetes5150: You could avoid some pitfalls by reading or using WP:YFA, WP:AFC or WP:WIZ. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

I'd like to create the following new page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Artatra/Lipsum

but I need a disambiguation page to distinguish Ann Goldstein, editor and translator, from an existing page for Ann Goldstein, curator and museum director https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Goldstein

How do I create a disambiguation page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artatra (talk • contribs) 21:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,

Artatra (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you know her middle name, you can entitle your new article as "Ann Middle-Name Goldstein". Or, you can entitle it something like "Ann Goldstein (author)". Either of these alternatives will distinguish your new article from the current article named, simply, "Ann Goldstein". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, unfortunately your first link is not an article in the main area of the encyclopedia, it's a draft of an article in your own personal userspace. Therefore I've added a template to it to indicate this. The box now appearing at the top of it explains things further. If it's accepted into the main encyclopaedia, then take a look at WP:DAB for how to disambiguate articles from one another. Regards, CaptRik (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Batch validating links

Hi all,

Is anyone aware of a way to batch-check Wikipedia links to see if the article exists? I have a long (500+ entries) list of autogenerated links that I need to prune, and I'd like to avoid manually checking each to see if the article exists already. Apologies if this isn't the appropriate place to ask this question. 73.194.136.107 (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way you could wrap the double-brackets around them and stick the result in your sandbox? If so, you could just look for redlinks. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Genius! Will do. Thank you! 73.194.136.107 (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@73.194.136.107: That's assuming you have an account, as without it you don't have a sandbox. Sounds like you do. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody has a sandbox, here it is, whether logged in or not. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed the OP would want something that would stick around until they were through with it. I suppose they could refer to an old revision of the public sandbox, now that you mention it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An IP can also create a sandbox under their User talk page, such as User talk:73.194.136.107/Sandbox for the OP. -- GB fan 14:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that, thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

How do I report an IP who has been vandalising my userpage for some days? I have issued a first warning (level 3), and if it continues I will issue a final warning (level 4). Is AN/I the next stage? ~ P-123 (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, for simple vandalism it's WP:AIV. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mandruss. ~ P-123 (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you report the vandalism, you should report both of the IP addresses used by the vandal and mention that the IP address has changed, so that the blocking admin can consider a range block. Also, since the vandalism wasn't really "for some days", don't exaggerate; you don't need to exaggerate to get vandals blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Some days" was two days in my time zone. ~ P-123 (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon: Both IP addresses? I can only see one IP address. ~ P-123 (talk) 11:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

193.109.199.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

193.109.199.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ―Mandruss ☎ 11:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss: Well spotted! I'm not used to all this. :( ~ P-123 (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you look closely, you will notice that the last part of the IPv4 address changed. For that reason, it is a good idea to look closely at IP addresses. Some ISPs, such as US telephone companies, typically assign a "lease" on an IP address that lasts for a few days, but then expires, and then a new IP address is issued from the same block. That is what happened here. So if an IP address is misbehaving (vandalizing, trolling, cursing), the blocking admin needs to see whether the address is static, or from a range, and the reporting editor should do the same. The fact that IP addresses sometimes change is also one of the reasons why unregistered editors are encouraged to create an account and become registered editors. There is no stable contribution history if the address changes. (Some good-faith unregistered editors do not know that that is a reason to register.) When reporting vandalism, trolling, or other misconduct from IP addresses, look and see if there are small changes in the IP address. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, o wise one. look and see if there are small changes in the IP address. And if there are, what should we do with that knowledge? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the small changes are to a vandal or troll, report them both, and the blocking admin will consider whether to block both addresses or use a range block. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon: Thanks for the explanation. The IP has not come back yet, and as I said, I have only issued a level 3 warning. Is it too early to request a block on this/these IPs at WP:AIV? ~ P-123 (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forget the question. I have taken this up with the admin who has just semi-protected my userpage. ~ P-123 (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SebastianHelm: Callanecc has given the IPs a two-week range block. ~ P-123 (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protecting a user page, or an article, will protect it from vandalism, and avoids the need to block multiple IPs or ranges. However, if one is reporting misconduct by IP editors, it is still a good idea to look for small changes in IP addresses. Trolls in particular sometimes take advantage of shifting IP addresses to evade blocks, and blocking admins have to decide whether to block ranges. Vandals, on finding that a particular page is semi-protected, typically move to another page until they are blocked, while trolls want to cause disruption at specific pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still a little confused. I understand why the admin would need to look at the specific addresses to determine the appropriate action. But for my part, don't I just need to report every address I see and let the admin sort it out? I guess I could look at specific addresses to judge how many reports to make and how to group the addresses within the various reports, but is there something more you're suggesting? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "let the admin sort it out", it sounds like you're assuming the same admin is looking into both addresses (and taking the time to see that they are similar). If you do some of the legwork for the admins and report all at once, then it is more clear to the admin and they can do a range block. Dismas|^(talk) 22:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been established in this thread (and repeated in my previous comment) that the specific addresses will be included in the report. Presumably they will be reported using multiple transclusions of {{IPvandal}}, which will align the addresses vertically as in the above example. Are you saying that I should also include the comment, "Note that the IP addresses are the same except for the last octet"? I generally have a higher opinion of admins' attention to detail than that, but I could do it if really helps. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]