Help desk
< April 3	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 5 >

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.

April 4

Title Blacklist

I reviewed a sandbox draft. I then attempted to use the title in the sandbox to move it to draft space prior to declining it. However, my attempt to move it was rejected with the message that the title was on the Title Blacklist. After some research, it turns out that the Title Blacklist is actually not a blacklist at all but a regular expression parser that determines that would-be titles violate certain rules, including excessive repetition and excessive use of capitals. It does also check for certain expressions that are commonly used in spam, which actually is a sort of blacklist. However, stating that a proposed title is on the Title Blacklist, when the real problem is that it violates a rule, is both unfriendly and inaccurate. If it isn't feasible to state what rule is violated by a title, can the message at least state that the title is unacceptable because it violates the rules about titles? (My initial assumption was that the title had been salted due to previous unsuccessful submissions, but that was not the case.) By the way, it turns out that the problem was too much capitalization. Where, if not here, can I request that this error message be changed and made more informative? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: There are actually four different messages that are displayed when an edit is rejected due to the title blacklist. They can be seen at the top of MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist. I believe you are looking for MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit (although it may be MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-move instead). You can submit a protected edit request at the proper talk page. --Majora (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't find the message to be helpful. In fact, it is misleading, because it implies that the title is on a blacklist (e.g., salted), not that it violates a rule. I didn't want to submit a protected edit request. I just think that the message is completely incorrect. The title wasn't blacklisted, only malformed. Are you saying that we don't care about incorrect error messages, or that I am posting in the wrong place? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-Up

Where should I report that the error message is seriously misleading? It is likely to cause considerable confusion, especially to inexperienced editors, especially if, as it does, it even confuses experienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creating new article

Hi, I would like to write an article about Roberto Feibig- president and CEO of Tigre Capital. I just created my account. How soon can I post it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vale4503ka (talk • contribs) 04:07, 4 April 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

I have added a number of useful links to your user talk page. In particular you need to read WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

permanently disable or delete Wikipedia account

I want my Wikipedia account to be permanently deleted or archived or disabled. I do not feel part of Wikipedia anymore, and I don't want to.

Why?

Today I was after some information I saw years ago, about some book I'm currently re-reading, only to find that it's no longer there, it was deleted because 'Wikipedia is not a fan site' (of that particular book... or of anything else).

The info I was after is not that important, just some sort of corollary to a fiction novel. I just checked after it because it was already there years ago and I wanted to view it.

Picqued by the deletion of something I wanted to read, I checked my dormant account, and from my watchlist I then noticed ALL the content I wrote (10+) years ago has by now been deleted (as 'fancruft'); I knew about some of it but lost interest long ago. Nonetheless I took a look at the actual pages about the argument I used to contribute to and it's now practically barren, there is not a fraction of info I wrote/added/edited at the time, the whole section appears to me as useless. No big deal, I long since accepted that my view was wrong and my interest non-encyclopaedical, I was indeed a 'fan' of all that.

I was and am still a fervid user, I donated to the foundation 50$ every year and I'm currently donating monthly.

Today, some (old) content I wanted to find was not there anymore. Was it occupying too much space? No. Was it offensive or harmless in any way? Of course not. Was it useless? No, I would have liked to read it today but I couldn't. Was it removed to make some other page more readable? No, it was a sub-page by itself. Gone for no reason, similar info about other works is still there.

I had no involvement whatsoever with that content, so no, it's NOT personal.

Back when I was young. to me wikipedia was the future of knowledge, a virtually unlimited repository of information, a dream came true or at least in the making.

Now I feel that what wikipedia aimed to be, an infinite repository of human knowledge open for all to contribute, it is no longer.

What wikipedia was ment NOT to be, a 'territory' for a closed cadre of editors with their limited view of the scope, is now instead the harsh reality. I speak only for the controversial sub-argument of content about fiction (books, movies, tv-series and the like), all very non-encyclopaedic of course, so it's all somewhat moot. In this respect, Wikipedia is INFESTED with bush-cutters that do nothing more than delete content THEY don't like. Information about things I looked after is no longer there, and it's not ment to be. They speak about reorganizing, making it better, more readable, removing unnecessary or redundant content. All they do is censorship.

So I'm leaving (I wasn't contributing anyway), please kill my account, I'll kill my donations in the meantime. I will continue to 'use' wikipedia, it's free anyway is it not? I just won't be a member anymore. You don't need or want me.

Goodbye

IgorTrieste (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to "delete" a Wikipedia account: See WP:VANISH. Not applicable for all users.

How to permanently disable a Wikipedia account:

Go to your settings.
Disable the email if necessary.
Change your password to some random jibberish you will guess.
Log out.
Don't try to recover your password.

As for the material you wrote, see WP:OWN (in short, you don't own your edits, they are donations to the community) and WP:GNG (for an article to exist, there needs to be secondary sources about it to indicate that it is noteworthy). Many of the articles you wrote, such as List of Universal Century nations and factions, cited no references and had failed to do so for over five years. That goes against WP:V, a foundational site principle. Please WP:Assume good faith (another foundational site principle) from those who deleted the articles -- Wikipedia is not censored and arguments based on personal preference are ignored in deletion discussions (not that they even came up in the few I browsed). Ian.thomson (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting Article Wesley Douglas

Good day

My Name is Wesley Douglas and i am having a problem as many volunteer contributors and journalists contact me constantly complaining that the article written under my name name is not legitimate or related to me.

Firstly the article is written about a certain Mr Wesley Douglas Teixeira Dias de Oliveira, whose surname is not Douglas. The link is as follows:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Douglas

This is frustrating for those who wish to find out more about me or write about what i have been doing in South Africa and Africa.

As an example, many links that have my name attached have automatically been routed to this article which is factually incorrect because the person about whom is being written is not in fact called Wesley Douglas at all. Below is an example of how links that are tied to me end up on this site in your system.

http://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_NCOP_members_of_the_24th_Parliament_of_South_Africa

As a public figure and politician with numerous television and radio and newsprint articles online it is frustrating that people who want to write about me cannot do so on the wikipedia platform.

Does the wikipedia platform check and verify its articles and does it operate in a way where a part of a person's name can be used to create an article on a first come first served basis?

Here are some links for your information on me personally:

http://www.acpfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/REV.WESLEY-DOUGLAS-CV.pdf

http://www.cnbcafrica.com/video/?bctid=4535484816001

http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/western-cape/media-group-holds-talks-with-inmsa-boss-1624741

I would like to request assistance in addressing these concerns if possible so that i can liase with the volunteers and contributors who would like to create an article about be soonest.

Kind regards

Wesley douglas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesleydouglasmp (talk • contribs)

Just a heads up before I go any further: we strongly discourage anyone from creating or editing articles they are the subject of. If there ever is an article about you, you could note problems on the article's talk page, but would be discouraged from actually editing the article directly. However, if you can provide the right sort of sources, someone can make an appropriate article. You sound quite reasonable, so I'm sure you'll understand.

Now that that's out of the way...

Regarding a possible article about you: Articles that exist have to meet certain notability guidelines. Normally, the article needs multiple professionally published, mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about the subject (not just mentioning them in passing) but also unaffiliated with the subject. The IOL article is an "almost," and would tip the balance if there were a few more "almosts" that were even closer. The CNBC video actually does not since you were asked to come in for commentary (or at least, that's what I could gather as I cannot get it to load right through my VPN). But it is a very good sign that appropriate sources do probably exist. Materials written by article subjects (such as CVs) have restrictions on how they can be used (mainly, it does not establish notability, it can't be self-serving, and the article needs to rely on other sources where possible).

I do see that there are some exemptions to this for politicians. If you could link to a government site or news source that listed your position in the government, it's possible that someone could create an article

Regarding the article about the footballer: that article is titled "Wesley Douglas" because, although he has additional surnames, he goes by just "Wesley Douglas." In many Portuguese-speaking countries, it is common for an individual to have multiple surnames, representing the first surnames of their parents or even the first surnames of their grandparents (as appears to be the case with the Brazilian Douglass).

If someone wrote an article about you, the article about you would be titled "Wesley Douglas (politician)" and the article on the footballer would be renamed "Wesley Douglas (football player)."

Oh, by the way, any of my above words that are in blue are links to relevant policies and guidelines. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wesleydouglasmp: http://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_NCOP_members_of_the_24th_Parliament_of_South_Africa was copied from our article List of NCOP members of the 24th Parliament of South Africa. It had a wrong link to the footballer so I have changed it to a red link to Wesley Douglas (politician). The red color indicates we currently have no article about the subject. Special:WhatLinksHere/Wesley Douglas shows it was the only wrong link for your name in the English Wikipedia. The remaining articles are about the footballer. Old copies of List of NCOP members of the 24th Parliament of South Africa at unrelated sites like wikiwand.com may not be updated. We are not affiliated with that site. It requires JavaScript to view and I have a JavaScript blocker I don't want to disable for the site so I cannot see whether it's a live mirror with immediate updates or it stores old copies of articles. Wikipedia has hundreds of thousands of biographies. Most of them are probably for names which are not unique. If we have no article about a person then we do not mention them in an article about somebody else with that name. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your prompt response and for your detailed explanation. it has helped clarify a lot of things to me. i am not sure what to do from here in terms of sources etc but will provide extra links to articles below which highlight and make reference to my official government related positions.

Again thank you for your response, it is greatly appreciated :

http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/floor-crossing-public-to-be-consulted-374968

http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/western-cape/media-group-holds-talks-with-inmsa-boss-1624741

https://www.westerncape.gov.za/news/cape-town-warmly-welcomes-homeless-world-cup-players

http://neec.org.za/

http://thesamic.co.za/

http://www.gutenberg.us/articles/list_of_ncop_members_of_the_24th_parliament_of_south_africa

http://endtimerestoration.weebly.com/slavery-reconsiled.html

http://www.politicsweb.co.za/documents/media-charter-urgently-needed--mtmsa

http://mg.co.za/article/2014-01-23-ancs-air-force-targets-the-message

http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/western-cape/group-calls-for-probe-into-tmg-1645069

http://www.news24.com/multimedia/south-africa/opening-of-parliament-20110916

http://www.act-x.co.za/about-us.php

Not sure how to proceed and let me know if the articles and websites above qualifies?

regards

wesley

@User:Wesleydouglasmp I will post a note about this issue to WT:WikiProject South Africa where someone might be able to assist you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And if no one gets to it in 48 hours or so (teaching tomorrow but not Wednesday) and I don't forget, I'll see what I can do. It's refreshing to see an article subject who is cooperative and grateful. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page title change

Hi,

We've updated the content of the following page but are unable to change it's title. The business is now called 'Tai Gwalia Cyf' and is no longer 'Grwp Gwalia Cyf'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C5%B5p_Gwalia_Cyf

Is there any possibility this could be updated?

Thanks,

Gwalia webteam.

Hello, Gwalia webteam. The title of articles is changed by moving the article, which you need to be logged into an account to do (and the account must be a four days old and have made at least 10 edits). Otherwise you can request the move at Requested moves. However, you need to provide published evidence that the company has changed its name: I don't even find "Tai Gwalia Cyf" on its own website, never mind other published sources.

However, there are much more serious problems than the name of the article. Unfortunately you seem to be under a very common misconception that Wikipedia is a vehicle for publicising: it is not, and any attempts to use it that way get strongly resisted.

As it stands, the article is liable to be deleted because it does nothing to establish that the company is notable (in Wikipedia's particular sense) - to establish that, it would need to reference several independent reliable published sources which contain substantial material about it. A quick search on Google news provides just two references to Grwp Gwalia Cyf (and none to Tai Gwalia Cyf) - and those two are just mentions, not in-depth discussions.

Furthermore, if you are employed by the company, then it is not your job to create or edit a Wikipedia article about it, as you have a conflict of interest: you are strongly discouraged from editing such an article directly; and since you are presumably doing this as part of a paid job, you are required to declare your paid interest - see paid editing.

So, what can you do? After reading the links I have given you above (all the blue text), see if you can find some substantial published writing about the company, published in reliable sources (not blogs or social media) and entirely unconnected with the company (not its own website, or anything based on interviews or press releases from it). If you cannot find any, give up: Wikipedia will not host an article on your company however it is written. If you can find some, I recommend you post them (bibliographic information and preferably URLs) on the article's talk page Talk:Grŵp Gwalia Cyf, and add {{edit request}} (with the double curly brackets) there, to request that somebody add them into the article. You might also find somebody at WT:WikiProject Wales willing to help you. --ColinFine (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the page, which seems uncontentious, and cleaned up the text a bit. Please note ColinFine's advice above. I see no financial data such as lending figures, which I would have thought was essential to show notability for a housing association Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: the new page name seems incorrect to me. It is currently Tal Gwalia Cyf (T-A-L) while the contents is about Tai Gwalia Cyf (T-A-I). --CiaPan (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the title - but notability is still an issue. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The unreferenced article has been there for six years. The requesting IP didn't originate it. However, I have nominated it for AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming the article "Roberto Menotti" to "Menotti"

I would like to rename this article to "Menotti" (without the first name) as it is the pen name of screenwriter and comic book artist "Roberto Marchionni" - as stated in the article itself. Roberto Menotti is an Italian journalist who has nothing to do with the person this article is about.

Please search Google News (keywords "Menotti", "Roberto Marchionni") for evidence. Here are some of the first results as of today: http://www.lospaziobianco.it/176947-continuavano-chiamarlo-menotti-intervista-2-parte/ http://www.quinewsvaldera.it/pontedera-lo-sceneggiatore-menotti-allagora.htm http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2016/02/06/lo-chiamavano-jeeg-robot%E2%80%8F-bentornato-claudio-santamaria-e-ben-arrivato-gabriele-mainetti/2438644/

I tried to move the article myself, but I get this message: "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason: The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text"

I tried to add a "move request" on the article's talk page, but I get this message: "Template:Requested move is not for moves from user space;if the only obstacle to an uncontroversial move is another page in the way, you can ask for the deletion of the other page. This may apply, for example, if the other page is currently a redirect to the article to be moved, a redirect with no incoming links, or an unnecessary disambiguation page with a minor edit history"

Please help me to rename the article to the correct name.

That move cannot be made because Menotti is already a disambiguation page where you can research other people with that name. Have you a second choice for the name of the article? You could move it to Roberto Marchionni.
You are welcome to add Roberto Menotti or Roberto Marchionni to the disambiguation page so that people who search Wikipedia for "Menotti" will find Roberto Marchionni. Dbfirs 17:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly moved the article to Menotti (artist and screenwriter), and added an entry to the disambiguation page Menotti. I've also created a redirect page Roberto Marchionni. --ColinFine (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds an excellent solution. Dbfirs 09:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Silver Wikipedia Page

CORRECTION AND DELETION OF INFORMATION FROM MY HUSBAND'S (HORACE SILVER) WIKIPEDIA PAGE.

Information to be deleted: Bassist Christian McBride revealed in 2007 that Silver had Alzheimer's disease.[104]'

Christian McBride is not a medical physician and his revelation of my husband's condition is unsubstantiated, He is an opportunist who used the opportunity to refer people to his website, How despicable of him to use the death of a great and beloved man for his own gain. He had no close ties to Horace to any of his family members. His only purpose to spearhead a musical tribute for Horace in Los Angeles was to fill his pockets!

This information was suppose to be be deleted a long time ago.My son made the request when he first saw it, It is evident that it was never done.

If you need any further information regarding the deletion of this information contact me as follows:

You attention to this matter is most appreciated. Please send me a confirmation when this is done.

In light and love, Jemela Mwelu

PS I am Horace's first and only wife, My name was Barbara Dove but it was legally changed many eons!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.215.0 (talk • contribs)

Hi @47.17.215.0: Wikipedia relies on reliable sources for information, and reliable sources say that McBride told people that Silver had Alzheimer's. Please provide reliable sources to say he didn't, else it should be kept- note that your own knowledge/research is not a reliable source.

Also, the best place to discuss this is Talk:Horace Silver, I've put a note there about this question Joseph2302 (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

McBride is not an RS for a medical diagnosis, the claim should be removed now that a credible objection has been raised, at least until better sourcing eother way can be found. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is on that talk page. EddieHugh (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the standard default height of a row in a Wikipedia table?

Let's say that I create a table in Wikipedia (see the example below). What is the standard default height of a row in a Wikipedia table? How do I know what the height of any row is, when I use the defaults and do not change the height myself? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apples	Name	Bananas
7	George Washington	2
12	Abraham Lincoln	9
4	Thomas Jefferson	1
23	Total	12

You don't, Joseph A. Spadaro. Normally, that is left to the browser to determine, taking into account many things to which you have no access, such as the size and shape of the browser window, and whether the user has changed the font size. Giving fixed sizes for things is a bad idea.

If this is following on from your previous question about getting double size boxes, the easiest way to do that is to put a hard line break <br/> at the end of the cell contents, to force it to be on two lines. --ColinFine (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Following from my previous question: why doesn't "rowspan=2" command achieve the same thing? Shouldn't that make a row span across 2 rows (i.e., double the height)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

rowspan is applied to cells and not rows. The browser will still only render the cell as high as needed. But if a cell in a row has rowspan=2 and cells in other columns don't then the cell with rowspan=2 will be the same height as two cells in other columns (those two cells may have different heights depending on their content). See for example cell A at Help:Table#Combined use of COLSPAN and ROWSPAN. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

what takes precedence

someone adds content to an article...someone reverts it because in their opinion it's inaccurate because of how it's worded...who has the upper hand? should the new contribution be left until the reverting party finds consensus to revert it?? or does the new contributor now automatically have to go build consensus to add it???68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BRD. The "proof" is on the shoulders of someone adding information. They do this through having reliable sources. Without knowing specifically what you're referring to, it's hard to comment much beyond that. Dismas|^(talk) 21:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dismas: It looks like they're talking about Gödel's incompleteness theorems; the IP is getting pretty angry at Trovatore on the talk page. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 01:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

dispute process question

an editor refuses to accept/understand the conventional and uncontroversial definition of a "formal system" and reverts content based on this refusal...do I request third party? or request for comment?? or what?? it's in the bottom two sections here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems 68.48.241.158 (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You started a new section, but I have moved your new question into the section which you started earlier. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

I just put up a RfC in the talk page for "incompleteness theorem"....user "Spirit Ethanol" apparently immediately removed it from RfC because in his opinion the question was unclear....is this proper?...particularly since he's recently been involved in editing that topic? the RfC involves the behavior of another user, who I think "Spirit Ethanol" knows...he accused me of "attacking" that user too..which if you go look is completely and totally not in the record.... 68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again you started a new section,and again I've moved the question into the existing section on this topic. Please don't keep starting new sections. If you need to continue the discussion, do so in the existing section, but better to discuss on the article talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

they're all different questions...the first was a very general question about Wikipedia, which was answered.....the second was a new specific question, which was never answered.....and the third was an entirely new question again, relating to a specific occurrence.....It's nice that in your opinion you think they're all the same...but I'm worried I'm not going to get an answer if you hide my new question back in an old question......???????? I'd prefer you NOT..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google images - can I use?

Hello,

I can't find any information about a particular image (here: https://deadhomersociety.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/theboywhoknewtoomuch6.png). How do I find out if I can use it or not? I got it from Google Images.

Thanks.

IHaveWikipediaNow! (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IHaveWikipediaNow!: As a free use image? Certainly not, as those are copyrighted characters and that is a copyrighted screenshot from a copyrighted television show. As a fair use image? Perhaps. It depends on exactly what you want to use it for and what article you want to use it on. --Majora (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. I would like to use the image in the article Bart Simpson to show Bart wearing his church clothes. IHaveWikipediaNow! (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IHaveWikipediaNow!: Ah. In that case, unfortunately, no. Fair use is a little tricky as to where exactly images can go. You could probably, for example, use that image under fair use on The Boy Who Knew Too Much (The Simpsons) since it is the subject of the sourced commentary (the topic) and it would have contextual significance as related to the story. Putting it on the general Bart Simpson page would not have that same significance so would fail our fair use criteria. --Majora (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, thanks. Do you know if there are any similar images that I can use? IHaveWikipediaNow! (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How's this? http://www.progets.com/simpsons/pics/playing%20video%20games%20in%20church%20clothes.gif IHaveWikipediaNow! (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IHaveWikipediaNow!: I don't and there probably isn't any. Since the entire show is copyrighted by the artists and the designers it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find an image of Bart, in his church clothes, that is free use. Every image you find would have the same problems as those outlined above. In the image field, due to copyright restrictions, we have to make due with what we have sometimes. Sorry. --Majora (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That one has the same issue. The character itself is copyrighted. So any image of the character would also be copyrighted. --Majora (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - we simulposted. I hadn't seen your reply when I made my second enquiry. Thanks. IHaveWikipediaNow! (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind me continuing to bother you, then why are we allowed to use the picture at the top of Bart Simpson? TIA. IHaveWikipediaNow! (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IHaveWikipediaNow!: You aren't bothering me. In the future though please make sure to ping me by putting {{ping|Majora}} so that I get a notification so I make sure I don't miss something. The reason why is that the basic character image is the subject of the sourced commentary (it is on the Bart Simpson page) and it has contextual significance. Just like how you could have put that first image on the article directly related to the episode the image came from. Images that are under fair use must meet a series of 10 criteria in order to qualify for inclusion. The criteria can be seen here: WP:NFCCP. If you look at the file page for that image, File:Bart Simpson 200px.png, you will see a fair use rationale that explains why the image meets all the criteria for inclusion. It is a fine line between what is acceptable fair use and what isn't sometimes (which is why the entire thing is a little confusing when you first start getting into it). So while the general image of Bart is acceptable on the article about Bart, anything further than that would not be. --Majora (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Majora: Ah, thanks. IHaveWikipediaNow! (talk) 08:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find a list of all the Wikipedia markup codes?

When I edit Wikipedia articles, I will often use codes. For example: <small> (to make the font smaller) or <ref> (to cite a reference), and so forth. What are those called? Are they called HTML codes or CSS codes or what? And where can I find a list of all of them? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HTML will probably give you most of what you want. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the OP may have been referring not to HTML but to Wiki markup tags, see Help:Wiki markup. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

How do I flag an article as not being neutral. the page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_parenting is extremely biased against the practice. each section ends in a critique of the practice which, though sources are cited, should be in the criticism section. There is even an entire section added regarding a claim made in critique whereas wikipedia is not a opinion forum, but a explanation of the practice.

You can flag it with the {{POV}} template (click on that to see how to use it), but it would be far better to either edit the article to correct the problem or, alternatively, to state in detail on the article talk page exactly what you see as being wrong, why that is the case, and what would be right. There is an over-7,000 article backlog for correction with the POV template, so it could literally be years before someone even gets around to considering your objection, much less doing anything about it. Posting to the talk page may obtain a quicker result (or may simply be ignored), but Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and that includes you and that's the fastest of all. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]