Help desk
< December 16	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 18 >

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.

December 17

Electronic harassment

The second paragraph in this article is not fact as someone who has direct experience of these things electronic Harassment using V2k synthetic telepathy Electronic frequencys from satellites land stations and portable units is real in development since the 60s Satellite surveillance and harassment is real Mind control technology or initiatives eexist in various formats Mind reading technology exists — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masonmanscot (talk • contribs) 01:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Masonmanscot: the most productive place to discuss that is on the Talk page for the individual article (click the "Talk" tab while on the article). Make sure to provide references to back up your comments in reliable sources. Wikipedia does not host "original research" or personal experience, only what can be verified in published sources, so you will need to supply those for the discussion. --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prevention of speedy deletion

Hi! I have been trying to create a wikipedia page in the name of 'The Iconic School'. However, the page which I create got deleted from wikipedia within 2-3 hours due to some contavention of section A11.

Kindly oblige to tell me the requirements and other necessary steps to prevent the page from being deleted.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.104.104.245 (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was originally tagged as A11, but deleted under G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". The A11 appears to have been a mistake, but the G11 (advertising) tag was rather well deserved.

All articles must cite multiple professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are unaffiliated with the subject but specifically about it. The article should only summarize (but not plagiarize) info from these sources and should not try to praise the subject. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP user, like many people, you seem to misunderstand what Wikipedia is. The concept "a page in the name of" belongs to social media or advertising: what we have in Wikipedia is "an article about" - and such an article should be a neutrally written summary of what people who have no connection with the subject have published about it. People connected with the subject of the article have no control over the article whatever, and what they say or wish to say about the subject is of almost no relevance to Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tag: 2017 source edit

I am seeing "Tag: 2017 source edit" in edit sumarries. Example:[1] It is listed at Special:Tags with no description. Leaving aside the obvious -- it isn't 2017 yet -- why would we need such a tag? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the new wikitext editor. There was an announcement at WP:VPT.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Special:Tags has two tags which display "2017 source edit". [2] shows the example is the tag named "visualeditor-wikitext" with description "Edit made using the 2017 wikitext editor". mw:2017 wikitext editor says: "Only once we've met our quality requirements (including new-user testing and experienced-user happiness), probably in mid-2017, we'll begin to provide it by default in place of the current wikitext editor." PrimeHunter (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request to review the Introduction and Daily Routine sub header of the article Naxalite

The introduction, daily routine section is not politically neutral as more emphasis have been given on the CPI(Maoist) party as if it is the only successor of the naxalite entities. As mentioned in the History section there had been several fractionation and the original CPI(ML) party had splintered into several groups. If you check the articles Communist Party of India (Maoist) and Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) you can surely find that they are two separate entities from the same timelines who participated in the same movement and the term "Naxalite" became disambiguous for both. And if you follow the trail of Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) you will find several more splintered naxalite parties among which many are not at all related to Communist Party of India (Maoist) rather have a democratic identity and have impact in todays politics, such as the one with the name Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Liberation. What I meant to say is that referring only to the Communist Party of India (Maoist) as "Naxalite" is giving the article "Naxalite" one sided view and also specifying the article in an one sided direction lacking its diambiguos nature as it prevails. Yours sincerely, Maaley (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Maaley: I see you have already raised this question at Talk:Naxalite#Request_to_review_the_Introduction_and_Daily_Routine_sub_section. That is the appropriate place for the discussion, so there is no need to double up here as well. If any editors wish to comment, please do so there, in order to keep the discussion all in one place. --Gronk Oz c14:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gronk Oz Thanks for your reply and suggestion. As you can see there have been a lot of conflict of interest in that talk page and the same question had been raised earlier too but with less specification by others, but the issue still remains and no further action was taken. I just now came across the article and its talk page. If you see that talk page closely you will surely feel the urgency to block some of the users who are so decisively defending their conflict of interest, nakedly showing their lack of neutrality in such a contoverial page. Yours sincerely,Maaley (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Maaley: Your recent question is the first activity on that Talk page since 2010. So no, I cannot see the urgency to take action against any of the editors who took part in a discussion so long ago. I suggest going back to that Talk page and stating your suggestion clearly and specifically, backed up with good references. Avoid the trap some previous commentators put on that page such as "This is by far the worst piece of crap ever posted on wikipedia" - that sort of thing does not help to create a better article. Instead, stay focussed on specific recommendations. Don't just complain about what is there, but suggest what you think is better. Take the issues one at a time. Debate the points for and against, and build a concensus using the sources, not on a sense of personal outrage. --Gronk Oz (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gronk OzThanks for your reply and suggestion. I will surely keep in mind.Maaley (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguated article where the article at the main title has been deleted

Dear editors: This draft was redirected to John Biggins (author), an article about the same subject. I have merged the useful content of the draft with the mainspace article and credited its creator in the edit summary for attribution purposes. However, in the meantime, the article at John Biggins, an actor, was deleted as non=notable. Should I move the author article to the simpler title, or would this make it seem as though the deletion discussion about the actor referred to the author's page? I need to complete the merging process by moving the draft into mainspace as a "redirect with history", but it seemed best to settle the other issue first.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Anne The move will reflect in the history of course, but also there's nothing preventing you from leaving a concise custom Template:Notice on the article talk clarifying things. TimothyJosephWood 15:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Timothyjosephwood, I haven't used one of those before.—Anne Delong (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Anne. Try using this on the top of the article talk:

{{notice|The article [[John Biggins]], relating to the the actor, was deleted on on May 19 2015 as a result of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Biggins|this discussion]]. The current article relates to John Biggins the novelist.}}

...which should give you this:

The notice appears blue now because it's on a project page, but when posted on a talk page should automatically format to look like all the rest of the talk page notices. Hope this helps. TimothyJosephWood 16:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can i contribute an image

How can i contribute an image ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rk20july (talk • contribs) 14:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rk20july. If you own the copyright to the image (usually because you took it), you can upload it at Wikimedia Commons by hitting the blue Upload button and following the instructions. If you do not own the copyright, then it gets a bit more complicated and I'm afraid you'll have to provide some additional information. TimothyJosephWood 15:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you took the picture or created the image (graph, diagram, etc.) yourself, you can upload to commons yourself, as Timothy said. Please do not get discouraged by the formidable set of questions. They are there so we can stay in compliance with copyright law. Commons is forced to use this cumbersome approach because an image is a whole file: you are inherently making a copy, which must be done under copyright law. (By contrast, text entered via an edit to Wikipedia can be assumed to be original and to have been entered by a user who is complying with the rules stated in the text in the window above the text entry box.) The extra effort is intimidating, and I personally almost gave up after spending time creating a graph, but I finally just kept going. If you are not the originator of the image, please come back and we can help you to figure out if we can use the image an dhow to proceed. -Arch dude (talk) 07:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GitLab

Can somebody with more experience of software companies look at the GitLab article it doesn't seem clear what the article is about whether it's the company or their software. Seven of the sources are to the companies website and the article seems to be more of an advert than an article. Theroadislong (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should discuss this on the article's talk. You can also make necessary changes yourself. Ruslik_Zero 19:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have but their seem to be ownership issues. Theroadislong (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomical Optical Interferometry

I just "fixed" one of the issues on the page Astronomical Optical Interferometry, and removed the issue saying the lead was too long. Is it okay now to remove it?

Checks Facts (Talk) 15:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to say 'No' I'm afraid, the lead is still very long. Eagleash (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When the article lede meets the criteria in WP:LEDE, you may remove the tag. As of right now, I don't think you can do this until the big diagram is somehow reformatted into a less obtrusive form or is moved out of the lede.-Arch dude (talk) 06:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missing information

The help desk is not the place to have a devolving discussion on the merits or disadvantages of infobox inclusion. Enough. Move on. --Majora (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is a missing stats box in the top right corner of the Stanley Kubrick page. Could someone make on so we can see his age. Plus did he have any siblings and where did he go to school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:5E3:6CC1:DCF0:879E:C036:7B5A (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This would be better handled at the talk page of the article. Britmax (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it wouldn't. This discussion has been had, twice, over the past year. Please direct people to the archives if they don't have anything better to do and they can see the reasons for and against, there. Cassianto ^Talk 20:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is one of the pages that has been edited by one or more of a group of editors who dislike infoboxes and delete them fairly often. Looking at the page history and the talk-page, there have already been discussions and some edit-warring over the i/bx. I would not recommend trying to add one again. Eagleash (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the fact there is no stats box here the reason information is missing from the Google stats box? Normally Google displays this type of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:5E3:6CC1:F1F1:9EFA:A36F:B45E (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, Google tends to display the first few words of Wiki articles. Please sign your posts on talk-pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2016

Thank you for replying everyone. I guess this is why IMDb keeps growing better as they always display this info. I see by the discussion on the page linked above many don't care about your readers. Very odd to see your editors telling readers to go to IMDB for information of this nature.

I think I may have deleted the debate on that page. Tried to post to that blog page but it said Edit Conflict and now the posting is gone. Sorry if I ducked it up.

As far as I can see one of the involved editors was archiving the talk-page. There are no edits by you showing in the history (which is where you can immediately see if your edit was 'saved' or not). Please remember to sign your posts. Eagleash (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the rise of the infobox deletionists, and I'm sad to see infoboxes disappear. Where is this being discussed? Note that most of the information should be available in the Wikidata item for the subject, but I have no idea if the deletionists are carefully populating the Wikidata item. If the subject of a Wikipedia article has a Wikidata item, then there is a link to it from the column at the left side of the article. The is true for the Kubricjkarticle -Arch dude (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get this very clear. There are no such thing as "infobox deletionists". None of us go about the site systematically deleting infoboxes from articles. Please don't confuse developing articles to FA/GA status and making an editorial judgement not to include an infobox as "infobox deletionism". In this case I developed a top importance article to GA status, and simply thought the article looked more professional without one. And it's been that way now for a few years, and there is consensus for that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):As far as I can tell (and I've kept away from it after realising the eds. stick resolutely to their guns) there have been 'discussions' at several pages. The only one that readily springs to mind is at Talk:Peggy Mount#Otiose I-B where the i/bx remained deleted despite some of the points you raise being mentioned. It seems to me that an average reader brought here by a google search would not know (or want) to look at wikidata. Eagleash (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are no longer related to metadata; you do know that, right? Cassianto ^Talk 20:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys have editors removing stats that Wikipedia is famous for, perhaps best to explain to these editors there doing the wrong thing. 2605:8D80:5E3:6CC1:A804:AECB:A527:9EA (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC) ~|[reply]

If it's factoids you want, I suggest you go elsewhere. Cassianto ^Talk 20:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such editors are not susceptible to reason. They know that if they make things hard enough for those who try to interfere with their reactionary ways, we'll go away and find better uses for our time. Maproom (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And as we all know, you can't, which is why these infobox problems keep coming up. Cassianto ^Talk 20:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm to invest my spare time, which can run into well over 3 weeks, and at a personal cost, which can run into in excess of £200, re-writing a shit article into a featured one, then I get to choose if an infobox makes the final edit of my re-write. Up until the infobox perverts decided to stalk me from article to article, inserting their POV by warring over implementing them, I used to knock out, on average, three FAs a year. I used to consider an infobox on every FA I produced and if I didn't consider one to be worthy, then I didn't add one. Discussions can be had, of course, whether to include one, but it remains my decision up until the community say otherwise. Cassianto ^Talk 20:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Website in infobox can't be removed

I tried to remove the website from the infobox on this page (it is WP:ADV), but it remains there, despite no trace of it in the wikicode.

It seems unlikely that this is hardcoded in the template, as it's the common Template:Infobox Company that is used. What am I missing here? Or is the renderer that refreshes the infoboxes just stuck?

Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The website is picked up from wikidata. Click on "Wikidata item" under the tools menu to the left of the page to see it. You can delete it there if it isn't the official website. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They were supposed to have stopped auto-importing WikiData items into infoboxes. This should be reported to Template talk:Infobox company. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]