Help desk
< June 2	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

June 3

Revision History Statistics Page Not Working

When you "view history" and then click on "Revision history statistics" the link won't load. Is there any way to get this fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthRaker (talk • contribs) 15:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @TruthRaker:, these additional tools can be occasionally down due to server issues - or other technical mumbo jumbo, I don't understand :). Currently the feature seems to be available again. If you come across technical problems, WP:VPT is a good place to ask for assistance. Please make sure to describe the problem as detailed as possible (incl. the article where it happened), and mention your operating system and browser version. GermanJoe (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

I have added at the very bottom of the page some information re Julie Eckersley page speedy deletion Please have a look. I never thought that I would be doing this stuff myself! Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your posts at both CSD & AfD were incorrectly placed and both have undone already. You need to carefully follow the instructions on the page in order to nominate. The steps are listed out in colour-coded sections and you should read the information before there also. If you follow the steps precisely all should be good. Eagleash (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So Sorry. I tried my best. I have tried to follow the steps precisely but I fail. I am not a very good editor. all I think needs to be done is a notability warning - or any other warning- at the top of the page. I do not know where to begin and most of my students (undergraduates) have all gone home! Please helpSrbernadette (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been taken care of by skilled editors. I agree that the proper deletion process is hard to understand – there are three different ways to get an article deleted, and several pages of documentation to read before you can know which one to use (wiping or blanking the contents is not one of them). Maproom (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mid atlantic ridge north of Iceland

How does one get hold of the author of a page to ask why information is left out. It only took me over 30m minutes to find this place to ask. Ken Price — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenneth G Price (talk • contribs) 00:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there is no single, static author..so there is no one to contact...anyone can edit a Wikipedia article...including you! You should use reliable sources for anything you add..it's often good to propose a change on the article talk page first..68.48.241.158 (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can try asking the question on the article's talk page, for example at: [1] Eno Lirpa (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there is definitely a place for more referenced information on the connection between the Mid-atlantic Ridge and the Gakkel Ridge, The Gakkel ridge indicates its "atlantic" end is at Greenland, but it is unclear to me why the Gakkel isn't considered a piece of the Mid-atlantic.Naraht (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Applying preferences on all wikis

Is there a way to automatically apply the same preferences to my account on all Wikimedia wikis? (cathartid) 01:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, because each Wikipedia has potentially different preferences you can set. From the help: " Each of your account's preferences are independent because each wiki is a website, with their own administration (namespaces, settings, accounts, etc.). Even the word "Preferences" on the top may be set differently! At Simple Wikipedia it says "My settings"." RudolfRed (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery formatting in Fausto Veranzio

I converted a set of images in Fausto Veranzio#Urbanist and engineer in Rome and Venice to a gallery. The gallery is formatting oddly. There are six images. If the browser window is wide enough to put the five on the first line, the sixth image, alone on the second line, is under the *fourth* image. If the browser window is wide enough to put four images on the first line, the fifth image ends up alone on the second line under the fourth image, and the sixth image ends up alone of the third line under the first image. I suspect this may have something to do with (the size of) the caption text, but I suspect there has to be some way to fix this. But I can't seem to find it. Current Firefox, BTW. Rwessel (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you remove the caption text, it lines up as you'd probably expect with the sixth image below the first. Dismas|^(talk) 02:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I don't want to remove the captions. Rwessel (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying you should. That said, how do you like this? Dismas|^(talk) 02:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely. Thank you. I wonder why the template doesn't work? Rwessel (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's discussed at Template talk:Gallery#Large galleries not displaying properly. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of flag

(moved from talk page Rwessel (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Hi there, I revised the content on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unanimous_A.I. since it was flagged for advertisement content. Just wanted to see if someone had the time to review and clear up.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgonzalez512 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgonzalez512: question move to correct page (here). Rwessel (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Queenie van de Zandt

I have added citation needed tags but they are red. Is this good? I have also added the notability tag. I also feel that this page does not meet the criteria for Notability. Please check Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They were red because you used {{citation}} which is for placing a reference. The correct template is {{cn}}. Also, if you don't believe the person meets notability then either PROD it or AFD it. --Majora (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Boleyn

Ref number 25 has not worked out. I have tried to cut and paste. Please fix ThanksSrbernadette (talk) 03:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you think is wrong with the ref but the text had extra brackets in it which I've removed. Dismas|^(talk) 03:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Eddy and Jeanette MacDonald

I don't how you can build a whole romance between Nelson Eddy and Jeanette McDonald out od myths. lies and rumors. This has to be Nelson Eddy's greatest revenge. My mother was a great fan of McDonald. Her father, my grandfather was an opera singer in Italy and she knew things many people did not. They wrote to each other for 20 years.

What happened was after a long day of filming They went to dinner. It was early in their relationship and were new to each other. After dinner, they had drinks art a club and had a wonderful time together. When he dropped her off, they kissed, lightly and he said he would call the next day because they were not filming that day. In the 30s a night of love could be of such small things. An embrace, a small kiss, a special dance. It meant so much to Jeanette for Eddy to call her that next day. Eddy had 12 things he had to do that day. He did nine of them. Calling Jeanette was not one of them. The following day when they were filming, Jeanette walked up to Eddy in the haughty gait of hers, stopped and slapped Eddy hard across his face. The director said, "No, no, that's not in the script" or something like that. Eddy never forgot it and they spent the rest of their 04:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)film lives hating each other. One more thing, Jeanette told my mother that one of their actor friends was gay and sometimes they would him in his secret which may be why they thought Raymond was gay. No I will not tell you who he was. Why shatter his image now after all these years? I will be 88 years old on June 5th and I thought it was about time I said something.67.235.174.222 (talk)

Hello, Anonymous user. Thank you for your comments. I'm afraid that Wikipedia is not the place for "righting great wrongs": we only work on reliably published information, not personal recollections or unpublished memoirs. If your version of events has been published by a reliable source such as a major newspaper or a reliable publisher, then it can be added to the article; but the version in the article appears to be supported by reliable sources, so it would stay as well. If there are no published sources for your account, then I'm afraid it can't be inserted into the article, because there is no way for a reader in the future to verify it. --ColinFine (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

info needed

Can I get a list of articles (4-5 each are enough) that are protected under pending changes protection, 30/500 arbitration protection, template protection. thanks --VarunFEB2003 (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia pending changes protected pages (level 1), Category:Wikipedia pages under 30-500 editing restriction, Category:Wikipedia template-protected templates (note that the latter are templates, not articles). --David Biddulph (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can also find protected pages at Special:ProtectedPages in all wikis. Categories are added by templates and other page content and may not reflect the real protection status. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Due process of blocks

There seems to be some cases where there's a long due process like arbitration or mediation and there's all these people weighing-in before there's any sanction etc...and sometimes people get carefully crafted topic bans etc...but then other times people are just blocked on the spot by one admin for "disruptive editing" with no due process at all...is what I describe true to any extent? Or am I missing something?68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@68.48.241.158: Yes, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. 'Disruptive editing' is typically obvious vandalism which no editor would really question. Other times a block is of a much shorter period of time to allow editors to cool off. WP:AN/I is for deeper disputes between two genuine editors. Disruptive editing blocks are usually pretty justified. Any example you have in mind? -NottNott|talk Notify with {{re}} 12:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want to bring in new examples because then I'd have to start running around notifying people again..but you can take a look at this I suppose, thread a started on admin noticeboard yesterday: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Explain_this_block_to_me (imo the no due process aspect led to the editor who was less wrong blocked for two weeks while the other editor wasn't sanctioned at all..and probably should have been)...I also think "Boomerang" is a complete disaster and used to intimidate whistleblowers....this boomerang garbage has to go imo...68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@68.48.241.158: Based on MusikAnimal's description of things, the IP was aware of what edit warring is and Jim1138 was simply trying to remove the messages in per WP:NOTFORUM - a policy. Even though it was posted in the revert summary the IP still continued to readd the post. Furthermore the IP has made some dodgy edits in the past. Ultimately, while I think two weeks might be too long given the message the IP left (in good faith, this should be shortened) they should definitely have been blocked to some extent. -NottNott|talk Notify with {{re}} 13:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in that instance imo jim1138 erroneously defined something as forum all on his own and then started edit warring over it (and beat the other guy to 3 reverts)..so I don't get the general sympathy with Jim1138 in this instance...but don't really care right now about the particular incident..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and I don't know if technically this cast of characters should have to be notified again about this thread now as (sorta unintentionally) they are being discussed again..idk..prefer to not discuss them...just address post below please..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it fair to say there simply is no due process (ie there's no 'right' to any due process)..I mean this by design...ie if you put in too much process things grind to a halt...the notion is that things are done by consensus....but admins can act without consensus in the realm of blocks but I suppose only be overturned by the consensus of at least two other admins? I'm curious about examples of admins admonishing other admins...does this ever happen? or is there a thin blue line of silence? (this is the sense I get)...and where is the place where admins might be formally admonished/stripped of their adminship...I think there's a place for this but haven't found it (again, just trying to get a sense of how things work for the purpose of potentially proposing even small changes)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing to note is that we basically trust the admins to do the right thing: they have been selected through the somewhat arduous WP:RfA process and they very rarely cause any problems at all. Further, on enwiki the admins are accountable to the community: everything they do is logged. Regarding unblocking: only one admin is required to unblock someone, and this can't be the same as the blocking admin. Further, if the user really thinks they are being treated unfairly then they can always email the arbitration committee at the very least. Yes, there is a degree of blind trust we place in the admins to make good judgements on the intentions of a disruptive user, but they are in no way unaccountable for their actions. As a side note, deadminship is handled by arbcom, see here. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 18:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

68.48, do me a favor and drop the fucking WP:Stick! Every time you've been blocked, you did so for legit reasons, and every time you appeal was denied, it was because you refused to follow instructions and blamed everyone else for your block. Continuing this crusade of yours to "reform" the block system will do nothing; your only course of action going forward is to stop acting like a child, drop your battleground mentality, and start being a collaborative editor.142.105.159.60 (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will do you no such favors...and this is at least the second time you should have been (legitimately) blocked...after your vulgar behavior at "black supremacy" talk etc...68.48.241.158 (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing by a company representaive

I'm a pharmaceutical company representative (Horizon Pharma) and need to know if I, as a company representative, am allowed to edit the company page that currently exists and was developed by another user. Specifically, on the Horizon Pharma page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_Pharma), John Kody CCO needs to be removed from the "Key People" box on the right side of the page as he is no longer with the company. Source - 8K SEC filing - http://ir.horizon-pharma.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1193125-16-429926&CIK=1492426.

If I am able to edit the page, I will proceed.

Geoffrey Curtis SVP, Corporate Communications Horizon Pharma plc

14:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoffreyCurtis (talk • contribs)

I think in practice just make the edit and declare on the talkpage your COI and that you made the edit, linking to the source....technically you should probably just propose the change on the talkpage but then who knows how long it might be until someone comes around to actually make the change...68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

write "see talk page" in edit summary too..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geoffrey. Please see Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest Policy. In short, while its frowned upon to edit when you have conflict of interest, it is allowed. While I'd encourage you not to do major changes like rewrite the company's history, something a simple and objective as removing a key person from a listing, should not be a problem, as long as its something you can verify. If someone opposes your edit, then you'd just have to discuss it on the talk page and try to come to an agreement before re-adding it. Let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 15:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd like to publicly thank Mr. Curtis for asking the question here.Naraht (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the assistance.

Geoffrey Curtis — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoffreyCurtis (talk • contribs) 19:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing I'd like to point out is that Wikipedia is not for advertising. In fact doing so may get the page deleted quickly. I'm not saying you will do this. I'm just letting you know. -- Gestrid (talk) 03:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Policy Changes

as a hypothetical let's say I made a proposal at community pump that only admins be allowed to close threads at ANI (I have made a proposal along these lines but that doesn't matter for this)...and hypothetically after a month exactly 6 people weighed-in, five strongly supporting and one opposed...would this constitute consensus for me to march over to ANI and declare the new rule?? I'm assuming not...but how are things done then, particularly since not that many people participate in proposal discussions etc??68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you really have to worry about this scenario. Even ignoring the fact that your proposals have not gone over well so far, the fact of the matter is, with a proposal like this, that would have such a massive effect on how AN/ANI operates (and as such, how the whole websites handles a great deal of conflict), there would be a ton of input, way way more than 5 or 6 people commenting. I'm also fairly certain a Bureaucrat or experienced Admin would announce such a thing. Regardless, my point being, it would be a massive discussion, and its implementation would be done through many experienced members. You wouldn't have to worry about it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

would announce such a thing where? is there someplace other than community pump for such things? would it just be a matter of making a RfC and trying to get maybe 20 or so people to weigh-in? and what if 16 to 4 supported it? would that do it? Or what? What's the process? Is there one?68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to getting it started: It would probably just be an RFC held at the Village Pump (policy), probably with an notification/link at AN.
In regards to the steps after there is a clear consensus: Again, I wouldn't worry about it, experienced editors would carry it out, they wouldn't expect you to do so. Also, I'm not sure if you have when editing just as an IP address, but I know there's sometimes little notifications I see when logging in, especially on the WP:WATCHLIST, alerting me to things. (Like comment at active WP:RFA and whatnot.) They might do an announcement through those means, though I'm not sure what the criteria is for doing such a thing. But yeah, you can wait and worry about that if/when you get there. Based off the discussions I've seen so far, I'd find it very unlikely it would pass anyways. Because of the way Wikipedia operates on the basis of WP:CONSENSUS and particularly WP:NOCONSENSUS, (No consensus equals no change, in short) its not very often massive changes garner enough support to happen. Much like RFA - there are many who propose changes to it, but they never garner enough support to enact a change. Sergecross73 msg me 16:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

are you aware of any relatively "massive" change that garnered consensus and was implemented in the past couple of years and could link to so I can see how it played out?68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:RFA reform, Wikipedia:VisualEditor/2014 RFC, Wikipedia:PC2012. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I'll try poking around them a bit..68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problem loading page

Attempting first edit ever Page appears stuck with rotating flower petal emblem. Assume it means it's directing somewhere but it won't Stop. I've closed Wikipedia, also rebooted iPhone. Page remains "frozen" regardless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DawgLady (talk • contribs) 19:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DawgLady: I don't have a mobile device but I'm currently unable to edit the mobile version of Wikipedia in Firefox on my desktop computer. It usually works. Do you have a "Desktop" link at the bottom of pages? If so, can you edit after clicking that? PrimeHunter (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File does not exist but link is blue.

Regarding the file link in this notice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SM_Supermalls#File:SM_City_Sta_Mesa.jpg_Nominated_for_Deletion

It links to a file on commons. Clicking the link leads to a page that says the file has been deleted. Why is the link blue and not red? RudolfRed (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I click on that link I'm seeing a 'semi-protected edit request'... Eagleash (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is the last section on the page. Go up a few sections to the deletion nomination. RudolfRed (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The link says [[commons:File:SM City Sta Mesa.jpg|File:SM City Sta Mesa.jpg]] and produces File:SM City Sta Mesa.jpg. Links to other wikis never indicate whether the page exists. commons:No such page is also blue (light blue to indicate an interwiki link). See Help:Link color. [[:File:SM City Sta Mesa.jpg]] produces a red link: File:SM City Sta Mesa.jpg. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. RudolfRed (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]