Help desk
< May 16	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 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.

May 17

Author of source insists on prominently crediting himself in article body

I wrote an article about a recording artist named Charles A. Asbury that was largely based on biographical research recently published in a reissue album and accompanying booklet. I should have done a better job citing all statements informed by that source, but now the author of that publication (Wikipedia user Ricmarti) has edited in a statement about his research at the top of the article and reverted my attempts to bring the article back to Wikipedia standards (by removing preliminary statements and adding citations - see edit history). I'm not going to continue editing the page because I think the author is taking my edits personally but if a more experienced editor could look at this and take any appropriate actions I'd appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masonvl (talk • contribs) 02:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Masonvl: Hello, I have restored the page, tidied it up a bit and left a message at the other editor's talk page. The edits aren't really acceptable and if they continue the editor should be reported as disruptive or WP:NOTHERE. Please sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 04:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Switching between visual and source editing

I have only recently discovered and started using the visual editor occationally for citations, but I think that I'm coming to the conclusion that it's more trouble than it's worth, mainly because of the inability to switch easily between the two types of editors. It seems to lose edits unless you publish every time before switching, and also I found that after publishing via source and then trying to edit again via source that it gave that warning again about losing edits, even though I had not edited anything at that point. Is there a bug, am I missing something, or is it just like this because one is not expected to switch between the different editors? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're missing anything. The Visual Editor was not requested by editors, it was foisted on us by the Wikimedia Foundation. I also, after several attempts to use it, have concluded that it's more trouble than it's worth. Maproom (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: Okay, thanks for that. I think I'll just forget about it myself. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Laterthanyouthink: I can switch between editors on the pencil icon without losing work. I have Firefox in case it matters. But I dislike VisualEditor and don't use it. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Hmmm, that's odd. I also use Firefox. I am more used to the source editor and also didn't much like VE - but perhaps I'll experiment further one day... (Right now, also experiencing mouse problems, having to drag my wireless mouse around the desk multiple times to move around, which doesn't help!) Thanks for that. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Laterthanyouthink:I'm very aware that many editors, including some highly respected editors in Wikipedia are not big fans of visual editor. I tried it early on. Founded had many problems and stayed away for some time. I tried again more recently and I now use it on a fairly regular basis. It can't do everything (or perhaps that means I simply haven't learned how to do certain things) but it does something so well I wouldn't want to be without it.

You mentioned use it for citations. This is an area that was problematic early on but now is quite good. Almost always, when I'm having a citation I use visual editor. The ability to drop in a URL and have a create the citation (about 99% of all cases) or just drop in an ISBN and have create the citation for you is wonderful. I know some longtime editors are very skilled with citations and may find it easy to create them with the other editor, but for new editors, creating citations can be a pain in the visual editor makes it much easier.

Do you ever have occasion to edit tables? This is an area where the visual editor stumbled badly early on but now does a decent job. While I can find some counterexamples, in many cases when I want to add a row to a table or edit an entry, it is much easier in visual editor.

I do note that sometimes I have to switch from one to the other and I have to be careful to make sure I don't lose something, but as I almost always composed material in an external editor I almost never lose anything unless it's just a couple words.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick: Thanks for that, I'll keep it in mind. I've rarely edited tables, but may do more as I become more proficient. I did find it handy for generating the citations, but found switching between the two editors problematical as I had to keep saving and that slowed me down. I have only just begun composing my first full article in my sandbox, and keep thinking that it would be useful to have more than one sandbox, or be able to partition it into different articles (a side issue, but I haven't found a way of using a separate editor apart from my sandbox, as yet). I will have another go at using VE sometime and see if I can get used to it though. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Laterthanyouthink: You can make many sandboxes, e.g. at User:Laterthanyouthink/sandbox2, User:Laterthanyouthink/sandbox3, ... See Wikipedia:User pages#Terminology and page locations. I guess Sphilbrick uses a normal text editor and copy-pastes text between that editor and Wikipedia's source editor. I often do that. In Windows software, Ctrl+a will mark all, Ctrl+c will copy it to the clipboard, and Ctrl+v will insert it elsewhere. The source editor also has a tool to help make citations from a url, ISBN or other resource. If you have a toolbar above the edit box with "Cite" to the right then click that, select a template to the left, fill out a field with a magnifying glass, and click the magnifying glass. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Ah, I see - I thought that there must be a way of doing that! That makes sense. (I know about the Windows shortcuts - just finding my way around the finer points of Wiki editing still.) And I'd never noticed that shortcut to the citation templates at the top - I have just had a play with it and that will be very handy too. Thanks very much! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not trust that whatever is returned by a magic citation filler tool is correct. For example: ISBN 9783161484100 using reftoolbar produces this:

{{cite book|last1=Maps|first1=Peekaboo|title=Berkeley, Oakland : Albany, Emeryville, Alameda, Kensington|date=2009|publisher=Peek A Boo Maps|location=[Berkeley?]|isbn=9783161484100|edition= 1st}}

Maps, Peekaboo (2009). Berkeley, Oakland : Albany, Emeryville, Alameda, Kensington (1st ed.). [Berkeley?]: Peek A Boo Maps. ISBN 9783161484100.

That template is malformed: |last= and |first= have variants of the publisher name; |location= is uncertain; |edition= has extraneous text. I don't use visual editor but I suspect that it will produce a different result, perhaps equally malformed.

If you follow the isbn link above to Google books, to Amazon, to WorldCat, you will see that each lists multiple items for that same isbn. The data for the above citation came from WorldCat which is a not-so-well curated database. If the tool works and does fetch data that matches the source that you consulted, great, but you must always check. The magic tools all have limitations and are absolutely dependent on the quality of the database(s) they use. Always check your results when using these tools.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An Old Nuking of an Article

Hello,

I recently came across this article on Nancy Jacobson, which ought to adhere to WP:BLP. The page seemed odd to me, as it had this long protracted section on No Labels, and barely anything anywhere else. After looking at the history, I came across edit by Jason775, as seen here. In a single edit, 2/3rds of the page was deleted, in the name of "updated and summarized content".

I was wondering what would be the best way to move forwards? Should I try to restore some of the old information, as it is useful to understanding who Nancy Jacobson is? I am hesitant about making any reverts, since this nuking happened back in 2009....

Thanks in advance for your help!

ChunyangD (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ChunyangD, thanks for getting in touch. I think the edit you meant to point us to was this one, from 2016 (not 2009). In this and a few subsequent edits Jason775 reduced Jacobson's career prior to No Labels to a single sentence, which is perhaps going too far: articles should show a due balance between past and more recent activities in proportion to the coverage they have received in independent sources (not what we editors think important or would like to emphasize or downplay). Jason only ever edited that one article and hasn't edited at all for over a year. Further discussion of the content could appropriately take place at the article's talk page : Noyster (talk), 19:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noyster, thanks for the response! Yes, I linked the wrong edit and you found the right one - I'm not sure how I mixed up the dates as well! Given your encouragement, I have created a talk post on the article and will try to restore some of the old information. While that information was slightly out of date, I think I can restructure it in a meaningful way. I'm still fairly new regarding adding large sections to a Wikipedia article, so feel free to drop by and check out the page after the weekend and let me know if I'm doing anything wrong. Thanks! ChunyangD (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Little

Hello,

In the article Brad Little (politician) section "Lieutenant Governor of Idaho", there are boards that are not working. Could someone set the data straight please? Thanks!

WhatsUpWorld (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why there was a fistful of nowiki tags, but I have removed them in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

How do I get my company details listed on Wikipedia. I own and run Netkiosk

Thank you for any advice — Preceding unsigned comment added by AimeSnijders (talk • contribs) 18:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AimeSnijders. I need to explain that Wikipedia is not a business listing. Like any encyclopedia, it carries articles about companies when they are considered "notable". They become "notable" by virtue of the published coverage they have obtained in sources independent of the company itself. Owners and employees of companies are in fact actively discouraged from creating or editing articles about their own companies, owing to their "conflict of interest": Noyster (talk), 19:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noyster.

Sorry if I am not to familiar with communicating in Wikipedia. I know that Wikipedia is not a business listing. I also know a listing should not be done by ourselves. So who in the end will publish any company information on wikipedia (if we can't do it ;) Netkiosk has been around for 7 years. I regularly find other companies with a listing on Wikipedia. So was wondering how I as owner founder of Netkiosk can also be found on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AimeSnijders (talk • contribs) 19:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For example I use Statcounter mysself and saw them on wikipedia. If it was not them who published their info and logos then who did. But more importantly who can I ask to publish an independent listing for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AimeSnijders (talk • contribs) 19:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All you can do here is post on our Requested articles page for companies. Include a couple of links to some of the most extensive published coverage of your company, so editors can see there is something to work from. I'd have to add that Wikipedia, like life in general, is not always fair: this being a volunteer project, there is no way to enforce prioritisation of work done within our policies and guidelines. The more you develop your business, thus attracting wide attention in the outside world, the better the chances that there will ultimately be a Wikipedia article about it: Noyster (talk), 22:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy Statement

Does Wikipedia have a privacy statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.77.150.79 (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom of pages have a Privacy policy link. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Too many edits?

Just curious if there is any policy, guideline or help page at Wikipedia that suggests that there is such thing as too many edits, specifically, multiple edits of the same page (and even the same section) at the same time (like this)? — AjaxSmack 21:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AjaxSmack: There are many edits in that sequence (from 2014, and over several days), but there was a lot of editing being done to different parts of the article. Don't think there is any objection to this if not done disruptively: it's sometimes recommended, indeed, as here. With smaller edits, if someone sees a problem with one particular change, it is easier to revert just that change, or to identify it with a diff for discussion: Noyster (talk), 21:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't have a particular problem with it; it was just mild curiosity. The example I gave probably wasn't the best (this is more what I wasn't thinking of). I've just had the experience several times of wading through pages of edit history looking for an edit and wondering if there was any good reason for every little edit to be saved separately. — AjaxSmack 02:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page Creation

How do you create a page on a subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizzylocal (talk • contribs) 21:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See this guide to writing your first article, which will help teach you some of the rules and policies on Wikipedia. Note that only autoconfirmed users (those with at least 10 edits over 3 days) can make articles on their own; newer users must do it through the articles for creation process. Also, may I ask what specifically you wish to write about - I might be able to give some more specific advice. LittlePuppers (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I keep being puzzled why answers on this page even mention the possibility of creating a new article directly (which is the only context in which the restriction to autoconfirmed users applies). I would always advise any editor, new or old, to use the Article Wizard to create a draft, unless they were very sure that they could get the article up to an acceptable standard on the very first try. --ColinFine (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]