Help desk
< February 27	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	March 1 >

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.

February 28

new article

how can a new article be published without review process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uqbarist (talk • contribs) 01:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Uqbarist: If someone has to ask that question, chances are they need the review process.

But if you follow these instructions I wrote exactly, you can write an article that will be approved quite soon. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Uqbarist: Please don't repeat the identical question as you've just done at the Help desk and the Teahouse (possibly twice there)! We are volunteers, and doing that just wastes people's time by duplicating effort. Wait a day or so before posting the same question elsewhere in future. Thank you! Nick Moyes (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technical question

On some pages such as this one, and I think, talk pages in general, I have lost the ability to enter my own edit summary and instead I am given the choice of two boxes for either common edit summaries or common minor edit summaries. I don't 'commonly' use any of the options given in either box so is there any way of putting my own summaries in, or can I get rid of it all together? Thanks --Ykraps (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, and go down to the section on "Editing" and check the first box disabling the boxed edit summaries. Lourdes 08:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ykraps: If you use the "New section" tab then there is never an edit summary box. The edit summary automatically becomes the section heading followed by "new section". If you click an edit link then the edit summary box should be present even if you have enabled the gadget. Does that fail for you? If it does then what is your skin at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering and what is your browser? PrimeHunter (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunter Ah, that makes sense. I have recently started a number of discussions and used the new section button to do so. I have never noticed before because usually I join one that's already started. Lourdes, that works too, thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two authors, same surname, same year

Ok, in History of anarchism, two authors published their books in the same year (2005). It's Graham Robert and Graham Helena. How to deal with it so {{sfn}} will work properly? Cinadon36 (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sfn#More_than_one_author_with_the_same_last_name. Ask if you need more information. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Martin of Sheffield, I had already look at that page but missed the section. Cinadon36 (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edited my page and it has drastically changed

Hi Wikimedia,

I have been editing the information on my page and I lost the tables and it doesn’t look the same, is there any way it can be changed back?

I am so sad, I use it for work purposes…please can you help me.

Amanda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss77Newton (talk • contribs) 18:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to your page, so perhaps you are confused about page ownership? If you are referring to an article about you, you need to read about conflict of interest and about autobiography. As it is, there have been no previous edits from your account, so would you like us to try to guess to which article you are referring? --David Biddulph (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Miss77Newton: The good news: All previous versions of Amanda Newton are available. Click on the "history" tab at the top of the page. The bad news: as David said, since you are the subject, you should not edit this page directly at all (except possibly to remove unsourced information: see WP:BLP) You will also now need to make a disclosure on your talk page that you are the subject, because "since you use this professionally" you are in effect a paid editor. See WP:PAID. None of this should be too big a deal, since I suspect the changes you want will be non-controversial and will get added in with no problems. Just make the request on the talk page of the article. -Arch dude (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox disappeared because its ending line with }} was removed in this edit, maybe by you before creating an account. The code has since been restored. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

a little confused

On this page, I happened to add a copyvio-revdel tag. And I saw that a few paragraphs or sentences were copied from a url/ link twice. Then after I got rid of the summary. But does the tag has to be there if it was still copied? As a different episode summary was written from scratch, later on. And is no longer there and someone else took out the tag? Tainted-wingsz (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tainted-wingsz:, The tag should have gone at the top of the article, not the section. At any rate, Masumrezarock100 removed it, although they shouldn't have since the copyvio was still publicly visible in article history. I have gone ahead and deleted the offending revisions now, so it's ok that it's gone now. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah? O.k. Lately the user just seems to rush things. Than just slow down and follow the MoS. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for being so impatient. It's just after you removed it someone later added a new summary so I thought I should remove the tag. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 21:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that, here's a set of rules under this "umbrella". And while some one is doing something. It made a concern at rule or guideline number... But whatever is happening, what if you report that concern and another user "only" read half of the rules/ guidelines. (So, you would need to read every thing to understand it, first.) Then, wait until the problem is fixed. Which was my concern. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Affric

Please do the italics for publisher and correct if necessary for ref number 8 - I don't think its correct. Thanks. Srbernadette (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite journal tells you which parameters are italicised. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page number - 208 - remains in the wrong place but I am sorry but I cannot correct it. Shall we just leave it even though it makes no sense? Srbernadette (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the reference. The reference was to a letter received in the letters to the editor section of the magazine. That is unreliable. Lourdes 06:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with Lourdes, the reference added nothing that wasn't already referenced by a more reliable source. Grinner (talk) 08:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion

The articles I submitted have been recommended for deletion, but the editors said they wouldn't have a problem if they were re-created by someone else. How do i do this? Do i have to delete the articles before I can request they are written by someone else? How do i request such a thing? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnieCR 1991 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Annie. Don't worry about how to delete them. The more important issue here is that as per some of the editors (such as Robert McClenon), your edits are presumably giving them an impression that you seem to be making financially motivated contributions to Wikipedia, creating a conflict of interest while creating these articles. In case you have some financial relation, directly or indirectly, with the subjects of those articles, then you need to immediately comply with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:AnnieCR 1991, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=AnnieCR 1991|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. Lourdes 06:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]