Help desk
< March 17	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 19 >

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.

March 18

place for this discussion

Where is this discussion best placed to be seen by people who are competent in the area? I think I added that conversation in the wrong location; there has been no replies so far. --Gryllida (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Village Pump is a good location for it. – Teratix ₵ 02:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't undo edit due to blacklisted link

I screwed up badly with this edit and saved an old version of California. Can somebody with power undo it for me? Or can somebody tell me who to contact? Thanks Brycehughes (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god people are editing the page now... Brycehughes (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, somebody did it. Phew! Brycehughes (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brycehughes: It's also worth pointing out that there's a bot that automatically fixes the error you were trying to fix. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brycehughes, three options. (1) If you had rollback, you could have just used it on the edit in question, since rollback isn't affected by the blacklist. Since you weren't a rollbacker, I've just given you that right. (2) Normally, an admin can delete the page and restore all the edits prior to the problematic one, although unfortunately that's not the case with California, as its 10,315 edits put the page into WP:BIGDELETE territory. (3) If the issue is with an item on the local blacklist, WP:BLACK, an admin can remove the item and then put it back when the page history is back to normal. Nyttend (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Pppery. Yeah I've seen Anomie Bot around but that link hadn't been fixed for quite some time... I wonder why Anomie was hesitating. @Nyttend, thanks for the user right! Brycehughes (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do if I realize a warning I gave to a user was a mistake?

Last year I left a {{uw-vandal2}} warning on someone's talk page after they made what I believed to be a vandalous edit. I now realize that their edit was valid and not deserving of reversion or a warning. Their edit has already been redone, but I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do about the invalid warning. I don't want to just leave it there, should I just remove it? Should I reply to the warning stating that it was a mistake? I know I should apologize to the user, but I don't want to do so until I've handled the warning. I couldn't find any information about what to do in this situation anywhere else, so I thought I'd ask here. Thank you! — Katie <3 (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Katie. Since it was placed sometime back, I would post a note below it, and ping the user. It's too late to remove the notice. Reh man 04:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you ~~cross it out~~? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on how they take it, striking it out of the blue would be confusing and/or rude since it has been months since the warning. Reh man 06:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Katie lt3. Whenever I realize that I have made a mistake in warning another editor, I immediately go to their talk page and apologize for my error. This is a complex project and all active editors make mistakes sometimes. Admitting and apologizing for your mistakes is the sign of a mature, responsible editor, and it is the right thing to do. Your apology will enhance your reputation as an ethical editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to do

I found three redirect pages that seem to be inappropriate for their destination article. The three redirect pages are:

The destination article is the civil rights movement. The three redirects are too broad to redirect to a specific historical event. In the United States, the term "civil rights" has a legal meaning that applies to U.S. state governments and private individuals and prevents those entities from discriminating against individuals. I thought Civil and political rights may be a better fit, but that term seems to apply to the world and not solely to the United States. I also checked the "What links here" link to see if any country specific redirects are connected to "Civil and political rights", but there are none. I don't want to propose the three redirects for deletion, because they seem like possible future articles. I do want to remove them as redirects for their current destination article, but beyond that I'm not sure how to proceed. Mitchumch (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitchumch:Convert Civil rights of the United States into an article, then redirect the others to it. A very short stub article will suffice for now, but mark it as a stub and explain why you added it on its talk page. At a bare minimum, a sentence and link to the movement article should be there to serve the purpose the redirect serves now. Technically, you should provide at least two references to reliable sources: this should be very easy given the massive number of books on the subject. -Arch dude (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was reluctant to do it. But, it's done. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Does Openstreetmap has protection imposed similar to Wikipedia? that a specific regions or a node or a way or all nodes contained in the way to protected and can be edit by a certain of users only? If has, how to tell a specific data or region has been protected before I make a edit?Wifik3r8bLk2Zr (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about you first go back to the ref desk and explain your interest in peaches. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: Huh?

@Wifik3r8bLk2Zr: You may have better luck with your question at https://www.openstreetmap.org/help. –FlyingAce^✈hello 15:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Windsor

Dear Help team, Today, I was informed by a friend that my Wikipaedia page had been anonomously edited on 9th January this year. The changes were inaccuarate and a deliberate sabotage of my character. Are these posts able to be removed from my page or my page taken down? Yours sincerely, Anna — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:260A:4F00:55C4:B900:7FE7:4D44 (talk) 12:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're not allowed to own a page. You could discuss this with whoever made the changes, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anna, there were indeed some edits made in January which were outside Wikipedia's policies. They were not anonymous though. However, the inappropriate material was removed with this edit. It is still searchable in the page history though. If you are not happy about this use the contact link on the left of any page to request what is known as 'Revdel'. This will hide the content but not stop it being added again if the editor has a mind to do so. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unconnected to the above request. The whole article as it stood this morning was copyright violation. It was a a copy and paste from the Orange City Sporting Hall of Fame website. I've reverted the article to a version from last year, prior to the addition of the material. - X201 (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've performed revision deletion going back to the point the copyright material was added, which also hides in the page history the unsourced negative material added in January. I'm not sure if this qualifies for oversight as well; I will email the oversight team. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Posting a stub

Are local online papers considered a reliable source to use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuaaAfifi (talk • contribs) 12:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DuaaAfifi: By and large, if it is an online version of a print newspaper then it would normally be considered acceptable if it has a reasonable hard copy circulation or is one owned or published by one of the major local news outlets (E.g. Newsquest Media Group.) Minor papers covering a small area, less acceptable. If in doubt don't use it. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of citations of the Huaorani page

On this page, many important facts seem to lack citations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huaorani_people

Should we remove these uncited facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelda120! (talk • contribs) 13:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Zelda120!, if you think it needs a citation but doesn't have one, you can remove it. See WP:UNSOURCED. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inventor of the Magnetic Eyeglass Holder

Hello, My name is Eitan Horovitz and I am the original inventor of the Magnetic Eyeglass Holder.

Title: Small article holder including magnet means United States Patent 6260749

Abstract: A simple holder is provided for holding a desired small article to an article of clothing. The holder is provided by the operational combination of a base member of a selected appearance, the base including a magnetizable area thereon. Holding means are secured to the base member for holding a desired small article thereto or therein. The holder is in cooperative combination with a permanent magnet. The base member may be secured to the front of an article of clothing by means of magnetic attraction between the magnetizable area adjacent the front of the clothing and the permanent magnet at a corresponding area at the back of the article of clothing. The selected small article can then be held by the holding means.

Inventors: Horovitz, Eitan (861 Hollander Rd., Newmarket, CA) Application Number: 09/418491 Publication Date: 07/17/2001 Filing Date: 10/15/1999 Export Citation: Click for automatic bibliography generation Assignee: HOROVITZ EITAN Primary Class: 224/183 Other Classes: 24/3.3, 206/5, 224/251, 224/901 International Classes: A45F5/02; A45C11/04; (IPC1-7): A45F5/00 Field of Search: 224/183, 224/251, 224/268, 224/901, 24/3.1, 24/3.3, 24/3.7, 24/3.8, 24/303, 206/5, 206/37, 248/683 View Patent Images: Download PDF 6260749 PDF help US Patent References: 5941487 Retainer for holding eyeglasses 1999-08-24 Keely 5864924 Eyeglass holder 1999-02-02 Rodriguez 5845369 Eye glass holder 1998-12-08 Dunchock 5810310 Holder for eyeglasses 1998-09-22 Seach 5758807 Pocketless screw holder 1998-06-02 Wright 224/183 5682653 Magnetic fastening device 1997-11-04 Berglof et al. 224/183 5613661 Holder for eyeglasses 1997-03-25 Seach 5551126 Button-on holder for eyeglasses — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.96.4 (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Idea, but unclear what you want. This area is for seeking help editing Wikipedia, not publishing your inventions. WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Wikipedia is not for publicizing your inventions; Wikipedia only covers subjects that are already published in independent reliable sources. In other words, when uninvolved parties choose to write about your invention, it might then merit an article. If it does, you shouldn't be the one to write it. 331dot (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New page was deleted, and addition of a Bed and Breakfast hotel was deleted

Hello. I recently made a page about a local hotel that has an interesting factual history, built as a residence, then used as a hostile to home homeless and abused children, then turned into a bed and breakfast. I made it short and concise to start with and it was already deleted for no legit reason. I have nothing to do with the hotel or bed and breakfast but feel it should be on Wiki as its history and timeline of events are very interesting and factual. Hope to hear from someone soon. Thanks. Referencing "Southern Grace Bed & Breakfast" that was deleted as well as the adding-in of "Southern Grace Bed & Breakfast" as a Hotel in Kentucky on wikipedia which was also quickly deleted as if it was not a hotel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthernGraceBB (talk • contribs) 18:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SouthernGraceBB: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You say that you have nothing to do with the hotel or B&B, but you use its name as your username; that usually suggests a relationship. If you do have nothing to do with the hotel, you should visit Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS to put in a username change request. Business names are not permitted as usernames; usernames must reflect that an individual uses the account. Looking at your edit history, I see no drafts by you that were deleted; you have edited your sandbox and that is still there, though it is not suitable for a Wikipedia article at this time. This facility will need to have been written about in independent reliable sources to merit an article, and only then if it meets the special definition of notability Wikipedia has. Your entry to the list of hotels was removed as there is not yet an article; list articles like that are not for listing every such facility in existence, only those that merit articles. 331dot (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)SouthernGraceBB, I don't see where any of your contributions are to deleted pages. The draft article you started in your sandbox is still there. Your addition to List of hotels in the United States was reverted. Because you have chosen to use the name of the hotel as your username, it looks like you are trying to advertise the hotel. I recommend you change your username, then read Your First Article and take the advice provided there to heart as you continue to work on the draft. When the draft is ready, put "{{subst:submit}}" on top of it and a reviewer will come by and review it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SouthernGraceBB:before you spend any further time on this effort, please convince yourself that your subject is notable by our definition, not yours. See WP:N. An article about a notable subject, (almost) no matter how poorly constructed, will be retained and improved. An article about a non-notable subject, no matter how beautifully written, will be deleted. -Arch dude (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

French translation of a JSTOR source

Greetings, does someone know how to translate a JSTOR source for an article/is someone willing to? The source is this one and the article it's for is Huaynaputina. Thanks in advance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus You could ask some of those listed at Wikipedia:Translators available#French-to-English : Bhunacat10 (talk), 10:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Seems like only a few of these users (@Sadenar40000, André Devecserii, Evangeline, Jungegift, Kudpung, and Tvx1:) have been active lately. Well, I have the source here, so let's ask... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to sign. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus - all 28 pages? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have no idea.Sadenar40000 (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Seems like 20 pages when excluding references, images and the abstract. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think Kudpung's point is not the exact number but the real need. Even a quick-and-dirty translation of that amount will take someone more than an hour (and even more for academic writing where you need some familiarity with the concepts at hand etc.). If you know already that you need a couple of figures or locations or names etc., locating them and providing a translation of the appropriate passage instead of the whole thing will be considerably easier (and thus, you will find a volunteer quicker).

If it is a the latter, I can help you out, but I do not have JSTOR access. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, while I have JSTOR access it doesn't seem like just a few pages will be enough and it's apparently a major aspect of the topic. Maaybe one of the 1300 other sources has the same information, but from dip sampling that seems an unlikely prospect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding to one wiki page about game, but I can't figure out, if I need to find good enough sources for "game story/plot", or I can write it by myself, using proper language?

while preparing to make a page, I noticed that sites with reviews have 1-2 sentences about story/plot. Can I write plot by myself, or do I need to have actual sources? Also, is manual that comes with a game good enough source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heromanofe (talk • contribs) 21:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Heromanofe: I believe that for games(and films) you do not need a citation for the plot, as the plot can be confirmed by playing the game(or watching the film). 331dot (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely true for films, so it's reasonable to assume it also applies to games. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-section Policy vs Guidelines

A question for the experts on changing policy/guidelines

When there are discussions on changing aspects of the larger policy documents - such as things like deletion policy, is each change required to meet the higher level of consensus/stability for it to considered a "policy", rather than a "guideline"?

Logically one of three things should occur:

No Change should be accepted unless they demonstrate the higher requirements (and lack of likely exceptions) of Policy, as opposed to Guidelines;
If any aspect of a Policy has a "Guideline-level" paragraph added, the document should be relabelled as a Guideline
All non-policy level changes should be only added to a sub-page, which can have a different status added to it than the primary page.

I've not seen any example of 1 in the various discussions held (and obviously not 2). Very rarely option 3 comes up (though I think this may be somewhat coincidental - i.e. it got a subpage because that made sense, rather than a policy/guideline consideration). However, most often it seems that additions are "promoted" to policy status which they shouldn't inherently get.

I was hoping for some thoughts of others, given both a relatively short tenure and a focus in only 3 or 4 areas - is this the case? Is this the case, but it's just accepted as preferable to a split status within documents? Nosebagbear (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: I think you'd be better off posting this very specific question on the policies and guidelines talk page . TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]