Help desk
< October 12	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 14 >

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.

October 13

Black Philosophers?

Is there anyway Wiki could provide a list of a few Black Philosophers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.115.69.3 (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few listed at Category:African-American_philosophers. RudolfRed (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many in Category:African philosophers will be black, but you have to examine it yourself. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing or empty |title= (help)

I'm not very technical so I didn't understand the help explanation. I tried to site where there is information on what my edit was. It says: ^ . 13 October 2013 http://bringbackmyboys.org. Missing or empty |title= (help) I don't know how to fix it. I had originally typed <ref>{{cite web|url=http://bringbackmyboys.org |date=13 October 2013}}</ref>. Please tell me how to fix this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa Jakobs (talk • contribs) 05:14, 13 October 2013‎

I assume you are referring to the edits you have made to our article on the Hague Convention on Parental Responsibility and Protection of Children. I am sorry to have to tell you that the source you are citing cannot be used in the way you propose, regardless of problems with formatting the reference. You are using it to make allegations of a crime - and any such allegations would need to come from a third-party reliable source, rather than a website run by an involved individual. In any case, it is entirely inappropriate to go into details of a single ongoing case in the article, in the way you are doing - in an article covering an international convention of worldwide scope. We clearly cannot cover every case affected by the convention, and even with proper sourcing, there appears to indicate that the case you have included is any more significant than others. Given the fact that the source is entirely unacceptable, and given the lack of any third-party reliable source to indicate any particular significance, I am going to remove the material you have added. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone else has removed the material before me. [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the deleted material, but replaced the blog reference to a reliable reference, The Independent, one of the many references cited in the blog. I am not claiming that the paragraph's presence in the article is justified; but deleting the whole thing on the grounds that the reference it cited was unacceptable, seems excessive. Maproom (talk) 08:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLP policy, without a reliable source, removal of the material was obligatory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. There are dozens of media articles about this case including court press releases, but I didn't really know how to handle the siting, I appreciate your guidance on that. I think the case is significant because it's a first for the UK as well as for Russia. Throughout the world this convention has seen very little use to date, but this will change soon. I study abduction law and know that there are dozens of Central Authorities from signatory countries watching this case. I also thought it good for left-behind parents seeking information, the 1980 Convention can't be used with Russia vis a vis most countries, and the few trials have failed. I think it justified that both EU and Russia have their own sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa Jakobs (talk • contribs) 23:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

McCann

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann

It claims allegations are "false", however they should surely be worded "unsubstantiated" or at the very least worded such that they are allegations "without concrete/substantial evidence" or something to indicate they are neither proven nor disproven — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.106.102 (talk) 07:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes to the article should be discussed on its talk page. But note that, according to the sources linked to in the article, the newspapers themselves admitted in court that the allegations were both "seriously defamatory" and "utterly false". And please read Wikipedia:Weasel words. - Karenjc (talk) 09:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barry_McCaffrey

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barry_McCaffrey is an article about a living person. One author, Materialscientist, posts libelous and untrue statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay.wind (talk • contribs) 08:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have been removing well-referenced material from the article, on the false grounds that its placement there is "vandalism". Instead, you should discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Maproom (talk) 09:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to be cautious about using terms like "libel", which could be construed as a legal threat. Judging by your talk page, there are editors who are willing to engage with you over any genuine concerns you may have about the article and try to reach consensus over the wording. Once your block has expired, Maproom's advice is the way to go. -Karenjc (talk) 09:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please delete this page

please delete "List of Slender Man Video Games". i've never seen such a badly written list! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.158.160.201 (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your comment. Perhaps you might first like suggest how it can be improved on its "talk page". You could also try to improve it yourself! If you think it should be deleted, you can list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (this would generally be once you have registered an account). Please do read what you should check before nominating it. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the article was created about a month ago by an editor who does not have a lot of experience. In my opinion, the list is rather short and can likely be folded into the Slender Man article. Dismas|^(talk) 10:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I posted at the Slender Man talk page to see if someone more familiar with the topic wants to take a look and deal with the list in whatever way they see fit. Dismas|^(talk) 10:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure if it should really be kept. I mean, Giant Bomb isn't really a good source per WP:VG/S, since much of it relies on user-submitted content, and the source provided doesn't seem to be an exception. Zappa O Mati 23:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for Help on a Page

I have created a page, but I do not have any idea what to class to rate it as, and am wondering if there is a way to ask editors who might be interested in my page to help me with it. Also, how to I ask for someone to review it so I can know what changes need to be made to improve it? Is there a way to nominate an article for review? The page is here: National Weather Service Norman, Oklahoma Dustin talk 17:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued in next section.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my article deleted?

I spent countless hours on an article, and now it has been deleted. The article is National Weather Service Norman, Oklahoma. The person who deleted it left this message: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event

What? Seriously? If you delete this article, then you may as well delete every other NWS forecast office page. Please help me! Dustin talk 17:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The deleter, User:Orangemike, didn't even nominate it for deletion, he just flat out deleted it! NWS Norman is significant enough that I would consider that it needs an article. He didn't leave me a message to fix any problems or anything. This is serious! Please, I spent so much time on this article, and I can't just let it be deleted in an instant without even being notified, or asked to fix any problems! Dustin talk 18:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously: no local NWS forecast offices are notable enough to justify an encyclopedia article. That's not to disparage the vital work they do: far from it; it's just the realities of a global project like ours. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But if you check this page here... List of National Weather Service Weather forecast offices

This one here even achieved Good Article status, even though its been a while since it has been updated: National Weather Service Lincoln, Illinois Dustin talk 18:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come on! I know that a lot of NWS forecast offices don't have pages because there is not much significance to many of them, but this one has a lot of history! And not only that, what are you going to do about the other twenty-or-so NWS office articles? Please! This can't happen! Especially not after all the time that I've spent! Dustin talk 18:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please tell me why, when there are over 20 other articles on NWS forecast offices, that my article is the only one to be deleted? I mean, I assumed that with that many different articles, that mine should most certainly not meet the criteria for speedy deletion without any user consensus. I mean, as I have already listed, if these articles are all unimportant, than how are there still so many of them, and how did one of them even achieve GA status? Dustin talk 19:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if it seems that I am posting too often, but to User:Orangemike, or to any user willing to answer, please reply to what I have said! This is a serious issue, and this will not go unanswered! Dustin talk 19:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I consider all of these to be non-notable; but if some other admin wants to restore the article, I will not whine. Dustin: please note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not considered a valid argument for creation or retention of an article; and that we are all volunteers. Crying like a baby because you didn't get an answer to your query right away is not going to help you be taken seriously; nor is (figuratively) stamping your feet and demanding attention NOW with vague threats of "this is not going away". --Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liccardo using Wikipedia as a campaign mechanism

Article on Sam Liccardo is directly ripped off of Liccardo for mayor website by user Democratjp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironbob (talk • contribs) 19:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ironbob: Looks like the esteemed User:Orangemike deleted it for unambiguous promotion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the first step: A wp:rs or a talkpage consensus?

user:Pluto2012 regularly deletes a lot of my editing.

I have added a quote (The Diff page) and modified the article (The Diff page) according to the quote. Pluto deleted the quote (The Diff page) and told me to get a consensus. He has undone my well supported article editing as well (while violating the wp:1RR (The Diff page) without a supporting wp:rs to his view.

The consensus is automatically against me, since I am the only regular Israeli editor in this article. Nevertheless , I have to respect it. However, I provide an wp:rs while he deletes my editing without providing a supporting wp:RS. Can I ask him to provide an wp:rs as the first step, and later achieving a consensus ? OR he is right, and the consensus is the first step, does not matter whether he do not have a wp:rs ?

I have undone his "undone" (The Diff page) and wrote:"the term "invasion" is well supported. the term "intervened" is an error, unless you provide an RS" . He responded in my talk page. It is not the first time that he does not respond to the point, which is "invaded" Vs "intervened" . Again, I provide an wp:rs, while he "promised" to delete my editing, while ignoring my demand to present a supporting wp:rs. Am I right when I ask him for a supporting wp:rs before he deletes my editing? Ykantor (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are before all a lier who distorts both the way you are in dispute with half a dozen of contributors and also the sources you claim to use in cherry-picking quotes.

The 1st step is to respect what the sourceS say exactly and to respect WP:NPoV when you are aware they are different points of view.

You are perfectly aware you don't comply with WP:NPOV in providing ONE source with ONE quote that complies with what you say when you have been provided MANY sources before that say the contrary and when you don't even take into account the discussion on the talk page about these issues.

Enough is enough. I have lost enough time with you.

Your new story is now the famous "invasion of the newly born State of Israel", which you support by the title of an article of Morris and in removing the fact the Jordan army participated and was the most important one. Funny WP:OR. Morris talks about invasion but invasion of Palestine, as Yoav Gelber. You also forget to mention that you childish intervention repeated the same information in the same sentence, which is totally useless. And of course, you refuse even to imagine that they are other scholars.

YourWikipedia:Civil POV pushing is not welcome on wikipedia. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop personal attacks. So many words but you do not provide any supporting wp:rs yet. Ykantor (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/DRN should give you some ideas of what your dispute resolution options are. If the dispute is between two editors, you can request a third opinion. If there are more editors involved, you can file a request for comment to get community input on a specific point of contention. There is also the dispute resolution noticeboard, formal mediation, and arbitration. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wish the wp:drn would deal with those problems but in my limited experience WP:Dispute resolution is useless. (sorry for the harsh words).e.g. This is my experience during the last months:

DRN expired with no solution. The other side changed his mind and left the discussion.
DRN expired with no solution. The other sites respond was not what he was asked for by the volunteer.
DRN expired with no solution. No volunteer.
"Requests for mediation/Kfar Etzion massacre" have not started The other side declined.
DRN expired with no solution Futile, no participation by one editor; has been refiled at WP:3O
"1948 Arab–Israeli War" DRN expired with no solution. The volunteer could not continue

If I understand you, there is no rule that says what is the first step: A wp:rs or a talkpage consensus? thanks Ykantor (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protesting Against the Deletion of a Page

Is there any was to protest against the deletion of a page, so that users can come to an actual consensus concerning it? This admin deleted a page of mine (National Weather Service Norman, Oklahoma), claiming that it was too unimportant a topic, but I disagree, but don't think I have enough authority. I am fairly sure that there are other admins who agree with me though. Before I created this page, an admin, User:Ks0stm, was even planning to create it, as seen on Ks0stm's To-do list, meaning that there is another admin who disagrees with User:Orangemike. Orange Mike claims that no National Weather Service forecast office is important enough to need a page, but the problem is that if you go to the page, List of National Weather Service Weather forecast offices, you can see that there are over twenty other NWS forecast office pages in existence, disproving him. Not only that, but one of those pages, National Weather Service Lincoln, Illinois, even achieved GA class. I hope that I have provided enough evidence that this article needs to be kept, and I just need to find out how to protest its deletion. To cut it short: How do you protest against the deletion of a page that you created? Dustin talk 20:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done responded on User talk:Dustin V. S.. DES ^(talk) 22:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editting name on Wikipedia

When logged out, and searching my company name on Google, the heading, "USER-Co name Wikipedia" appears. How do I remove the "USER" part, so that only the company name and Wikipedia appear? Robert Scott 22:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muttfish (talk • contribs)

You have not created an article. You have created a user account in the name of Muttfish, and then used that account's user page to write some promotional text about your own company, violating both the userpage guidelines and the ones about conflict of interest. The text is unsuitable to move into article space as it is unencyclopaedic, in tone, totally lacking in references and gives no indication of how this company satisfies Wikipedia's requirements on notability. You're also in breach of the rules about usernames because Wikipedia doesn't allow usernames that imply an account that edits on behalf of a company. Sorry to throw so much bad news your way, but you probably want to pick another username if you're going to keep editing, and familiarise yourself with some of the policies I've linked to, particularly the ones about conflict of interest. Wikipedia isn't the place to promote your company, I'm afraid. - Karenjc (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding another editor

I have noticed an issue with another user creating a large number of new article-redirects, some which seem to be a COI/bias. I attempted to start a dialog with the person on their talk page, but they blanked it. I do not necessarily feel it is vandalism, but while looking through the other conflict resolution sections I do not feel it fall under any of the noticeboards I have seen. Is there a place I can request an honest review or second opinion of the situation without being confrontational?--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 23:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Loriendrew: Hi, when you open a discussion on another user's page, and they delete it, it's presumed that they have read it per WP:REMOVED. So if you are earnestly and frequently approaching the editor with concerns that they are deliberately ignoring your good-faith attempts to discuss controversial content, and they choose to not participate in any discussion, you might want to elevate your concerns either to requests for comment/users or to WP:AN/I It's always a bummer when it comes to that, and as long as you bring your "tophat and tails" civility to the process, and your arguments are sound, you might see remedy in the form of community support. Hope it works out! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Loriendrew: Hi, I thought of another approach: Maybe a way to achieve the result (the removal of COI/bias) without raking the editor through the coals of community scrutiny, is to request a third opinion on the content, or a request for comment on the content. With an RFC, you might get editors who would speak out against the bias, sending a message of disapproval without direct finger-pointing at the editor you are disagreeing with. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]