Help desk
< April 11	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 13 >

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.

April 12

Editing a page

Hi

I was trying to edit Peter Sellers page. There was a movie missing in the filmography table. I added (The Mouse that Roared) but I believe I missed things up. This is my first time, so I apologize. Please help get the page in the right shape, with the movie I added.

Thank you

Faizlo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.78.126.194 (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits have been reverted. Peter Sellers#Filmography and other works is only for works where he received significant awards or nominations. Your edit only said "Nominated". What was it nominated for? Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record is a longer list and includes the film. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Brown (news anchor)

This is actually an entry about me, but it appears to be broken. I have used it on my web sites to direct people to my biography on Wikipedia. Anybody know what happened to the lin?

Thanks,

John Brown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.90.174.94 (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been deleted. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or in more detail: on 17 February 2014, "GiantSnowman" (talk page) deleted the article "John Brown (news anchor)", stating "Expired PROD, concern was: zero evidence for notability. His book are each in less than 60 libraries." The deletion had been proposed by DGG (talk page). -- Hoary (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To expand further on what others have said, for somebody who may not be familiar with how Wikipedia works: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a directory. It does not list every subject (person, company, record etc) that exists, only those which have already been written about in reliable sources (which is what we mean by "notable" in the special Wikipedia sense). It is possible that you have been written about in this way and therefore we could have an article about you, but according to the comment above the deleted article did not establish this. --ColinFine (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries question

24.3.8.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) makes edits with uninformative edit summaries such as "edit" and "improve". Twice I've posted on their talk page asking them to make more informative edit summaries, and referred them to WP:ES, but this seems to have had no effect. Recently I reverted a few of these edits but it occurs to me now that this was not the most appropriate action, since the edits were made in good faith. I'm just not sure how else to get the point across. Any suggestions? MaxBrowne (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore it. It's an IP, so you don't even know if the same person is making all the edits. Also, if they haven't listed to your first 2 posts, what good would a third or fourth do? It's really just a minor issue. CTF83! 02:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nissan maxima 1997

what is the little flashing thing under the seet that has a fuse it is not for the power seats — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.130.38 (talk) 07:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 4 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck.--David Biddulph (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linking within an article does not work on iPhone devices

Hi, I've linked to a section within the same article by using the [#Section name|Display name]. It was actually a section within a section (so the ===Heading===). I found that this works when I am using a PC. However, when I use my iPhone the link doesn't do anything. So I made the link the beginning of the section (so the ==Heading==). I find that when I do this, the page does go down to the section (but you can't tell which section because all sections are collapsed). If I then go back to the link and click it, it then goes to the section and opens it up. Is there better syntax to use to avoid these issues. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamgerace (talk • contribs) 09:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that mobile devices use the mobile version of Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org). You could probably force your mobile to use the standard version but not really recommended. When I tried a section link in sandbox I found that the I had to click the link twice for both the scenarios you give. The first time jumped to the heading and the second time (have to scroll back up if necessary) openened the section. I don't know whether this is considered a bug or a desirable feature, but you could try reporting it at Bugzilla. Spinning Spark 12:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I get exactly the same behaviour on a PC as a mobile device when using the mobile version on a PC. That means you can check the mobile page behaviour/look without leaving your PC. Spinning Spark 12:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting references

I have a specific interest in how low level financial scams are operated and supported. One of the common features seems to be to establish a false reputation by getting a low level news organisation to misquote a fact either deliberately, or by not correcting editorial, and then reference the hell out of it to other news organisations until it becomes real. As a example company x is approved by the FSA in the UK, person Y is also the owner of a major foreign organisation, Bank Z is a major backer behind this company. These "facts" then get repeated by the multiple wordress blogs set up to enable these scams and eventually get referenced into a wikipedia article which is the first site that comes up when the person being scammed is searching for the company as they sit in a hotel seminar.

My question is about how do wikipedia editors rate references. Clearly they are not all equal. What if they conflict ? I can contact the UK FSA and ask if company A is approved but Wikipedia wont accept that information without a reference. Since most articles are directly or indirectly paid for most papers wont issue corrections. If I put a message on my blog saying that company A is not FSA approved is any editor going to consider that over 16 blogs and two articles that say it is ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stfual (talk • contribs) 11:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We base our content upon reliably published sources, and weighting the content based upon their acceptance levels in mainstream academia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have a noticeboard for getting advice on the reliabiltiy of specific sources. Spinning Spark 12:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Such is the theory, and to some degree it is practiced that way, but our discipline is seldom better than that of the news sources we cite. Perhaps someone should make a concerted effort to check such things with the official websites of the approving authorities. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Webpage

Can you tell me how to set up a web page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frtwat73 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Frtwat73:

Have you tried the Computing section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps.

But since we're here, I personally recommend W3Schools to start. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 17:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And if you are talking about a Wikipedia article, please look at WP:YFA. Just note that we are an encyclopedia and not a webhost if that was your aim. - Purplewowies (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finding all the news in a particular month and year

I read a post Here about find news in a particular month and year. But I can't decipher the form. Is this possible and how exactly? 76.126.254.251 (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just type it into the search box. For example, to find news from last month, type in March 2014. This leads to an article with major events. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 18:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Autobiography'

I want to start a page about myself. This is only because of individuals who have wikipedia pages, that have inaccurate, libelous and unlawful information relative to myself. Editing those pages is one option. Creating my own is an easier, workable alternative. It is easy to understand and then respect wikipedia's rules as clearly stated. My FINDINGS stem from documentary evidence, and I see no point in any claims stemming from anything else.

I am one of the first human beings subjected to the rare cybernetic process, the deliberation of the human body, by another individual's means. In encyclopedic, incidental terms, this includes the need to rectify probably deviant falsehood published on this website. The presentation of the uniqueness of the circumstance elsewhere, is provided for.

My circumstance consists of evidence on a par with the presented. I consider an encyclopedic inclusion inevitable. I am a VICTIM of opinion as fact, and I have not tried to create a page about myself. I would like step-by-step advice on how to proceed.Graeme John Hunter Ford (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Graeme John Hunter Ford: Writing an autobiograpghy is highly discouraged. If you have a concern about information about you in an article, you can raise it on the associated talk page (click the "Talk" tab at the top.) Anon126 (talk - contribs) 18:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look particularly at the section Problems in an article about you. --ColinFine (talk) 10:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Poster (OP) refers to falsehoods in other articles about him, not to problems in a Wikipedia article of which he is the subject. To the extent that there are falsehoods in Wikipedia articles about other people that also refer to him, the advice to address the concerns on the talk page is correct. He also appears to be referring to falsehoods in non-Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia has no control over those articles, and creating a Wikipedia article without reliable sources is not a way to correct errors outside Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that the policy on biographies of living persons does permit an editor to delete false unsourced statements about himself, but that caution should be used doing that. If I am mistaken in that understanding, please correct me. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit .js page

I want to add a module to my js page: User:Sphilbrick/vector.js

However, when I click edit, I briefly see the contents (with line numbers added) then it disappears.

Am I missing something?--S Philbrick (Talk) 19:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you use User:Cacycle/wikEd gadget? Ruslik_Zero 19:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Do I need to remove it or turn it off?--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turning it off helped, thanks.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Launching Wikipedia Page about Someone

How should I start or publish wikipedia page about someone? For instance, I would want to get my own wikipedia page describing details/ biography about me. Whom should I contact?

Thanks for your time and hope to get replied. Regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raaboi (talk • contribs) 20:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Notability (people). If your accomplishments are not significantly covered by independent, reliable sources, your time will be wasted, and the article deleted. If they are, you needn't contact anyone, though the article wizard will be helpful for your first time. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we do not recommend writing autobiographies. Spinning Spark 23:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd thought about saying that, but there's not much harm in it, unless the autobiographer tries to own the article and flatter themselves. Still yes, there's a conflict of interest page to consider. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The guidance, for the benefit of the OP, is at Wikipedia:Autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looking that over, it seems that if one avoids all three fundamental problems while writing an autobiography, it should be fine. Same as drunk driving. It's only bad if you hurt someone. Often not the case, but there is a tendency. Same here, Raaboi. You may not think you're as biased as you are. So be careful, if you insist on driving yourself. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are acrostics subject to the same rules as straight text?

For instance, if the first letter of four paragraphs spelled out "evil" in a priest's bio, or "liar" in a politician's, could that be construed as a POV, OR or BLP fail, and would that be valid grounds for rewording, assuming the paragraphs are otherwise better written as is? Or are hidden messages (intentional or not) beyond the scope? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, absolutely (though I wouldn't use OR in relation as not quite the right fit, but NPOV and BLP are certainly relevant, as might be hidden/sneaky vandalism, and maybe WP:POINT). That hidden message is information made part of the article, a personal opinion inserted and in a sub rosa way. A secondary wag the tail concern is that obviously the text had to be written for the purpose of shoehorning that hidden message, so whatever surrounding text was used to spell out the midden message was not fashioned to be the best text for the topic, but to meet the hidden agenda. Anyway, my advice is to remove with extreme prejudice and inform the user not to engage in such theatrics again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. To be clear, there is no user to warn or revert. I'd have linked to the article, otherwise. Just something I was wondering. But yeah, if I come across it, I'll remember this. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I happened to notice such an acrostic, I would not draw attention to it. I would just find some reason to change one of the constituent words, so as to spoil it. Maproom (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps change a few letters, so as to neutralize the language. But yeah, spoiling would be much easier. Letting it slide, easier still. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editor using WP to write an essay on an article talk page

While revising the article Barabbas I noticed that there is a long essay on the article talk page, seemingly irrelevant to any attempt to improve the article, and on examination I see that this is the editor's only contribution to WP, he has worked on this essay, and nothing else, revising it almost every day since August 2012. He doesn't make any effort to put any of this information, whatever it is, I haven't read it, into the article and it doesn't seem to be bothering anyone but that isn't what article talk pages are for. I wondered if I should report it to someone, but I wouldn't know who to report it to, and then I wondered if that would be mean because he seems to be happy writing this essay and it doesn't appear to bother anyone, in fact it seems unlikely that anyone pays any attention to it. So I thought I would come here and ask what the help desk thought. Thanks Smeat75 (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Smeat75: I've collapsed the content ({{collapse top}}/{{collapse bottom}}) and left a note. I think that's appropriate for now. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 22:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Smeat75 (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]