Help desk
< December 29	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 31 >

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.

December 30

Referencing errors on Howard Schenken

Reference help requested. Today I added a Note of explanation (with prose accommodation that varies slightly) to five biographies for the 4th to 9th members of the bridge hall of fame. Two of them generate the error message, "Cite error: A list-defined reference named "HOFby" is not used in the content (see the help page)." See Howard Schenken and Oswald Jacoby in contrast to Sidney Silodor, Waldemar von Zedtwitz, and Milton Work.

All is displayed correctly, which I accomplished by some trial and error as usual--in particular, by calling Reference #4 by superscripts both in prose and in Note B. Those superscripts [4] both link Ref#4, which is the appropriate target. The only error is not what the message says; it is that Ref#4 does not back-link NoteB, only to the occurrence in lead section prose.

I believe this is some bug.

Thanks, P64 (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our biographies Howard Schenken and Jacoby obviously differ from the other three pages by their previous use of another explanatory Note, so that the new one is Note B rather than A. (The previous Note is mine from about six months ago. It is also called earlier in the page, thus A rather than B --earlier in the same paragraph and broadly for the same purpose, for what it's worth.)

--P64 (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@P64: Yes, this is a bug - Nested refs fail inside references block. Your use of list-defined notes calling list-defined references looks very logical and neat, but the software can't cope. You will have to move the notes out of the {{notelist}} up into the body of the article. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the first wooden spooner? Two different sets of articles give different information.

There is the sentence on this Magpies article

The club was one of the foundation members of the Sydney rugby football league competition in 1908. Founded at a meeting on 4 February 1908, they won only one match that season so were the League's first wooden spooners.

This means that one or another article is incorrect as other Wiki articles have Cumberland as the first wooden spooners. Wooden Spooners which has Cumberland as the 1908 wooden spooners. This 'fact' is repeated on the article about [[Cumberland|Cumberland]] itself.

But an article on the 1908 season agrees with the idea that it's Wests that deserves the title.

Both sets of articles can't all be right.

As this affects at least four different pages I felt it better to put my concerns here, though I did leave info on one article's talk page.

Montalban (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Montalban: Hey Motalban. Simple. One is sourced (and the source confirms the information) and one is not. So, [1]. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Password Retrieval / Account Access

Hello, to those helpful Wikipedians who respond to my query!

So, here's the crux of my problem: I was an editor who signed up quite a long time ago (User:Kaelus). I've tried to access my account, but unfortunately, it seems that I created the account during a time period in which e-mail addresses weren't associated with Wikipedia accounts; thus, I can't retrieve my password. I looked and looked through numerous FAQs, and asked the almighty Google, but to no avail, as everything I found regarding the issue appeared to only be applicable to accounts associated with an e-mail.

I'm not -entirely- opposed to creating a new account. However, I'm a bit attached to my username, and I had made numerous contributions under that name. So, should I make a new account, I'll then be unable to edit protected pages, and undoubtedly, many will assume I'm a new user. I can foresee the latter possibly being problematic given my areas of interest and expertise. How can I resolve this issue and get access to my old account?

Thank you in advance, to those who reply. :) ~Kaelus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.154.10 (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kaelus has not specified an email address. It's optional to give an email address. The option also existed in July 2004 when the account made the first edit. I don't know whether users were asked when they created an account or had to add it by themselves later. Passwords never expire so if you remember it then it will still work. Othwerwise you have to create a new account. The account had 159 edits and no assigned user rights. As soon as a new account becomes autoconfirmed (at least four days old and ten edits) it can do the same as the old account, including to edit semi-protected pages. Fully protected pages can only be edited by administrators. If you want, you can write on the user pages of the accounts that it's the same editor. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, PrimeHunter. As I recall, you had to add the e-mail address later; just fyi. I should have been more specific about what I meant. I asked in the ICR channel and got a similar answer. I seem to remember editing fully protected pages back then... Was that policy implemented later, regarding editing only by those with administrator privileges? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.154.10 (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was before I became active but my research shows semi-protection was introduced in December 2005. Before that the only type of protection was the one that only allowed administrators to edit. It was just called protection since there was no need to specify "full". PrimeHunter (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

archiving

Hey helpdesk. I'm a school student from france. I returned to uk after an year and want to start editing on wikipedia as I have free time now.I have one account that's old. Do I have to register a new account or can I use my old account which is this one? Can you help me also learn how to archive pages? How do I learn to rollback vandalism? Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zewix (talk • contribs) 05:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, as you can see, your account is working. You do not need a new account, and you would be better off to continue to use your account. Thank you for asking. Do you want to archive your talk page, or article talk pages? See archiving, but archiving of article talk pages is normally done by bots, with the parameters being discussed on the talk pages and agreed to by consensus. For dealing with vandalism, see vandalism. If you have more specific questions, we will try to answer them. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref

I cited the reference and believe that their is a typographical error in the cite ref. This correctionis very important as misinformation is being displayed on this site. I know the reasons why and they are against all Wikipedia rules, regulations and standards. I uphold these standards and am a donor to Wikipedia. I cannot allow a false historical reference to be allowed due to subjective politics. Mark Andrew Z. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markandrewz (talk • contribs) 07:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the formatting error in the <ref>...</ref> tags. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paroled

My Article Draft:Converted on LSD was paroled today after a month. What does that mean ? David Clarke 10:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 519Clarke (talk • contribs)

@519Clarke: It should say patrolled. Did it really say paroled? It doesn't mean anything significant to you. It doesn't indicate whether the page will be accepted as an article. See Wikipedia:Patrolled revisions for details. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Page Protection

how can i protect my Wikipedia article page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.44.139 (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for page protection can be made at WP:RFPP, though pages are only protected if they are receiving high levels of vandalism or disruptive editing, which page are you looking to protect? Sam Walton (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Page Edit Protection

How can i protect my Wikipedia page article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloma23 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean this page, usually you can only do that in very specific circumstances. Most importantly, it's not *your* page (see WP:OWN) as this is the free encyclopedia anyone can edit. The only time the page would be protected in any way would be if it was attracting lots of vandalism or if there was an ongoing edit war over the contents of the page. In situations like that, you'd file a request at WP:RFPP. However, I've looked at the page history and none of those situations apply. You should try discussing changes with other users, if you disagree with their edits, using either their talk pages or the article talk page. Valenciano (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators are the only ones who personally can place a page under protection. There also must be a reason to do so. As was said earlier, if warranted you can place a request for protectionSecretName101 (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the fundraiser

How long is the fundraiser going to last? If I pay now, will I stop seeing the fundraiser adverts immediately? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjvirden (talk • contribs) 12:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjvirden: It's an end of year fundraising campaign so I guess it will soon stop but I don't know the details. I don't think there is any relation between donating and seeing fundraiser banners. Registered users can select "Suppress display of the fundraiser banner" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a non-for-profit, so it often has ongping fundraising initiatives.SecretName101 (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An overheated BLP noticeboard debate and login for other languages

First, I would like to draw editors' attention to an overheated debate on the noticeboard regarding BLPs. It is obvious that the debate between [usernames removed on request, this is not the place for it] on the section Natalia Poklonskaya redux has caused both sides to possibly violate certain guidelines, although I don't know how to deal with this problem because the noticeboard is technically not a talk page. Other editors seem to have become part of the debate, which is the biggest problem because their attempts to cool down the situation seem to come in vain. I believe that editors seeing this post would deal with the problem themselves but I would like to know how to handle this kind of dispute in the future.

Secondly, regarding a previous question I have posted on the help desk, it seems like the login problem cannot be solved by myself. I now have the following options: (a) To look for someone in the relevant Wikipedia (through the English Wikipedia) who can create an account bearing this username and override a titleblacklist for it in the language, which rather difficult to execute; (b) To use the help desk of the relevant language Wikipedia under an IP address, hoping that someone can help, in which case my situation may not be observed by the relevant user; (c) Make a request to find a steward to do a global rename, how to do this is still unknown and might not be feasible as discussed; (d) Find someone who works with renaming through the English Wikipedia and discuss how the renaming can be done.

In any case, this problem should be brought to a broader audience since users may not notice that the different language Wikipedias (of which there are many) have different username guidelines. Back to the problem, I personally think that d is the easiest that can be done in the meantime, but I would like to know which is the best option (or if there are any others) and the details of doing so because frankly this is quite complicated and I don't think more than a handful of people have experienced/dealt with/the ability to deal with this situation. Please also bear in mind, again, that my account is not active on de.wikipedia.org, fr.wikipedia.org and possibly others, so I cannot directly seek help on those Wikipedias without going under an IP address. Sorry for this unusually long and technical post. All efforts appreciated by The Average Wikipedian (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At #Unified login on other languages I have already linked to the user rename pages at the two languages of interest. They both have a big button near the top to post a request. It only takes a minute to create another account at the German or French Wikipedia so you can request a rename. Then you can see what they say. You can start with one of them to learn something before the other. I don't know the languages or their policies, apart from seeing after your post that new users cannot themselves create usernames containing "Wikipedia". PrimeHunter (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Natalia Poklonskaya redux, if you have talk page guidelines in mind then Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines is not limited to talk namespaces. But if the involved editors don't bring it to another page (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution shows some options) then I don't think others should do it. It can just escalate a dispute which would otherwise die out. I have removed the usernames on request from one of the editors. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the renaming, I have come across a major problem: Requests are only valid if made under an account instead of an IP on fr:Wikipédia:Demande de renommage de compte utilisateur. It is also impossible to merge accounts, so I wouldn't be able to create an account, then request a rename to this one. It violates titleblacklist anyway.

I don't think the renaming process is indeed the solution to the problem because I don't have an account on those Wikipedias (my account is not registered). Therefore, it might be better to just ask for someone who can bypass the titleblacklist to create an account. I don't think a Global rename is what I want under the current situation. I know that perhaps a Global rename on the English Wikipedia processed by a Global renamer would mean that my account could be activated, but I still wish to keep this username, because in principle it is acceptable on English Wikipedia and I don't want restrictions on a couple of project sites to affect my global account anyway. Are there other options to consider? Regnal year (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two accounts which already exist on the same wiki cannot be merged but if The Average Wikipedian does not exist on a wiki then it may be possible to change another username to it on that wiki. My suggestion is still to create another account at the German or French Wikipedia, make a rename request and see what happens. If a rename cannot be performed then they will probably do something else, or tell you to do something else, or tell you that their blacklisting of the username must not be broken. The servers are already keeping track of tens of millions of accounts. One more doesn't matter. The time used by editors to handle it (including this discussion) is more significant. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case I do this, I would like to ask how to justify my reason for the rename to a username which is blacklisted and prove that the two accounts belong to me. Also, I would like to know if the renaming, which is global, means a merge without replacing this account with the other. I know I should try it first and not waste other editors' time, but I am concerned and I don't want to take any chances. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Create an account X at the German/French Wikipedia and log in as X when you post the request. That proves you own X. Log in as The Average Wikipedian here at the English Wikipedia and make a signed post at User talk:The Average Wikipedian saying something like "I'm X who made a rename request at the German/French Wikipedia." Post the diff of that edit at the rename request. I don't know their policies but just say something like "I created The Average Wikipedian at the English Wikipedia and mainly edit there but would like to also edit here without logging in and out to another account. I cannot create The Average Wikipedian by myself because usernames containing 'Wikipedia' are blocked here by [[MediaWiki:Titleblacklist]]. If you can create the account for me then I don't need a rename of X."

They can see at Special:CentralAuth/The Average Wikipedian (you don't need to post that link) that you already have many edits with that name, including some at other wikis. The renaming system has changed and I don't know the details but your current account can certainly not be "replaced" and disappear. It could be globally renamed to something other than The Average Wikipedian and then another account could be globally renamed to "The Average Wikipedian", but that will not happen as long as you don't post a rename request to change the existing The Average Wikipedian. And a global rename outside the German/French Wikipedia wouldn't create the account there anyway, so their titleblacklist would still prevent you from creating the username there on your own. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After I created an account on the French Wikipedia with another username, that username became global, so I can now edit English and French Wikipedia with that account. Does that mean that I can't merge them anymore because I now have two accounts on the same language? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 04:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two accounts in the same language cannot be merged. The question is whether your French account can be renamed at the French Wikipedia, or they can create The Average Wikipedian for you without a renaming. I don't know. It was possible earlier. Sorry to be blunt but please stop your endless questions here and just post the damn request to the people who know and have the power to do something. They will presumably either do it, tell you what else to do, or say it cannot be done. If you still refuse to talk with the editors at the actual wikis and prefer somebody who may not know their username policies then try meta:Steward requests/Username changes. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Testosterone

I Object to you using the R word in your article about Testosterone Hormone replacement therapy (female-to-male)

However, a single small study of trans men after oophorectomy demonstrated that androgens alone may be insufficient to (retard) bone loss.

This word is offensive to the Disability community and to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and should not be used! You could have used a different wording like " prevent" or " stop" bone loss. As a person with a developmental disability and a disability advocate I take offense to the use of this word and would like you to change it thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.21.48 (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

formatted by --Mdann52talk to me! 16:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, wikt:en:retard shows the word was originally to mean to "slow". Unfortunately, it's been adopted in modern times for a completely different purpose. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And it's still a perfectly acceptable verb meaning "to slow". I hope OP is not suggesting that we no longer refer to "retarding" the timing of an internal combustion engine, for example.--ukexpat (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Wikipedia is not censored. --ColinFine (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We couldn't use stop or prevent, no, because the process does not do these things. It slows the bone loss. Although this use of the word is not offensive as it is being used to describe a process not a person. Britmax (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Browning's perfect game

Recently, I created an entry on "Tom Browning's perfect game," except that I originally misspelled the title as "Tim Browning's perfect game." I have since re-created the entry, with the actual name spelled. How do I go about deleting the original entry—the one with the misspelled name? MrHaroldG2000 (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear. It would have been much better to have moved the article - that's the way to retitle them. However, both articles are likely to be deleted very soon as they have no references whatever, and so do not establish that the subject is notable. Please see WP:referencing for beginners, and start adding the references that are required: without them, the article is worthless, as the reader has no way of verifying it. Also be aware that as well as requiring a reference for every single piece of information in the article, you need to establish that the name "Tom Browning's perfect game" has been used in writing about it in reliable sources. I think it has, but the article must reference some of these if it is to be saved. --ColinFine (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roster

Can somebody add these players to the Minnesota Vikings roster, because they have now signed reserve deals and are on the active roster. http://www.dailynorseman.com/2014/12/30/7468015/minnesota-vikings-sign-nine-to-reserve-futures-contracts BcBryar (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to add them yourself (with the reference), BcBryar; or if you don't feel confident doing that, the article's talk page is the best place to ask. --ColinFine (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to delete a blank article?

How to delete or remove a blank page? It has a title called Cantonese Indonesian. Sonic99 (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sonic99, if you find a blank page it's a candidate for speedy deletion. By adding the {{Db-empty}} template, you can tag it for administrator attention and they may delete it. I won't in this case though, because you just blanked a page which didn't seem to be a problem beforehand. Why did you blank it, out of interest? I've undone the blanking for now. Sam Walton (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me. Why should there be only Cantonese Indonesian page redirect or not Hokkien Indonesian page redirect and Mandarin Indonesian page redirect? There are a lot more Hokkien descents than there are Cantonese in Indonesia. That blank page should be deleted. Sonic99 (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This work is done by volunteers, and a common error round here is to assume devious motives when the real reason is "nobody thought of it". If you want to create those other redirects you can, if you feel it worthwhile. Britmax (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Your rationale is a reason to possibly create those redirects, not a reason to delete the one that exists. -- GB fan 19:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, we agreed that creating them was the best idea at my talk page :) Sam Walton (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

request edit

{{request edit}} Hello,

I'm requesting an edit for the Company Adaptive Insights (Adaptive Insights). It looks like there some flags due to a former employee contributing to the page. According to his LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/charliecliang), he no longer works for the company, and I have edited the links to be 3rd party links and not the main website's links. Please let me know what I can do to help. Thank you.

Adaptive Insights created by User:Charlieliang/Adaptive Planning, Inc.....,Sports agent created by User:CeladonConsultingandMedia. Were does it end? These articles are now popping up faster than we can cope with. OK. Sure we should welcome new editors but lets nuke after 2 weeks, anything that the creators can not show 'notability' for. These paid editors can afford the time to stay ahead of volunteers long enough to collect their fee.--Aspro (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who wrote it, it still currently appears to be written like an advertisement and may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

Maybe suggestions for improvement on Talk:Adaptive Insights.

Just who do you you think is going to do the improvements? Don't count on User:Charlieliang. They have done their job, cashed their cheque and fled. Any improvement to save this article falls on any WP volunteer editors who are unwitting side- tracked from notable articles . And for what? To do free sales-and-marketing-work for non notable organizations? Wikipedia is rapidly drifting from being an encyclopedia, to being a free Business directory were a company only has to pay a lackey to start an article and leave us to bust-a-gut to pretend we have found something notable so as not to loose the article. Why should we give the same benefit of doubt and assistance, that we give genuine newbies. Should we not bit the bullet and just delete these Advertorials quicker and leave the onus on their creators to justify 'Notability' before reinstatement. Same goes for single purpose User:Stuartcoggins & User:CeladonConsultingandMedia etc. etc. ( the growing list is becoming exponential) We are experiencing an avalanche. This dilutes the time that our volunteer editors have in which to improve WP as an encyclopedia . Think, just a few years down the line. How are we going to attract new editors to give up their free time just to promote business. Lets have a new template that gives two-weeks notice that these doubtful articles are on it way out of WP. If we make a mistakes we can always reinstate them - which will be less work in the long run.--Aspro (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Repetitive holiday movie showings

I just want to let you know, that the holiday movies were great on Hallmark Movie Channel, but you had them on just too many times. You do not need to start until December 1st and end December 31st. Day and night was just too often.

Thank you,

Joanne — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.18.115.10 (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joanne. You've mistaken where you are. This is Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia. We are not associated with the Hallmark Movie Channel, though we do have an article on that network but it's just one of millions of articles we have.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]