Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Village pump assistance   post
The assistance section of the village pump is used to make requests for assistance with Wikipedia. If you wish to report vandalism, please go to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism instead. If you have a specific question to ask, you may go to Wikipedia:Ask a question instead.	Shortcut: WP:VPA WP:VP/A
Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar). Please add new topics to the bottom of this page.	Archive

Village pump
News (post)
Policy (post)
Technical (post)
Proposals (post)
Assistance (post)
Miscellaneous (post)

Contents 1 Have a minute? Assistance Requested on Wikipedia:Request an account 2 Vandalism Cry For Help 3 posting commercial links in an article is this allowed 4 How do I nominate an article for deletion for the third time? 5 Badly Written Article (Thelma Houston) 6 Admin Recall? 7 Number of times a page is viewed 8 Is there a doctor in the house? 9 Bank Fishing Assistance 10 Antrim Coast and Glens Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty 11 Dateless References 12 Bob Essery - Bibliography 13 Copyright lisence choice 14 Citing Google 15 Advice for Proper Reference Citation 16 question 17 Page ressurection 18 how do you purge a history? 19 I wish to use Wikipedia content for a profit making book. 20 Requesting assistance to form guidelines on editing how-to articles 21 Virtual kennel 22 How to cite wikipedia in a Turabian (Chicago) document? 23 Portrait wanted 24 Coordinates 25 Login assistance 26 contributions not showing

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

[edit] Have a minute? Assistance Requested on Wikipedia:Request an account

We're currently experiencing a fairly substantial backlog on Wikipedia:Request an account. The issue stems primarily from the 6 account creation limit per day currently imposed on all users. Until this limit is lifted, we need users to create accounts.

There's a new template, and it's extremely easy to use. For each appropriate account, click "create", type the CAPTCHA, and click "by email". That's it. A new bot will handle archiving the request. Thanks! alphachimp 15:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this request for help directed to admins only?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 00:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, but some requests need an admin. You will know if you find one of them. Prodego ^talk 01:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism Cry For Help

Please pardon my posting this here...I (and other users) have posted requests for help on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, as well as admin talk pages and received no response.

This user has reverted TechCrunch#Criticism 17 times. In fact, that is his entire contribution to Wikipedia.

He has been repeatedly warned on his talkpage, and refused to participate in the Mediation that Wikidemo tried to offer him. He is now openly violating the Mediation Cabal Resolution.

How do we get an admin's attention? Please review the TechCrunch article history and the user's revert history to determine if you agree this user is an aggressive vandal. Please use your sysop powers to help us protect TechCrunch from this user. This has gone on since January 23, and we are exhausted!

Very grateful to anyone who can spare the time to help us, Jonathan Stokes 04:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The mediation is closed so I don't know really - I do think this user is being disruptive, but he has not reverted 17 times. In either case, this does look like a single-purpose account and this could imply conflict of interest. Perhaps you should ask why he is so intent on having that criticism part in the article. If he fails to respond even on his talk page, then I guess it can be counted as disruption and WP:AN/I will help you. I don't think it's a cause for WP:AIV. x42bn6 Talk 14:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

17 of the user's edits are rewrites to the criticism section, all of which are either unsourced, sourced to opinion blogs, or in violation of the Mediation Cabal. Maybe "revert" is not quite the perfect word for this. The user will, for instance, retitle the "criticism section" to "advertising" so it appears he is editing different sections in the edit history. However, for those who have been dealing with this for 3 months, I can assure you this user is not interested in building a useful encyclopedia.

What is most exasperating is we already went through the trouble of having mediation cabal, agreed on the exact wording of the criticism section, and this user continues to aggressively delete that section, with no consequence. Thank you for considering this case. Jonathan Stokes 17:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd take this to WP:AN/I in this case because the user is not responding to his/her userpage. I think we can let sysops deal with this better. x42bn6 Talk 22:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I put it back on WP:AN/I. A user put it on WP:AN/I earlier this week and no one responded and then it was deleted. So I don't really understand the process. But maybe this time it will get a response. Jonathan Stokes 23:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who instituted a mediation cabal case, hoping to get this resolved constructively. I have no personal stake in the issue other than to try to get a Wikipedia dispute constructively resolved. People on both sides were using the vandalism incident and subsequent edit war as a way to bash Wikipedia as being unreliable, and I wanted to point out that Wikipedia does have procedures and is not a complete free-for-all.

The user in question has been hostile and flat-out said that he (we assume -- his gender is unstated) does not respect the mediation resolution. I spent considerable time and effort compiling links to the dispute resolution procedure and explaining to him that if he doesn't like the mediation results he can take it to arbitration, but he ignored me and simply kept reverting.

We have asked him several times on his talk page and the article talk page to stop reverting the article and take it to arbitration if he doesn't agree with the mediation results. His single-minded insistence on continuing an edit war plus the hostile comments in his edit summaries that we are all biased and the mediation procedure is a sham convince me he is a problem user. He's already rejected procedure. We can't get him to comply voluntarily so somebody with moderator authority needs to step in and do something. Wikidemo 03:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should block this user to get his attention, at least. A user who refuses to discuss with other editors tends to lead to... Problems. x42bn6 Talk 22:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] posting commercial links in an article is this allowed

First, I am not computer saavy. The article "dd form 214" describe a particular military document important for veterans. A new competitor of mine keeps adding links to his page at the bottom. "dd214.us" is a site that appears to be a consumer advocacy page but really is just a way to forward business to another webiste. Is this allowed? I have removed it and added that you can find private companies to obtain your record by searching the internet. He removed that and put back his link? Are private links allowed?

Thanks

Steveljones 14:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No. This is not allowed and the links have been removed and the user warned. You were correct to remove the links in this situation. GDon4t0 (talk to me...) 19:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How do I nominate an article for deletion for the third time?

There's a template for the first and the second.... I tried replacing the "X" in the second one with a 3, but no go. Blueaster 00:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If it has survived two AFDs, perhaps it should live? - DavidWBrooks 00:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

i'm actually amazed that it has... considering two different admins closed the discussions, and the arguments for keeping were weak Blueaster 00:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If it really s delete-worthy, you will need to manually edit the results of substing the second-time templates after adding them. Chris cheese whine 01:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

See the documentation at Template talk:Afdx. But as others have said you should have a very compelling reason for nominating it a third time. -SpuriousQ (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and to whether I have a compelling reason for a threepeat- I do, and have actually prepared the OP for the nom... It's somewhat longer than most... User:Blueaster/delo Blueaster 03:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Badly Written Article (Thelma Houston)

I came to Wikipedia looking for information on Thelma Houston; I found the article to be poorly written and not "wikified". It sounds like it was written hastily by someone who knows her personally or is a big fan, and it has a lot of opinionated statements. I was wondering if someone with better knowledge of Wikipedia could re-write it. I'm sorry if this comment is in the wrong place, but I'm not familiar with the Wiki community and posted it where it seemed most appropriate. Thank you and Sorry in advance. --152.9.102.200 01:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can edit Wikipedia, including yourself. That said, the article looks quite good already, perhaps you have found a vandalised version that has been reverted now? x42bn6 Talk 16:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with User:152.9.102.200... The first few lines of the "Career" section in the Thelma Houston article needed to be edited/omitted for NPOV. I've gone ahead and done so--also, I'm removing the "booking" link at the bottom of the page. I'm fairly sure commercial promotion of the artist is inconsistent with Wikipedia standards--and the link is a 404, besides. Wysdom 18:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I should add, I think, that the article isn't "poorly written", per se (it could use some tweaking for punctuation, et al, but it's fairly good). But it needed the some help to be in standards, and it doesn't cite any sources (that's a big one). I'll see if I have time to clean up the punctuation a bit, but I don't know enough about the subject to retroactively research and source the piece--anyone familiar enough with this subject to help out? --Wysdom 18:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin Recall?

Is there a way to nominate an admin to be stripped of their status? Blueaster 05:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

BTDT. Chris cheese whine 06:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of times a page is viewed

I am not sure if I am asking this is the correct place, so any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

I am wanting to look at how many changes are made to the average page compared to how many times it is viewed. Does anybody know how I can find out how many time a page has been viewed?

Thanks

C8755 15:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

For Wikipedia, that feature is disabled for server performance reasons. MECU≈talk 16:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You can look at Special:Statistics for some statistics though. MECU≈talk 16:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a doctor in the house?

Hi, 'Pedians :) I was perusing the article on Colorectal cancer and one of the words (at least) seems to be a bit "off". I need someone who has some knowledge of medical terminology to confirm. Under "Symptoms", the usage is as follows:

change in frequency (constipation and/or (spurious) diarrhoea), [emphasis mine]

I'm fairly certain the editor who added this meant "sporadic"? The common definition of spurious, at least, is:

not genuine, authentic, or true; not from the claimed, pretended, or proper source; counterfeit.

There's a definition in biology that means:

(of two or more parts, plants, etc.) having a similar appearance but a different structure.

But I'm not sure that makes sense, either--or perhaps it needs to be better explained for the layperson?

Anyhow, I'm going to be bold and make my edit, (i.e. spurious->sporadic)--but could someone with more knowledge on the subject please check out the article, revert me if necessary, and (in that case) better define/express "spurious" in the context of the article?

Many thanks! Wysdom 17:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You really want to post things like this on the Talk:Colorectal cancer page, not here; there is probably a much better chance that an interested editor will notice it there rather than here. May I suggest you copy the above to the talk page and then delete this section from this page? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bank Fishing Assistance

Hi, I was wondering if anyone would mind taking a look at my article entitled Bank Fishing. Feedback and suggestions would be greatly appreceated. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sheilbrown46 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

To start with, the article seems to have a lot of advice (instructions), in violation of WP:NOT. There are also problems with the last three sections. I've changed the first to "See also" (note the wikilinks); the second and third should be combined into "External links" (note that "links" is not capitalized). And the picture is way too large - see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images in general and Wikipedia:Extended image syntax for specifics on fixing.

Finally, this page isn't the right forum to get advice on articles; please see Wikipedia:Peer review and Wikipedia:Requests for feedback instead. You might want to look at Wikipedia:Guide to improving articles and Wikipedia:The perfect article before doing so. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antrim Coast and Glens Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Any chance someone could get rid of this, I created the page and on reflection decided that the title was, by some orders of magnitude, too large. I've now blanked it, moved the contents to here and fixed the broken links. Sorry if I've gone about it the wrong way. The Boy that time forgot 19:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, with a minimum of fuss by Prodego, more power to his elbow. The Boy that time forgot 20:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, in the future you should move pages rather then cut and pasting them, to preserve page history. Prodego ^talk 20:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Understood. The Boy that time forgot 20:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dateless References

Often people add references to an article but don't put a "retrieved" or "accessed" date with it. I need to know what to do about these because for some odd reason, some people consider the access dates to be extremely important. --Wasted Sapience 17:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

For online references, check them out "now", and mark them as accessed "today". Chris cheese whine 17:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If the reference is (say) to a Washington Post article, it doesn't matter when the article was accessed; that should be omitted. On the other hand, if the reference is to (say) a page of a website of an organization, then the access date does matter (for example, if subsequently checking the information via archive.org), and should be there.

As to what to do if you see a reference that should have an access date but does not, you have two choices (other than to ignore the problem): (a) you can follow the link yourself, and if it does (still) support the text in the article, add "Accessed on (today's date). [This is what Chris was suggesting.]; or (b) you can probe the article history to figure out which edit added the reference, assume that the access date was the same as the edit date, and add "Accessed on (date of edit)".

If the link is now bad and the reference seems important, (b) is the better approach; in most cases, however, (a) is preferable (a second set of eyes to verify the validity of the reference) and probably faster as well. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Essery - Bibliography

The article Bob Essery has a short biographical summary, along with a massive list of books he has (co-)authored. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not the right format. Would somebody who knows the format of author articles please check it? kthx, Mazin07^C₪_T 20:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright lisence choice

Source Populace Spring 2006 Quotation "NOT COPYRIGHT and may be used freely"

Can these two above images be used at wikicommons as the web page states "NOT COPYRIGHT and may be used freely"

I have emailed as well. If it is OK, have I chosen the appropriate license tag?

Kind Regards and thank you. Julia 04:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)SriMesh

[edit] Citing Google

What is Wikipedia's stance on citing Google search results? For instance, when making a statement regarding the popularity of an opinion, it is very handy to cite the number of hits returned by a Google search. SharkD 19:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It is original research (see WP:OR) to cite Google's search results as a reference for the popularity of an opinion. A reliable source as described at Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable_sources that says something like "opinion X is popular" is what would be needed to include a statement like the one you describe. Using only Google as a reference, the most that we could claim in an article is that "Google returns _____ results when queried with the term _____". To say anything stronger would be original research. Sancho (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advice for Proper Reference Citation

I am actively updating information on two sites, Moscow-City and Imperia Tower. As I am still new to editing Wikipedia I am in need of a bit of expert advice.

I work with the developer of the Imperia Tower project. Hence, as the entries would not be classified as "independent ideas" I really do not need any specific sources. I simply write accurate updates as a direct result of my knowledge of the project. Not to sound arrogant, but there really are no sources (English speaking) that are more reliable than I am on the subject. How should this referenced? After I get this cleared up I can attribute it to the main article.

Also, my photos keep getting deleted for improper source citing. The developer holds the rights to anything I upload and have no problem with them being disseminated as public domain. I tried to indicate this, but they still get deleted. Any advice here?

Thanks much.

Noelwycliffe 12:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If I understand your question and policy correctly, you can't make edits of the kind that you describe.

You write in a literate, reasonable and polite way, a pleasant contrast to many people who claim to have direct knowledge of the subjects whereof they write. I'm inclined to believe that you're telling the truth. The problem, though, is that anybody can claim to be in the position you claim you are in, and there's a massive opportunity for hoaxes, etc.

When you say that there are no sources in English that are more reliable than yourself, you suggest that there may be reliable, informative and (whether on the web or in print) published Russian-language sources. You're welcome to write stuff that you can cite from Russian.

Another warning: try to go easy on all of this. It can very easily look as if you are engaged in a publicity exercise. If these development sites are really notable, disinterested people are sure to write them up eventually (whereupon you can certainly correct any mistakes).

Now for the photos. I don't know what the precise problem was. However: The developer holds the rights to anything I upload and have no problem with them being disseminated as public domain. That looks dangerously close to a contradiction: By putting something into the public domain, the copyright holder loses all rights. (Yes, all. The photographs can then be recycled, completely legally, in for example material that satirizes or ridicules the sites and their developer, possibly after photoshoplifting.) Read up on "Creative Commons"; it's more likely to be what you're after. -- Hoary 14:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] question

(moved from WP:CN) Hi,

I apologize in advance for not putting this in the right place: I'm not sure _where_ I report people who copy from Wikipedia (as opposed to the other way around)...

The following article: http://www.playfuls.com/news_006054_You_Have_Just_Become_a_Universal_Blood_Donor.html

contains striking similarities to the Wikipedia article "Blood Types" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type). Seeing as the article was published today, it seems the Wikipedia entry predates the article, which would lead me to suggest the author violated the Wikipedia GNU Freetext license (in addition to plagiarizing the article).

For what it's worth...

(Where should one post issues like this anyways?)

Regards, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Durova (talk • contribs) 14:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

The process to follow is described at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. As far as I know, there is no specific place to report individual instances (like this) of suspected inappropriate reuse, although the talk page of the copied article or Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks might be a reasonable place to start. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page ressurection

I am wondering where to go to get a deleted page resurrected (at least temporarily). Specifically, the page Turn-based tactics was deleted when a merger took place between it and the page Tactical role-playing game. Several issues have arisen since the merger took place: 1) I believe the merger should have been done in the other direction (i.e., the TRPG article should have been merged into the TBT article), since the TBT genre has greater scope. 2) the merged article does not properly deal with cases where games in one genre do not fit into the other 3) there may be salvagable information left for when and if a new article is created to replace the one that was deleted. I would like to look at this. Thanks! SharkD 00:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted, the redirect was just placed over the top. THe previous version is still in the history. Viridae^Talk 00:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I just resurrected the page. SharkD 03:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] how do you purge a history?

I read Wikipedia:Purge but am unclear on how to super-reload (purge) a history. How would I do so? 69.140.164.142 04:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Go to the pages history in your browser. Then add ?action=purge to the end of its address in the address bar. Then click go.--Dacium 05:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I wish to use Wikipedia content for a profit making book.

Is this possible? I wish to use multiple pages of Wikipedia content to write a reference book and I wish to know if it is legal and how to go about doing it. Thanks. Gamedragon11290. An answer by email would be perferable if possible at [e-mail address deleted] Also Sry for the fact that this is not in the right section as I have no idea where to put a question like this. Gamedragon11290 13:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes you can do this, according to the conditions carefully explained here. That text is fairly long and you should read it slowly and carefully. -- Hoary 13:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I am new to book publshing (First book and in High School) and before I went to get a copyright, publishers, ect. I just needed to know if I could use Wikipedia Information as it really is the best source of information. I will print that page and have someone who understands it give me a laymans version. Thanks for your help.Gamedragon11290 13:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You'd be better off citing the original sources that Wikipedia cites. Also talk to a reference librarian about your field of interest. That person can probably direct you to some leading references and help you obtain interlibrary loans of those books. By the way, it isn't a good idea to post your e-mail address on the Internet - especially since you're probably underage. Best wishes on your project. Durova^Charge! 14:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting assistance to form guidelines on editing how-to articles

There are currently over a hundred articles in Category:Articles containing how-to sections, and some work is slowly being done to edit the articles to the appropriate style and tone expected of encyclopedia articles. There's just some big questions unanswered, even tho the category has been in place for almost a year. Some magnificient articles have detailed, useful descriptions on procedures, to the point that the said descriptions are for all practical purposes equivalent with a how-to guide. Yet they have the style and tone fitting to the encyclopedia. There hasn't been a thorough discussion on how to handle such how-to material that have some features of an encyclopedia article, and some features of an instruction guide.

I invite any interested persons to share their thoughts on the talk page of the how-to category. Santtus 15:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual kennel

Should this article even stay? I mean, I don't get what the creator is trying to deliver in this article, except that Virtual kennel is something that "happens only in the Interenet" information about... dogs that are "not real".

IF it's a valid article, then it requires major cleanup and wikify. — Yurei-eggtart^talk 08:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to cite wikipedia in a Turabian (Chicago) document?

I have used Wikipedia for a major paper. Now I need to cite it. I however have no author name or publication place. Where would I find this info or how do I correctly attribute it? -Roger McQ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.53.77.141 (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

• Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia WilyD 20:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You could treat the Wikipedia source as a webpage and site to the web address, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main-Page (last visited April 5, 2007).

[edit] Portrait wanted

Where can I source a portrait of Roberto Ridolfi? Is there a specific place all these images of Tudor nobility are coming from, or are people just looking in the normal way? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinates

How do you format the coordinates as in location-related articles?  ~Steptrip 21:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Login assistance

How can I have the email address in my Wikipedia account profile changed without loggin into the account myself to do so?

I am an old user who has forgotten his password and whose email address has changed since setting up a Wikipedia user account. As a result, I can not login into my account. The only automated option presented is to have a new password emailed in place of my old one. But that is of no help, since the email address in my record is no longer active and accessible. I do not want to give up my user name and create a new account.

Is there a designated person I can contact to assist me with this?

Thanks, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.112.196.4 (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] contributions not showing

None of my edits for the last hour are showing in my contribution list. Is something wrong?--Paloma Walker 00:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)