Do I just copy and paste it? Thanks! Ramister (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramister: No the image has to be uploaded. Where did you find this image? We take copyright very seriously here and unless it is a free image, or falls under the very narrow guidelines of non-free use, it can't be used. Note that every image you find on the Internet is copyrighted under a license we cannot use unless explicitly stated otherwise. --Majora (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So your saying I can't add a picture to something (like my sandbox) without permission? Ramister (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramister: If you were to upload something without it that would be copyright infringement. So yeah, you can't just upload images without permission. Even for use in your sandbox. Sorry. --Majora (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the license grants you permission to use it, then you can use it. There are many different image licenses. Some allow anyone to use the image with no need to give credit. Some don't allow you to do anything with it unless you pay the photographer. It might help if you told us what image you wanted to use. †dismas†|^(talk) 03:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Well, this is a picture of a person. Since it is a person, do I have to get their permission (or their parents even, since the person is under 18 years of age)? Ramister (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. Who took the photo? Copyright generally lies with the photographer. You would need their permission. And they would have to prove said permission by filling out a release form and sending it in to our email response team. --Majora (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I ought to forget about it. This is all slightly confusing for a 13 year old. Ramister (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC) Hey, I just thought of something. Since this image is on facebook, is it free to use? Ramister (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, copyright is automatic from the moment of creation and just because you post it online doesn't void that copyright. Facebook images are still copyrighted and can't be used without a release. --Majora (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2016

What if it is a picture from Wikipedia, is it free? Ramister (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it has been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons it ought to be free, as that is what Commons is for. If it has been uploaded locally to the English Wikipedia, you need to look at the licencing conditions; it may have been loaded under Non-free content criteria, which require a comprehensive justification for each page on which the image is used. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, so I just now finished working on Atlantic (1848), but I somehow missed seeing the existing, much shorter article PS Atlantic at any point in the process. Would it be alright to request a history merge in this case? Should I just copy and paste my text to the existing article? What would be best here? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 04:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Howicus: You were the only author on the new page so you can just copy and paste what you wrote into the old one and request G7. Or just turn which one is less likely to be searched for into a redirect. Either way will work. --Majora (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Majora:, thanks for the help. I redirected PS Atlantic to Atlantic (1848) since, although it later became standard, none of the sources I used included the prefix PS. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 04:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the most likely search term is just "Atlantic", I added Atlantic (1848) to Atlantic (disambiguation). -Arch dude (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I also changed the "Atlantic" redirect page to point to the disambiguation page instead to the ocean. This will cause a bit of an uproar, but will also direct the attention of the dab fixers to check that all of the "Atlantic" links go to the correct page. -Arch dude (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agha also acted in Gujarati Flim: Akhand Saubhagyavati] .. Directed by Mamhar Raskaoor and a song was very famous "jat jao chandan har lavo ghunghat nahi kholu re" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.151.178.125 (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like something you could add to the article Agha (actor), with suitable references of course. Or if you're not confident to do that, you could add the suggestion at the Talk page for that article, which is at Talk:Agha (actor). --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am getting a frustrating message that "Caution:replication lag is high, changes newer than 1500 minutes may not be shown" on the edit counter site https://tools.wmflabs.org. What is this and how to remove it? Are the edits being counted in such a situation? Please someone help me!!Jayabilla (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayabilla: There are many edit counters and other tools at https://tools.wmflabs.org/?list. I assume you refer to https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec. It means what it says. At the time you saw that message, edits made in the last 1500 minutes (25 hours) may not be shown or included in the count by that tool. There is nothing you can do except come back later or try another edit counter. The xTools are often down or have problems. The edits will be included in the count later. Your own edit count can quickly be seen at Special:Preferences. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Thank you for clearing my query.Jayabilla (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I edited something on Wikipedia and pressed save changes and now i don't know what it said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keirlawson04 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keirlawson04 and welcome to Wikipedia. This is not a big deal. Just go to the top of the current, or any wikipeida page and click on contributions. This will show you everything that you have done. You can click on "prev" to see the difference in the version between your edit and what was there before. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Keirlawson04: Your edit [1] removed some apparent vandalism. That was good but it would have been much better if you had clicked the "View history" tab, seen all the vandalism in [2] and reverted the whole edit. I have done that now. If it was also you who made the original edit before creating an account then it sounds like a good faith mistake. Thanks for trying to fix it and report it here. If you click "Save changes" then the edit immediately becomes part of the live encyclopedia displayed to readers. This surprises some people. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Keirlawson04: You can also click Contributions in the upper right corner and see every (undeleted) change you've made. RJFJR (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been expanding an article on the Greater long-nosed armadillo. Putting "Dasypus kappleri" in Google got me 8660 hits of which the ninth is a pdf file - "Indigenous knowledge about the greater long-nosed armadillo ...". I have made use of this source in the article but cannot find a suitable url to use in the citation. Can you help? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not http://xenarthrans.org/resources/newsletter/Fleck&Voss_Indigenous%20knowledge%20about%20the%20greater%20long-nosed%20armadillo.pdf ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Biddulph (talk • contribs) 19:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is wrong to have the name "Jack Stamp Brooksbank" in BOLD. There are many Brooksbank men referred to in the article - not just this chap. Please help fix if needed. Thanks User:Srbernadette User talk:Srbernadette

I removed the bolding. (Oddly enough by invoking wp:Be bold)). RJFJR (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it say on the wiki page for XFactor Matt Terry that he won the XFactor 2016 when the vote hasn't closed yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.63.19.155 (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.itv.com/xfactor/news/matt-terry-wins-x-factor-2016 on the official site says he won. Do you have a source saying the winner shouldn't be known yet? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the IPs posting, the result was not known. -- AxG / ✉ / 10 years of editing 09:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Goddamit,l've already donated to Wikipedia and I keep getting your requests for a donation. To make it even worse, your donation window won't let me opt out without you emailing me another reminder! Stop it, damn it!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.38.67.116 (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@50.38.67.116: Let me quote the answer that Dig deeper gave when this question came up at the TeaHouse: Once you click on the "X" at the upper right corner of the advertisement it should disappear and stay disappeared until the next campaign (a few months later). However, I'm not sure whether this works for IP users who are not logged on, because it can't tell that you are the same person... --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that works for IPs, only logged in users. Even if it does, as this post was your first edit from that IP, the computer will not know that you have donated, or requested no more pop-ups, using another IP. - Arjayay (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from Africa, it is with great pain to see the World Miss University Nigeria page deleted on the 11:45, 2 November 2016 CambridgeBayWeather (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:World Miss University Nigeria, reasons Unkown to us, can anyone help restore back please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktemidayo (talk • contribs) 03:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World Miss University Nigeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have posted at WP:REFUND on your behalf so that an admin can look at it. But if it is correct that the pageant has "no significant coverage" then it is likely to be deleted again. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktemidayo: the page is restored. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Campbell will probably want to look at the article again. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktemidayo, please redo the World Miss University Nigeria article to meet WP:GNG and provide in line citations (multiple third party reliable sources with in-depth coverage). I will give you time (10 days) after which, I will reevaluate the article whether to keep or nominate for deletion.--Richie Campbell (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you undo the last edits this IP address made on the Meg White page? The formatting is messed up and I don't know how to fix it, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:4AD1:4900:3DA3:7AF7:D716:E6B6 (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On someone else's advice I clicked some buttons in Preferences and started playing with RefToolbar 2.0a. I grew tired of that very quickly since it didn't seem to have the autofill function for doi, URLs, etc. So now I'm trying to get refToolPlus, but I can't seem to get that stupid Toolbar 2.0 out of my--out of my what, I don't know, I'm looking at it right now above this edit screen. Help me get rid of it! Drmies (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Drmies, did you try adding the following line to your skin JS page?

window.refToolbarInstalled = 'bypass';

Thanks. Lourdes 06:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoa, that did something--the old toolbar is back. But...how about the fancier refToolPlus? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand your query Drmies. Thanks. Lourdes 09:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes, I was looking for this, Wikipedia:RefToolbar/1.0#refToolPlus. BTW, the old toolbar is indeed back--but minus the "Cite" button, so now I have to do them completely by hand. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. While I ping PrimeHunter for additional inputs, let me suggest an action plan. Remove the script that I asked you to put. Then go into your Preferences->Editing. Uncheck (yes, uncheck) the Enable enhanced editing toolbar box. And then try both of the following (assuming you have already placed

importScript('User:Apoc2400/refToolbarPlus.js');

to your monobook.js. First, uncheck the Enable wizards for links, formatting, tables, citations, and the search and replace function box in your Preferences->Editing section. See whether your required Reftoolplus is back. If not, check the Enable wizards for links, formatting, tables, citations, and the search and replace function. Try again. If this too doesn't work, Primehunter may have a solution. Thanks. Lourdes 16:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging PrimeHunter again. Lourdes 16:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't tried refToolbarPlus but is your skin MonoBook at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering? Edits to monobook.js only affect the MonoBook skin. Your vector.js edit [3] apparently affected you and this indicates your skin is Vector. User:Apoc2400/refToolbarPlus.js hasn't been edited since 2011 so it wouldn't surprise me if it's broken or has issues. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Wikipedia is requested to add the following information in its contents of Autonomous aircraft and history of aviation.

In April 22,2014 US Patent Office(USPTO) issued patent to the invention of Nepal's Ruchit Kumar Regmi to his invention titled Pilotless Aircraft for commercial and military use(US Patent No. 8702033 Nepal Patent No. 73/071) which is also known as Autonomous aircraft/Automated aircraft.His aircraft can be used in both Fields: CIVIL and MILITARY. As a civil aircraft it can be used in passenger, cargo and other business and service flights ,and the Military aircraft can be used in almost military purposes .US and Nepal patented his invention is Pilotless aircraft that means his invention is fully autonomous aircraft/Fully automated aircraft;however,it can be used in piloted aircraft too. Claim number from 6 to 9 of his invention can be used in piloted aircraft on which very minimum activities of pilot intervention are applied as an optionally piloted aircraft.The ideas of his invention can be used in fuelled power plant and also in electrically operated power plant. Similarly the ideas of this invention can also be used in VTOL, Rotary wing and fixed winged aircraft too.The ideas of automated Traffic Collision Avoiding Systems(TCAS) of his invention can also be used in Automated Obstacle avoiding systems(Sense and Avoiding Systems).The ideas of his invention can be utilised in the aircraft of different speeds,sizes,weight, types etc and all the parameters of the aircraft depend on according to the size,speed,weight, type,models etc of the aircraft.The ideas of his invention can also be used as air taxi,as personal aircraft, as other civil and military aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.211.151.93 (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, IP user. "Wikipedia" doesn't add anything to anywhere. All editing is done by volunteer editors, such as you and me. If you wish something added to an article (I presume you mean the two articles Autonomous aircraft and History of aviation), please make a suggestion on their associated talk pages. But somebody is much more likely to pick up your suggestion if you provide a reference to a reliably published independent source. Patents, though public documents, are not primary sources: some patents have been written about widely, and are notable; but many have attracted no notice whatever. In order for this patent to be worth mentioning in the article, it should have been written about in a secondary source, and the material added to the Wikipedia articles should be drawn from, and referenced to, that source. Unless it has been written about extensively by independent sources, I doubt if it merits more than a sentence in the articles. --ColinFine (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine, I think you meant that patents are primary sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did, thank you Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Corrected. --ColinFine (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I don't normally try to edit wikipedia, but wondered whether this page needed to be made more 'timeless' or 'time proof'.

The current picture illustrating this page... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Science_Fiction_Society

...is of one past officer (many officers contribute to ESFS) but this picture of the promotional poster for the first ever Eurocon may be more relevant (there will always only be one 'first' Eurocon')

The poster can be found here http://www.concatenation.org/conrev/eurocon72.bmp

The caption might be "The promotional poster for the first Eurocon in 1972".

Being a promotional poster (purposely created to be seen by many free of charge) it is copyright free. The website from which this is located has a copyright page http://www.concatenation.org/copy.html ... that reverts copyright to the original owners (who as said in this case produced the material for promotional purposes and wide, free distribution). There is no commercial or intellectual value to this poster and the event in anycase is long over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.248.180 (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The web site you cite says "The copyright in these pages belongs to the authors of the pages." That is certainly not a release of copyright. Wikipedia will not accept an image unless it can prove it has the legal right to use it. Maproom (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have made a common mistake: You believe that "a promotional poster (purposely created to be seen by many free of charge)" is copyright free. No matter how logical this seems, it is simply not true. Basically, everything is copyrighted. We can use it only if the copyright holder has explicitly licensed it under a license that is acceptable to us, or it has fallen into the public domain, (or a few other possibilities.) -Arch dude (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been fixing "Hilary Clinton" typos, but two situations aren't easily fixed. Can you help?

(1) Lucia Aniello references a printed story, "Interview: Lucia Aniello and Paul W. Downs Talk Paulilu Comedy and the Hilarity of Hilary Clinton." Because it is printed, I can't tell whether the typo is in the source (so the reference just reflects the original error) or whether a Wikipedia editor made the mistake. With the first, it needs [sic], and with the second it needs a fix, but either way it needs something. What should be done?

(2) April 2009 Moldovan parliamentary election protests references a page called "Hilary Clinton replies to Vladimir Voronin," and that page indeed has an error in its title. However, if I put [sic] after "Hilary," it will break the code. Hilary [sic Clinton replies to Vladimir Voronin]. How to fix this?

Thank you. 208.95.51.72 (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See guidance at MOS:PMC, specifically trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment. This seems to be fairly obviously a typographical error, and not an important error which needs to be preserved for the purposes of Wikipedia. TimothyJosephWood 13:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like this: Hilary [sic] Clinton replies to Vladimir Voronin. Or there's probably a better way. Maproom (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found a minor error (misdirected link) in an article and I am not sure how to bring it to someones attention as i don't know how to fix it. Suggestions please...

@Bakersdirtydzn:, normally, the most expedient way to fix it is to be bold and fix the error yourself. Alternatively you can post on the article talk page.

I suppose since you're already here, if you would like to be more specific, I'm sure myself or someone else can take a look. TimothyJosephWood 14:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The deforestion wikipedia page is looking bugged https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation

82.9.246.118 (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of. TimothyJosephWood 17:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

How can I set an article to be translated into different languages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardfletcher (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Richardfletcher. For articles (usually stubs) in the English Wikipedia which can be expanded from the corresponding articles in other languages, there is Template:Expand language. However, I do not believe there is a template that works in reverse. You will probably have to address that on whatever language Wikipedia you would like the article translated to, and not visa versa. TimothyJosephWood 18:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For further information on this topic, you might want to see WP:TRANSLATE. †dismas†|^(talk) 19:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've run into this several times, but just now managed to articulate it clearly enough to ask. (If you care, the trigger was a discussion on Talk:Carry flag, but this is more abstract than that.)

WP:SYNTH is a very strict standard. And, frankly, one that for me is more honour'd in the breach than the observance. I get the idea, and understand how it helps combat POV editing, but I juxtapose facts from different sources all the damn time to tell a story that isn't explicitly stated anywhere. For many subjects, there simply aren't enough secondary materials to support each useful inference. Senator X has expressed upset over project Y's budget and schedule. Project Y's funding is being held up in committee Z. Senator X is a member of committee Z. Three different sources, and none of them explicitly say that Senator X is contributing to the holdup, but IMHO failing to place these close together so the inference is suggested to the reader is just bad writing.

But a lot of that is covered in WP:What SYNTH is not, and for the rest, if there's a conflict between my opinion about bad writing and WP policy, well WP policy wins. The problem becomes really acute, however, when considering issue of WP:WEIGHT like WP:FRINGE. To assess due weight, an editor is required to synthesize many sources. There's no magical objective source of due weighting that I can cite; I have to look at a bunch of sources and judge weight.

This doesn't seem like a minor nit-pick about wording choice; due weight is key to WP:NPOV and pretty fundamentally affects how an article is structured. But it seems to be in fundamental conflict with WP:NOR. They're both core content policies, so it's not obvious how to resolve it. Are there any good essays/FAQs/discussions about this tension? I could use some guidance. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Answering my own question, I found WP:NOTOR#Conflict between sources. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 15:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow tor got loaded on our server, it has encrypted all the files on the server. How do get rid of tor and remove the encryption???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:545:8000:E00:C48F:D321:F2CD:25B9 (talk • contribs)

You might get a better answer from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. Tor does not encrypt your server. See Ransomware, revise your backup strategy, and consider upgrading your security. You may wish to consult a professional. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Delia Naval Contreras, sister of Rodel Naval. I was the one who originally created the article in Wikipedia of Rodel Naval, my late brother, long time ago. Due to busyness, I hardly visited this site. Until yesterday, a new friend brought to my attention that he was lead to Rodel's Wikipedia site when he is searching for Rodel Naval. He asked me if Rodel's name was changed to Rodel G. Bactol. RODEL BELVIS NAVAL WAS NEVER CHANGED!!! AND HE NEVER JOINED THE ARMY OR NAVY OR ANY SUCH ORGANIZATIONS as it is erroneously claimed in this site. HE WAS A SINGER, COMPOSER, ACTOR, STAGE ACTOR ... and HE IS MY BROTHER - PERIOD. So, please let me know how could I access this site and edit it. I tried to edit and save it. However, when I tried to view it, my changes are gone. An unauthorized person is making changes on this site in error. As Rodel's sister, please help me. If you cannot help me, I rather have Rodel's site in Wikipedia be completely deleted.

Your prompt action on this matter will be greatly appreciated. ^[1] Thank you and looking forward to hear from you.

Delia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatangmartin (talk • contribs) 20:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tatangmartin. I've repaired some suspected vandalism done a few months ago. Please check the article for any further inaccuracies. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you zzuuzz - Delia Naval Contreras — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatangmartin (talk • contribs) 13:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing because some unknown third party created and wrote the wikipedia entry about me. It is not complete, slanted towards the person who wrote it and does not truly represent my career, I WOULD LIKE TO BE THE ONE WHO WRITES THIS. I've tried to make changes but they get rejected. I've read your help sections and the suggested avenues to make this page my own and be able to edit it are a complete quagmire and seem absurdly complicated. The biggest problem is that a cursory internet search on my name pulls up the wiki entry as the first result. THIS IS A HUGE PROBLEM for me and I need it rectified. I would rather see this entire page taken down if that is an easier course to pursue. You'll see this is coming from me, Mark Picchiotti, on my account. I want to have control of my page. If it remains to be absurd hurdles after absurd hurdles to get this done, the tell me how to take this entry down. Markpicchiotti (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Because of the problems associated with conflicts of interest, Wikipedia doesn't permit people to have control of individual pages. What you are very much encouraged to do is to list what updates are required over at Talk:Mark Picchiotti, and editors will be able to see if they can help. - Bilby (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you can't "take control of your page" as this is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and as such nobody owns articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Unfortunately, you are not able to make the page your own, and if you add unsourced promotional material it will be removed per Wikipedia policy. If the article contains contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, then you can request correction or possibly deletion. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Summary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking for further information. Dbfirs 21:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, per bedrock policy, since you have challenged the article's content, and because this is an article on a living person, I have removed all statements from the article that are unsourced (but for the one sentence lead, and if you advise it is incorrect that can be changed too). Considering that the three sources listed were all dead links (and at least two of the three were of highly questionable reliability, considering one had "blog" in its title and the other was a Tumblr post), I have stubbed the article back to a single sentence.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, can anyone point me to Wikipedia's guidelines, if any, for verifying the date of death of a recently deceased person?

More specifically: When singer Russell Oberlin died in late November, the date of death was promptly added (by an anonymous user) to his Wikipedia article as November 26. Wikipedia's recent deaths index (also listing his death under the 26th) gives The New York Times obituary as the source.

However, the Times says he died "on Friday," which would have been the 25th.

Compounding the problem, almost every other article found online also has the 26th (Saturday). (A couple of outliers have Sunday or Monday.) But these articles, while excellent, are generally not from reliable news sources, or they are clearly secondary sources.

Is it possible that they all copied Wikipedia's possibly erroneous date? I couldn't find any other online news source giving the 25th, until The Guardian's piece appeared several days later. Perhaps it was based on a more accurate reading of the Times obituary?

At this point, I'm very close to "correcting" the date in the Wikipedia article, but I would welcome any other recommendations on how best to resolve this (short of undertaking "original research"). Many thanks. Hosenrollen (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go ahead and make the correction, citing a reference such as the Guardian obituary. Dbfirs 21:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have some questions about this issue myself (a few sections above), but basically judging reliability of sources is not only permitted, but necessary. And if there's a conflict between sources published *before* the WP edit, which are presumably independent, and the error is confined to sources published after the edit, you have good reason to suspect a WP:CIRCULAR reference. In fact, I'd put the reason I was choosing some reports over others in the footnote. "{{cite news|...}} A Wikipedia edit made on (date) erroneously stated the date as the 26th, a Saturday. This error was copied into numerous later news reports." If you're really confident, feel free to add it to Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents 71.41.210.146 (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took a closer look at the chronological sequence, thanks to your discussion, and now realize that the Wiki edit apparently took place on the 26th, three days before the Times obituary (which is dated the 29th). (I only first saw it in Wednesday's print edition, later in the week.) So the edit wasn't based on the Times at all, and perhaps not on any published source...? I'd better re-check the others (there aren't that many) to see which if any could possibly have been up by then, before I go with the Times/Guardian date of Nov. 25... Hosenrollen (talk) 07:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I've found this Nov. 26 announcement in Opera-L, which says he died Saturday evening and where. But I'm confused by the time stamp on the post. Is that Saturday a.m.? Did she mean to say Friday evening?

And here is the Facebook page with many posts; I think the first to note his passing was David Daniels's and I'll try to see if it helps establish anything as soon as I can get back to it. Thanks, Hosenrollen (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I messed up on changes I made to the entry on Ganz, Rudolph. The original had a bunch of unneeded citations that were redundant (a series of citations for one statement of fact), but I guess I didn't know how to do it correctly and now the citation list is all messed up. Could a helpful editor intervene on my behalf and maybe clean up the citation list? Sorry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caractecus (talk • contribs)

I taken the easy part and reverted to how it was before so that someone can help clean it up. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caractecus, non-refs removed and some other fixes Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just added another book to the list of books titled Boys will be Boys.

When I went to the Wikipedia entry, it was not there.

Is there a time delay or did I do something wrong?

Gary Ferdman

Garyferdman (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Garyferdman: There is no time delay. Click the "View history" tab to see [4] what happened. It was reverted with edit summary "Reverting article-less addition to dab page". Boys Will Be Boys is a disambiguation page to help readers find the right Wikipedia article. Per MOS:DABENTRY there should be a link to an article in each entry. There is no article about the book or its author so there is nothing to link. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Garyferdman: To be a bit more succinct, on disambiguation pages such as that one, there should be a relevant link on each line. In the case of the book you added, there should be a link to the Wikipedia article for either the book itself or to the author. Since neither of those have articles here, we don't include it in the list. †dismas†|^(talk) 02:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia,

I love the fact that you don't advertise on your website...

But I hope you find your definition of advertisement, Having a section on your page for donations is one thing but to have it pop up every page is the definition of an advertisement.

I hope your foundation will review your methods of finding donations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.216.166.48 (talk) 05:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear reader, you can click on an x in the pop-up and it will not re-appear anymore when you are on that computer. You will only be asked for a donation during one month of the year. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @131.216.166.48: Let me quote the quote that Gronk Oz gave when this question came up previously on the Help Desk: “Once you click on the "X" at the upper right corner of the advertisement it should disappear and stay disappeared until the next campaign (a few months later). However, I'm not sure whether this works for IP users who are not logged on, because it can't tell that you are the same person...” (original quote by Dig deeper at the Teahouse). If you have any further questions, feel free to gimme a shout! —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 05:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the OP, the solicitation of donations is too obtrusive. Yes, I've figured out how to turn it off, but it was harder than I would have liked. Maproom (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A "Close" button would be nice.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe one issue people are encountering is that the donation tab relies upon cookies when not logged in. So, if you're not logged in, browsing anonymously, such as "in private mode" or similar, or perhaps from a public computer (library, etc), then you will be prompted every single session, which can be annoying. But that is a consequence of how the user is browsing the internet. Their desire for anonymity is conflicting with the programming to only show the donation pop-up once... Tiggerjay (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my organization prepared several translations of an article. Now the article that used to be in English got overwritten with text in Albanian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpret_Europe I wanted to link this article to the others so that system would show we have an Albanian translation now, but don't know how to. I went to Languages -> edit connections and delete the English (because it is not in English anymore), but I can not do it. I tried to add Albanian, but can not, because the system doesn't find the article. What do you suggest? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dijana PC (talk • contribs) 10:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the mistaken over-writing of the English version. I noticed also that you had in October mistakenly moved User:Dijana PC/sandbox to Wikipedia:Interpret Europe, which was wrong on two grounds, firstly that the text was not in English and secondly that the Wikipedia namespace is not for article text but for administration of the project. I have therefore moved the text back to your sandbox. If you want to know more about translating an English Wikipedia article into an article in one of the foreign language Wikipedias, see WP:Translate us. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dijana PC. Judging from your mention of "my organization", I am concerned that you may have a conflict of interest in working on Interpret Europe at all. Looking at that article, I see no independent sources cited about the organization - without these, the article does not establish that it is notable in Wikipedia's special sense. Please understand that English Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything that an organisation says about itself, or that its employees or members say about it: Wikipedia is only interested in what sources independent of the organisation have published about it. (Other language Wikipedias have different policies, and it may be that some of them would take a different view of this article: I don't know). If you want to create and link articles about IE in different languages, please see Translation; but (if I am right in my understanding that you are part of the organisation) you will still have a COI in doing so. --ColinFine (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simi Valley Adult School and Career Institute has changed the school name to Simi Institute for Careers and Education. The Principal is Michele Arso. Simi Unified School District. Address: 1880 Blackstock Avenue, Simi Valley, CA 93065, 805.579.6200, Website: SimiInstitute.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.157.143.202 (talk) 16:48, December 13, 2016‎ (UTC)

• Apparently yes. Will try and move the article to the new name. Thanks for the information. Lourdes 17:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it appears that I cannot submit my entry from User:MYRIADGT/sandbox for review and publication. I am told that the MYRIADGT user page does not exist. Please advise as to what I should do. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MYRIADGT (talk • contribs) 19:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, are you looking for User:MYRIADGT/sandbox? It is tagged for deletion because it is promotional. Your username also violates Wikipedia policies. Fuortu (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As well as being promotional it was a copyright violation from various pages on the https://www.myriadgt.com/ website (hence not surprising that the language was promotional). --David Biddulph (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make a drawing, sort of an illustration, very simple, a few parallel vertical and horizontal lines like in a grid. I also want to number some of the intersections and place small circles on them. I wonder if there is a page somewhere in Wikipedia that assists with this type of work? Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking for how to create that image on a wikipedia page, or just in general? Please seek general computing support from the Reference Desk. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's for Wikipedia then you can try Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is for a Wikipedia sandbox. Thank you, @PrimeHunter, you've helped me before. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiggerjay: if what you want is anything like the three diagrams here, tell me the spec on my talk page, and I'll make the image for you. Maproom (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom, the request was acutally from AboutFace 22 not me. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A real-life acquaintance just discovered Special:Uploads/Nyttend, which surprises me: she already knew my onwiki identity, so that's fine, but I've never heard of this special page before (I'm not even finding it on Special:Specialpages), and as I can't find a description, I'm really confused how it works. It's not linked anywhere that I'd think to link — and what's more, it's significantly different from Special:Listfiles or https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Nyttend&namespace=6&tagfilter=&year=2016&month=-1 because it includes Commons uploads as well as uploads here at en:wp. Can anyone tell me anything about this page, e.g. how to reach it and whether it includes all my uploads or just a subset of them? Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed at Help:Special page (as Special:MyUploads, but the generalization is obvious). Special:Specialpages is mostly global system-wide special pages. It doesn't list Special:Diff, Special:Contributions, or lots of other parameterized pages. (Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/upload?user=Nyttend, a different presentation.)

Sorry I can't answer your more detailed questions. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MyUploads is local only. Uploads shows global uploads which is curious. It must do it through CentralAuth but I'm not finding any documentation on mediawiki. Still searching though. --Majora (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: Alright, so the Uploads special page definitely has something to do with mobile viewing of Wikipedia. If you look at the page with the parts enabled, it traces to mw:Extension:MobileFrontend. There is a phab task that has something to do with it here: phab:T50732 but there isn't any answers there. I'm not sure why it also pulls Commons data and there isn't much information on that on the documentation. Perhaps someone else can shed some light on it? --Majora (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's linked on "Uploads" at top of mobile user pages: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nyttend. It only shows Commons uploads as mentioned at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 December 9#Uploads in mobile version. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:OVERLINKING, we shouldn't be linking to major geographical features. Is there a generally accepted line at which a feature becomes major? Hack (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't supply that, but please remember not to link major geographical features if they're not hugely relevant to the context. For example, in an article about atomic theory, you need not link anything in a sentence "The next stage of research occurred in the United Kingdom when Doe published his eighty-third book." However, in articles about places, the major geographical feature is definitely part of the context; a city in the United States needs to have a link to United States in the intro. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just read your article on Kiss and it stated that they performed on Dec 13, 2016 with the winner of The Voice, Sundance. How is that possible when the show is live? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B055:58:ADBA:A56B:7058:9480 (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Voice aired at 8 EST. It is almost 11 in that time zone. Whatever you are watching isn't live. It may say it is live, but just going off the clock it isn't. That information was added about 30 minutes ago and has already been reported by numerous reliable sources. --Majora (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. It is still on apparently. But that information was added 30 minutes ago. Wikipedia editors like to keep the articles as up to date as possible. --Majora (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know if the website I linked is the right place to request an article to be made when you don't know what category it belongs in? Ramister (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Maybe I should have posted this instead. Ramister (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ramister, yes. It is for other or unknown categories. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 04:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I need to create a page about University Repository.

But I did not see any information about other University Repositories, maybe it is not permitted to publish?

So, please help me.

Thank you, Tolkyn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jangulova (talk • contribs) 04:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University Repository of what exactly? If it is part of the university it would probably go within the article about the university if there is enough to go on at all. Probably not enough to have a standalone article. --Majora (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tolkyn. Wikipedia does not have articles on everything that exists in the world, just things that are notable in Wikipedia's special sense: people with no connection to the subject have thought them worth publishing significant material on. If you are thinking of creating an article, please start by reading Your first article. When you say you "need" to create a page, I wonder if that means that you are connected with the University Repository in question and have been directed to "create a page" as part of your job? If that is the case, please be aware that Wikipedia may not be used for promotion of any kind (and that includes non-commercial organisations) and that editing articles where you may have a conflict of interest is discouraged. --ColinFine (talk) 10:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As all institutions have repositories and most containing unique collections of one sort or other, there is to my mind, little encyclopedic value to creating such an article focusing on just one university. Also guess, several editors here (self included) would immediately put it up for AfD and commit it to cyber-heven without so much as a tombstone to morn its passing. However, having said that, if this university repository provides free and open access to all, then that might be worth adding to the WP University's article as a short sub heading, as I think that effort makes such a repository notable. Example:the University of Pennsylvania is making efforts in this direction. If enough universities open up their archives in such a way, then maybe, one-day, we should create a list of open access university repositories. All of Wikipedia is work in progress and no doubt such an article will come about eventually. So, think and encourage, the OP to explore this.--Aspro (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i want to make a new page for our movie. please give them link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabidecembermist (talk • contribs) 10:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• To create an article, follow these steps:

1. Read Your first article carefully.
2. If you don't have an account, consider creating one (it's not essential, but it makes some things easier, especially communicating with other editors) and logging in.
3. Learn the basics of editing with the Wikipedia:Tutorial
4. Make sure the subject is notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article
5. Gather reliable sources to cite in the article
6. Make sure no article on the subject exists under a different title by typing the subject into the search box and clicking 'Search'
7. Use the Article Wizard to create a draft.
8. Create the article, including all your references, making sure you adhere to the Manual of Style and our article layout guidelines. Base the article on what the references say, rather than on what you know.
9. Once you believe that your draft meets Wikipedia's requirements, submit it for review by picking the "Submit your draft for review" button in the draft.
10. Be aware that many drafts are not accepted the first time, or even the second time they are submitted for review, for failing to adhere to our policies and guidelines. New articles by new users are particularly likely not to be accepted, due to new users' unfamiliarity with our rules. Consider gaining experience by editing existing articles before attempting to create new ones. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, Sabidecembermist. I'm afraid you have some fundamental misunderstandings about Wikipedia. If people who have no connection with your movie have published significant material about it in reliable places, then Wikipedia may have an article about it; otherwise, no such article will be accepted, however it is written. An article should summarise what these independent sources have said about the movie: Wikipedia has no interest in what you or anybody else connected with the movie say or want to say about it. As you have a conflict of interest, you are strongly discouraged from creating or editing such an article. And finally, creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia, and there really is no shortcut. --ColinFine (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to tell what pages a template is used on? I found this, which tells the total number of pages, but provides no information on which pages those are. TimothyJosephWood 15:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the template page and click the "what links here" tool over in the left bar. RJFJR (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...ever had a problem where the solution was so easy you looked right over it? TimothyJosephWood 16:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...All the time... RJFJR (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Hi there!

I have noticed an edit made to a talk page - this one - which appears to publicly reveal personal information including phone number and email address. Is there a page to request that the visibility of this edit be hidden?

Thanks for your help, <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some Gadget Geek, I don't know if there is an official page, but I've done it anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Why isn't WP:RFO designed to be used like WP:RFPP? <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Some Gadget Geek: If you want something hidden then discussing it in public is often bad. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I work for a library and have been assigned to create a Wikipedia page for our library. I've already stated the COI line at the beginning so everyone knows this. I've been given permission to list anything on our actual website on the Wikipedia. Yesterday the "history" portion on my draft Wikipedia pages was removed for copyright issues. I have direct permission from the person who wrote it up to use it on the page. Is there any way around this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AZimmermanDunedin (talk • contribs) 16:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AZimmermanDunedin. The way round it is not to use copyright material. While it is possible for the holder of the copyright (the library) to release it under a suitable licence (which will allow anybody to reuse it for any purpose, including commercial - see WP:donating copyright materials) material from an organisation's own website is almost never suitable for a Wikipedia article; because Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything that a subject says about themselves. If you want to write an article about your library, start by finding reliable independent sources which discuss your library at some length, and base your draft entirely on what they say (though in your own words, of course). If you can write a substantial article that way, then you can add some uncontroversial factual data (such as places and dates) from the library's own website. --ColinFine (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As your draft currently sits, I don't see why most of the material would stay. For instance, hours of operation is not generally in any of our articles. Nor are mission statements. I notice that you mentioned your COI, but I thought I'd point out both WP:COI as well as WP:OWN. That last one points out that the library will have no control over the content of the article about it. I don't mean to come off as harsh but I think that you and the rest of the staff should know what they're getting into. †dismas†|^(talk) 18:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great question -- but as others have said there are several issues with what you're trying to do, and here are some of my additions:

1. Wikipedia is not simply a collection of everything, even non-profits like Libraries. They must be able to establish their own notability to be included through reliable third-party sources. Right now, while it appears that Dunedin Public Library is a fine and respectable library, there is nothing which established is to be included in wikipedia. I suggest you take a look at WP:CORP which spends more time on this topic.
2. The information you're copying is written in a promotional tone (See WP:SPAM), which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. And correcting it isn't simply swapping out taboo words. Rather a complete rewrite of what is trying to be stated. And if I was to go through to remove the promotional and non-encyclopedic content there would be virtually nothing left of the article.

While this comparison might be extreme, take a look at Library of Congress or perhaps on a less grand scale, look at Geisel Library. Those contain examples of the type of encyclopedic information we're looking for in order to be included here. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I find a photographer on say, Flickr, who has watermarks on all of their photos, but is willing to release one under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.0 Generic License, would I be allowed to upload the photo to the WikiMedia Commons? Or would I have to request that the photographer upload a non-watermarked version? Removing the watermark seems like it would be too much to ask, but I'm not clear on how to understand WP:Watermark. Would I be allowed to upload the original, watermarked version of a photo to the Commons, if I also uploaded a second version with the watermark cropped out? --Jpcase (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Watermarks are discouraged and image without such mark should be uploaded instead. Also, images which are published under CCA licenses are rarely watermarked in the first place, causing some concerns over the actual license status. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiggerjay: I haven't actually found any watermarked images that have been published under Creative Commons, which as you say, would be strange. But I occasionally contact photographers on Flickr, asking them if they'd be willing to release a photo of their's for use on Wikipedia. So it would be good to know whether asking about watermarked photos is worthwhile or not. When you say "discouraged", how strict is that? Would it still be allowed, so long as the photo was properly licensed? Or could I simply download the photo from Flickr onto my computer, crop out the watermark, and then upload the non-watermarked version to the Commons? --Jpcase (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpcase: The policy on this can be found here: c:COM:Exif#Watermark. It is nor forbidden per say. But it is strongly discouraged. If you do upload an image with a watermark please ensure you tag it with the proper template. This can be found here: c:template:watermark. --Majora (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In the strictest sense, as long as it is licensed properly, technically you can crop the image, and share it because that sort of transformation and reuse would be permitted under a CC BY-SA 2.0 license. And so the preference would likely go: a fully unwatermarked followed by a cropped image if necessary... This is presuming this image is watermarked on the lower corner, as is typical of branded images. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to see here. Ramister should email ArbCom at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org to discuss the block. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I got blocked but I don't know why. Can you please tell me what I did wrong or get me unblocked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:374A:8F70:450B:826:8EF5:F3A1 (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We could tell you, if you gave us your username. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ramister — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:374A:8F70:450B:826:8EF5:F3A1 (talk • contribs)

Ramister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked by User:Opabinia regalis with the reason {{OversightBlock}}. It's unlikely that anyone but the few editors with WP:OVERSIGHT permission will be able to discuss this with you. Deli nk (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please email arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Thanks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You will also find some helpful information at WP:GAB regarding to appealing the block, but as for why, using the email method listed above is the best way to go. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant what did I do wrong on what page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:374A:8F70:450B:826:8EF5:F3A1 (talk • contribs)

Sorry but this isn't going to be discussed here on a public page. Please use the email as advised. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:374A:8F70:450B:826:8EF5:F3A1 (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A minor disagreement has appeared on the "Cottingley Fairies" article, wherein my edit to change the link "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle" to appear as "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle" was reverted (I was by also told by a frankly similarly-experienced editor that I must not have any "idea what (I'm) doing"). I've looked through WP:MOSLINK and WP:NAMES, but I can't seem to find anything about including honorifics in links. Anyone care to weigh in? –Matthew - (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well possibly the problem lies in that you edited to change the link. It was fine before, it was fine after, and I myself might well have rolled back it with an edit summary of "Reverted per WP:BRD, just roiling of the text to no gain, make your case on the talk page as to why your version is objectively better" which I think you would have been hard-pressed to do.

On the merits, I wouldn't consider an honorific to be an irreducable part of a name, no, such that it must always be included in all mentions of the person and be a necessary part of any link to the person. I doubt that there is a written rule about this (but there might be).

Don't worry about the nasty edit summary, it was from User:Eric Corbett who is generally acknowledged to have been weaned on a pickle. Being insulted by him is a badge of honor (which many carry). You didn't do anything wrong. You just made an edit which another editor disagreed with, and that editor reverted it, as as his right. That he was mean about it is too bad (and not his right) but don't overly worry about it. Herostratus (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it's quite alright for you to make a personal attack? Dual standards apply obviously. J3Mrs (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please create the 2017 NCAA Division I FBS football season template please I'm asking for a request to create it. But I Don't know how to make a template.68.102.57.28 (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I told you this the last time you asked for a template. You do a search for "Template:whatever" and when it says that it doesn't exist, you create it. Same as an article. I also told you that you need an account. †dismas†|^(talk) 00:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The image File:Dixon Street, Wellington, Australia.jpg has an incorrect title - Wellington is the capital of New Zealand and has not (nor will ever hopefully be :D) part of Australa.

Where is the correct place to request that an image be renamed? Apologies if I've missed this somewhere in the FAQ or somewhere else, I did do a quick search for this question but was unable to find the answer!

Thanks Albeetle (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]