Revision as of 23:07, 19 April 2016

• WP:Y
• WP:HD
• WP:HELPDESK
• Help:DESK

• For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
• Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
• If your question is about a Misplaced Pages article, draft article, or other page on Misplaced Pages, tell us what it is!
• Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
• For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
• New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).

• Skip to today's questions
• Special help services
• Archived discussions
• How to answer

April 16

Need help!! Is Geacron.com a reliable source for articles?

Hello, recently I have come back from Misplaced Pages after nearly two years and it seems that I have been thrusted into a reiteration of a topic by association. One that I fought hard to end bring an end to and it worked for about two years.

It is as of recent I have come to a dispute on what sources are reliable or not when it comes to a fellow Misplaced Pages editor.

The person that I had a conversation with presented me with this map of the Sasanian Empire, created by people from the University of Michigan:

https://27a0436a-a-ab15346e-s-sites.googlegroups.com/a/umich.edu/imladjov/maps/SasanidEmpire590-628.jpg?attachauth=ANoY7cowVVPecS4U_KoX08N0X4VlT0G3IfBlMj-FJswxHAhgo2Kj1OxGiywTQoL3S17gmjRu5SoSuL4ENSBOs9DYEqklXY3lJvxjV4LGKgtBSDkIZqpqhu8QCyWiQPPtkfQiBzA5OwljXYSoQ8u_pxvBpRdAcPmPYQK6Ja65JbfyNeiFXRU_OBff_gqTncXoMo86jvr01oVQTHCVwhMNCu_MNQlOM7a6g8o1uOqDOQ6TaJOd57LyJGM%3D&attredirects=0

Then I showed my map that was from Geacron.com, a website created and worked on by people from the Universities of Madrid and the University of California Berkeley.

For proof: Here is the link:

http://geacron.com/the-geacron-project/

Here is the map that shows the Sasanian Empire's greatest extent according to them:

http://geacron.com/home-pt/?v=m&lang=pt-pt&z=5&x=51.1303798952&y=34.047191769328&nd=6&d=227A254A268A339A396A426A603A637A643A652&di=603&tm=r&ly=yyyy&fi=217&ff=661&sp=149A671A121A145&e=0A1A0A0&rp=0A0A0A0&re=0A0A0A0&nv=2A1A1A1&sid=GeaCron450008

The basis of this question pretty much boils down to this. Is Geacron a reliable source or not? Kirby (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Keeby101: Firstly, please do take this as being definitive on this subject, it is only my opinion that Geacron.com does not meet WP:RS guidelines because it hasn't been carefully weighed. Though the principles at this private concern do claim their being educated with respectable universities, this is not a university sponsored enterprise. They, also, freely admit that their methodology is new (i.e. untested/verified): We propose a different approach. We created a system to represent the historical events and the geopolitical maps of any region in the world, for any given historical time period. Time, I believe, will test their ultimate reliability, but without further evidence showing this is true I would suggest caution in citing them. Hope this helps you and this discussion. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

References

1. http://geacron.com/the-geacron-project/

Misplaced Pages:Autopatrolled

Hi there modirators and Wikiveterans,

1. I understant there are two major patroling projects in wiki. One is newpages patrol and the other is Recent change patrol. Also there is Pending Changes Reviwer and Rollbackers. Im curious about the wiki policy on that aspect. Do we wish every edit would be patroled by trustworthy community members? If so, i wonder for your thoughts on the next question:

2. I wonder weather autopatrolled users are not being checked for any of their edits, or just for new articles they create? If it's just for new ones, what would be the implications of creating a new status for complete autopatrolled users? These users would be automarked for each edit they make, meaning every edit is autopatrolled. This way they would also get some kind of patroling effect when they revert or change any page they edit. Do you think it can help monitor pages?

3. In general, are there any technical abilitis given to Wikipedians by personal nomination? Meaning without voting and without any notice from the foundation? I think rollbackers fit in this list. Any else?

Thank you!

Mateo (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mateo: Unlike some other Wikis we do not require every edit to be patrolled. That is not what autopatrolled is for. It is simply to limit the workload of new page patrollers by "auto patrolling" any new pages they make removing them from the backlog. There are plenty of people that patrol recent changes both manually and with semiautomated scripts like Huggle. I believe there has been past discussions on turning on full edit patrolling but I will have to search for it (obviously since we don't have it the community consensus was to not turn it on). There are a few different rights that people can apply for. These can be found at WP:PERM along with the descriptions and requirements for each. Generally, rights are not granted unless you prove why you need them and that you will not abuse them. --Majora (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

1. Do you know which wikis do require every edit to be patrolled? Are there statistics on the matter?

2. I know many people are practicing patrols unofficially thorough the projects mentioned above. They are not appointed to do so, and don't have any privileges. But there are exceptions. Pending Changes Reviewer is one, but Rollbackers are best example. They basically have a right by nomination to revert any edit upon their judgment, and effectively they are more official "recent changes patrol".

3. Correct me if im wrong, but in simple terms what autopatrolling means is that "this user will always create useful and well written new pages, therefore checking him/her is pointless". This a strong right, that show great deal of respect to the wikiped. It is also a given by nomination, rather than by consensus or voting. My question essentially is what will happened if we extend this right to autopatrolling each and every edit? Do you think there were discussion on this topic? I searched and couldn't find it.

Thanks again

¬¬¬¬Mateo (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mateo: I like to start a little out of order with your questions. Rollbacker. It is not a right to revert any edit upon their judgment. Rollback is only to be used in 100% clear cut examples of vandalism. Period. It is not to be used in any other cases and if it is used in any other way that is grounds for removal. Rollback is for people that fight so much vandalism that the normal undo button is slowing them down. Pending Changes Reviewer is for the very very small subset of articles that are under pending changes protection. Neither of these are appointed, per say. They are requested and an administrator evaluates the request and approves or denies it. A lot of people get denied pretty much on a daily basis because they either don't show why they need it or they do not meet the requirements for the permission.

Off the top of my head, the Ukrainian Misplaced Pages has full edit patrol on. The only reason I know this is because I was reverting a few cross-wiki mistakes and I happened to notice it. If you go to my contribs there you will see that the one line is red. Which means it has not been reviewed yet. Also on the article in question you will see just below the title a little notice that says that there are unreviewed edits on that page. That is what full patrol looks like. For very very large wikis, like the English Misplaced Pages, it is pretty unfeasible as we would have thousands upon thousands of edits to patrol on a daily basis.

Your explanation of autopatrolled seems pretty spot on to me. It is for people that create enough good articles that their work is just clogging up the new pages feed and they don't have to be checked. It is not really a strong right it is just a technical solution to limit the workload of new page patrols. As for past discussions on full edit patrol, I was able to find Misplaced Pages:Checked edits brainstorming which is from 2005. I can't seem to find an actual disable discussion but I am sure it is just buried somewhere in the village pump archives. --Majora (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

First of all great stuff man, much appreciated.

Taking the parameters you put for rollbacking at heart, allow me to continue by asking:

A. One can say that also full-on Administrators are just given a technical took upon request. They are still appointed, only but by the community. My interest here is for functionaries that are appointed out of construction from above. My question is, do you know if EngWiki has official "roles" like this?

B. Please take notice that not only high-in-the-sky Ombudsman commission suites here, Rollbackers do too, as they can be nominated by administrator without any community approval. Though you are absolutely right it's not a big role and has well written terms of use. Same goes to Autopatrolled users that also get a (passive) tool by appointment. BTW what did you think about my "suggestion" of extending the tool so that any edit made by AP users will be marked? Do you know about discussion on related issues?

C. Let me se if i understand the Uk WIKI. it shows that an edit has not been reviewed, but it remains unclear how are they are going to mark it, correct? Do you have any guess?

D. Basically you are saying that EngWiki wont go full-patrol due to practical reasons alone. I will read the discussion you shared but for now, would you support A full-on edit-patrol if it was possible?

Z. As a side note, maybe you would be interested in Forensic social science.

Happy days,

01:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo (talk • contribs)

@Mateo: Admins are not made admins by request. Quite the opposite actually. It requires community consensus and if you take a look at WP:Requests for adminiship you will see that the process is not a walk in the park by any means. Enwiki has a lot of various permissions that can be assigned to an account. You can see them all here: Special:ListGroupRights. The word "functionaries" has a different meaning here. Functionaries are those with oversight and checkuser access. Those are highly restrictive rights that are only granted by the arbitration committee after community input. The ombudsman commission is maintained by the WMF Board of Trustees to investigate alleged abuses of the functionary tools.

Any community member is allowed to give input for any permission request. From pending changes all the way up to oversight and checkuser. No permission is granted in a vacuum and while administrators can, and do, often grant permissions without any input that is just because nobody cares to give input most of the time.

As for full patrol, if you look at their version of the group rights page, uk:Спеціальна:Права груп користувачів, and give it a rough translation you will see something called Reviews (Рецензенти). These people have a right called review whose translated description is refer versions of the pages as "proven». So people with that right can mark edits as reviewed. Personally, I think that is a bad idea for Enwiki for two reasons. One, we would just have such an enormous backlog that it would be impossible to keep up. And two, we have plenty of people already patrolling recent changes without the need for a user right that grants that ability.

Z: Thanks for the link! I'll have to read that --Majora (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I see what your saying there. Wonder what can be the inner-politics implications on a given status of "reviewer". I asked similler questions on the pump and very interested to see what answers. So far it didn't recive much attention. Any idea how can i Hollaout some people to see and respond?

Once again, Thank you for discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo (talk • contribs) 14:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mateo: You can't really get people to join in if they dont' want to and I doubt I am the only one that thinks full patrol would be a bad idea here. The fact that other wikis have it is not a secret and it has probably been brought up before. I just haven't dug very deep into the archives to find past discussions. In my opinion, it would be pretty close to impossible to get a full consensus of editors to agree to turn on full patrol and to create another backlog when we already have so many that have been sitting around for a long time. --Majora (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Persondata

When you delete it, are you supposed to save the info somewhere else first? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not essential to do so as the info. should already (at least partially) have been transferred to Wikidata. I pretty much always check as I've been deleting P'data since it was first deprecated about June last year. To see what has been transferred click on the Wikidata link in the tools on the left of the page. You should find that you are automatically logged in there and you can add or alter fields as required. Eagleash (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

(ec) It's supposed to go to Wikidata but the procedure for doing it is obscure. IMHO the decision to simply delete persondata out of hand, is wrong, it should be systematically transferred to Wikidata and only then deleted. The process of importing the information to WD doesn't actually leave any indication on the article that it has been done. This means persondata is actually getting deleted before it gets to WD. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The fact that there is a link in the tools indicates that at least some information already exists on wikidata. Last Summer, some wikidata items were inaccurate or or lacking information. However, there has been a definite improvement of late with many more fields completed. As noted though, the process for transferring is not clear and to start with, at least, seemingly relied upon the efforts of individual editors. Eagleash (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Persondata tools?

The question about persondata above brought to mind a question I've had in the back of my mind... Is there a way to find articles using the template? As far as I know, you find an article by editing random articles, see if there is a persondata template, (if there is) you check WikiData for that info, and delete the template if everything is in WD. But how do you not waste a lot of time hitting "edit" on articles that are already fixed? Dismas| 12:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Dismas: How about Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Persondata? Or Persondata transclusions in article space? -- John of Reading (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

infobox book does not work

why does the infobox I added here: The Other Side of Deception not work? --AvatarBenesch (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. One square bracket was missing. Eagleash (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error group refs without references

The Wonder A Woman Keeps A Secret

References — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagreaves (talk • contribs) 20:34, 16 April 2016‎ (UTC)

I have fixed the cite errors on The wonder a woman keeps a secret. This page is no sufficiently cited as is though, as it only cites Misplaced Pages, which is inadvisable per WP:CIRCULAR. Additionally, it might not meet WP:N. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 20:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not certain what your actual question is/was. The reference did not display as you might have been expecting as the page was missing the ==References== heading and the {{reflist}} template which goes on the next line. However other Misplaced Pages pages are not regarded as acceptable references, which should be independent reliable sources (see WP:RS) so I'm afraid the ref. has been removed. Eagleash (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

delete / rename request

Three part request:

1. Please delete Talk:6th Division (Norway)/Archive 1 - the content of this archive is at Talk:6th Division (Norway)
2. Then rename Talk:6th Division (Norway)/Archives/2012/April/Archives/2012/April to Talk:6th Division (Norway)/Archive 1
3. Then delete Talk:6th Division (Norway)/Archives/2012/April - this is just a redirect

Thank you--76.14.40.2 (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a dedicated page/procedure for requested moves (WP:RM). It's okay if you post simple cases here, but JFTR routine stuff is not exactly the purpose of the help desk. –Be..anyone 💩 08:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done the work needed here. No move needed, only transferring content and the deletion of the pages. -- The Voidwalker 18:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

April 17

Deletion of an article

I wrote a very brief entry about the St. David's Society of Washington DC which is one of the oldest heritage organizations in the USA and has close connections to the British Embassy and the ex pat community in the USA. They hold meetings at venues such as the Cosmos club downtown Washington on Embassy row. It was founded 130 years ago and is still very active in cultural affairs in the Washington DC area, and promotes opera, music, history, genealogy and literature. It was deleted for not having any significance. However, there are many, many articles in Misplaced Pages about many things of far less import than the St. David's society. I am a journalist for heritage publications in the usa, but I have been barred from writing a paragraph -- a few lines -- about this organization for reasons not clear. Can someone else write it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffcats (talk • contribs) 16:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, it was not deleted "for not having any significance", but because the article as you wrote it did not "credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". There are many societies in Washington DC and your article gave no reason why we should believe that this particular one is notable. To avoid any future attempt being deleted you need to read Misplaced Pages's definition of notability and support the statements in the article by references to published reliable sources independent of the subject which give significant coverage of the topic. By the way, OTHERTHINGSEXIST isn't a valid argument in this context. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have an association with the St. David's Society of Washington, DC? You were asked this question and have not answered it. If you have an association, you must provide the conflict of interest disclosure and possibly the Paid Editing Disclosure. However, that is not the reason that your contribution was deleted, apparently twice. Coverage in Misplaced Pages is based on existing coverage by independent reliable sources. It appears that you didn't include references to reliable sources about the society. Also, we advise that, as a new editor, you use the Articles for Creation process to have your draft reviewed by other experienced editors prior to acceptance. That way, if you don't include the references, or overlook something else, your draft will be declined (sent back to you for rework) rather than deleted. Also, you have not "been barred from writing a paragraph"; your paragraph was deleted because it didn't contain the needed references. AFC is the way to work with experienced reviewer-editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages article traffic statistics

Does anyone know why Misplaced Pages article traffic statistics is now giving "internal server error".Lbertolotti (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lbertolotti: Stats.grok.se has been down for quite some time and the creator seems to have left Misplaced Pages. The WMF has taken over page view statistics and has created a new site that does that (and it works quite nicely actually). The Help Desk page can be found here: https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/#project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Misplaced Pages:Help_desk. The new link can be reached on any page by clicking on "View history" and then "Page view statistics" near the top of the page. --Majora (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Image copyright problem

Last September, Estelle1960 was working on the Martin Gilbert article. She was I think employed by his publisher, and so had a conflict of interest – but never mind that, she did a reasonable job. She provided a better (in her opinion, and mine) image of him, and uploaded it as https://en.wikipedia.org/File:Sir_Martin_Gilbert.jpg , but did not know how to get it into the article, and asked on this Help Desk. I then put it in the article for her, on September 11th. But I soon decided that the image she had uploaded was of doubtful copyright status, and removed it again with the edit summary "Restored old image until copyright problem can be sorted out".

The image was uploaded with the date given as "It was taken by am employee". If it was taken by an employee, that employee would be the copyright holder, unless their contract with the publisher said otherwise; and we have no reason to believe either that the contract did say otherwise, or that the employee has surrendered their rights in the image. Either the image is acceptable on en:Misplaced Pages, and should be used in the article, or it is not acceptable and should be deleted. Can someone with a good understanding of copyright law please give an opinion? Maproom (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Maproom: Copyright always lies with the person that took the photo. In this case, the employee. The employee would have to verify that they are releasing it under a creative commons license. Right now, the {{self}} licensing template is clearly wrong per the summary statement. The employee would have to fill out a WP:CONSENT document and sent it in to OTRS for verification. If I saw that when it was uploaded I would have marked it F11 for lack of permission proof. --Majora (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

And I have just seen that "The Martin Gilbert web site" has the same image, and a legal notice reading "The material contained on the Sir Martin Gilbert web site, including all portions of the Web Site, content, site design, text, graphics and the selection and arrangement thereof are Copyright © Sir Martin Gilbert. All Rights Reserved.". I would "mark it F11", but can't figure out how, even after reading F11 three times. Maproom (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Maproom I've tagged it as an F9- blatant copyright violation of the site you mentioned. I'm not sure how F11 works, but F9 seems appropriate here, and is one of the options on Twinkle (thus is easy for me to add). Joseph2302 (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Maproom: I marked it. If you use Twinkle it is under the DI tab since it is a delayed deletion. If you don't you would just put {{subst:Npd}} at the top. --Majora (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Obvious difficulty is my age (92) and I was too busy to publish scholarly article

As is common for older people current memories are easily lost whereas more exciting times are remembered in great detail. Another problem is that most other people involved are now dead. For example, I remember the Boeing chief of safety, Niel Clausen, took me along with him to Atlanta immediately after the three "Men-On-The-Moon" died on a pad pretest time. It was at that time Niel rushed out to propose NASA adopt "Fault Trees" and apparently why. To lend credence to my position I solved an extremely frightening accident in a military system and could repeat my reasoning process. I could repeat many other things of that era. For example, I reviewed a bid to an embassy for a very large amount for NATO equipment. I found their company consisted of 5 people and a silly "example". The embassy demanded to know if they "could" do it. I said that with that much money they could hire anybody to buy the ability. I finally found that the president of those 5 men had been a Communist saboteur of Nazi conquerors. What more would you like for me to provide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.14.97 (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears that you are referring to an issue about adding content to an article, possibly about space exploration or about military systems. Since this is your only edit from this IP address, we have no idea what article you are referring to. Please tell us what article is involved. However, Misplaced Pages cannot accept content in an article based solely on individual unpublished memory, only on information that has been previously published in reliable sources. Please clarify what the subject is. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Can't remember--97.126.14.97 (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)See subject

When your memory returns, I suggest that you create your own website for your memoirs, or dictate them to be written up as a book to celebrate your hundredth birthday. Dbfirs 15:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

April 18

Thomas Ashton, 1st Baron Ashton of Hyde

The photo here is of this man's father. the previous photo on this page was definately of the 1st Baron himself. Please put back the original one - or remove - if you can. ThanksSrbernadette (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems we have two conflicting sources:

• this source from 1895, which makes no mention of being a Baron of Hyde
• Several other photos of what appears to be a younger man, and each photo is labeled "1st Baron Ashton-of-Hyde"

The photo was changed in this edit without any explanation. I see enough to convince me that the previous photo is the accurate one. I have restored the original image. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: Both photos were uploaded by the same editor, who writes a convincing argument on Talk:Thomas Ashton, 1st Baron Ashton of Hyde that both photos are the same person. The sources given at the bottom of the article would support this. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

UFC 157

Hi. "UFC 157" should have its own article and not be a sub-article of "2013 in UFC." How do I make "UFC 157" a separate article? CaptRik responded to my question last time and I tried to contact him but he never responded. I do not know where he went. Please someone respond to this question and have a solution. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theepicwarrior (talk • contribs) 07:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The answers to your two previous questions on this subject are at Misplaced Pages:Help desk/Archives/2016 March 21#UFC 157 - 2013 in UFC and at Misplaced Pages:Help desk/Archives/2016 March 30#UFC 157. You will see that they both refer to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/UFC 157, which gives the reason that the previous version of UFC 157 was deleted. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

What does it mean that the redirect is under page protection? Theepicwarrior (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theepicwarrior (talk • contribs) 09:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Theepicwarrior: Since the page was inappropriately recreated after the AFDs established that it should be only a redirect, an administrator has fully protected the page such that only administrators can edit it. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 09:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

How do I contact an administrator to edit the page? Theepicwarrior (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Put your edit request in a new section on the talk page and add {{edit fully-protected|page name}} in that section (just after the new section header). See template:edit fully-protected for additional information. What page are we talking about? UFC 157 does not appear to be protected. Rwessel (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rwessel: have you tried editing it? It is protected (at least appears so to me), but lacks the protection template —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 10:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

UFC 157 is protected. The protection is the most recent entry in the page history. Are you sure that you're not looking at the target of the redirect? If Theepicwarrior is to make an edit request, he needs to explain what has changed since Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/UFC 157 and the subsequent deletion review linked from it. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Why wasn't "UFC 157" originally created as a separate article? If it was, it would not be a problem. But since someone deleted it and put in under "2013 in UFC", it has become a problem and I have to fix it. Why would someone delete the original article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theepicwarrior (talk • contribs) 10:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The (quite lengthy) deletion discussion is at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_157. Rwessel (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You obviously haven't read the answers which you were given to your two previous questions, and about which I reminded you in the first answer to your question in this section. You need to read now. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

(ec) So it is, my mistake, I must have bounced back to the target page without realizing it at some point, probably after looking at the talk page (where someone else has made the same error). And I notice that it was Theepicwarrior (talk · contribs) who *had* placed a proper protected edit request on that page a couple of weeks ago, which was then rejected because of that error. I have re-activated the edit request. Rwessel (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Does that mean "UFC 157" can now have its own separate article instead of being a sub-article of "2013 in UFC"? Theepicwarrior (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no point asking questions if you don't read the replies. Read everything in this section, and the links in those replies. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi David. So I guess I cannot create a separate UFC 157 article. I read your comments and the deletion discussion. Why was the article deleted in the first place? Theepicwarrior (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theepicwarrior (talk • contribs) 11:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, read the deletion discussion. Rwessel (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, one of the major issues raised in the old deletion discussion was that the criteria for notability for MMA was yet unclear. That seems better established now, but WP:MMAEVENT still seems to state that generally individual events are not normally notable, but it seems that very many (100+) of the other "UFC nnn" event have their own articles despite that. Rwessel (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rwessel. Thank you for responding. So is there any way to reverse the deletion of UFC 157 and get it back as its own article? Theepicwarrior (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Like David has already said, put an edit request on the talk page, and explain what changed since the deletion discussion (an d the subsequent deletion review). If you can get consensus that the old decision should be reversed, the protection will be removed. Personally given the was things are happening in that genre of articles, I'd expect that wouldn't be too hard to achieve. Rwessel (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying it is highly probable that they will accept my request? Theepicwarrior (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I think there's a pretty good chance, as it appears that would be fairly in line with (my interpretation of) current practice. "Highly probable" is putting words in my mouth. Rwessel (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you for your help, Rwessel.

Is this good? https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2013_in_UFC#UFC_157

No, Theepicwarrior, I'm afraid it isn't good. The article was deleted after a discussion and review at which people put forward arguments about the application of Misplaced Pages policies, and the closing administrator made a decision on the basis of those arguments. The only way to get that decision changed is to show that for some reason, those arguments no longer apply: you would have to show that some change means that those particular Misplaced Pages policies (principally WP:N) no longer exclude the article. Your argument needs to be entirely about Misplaced Pages policies, and how the event now satisfies them. You do not help your case in the slightest by exclaiming that something is "unacceptable", or by talking about the notability of a person involved (whether she is notable or not has zero effect on whether the event is notable). Sorry --ColinFine (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for not replying, I had to be away suddenly for work. I think the answers above cover everything well. If you feel you can find suitable sources to satisfy the notability guidelines then you might consider writing a new article yourself and submitting it for review. I can't advise strongly enough however that the sourcing will have to be good to overturn the previous deletion discussion. You might also consider taking a look at the links on WP:MMA. CaptRik (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

restriction by editing to many external links

I have just tried to add an external link, after I already added one to an other article before.

I get the messeage "It appears you are adding external links to many different Misplaced Pages pages in rapid succession..."

Since it also says "If you're sure you still want to make this edit, go to the bottom of this page and click 'Save page' again, and it will be submitted as is." I tried to save the changes, but I only get back to the editing page.

So my questions are:

• How many external links, are "too many"? Since I only inserted 2, probably within 30 minutes.
• Why does it not save the changes, although the text gives me the option to do so?

Thank you for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.37.184.2 (talk) 07:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you triggered what's called an "edit filter". #80, to be exact. The description says more than three edits that contain the string "HTTP" within 20 minutes, as long as they're not within citations. For the second question, I don't know. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Problem in Editing the page of our own institution

Hello, we would like to make corrections and additions to the page "Kyrgyz State Medical Academy" because we are the administration of Kyrgyz State Medical Academy. After edition we got following notifications. How to cancel the undone of automated computer program called ClueBot NG?

April 2016

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Kyrgyz State Medical Academy has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again. For help, take a look at the introduction. The following is the log entry regarding this message: Kyrgyz State Medical Academy was changed by Akhunbaevksma (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.976151 on 2016-04-13T18:02:20+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhunbaevksma (talk • contribs) 15:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You have a conflict of interest here if you are editing an article about your institution, but referenced factual corrections shouldn't be a problem. You should declare the conflict of interest on your user page. Also, you say "we", but Misplaced Pages allows only individual accounts. You should also be aware that a page about an organisation does not belong to that organisation. The Misplaced Pages page should not be a publicity page. Use your own website for that. Having said all that, I think you need to request a move to a new title, as explained on your talk page. Dbfirs 15:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarification on attribution vs plagiarism, please

I have run across a page (Thomas Garnet) that has copied, word-for-word, a book on Google Books. At the bottom of the page there is an attribution that the article 'incorporates text' from a public-domain source, and lists the source. Is this sufficient? Or should the article be re-written? Leschnei (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to add that the author included the book in question in the references. My question is not about the fact that there aren't any inline citations to the book (an obvious, solvable problem), but the fact that it is copied verbatim. What is the policy? Leschnei (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The article also includes a claim that the book is now in the public domain. This is true, it was published in 1913. I don't know if it's relevant. Maproom (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Maqroom According to Wikisource, it's public domain in US since it was published in US before 1923. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

But I always get twitchy about lifting large chunks of text without letting the reader know that it has been lifted. If a book is in the public domain, does that make it OK? Leschnei (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Pretty sure that's OK, as long as the article stylistically fits and the text from the copy-paste doesn't violate any other policies. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 19:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

"Father Baldwin was sent to Bridewell prison, where one of those incidents occurred that were so representative of the treacherousness of the Elizabethan age" does not sound like 21st century English. And more seriously, it fails WP:NEUTRAL. The article needs work, but copyvio is not, it seems, an issue.Maproom (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks to all. Leschnei (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Posting an Article

Hello-

I have tried several times to post a article regarding TaskUs and have been denied everytime. Can you please guide me in the right direction?/tell me what I am doing wrong?

Thanks, Gina — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.127.120 (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It is always better if you give us a wikilink to the page in question. In this case I guess that you might be referring to Draft:TaskUs? --David Biddulph (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Because you work for the company, you should disclose your WP:Conflict of interest on your user page, as should User:TaskUsBED (is that you?). The article still needs some WP:Reliable sources, not just mentions of the company and interviews with the founders. See WP:Neutral point of view. Dbfirs 18:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Gina. Please be aware that Misplaced Pages has essentially no interest in anything at all that a company says about itself, whether on its own website, or through interviews or press releases. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the company have published about it in reliable places. If there is such indepedent material published, then an article may be written, based close to 100% on what those independent sources say about the company. If such sources don't exist, then it is not possible to write an acceptable article about the company. See WP:CORP.

Authority control (Normativnyi kontrol')

@CiaPan The article on Sue Owen (Сью Оуэн), the American poet, went onto the Russian Misplaced Pages on April 14. https://ru.wikipedia.org/%D0%A1%D1%8C%D1%8E_%D0%9E%D1%83%D1%8D%D0%BD Soon thereafter, I made small corrections, so that footnotes 4 and 5 would be visible on the page. The Authority control (Normativyni kontrol’) line remains in the incorrect format, however. Can you put that line in the correct format so that the information appears in the box? Thank you. Dolzhnikov (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

This help desk is for the English Misplaced Pages. Try the Russian help desk at ru:Википедия:Форум/Вопросы. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

How many editors watching a page?

Is there any way to find out how many Wikipedians are watching a particular page? I was impressed to see some vandalism on the Battle_of_Stalingrad removed in a matter of minutes. It might help counter some of the negative perceptions about Misplaced Pages if people knew that there were n editors watching a particular page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AugusteBlanqui (talk • contribs) 21:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@AugusteBlanqui: Click "Page information" in the left pane of the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

At one time I thought that might be useful for deciding whether a page needs me watching. Alas, almost every one that I checked was "fewer than 30". This uniformity didn't help me decide, so now I ignore that question in deciding to drop. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Jim.henderson Under that logic, you don't need to watch this page, it has 7092 watchers.

And the Battle_of_Stalingrad has 365 watchers, which is quite a lot for an article. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@AugusteBlanqui: The "Page information" page shows the actual number of watchers to admins, if the number is less than 30. I believe you can go to Special:UnwatchedPages to see if a page has zero watchers, although I am not sure if "unwatched" is equivalent to "zero" or some small positive number. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all — Preceding unsigned comment added by AugusteBlanqui (talk • contribs) 22:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• It should be noted that the number of watchers does not equal the number of active watchers. So while 365 looks impressive, the actual number of editors watching who are likely to check changes is probably significantly less. AIRcorn (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Amatulic: Special:UnwatchedPages is admin-only, otherwise potential vandals could use it to find possible targets. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. I stand corrected! ~Amatulić (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Search redirecting

Hello, a search for NYPR brings up WNYC when the page New_York_Public_Radio should come up. What to do? Formulairis990 (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

If you click on the link "Redirected from..." under the page title, you can edit the redirect page. I just did so, and NYPR now points to New York Public Radio. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I just noticed the autosuggest when you type nypr shows "WNYC Radio" as the first suggestion, and does not list NYPR. I don't see a "Redirected from link..." I gather it's because there is no longer a redirect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formulairis990 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Formulairis990: If you actually click on the link NYPR you will be redirected to the article. Under the title of that article you will see small text "Redirected from NYPR". If you click on that link, you will be on the redirect page itself, which you can edit. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The Redirect link is showing up on the article now. The update probably took time to migrate. The autosuggest appears updated as well.Formulairis990 (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

swans

I want to know more about swans------r they territorial — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.81.116.241 (talk) 23:24, April 18, 2016 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. This page is for help editing Misplaced Pages. We can't really help you with swan based questions. But did you know that we have an article on swans? You can find it by clicking here: Swan. You can also ask at one of our reference desks and someone over there would be happy to assist you. --Majora (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Ram Gopal Varma

I can't figure out how to un-italicize the title. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Does this help at all?Mduvekot (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

No. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Clarityfiend: In the film craft and style section instead of using {{multiimage}} they used {{infobox film}} which has an automatic ITALICTITLE parameter in it since all films have italic titles. I'm working on fixing it but I just wanted to let you (and everyone else that happens to try to fix this) that that is what the problem is. --Majora (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Aha. Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Eh. I just took the shortcut fix and forced the {{infobox film}} template to not display an italic title. Same result. Just lazier --Majora (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

April 19

How to

I would like to create a page for Tribunal Law Enforcement Motorcycle club. How do I do this? The "companies and Organizations" section asks me questions relevant to companies not organizations.

Marc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc Casella (talk • contribs) 02:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Marc, I can see how a new editor might not be able to see how WP:CORP fits for a motorcycle club. So, have a look at the more general guideline and see if the club sizes up to that. Dismas| 03:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Marc Casella. I would urge you, before you plunge into one of the most difficult activities there is on Misplaced Pages - creating a new article - to spend some time improving existing articles, to get the feel of how Misplaced Pages works. Also, it may smooth things if you don't think of it as "a page for" the club, but "an article about" the club. --ColinFine (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Properly reference an entry substitution

I'm looking at 2016 World Figure Skating Championships#Changes to initial assignments. How do you properly reference a substitution? The only source is an entry page, which was archived multiple times.

The Chinese pair Yu/Jin were switched with Peng/Zhang on March 26. The current reference gives the current page that says Peng/Zhang competed. That ref also has an archived link, dated March 8, shows that Yu/Jin were suppose to compete. Neither links give date March 26 (which we list in the Misplaced Pages article).

To know the switch was announced March 26, you need two other archived links: (1), (2). Both archived on March 26, first one showing Yu/Jin were suppose to compete, the second showing the switch (but without the first link, you wouldn't know the switch happened).

So how is the proper way to reference that? Do we just leave as is (even though it doesn't give date for substitution that we're listing and you have to know to follow both links within the single ref). Or do we add multiple references links to the entry page with different archived times?

I'm probably making this out more complex than it is. I just want to make sure it's sourced properly. Thank you, 15zulu (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi 15zulu, looks to me as if you would be doing a bit of "original research" if you proceeded like that. No, you need a reference to an announcement of a substitution on 26 March, and if such a reference cannot be found, I think you have to leave the "Date" entry blank and explain under "Notes" that the new names appeared on that date, adding your refs there: Noyster (talk), 09:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Given I didn't add any of this information, I'm not putting any "original research". What I did is look at a recent change and think the sourcing wasn't sufficient since the link didn't even mention Yu/Jin. March 26 is when ISU released the change. Plenty of entry changes in figure skating competitions are only "announced" by entry list changes. It's pretty standard all over Misplaced Pages figure skating competitions' articles to use date of entry list change as announced date. If you want to change that (to leaving the date field blank), you'll be facing an uphill battle against all the other editors on those pages. Regardless, your answer doesn't respond to my question on which ref(s) to use. So, I guess I'll just leave it alone. Thank you, 15zulu (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Problem with signing

When I sign with the four tildes my username does not show up. Could you please help fix this?05:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you are typing five tildes instead of four. Five tildes generate only a timestamp (three tildes create a signature without a timestamp). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Aldrasto11: It could also be that you have broken your signature at Special:Preferences. Uncheck the box labeled Treat the above as wiki markup and click save, then try again. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 07:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Broken links to sections

Is there a method to automatically fix broken/outdated links to sections?
Or to trace them, so that editors can be warned in case of section removal or header change?
Or at least to list them from time to time so that they can be manually checked and fixed?

Example: in Military history of the Warsaw Uprising a section title The "W-hour" was changed to W-hour 10 years ago, on 18 April 2006, however a link to the section in Powstanie Warszawskie (album)#Track listing has not been fixed until now.

CiaPan (talk) 08:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Redirects that point to broken section links can be found at Misplaced Pages:Database reports/Broken section anchors. As to links within articles, Help:Section § Section linking and redirects implies that there is no way to find them (at least built in), which is the reason for redirects pointing to sections. Someone may have built a semiautomated tool to help with finding dead section links, but I don't know of one. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 09:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Can't save edits from the default editor?

I can't save changes made in the default editor. When I click the "Save page" button it just reloads the edit page with a message to sign in (I have not tried signing in, this should be unnecessary). My IP does not appear to be blocked, and if I use the visual editor my changes save correctly. I'm using Chrome on Windows 7.

What's the deal with this? This seems like it should be a really obvious problem, but i can't find any reports or solutions from a search. I'm posting this from my phone (extremely annoying) because the visual editor is not available for this page. This is also not a new problem, it's affected me for several months at least, but I've just now gotten frustrated enough to ask about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.71.20 (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried in a different browser other than Chrome? That would let you know if it's a browser specific issue or more widespread. If it is just Chrome, I would suggest clearing the cache and cookies, then trying your edits again. Dismas| 12:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Editing in IE11 works (what I'm doing right now). I cleared cookies and cache for Misplaced Pages on Chrome and it still did not work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.71.20 (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

salmaan taseer

My father Salmaan Taseer has passed away. His page says his former spouse was Taveleen Singh. this is untrue. She was never married to him. His former spouse was Yasmin Saigol. Please verify and correct. Sara Taseer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.182.100.136 (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Our article on Salmaan Taseer states "Taseer married Aamna Taseer", furthermore, our article does NOT state that Tavleen Singh was his spouse, but that he had an affair with her, while she was married to someone else.
Simiilarly, our article on Tavleen Singh states "Tavleen has a son named Aatish Taseer with late Pakistani politician Salman Taseer with whom she had an affair."
It appears, therefore, that our articles are already correct and that there is nothing to change. - Arjayay (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Arjayay, but it does list Tavleen Singh under "spouses" in the infobox, as the IP user says. IP user, the best place to bring up questions and inconsistencies in a particular article is on the article's talk page, in this case Talk:Salmaan Taseer. --ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I have removed Tavleen Singh from the spouses field of the infobox, as I can find no reason to believe that they were married, and numerous sources that indicate they weren't. Maproom (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Double check on plagiarism and copyright question

I've recently written up a draft User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/El Toro volcanic field that is sourced (so far) only to doi:10.5027/andgeoV41n1-a06. While I didn't write a word-by-word translation the translation is close enough that it could raise some close paraphrasing/plagiarism concerns. Thus I've added an attribution text at the bottom of the draft but I want to be sure that this is the right way of handling plagiarism issues - according to WP:COMPLIC the source text is compatible with Misplaced Pages's licenses copyright-wise so the paraphrasing should not be a copyright issue.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref

I tried editing a section of the entry on " Mount Union, PA"...under HISTORY....I added "an explosives plant"...I tried to cite a website as the source, and have now run into a tagging problem, for the header of "HISTORY", I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.153.82 (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I've fixed the errors on the page. If you could try and add your source again, that would be helpful. You only need 1 set of <ref> </ref> around your citation. This page may help you Referencing for Beginners. CaptRik (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Peer review an article

I am trying to get Let's Get Married (TV series) peer reviewed. How long does that take to get an article peer reviewed? Is there anyone that I can ask to peer eview the article? Thank you. Moscowamerican (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

All Misplaced Pages editors are volunteers. They have no obligation to review articles if they do not want to. So, you should be patient. Ruslik_Zero 20:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Please re write article

The article I wrote for a notable person was Nick Efthimiou. It has been vandalized so many times that it has been taken down. It was also taken down because the sources provided were not reliable. I have re wrote it with many reliable sources and would like someone to write it for me. Here are the sources. Thank You. ( Question originally posted by User:97.117.253.71) CaptRik (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Only when Joseph2302 gives the word.... them sources, see. _Fortuna 19:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

(ec) The article has previously been created and deleted after the discussion here - Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Nick_Efthimiou. Given the reasons given there for deletion, I don't currently see how Nick meets Misplaced Pages's standards for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. Sorry. CaptRik (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think they're notable enough, and that old AfD kind of confirms that for me. They don't appear to have played in a fully professional football (soccer) league, as they've only played in college level football (soccer), and indoor football league (which aren't fully professional I don't think).
• As for the sources listed, Wikibin appears to be user-generated, as does Kicksfan, he isn't mentioned in , and is a photo. shows he has a trademark, which Misplaced Pages doesn't really care about.
• As a result, definitely fails WP:NFOOTY, and unless there are actually reliable sources about him, then he fails WP:GNG too.
• I'm going to ask at WT:FOOTY, but I think they'll probably agree with me. He's done lots of things, none of which are quite notable enough by Misplaced Pages's standards. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref

{This content was transferred from the collapsed section above) Eagleash (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I need helping correct the citation error in editing the article on "Superconducting Magnets." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwightadams (talk • contribs) 19:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I have fixed a ref error on the page. A '/' was missing from a closing </ref> tag. Eagleash (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

collapsed section

Subsequent posts are disappearing into the collapsed section. Eagleash (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed A {{hat}} needed a corresonding {{hab}}. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both - I've been trying to figure this out for a while... CaptRik (talk)

Visual editor

Hello. It says here that I can avoid using VE by clicking the "Edit source" button instead of "Edit". Yet, recently I don't see such an "Edit source" button in regular articles anymore (only on special pages). Why is that?--Hubon (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

There has been a recent change which lets you choose which edit options you require. Click on 'preferences' at the top of any page, then 'editing', scroll down to 'editing options' where you should find a drop-down where you can select your preferred mode. Eagleash (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!!! Why do they make things more complicated to us? By the way, the drop-down is under "Editor" (not "editing options") – at least in my account. Best regards--Hubon (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of content from one's own personal talk page

I do have an important doubt. A disruptive editor has removed selectively from his personal page most of the comments I posted on his talk page, where I was also involved, even relevant for present issues, see here. I consider that to be irregular behaviour, but the WP talk page guidelines is not so clear on that, which leaves me baffled to be honest. Is that acceptable behaviour at all? Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: Actually the guideline is pretty clear on this. See WP:UP#CMT. Users are allowed to remove whatever they want from their own talk pages except for a very small number of things that are part of a wider community process. Removal is an acknowledgement that they have read it. --Majora (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Iñaki LL It's their talkpage, so they can add/remove content how they want. On article talkpages, content shouldn't be removed like that, but rather archived, however the rule with userspaces is the user can do what they want. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok... However, if something has been posted on his talk page and it is presently relevant, and necessary to an ongoing discussion process, can that be legitimate at all? That is downright disruption as far as I see it. ??? Iñaki LL (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: And you would be seeing it wrong. Unless the post falls under the very specific exceptions outlined at WP:UP#CMT they can remove whatever they want. Period. Continuing to insist on this is disruptive on your part actually. The user has asked you to stop posting on their talk page. That is also acceptable and you should abide by that, expect for mandated notifications such as noticeboard notices. Continuing to do so after the user has asked you not to is disruptive. --Majora (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

That is disturbing and have not come across such a case for more than 8 years editing, for it is not out of caprice that I am being heading to his talk page. Ok, thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

confused about uploading an image from an artist

Hi Folks,

I have an artist who gives her permission to upload photos of her paintings to an article about her. (Sol Kjok) What does this entail? I know you either have to have them put a Creative Commons license on the work, but what if they want it to remain in the non-free category but are giving Misplaced Pages sole permission to reproduce it. How do I provide evidence of this to the Misplaced Pages editors? I don't understand how I prove fair use. Every time I have tried to upload the photos, they get rejected.

Extremely confused.

Many thanks

TWB1934 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twb1934 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Twb1934: Sole permission is not really how we do things here. They can either be under fair use if they meet all of the criteria at WP:NFCCP or they have to be free use (public domain, creative commons, ect.). In this instance fair use would not apply since you want to use them on the article about the artist. It would apply on an article about the painting. There is a slight difference there but it is a difference that matters. So if you want to use the paintings on the article about the artist they must be under free use. What that means is that the image is open to used or modified by anyone for any purpose. To get permission for this please have the artist fill out the form here: WP:CONSENT and email it into the permissions email detailed on the CONSENT page. If you have further questions about this please let me know. --Majora (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

PDF copy of article Not Downloading

I have been using the pdf download successfully until just now. I tried more than once to start over again by terminating my web browser (Firefox) and starting it again as well as selecting the "re-generate" option on the download-failure page.

Please advise.

-->Edward Siciliano. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.20.117.196 (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages help forums