Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 July 25

= July 25 =

Fosdick's "shall the fundamentalists win"
How do I only change a link in an article? The Harry e Fosdick is linked to a badly butchered and shortened sermon. How can I link it to full text at http://baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/shall-the-fundamentalists-win.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.239.224.205 (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC) But in this source, which was published in 1922, the quote goes: "...the Jewish leaders hale before them Peter and other of the apostles because they had been preaching Jesus as the Messiah."
 * Just change the link from what it is, to what you want. C T F 8 3 !  03:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be more apt to use a printed source circa the time the sermon was delivered, rather than a PDF hosted at a Baptist studies site. After a very brief look at the PDF I noticed this sentence "...the Jewish leaders have before them Peter and other of the apostles because they have been preaching Jesus as the Messiah."


 * Minor differences perhaps, but "hale" is not the same thing as "have". Maybe an OCR issue when/if an original print was scanned? And some of the bible quotations are slightly different, e.g., "...for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought" vs. "...for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will be overthrown". Them's my thoughts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Changing my photo.
Cameron S. Brown

On the above cited page, I would like to change my photo. Could you please help me to make this change. Thank you.

Cameron S. Brown — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameron S. Brown (talk • contribs) 01:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Find a non-copyright image, upload it, and change the name of the image in the article. Althought likely non-controversial, keep in mind conflict of interest. C T F 8 3 !  03:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like you figured out how to do this on your own. Please do note that per our conflict of interest guideline, you're strongly discouraged from editing an article that is about yourself. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Trouble signing in
Hello, I usually stay signed into Wikipedia permenantly but I realised the other day that I wasn't signed in. So I attempted to sign in and it was saying my username no longer existed. I checked the deletion log and it has no logs for my username. I managed to check my contributions and they are still in place but I cannot log in as its saying my username is incorrect when it isn't. My username is Plaqiffpo. Thanks and please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.164.92 (talk) 02:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your user talk page, User talk:Plaqiffpo, does exist. You haven't created a user page User:Plaqiffpo, but that doesn't stop you from signing in.  You may have typed in your user name incorrectly (or you may have typed your password incorrectly and misunderstood the error message).  You do have a user account.    Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you type "Plaqiffpo" (without quotation marks, of course) into the Username box, for logging in, and don't put in the right password, the error message you should see is:
 * Login error
 * Incorrect password entered. Please try again.
 * I note that usernames ARE case sensitive, so "P" should be capitalized and none of the other letters should be. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Make sure your browser isn't automatically changing what you type into a stored username with another spelling. Can you copy-paste (and not type with resulting risk of incorrect copying) the exact error message you get? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect mobile rendering of List of Chocolate Bar Brands
The page for the list of chocalate bar brands renders incorrectly in the mobile view. The mobile view only displays one bar. The full/normal view displays the table correctly. I tested the mobile view on my iphone and in a regular browser by visiting the mobile site. I am not sure where to report this. Take a look for yourself:

Works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chocolate_bar_brands

Broken: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chocolate_bar_brands

I am not sure where to report this. I imagine there is a better place than the help desk but this is the best venue that I could find. DouglasCalvert (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikimedia Mobile Beta testing page. Hope that helps ツ Jenova   20  (email) 08:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't see a difference in those two URLs.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 20:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ooops. Yep, i forgot to change the mobile url to the normal url for the working link. I filed a bugzilla ticket for the problem. Apparently it was an issue with the template: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52075 DouglasCalvert (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

No Page view statistics for July 23?
Does anyone know why there are no Page view statistics for  July 23? Thanks in advance. XOttawahitech (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You got an answer at User talk:Henrik after posting here: See . PrimeHunter (talk) 10:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Homeopathy
Why have you banned Danna Ullman from commenting, this looks as though you are not as independent as you profess to be, you are stiffiling debate and the dissemination of quite legitimate scientific information about this topic. Is this because of outside pressure something you again profess to resist, a bad move in my opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Everett (talk • contribs) 15:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Most readers here have absolutely no idea what your post is about, please provide links and a little context. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not everything is a conspiracy, sir. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: The reasons for Ullman's ban can be found in part and here.  Enjoy the read! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * We have more than 4 million articles and 19 million user accounts. Don't expect us to know every user and conflict. After some searching I guess you mean Dana Ullman who is apparently User:DanaUllman. He has been blocked in the past but not since July 2009. See Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy. Database reports/Talk pages by size shows Homeopathy is one of our most discussed articles with 10 MB of discussions so far. Consensus has been to not support Dana Ullman's positive view of homeopathy. I'm not aware of any outside pressure on Wikipedia on the matter, and I highly doubt it would have any effect. Homeopathy is widely considered a pseudoscience and Wikipedia just reflects that. Neutral point of view doesn't mean we should always present two sides equally if one of them has far more support from scientists and reliable sources. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Please move
User:Makeflying/sandbox

please move to ch-aviation. i cannot find out how to publish --Makeflying (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll move it but I am not convinced that the company meets the notability guidelines at WP:CORP - none of the references speak to the notability of the company, as I read them (and using Google translate for the German language one).--ukexpat (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed that the article doesn't establish notability. Article title may also run afoul of WP:TRADEMARK because of the lower-case stylization of the company's name. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think the lower case stylization of the name in the title (produced by italic title) is a problem, cf IPhone.--ukexpat (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I failed miserably to express what I meant, and I think it came off as a correction.   I meant to say company title might run afoul of WP:TRADEMARK guidelines.  That is, we should refer to the company as CH-Aviation, rather than ch-aviation in the body of the article, no?  The examples would be Thirtysomething vs thirtysomething or Adult Swim vs adult swim. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Displaying more than 200 items on categories lists
Is there any possible way to display more than 200 items on a category, like when viewing history logs you can choose the number of logs per page you want to view.

Only viewing 200 items when there are like 5000 items on a category can be somewhat tedious, thank you for your help 190.60.93.218 (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you give us an example of the category list you're viewing? In some cases it could be a simple matter of changing a value in the URL.  For example, when looking at a contribution history, the page limits you to 500, ( &limit=500 ) but with a simple change in the URL ( &limit=5000 ) you can view 5000 edits.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_books_(community_books)?limit=500] limit=# only works for history logs not for categories, I think. 190.60.93.218 (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Correct. Here's a url for a group of category pages, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Living_people&pagefrom=Abaoub%2C+Miloud%0AMiloud+Abaoub#mw-pages - nowhere to change the page count.
 * However, there are various tools out there that might do what you want. I've not investigated any of them, but:
 * Catscan - just use a depth of 1. (More info: m:User:Duesentrieb/CatScan.)
 * User:Chris G Bot 2 - this is said to be "inactive" but clicking on "RUN" seems to start it up.
 * If neither of these work, you might post at WP:VPT to see if there are other tools out there that you could use. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 02:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Bad table formatting in article
I think there was an accident in this article with the table formatting.

List of companies based in the Philadelphia area — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.152.239.219 (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have reverted an edit which broke the table formatting. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Overzealous use of the tag?
I recently came across a user and this edit of theirs, in which they seemingly went through the entire article and added the tag to literally every sentence without a footnote. Normally, I wouldn't have much of a problem with this, except in this case the editor appears to be editing under the actual assumption that every sentence in an article requires its own footnote, regardless of if the material is something you would challenge or whether the info is in fact unsourced at all (i.e., it's info in the lead or info verified in the source of the following sentence, both points being ones this editor has ignored in the Kate Upton article). I'm tempted to just revert the edit, since the addition of the tags seem overzealous and not-quite policy-based, but I'm a little iffy on doing such a blanket revert since I can't vouch for all the article's content. I might argue that the BLP sources tag the editor added (as if 30+ cn's weren't enough) is all that's needed, but the article really is well-sourced (80+) so that tag doesn't seem warranted. Any suggestions?  Mbinebri  talk &larr; 17:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Overtagging can be problematic. And ugly.  That's why we have section cleanup templates!  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If I were dealing with this, I would revert that edit but also explain my reasoning (as you did here) in the section on the talk page that the editor started. Looie496 (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

article still under creation and needs improvement
i want to create an article which adheres wikipedia guidelines. But for that it might take some time. Initially i created the article in my sandbox. Now the article is about finished, just some references are left to be added. I do not want anyone to delete the page currently but to help editing and improving the article. What should i do? I read somewhere in an wiki article that "this article is still under creation" or something like that. what is the script for posting this.Mr RD (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Userspace draft?--ukexpat (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Mr RD: I have moved your article into the Article for Creation area. You can continue working on it, and it won't be deleted as long as you don't add copyrighted material.  A reviewer will either accept or decline it, but this won't happen right away.  If they decline it, read the decline message, fix up the problems and submit it again.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

fixed the issues the reviewer had with my article. How do I resubmit it to get approved and have the big boxes across the top removed?
Hey guys,

wrote my first article about a new film producer i interviewed for school. The reviewer said

1) it wasn't a neutral point of view.  so i revised to list "just the facts" 2)  my references weren't cited correctly. so i put them in footnote form as was recommended

just want to know how to resubmit my revisions so the article is accepted and doesn't have those two hug boxes across the top

NOTE: when mentioning the upcoming film "Danny La Bala", the reference cited was an interview with the director about his current film "Kill the Dictator", in which he mentions the film "Danny La Bala"  towards the bottom as his next upcoming project

thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacrosseboy (talk • contribs) 20:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Assuming you're talking about Paul Leach, there are still issues with it. The "Early life" section is completely unreferenced and should be removed due to WP:BLP.  The references at the bottom need to be put inline after the information that they cite.  See References for beginners if you need to.  As for the boxes at the top, those can be removed by anyone if the issues have been addressed.  Even you.  But if they aren't truly addressed, don't be surprised if someone puts them back.  Also, a minor note, the subject should be referred to by his last name (see WP:SURNAME) in the text.  Dismas |(talk) 21:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Draft is at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Leach.--ukexpat (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

How to get an archived thread unarchived at ANI
Hi,

This thread was archived very quickly, before I could leave a comment and before administrators looked at the case. Is it possible to just copy the whole thing back to the noticeboard or should an administrator do it? If an admistrator should do it, where should I write the request? Regards, SriSuren (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't restart the conversation unless you are asking for something specific that wasn't covered in the original discussion. For example, you might point out a problem with another editor, or you might suggest locking down an article (again). Don't restart just the conversation just to say "Me too" or "Here's some more evidence that X is a bad guy". Administrators don't make decisions based on only what is posted; they look at user contributions and page histories. AN/I isn't a place to vote
 * As to how to do that, no, you absolutely don't want (or need) to copy the conversation, nor should an administrator. You just start your post (a new section), titled something like "Tamilakam, continued", at AN/I something like this:
 * "I want to reopen the discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive804 because ...", where "because ..." has to be something other than "I didn't see it before it closed, and I want to comment now". You need to be bringing something to the discussion that will cause admins to say "Okay, that's a good idea" or "Okay, now that we have more information, perhaps we should do something (else)." (Significant events that happened since the thread was archived do qualify as a reason for reopening discussion.) If you can't bring that something (new) to the discussion, then leaves things as they are, at least until something new happens.
 * -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer. Its a bit confusing with all the different noticeboards. The case is complicated and I was writing my answer with all the differeces etc of the edits, when the ANI got archived. Believe me, its not only happening all the time, I do not think it will ever stop, this guy is so disruptive and dishonest that its impossible to get even the simplest discussion going, so that a consensus can be reached. He introduces new absurd claims into discussions all the time, without any references or scholarly backing of any sort, and keeps on and on about them. I don't think he realizes how absurd some of the stuff he says is, he is kind of on an agenda, and tries to change everything to suit that. Thanks again for your answer, I learnt something more about what ANI is. SriSuren (talk) 05:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Proper venue for assessing contentious edits
Hi,

I recently happened into a long-simmering content-dispute/edit-war over the contents of List of Kurds and other Kurdish related articles. My confusion is that I'm not sure where best to bring this up. AN? AN/I? AIV? Someplace else?
 * User:Farshidvard has been poring over Kurdish articles and removing the names of people he/she doesn't consider to be Kurds (or changing their background from Iraqi/Kurd to Iraqi/Arab).
 * They've been doing this for quite a few months, and several other editors have asked him to stop. I reverted a batch of their deletions from List of Kurds asking for sources, and he immediately undid my edits, claiming "there are no sources to claim they are Kurds".
 * He reads and writes edit summaries (sometimes).
 * He doesn't interact with talk pages, as far as I can tell.
 * At least some of the WP:BLPs in question have sources that identify them as Kurdish. He's reverted so many, that I can't easily verify them all without inordinate effort on my part.

Part of my dilemma is not being certain where WP policy falls on disputes like this. Is the burden of proof on the editors who assert that the BLP persons are actually Kurdish? In some cases the sourcing is weak, in some cases the sourcing is stronger. Do the includers need to parse through each and every case? Or should the excluders do so? If the excluders are replacing disputed "Iraqi/Kurd" with "Iraqi/Arab" is that acceptable, or should all ref be removed? I don't want to continue the edit war. I would like the vandalism to stop (if it is in fact vandalism). The subject is obviously contentious. Judging from the talk pages, I can't tell if there is any consensus. Some talk page editors express frustration with the mass deletions.

Should I put more notices on User:Farshidvard's talk page, and try to engage further? Make a request for mediation or report the user for edit-war/user conduct? I'm not an expert on the subject (Kurdishness) and not an expert on Wikipedia policy guidelines either. All I can see for sure is tendentious editing. Thanks, help desk! --R.S. Peale (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It sounds like a content dispute with user conduct issues making resolution of the content dispute difficult. If you can provide clear evidence of edit-warring, especially if he has ever gone over the three-revert rule, then WP:AN would be a possible forum to address the conduct issue.  You ask about mediation.  It doesn't sound as though the steps that precede mediation have been taken.  Mediation is the last formal step in resolving content disputes.  A preceding step would be a content Request for Comments, which is a request for additional editors to come to provide additional opinions.  If the issue is exclusively between you and Farshidvard, you could request a third opinion.  Don't attempt two methods of resolving the issue at the same time.  That could be seen as forum shopping, which is deprecated.  Whether to address the content issue first, or whether the conduct issue is blatant, is your call.  If the conduct issue isn't blatant, I would suggest trying to resolve the content issue.   Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * His assumption, that someone does not belong on the List of Kurds without evidence that they are a Kurd, seems reasonable to me. Maproom (talk) 06:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed so, just like sexual orientation and religion categories.--ukexpat (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe this should be brought up at the noticeboard at Dispute resolution requests/DRN? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Speed Racer cartoon link to Anime and Manga -- the original US-Japanese culture download to the US re: Anime
How can i create a link citing Speed Racer as the original US exposure to Japanese Anime/Manga ???

thx, ian S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.213.220 (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can help with the mechanics if you can tell me what source you are using. Anything that isn't obviously true will need a link to a reliable source, and it isn't obvious to me that Speed Racer came before Astro Boy and Kimba the White Lion.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)