Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 June 12

= June 12 =

When are 4 reverts in a few hours/minutes OK?
I do not seem to understand the 3RR guideline, though I've always been very careful (foolishly?) never to break it. Are 4 reverts in one day OK because the content issue is arguable, and/or a disagreement has subsequently been settled? The question arose here and I'm sincerely confused. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you read the 3RR guideline again, because it is unambiguous. It is never all right to break it, in particular if the content issue is arguable.  Arguable content issues are precisely what lead to edit warring.  The 3RR rule imposes an absolute bound on reverting.  With the sole exception of reverting vandalism, violating the 3RR rule is essentially a formula for being blocked.  An arguable content dispute is not an excuse for breaking 3RR.  In fact, arguable content disputes are why there is 3RR.  You were not foolish to never break it, but I suggest that you read it again to be sure that you understand that it is absolute with the occasional exception of reverting vandalism.  Even with vandalism, it is often better to let someone else do the remaining reverts, because someone else is probably also watching the same page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is valid to continue past 3 reverts as long as a few things apply:
 * You are not under any restriction that prevents it,
 * It is a clear BLP policy violation or unequivocal vandalism
 * You attempt to warn the user about how what they are doing is wrong.
 * After they continue reverting after a warning, it is best if you report them to the edit warring noticeboard so someone else can talk to them. Other than the BLP and vandalism exceptions, it is never okay to go over 3RR. If you accidentally go over 3 in a short timeframe, undo your latest revert with a summary of "undoing - I went over 3RR, sorry. Will discuss" or something similar. Charmlet (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In this instance, the BLP policy was being violated by a user who kept adding unsourced and dubious claim to an article concerning living people. At one point, the user even tried to attribute the claim to a source, despite it being obvious that the source did not cover the claim. Should grossly insulting personal attacks even be mentioned? Surtsicna (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What is or isn't appropriate to include in a Wikipedia article is a matter of editorial judgment. If, for example, the New York Times reported on the personal attacks, then almost certainly something should go into the article, possibly even the exact words spoken by individuals, if that was necessary to understand the story. In such a (hypothetical) case, it would be better to modify any inappropriate text inserted into the article while keeping the citation/source, rather than just delete everything. (On the other hand, any kind of negative information that has no reliable source is a BLP policy violation, as pointed out above, and should be deleted on sight. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I was actually referring to personal attacks on other users on the talk page. Anyway, I am glad that this has all sorted out. Surtsicna (talk) 09:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"Sorted out"? - My question remains unanswered and the violator scott free. That's hardly "sorted out". Shall we thus learn from this that the 4 reverts were A-OK and nothing should be done about them? Neutral editors - please? SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If there were 4 reverts in 24 hours due to an arguable content dispute, then the edit warring should be reported as the edit warring noticeboard. The exceptions to the 3RR rule, as noted above, are reverting of clear vandalism (but characterizing a content dispute as vandalism is a personal attack as well as gaming the system, and a way to get blocked), or clear biographies of living persons policy violations )(but characterizing a content dispute as a BLP violation is gaming the system and a way to get blocked).  Is blatant copyright violation another exception?  If there were multiple reverts violating the 3RR rule, then report them at the noticeboard.  If you want the matter sorted out, then report it at the noticeboard rather than complaining about it here.  Robert McClenon (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I need help with that reporting. That's why I tried a help-tag there twice. Whom could I turn to? Do we ever help each other with such things? I just don't know how. It never happened to me before in all these years. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Citations and Reliable Sources
No matter how many citations I include I keep getting the following errors. What can/should I do to make them go away?

This section of a biography of a living person does not include any references or sources. Please help by adding reliable sources.

This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations.

User:jthereelsevenl
 * This isn't an error it is a tag added by another editor to the very top of the document. You can find it at the top of the page when editing it will be surrounded by curly brackets as it is transcluded. If you give me the article name I can remove it for you. Falkirks Talk  04:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey J3l7l. Good job in adding citations and expanding an article that was sorely lacking. I've removed the templates Falkirks referred you to (which were rather overrused, being sprinkled throughout).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you guys are the best. How did you do it? And how do I take the redirected from out? User:jthereelsevenl
 * Thanks. I clicked edit at the top of the page and then removed the templates that placed the messages. There were a few kinds. The ones at the top looked like this:, and the ones sprinkled below looked like this:   You can see what I did in this diff. You cannot removed the " ( Redirected from name ) " message, but that is not "in" the article. It is a notation that you only see when you don't access the article directly by navigating to it from its actual title, but rather through a redirect. By the way, you have been editing this help desk while not logged in, and because of that, have been manually typing your signature (instead of signing using four tildes ( ~ ) to automatically place it. Both times you typed it out it contained a typo, which made it more difficult to track down what you were talking about, because we could not just look at your contribution history since the account you  typed in doesn't exist. It might be better if you logged in;-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I am still very new on this and you helped me tremendously. I really appreciate it! 74.108.152.115 (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC) jthreelsevenl

Need help understanding a specific SPI case
I've been trying to find WP guideline regarding whether two family members of same household are permitted or not to each register their own username and be independent WP editors (perhaps from the same computer). (I assume that is permitted but cannot find specific guideline explaining so. And assuming it is permitted, then that scenario would not be a basis for an SPI investigation to "confirm" one the sockpuppet of the other, especially where there is no vote-stacking or other abuse evident.) Specifically I'm concerned about the findings and sanctions related to Sockpuppet investigations/DanielTom and the justifications for them. I'm not sure where to get help or answers, the Admin putting on the sockpuppets Tag has not been helpful at all answering simple and clear questions to help me understand what is fact in this case. I do not have experience or grasp of the SPI area so need some help. I've asked for help also at the WP:Sockpuppets Talk page. Where should I be getting help on this?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Having multiple family members independently edit Wikipedia is certainly permitted, but the keyword here is independently. Digotome's very first edit was a personal attack at WP:AN which showed that he knew his way around Wikipedia, not quite what you'd expect from a genuinely new editor. Daniel Tomé was indeed renamed DanielTom, but he recreated the account (possibly by accident if I assume lots of good faith), and both of those accounts contributed in the same AN discussion. Since DanielTom was indef-blocked for issues not relating to sockpuppetry, Daniel Tomé becomes an alternate account of an indef-blocked user and thus should also be indef-blocked. Whether Digotome is indeed DanielTom or not doesn't really matter since he was indef-blocked on his own, not as a sockpuppet. Huon (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear: a useraccount is intended for a single person; if (for example) eight people in a household edit Wikipedia (whether or not from the same computer is irrelevant), there should be eight separate accounts. On the flip side, the expectation is that any given person will normally only have a single account. The only exceptions are those listed at WP:SOCK, and for many of those exceptions, disclosure is expected. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * John, I think that's been understood by everyone involved in this matter already. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @ Huon, you aren't an Admin (I asked for an Admin's help on this concern), but I'll respond anyway ... It's my understanding the post at AN by User:Digotome was not his first edit, that the username was created in late 2009, and an article BLP on a Portuguese professor was created by that user on the Portuguese WP. (I saw this in User:Digotome edit history yesterday, now for some reason that I don't understand, I'm not seeing it, and don't know why it suddently wouldn't be available for viewing again.) User:Digotome is not "a genuinely new editor" as you state. Regarding User:Daniel Tomé posting after DanielTom's request to change from that username to User:DanielTom, Admin Toddst1 made the same observation just today at the sockpuppet investigation page -- see my reply about it here. You state "Daniel Tomé becomes an alternate account of an indef-blocked user and thus should also be indef-blocked" -- Daniel agrees with that -- it should be indef-blocked, stopped, removed, or whatever [it was Daniel's clear intent and request to discontinue using the username). But "sockpuppetry" is not the reason by either spirit or letter. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, Huon is totally, unconditionally wrong. He is confusing an "indefinite block" of an account with a ban.  An indefinite block only means that the certain account is prohibited from editing Wikipedia, not the person behind the account.  A ban is when a particular person is totally prohibited from editing Wikipedia, under any account, any IP, or any means whatsoever.  And a person can only be banned after a community discussion, with proper notice given, etc., (or by Arbcom ruling or by Jimmy Wales personally.  How many of you when only Jimmy Wales himself could ban a user?  I think up until 2005, only Wales or ArbCom could ban people from Wikipedia.)  Having it any other way would literally allow admins to unilaterally ban people.  To sum this up, Huon is wrong.  Unless Daniel Tom is banned and not just indef-blocked, his alternate accounts, if he has any, cannot be indef-blocked just because they are operated by the same person as "Daniel Tom."  The admins are going to have to find an independent reason to block them.  Everyone understand?  Now, let's salsa!  Super Snooper77 (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocks apply to the person, not to the account. See Sock puppetry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, it is kinda rude to cite a lengthy and general policy page to support a very specific assertion. It would have been nice if you would have pointed to a specific paragraph in support.  It is, however, even more rude to claim that the policy page supports your assertion when it does not.  I read every single word in Sock puppetry and nowhere does it say that "blocks apply to the person, not to the account."  I challenge you directly to find anywhere in the Sockpuppet policy page where it says that.  And just to forestall your next bad move, don't just cite the Wikipedia Blocking policy either.  If you want to cite something to prove a point, please do it with specificity.  Thank you. Super Snooper77 (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, well, you're still wrong. A block is a technical restriction from editing, for a specified or indefinite time period. Blocks are put in place, usually, by single administrators executing their common sense and judgement. Unblocks may be granted, again usually by any single administrator, should the user request it, show understanding of their previous mistakes, and undertake to avoid making the same mistakes in future. Bans are more like a social disinvitation from editing, and are applied either by community consensus or by ArbCom (or, rarely, by Jimbo). Bans always include a block. In both cases, the block and/or ban is for the person behind the named account, not for the named account itself. If your assertion were true, the entire concept of blocking would be pointless and useless. Since you brought up rudeness, it's extremely rude to be so aggressivly snotty to someone who stated a simple fact, which you not only got completely wrong, but rather arrogantly told someone else they were wrong, when they were not. Daniel-Tom-the-person-behind-the-accounts is blocked. That means all other accounts used by that person are also forbidden from editing. Is that crystal clear now? You should take it to heart, since you reek of footwear yourself. — The Potato Hose 23:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh yuh, Potato Hose, you're calling someone a sockpuppet when your own very first edit on this site not too long ago was to a "Request for Admin." Yuh, a werry typical first edit for a new person, yeahhhh..  Then what you know about Arbcom, Jimbo, all these policies, you can't be new.  So pot, kettle, something something black.  Cheers! Roxette Fanatic (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have never claimed to be a new user. Whose footwear are you?— The Potato Hose 17:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Two Questions
Hello,

Why is my username in red, instead of blue, if I have a talk page?

If someone corrects something I wrote in an article and makes a comment in the edit box, is it possible to respond directly to that person?

Thanks in advance, Treplag (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Treplag
 * To answer both questions: 1) You have two parts to your user space: Your User: page, which you have not yet created, and your User talk: page. The User: page is a place to describe yourself, if you so choose, while the User talk: page is a place for others to contact you.  The reason your username is redlinked is that you have not yet created your User: page.  See User pages.  2) If you wish to contact another user, leave a new message on their User talk: page.  Does that all help?  -- Jayron  32  06:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * and if you're looking at the history of the page, that person's signature should always contain a link to their user talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the entry in the page history is dependent on the signature, Colin. But you are right that the history should always link to the user's talk page;  it will also link to the user page for a registered user or the contribution record for an IP editor. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Where can I propose a modification in Wikipedia policy regarding: should a footnote be concise
Further to my question should a footnote be concise, Where can I propose that it will be preferred to move the quotation from "in line" to the footnote, provided the article is large? the reasons are:
 * For a big article, with a Readability issues it is better to keep the "readable prose" as concise as possible, thus it would be better to move the quotation to the footnote.
 * If the article concise text is not sufficiently detailed, one can read more in in the footnote. Ykantor (talk) 06:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If by "citation" you mean "quotation", then yes, that's possible, but it won't really reduce article length. Citation templates such as cite book have a "quote=" parameter that can be used. If you refer to quotes such as these, though, I'd say they're off-topic and don't belong. Huon (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your prompt reply.
 * Concerning "it won't really reduce article length": because of readability issues it is important to reduce the "readable prose" size, which is the aim here.
 * Why "quotes such as these, though, I'd say they're off-topic and don't belong." ? It is a proof for mentioning those arms in the text.
 * Perhaps my headline is not accurate (I have modified it). Actually I would like to know were can I propose it? Ykantor (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * See Help:Footnotes about format and concise explanatory notes: Your ideas about concise footnotes are already documented at "Help:Footnotes" which mentions the need to avoid the clutter in the upper text of an article page. So putting a weapons quotation inside a footnote is a good idea, to avoid excessive details above. Thanks for working on that. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. It is exactly what I asked for. It seems stupid that I did not find it before posting. BTW I enjoyed reading the hints in your user page. Ykantor (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Question about photos
Hello!I need your help! Our School of Business has different photos of our students and their lectors. All of the photos were made by ourselves. For instance, students with their diplomas, lectors with students and so on. Look, please http://www.sbmt.bsu.by/ibmt.html?cp=6&gl=10&ga=108&gp=1687 So, tell me please, may I post them in Wikipedia? (I ask you about this question, because in Russian Wikipedia there are a lot of bans). Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbmt (talk • contribs) 14:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Please see the process for donating copyrighted material. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Please also read WP:NOTGALLERY. Wikipedia is not a filing service for hundreds of photographs - they should relate directly to a specific article, not just the entire "Class of 2012" etc. Arjayay (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Avoiding edit-conflicts on Help
This is just FYI. Even when users add topics by "section=new" then editing the bottom 2 topics might still get edit-conflict. To avoid edit-conflict, run a Show-changes and if a new "==Header==" appears below the bottom section, then copy/paste the intended response because an edit-conflict is almost guaranteed after a new bottom "==Topic==" has been added. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Isn't there a way the techies can make a "section=new" edit not create an edit-conflict? As it is, by definition, a new section, it can't conflict with any edits to any existing sections. - Arjayay (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Developers have known problem 7 years but no fixes yet. -Wikid77 20:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah I thought that as well but it still generates conflicts. Falkirks Talk  13:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you post at WP:VPT, someone there might have an idea on how to prevent such edit conflicts. I do suspect that the advice there would be to file a bug report, or to comment at an existing bug report on how irritating this is and how desirable it would be to get it fixed. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (Belatedly) Or maybe this problem goes away when Flow is implemented, assuming that is used for any page where "New section" is an option? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, redo edit if Show-changes has new bottom "==Topic==": There is no planned fix for edit-conflicts this month. When editing on the bottom topic of a page, to avoid edit-conflict, run a Show-changes and if a new "==Header==" section appears at bottom, then copy/paste the intended response, and re-edit the section to redo the reply (within 2 minutes often ok). If no new "==Topic==" at bottom (or nearby reply), then edit-save is likely to succeed. Edit-conflicts are caused by an old MediaWiki tool called "GNU diff3" (written in 1988) which never intended to allow adjacent replies near the same lines, and it will take months to discuss and replace diff3. -Wikid77 20:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

ASSISTANCE
Dear authority of the salvation army,

Good afternoon to all that are concerned, I am a minister of the gospel, I am so glad to see the love of God in the salvation army church and I thank GOD for the life of the founder father booth and his wife. Without speaking so long, I am writting for an assistance for prayer request to enable me to become stronger and be able to move and spread the good news of God world wide. I am having the desires to ans the calling of God in my life, though I am working for God kingdom I need the church support in prayer so that I will move supper naturally to overcome and share the good news properly. I will be glad to read from you. regards,

Minister Samuel egah Ehiziyen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.119.225 (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Rojomoke (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Nato license question
NATO have the following "license" which allows use of their images. What would the corresponding license be on WP? Gbawden (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * link here http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/68162.htm Gbawden (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not a licensing expert but I say as it would as long as the image description points to NATO. You probably would need to specify the image as copyrighted but fair use to be safe. Falkirks Talk  13:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not a free enough license for Wikipedia: "No material produced by NATO is to be sold, used for outside advertising or promotional purposes of any kind". You will have to rely on "fair use". -- John of Reading (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFC describes situations in which "fair use" images are allowed on the English-language Wikipedia. In a nutshell: it's pretty restrictive. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

New Zealand High Commissioner to Canada
The NZ High Commissioner to Canada has changed in February 2013. His name is Simon Tucker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.35.40 (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've updated List of High Commissioners of New Zealand to Canada, including a cite to a reliable source. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Running modules for the "Syntaxhighlight" tag
Shouldn't there be a development of programming languages for the . That refers to checkuserblock-account. I don't know how common it is to only mention it in the block summary and not post the template. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I really don't think the help desk is the place to discuss this any further. I have no idea why μηδείς is so interested in all of this, but he should contact a checkuser if he wants more information. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * More to the point, the person to ask would be User:DoRD, who did the block, and who is a checkuser. If you fail to get a answer that is satisfactory (to you), then you could ask further at WP:ANI, since you'd be concerned about an action taken by an administrator. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I was not the first to ask about this block. We have a problem with trolls at the ref desk (the user's sole edit and knowing whose sock he is can be helpful if the behavior continues. μηδείς (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Information on List of pastries entry
The list says that Gibanica is a pastry from Balkans. Well this is wrong. It is from Croatia, and especially from north-west part of Croatia.

Thanks. Kristijan Krkac — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.75.158 (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Kristijan. Be WP:BOLD and feel free to fix it yourself. Just be sure you attach reliable sources to verify the information. Good luck. Or you can post a comment on the article's talk page, along with the sources. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The list links to Gibanica. Don't contradict the information in the linked article. If you want a change then post your sources to Talk:Gibanica and make a suggestion. There are often multiple countries or regions who claim to be the inventer of a food. See Lamest edit wars for some examples of food fights taken to Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Communitas Charter High school
Note: I am reposting what I've said as I posted it under the wrong date, whoops.

Hello everyone. User:Materialscientist undid my edit to the article Communitas Charter High School and I did fix the issue he cited by citing the school's website where I found the letter, however, it's likely they'll shut down the website as they'll have little use for it due to the fact the school's closing. I am trying to use Wayback Machine to find a "safe" source that would not be deleted, however it appears wayback's last check only captured the intro page and nothing else. Would anyone have any idea on how to bypass it? school link: http://www.communitascharter.org/ wayback link: web.archive.org/web/20130526162356/http://communitascharter.org/

In addition: I am finding third-party sources but being a former Wikipedian editor, I am familiar with some of the old rules but have forgotten the specific details of each one, my concern is whether any of the sources are independent? Also, I am confused over the rule for what I believe is WP:NPOV and WP:BIAS as I am a student here, in fact today is Communitas' last day. Am I technically not allowed to edit this article or do I only need to be more careful in avoiding bias? I'd work further on this article, but I am very busy today. I will check back later on here.

76.102.32.220 (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi 76.102.32.220. Good job in trying to use wayback, but the more significant problem is, as you alluded to, that the article has zero independent, reliable sources. I did some editing of the article to remove non-encylopedic content and promotional-type language. You can read my edit summaries and a note I left on your talk page. My concern is that as the article stands right now, it may not even survive if it were nominated for deletion because I'm not sure it passes the notability test for schools. Materialscientist was correct in removing that long letter about the school's closing that you pasted in. It's simply not enyclopedic. As I indicated on your talk page, all that's needed is a line that says the school was closed, and why, along with a reliable source. You'll see I left a sentence that says just that. In terms of any conflict of interest concerns, you can read WP:COI. You should be commended for acknowledging your concern in that regard and your obvious desire to do things the right way. Nice job. Have a great summer! --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)