Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 November 2

= November 2 =

Re: Felicia Montealegre, music conductor Leonard Bernstein's wife.
Felicia Montealegre, music conductor Leonard Bernstein's wife.

I really think she was indeed Chilean, guys.

From a book written by Bernstein's brother Burton called

'Leonard Bernstein: American Original' ISBN-10: 0061537861

Page 18: "…Lenny's wife, Felicia, and her endless supply of eager servants from her native land, Chile."

Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.189.102.206 (talk) 04:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There does seem to be disagreement among the sources as to whether she was Chilean or Costa Rican. Felicia Montealegre has a link to what purports to be a record of her birth in Costa Rica, but as you say, the third reference in that same article says that her mother was Costa Rican but she was born in Chile. I favour the birth record (though I'm not sure how reliable familysearch.org is regarded as). But if a fact is inconsistent in different reliable-seeming sources, the article should say so (and should not attempt to resolve the issue or draw a conclusion). If you look at Talk:Felicia Montealegre, there is already discussion of the question, but no resolution. --ColinFine (talk) 08:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

posting message on talk
Sirs! I just cannot figure out as to how to post a message on talk. You keep talking about it but show no links or something to that effect. Laszlo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.48.120.40 (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Every article on Wikipedia has (or can have - it may not always have been created yet) its own Talk page, which you can get to by picking the 'Talk' tab at the top of the page. Is that what you are asking about? --ColinFine (talk) 08:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a really serious problem - the default skin uses the label "Discussion" for the Talk tab - not "Talk". This is really confusing to newbies who by definition will be using the default Vector skin. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? It says "Talk" for me, I logged out to test, still "Talk".  Я ehevkor ✉  11:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * British English (en-GB) uses "Discussion" while default English (en) uses "Talk". It should be consistent imo. -- Glaisher  [talk]  11:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. Joining Wikipedia can be confusing enough without disparity between references where it is not totally necessary. The User Talk link in the top right remains "Talk" in en-GB, and to link you still have to use talk (User discussion:Sonicdrewdriver doesn't work, for instance, even when I am in en-GB). drewmunn talk 12:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So where do we go to request that the tab label be corrected to be consistent with the other versions? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You could post to WP:VPPR, but I think WP:VPT might be better. And I fully agree that tab labels should be consistent regardless of the English variant. My guess is that this was simply overlooked when "Talk" was changed to "Discussion" and then back to "Talk" (if I'm remembering events correctly). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Pellens Edward
Hello,

I tried to contribute an article on Pellens Edward in English (Dutch already exists) but it doesn't seem to appear on the www. What di I do wrong. Article is on my Read/Edit page. Greetings

Manfred GrL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manfred GrL (talk • contribs) 07:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You posted the information on your user page and did not create a regular article. Many first time editors find the process much easier by going through Articles for Creation.  Why not try that and read through some of the links that I've posted in the welcome message at your talk page.  Dismas |(talk) 08:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Per the user page guidelines, I have moved the draft to User:Manfred GrL/Sandbox.--ukexpat (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect information about me
The article written about me--Russell Blaylock,M.D. is inaccurate and libelous. This information needs to be corrected by me or taken down completely.

Russell L. Blaylock, M.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B10F:B68D:5A55:CAFF:FEEF:19AF (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You have a conflict of interest and would do well not to edit the article itself. Your best option would be to post to the BLP noticeboard to request immediate correction.  You can also post to the article talk page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In looking at the article, it isn't obvious what you are saying is inaccurate or libelous. The fact that many scholars disagree with you is a fact, and the article states that many scholars disagree with you.  Your best resource would be to post to the talk page, and specifically identify what you think are the errors, without engaging in original research or insisting that you are more right than your academic critics.  You have proposed "taking down" the article.  Wikipedia doesn't "take down" an article because an editor with a COI doesn't like it.  (Such requests are common and misguided.)  The article has survived a request to delete it on grounds of lack of notability.  Also, watch for the incoming boomerang.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think linking the boomerang essay is especially helpful here. Politely informing the OP, for his future reference, of the existence of No legal threats (a policy, not an essay) would be better. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The OP didn't make legal threats. The OP did state that the article was inaccurate and libelous, but that isn't in itself a legal threat.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't suggest that anyone made legal threats. I did suggest that your linking of that essay was not especially helpful. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sourcing "one of the noisiest anti-vaccinationists" to what looks like an op-ed isn't ideal (I can't access it at the moment but the url contains 'op-ed'). I'll add a note to BLPN to get the experts to take a look. SmartSE (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia nolonger works in IE8?
Wikipedia doesn't work in Internet Explorer 8 (XP not tested in 7 yet). It just loads a blank page. In "compatibility mode" it does load the main page, but none of the links work and as soon as I try to scroll, the page breaks in the sense that... well I can't explain. The point is that this should be fixed. Or is the problem on my end? GMRE (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Works fine in IE8 for me. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, it also works for me, are other sites working for you? PeteBaltar (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've had issues like this over a few IE versions, and sometimes, on my end, it's just an indication I need to start a new browser session. - Purplewowies (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Just checked, it works in Windows 7, but my laptop with XP is still having that same problem. If I'm the only one, I guess the problem is at my end. GMRE (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Doesn't work for me in Windows 7. The best I can describe is that links aren't clickable and the content "smears" on scroll. I thought maybe I broke it trying to play an embedded OGG file in an article, but I recovered PC to earlier & it's still broken. Strangely, this Help page is not broken as far as being readable, although I couldn't edit this on my normal IE 8 browser. --Chaswmsday (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That sounds exactly like what's happening to me. I've been posting here with Chrome (browser). GMRE (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the sort of question that tends to be interesting to the folks at WP:VTPT, so I suggest you post there. Given that IE8 is only four years old, I don't think we should (implicitly) discouraging any users of it from editing Wikipedia because of technical problems. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but your link (WP:VTPT) doesn't work. GMRE (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Apologies - should be WP:VPT - the Technical page at the Village pump. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

How to propose for deletion
Hi there,

Long time user/first time editor. I want to propose a page with no references for deletion discussion that had already been proposed for deletion and invalidated a few years ago. I read about it and tagged the page but it was removed because it had been tagged a long time ago. I then read more and put it on a page of proposed deleted pages but a big box went around it saying it had already been invalidated a few years ago and then it disappeared. Is there anyway to reopen deletion discussion on a page or am I completely wrong in wanting to do that? From the rules I have read on wikipedia page creation is seems justified but when I open the discussion its being closed immediately. Just want to know if I'm doing it wrong or if I'm just in the wrong by proposing it in which case I'll let it be?

Abundance (programming language) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteBaltar (talk • contribs) 17:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi! There are a few different ways to propose that an article be deleted. The first, as you tried, is via Proposed deletion; unfortunately, as you found, this can only be done once per article. To suggest that the article should be deleted a second time you'll need to open a suggestion over at Articles for deletion. Instructions on how to do this can be found on that page here. Hope this helps :) Samwalton9 (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, that's what I meant when I said I read more and then posted it and a big box went around it saying it had already been proposed. Right after I did, someone deleted the entry without discussion.  It was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion under November 2nd, should I try again? Thanks!  PeteBaltar (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that you actually proposed it for speedy deletion which is different to Articles for Deletion. Please nominate it through the AfD process I linked above. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, I didn't see the link you sent with the step by step run down, thanks a lot! I will try this out and learn from it, thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteBaltar (talk • contribs) 18:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The article has already been proposed for deletion three times, and twice was closed as Keep. (The second nomination for deletion was withdrawn.)  It can be nominated for deletion a fourth time, but it is likely again that it will either be closed as Keep (which keeps it) or closed as No Consensus (which does nothing, and so keeps it).  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Why are copyvio rules far stricter on en-wikipedia than on fi-wikipedia?
Hello, after 5 years and 15,000 edits on the Finnish Wikipedia, I have recently started to contribute to the en-wikipedia in exactly the same manner I edit the fi-wp. I write brief biographies in chronological order and try to rephrase everything I can so I wouldn't violate the source's copyright. On fi-wiki, I have never encountered problems with this. However, today two of my half a dozen bios have been speedily deleted from en-wiki, one (Marjut Rimminen) without even giving me any warning, the other one (Nazanin Aghakhan) without commenting on my explanation. All the rest of my biographical entries have been questioned for notability because of too few sources, although I have seen many more articles on people with no references whatsoever on en-wiki than on fi-wiki. I feel very confused and frustrated by this extremely unwelcoming atmosphere and a totally different editing culture. What can I do? –Kotivalo (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Rimminen was deleted with the comment: "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: close paraphrasing of http://www.marjutrimminen.com/about". there has never been a Nazanin Aghakhna article on English Wikipedia. Rmhermen (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like Nazanin Aghakhani is the article. Discussion is ongoing at the user's talk page. Rmhermen (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * On another note, it is not uncommon for some rules to differ between wikpiedias. Fair use is certainly applied differently on English Wikipedia and does not even exist on some other language versions. Rmhermen (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for nothing. –Kotivalo (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's a language thing but this comment is extremely rude. If you are finding an unwelcoming atmosphere comments like this could well be why.  Я ehevkor ✉  19:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * One possible reason for stricter copyvio rules on en-wikipedia than fi-wikipedia might be stricter copyright laws. While copyright laws in most industrial nations implement an international copyright convention, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, to which the en-wikipedia is subject, is harsh, and we do our best to comply with it so that we don't run the risk of getting takedown notices, which are extremely disruptive.  (It is true that the Finnish Wikipedia is technically subject to the DMCA, because it is hosted on servers on US soil, but Finnish copyright holders may not even know of the DMCA.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I just came here to ask a question myself but I deleted the article and replied to Kotivalo on my talk page earlier. Feel free to deliver a fishy treat my way ;) SmartSE (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Kotivalo - The Marjut Rimminen article you posted is taken from Marjut Rimminen himself via MarjutRimminen.com and taken from zoominfo.com. English Wikipedia uses coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Does the Finnish Wikipedia allow the subjects of their articles to write their Finnish Wikipedia articles? Is zoominfo.com a reliable source for the Finnish Wikipedia? As for what you can do when writing biographies, gather all your source material first, making sure the sources are reliable source and independent of the topic. Then, summarize the sources chronologically when writing the biography and add a footnote to the end of each sentence. -- Jreferee (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for some more informative comments. I apologise my frustrated rudeness above. Jreferee: there has never been any discussion about Zoominfo or its unreliability on Finnish Wikipedia, nor does the Zoominfo article here give any hint that it should be avoided. The fi-wp allows people to write their own articles since, just like on en-wp (?), editors identities cannot be checked. However, I'm not any of the persons I wrote about. – I find your copyvio policy extremely limiting if one is trying to write a concise, chronological bio. No matter who writes it, the same proper nouns, such as names of people, companies, schools, orchestras etc., inevitably appear in more or less the same order. Your Duplicate Detector seemed to react mostly to such proper nouns in my contributions. Come on, how do you paraphrase a name or some of the most common prepositional expressions in the English language (worked at, studied with, etc.) –Kotivalo (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)?
 * A list of facts, in a natural order, such as chronological, is not subject to copyright (although the exact wording will be). In such a case, a sources article should not be deleted as a copyvio. the en Wikipedia gets a lot of stuff dumped in as 'articles' that is copied straight from websites -- see an example in the section below. We have had to be rather strict to deal with all of this. DES (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I was not familiar with the Duplicate Detector until I looked at these examples. However, the OP does appear to have a valid point that the Duplicate Detector is reporting that proper names are duplicates between a source and an article.  That is at best a "misfeature" that illustrates the dangers of trying to detect copyright violation robotically.  Can someone provide me a link to a description of the Duplicate Detector?  I think that it may be a problem.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The article Zoominfo does not, as you point out, give any information that it should be avoided as a source. That's because Wikipedia articles (at least, in the English Wikipedia) are intended for readers, not editors. That Zoominfo is not a reliable source, for Wikipedia citations, isn't of any interest to readers trying to understand what the company does, hence such information won't be in the article. Similarly, there are sources that are blacklisted here - the Mediawiki software won't even allow a url to be added that links to the blacklisted domain - and yet such information is not in the Wikipedia article.


 * Regarding your statement that "No matter who writes it, the same proper nouns, such as names of people, companies, schools, orchestras etc., inevitably appear in more or less the same order", I do have to disagree. The Zoominfo page on Marjut Rimminen is in no way in the order that a proper Wikipedia article would be written (roughly chronological); rather, it jumps around between dates. And my personal experience, looking at lots of biographies posted on web pages, is that more often than not they have large chunks of text that are in *reverse* chronological sequence, at least for careers: a date and accomplishment or position, then "prior to that, ... ", then another date and accomplishment or position, and so on. Wikipedia biographies, on the other hand, tend to build slowly, with major accomplishments typically being toward the end of articles. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Category assistance
Could someone create Category:Presidents of the Royal Meteorological Society? Our category documentation makes no sense to me and I'm sure it is really quick if you know how! If you're really keen there is a list of articles at Royal_Meteorological_Society that could be added. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Just click the red link and save the category page with any non-empty content, for example parent categories. Similar categories like Category:Presidents of the Royal Statistical Society can give ideas for parent categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah. So simple! Thanks. How did it take so long? SmartSE (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Archiving and time stamping
I have been setting up auto archiving on a number of talk pages. When I do I add a time stamp or a signed comment to sections that do not have time stamps. This does create a false time sequencing of the sections when archived so it may not be the best way. Is there a standard way to do this? - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If the bot takes the timestamp of messages from the Talk page's history, then you don't have to add anything. But if it takes the timestamp from the message text on the Talk page, you could simply edit that to read any date you see fit. Problem is: I don't know which timestamp the bot reads and I haven't been able find out either.  Yinta n  23:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The archiving bots look at the text not at the page history. If you are concerned about the sequence of the sections on the archive page, though, you will have to slot them in manually, since the bots always archive to the bottom of an archive page. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to add time stamps that are as close to the date of the conversation as possible. Do you know when unsigned comments started being autosigned with a time stamp? I can use that as a base date, anything without a time stamp will be before that. I appreciate your time and assistance. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The autosigning is done by a bot, not by the Wikimedia software underlying Wikipedia. Autosigning bot(s) have been running for years (it's not clear that it matters, for what you're doing, exactly how many years), though it's possible that occasionally they have not been operational. And certainly they miss some unsigned comments, or an editor will delete or modify the text that the bot added. My personal recommendation, for retroactively adding time stamps, would be to add something like "Comments in this section posted approximately [date stamp]", at the end of a section; the date could simply be roughly in between the dates of the sections above and below. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)