Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 September 21

= September 21 =

false accusation
Do not hack your way into my space and falsely accuse of me of making an edit that I did not. I am not impressed.

Antonio d. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.198.46 (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone using the IP address you are on vandalized an article years ago. The address was warned, and you happen to have that address now. There was no hacking of any type involved. There were no false accusations. If your comment is about something other than the warnings on your talk page, please be more specific. --Onorem (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why don't you create an account? If you create an account, then your editing history will uniquely apply to you, a human being, rather than to an IP address having a succession of human beings using it, and will continue to apply to you even if your carrier changes your IP address.  (Cable carriers in the US, such as Allstream, normally do assign static IP addresses, but that is not guaranteed, while a registered account continues across IP addresses.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Having an account is great even if you do have a static IP address as it allows all of your edits to belong to you even if you edit away from home. For example, you can tie all of your edits from the library, school (university), mobile device, cyber-café, etc to you.  It's great for increasing your ability to edit wiki-wide as well.  Once you have an account, make 10 edits and have had the account for four days, you become autoconfirmed which allows you to upload pictures and create pages other than talk pages.  It also allows you to use some of the other tools such as Twinkle.  Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Requirements for See Also links
My intuition was that a See Also section could contain links to any other Wikipedia article if confirmed through sources as being relevant to the page; however, due to some edits being reversed, it seems that there may be some additional notability requirements for a See Also link to actually connect the two? If both articles each separately satisfy the notability requirements of Wikipedia, what additional requirements are there for linking the two pages under See Also sections? I have found it difficult to locate official guidelines on this. --Syhon (talk) 08:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You're right that it's not one of our more codified guidelines but there is some information at WP:SEEALSO. Do you have a particular edit or article that made you wonder about this?  That might help us better answer your question.  Dismas |(talk) 08:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for the link. The article in question is Big Australia; I believe it follows the WP:SEEALSO guidelines but perhaps it might be more appropriate to seek conflict resolution? --Syhon (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

THOMAS REED MARTIN, Architect at Sarasota, Florida.
The photograph of THOMAS REED MARTIN in your feature article concerning his biography and achievements is incorrect. The man shown in the photograph is unknown and not that of THOMAS REED MARTIN, my grandfather. I have a large collection of photographs and architectural references which I am eager to add to your reference article. The photo you show was obtained from an historian in Sarasota who is notably incorrect in most of his historical references concerning Sarasota. Also, the photographs shown are of minor buildings, and do not indicate his major works, which include the initial design for the Ringling Mansion, Ca d'Zan, the Municipal Auditorium in Sarasota, his many prominent mansions on Florida's West Coast, and the mini-mansion he designed for his own home in Sarasota, recently restored and renovated. The curator of the Ringling Mansion at Sarasota has recently acquired a considerable reference library of Martin's works, and is organizing a tour tomorrow, of his work in Sarasota. I will be contacting him as well. He was a signatory influence on Floida architecture, and came to Florida at the invitation of Bertha Palmer (Mrs. Potter Palmer) of Chicago, to design and build her planned estate at Osprey, overlooking Little Sarasota Bay, near Siesta Key. He arrived in Sarasota in 1912, and became a significant developer and civic leader for the development of Sarasota, Venice, Fort Myers and many other communities, building them from frontier town, mud street cattle towns into the modern and attractive cities they are today.

But do omit the photo of the golfer. He has nothing to do with Thomas Reed Martin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.129.131 (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The information for the image File:ThomasReedMartin 83d40m 2ndfromRight shc.jpg says that it came from the Sarasota County History Center. The Wikipedia editor who uploaded that image, User:83d40m, has been a long-time editor here; it's not clear why you think this editor (or the History Center) is incorrect regarding identification. The best place to discuss the matter is probably at Talk:Thomas Reed Martin.


 * Wikipedia appreciates the contribution of images. These should (generally) be added to the Wikimedia Commons, the place where images are kept for possible use by all Wikipedia projects (there are more than 200 language versions of Wikipedia, not just the English language Wikipedia). The process for doing so can be found here: Commons:Commons:Upload Wizard. Before you start that process, it's highly recommended that you read Image use policy, so that you understand, among other things, the licensing choices you have when you upload images to Commons.


 * Once an image has been uploaded to Commons, it can then be added to a particular Wikipedia article. The process for doing so is described here. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The image in question is a public record document from the county historical archives, the Sarasota County History Center. I have another image that they identify as Thomas Reed Martin sitting at his drafting table. When I compare the likeness of the man in the two images, I see significant resemblance, not exact of course, given the years when taken. I am wondering whether the grandson is looking at the correct person identified in the caption? An inquiry to the archives will be made to seek assurance of the authenticity of the photograph and I will transcribe this discussion to Talk:Thomas Reed Martin. The frequent inaccuracies by the author mentioned by the grandson is recognized by this editor and statements from that source are double-checked if they are being quoted by this editor, but that has nothing to do with the photograph and its source. If confirmation of the subject is not able to be obtained, the other image mentioned could be substituted. The quality is not so good as the group of golfers, however. As you can see, although images uploaded by me were used, I did not contribute to the article, but I will enter another source among the references who is much more careful. I'll put the article on a to do list to check for inaccuracies and contribution of better quality photographs is encouraged. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

presidential tenure
you have Bill Clinton as serving 2922 days. Wouldn't it actually be 2923? He was president for two full terms 365 X 4, plus two leap year day. 2933.....PLUS, at the turn of the century there is an additional leap year. Which makes it 2923 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.236.29 (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Where did you get the 'additional' leap year at the turn of the century idea from? 2000 was a leap year. It was not an additional leap year. --Onorem (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * He only served in two leap years: 1996 and 2000. Maybe you are confused by the leap year rules about years divisible by both 4, 100 and 400. 2000 was not an "additional" leap year. It's divisible by 4 and was one of two normal leap years for a two-term president. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Erroneous ideas about leap years, especially about years divisible by 400, are common. However, the rule is that a year divisible by 4 is a leap year, unless it is divisible by 100.  A year divisible by 100 is not a leap year unless it is divisible by 400, in which case it is a leap year.  The year 2000 was a leap year like 1996 and 2004.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Can I create a new wiki with authenticate content for the one present in deletion logs?
Hello,

We created a page on wikipedia for an "Award Winning Spiritual Book of India", but accidentally took some of the content from our Olx profile. Thence the Wiki page was deleted by a user. Now we have new content for every section of Wiki. Shall we have a new page altogether.? Will it be accepted? I tried contacting the user who deleted the page, but he seems to be retired (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fastily). I will be gratefull if I can have a direction to move ahead. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.182.87.218 (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, in most cases you can just recreate the article. Occasionally, if an inappropriate article has been re-created many times, the particular page title may have been blocked, and you will know if you have been doing that.  However, please don't call your article "Award Winning Spiritual Book of India"; use the actual title of the book.  One more important thing: Wikipedia only has articles about books that have been written about and reviewed in news reports or magazine articles not written by people connected with the book.  You will need to find these news reports, reviews, etc., and include them with your article, or it will be deleted as "non-notable".  I hope this information will help you decide whether to create the article.  If you are worried that it may be deleted, you could write the article in your sandbox or a user page, and then submit it for review by other editors, by adding  at the top of the page.  Good luck! &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

HELP please!

 * Appeal repeated three times: consolidated by ColinFine (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I have tried unsuccessfully 3 times to publish my page. I have references; I also removed vital information thinking it would help, but the piece is still being rejected. Its very frustrating, and should not be this difficult to establish a Wikipedia page. I have looked at similar pages and mine is no different! Help please. We really want to get this resolved. ]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hette (talk • contribs) 15:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) REDIRECT [[JerryCrutchfield


 * Hello, Hette. I guess you are talking about the article Jerry Crutchfield, which was created by a user called Hette123, and has been proposed for deletion because it has no references. You say that you have references, and there are some bare URL's at the end of the article, but you need to read WP:Referencing for beginners, and arrange that individual pieces of information in the article are referenced to particular places in independent reliable sources. I think that he probably does meet the criteria for notability, but the article must demonstrate this by properly referencing reliable sources.
 * One more point: you say "We really want to get this resolved". Who is "we"? This makes me wonder if you are connected with Crutchfield, and are here for the purpose of promotion. If you are, it is important that you read about WP:Conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

My User Page?
Hello, I wanted to create my User Page so I clicked my username on the top. I created (my User Page but I found out that others could edit my page. How can I set my User Page so that others cannot edit my User Page?

Thanks! :) MyGlassOfMilk — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyGlassOfMilk (talk • contribs) 16:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no way to set a userpage so only you can edit it. It can be protected so that only confirmed users or only administrators can edit it.  Everyone's userpages (with some exceptions for protected pages) are open for anyone to edit.  GB fan 16:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Have a read of User pages, normally other users would not edit the page without asking so should not be a problem. MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * As that guideline says, normally another user should leave a user's user page alone unless it violates the guidelines. The primary reason for the ability to edit another user's user page is to be able to deal with violations of Wikipedia policy, such as copyright violations, personal attacks, or other improprieties.  In normal situations, it is my understanding that editing another user's user page would be considered disruptive editing, but removing grossly improper material would be necessary to protect Wikipedia policy.  If your user page is vandalized, you can request that it be semi-protected.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Problem with Template Box on editing page
I have a small situation maybe you can help with. For the last week or so, when I go to edit a page, the template box does not engage. There is a drop-down menu but, when clicked, the 4 choices (web, news, book, journal) are displayed but none can be initiated. Did I shut something off? Thanks. ```Buster Seven   Talk  18:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Issues like this have been happening to me since the launch of VE. Named references menu not appearing, templates drop down menu not displaying, popup windows from selections in the templates drop down menu not appearing, autofill by DOI, ISBN or PMID not responding within the cite journal/cite book pop up windows. No idea how to fix it, you just have to save mid edit and then reload the editing window. Usually the bug is gone, but this doesn't stop it happening again in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.25 (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This doesn't have anything to do with VisualEditor. The drop-down menu is part of RefToolbar and is (unfortunately) only available in [Edit source].  Are you using Chrome by any chance?  There's a note on the tool's talk page that it's not been working in Chrome for a few weeks.  There are several things that are busted in Chrome at the moment, including lots of blank space at the end of a page if the refs are formatted to display in multiple columns.
 * By the way, designs for an improved ref dialog in VisualEditor are being formulated, and anyone who is interested welcome to provide suggestions and feedback directly to the project team at mw:VisualEditor Reference Dialog (your Wikipedia username/password should work there). The more positive, actionable suggestions people make on that page now, the more likely we are to get what we want in the the next version.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure where to ask this
Hello,

I tried to render a Wikipedia page into a downloadable pdf using the available link in the left hand menu. Unfortunately, any reference to a PubMed source has not been rendered at all. In the article, there are almost 100 references, but in the rendered pdf there are only 3. Those used normal  or cite book syntax rather than cite journal.

Does anyone know how to get this function to render all the references in an article into a pdf?

Thanks in advance, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.25 (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Which article? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is the article LEOPARD syndrome on wikipedia with 20 references, and here is it rendered in a pdf with 12 references:


 * Again references which use the cite journal format do not appear to be rendered at all, or rendered as a raw url instead of appearing as they do in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.135 (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I get exactly the same thing, but here's some additional information: The pdf is taking the five links in the infobox to be citations, so the first citation in the body of the pdf article is numbered [6]. So of the 20 (actual) footnotes in the online article, no more than 7 are in the footnotes in the pdf version. And, in the pdf, as noted, the footnotes are more-or-less in naked url form, compared to good citations in the article. Any ideas what is mucking up the pdf download process? -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 01:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Medical advice
Has anyone in the history of Wikipedia ever been sued over medical advice or do some people just love rules? If this is not the correct place to ask, please direct me to the correct place. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.26.145 (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would doubt it. Per WP:General disclaimer, it's pretty difficult to sue Wikipedia for anything. I'm not sure if it's even possible, but I've not looked in to it. Specially you may be interested in the medical disclaimer, see WP:MEDICAL. If you mean has someone been sued for giving medical advice to others via wikipedia, almost all editors are anonymous, so this would be a pretty significant hurdle for any lawyer I would imagine. Even if an editor has chosen to reveal their real world identity, any contribution they make to wikipedia is covered by the disclaimers, so just by using the site people are forfeiting any right to claim alleged damages incurred by what they read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.227 (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I just read Reference_desk/Guidelines/Medical_advice. The prohibition on giving medical advice is less about not getting sued and more about not harming someone.   RudolfRed (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, if Wikipedia got in the habit of giving medical advice, it would end up giving out a decent share of bad medical advice. In addition to the direct harm to the recipients that would result, it would also be a PR nightmare. Monty  845  00:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. AFAIK, the policy wasn't developed in response to an actual problem, but if it were allowed, it is a virtual guarantee that someone, sometime, would give bad advice, and could lead to bad consequences. That's the type of thing a reporter could have a field day with, even if one incident out of thousands. (OTOH, I can't really dispute that some people just love rules, and this place must be a rule maker's heaven :)-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  01:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure it is possible for anyone to sue Wikipedia for anything - all you have to do is file the paperwork and pay the relevant fee. Whether such a lawsuit would be successful, however, is an entirely different question.--ukexpat (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)