Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 August 9

= August 9 =

What realistically constitutes a verifiable fact?
Just a general question concerning just how verifiable a verifiable fact needs to be. For instance, I was looking at many, many pictures and much video footage and reading many forum comments concerning the tattoos that a certain person has. It is widely known that the person in question already has several tattoos that have been acknowledged on Wikipedia and it is generally accepted that they have had more. However, since the addition of these extra tattoos has now become so commonplace that they are no longer worthy of mention on 'respected' sources, there is no possible way to cite sources. In fact, it may never be. This means that the information presented on Wikipedia is incomplete and therefore is actually almost misleading to anyone who wishes to find out a complete description of all that is known about this person's tattoos. As I said, there are many photographs and many videos that show that the current tattoos that this person has are indeed there beyond all reasonable doubt, but if one cannot cite photographic sources and the only citations acceptable have to come from some kind of text on some list of 'trusted' sources, how can Wikipedia ever hope to become what it intends to be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.72.4 (talk) 01:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Is this a real example? Either way, if those particular tattoos haven't been deemed worth mention elsewhere, we don't care either. That's more an issue of undue weight than verifiability though: a photo of the tattoo may be proof that the tattoo exists, but it's not grounds to say anything about it. --erachima talk 01:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to think that part of what Wikipedia intends to be, is the place where you come to get a definitive inventory of every tattoo some random celebrity has on his/her body! That's a truly bizarre expectation. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  02:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This reminds me of the disagreement over the Christy Mack article over the last few days. That aside, if the person is known (at least in part) for their tattoos, I see no reason not to at least discuss the tattoos and give them the weight that they deserve.  (See, as mentioned, WP:UNDUE)  But you're mistaken in that Wikipedia aims to completely cover every subject with some sort of infinite detail.  That's too much to expect from an encyclopedia.  For instance, I'm reading an autobiography by Neil Young right now which mentions several of his cars.  Even down to some of the trim and accessories that they had.  I would not expect that in an encyclopedia article.  I'd expect some mention of him owning several and being a fan of cars but for the minute details, that's what biographies are for.  Dismas |(talk) 03:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Since I'm not permitted to create categories on Wikipedia, what about the possibility about asking other users
I've been trying to ask other users to mentor me; but so far they had said no. I don't want to make further mistakes on Wikipedia, and just to be carious I'm concerned.... Would there be anyone willing to help me? And please; Wikipedia users should call me by my real name Kristine. Venustar84 (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You can request a mentor at Adopt-a-user where you can either select an adopter from the list Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters and contact them on their talk page. Or you can simply edit your own talk page with the legend:, which will add a template advertising your desire to be adopted.--Ykraps (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

issues with inserting
I signed up for Wiki, edited a release (wasn't listed), that took yet is placed wrong on the page. I then tried to edit artist info, saved page then ERROR read: "the opening tag is malformed or has a bad name' in bold red. error. What to do?? please help. Thanx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicologist11 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You were trying to add information inside of a reference tag. I've reverted the article to its previous state.  If you'd like to attempt to add the info back again, please be careful not to put the info inside of a tag.  And when you do add the info back in, please cite your source for that information, keeping in mind that it should be coming from a reliable source.  And for help adding a reference of your own, see Help:Referencing for beginners.  Dismas |(talk) 04:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You were trying to add information inside of a reference tag. I've reverted the article to its previous state.  If you'd like to attempt to add the info back again, please be careful not to put the info inside of a tag.  And when you do add the info back in, please cite your source for that information, keeping in mind that it should be coming from a reliable source.  And for help adding a reference of your own, see Help:Referencing for beginners.  Dismas |(talk) 04:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Images in public domain in India
According to the Indian copyright act works published before 1964 are in public domain. I want to upload posters and screenshots of India films released before 1964. Where should I upload the images - to Commons or English Wikipedia.--Skr15081997 (talk) 06:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are right about their copyright status, it will be better to upload them to Commons. Maproom (talk) 07:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not entirely correct. Files hosted on Commons must "be freely licensed or public domain according to both the law of the United States and according to the law of the source country" according to Commons:Criteria for inclusion.  If the image is uploaded from a third country, it must be free in that country also. However the Berne Convention rule of the shorter term probably applies if 1964 is correct for India. SpinningSpark 09:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Where is and when will my article appear?
I submitted my first article named Hunt Monitor three days ago but I cant find it. Searching says it does not exist. Would I have been told if it had been turned down? Maybe I didnt complete the process properly and should start again? Does it have to be approved first, if so how long does that generally take? I submitted it before I registered as Zinfandelorganic. Thanks if you can help, I much appreciate it. I am very new to this and cant find a simple step by step guide to the process. Judy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zinfandelorganic (talk • contribs) 07:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You have made no contributions to Wikipedia from this account other than your post here. There is no page of that name in mainspace, draft space, or in the Articles for Creation project, nor has one ever been deleted.  It seems that you for must have forgot to save the page. SpinningSpark 08:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If your IP is stable you may wish to log out and find out whether it has an edit history. If you are on a dynamic IP your best bet, I am afraid, is to do it again. Britmax (talk) 10:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks like it may be User:Zinfandelorganic/Hunt Monitors.--ukexpat (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Tool to mass change date formats?
Hello, I've been on Wikipedia for a while but my experience with tools is extremely limited. Could someone point me to a tool which can mass change all the dates / accessdates formats in an article? Thanks in advance! starship .paint   ~ regal  08:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure that you should be mass changing date formats in articles, it is unlikely that all the dates in an article are the wrong format, did you have a particular article in mind? MilborneOne (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed with MilbourneOne, date formatting has been a bitter contentious issue in the past and editors have been banned over it. Generally, the established date format in any given article should be retained per WP:DATERET.  Date formats should only be changed in an article to make them consistent with the established style or if they do not comply with the MOS (MOS:DATEFORMAT).  Anyway, to answer your question, AutoWikiBrowser can do this for you, but to reiterate, you probably shouldn't be doing it. SpinningSpark 09:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * and, I put Money in the Bank (2011) up for peer review here. One of the comments by The Rambling Man was to Be consistent with publication date formats and access date formats in the references. The actual dates in the article should be fine already, using mdy, but quite a lot of the references' dates are using dmy and numbers. starship  .paint   ~ regal  09:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC) also, nice colors there, SpinningSpark.
 * In that case, making dates consistent within an article is fine. SpinningSpark 09:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much ! :) starship  .paint   ~ regal  11:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Name correction
My mother's name need to be corrected please to Louise Howard Jones not Louis Howard Jones on User:Ghmyrtle/louis Thank you. LaVern Jones Lemons (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * it is on a working page of User:Ghmyrtle, I am sure he will notice this request soon and have a look at it.. MilborneOne (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. (No-one notified me of this but I seem to have found it anyway...)   I'll try to reply to LaVern on her talk page.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Just to note that linking to your name above should have set your notification warning to red with a message related to this page so it should count as being notified. MilborneOne (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Abdul-Aziz Yusi
Abdul-Aziz Yusi (born 5 Nov 1992) is a professional footballer who plays as a striker for Smouha Sc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aziz.yussif10 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are looking for Requested articles. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 12:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding Delta Zeta's Beta Xi Chapter
On the Delta Zeta collegiate chapters page, there is no listing of the Beta Xi chapter at Auburn University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.204.254.71 (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to update List of Delta Zeta chapters. Any chapter on http://www.deltazeta.org/Chapter belongs. Given that where chapters are is generally not controversial, I don't think a reference from Auburn itself is necessary. I'll be happy to answer any other questions on this, I'm on WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities.Naraht (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Question About Writing an Article
You see, I am just starting to not only edit bit create articles and I was wondering what is the minimum amount of references needed before I can submit an article? Thank you. Mr. Yondris Ferguson (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no set minimum, per se, but not having any references makes an article likely to be deleted. As long as there are a few, reliable, relevant references, it should be adequate for a short article. Piguy101 (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Archiving
Even though it has archiving code in it, I can't get my talk page to make archives. Please can you help? Pablothepenguin (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Have edited your page, that should fix it. - X201 (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No it hasn't worked Pablothepenguin (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The bot runs once a day, so all could be in order but the bot just hasn't run yet. Maybe wait 24 hours and see if it has worked then. benzband  ( talk ) 00:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It should have done it a couple of months ago Pablothepenguin (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Then maybe the settings weren't right. It works now though. benzband  ( talk ) 11:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The settings were wrong. You'd left the "Example" code in there instead of tailoring it to suit your own page. Check the diff. - X201 (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't get out of wiki
I have an HP computer with windows 7, but once I got into wiki, I can't get it to go back to yahoo.com. It doesn't have one of those go back things on the right and no shut down X so I don't want to do a hard shut down of the whole thing. HELP!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.210.237 (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a problem with your web browser. What web browser are you using (e.g. Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, Firefox)? Formerip (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I was on guard at 27th and Dewy,The location of Headquarters 1st Battalion203rd CA(AA)
I am 92 yrs old with a sound mind,I was on guard of some completed fighter/bombers stored at the back of the factory.Our headquaters was in the Bungalow the firing range for Santa Monica Police.Later to be named "Camp Jagger" in respect to Dean Jagger who donated a large sum of money.Furnished our rec hall. jUST prior to the (daid). Jane Withers delivered coffee and sandwiches to my guard house,She was a member of the A.W.V.S.a fore runner ofU.S.O. We were a part of the 4th intercepter command. My plcture is on the front of the May1942 Douglas Air View magazine,getting on the first C54 produced.Our Colnel was releived of duty.He had failed to notify Cxpt.Stucky,Commander of the searchlight Battery.To hold sending aloft a meteroligy ballon at 5 pm as was the practice.It was also the first west coast blackout.

The ballon was released at the old soldiers home near Westwood.

Wilbur M. Glaze <redacted personal information> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.83.166.114 (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Wilbur. Thanks for your message and for your contribution to the war effort.
 * Do you have a question or something in particular that you could do with help with? Formerip (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

A little BLP help, please
I reverted an edit by an IP on the Lolly Badcock article due to BLP concerns. Specifically because the edit provided a birth name which was unreferenced. They have since re-added that name and provided two sources which, judging by the URLs, look like forums. I can't reach those sources due to my employer's firewall. I'm editing from work. So, could someone who can look as some possibly NSFW sources, please take a look? Thanks! Dismas |(talk) 23:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have undid such changes and left a note on the IPs talkpage. Piguy101 (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks much! Dismas |(talk) 01:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

And I have reverted back as Dismas (and now yourself) keep re-instating unreferenced birth details. Funny it's OK for one editor to revert to false unreferenced information, but not OK for another to add correct information with multiple references. The forum posts, made by the person in question and just as reliable as a Twitter post, are in addition to to the references already in place. Forum posts are only not to be used as references if they are general posts made by a member of the public. Dismas claiming there are no previous references is false.

92.8.30.213 (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The references dont really meet the requirements for BLP information, I have removed the assumed name and also the external links dont agree with the place of birth so I have removed that until somebody finds a reliable reference. MilborneOne (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The FOUR references do meet the requirements, but whatever. It isn't an assumed name - unless you know better than the subject herself. You have (again) removed the reference of the archived version FROM HER OFFICIAL WEBSITE that states her birth place as Norwich. But according to you experts, an archived version of an official website doesn't meet the requirements. Clearly nonsense, but this is your club obviously. And naturally, posts published publically by the person (not under an assumed named) on a forum don't meet the requirements - when clearly that "rule" in reference to using forums as references is to do with using random posts about a subject, not actual posts by the subject in question.

Perhaps if editors like Dismas actually edited pages on subjects they had any genuine knowledge on and contributed to Wikipedia beyond reverting edits based on their (and your) interpretation of good references, Wikipedia would be a better place. Perhaps if editors could ACTUALLY read references, that'd be a good start.

92.8.30.213 (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)