Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 July 6

= July 6 =

Castle Calatubo
Please could you check this page and tell me why I can't see the map of Italy with the red point? --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added "pushpin_map = Italy" -- John of Reading (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. :) --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. :) --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry in internet cafes/free wifi
I recently saw a person logging in and out of multiple accounts in an internet cafe, although I forgot the usernames. If I were to see this again (I see this a lot) should I report it? Is it considered valid evidence if I saw the person engaging in sockpuppetry (eyewitness evidence) and vandalism or is only CheckUser/other evidence valid? ElectronicKing888 (talk) 05:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You kind of have it the wrong way round in one respect; a checkuser will usually only initiate an investigation if there is already some evidence of sockpuppetry. I don't know if eyewitness evidence would be accepted, but evidence is usually verified by the case clerk before a checkuser investigation proceeds.  I don't see how anyone else is going to be able to verify such evidence.  So it comes down to would they be prepared to take your word for it without verification? Maybe, maybe not.  In any case, one thing you need to be aware of: I presume that you know the perpetrators; you must not reveal their real-life identities on Wikipedia, this is considered a very serious breach of policy. SpinningSpark 23:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Galician Inventors
Hello, I've created an article or this is what I guessed but I can see it published. What can I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praiaxardín6th (talk • contribs) 13:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * By looking at your list of contributions, I find that you have created Template:Draft_article/doc and User:Praiaxardín6th/Galician_inventors. They are similar in content. The first is not a template, and so should not be where it is. The second is ok where it is, in your personal user space; but it is not a published article. Incidentally, en:Wikipedia already has an article on Ramón Verea, which could be improved. Maproom (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The article is a copyright violation of http://www.abc.es/local-galicia/20121216/abci-galicia-inventos-calculadora-201212161110.html and cannot be allowed to remain in its present form. Also, the claims for Verea are probably exaggerated; see the history section of the Calculator article for instance. SpinningSpark 23:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

barnard bee
I noticed on barnard bee civil war brigadier general known for giving thomas jackson the name stonewall. it is incorrect his buriel. It is written that he is buried in pendleton virginia.when he is actually buried st.pauls episcopal church cemetary pendleton south carolina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mourning1861 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Barnard Elliott Bee, Jr. states he "is buried in Pendleton, South Carolina." --  Gadget850talk 20:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The error was in the infobox, not in the body of the article. SpinningSpark 00:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

a page was violated and now i cant access it becouse its semi protected
a page was violated and now i cant access it becouse its semi protected, this is it Sid Miller (politician) what do i do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adomadom (talk • contribs) 21:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * 'Violated' how? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The page was semi-protected due to vandalism. However, the page history shows only one vandalism edit by an unregistered editor, so it is not clear that semi-protection was necessary.  There does also appear to be content edit-warring due to a BLP violation, but semi-protection is not a remedy for BLP violations.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Best to make an edit request at the article's talk page. Be specific about the violation, and how you'd like the problem solved. Or continue editing non-protected pages, wait a few days and become "autoconfirmed". Then fix it yourself. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * In any case, as InedibleHulk advises, either make an edit request on the talk page, or make 9 more edits on non-protected pages and come back in four days. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * IH and RM I know that you are AGFing here and that is to be commended. OTOH if you look at the edit history for the article you will find 3 WP:SPAs (created after the initial IP vandalism) removing huge chunks (the same chunks in most cases) of the article which is why it received protection. The OP passes the WP:DUCK test for me as being the next of these and I would have avoided telling then how they can resume their actions. Oh well, if the OP takes your advice and gets confirmed we can always up the protection. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Socks can certainly change, but so can the people wearing them. Maybe through his autoconfirming edit journey, he'll realize helping Wikipedia is better than hurting it. If my good faith is a mistake, he can be dealt with as usual. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The article was semi'd because there were at least three SPAs removing content wholesale from the article without explanation. That's in addition to past attempts at negative POV editing by other SPAs. I've trimmed down the article, improved the sourcing and created a discussion in the talk page. you are all welcome to voice your concerns there. I've also left notifications in your respective talk pages. § FreeRangeFrog  croak 00:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is a biography of a living person, and as such is subject to discretionary sanctions. The SPAs can be warned.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would rather semi a page than block three accounts. Blocking them only makes it worse because it removes their ability to complain. Someone who comes in here and writes "a page has been violated" is not going to be able to follow unblock instructions or otherwise edit an article in a neutral way. From their standpoint, this is an EMERGENCY!!! and they want it taken care of NOW. But the protection forces them to engage in a conversation, as they've now done in the article's talk page. Everybody wins. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Bhumihar
Origin Bhumihars are said to be descendent of Parshuram. First Bhumihars were the offsprings of Rajput women and Brahmin men because it Parshuram is said to have killed all kshtriyas from whom Rajputs descended but Khastriya women wanted child but only upper class left was Brahmin so, khatriya women started marrying them and offsprings were Bhumihar Brahmins.Shivam kr. Singh (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @Shivam kr. Singh:  Hi Shivam. This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Your post recites some information but lacks any context posted here, and does not appear to contain any question. Is there some article, maybe Bhumihar, that you think this text should be added to? Please advise what it is you seek.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)