Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 March 28

= March 28 =

COLON CANCER: I need to clarify which treatment should be applied first and foremost before going straight into to establish if there is a problem.
--99.107.154.2 (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Florida. I need to know which would be preferable in investigating is present before the use of Colonoscopy to establish if there is a problem.


 * Please consult a health care professional. This help desk is for assistance in editing or using Wikipedia.  Although there are articles on colon cancer and colonoscopy that may be helpful, Wikipedia cannot or will not provide medical advice.  We may however, wish you the best.   71.20.250.51 (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Tagging for shared IP addresses: did I do this right?
A few days ago I tagged [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:80.39.167.183&diff=prev&oldid=600546350][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:83.41.211.152&diff=prev&oldid=600546307] User talk:80.39.167.183 and User talk:83.41.211.152 with.

I read the documentation on it, but now I'm worrying if they're not shared. Their IPs were near in range, both traced to Telefonica de Espana, and I noticed they both edited 3 articles (Laurie Halse Anderson, Madrid, and The Brave Little Toaster to the Rescue) on the same day, each.

Can anything bad come of this? Will an admin treat them any differently now that I've tagged them? Should I remove the tag?

...sometimes I just second-guess myself. Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's actually a static IP rented from Telefonica the user(s) can say so on the talk pages. If a user of these IPs infuriates an admin resulting in a block where they can't edit at all, even not the IP talk page, the static IP can't help them in unblock requests.&#x2009;;-) –Be..anyone (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

wrong,wrong,wrong
first techno record - unknown dj and 3 d - beatronic - techno hop - 1984 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.217.162.162 (talk • contribs)
 * If you found an error you can (1) be bold and fix it, (2) report the issue on the talk page, or (3) report it elsewhere as you did here, but in that case please add the  in square brackets to produce a link, nobody here has a clue where you found the problem. –Be..anyone (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A reference would also be appreciated. RJFJR (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Redactedunder RD1?
I received the following message on an article that I am working on but have not yet resubmitted for publication. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bob Davis (businessman) Can you please translate the message for me as I do not understand what the issue is.

"It has been requested that certain historical revisions of this page be redacted under criterion RD1 (Blatant copyright violations) by an administrator, because the article history contains significant copyright violations of http://www.hcp.com/bob-davis that have been removed in the meantime. The revisions requested to be deleted are: 592873585 to 596376411 (inclusive)" Alihoward (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * In the error message which you quote, the words "criterion RD1" are in blue, indicating that they are a wikilink to a page which explains the problem. As it says, the redaction of the earlier edits would need to be done by an administrator, so you don't need to do anything except ensure that any other contributions to Wikipedia are not copyright violations. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Invoke a bot?
Is there some way to invoke a bot to fix something? Specifically, AnomieBOT needs to rescue several orphan refs in Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. I could eventually figure out how to do this manually, but that's what bots are for. —I am not a bot, I am a number:71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Jian Ghomeshi
In the Wiki article on Jian Ghomeshi, I notice that the paragraph under "Literature" is a repetition of the penultimate paragraph of the introduction to the article. Obviously one needs to be deleted, but I don't know which. Could you decide and amend accordingly, please? --P123cat1 (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * actually the lead should be a summary of the main points of the article, so while exact duplication in the body and the lead is probably not appropriate, the fact that content is covered twice is in fact appropriate. WP:LEAD. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)