Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 October 14

= October 14 =

Wiki article on Gilbert Ling Associated Induction Hypothesis now redirects
Hi

I am the author of the article Association induction hypothesis. About three days ago I was not able to edit the article as an automatic re-direct had been put in place. I have spent many weeks working on this article to address the issues so do not want to lose this work.

PaulGWiki (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't reviewed the content or discussion and it's not my field but your edits are still in the page history [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_induction_hypothesis&action=history] of the redirect. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * User:PrimeHunter, When I click undo I get the message The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to undo the change, it must be done manually. PaulGWiki (talk)
 * See Help:Reverting. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It might be worth first considering why the article was turned into a redirect: in order to justify an article it is necessary to demonstrate that the hypothesis has been the subject of significant coverage in third-party published reliable sources, and I'm not sure that the redirected version did that. In fact the only evidence of significant third-party commentary seems to be in a section entitled 'criticisms of the theory' - which however fails to cite the criticisms, and instead cites Ling himself, with a statement that "A number of criticisms have been raised against Ling's theory which according to Ling have been fully rebutted on both theoretical and experimental grounds." AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Surely, User:Jzg can't just go in and delete the whole article (which has taken me months of research) without at least first engaging in discussion in the Talk page. I am quite angry at this behavior. I am a new person to wiki editing and this seems extremely rude and draconian. PaulGWiki (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * User:AndyTheGrump you make excellent points. It is my intention to expand the criticisms of Ling section. Yes, the cite is to an article by Ling which if you read does cite a number of other reliable third party authors and publications e.g. Sir Bernard Katz, Biophysical J, Nature, Science. I think I just need to extract this (and attempt to remove bias and partiality) and put into the main article text. I originally was going to do this but think I got lazy/too busy with other things. I think doing this will give a better balance and meet third-party published reliable sources PaulGWiki (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the article has not been deleted - it is still available in the history. As for your comment regarding third-party sources, it is insufficient that an article by Ling cites them - in order to show that the subject matter meets Wikipedia notability guidelines, the article itself needs to cite such sources directly, and represent any criticism of Ling's hypothesis accurately and in appropriate detail - it is plainly not acceptable to simply assert that Ling has rebutted them. I suspect that this rather questionable response to a request for balance made some months ago on the talk page may be behind what you see as 'rudeness'. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and as such as a matter of policy represents the mainstream consensus over matters of science, and as a consequence articles promoting non-mainstream viewpoints on science are inevitably going to attract attention from those wishing to ensure appropriate encyclopaedic standards. In plain terms, Wikipedia isn't here to provide a platform for the promotion of Ling's ideas, and if it cannot be demonstrated that his ideas meet our notability guidelines, they will not be included in the encyclopaedia. If this can be demonstrated, any content on the subject must conform to our policies - which include the requirement that minority viewpoints are presented as such, and that the mainstream view be given due prominence, regardless of whether those holding minority views consider the mainstream 'rebutted'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Centering
In the article Daguerreotype there is a picture on the right hand side with a reminder "Click on the pictures to enlarge" in italics.

Is it possible to centre the line so it is not broken up? RPSM (talk) 02:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It may depend on the width of your screen. I see the entire phrase on one line.Naraht (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's on two lines for me but it doesn't bother me for that. I'm not a fan of such tips in captions anyway.  Dismas |(talk) 04:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it. According to WP:CLICKHERE, there should not be notes that depend on a particular format. (If someone prints the article to paper, that note wouldn't make much sense.)  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It also violates the principle of never instructing or even addressing the reader - articles are not supposed to break the fourth wall. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Illinois Army National Guard Page
Hello there,

Under the Illinois Army National Guard page, under Commanders on the right side it lists "" Captain Michael "" Facebook Selfie Hart, 33D BSTB Training Officer. Although I find this attention funny in some ways. We are a professional organization. And this is a joke. Im not sure how this was even placed on there? But it needs to be removed.

Very Respectfully,

Michael Hart CPT, LG, ILARNG 98.215.242.234 (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed and the Commander changed to MG Krumrei according to http://www.il.ngb.army.mil/ . If this isn't correct or if more than one name should be included (MG Miller?) please let us know. Naraht (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Self-referential edit
There is a some verbiage in the [|Chakra] page claiming linking chakra to [|NLP] logical levels;

Chakras are also used in neurolinguistic programming to connect NLP logical levels, with spiritual goals on the crown, intellectual on the forehead and so on[16].

The citation leads back to an article that discusses the concept of correspondence between the seven chakra and the six NLP logical levels and claims original publication in the Journal of the American Board of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (ABNLP), Fall '97, PP. 3 - 5.

As an NLP Master Practioner I was surprised by this claim and have seen it mentioned nowhere else and mentioned only by the person who wrote the article and owns the web site in the reference. I checked with my trainer and he couldn't support the link between chakra and logical levels.

NLP logical levels original development is attributed to Robert Dilts and thought to be based on Gregory Bateson's concepts of natural hierarchies existing in the processes of learning, change, and communication. No chakra involved. There were originally five and a sixth (variously called field, spirit or community) came along later.

I tried searching the history of revisions for when this reference was added but either I don't understand the revision history research tool or it doesn't understand me.

I don't think this assertion should stand.

How do I find who originally inserted this claim?

Thank you,

--Netscr1be (talk) 04:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I used WikiBlame to search for "spiritual goals on the crown". It eventually identified [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chakra&diff=prev&oldid=176764050 this edit from 2007]. I had to use the link "There are probably earlier revisions. [Search from here]" at the bottom of the WikiBlame results a couple of times. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I used WikiBlame to search for "spiritual goals on the crown". It eventually identified [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chakra&diff=prev&oldid=176764050 this edit from 2007]. I had to use the link "There are probably earlier revisions. [Search from here]" at the bottom of the WikiBlame results a couple of times. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Correcting a general decade/century reference
Hello, I imagine all of you are dedicated monks sitting at your carved wooden desks with warm robes and mead. No? At any rate, I am new to editing Wikipedia and would like to know how to edit an odd decade/century reference. It is in the intro paragraph of the Paleo Diet article. The author states that the Paleo Diet became popular in the late 2000's. This would seem like 2,990 to me which, of course, is impossible. Am I off-base here or does this need to be changed by someone? I don't know how to make simple edits.

PS: Does anyone notice that Siri says the year 1014 instead of 2014 on the new I-Phone? (As of October 7, 2014) I'm just a picky Virgo! Thank you, Tall writer (talk) 07:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)Tall WriterTall writer (talk) 07:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I can see how you'd think that if it weren't in context but I don't agree with you that people would commonly come to that conclusion within the context of the Paleolithic diet article. In this case, it does mean the years closer to 2010 than to 2000.  The next decade would be the 2010s.  Followed by the 2020s and so on.  Dismas |(talk) 07:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Still seems a bit of clunky sentence, so I've changed it to "the first two decades of the 21st century", which (given its current popularity) is probably more accurate anyway. Now for some more mead... Yunshui 雲 水 09:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, swift, accurate, all-seeing monks of Wikipedia. You and Wikipedia are great! Too bad it's only on-line. Someday, when electricity and computers can no longer operate, will all be lost? Meanwhile, enjoy the mead... 50.39.152.84 (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)Tall Writer50.39.152.84 (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Marco Cornaro
In the webpage of Queen of Cyprus, Caterina Cornaro, there is a link about her father Marco Cornaro. But, instead of her father, it is that of the doge Marco Cornaro who lived a century before Caterina's father — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.105.230.216 (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing it out. I've corrected the link, & made it the same redlink (Marco Cornaro (patrician)) shown on Marco Cornaro (disambiguation).  I have also corrected the sentence which said that this Marco (Catherine's father) was grandson of the doge, as the source (and the dab page) say that he was great-grandson. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Admins
Is there a register of current admins available anywhere on WP? --P123ct1 (talk) 09:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Try here. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Or here for currently active ones Noyster  (talk),  09:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Baghel Singh
Dear Sir/Mam,

I have objection on the language used in the below sentence: Despite the treaty with the Marathas, the same Sikhs of Malwa very quickly joined the British in the second Anglo Maratha war of 1803-1805.[1]

This is biased and does not reflect the impartial ideology of Wikipedia. Plus this does not clarify if all the MISLS had a treaty with Marathas and what was the name of the Malwa MISL which joined British. The writer also needs to enlighten himself/herself that it was the Marathas who were raiding as far as Punjab just for exploits not the Sikhs raiding Maharashtra. As Marathas were continuously attacking Punjab it was evident that Sikhs had to rise for self defence.

Instead the above sentence could be easily written as:

Despite the treaty with the Marathas, Sikhs of Malwa joined the British in the second Anglo Maratha war of 1803-1805.[1]

This will avoid all this argument.

Thanks,

Brahmjit Singh Rai — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.165.139.43 (talk) 11:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The place to raise such questions is on the article's talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

what should i do if i disagree with another editor about the content of an article?
in the article of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant i had an argument with another editor about if mentioning them as "self-declared" caliphate make any sense or mean anything at all other than his own will to delegitimize the group's declaration. i showed him both the terms for being a caliphate and a caliph and mentioned the fact that many caliphates(if not all of them) has declared a caliphate in the same way as the islamic state, and he has nothing to say other than the opinion of some muslim imams and i explained to him several times that not just that the islamic state have their own imams and muslims scholar supporters(including their caliph abu bakr albaghdadi) but also explained him the fact that islam(as any other religion) has no monolithic leadership and every muslim today are no more than a follower of islam and the islamic text as the quran, and that no muslim can have real authority over islam in such way, i also gave him example of one of his muslim so-called "leaders" denouncing other factions of islam as shia and alawites as "heretics" and "infidels".

i rest my case and he had nothing more tosay in defence of his opinion so i removed the "self declared" from the infobox, what should i do if he will change it back despite the discussion we had? who can settle this in a permanent way? --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The main help page that you should read is WP:BRD, and you might consider that the next step in this cycle between you and the other editor(s) is the discuss step. The articles talk page is there for precisely this matter.  Note that no content should ever be considered permanent.  Content comes from consensus by editors based upon reliable sources.  After reading these links, start a new section on the talk page, explain your proposed change and your reasoning, provide sources, and join in a discussion.  CaptRik (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" article got owned by two people who flood it with their POV
and actual feelings about the islamic state (or ISIS), they are mainly focused on how to call that group, changing the parts in the infobox from "caliphate" to "self declared caliphate" and from "caliph" to "self declared caliph", one of them even tried to change the article name but it was reverted by another user, he also changed their name in the article itself from "the islamic state" to "ISIL" and make a lot of changes in this article.

i made a discussion about the defenition of "caliphate" with the one who tried to change the name of the article and i showed to him the terms for being a "caliphate" and a "caliph" and he has nothing to say other than pointing out about some muslims who disagree with them like it change anything, i needed to explain him how islam work and explain him that islam has many factions that are called "heretics" and "infidels" by muslims who are not from those factions like suna shia or alawites.

the other one just said that "they aren't a state so they can't be a cliphate" while the article itself state that the islamic state is an "unrecognized state" which means according to wikipedia: "A state currently not recognized by one given state". one of them even tried to remove jihad and islam from the article cause that user(gregkaye) think that what they doing is "criminality and not jihad" and he present it as the opinion of all the muslims in the world as a one group.

their main problem is to mention facts without POV(as the policy demands) and from what i saw in the discussion and some of gregkaye edits his edits are more like an attack against ISIS legitimacy(whether it is as jihadist/caliphate or even muslim) rather than showing up facts, there is too much hate for this group and it will get in the way of wikipedia to record the estublishment of a new caliphate in the 21th century without being stuck on defenitions like "terrorists" "extremists" and about the justification and moral status of their activity.

i don't know how wikipedia works in those kind of situations and i am new her so i hope somebody will do something about the article and won't let them to own it and flood it with their POV. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * someone has removed the "self-declared" from the infobox and the same user(legacypac) has changed it back in the second time, and that user didn't participated in a discussion and didn't have any real argument from the begining. that user think he own the article, can somebody can go their and stop him? do wiki articles can be just owned like that if you are sitting infront of a screen enough time? --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:Dispute resolution.--ukexpat (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wheels of steel0 I've never participated in a Dispute resolution b4 however I do think this is best way to solve some of these sticky issues. The consensus process is bogged down and not likely to ever reach a satisfactory resolution when both sides are about equal in numbers and resolve. I guess the first step is to read the documentation on how to start the process, then start a draft in userspace. I'm not going to take the lead on this, but whoever does please contact me and I'll help. ~Technophant (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit Conflict
To Whom it May Concern,

I am currently working for the Intercasino group and I was assigned to edit and update the Wikipage. I have successfully edited and saved set information, however, some mysterious source is deleting the information and changing the context of what I am writing.

Two separate questions 1 can we see who is editing this program and therefore request not do edit any further and or can we save the information that I wrote and lock the status so the page cannot be changed again. If documents need to be sent regarding the verification of my sources I will be happy to oblige. However, this needs to be fixed in a timely matter if possible so I can continue to do my job.

Regards. Jessica — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlotsCasino (talk • contribs) 13:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * See the Conflict of interest guidelines - if you are employed by the Intercasino group you are strongly advised not to edit an article on the group at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The mysterious editors reverting you (and their reasons) are revealed under the History tab. Poor sourcing aside, your spelling and grammar are pretty bad. If the article were to be locked, it would be to keep that out, not in. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Further to this, having looked at the edits you have been making, I have to suggest that their reversion has been entirely proper. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, it is not a platform for the promotion of the Intercasino group, any more than it is a platform for the promotion of any other business concern. Unencyclopaedic puffery sourced solely to the group itself simply does not belong on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * InterCasino, not Intercasino. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid your job as you describe it is essentially unperformable, and I suggest you tell your employers so. You are welcome to make sourced suggestions for editing the page, but any closer involvement is strongly discouraged. You might also want to point out to them that nobody owns a Wikipedia page. --ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Editing problem
What is the best way to handle a difficult editor who is so entrenched in his views that he does not acknowledge countervailing views from other editors and seemingly tries to wage a war of attrition to get his own way on a page? This editor has very strong views and will not be shifted, even when on certain major edits nearly every single one of the editors involved has disagreed with him. It has happened with at least one sentence and at least one important word so far, which have been discussed on the Talk page at great length, so he can be in no doubt about how or why other editors disagree with him. Exactly the same points have to be explained over and over again, and still he is obdurate. He retreated once, after I think one of his reverts, as there was clear consensus against him, and he once reverted an edit which editors had agreed should be made, although since there was no consensus clearly stated on the Talk page I am not sure if technically that constitutes edit-warring. I fear now that with every word he disputes, the only way to stop him imposing his will is to concentrate on getting consensus each time, which would be very time-consuming, as his replies to opposing views are always voluminous and tend to provoke in effect mere repetition by editors of what they have said before only in different words in the hope that they will get the point through. In other words, this editor is trying to exert ownership over the page and will brook no opposition. In fairness I should make clear that his views stem from deeply-held moral convictions, which some editors readily accept, and his attitude from a genuine albeit wrong-headed belief that his views should supersede those of other editors. I have read WP: BRD but can see there no way to deal with these kind of impasses. Apart from on certain issues this editor is a good contributor to the page, so I hope the only solution is not ANI or something like that. Is there a good way to short-circuit the sort of thing I have described? --P123ct1 (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Consistently ignoring consensus and starting edit wars sounds like classic ANI to me. If you don't want to take it to ANI and the user seems to not be interested in discussion or compromise, I don't think you really have many other options. Scarce2 (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * At least try\dispute resolution?--ukexpat (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I was careful to explain that there was no edit-warring that I could see, and no consensus to ignore except in one case, where it was not ignored. Dispute resolution looks the best way, thanks. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There are several dispute resolution processes. Choose the appropriate one wisely.  If you want advice on which of the dispute resolution processes is appropriate, some of us can try to help you.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If the article is Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, be aware that it is a very contentious article. That makes it even more important to use dispute resolution wisely.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Robert McClenon. Indeed, it is that highly contentious article!  Which would be the best dispute resolution to use, that would not inflame matters even more?  Something low-key would obviously be best.  --P123ct1 (talk) 09:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you can't use the dispute resolution noticeboard, because it requires cooperation by all editors; otherwise the moderator will back out. I would try a Request for Comments, but that process takes 30 days, and is dependent on a neutral wording of the question.  That article is in a very strange situation, because it is subject to community general sanctions.  Can someone tell P123ct1 how to get uninvolved admin assistance on that article?  If the article were about the West Bank or Afghanistan, I would advise using arbitration enforcement, but this article is subject to community general sanctions rather than ArbCom discretionary sanctions.  How are community sanctions enforced?  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You can see the major problems we are having in this article with certain editors in the Help request two above this one. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Editing expanded template text before saving
Sometimes, I'd like to tweak the text in a template after it expands, but before saving. Is there a way to do that? A common situation is placing a warning on a user's talk page where the text might say "I've reverted your edit", when in fact it was another user that reverted, and I'm just issuing the warning. Thanks. Willondon (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, templates are substituted (or expanded) on save. Sometimes templates will allow for custom messages to be appended through a parameter and there are others that allow for the text of the message to be changed using that same method. This is pretty uncommon for warning templates, though. Check out the Template: page for the template and see if any customizing can be done. Scarce2 (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If you write and click "Show changes" then you can see the code it will produce, copy it to the edit box, make changes, and save it instead of saving  . Special:ExpandTemplates can do more advanced things. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Date conversion templates
Hello, I am looking for a template capable to transform "2014-01-07" into "January 7, 2014". Is there such a template? Thanks. —  Ark25  (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Simply,  Scarce2 (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice, thanks. How about formatting numbers? transforming "12345" into "12,345". —  Ark25  (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * → $12,345$. Scarce2 (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. Silly questions, isn't it? I placed a request at Help talk:Wiki markup, to include information about such templates in the most likely places the users would search for them. —  Ark25  (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Johnny Forzani Amendments
Hi,

I am Johnny Forzani and I would like to speak with someone about a false add on that I saw on my Wikipedia this am.

Directly under "Forzani's father, Tom, played for the Stampeders for 11 years" The printed that I was cut before the 2014 season. This is 100% false, and I will show you the articles to prove it.

I had to undergo major ankle surgery and it never healed in time for the 2014 season. I was a free agent after the 2013 season and I did not re sign with a team out of my choice. Due to this ongoing ankle injury.

Please see this link for reference: http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Football/CFL/Calgary/2014/04/19/21614136.html

Reference number 2: http://www.calgaryherald.com/sports/Forzani+ankle+surgery+means+Stamps+have+star+receiver+start+year/8425437/story.html

Also: If possible I would like to add some facts to my page. I will also show you articles to prove its truth.

I would like to be known as: Johnny Forzani (born November 3, 1988[1]) is a Canadian Entrepreneur and former professional football player for the Calgary Stampeders in the CFL. Forzani played college football at Washington State University, where he tied a NCAA record for the longest touchdown reception, 99 yards against Arizona State in 2009.[2]


 * Please add the " is a Canadian Entrepreneur "

I have started a wearable technology company "iHeat Wearable Tech" which designs heated technology for various cold weather sports and outdoor enthusiast. I have patented the 1st heated football glove that is being used in the NCAA, CFL, And NFL.

The company was originally called "high heat gear" we have since changed the name to "iHeat Wearable Tech" and we are the largest wearable technology company in Canada.

Please see article for reference: http://stampeders.com/article/forzani-shows-innovative-side Reference #2: http://missionready.ca/mission-ready-services-inc-announces-partnership-with-pro-football-player-johnny-forzani-and-his-company-high-heat-gear-inc/ reference # 3- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QZWU3ykB8

I know this might be a little over sensitive on my part, however it is very important for me to keep my name in great standings moving forward. I do not want to have any false information on a site as prevalent as winipedia. I am also not saying anything that is not the truth. I am backing up all my information with published articles by major affiliated networks.

Please let me know what I have to do to make these changes, or the next steps in removing the false information I have been referencing above.

I look forward to hearing your response and seeing the necessary amendments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyforzani (talk • contribs) 21:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have deleted the sentence you complain about, because it had no supporting reference. (It was added by an unregistered editor using IP address 70.75.171.41.) I see you have already put your suggestions for improving the article on its talk page. An impartial editor, hopefully one knowing more about football than I do, may act on them. Maproom (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Refreshing image in infobox
Hello, How do I refresh the image in the infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IWJXB (talk • contribs) 22:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "refresh".
 * Do you mean that you've uploaded a new image and want to replace the one that's in the infobox currently? If so, just edit the article and at the top is the code for the infobox.  Replace the image name with the one you've uploaded.
 * Do you mean that you have an image that you'd like to upload to replace the image that is currently there in the infobox? If so, go to WP:UPLOAD and follow the steps to upload the image.  Then follow the steps above in my last question to you.
 * Do you mean that you've done all that and the old image still shows when you view the article? If that is the case, it's likely an issue with your browser's cache.  The easiest way to fix that is to force a refresh of the page by hitting the refresh button in your browser.  Or clearing the cache and then reloading the page.
 * If you mean something else, please be more specific about what you want to do. Dismas |(talk) 23:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your edit [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Claughton,_Wyre&diff=629637649&oldid=617326076] which changed an existing file name to a non-existing name. I haven't found an uploaded file with a name resembling that. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4153053 you want? It cannot be displayed from an external site like that and I haven't found an upload under any name. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If that's the image, it's really easy to upload Geograph.org images to Commons. They're compatible with our licensing, and there's a tool for uploading them. Deor (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)