Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 August 27

= August 27 =

Feedback for the new user feature
There is a feature that pops up after creating an account, suggesting an article to edit, and guiding the user through the process. Ho can I provide feedback for this? AnonymousUserAugust2015 (talk) 06:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I think the feature is GettingStarted. GettingStarted says:
 * "Extension:GettingStarted was first deployed on 13 December 2012, and is the work of the Growth team at the Wikimedia Foundation. Your feedback about how it works is most appreciated, especially if you are new to Wikipedia. You can leave comments on the Talk page here, or contact ."
 * However, the page was set up by who no longer works for the Wikimedia Foundation. It was mostly him who answered questions at Wikipedia talk:GettingStarted. There has been one question since he left and it got no reply. It was also him who answered questions at mw:Extension talk:GettingStarted. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's the one! AnonymousUserAugust2015 (talk) 06:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion Review after Reviewed and added to the main space
So firstly this is the article here Draft:Alex Gilbert. This article clearly has sources, its notable and it is formatted correctly. Please look at the sources.

The article was reviewed earlier this week and put into the main space. Though the page has gone through 2 nominations of deletions, I was forced to put it in the deletion review. It was reviewed by an reviewer/administrator which was fine. People are saying that this article is not notable etc, and some people say different. How long does this take to resolve? Please some editors, have a look. Really need your help and advice. Here is the deletion review - Deletion review/Log/2015 August 24. Thank You! --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the guidelines for deletion review "a nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days." It has been three days so you have a little bit longer to wait.  In addition, the seven day policy does not mean consensus will be reached at day seven.  It might take longer for that to happen.  Please be patient and let the process run the course.  I know it might seem frustrating but you have to have a little patience. --Stabila711 (talk) 08:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Template error
Withdrawn. I figured it out. Thanks. Muzzleflash (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

How to create a company page on Wikipedia
Hi,

I am keen to create a Wikipedia page for my company. I have come across the wikipedia policies on conflict of interest, hence I guess I cannot write it myself. So I wanted to know what is the process of getting a page created for my company? Please help and let me know and the time involved for the same.

Regards Sohila — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.192.110 (talk) 08:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You can submit an article to the Articles for Creation committee and they will review you article. Please make sure you follow all the guidelines for article creating including WP:RS, WP:COPYVIO, and WP:NPOV.  In addition, if you company is new it may not yet be up to the standards set in the notability guidelines.  If this is true then your article will not be accepted for creation.  Good luck! --Stabila711 (talk) 08:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, we can't have articles on companies in Wikipedia unless they are "notable": there must be reliable secondary sources which talk about the company, so people can verify that anything an article says is true. We get so many people trying to make articles for their company that we have special notability guidelines for organizations at Notability (organizations and companies). Secondly, you can write articles if you have a conflict of interest at "Articles for Creation". There, you can submit drafts and have them looked at by someone more neutral, to check they're not promotional in tone and follow Wikipedia's basic rules for articles. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 09:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Page move please
Hello,

A user User talk:Handsdown.1 has changed the name of a number of pages of educational institutions by removing the article "The". One of the articles is/was "The Armidale School". I have copied the page Armidale School back to The Armidale School, but in doing so the history has been lost. I would be grateful if an administrator could make the move for me or explain to me how it can be done. (I have tried the "move" tab but was unable to make the move).

Thank you

Gderrin (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Normally you would be able to move the page back using the move function. However, that is no longer possible since you created a new article and copy/pasted the information.  So, now you have to go to the request move board and request the move from an administrator.  In the meantime, I have marked the new page for speedy deletion according to the A10 guideline for speedy deletion.  --Stabila711 (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "...has changed the name of a number of pages..." That's an understatement, from March to the end of July that account was used for nothing but page moves, must be best part of 500 articles moved.
 * Anyway if none of the admins here fix it, the request instructions are at WP:CUTPASTE - X201 (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The user in question appears not to be responding to requests on their talk page to cease making such moves. If their erroneous reasoning holds, we should move The Beatles to Beatles and that ain't going to happen.--ukexpat (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you but the OP made the situation worse by creating a new page with the title they prefer and copy/pasting the article. Now the article can't be moved back without administrative action and the move can't happen when "The Armidale School" exists in its current form. So an easy move back has turned into a multi-step problem that has to be dealt with. --Stabila711 (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * By creating a new page and copy/pasting the information instead of just moving it back it now requires administrative action. The problem is there now exists a completely separate page in the place you want to move another page.  If you just let "The Armidale School" be deleted "Armidale School" can be moved back without all this nonsense contesting. --Stabila711 (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much Martin of Sheffield. So, should I delete the content of The Armidale School? Gderrin (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That won't make a difference since move restrictions are based on the edit history. If there is a single edit done after a move is performed the move cannot be undone without administrative action. --Stabila711 (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I've withdrawn the objection to speedy deletion on the article's talk page now that Gderrin is happy and others are looking at the problem. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Assistant Organists of Manchester Cathedral
I have noticed that there is an omission, the Assistant organist at Manchester Cathedral from 1961 to 1970 was JOHN WENLOCK GITTINS. Douglas Steele moved on in 1960/61, and Jon Gittins arrived to be followed in 1968 by Jonathan Bielby.86.143.117.172 (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC) G.Hulme.


 * Thank you for the information, but firstly it is always useful if you provide a wikilink to the article about which you are concerned. Secondly, personal knowledge or unpublished information from the cathedral is not acceptable as a reliable source to satisfy Wikipedia's requirement for verifiability.  The BBC do confirm that he was in that post in 1967;  do you have a published source for the dates?  Was he in post to 1968 or to 1970? --David Biddulph (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * A quick searching shows it could be List of musicians at English cathedrals, Assistant organists subsection.
 * However I doubt if 'Personal Knowledge' is a kind of source allowed in Wikipedia (even if it 'can be verified by the Cathedral')... --CiaPan (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Personal knowledge is most definitely NOT reliable.--ukexpat (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

blocked fro m site
I have been blocked Why? I had asked for help finding a particular painting I have seen on the site so I could read about the artist.Since then I get blocked.I am confused about why.Can you help?68.97.8.233 (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Your IP address is not blocked. Are you referring to a blocked user name? If so, what is it?--ukexpat (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Without knowing more details, maybe some information in Appealing a block is useful for you to check for possible block circumstances and ways to request an unblock. GermanJoe (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's nothing to do with the IP being on a different IP in the range, there have only been 4 edits from 68.97.8.x addresses this year and one of them is the above message. we need more info, what painting? Where did you ask the question? - X201 (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Autoconfirmation
Hello, I wanted to edit Uranus, but it was semiprotected. I thought by now I would be autoconfirmed, since I have been a wikipedian for years, with a long history of earnest contributions. What gives?Rich (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you tried again? There may have been a glitch.  I see no evidence that the article on the planet has been semi-protected anyway, which further implies a glitch.  Try again.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ..., what do you mean no evidence the article on the planet has been semi-protected? I see the padlock icon in the top right corner, and when I hit edit I'm hit with a red box that reads, "Note: This page has been semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. If you need any help getting started with editing, see the New contributors' help page." along with the protection log indicating  applied indef semi protection on December 13, 2010. That said, I am able to edit it  and  should be able to edit it also. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 15:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Hey Rich. I have confirmed by looking at your rights management that you are an: "Implicit member of: Autoconfirmed users". So it does indeed appear to have been a glitch. If you are only seeing the "view source" tab rather than an edit tab, try clicking on it anyway. I've seen that error before, where the tab is wrongly marked but clicking on it nevertheless works to enter 'edit mode'. Side note: Robert: the page is semi-protected. Just click edit and you'll see at the top its protection status, or look at it in the protection log. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What makes you think you cannot edit it? If you don't have an "Edit" tab then click the "View source" tab, or click [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uranus&action=edit here]. If you see a message saying "This page has been semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it" then it's just informational and shouldn't prevent you from editing the page. If you are actually unable to edit it then it will say so. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears that I was mistaken. Since the page is semi-protected, the most likely reason for the error message is that the original poster may have accidentally been logged out.  That is common.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was mistaken because I didn't know (and now do) about the View Logs for This Page feature under the History tab, and I didn't see the semi-protection in the history itself. I didn't see the semi-protection in the history itself because the semi-protection was done in 2010.  So, first, the original poster was probably accidentally logged out, which is common.  Second, I have requested that the semi-protection be removed.  That vandal has probably either grown up or found some other form of entertainment.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * One would hope!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Any vandal who has been around for five years is probably listed in Long-term abuse.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks everyone.Rich (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Account Vanishing
Could someone vanish my account for me, oversight it, or at least give me instructions on how to vanish?

Skyllful Hinge (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * instructions are at Courtesy vanishing. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 16:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The reply you had when you last asked a similar question is at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive896. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

University Canada West
Hello everyone!

I have a professional connection to the University Canada West, but my goal is to work with the community to improve the overall quality of the article and ensure it is neutral and factual. I have engaged with existing editors, but am currently finding it difficult to receive any kind of feedback, so I’d like to know if someone here would be willing to help.

There are a number of statements that seem to be out of date and/or lacking reliable sources and I would be grateful if someone could look into them:

1 - “It did not attract many students”: This sentence is currently under the History section with no references to any sources whatsoever. It is a very subjective statement since there are no references to student recruitment targets to rely on. I strongly believe it should be removed.

2 – “Tuition for a full undergraduate degree program at UCAN is higher than similar programs at public universities because it is not publicly subsidized”: This is also an unsubstantiated claim. If you compare the tuition fees charged by UCW (available here) to those charged by other local universities such as the University of British Columbia (fees here) and University of Victoria (fees here) you will see that the statement is simply inaccurate.

3 - "over 30 students, graduates, faculty and former teachers and employees interviewed by Hindustan Times have alleged that it is a university only in name, and that many of them were duped”. It would be reasonable to add here that the university has vehemently denied such allegations (as the original source states).

4 – “Chairman: Skip Triplett (in the infobox)”. UCW has recently appointed a new chairman. His name is Alfred Morris CBE. There are not many sources on this, but here’s a list of a few potential ones:


 * https://uk.linkedin.com/in/alfredmorris
 * http://www.globaluniversitysystems.com/the-team
 * http://www.csn-rec.ca/job-postings/3704-president-university-canada-west
 * http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Alfred-Morris/630130406

5 – The History section is very short and doesn’t really meet the WP:UNIGUIDE recommendations. I’m currently seeking feedback on the draft of a potential History section (available here). Any feedback on the draft will be greatly appreciated.

I don’t think I’m the best person to make these changes due to my COI, but I would appreciate if someone could look into them.

If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a line

Thanks! - BrandDude (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for understanding the conflict of interest policy and respecting it. The best place to post your requests is the article talk page, Talk: University Canada West.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I will keep seeking feedback and will follow up here if I have no luck with existing editors. Regards - BrandDude (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

How to properly cite a letter
Hello,

I'm in the process of updating a local high school wiki page. The updated information comes directly from the most recent letter from the school Principal. I contacted the school admin. office and they have a copy of the letter for me to cite on wiki, but there is no specific link to this letter on their website. This being the case, do I reference the letter placing a footnote at the end of all the new content and list it under 'references,' even though there is no link to the letter?

Any help you provide will be much appreciated.

Thank you. J — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLRFLAZEDA (talk • contribs) 17:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a nice template at Cite letter. I'm assuming this is  aletter sent from the principal to parents or something?  Not personal correspondence? ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 18:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , Wikipedia sources must be published, and must be available to a reader or editor for verification. It doesn't have to be available online, or widely. If this was part of a newsletter "published" by the school, it could be cited as such. But there should be some way for a member of the general public to obtain a copy. In any case, this would be a WP:PRIMARY source and should be used with care. It is fine for uncontroversial factual statements. It is also fine to confirm what the school's official view was on some point, or what the principal said about some issue. It is not good for any analysis, nor for establishing the facts of any controversial or contested issue. You could also use the |quote= parameter of a citation template to include a relevant excerpt of the latter in the citation. DES (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

How to have pictures next to sortable table
I have created a sortable table (that can be found here). I want to have a vertical list/column of captioned 100px pictures to the right of the table. I have tried adjusting the width of the table but each time I try to add the pictures, they appear above the table. Anyone have any insight? Thank you in advance.  Ergo Sum  18:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm no expert, but have a look at the grid in this article - List of RNLI stations - which has a column of photos. Hopefully it'll give you the answer. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your attention Hogyn Lleol. That wasn't quite what I was going for, but I appreciate your assistance. I figured out what I was trying to do. The link to it is in my previous comment.  Ergo Sum  02:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

inline citations
I have read your reference material on how to create inline citations using reference tags and I am LOST. Can you please walk me through this - I am using Word 2010. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.52.161.146 (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What are you trying to do? You mention you are using Word 2010.  Are you trying to write a paper in Word to then print out or e-mail or something?  Or are you trying to write an article in Word that you will then copy and paste into Wikipedia?  Because the process of making an inline citation in a Word document differs greatly from the process of making an inline citation in a Wikipedia article. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 20:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The very basic version is that right after the fact that needs to be cited you place a  tag, followed by the text of the citation (which should identify and possibly link to the precise source being cited), followed by a   tag. (notice the / in the closing tag.) Then in a Notes or References section at or near the bottom of the article, include a reflist template. Everything beyond that is a refinement that can be added later. If that doesn't help you, then please do answer ONUnicorn's questions just above, so that we can tailor our advise more precisely to what you are actually doing and why it isn't working. Also please tell us what does happen when you do whatever you are doing. DES (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I often find Wikipedia's help pages hard to understand – if I want to know how to achieve some effect, I find a page that does it, and click "Edit" to see how it does it. For a short page with a properly-done reference, see e.g. Keith Milte. Maproom (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:REFB isn't that bad...--ukexpat (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text in Q*bert article
A reference at the bottom of the article for the video game Q*bert shows the error message "Cite error: The named reference pushsquare-rebootedreview was invoked but never defined (see the help page)." The problem is, the named reference IS defined. I've changed and rewrote the citation in preview mode several times, but I cannot find out what is causing this error. Derboo (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. I have fixed the issue, . It turned oput the real problem was that the second invocation of the ref named "gamespot-rebootedreview" was not closed, so it hid the definition of the pushsquare-rebootedreview reference winch came right after it. DES (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hatting comments in an RfA or RfC
For the other wikigeeks who, like me, are into the nuts and bolts of how Wikipedia works, the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship may be of interest. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Bloody hell, after reading the relevant RfA and other related pages, is it any wonder that sane people don't want to submit themselves to an RfA?--ukexpat (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)