Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 August 4

= August 4 =

Signature
How do I change my signature so that the words "Eat me, I'm a red bean" become red? Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)i've made a huge mess 05:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Look at the code for my signature Jimfbleak - talk to me?  05:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That might not be too helpful as the code in your signature also makes the text bold, and you also have the font changed within the same bit of code.
 * The code to change colour that I use is, which produces red text . If the only thing you want to do is make your username red, enter   in the box under Special:Preferences, which will produce  Eat me, I'm a red bean  (take a huge bite)i've made a huge mess. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 08:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But I wouldn't recommend that, as it makes the text look like a redlink. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose. I kind of like the way it looks with a blue underline when you hover over it. You could try doing it with just "I'm a red bean" or some other part of the signature, but there's no rule against making a link in your signature red, especially when I can visibly see the difference between the above red and an actual redlink. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 09:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm happy for you that you can see it, but please bear in mind that perfect colour vision is not a gift that all WP users are endowed with. WP:ACCESSIBILITY has some advice regarding colour choices and combinations. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Business 2 Community
Reference help requested.

Can someone please review the reference and fix for me? I think it is an error in my lame coding skills. Thanks!

Thanks, Trickyricky123 (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In the error message "Cite error: The named reference  was invoked but never defined (see the help page).", the words "help page" are in blue, indicating that they are a wikilink, in this case to Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text, which explains the problem clearly. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * in this edit.--ukexpat (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

To whom it may concern
Hello There, I put a very sensitive piece of information on the LIST OF STONE CIRCLES page and the STONE CIRCLES page and both were deleted without explanation..I also put 3 different sources on there along with my entry...Please Help, Archaeology needs all the help it can get!! Thanks for reading and have a good one!! Enrique Iglesias12 (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The article is about prehistoric monuments, not reconstructions in Japanese cemeteries, and replicas of Stonehenge constructed in 1982 have nothing whatsoever to do with archaeology. If you wish to discuss this further, I suggest you do so at Talk:Stone circle, though I very much doubt that you will get consensus to include the material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * And if you look again at your edits to Stone circles, you will see a number of problems. For example you malformatted the section headings and your attempts at references.  The welcome message on your user talk page has a number of useful links, so please read them, and the further guidance linked from them, for example: Manual of Style, Help:Wiki markup, WP:Referencing for beginners. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

User claiming to be a "Wikipedia Superuser"?
I haven't run into this previously. Is there policy guidance on when a user claims to be a superuser (or an administrator for that matter) when they are not? Is that something that should be brought to admin attention? Is it harmless? Jcmcc (Talk) 16:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It would help us answer if you provided diffs or the name of the user. --Neil N  talk to me 16:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly, I just didn't want to sound like I was reporting someone. . I have been having trouble with this user... and I have yet to get him to even communicate with me... His contribs have been a 20/80 split of good edits/bad edits. Jcmcc (Talk) 16:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No such thing as a superuser, and he's not an admin Jimfbleak - talk to me?  17:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * (ec) That seems, at most, like a language issue rather than making a claim of adminship. (He is boasting that he is a "Super User", not that he is a "superuser". And I further suspect that there are many, many non-technical individuals – even those who are fluent in English – who wouldn't know that "superuser" is roughly synonymous with "sysadmin" or "admin".)   While it is generally considered problematic if a non-admin editor makes a misleading statement about his or her adminship status, there isn't any such problem here.  It's okay to try to resolve the editing issues you're having with this individual, but don't go looking for harmless things to nitpick on his userpage. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well take into consideration that he owns and runs "www.myphalia.com" (Found this out because he kept trying to add links to it on Phalia) and calls himself a programmer repeatedly. But thanks for the reply. I'm not trying to nit-pick, just wasn't sure if that was allowed, hence why I initially didn't post up his page. Jcmcc (Talk) 18:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * argh, my eyes Anyway, since he has a conflict of interest he should suggest the addition in the talk page instead. "Super User" might be just a language thing as others have commented. I don't see that it implies any type of authority, unless he's using it as an argument to authority. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Wiki API's?
Hello,

Is it possible to access Wiki info via an API of some sort? I'd like to use certain articles and reference Wiki as the source.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonrick (talk • contribs) 16:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Does API answer your question? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

AutoEd problem
I have been reverted for a nonconstructive edit using AutoEd: not a really bad edit, it just made no difference. Do you just go on an article using the AutoEd option and press save? I am unsure. Thanks, Rubbish computer 17:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:AED doesn't really seem to provide any advice, but generally when using semi-automated tools, the rule is this: if your edit does not change the appearance of a page, do not make it. There's no point changing "==Section title==" to "== Section title ==", removing spaces at the end of a paragraph etc. if there is no visible difference. Making large-scale automated dummy edits is seen as unconstructive. Press the button after every AutoEd edit and make sure it alters how a page renders before saving the edit. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 12:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Too many responses?
Every once in a while I run into a situation where an editor instantly replies to every comment made in a talk page thread, thus dominating the conversation and making it difficult for the other editors to discuss anything amongst themselves. Other than the usual general-purpose policies and guidelines on disruptive editing, is there a specific policy that I can point to regarding this behavior pattern? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a policy, but there's WP:BLUDGEON. —Cryptic 17:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
What am I supposed to do if I think there's a chance that an article is worthy of deletion but am inexperienced enough that if somebody else thinks it's not worthy of deletion, I will trust them. I think there's a chance that Pikachu virus is worthy of deletion but am inexperienced enough that if somebody else thinks thinks it's not worthy of deletion, I will trust them, and I thought it wasn't worth giving other people all that work of doing a full deletion discussion for an article that's so unlikely to be worthy of deletion, so I proposed its deletion with the plan not to nominate it for deletion if its PROD gets contested. I later realized that I might have accidentally misused proposed deletion and am only supposed to use it for articles I'm more sure are worthy of deletion than ones that are worth going straight into nominating for deletion and not for ones I'm less sure are worthy of deletion than ones worthy of going straight into nomination of deletion, and I shouldn't have proposed or nominated its deletion. I think because I wasn't so sure that Madison Blue Spring State Park was worthy of deletion when I proposed its deletion, I might have made a mistake proposing its deletion first instead of going straight into nominating it for deletion. Blackbombchu (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sources such as the F-Secure reference seem to justify the existence of the Pikachu virus article. I see that you have now removed the prod tag without waiting for it to be contested. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * My advice would be that if you are honestly not sure whether an article should be deleted, but think that it should, that is what Articles for Deletion is for. Proposed deletion is for uncontroversial deletions that don't qualify for speedy deletion.  So if you are in doubt, but think it should be deleted, that is what AFD is for.  That is my opinion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Much longer ago, I had written on its talk page about whether there was such a thing as the Pikachu virus and the answer seems to say that there is. You only told me what I should do if I believe an article is worthy of deletion, not if I think there's a chance that it's worthy of deletion but have very strong doubt that it is worthy of deletion. I now think I made a mistake and proposing its deletion was worse than nominating it for deletion, and proposed deletion is only for articles I'm extremely sure are worthy of deletion. Can I just go ahead nominating articles for deletion I think have a small chance of being worthy of deletion, gaining experience as I do so and getting better at being able to tell whether an article is worth nominating for deletion. Blackbombchu (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My advice would be only to nominate an article for deletion if you think that it probably should be deleted, not if you think that there is an outside chance it may need deletion. As the nominator, you in general should be prepared to present the case for deletion.  If you are not sure and just wonder whether it should be deleted, I would suggest that you pose your concerns at the appropriate WikiProject.  That is my opinion.  If you nominate articles for deletion when you think that there is only a chance that they need deleting, what will happen is that you will annoy other editors and acquire a reputation as a deletionist.  Then when you really find an article that needs deleting, they won't listen.  Read The Boy Who Cried Wolf.  That is just my opinion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * When I want to express a concern about an article in its WikiProject, where in the WikiProject should I do so? Blackbombchu (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Post to the talk page of the main page for the WikiProject, or sometimes of a relevant task force linked on the main page(many WikiProjects have no task forces). PrimeHunter (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)