Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 December 5

= December 5 =

reliable source
hi just wondering I've putted some reliable sources on a page so can you delete the delete template on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Middleton#References — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesrick95 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you added a reliable source, I have removed the BLP prod. I hope that you continue to add more reliable sources!  Royal broil  14:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

HOW TO CREATE A WIKIPEDIA PAGE FOR ME
Dear Team,

I Want to create a Wikipedia page on me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shijukochukuttiyil (talk • contribs) 14:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't. Autobiography articles are discouraged on Wikipedia because their inherent conflict of interest. If you are notable enough, someone unrelated to you will come along and create an article about you. J I P  &#124; Talk 14:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Defunct magazine?
If a magazine stops being printed but continues to be published online, should I add it to the defunct magazine categories?  Royal broil  14:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * @Royalbroil No, that category is for magazines that are no longer published at all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger, Roger. Thank you!  Royal broil  02:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

How to determine a copyvio when the non-WP source might be a copy of WP
Sorry, confusing heading. Anyway, this: and this:

Seem to be very similar. The WP page doesn't cite any sources (which is what I was tying to fix). Then the whole paragraph may also have been lifted from here: 

So my question is, when trying to determine what is a copyvio, when no source is really clear about where the information came from, on what side do we err? Should we always assume that WP is "in the wrong"? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a guideline about apparent copyvios in Wikipedia that are actually due to illegal mirroring. I can't find the guideline.  However, a first-order rule is to check when the Wikipedia page was created and when the external web site was created.  If the external web site postdates the Wikipedia page, it may be mirroring Wikipedia content without respecting the copyleft, and violating a copyleft by failure of attribution is a violation of copyright.  There is a procedure, which I have seen, but not recently, for reporting these infringements to the Wikimedia Foundation.  Can someone help me provide more information?  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a button to click on the external site, and it says that all information was gathered from Wikipedia. So Wikipedia is in the right.  Since that web site doesn't explicitly assert copyright, that would appear to me to be a proper attribution, but lawyers may disagree.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Warnings on Sunshine Skyway Bridge edit page
When editing the Sunshine Skyway Bridge article, the following appears at the top of the page:

Usually these warnings (in red) appear alongside the footnote. However in this case the warnings don't indicate which footnotes they refer to, so one would have to search all of the inline references to figure out which one to fix. Is this a 'bug'? --George100 (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The workaround is to use the script described at User:Frietjes/findargdups. That tells me that the title error is in
 * and the "date" error is in
 * . -- John of Reading (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks --George100 (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks --George100 (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

How to remove (or disable) the "edit" button ?
I only ever wish to "edit source".

I do not ever wish to use the visual editor (since it is very slow and often crashes my inferior computer).

Unfortunately I have lost count of the many hours I have wasted by hitting the "edit" button (which activates the visual editor) by mistake, rather than the "edit source" button at the top of each page.

Does any helpful soul know of a way to remove (or disable) the "edit" button (but keep the "edit source" button active, please? BushelCandle (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Preferences -> Editing -> Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta -> Save. This will make it so you only see one "edit" button and that will always take you to the source code. --Stabila711 (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow! That was a fast and spot-on helpful response.
 * Thank you, Stabila711.
 * Do you think it will be long before the visual editor comes out of Beta and this option is removed ?


 * Although the pesky action button for the visual editor is now disabled for me following your great advice above, this has now had an unwanted side-effect: the "[edit] link for the lead section of a page" facility is disabled whenever I "Temporarily disable the visual editor...". (It's re-enabled each time I toggle the visual editor on again.) BushelCandle (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It has been in "beta" for a while now so as to a time frame I can't really say. I do know that a lot of older editors don't like visual editor so the idea that they will be forced to use it is probably not going to happen. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

How to restore the "[edit] link for the lead section of a page" when the visual editor is disabled ?
Is there a way to have the visual editor disabled but still have the "[edit] link for the lead section of a page" facility ? BushelCandle (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Preferences -> Gadgets -> Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page (under Appearance) -> Save. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Stabila711, but I'm afraid it seems that you can not have both options working together. Although the radio buttons are ticked (or un-ticked) appropriately, if you disable the visual editor button this has the unwanted effect of also disabling the "[edit] link for the lead section of a page" feature! Sorry! BushelCandle (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have both options checked and they are both working. The [edit] link will appear next to the title. Underneath the main button toolbar at the top. Try again. --Stabila711 (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It also works fine for me. What is your browser and what is your skin at Special:Preferences? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Everything seems to be working properly now after the interval of a few hours. Perhaps it's something that takes time to propagate? Thanks for your help everyone. BushelCandle (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

medicine
What is the rate of death for people with chronic lymphomocycstic leukemia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.244.33 (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol move vote.svg This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You may also want to look at our article on the topic. See chronic lymphocytic leukaemia --Stabila711 (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Christian terrorism
Please make an effort to communicate in plain English. It's not impossible. I looked up "Christian terrorism" and got a page that said there were problems with the text - no text was visible. But there a page of as far as I am concerned total gibberish. In fact this page is gibberish as far as I can tell. I am a big fan of your project and I am not a luddite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.136.198 (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I had a quick look at the article Christian terrorism, and I don't see any obvious problems, or any recent edits that would have caused any. There is a tag at the top that indicates a potential neutrality issue, but the text of the article starts just after the table of contents.  Can you be more specific as to what the problem is?  Rwessel (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * When I click on Christian terrorism, I see a page with only one line of meaningful text about the subject, and plenty of words which are not common in standard English, including "Pogroms", "Ku Klux Klan", "Tripura", and "Nagaland". This must be disconcerting for a reader unfamiliar with how Wikipedia is laid out. I think the article could benefit from a longer lead. Maproom (talk) 09:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Pogroms" and "Ku Klux Klan" are well-known expressions in English, and "Tripura" and "Nagaland" are both explained in the article. Perhaps it's not clear that the box headed "Contents" is the Contents list for the article. --rossb (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If it helps, there is also an article (though unfortunately a stub) on the Simple English Wikipedia: simple:Christian terrorism. For what it's worth, Ku Klux Klan (aka the KKK) is well-known in the US, though I could understand it being less well-known in other countries, perhaps. Pogroms generally refer to genocide and/or religious persecution. Otherwise, basically what rossb said. - Purplewowies (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * While I agree with the two prior comments, the lead *is* far to short. Rwessel (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)