Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 July 8

= July 8 =

Adding shortcuts to bottom of Kodi main menu page
Where do you go in the settings menu to add add on shortcuts to the bottom of the screen on Kodi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.97.140 (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Please clarify what your question is about. If it is about the Kodi language then we do not have a Wikipedia edition or interface language option for Kodi. If it is about Kodi (software) then this help desk is for questions about Wikipedia but you can try asking at Reference desk/Computing. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Cite web
I am so tired of being flagged for this without also being informed in which ref cites the duplicate publisher condition is occurring. There is no way I can check every reference, whether recently placed or older. I know that not every one of these problems is something I did. I also know this is a very new flagging condition because I have only seen them in the last week. SO! Wikipedia admin – PLEASE stop geeking yourselves out over editing errors like these, without at least bringing some mechanism that shows where the errors are occurring. It is always better to help create more solutions than problems, especially as project managers. Further, if you insist on reporing such error conditions, can you also note them on the respective talk pages, as to help eliminate the guesswork? Sure, it is a lot to demand, but quality ALWAYS demands quality. Respectfully my thanks for consideration. CHEERS. Elcid.ruderico (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to articles being placed in Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls? That page shows there are already tools to help:


 * A script tool to list the duplicate arguments on a page is available at: User:Frietjes/findargdups
 * WPCleaner detects the duplicate arguments on analyzed pages, and is able to automatically fix some of them
 * I don't think an error message should be displayed for readers on the rendered articles. I don't see a technically practical way to display something on the talk page. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Cover
How do i add a cover to my book? --Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa1 2 3&#124;UPage&#124;&#9786;&#9733; (talk) 08:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Answered, below. Maproom (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Request Edit - Matthias Hentze
Dear all, I'd appreciate if any of you could have a look at the suggestions I put into my editing request for the article Matthias Hentze. We would welcome if certain disclaimer boxes could be removed (or reduced). Before making further suggestions to the article's contents, I'd wish for you to check my request edit (adding/formatting of references) first. Thank you very much in advance for your help in this regard. Princessella123 (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Need to contact trappedinburnly
I have updated a page and trappedinburnly keeps changing it back. i need to contact him but his email address shown is dead. Could anyone tell me if there is another way to contact a user?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantomrad (talk • contribs) 11:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You can contact a user via his user talk page,but there is no such user as User:trappedinburnly. Perhaps you meant User:Trappedinburnley? - David Biddulph (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC).


 * Click here to leave a new message to Trappedinburnley. Supdiop  (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If this is about Robert Sheldon, Baron Sheldon, you don't need to contact Trappedinburnley, I can explain why he reverted your edits. You twice deleted the entire content of the article including all references, and replaced it by a poorly-written version that lacked any references. Here at Wikipedia we are very keen of references - we like statements that are supported by evidence, rather than just accepting anything that people care to write. Trappedinburnley explained this briefly in his edit summary: "completely un-sourced & apparently the product of original research". Maproom (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Please read and follow our policy on Conflict of interest - Arjayay (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, your edit summary, "Updated by Request (Mr T Sheldon)" would infer you probably have a conflict of interest in editing the article at all.

Help with Kyabgön Phakchok Rinpoche wiki page
Hello, I am working with this subject's organization to help edit their wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyabg%C3%B6n_Phakchok_Rinpoche. Some months ago a box was added at the top that cites lack of sufficient citations. Since then, I have added citations to both 3rd-party published books and newspaper articles mentioning this subject. The monitor who added this box was not very responsive and has since deleted their account. Could someone review this issue again and reevaluate whether the box is still warranted, and if so, what else would be needed, as many citations are present, more than a number other pages. If not warranted, please remove. Thanks!

Changchubdawa (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've taken a quick look at the article and most of the article's claims seem to be referenced, so I've removed the tag. I have, however, added a couple of citation needed tags for claims which don't have inline citations. If you're working with the article's subject, please see Conflict of Interest guidelines and note that Wikipedia articles should not be promotional or biased. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 13:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Two points of clarification:
 * To link to a Wikipedia article we normally use a wikilink, such as Kyabgön Phakchok Rinpoche, not a url.
 * It is not possible for a user to delete their account.
 * - David Biddulph (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks to you both! I will make appropriate edits on the page and communicate there.
 * - Changchubdawa (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia created on July 3rd, 2015, but not showing
Hi .. I have made Contributions to the Wikipedia and provided the relevant links also on July 3rd, 2015. It isn't showing yet. What is the time process? If something is missing or inadequate, how may I come to know about it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinesh Soi (talk • contribs) 17:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What is the name of the article you contributed to on July 3rd? In your contributions I see contributions to Draft:Dinesh Soi on the 2nd, but nothing on the 3rd. Did you perhaps create a new page on the 3rd?  If so, what was it called?  It may have been deleted, but if so there'd be log. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 17:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, contributed to that draft on July 3.  Dinesh, that is a draft article.  It is not yet ready for the encyclopedia because it doesn't have enough in the way of independent references to verify facts and to show that you and your work are well known to the media and should be included in an encyclopedia.  The references are mostly you saying things about yourself, which doesn't count.  Information on sites which can be edited by anyone, such as facebook and IMDb aren't useful either.  Please find some articles written in newspapers, magazines or books by recognized journalists, critics and entertainment writers which discuss your work.  Also, it is not customary for a person to write his or her own Wikipedia article, because it's difficult to write about oneself from a neutral point of view.  You may wish to ask for help at WT:WikiProject Television or WT:WikiProject India in making your article neutral and properly referenced. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Most people don't live west of the Prime Meridian; I assume this user is in India? If so, in the user's time zone, it would have been July 3. Just FYI... Dustin  ( talk ) 21:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * In [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Dinesh_Soi&diff=669708943&oldid=669708314 this] edit you removed two lines saying "Do not remove this line!". I have restored the lines. They create a box with a "Resubmit" button to request a new review, but note the above advice. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input
I have today edited the article on "Harriet Mellon" by including some details from Sir Walter Scott's Journal, but there is an error message on the page. Please could you tell me how to correct it?

bluefountains — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluefountains (talk • contribs) 18:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed it with this edit. To prevent that from happening in the future, when you add a reference don't put and leave it.  You need to put the citation inside the ref tags, like this: . ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 18:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

clifford castle ireland
This castle does not exist the castle referred to is clifford castle in the village of clifford near hereford in the united kingdom, there is no clifford castle in ireland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.202.153 (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Clifford Castle article says that it is in Herefordshire. I assume your complaint is that a Google search of "clifford castle ireland" produces weird result, but that is Google's fault, not Wikipedia's. Google takes information from a variety of sources, not just Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed the unsourced mention of two Irish descendants with no apparent relevance for that article. That may alleviate the problem (after a while, when Google updates cache and hitcounts). GermanJoe (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Changing name of business
Hello,

I work for ACD.net based in Lansing, Michigan and we are in the process of changing our name to ACD. I couldn't figure out how to change the name until I came across auto-confirmation users requirement. I haven't made 10 edits to fit the criteria. Is there any other way I can change the name?

Thank you,

Kathryn — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinSchoen (talk • contribs) 19:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ACD is a disambiguation page, and so ACD.net cannot be moved there. It could be moved to something like ACD (company) instead (or something similar). Joseph2302 (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This post was your tenth edit so you are able to move pages now as you found out by moving it to ACD (Company). We use lower case for disambiguation so it should have been ACD (company) but the situation is tricky. The article AutoClaims Direct was created in 2010 but I found the company changed name to ACD in 2012. It should be moved to "ACD (something)" with as much right to the title "ACD (company)" as your company. They are both American companies so "ACD (American company)" doesn't work either. Maybe the field of the companies should be used. How about ACD (telecommunications company)? Whateveter it's called, it should be added to the entries on ACD. And should we then move AutoClaims Direct to ACD (claims services company)? ACD already has two companies making software so ACD (software company) wouldn't be enough. American organizations are obsessed with three-letter acronyms. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * When told not to do something, don't do it. Despite the above, you moved ACD.net to ACD (company). I've now moved it to ACD (telecommunications company), as your company isn't the only company ACD. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * KevinSchoen moved the page before my post so I don't see reason to blame him. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably not the best way to do it, but I've made ACD (company) a redirect, which is linked to on ACD redirect. ACD.net has now been moved to ACD (telecommunications company), and the user warned not to try to move it again. The user has also been issued the COI guidelines, and encouraged not to directly edit this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "I've made ACD (company) a redirect" — I think you meant "disambiguation page". But in any case, I think that a dab page for only two pages is unwarranted, so I've redirected ACD (company) to ACD and integrated the relevant company links into that page. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 22:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I meant dab page, although a redirect would actually have been better, thanks for fixing that. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A disambiguation page at ACD (company) would also be bad per WP:INCDAB. We don't even have a disambiguation page at Stay (song) and there are a lot of those. I have also redirected ACD (Company) (upper case C) to ACD and moved AutoClaims Direct to ACD (claims services company), so I think all names and redirects are in order now. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Users not adding edit summaries
Hi, I've come across a user who, from what I can tell, never adds an edit summary to his edits. The user's edit count is now at 1399. This matter has already been brought to the user's attention twice (once by me) via his/her talk page. Should I report this? If so, where should I do so? Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Woah, hold on a second. You sent the user a message less than 24 hours ago. They've made some edits since then, but skimming through a few of them, they all look like fairly minor copyedits. It's not good practice to never use edit summaries, but unless you can point me to a serious problem caused by their lack of edit summaries, I can't see why you should try and report it anywhere. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 20:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The user's talk page shows that this was brought to their attention in February as well. The user has since performed approximately 1100 edits, the vast majority of which appear to be summary-less.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 642 of their edits have had summaries. They seem to use summaries where they need to (e.g. ); can you point to anywhere they should have used a summary, as they made a substantial change, unexplained reversion or counterintuitive edit, but didn't? There is no rule (as far as I can tell) that dictates that people must use edit summaries in any scenario whatsoever. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 20:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The 642 number is misleading as most of those edit summaries are simply pre-populated section titles (as can be seen in our edits here). The tool does not appear to consider them "empty" as such. From a quick glance of this user's edits, I'd say that the percentage of edits with non-empty edit summaries is around 7% of 1400 edits.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 06:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * First, it is indeed always better to use edit summaries. Second, however, the failure to use edit summaries is not, in itself, disruptive.  So, third, is the editor's editing otherwise disruptive?  If so, the failure to use edit summaries may result in less tolerance or a longer block.  If the editor's editing is not otherwise disruptive, I would suggest leaving it alone.  It is less bad to use no edit summaries than to include personal attacks or insults in edit summaries.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally believe that the lack of edit summaries disrupts the collaborative editing process. Anyhow, I just wanted to know if this was kosher or should be reported. Some of this user's changes are certainly substantial and/or incorrectly implemented. But I can tackle them using edits or via the article's talk page. Thank you both.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * is incorrect, then: Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. Template messages need to reflect conventional wisdom and consensus on these things, and this thread is a good example of what happens when they don't. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The question of whether "this was kosher or should be reported" is a false dichotomy. Edit summaries should always be used, but sometimes the failure to use edit summaries is not worth reporting.  If an editor is otherwise collaborative, in my opinion, the failure to use edit summaries is not worth reporting; the disruption of failure to use edit summaries is not worth the drama of reporting.  If the user is otherwise editing tendentiously or disruptively, then the failure to use edit summaries compounds the issue.  That is my opinion.  In any case, the failure to use edit summaries is less disruptive than the use of insulting edit summaries.  (Yes, some editors use offensive edit summaries.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)