Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 May 3

= May 3 =

How to get deleted images to be returned, or not deleted in the first place.
I have had several images deleted - even after I provided either more rational or requested assistance from those recommending deletion. One of my main concerns is why are images that I have stated have no known originator and/or were pre-1923 being deleted? I may not be knowledgeable on exact coding to make sure this is completely understood - but I am totally at a loss on why I never get a reply from those who are making deletion recommendations. It's like they are throwing a grenade in a room and walking away - never offering any assistance, and then the images are automatically deleted. At least when I do attempt to offer more information about the images I should get a reply stating that the copyright code is still wrong and provide some guidance for a work around. I don't know how to make the case to get the images out of that dark hole - especially if they were deleted after I provided more information. I am shooting in the dark here. HELP. I then thought if I reloaded them with more clear justification - again especially for pre-1923 images with no known originator/owner and no copyright, or an image I know has been in the public domain for decades - they would not be deleted again. But it is like fighting city hall - as it appears the rationale for deletion is irreversible, no matter what additional information about the image is provided. I simply can't unlock the key to getting images un-deleted because I don't fully comprehend the exact coding required - and those "editors" who are recommending deletion certainly seem to only want to hit the delete button and move on - letting the automatic "robot" process delete without my day in court to even try and stop the images from being deleted. SandHills (talk) 00:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you uploading the images to Wikipedia or to Commons? Have you read the policies WP:Images and WP:Uploading images?  Have you discussed the images with the nominating editor and the deleting administrator?  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The only deleted contributions here, are for an image uploaded twice in 2007, see File:Dopeys.JPG. Assuming this isn't about an 8 year old deletion, it must be a problem with . Monty  845  01:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

How can a new user's edits to an article be "Automatically accepted"?
I have a question – a new editor, (who has only been registered for about 24 hours), has been making a series of unsourced additions to some BLP articles on UK soap opera actors. But that's not why I am here. Why I'm here is that I recently noticed that this new editor's edits were being "Automatically accepted" at the article Charley Webb, despite the fact that this editor only has 25 edits, and does not have "Pending changes reviewer" status (obviously!). So I am wondering what's going on here – is this some kind of weird technical error that is allowing this editor's edits to be "Automatically accepted"? Or is there something else going on here?... Thanks in advance! --IJBall (talk) 02:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Odd – and now, several minutes later, the "Automatically accepted" tags next to this editor's edits have disappeared.. Must be some kind of 'bug'. --IJBall (talk) 02:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Auto accepted disappearing was me un-accepting all 3 of his edits in the hope his next edits would go back to the normal pending stage, Not sure if that'd work but meh worth a go I guess, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 02:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 24 hours? I think you lost a year? --David Biddulph (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

How to fix a red link
I edited the article Home Rule Municipality (Pennsylvania) to fix what seemed like wrong caps (upper case letters), and this created a red link for List of Pennsylvania municipalities and counties with home rule charters, optional charters, or optional plans, which was a blue link before with lots of capitalized words. How do I fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmeredgar (talk • contribs) 03:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your fix was correct per the Wikipedia manual of style, but to complete the fix you need to move the target article to the correct new title. -- Jayron 32 04:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How do I move an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmeredgar (talk • contribs) 04:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Go to the article you want to move. In the upper right corner is a little menu item that says "More" with a little downward pointing triangle.  Click the triangle and select "move".  Enter the new, correctly capitalized title.  See also Help:Move for more details.  -- Jayron 32 04:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I cannot find a little thing that says "More". Timmeredgar (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it's not there for you yet. Since your account is so new, you do not have autoconfirmed status and are not yet allowed to move pages. You will be in three days. In the mean time, I moved it so it works now. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   05:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Timmeredgar (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is also Piped link which shows how to have a link that shows one text but links to another (including having a link that has different capitalization.) RJFJR (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Roger Ebert
Reference help requested.

Reference to web page with article by Fristoe, the URL includes a pipe in it, and that makes an error in published page. My one idea was to make tinyurl, but those are disallowed on Wikipedia. I could not find a source for the sentence (and some prior editor marked that citation was needed) other than the one I put in. I put an entry on the talk page for Roger Ebert, and ask again here, how does one get around the problem and still use the reference?

Thanks, --Prairieplant (talk) 05:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The "Help" for the error linked to Help:CS1 errors, where it suggests to use the percent-encoding of "%7c" to replace the pipe ("|"). I tried that and it seems to have worked.  SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   06:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! Now I know how to handle this, should it ever happen again. And the article has just one citation needed as of this moment, big progress. --Prairieplant (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

-webkit-linear-gradient
I insert css code  at ko:틀:언프리티 랩스타 (template:Unpretty Rapstar)  ,but it`s not worked. I want to apply css gradient.--Altostratus (talk) 06:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * For technical questions like this, WP:VPT is the best place to ask. Having said that, this is the English Wikipedia, and ko: is a completely separate project. I also don't think it is a good idea to put browser-specific CSS into templates, because however you are making it appear, people using other browsers won't see. --ColinFine (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We have for use on the English Wikipedia. --  Gadget850talk 18:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Use of information
Are there limitations for extracting information from publications? (books/magazines) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruchith Singhabahu (talk • contribs) 07:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello . I'm not sure quite what you mean. If you are talking about quoting text from a publication: you may do so, as long as it is properly attributed, and not too long. See WP:Quotations. If you mean referencing publications, you can certainly do that - see referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot (Ruchith Singhabahu (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC))

WMF elections
I went to Meta to vote and I was redirected to Wikimedia Vote Wiki. I am told, however, that I do not have an account in that. What is the problem? I thought that my account was global.--The Theosophist (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What does the merge accounts page on Meta say when you visit it? - X201 (talk) 10:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It says that everything is fine. Anyway, it looks like my vote was indeed recorded, even though the site looks like I am logged out. Thank you.--The Theosophist (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You've got a Meta account, Not sure what was causing the problem though. - X201 (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Can't Login
I've logged into Wikipedia many times before, but suddenly my password no longer works. I've been very careful with case sensitivity, etc. I don't understand why I can't contribute anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.43.69 (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What is your username? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Nikkimaria keeps changing the page De Club van Sinterklaas for reasons i don't know. Am i missing something or is he/she vandalising the page? --FroggieFrog12 (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Since you know who has been reverting your changes, you must know how to use the page history. Since you have written a few edit summaries for your own edits, you obviously are familiar with the concept of edit summaries. Have you read the other editor's edit summaries for their reverts? Doing that often goes a long way toward answering the question, "Why?". If it does not, the correct action is to contact the editor on their talk page for clarification and discussion, and/or open a thread on the article talk page. Repeated re-reverting is edit warring, which can result in sanctions, and there is no need to come to the Help desk with such a question.


 * In this case, both of the other editor's edit summaries were rm non-RS. "rm" is a standard abbreviation for "remove". "RS" means "reliable sources". Therefore the editor is saying that the content you are adding is not referenced or the references are not reliable sources. No, they are not vandalizing the page. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The contributions have references and still Nikkimaria keeps changing them. --FroggieFrog12 (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Then the other editor is saying that the references are not reliable sources (as I said). Discuss on their talk page or article talk, not here. If it comes to that and you feel strongly about it, you can pursue dispute resolution, but Help desk is not a part of that process. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * To be specific, Froggie, one of the references you used that was removed in the revert by Nikkimaria was to a Wikia page, which is written by random people using the Internet. It is user-generated content, as opposed to a source with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, such as books published by major publishing houses, newspapers, magazines, peer-reviewed scholarly journals and the like. The second is also to a wiki, the Dutch Wikipedia's article on the club, which is WP:CIRCULAR sourcing and also another user-generated source. Additionally, the link you used was not actually to the Dutch article, but a site that appears to be a blatant copyright violation of the Dutch Wikipedia article (though I am not intimating you knew this), which would be a type of link we forbid from use (see WP:ELNEVER). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Offensive userpage box content
I was wondering if there were any rules against the "This user likes/is/believes/etc" user page boxes containing offensive content, whether it comes from a created template or a customized one. I recall awhile ago that someone on the enforcement board was given some kind of punishment for putting a swastika on their user page, but I'm not sure if it goes beyond Godwin's law.

For a specific situation, if someone wrote This user rejects the so-called Armenian claims and believes that it's a big lie concocted by Armenian diaspora ! on a user box for their page, would they be forced to remove it and/or be given a sanction? --Steverci (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * User pages is the guideline for user and user talk pages. The section What may I not have in my user pages? includes the concept of WP:POLEMIC, stating that “very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing” should be avoided.


 * You’ll note the wording indicates that the concept of what’s unacceptable is subject to interpretation. I think you have some choices:
 * You could stop reading the user page in question - unwatch it, etc.
 * You could leave a polite note indicating why you think this is distracting from the building of an encyclopedia, or add the tag to that user’s user talk page.
 * You could post a complaint at WP:ANI - if you do, please be sure to post to that user’s user talk page, and be prepared to have your conduct with respect to that editor also examined (that’s how things work at ANI).;
 * Good luck! JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Specific to userboxes, Userboxes is the applicable guideline. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * User:JoeSperrazza Thanks. But would I be able to report this to enforcement and get the user sanctioned? If someone called the Holocaust a big lie made up by the Jews on their user page, I doubt they'd just simply be asked to remove it. --Steverci (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocks are preventative, not punitive. If the consensus was to remove it and the user refused or edit warred about it, then a block might follow, or other actions. Try reporting it and see. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Mentioned in Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive148, where he received a topic ban (on greco-turkish relations), but I'm not sure if the topic ban covered that.Naraht (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The Mozilla Firefox Timeline template is about to run out of space soon
I've been thinking. In nine days, Firefox 38 will arrive, and so will the new version of Firefox 31esr, but there's one problem: the height in the Mozilla Firefox Timeline template seems to be limited, and if the ESR version number goes down any further than Firefox 31.6.0esr, pretty soon the space will run out, and the template won't work. What should we do to remedy this? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Template talk:Timeline Mozilla Firefox is a better place to discuss your question. I see you're already familiar with that page. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The UK Government's Knowledge Network Programme
Should The UK Government's Knowledge Network Programme be nominated for deletion? It is not notable. It was nominated for deletion in the past when it was current. Now it is very out of date and most of the references are dead links. Yann-an-Od (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither of your arguments seems very strong: if a subject is notable, it doesn't stop being notable just because it no longer exists, or the article needs updating. And in general, references do not have to be online, so the link being dead does not necessarily destroy the reference. Looking at that article, I see it has several issues at the top anyway, so it may be that a renomination would succeed. --ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We have lots of articles about things that no longer exist. That's what encyclopedias are for, to document knowledge about stuff for history. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Giovanni Battista Piranesi etchings - italics?
Would I be correct to italicise the names of the etchings listed in Giovanni Battista Piranesi? Or are they for whatever reason classed as minor works as opposed to major works? 81.141.58.213 (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The appliable guideline appears to be Manual of Style/Visual arts. Since the article refers to these works as "untitled", I would lean toward no italics per that guideline. While there may be someone more knowledgeable in this area who reads this page, you should try the article's talk page first. It has very low activity, but it has 52 watchers and is worth a try. Another resource would be an applicable WikiProject; WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment is the closest I can find. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)