Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 February 25

= February 25 =

Joan Lindsay
Please don't get angry, but there should be an accent on the word nee over the top photo of Joan Lindsay on this page. I cannot do it and I know I will muck it up. Please fix if you can Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Simply type (with the braces) and Wikipedia will display it as the correctly accented word (with a mouse-over hint for those unfamiliar with the word).  General Ization   Talk   03:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - I have tried but there are now dots under the word nee - which we do not like at all. Please get rid of them. Thanks so much for your help.Srbernadette (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC) followed by  and then  ; this is a combination of the words 'nee' and 'AltGr' (naltgree), which I find weirdly memorable. Works on my UK keyboard, anyway.>MinorProphet (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The dots are added by your browser to show that there is a mouse-over hint at that location. They are entirely normal.  General Ization   Talk   03:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * However, I have removed both the  template and the maiden name from the name field in the infobox. That field should match the page name and should be the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject.  Her maiden name already appears in several places in the article and in the birth_name field in the infobox.   General Ization   Talk   03:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you've just cleared up my problem about those deeply annoying dots. First time I saw them I thought my graphics card was about to fail, then realised it was some nefarious bit of coding somewhere. I made a request on the nee talk page for a simple link to produce née (as in née ), like sic produces [sic].
 * If you have an  (Alternate Graphics) key to the right of your spacebar, try typing
 * I suspect that Srbernadette is in Australia, but you should know that Alt Gr keys are uncommon here in the States.  General Ization   Talk   20:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks anyway for solving the mystery. >MinorProphet (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The proposal to include enable 'block' edits filter on Russian Wikipedia
If you are already sitting block log, you will notice a lot of blocks that have come because of spam and vandalism were causing w:ru:Special:AbuseFilter/118, w:ru:Special:AbuseFilter/138, w:ru:Special:AbuseFilter/159, Blocking addresses became large enough chore (because we want to block them, as soon as they are identified, as they can later try to bypass the filter), and it would be a great convenience if the filter is just blocking automatically. Technically, because the 6 hours all IP-addresses, block users indefinitely the duration of the participant is required but can be configured for 6 hours on IP-address apart from the accounts. The filter was very accurate, but to further guard against false positives, it would warn before blocking IP. Change requires a community consensus in favor of it. --Nickeloden924 (talk) 06:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This is the English Wikipedia, we can't help you. The Russian Wikipedia's help page is at ru:Википедия:Форум/Вопросы. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Block bot removing RfC template?
How can we stop Legobot removing the RfC template from the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Drafts? Although the RfC has been open 30 days, the thread is still highly active Noyster (talk),  11:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the RfC banner and added a new timestamp near the top. Per Requests for comment that is how it should be done. The banner should not be removed by the bot now. When the discussion has died, or is closed, please feel free to either remove my timestamp at the top or remove the banner yourself. --Majora (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Tag for article where a major contributor cites himself
Is there a specific tag for an article written by someone who cites his own work? He probably is an expert on the subject, but is consistently citing his own academic writing as sources, while ignoring works by other experts. It's not quite COI or Linkspam but it's close. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Unbalanced might be what you're looking for. This should be followed by a discussion on the article's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong page title to be changed
Hallo,

When I created an article about the institute i work for for the english Wikipedia yesterday, somehow the titel appeared in German and I did not notice. This should be changed into English now but I do not see how to change this via the given edit functions (the title seems to be not editable).

I kindly would like to ask either for advice how to do this or someone from Wikipedia to change the titel of this page from "Weierstraß-Institut für Angewandte Analysis und Stochastik (WIAS)" to "Weierstrass Institute for Applied Analysis and Stochastics (WIAS)".

Thank you very much, best regards--Tostada (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The function that you're looking for is "Move". It is described at WP:MOVE and you can request moves at WP:REQUESTED MOVES. You should probably also read the WP:COI Conflict of Interest policy. Dismas |(talk) 12:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That said, I've just moved Weierstrass Institute for Applied Analysis and Stochastics for you. Dismas |(talk) 12:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank You very much!--Tostada (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

how do I add a link to an early rock and roll music portal
I have a group on Facebook that needs to be added to a music portal. This is an early instrumental, rock and roll group, known worldwide. Songs like Red River Rock, Down Yonder. Beatnik Fly and Time Bomb, were bought by the millions. Please see the link at the bottom of the Wikipedia page to "The Beatles bragged about playing with Johnny and the Hurricanes". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_and_the_Hurricanes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toledo turtle 47 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't. Social media links are deprecated. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

"This-article-does-not-cite-any-sources-Box"
How may I get rid of the ugly "This-article-does-not-cite-any-sources-Box"? Have added various references recently. All the citations now appear - together with the box :-( . Tostada (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added an actual "References" section, with a in it, to the Weierstrass Institute for Applied Analysis and Stochastics article, so the references cited are now visible. But four of the references are to the Institute's own web site, and the fifth just has a brief mention of the Institute. Wikipedia needs references to independent sources with significant discussion of the subject. By the way – might it be better to title the article "Weierstrass Institute", and give its longer name in the first sentence? Maproom (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Logging in
I am receiving an error message in Firefox when I log in. Login error There was an unexpected error logging in. Please try again. If the problem persists, it may be because you have cookies disabled, and you should check that they are enabled in your browser settings.

I can log in with my phone and with IE. My cookies are enabled. I tried to have a new password sent and that didn't work either. Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.79.73.118 (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Not much idea, I'm afraid; but if you can log in on other browsers and devices, it's nothing to do with your account or your password. Either WP is broken on (that version of) Firefox - unlikely, or we'd have heard more about it - or your copy of Firefox is broken. Most likely you have either some malware, or a Firefox extension which doesn't play with WP. WP:VPT is a better place to ask technical questions like this. --ColinFine (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with ColinFine, but would also suggest that you might ask for advice at the Computing Reference Desk. I would suggest that you try uninstalling Firefox and installing it from scratch, because your copy of Firefox may be broken.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you tried deleting your Wikipedia/Wikimedia cookies? The main one seems to be "login.wikimedia.org". -- John of Reading (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You can also see this response on the mozilla support forum to a similar question. Xender Lourdes (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

2nd package of cream
I am returning the 2nd package. My skin is not wrinkled enough to use it. My name is Kathy Drake at [redacted]. Also I need for you to put the 2nd payment for this package back to my checking account. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.36.160 (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you may be confused- this is a help desk for asking about editing Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Wikipedia is not affiliate with any of the companies that have articles on here, in order to contact them you would need to do so directly, for example by using the company's own website. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Studio 58
I came across the article for Studio 58. It reads like it's a promotional piece or advertising instead of an encylopedia article. Most of it looks like it was just copied directly from a marketing brochure. There are even two sections that list the names of every employee and every person on their advisory committee. And most of the article doesn't even say where the information came from. Are articles allowed to basically be an advertisement like this one is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracescoops (talk • contribs) 19:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You are free to nominate it for WP:AFD. Ruslik_ Zero 19:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea if it should be deleted, but that whole AFD thing is way too confusing for me anyway. I wasn't asking about removing it, I just wanted to know if having an article that basically looks like advertising is even allowed. If it isn't, I still don't know enough yet to even touch the article because there would be too much to fix. So maybe people who know a lot more than me could look at it and decide what to do with it. Tracescoops (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * As often happens, just mentioning it here has called some attention to it by experienced editors. I have a feeling that more will go through the article today and clean it up some. Dismas |(talk) 20:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh ok, thank you very much. I can learn how to deal with a situation like this by watching what more experienced people do to clean it up. Tracescoops (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I've removed a lot of the unsourced promotional content and pointless list of non-notable people. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Joseph for providing that link and I saw how you edited the article. It really helped a lot. Tracescoops (talk) 06:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there a Style Guide to edit articles with long paragraphs and/or run-on sentences?
Am I the only wikipedian who has pet peeves with run-on sentences and long paragraphs in wiki articles? Are there guidelines or some kind of "style guide" on what constitutes content that is worthy of being revised? I'm not all that active as an editor. If I'm going to make changes, I'd prefer to find out how to do it correctly and not be annoying to previous editors of that article. Does there seem to be value in carefully doing this? User:L d allan Lynn (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Lynn, I think MOS:LAYOUT is a good place to start. Be careful, the Manual Of Style (MOS) can be a rabbit hole, you can get stuck there for days following link after link after link... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion and encouragement, Roger (Dodger67). What guidelines that exist are rather generic / vague. "Be bold" and "Use common sense". I suppose that is to be expected. I was hoping to find something like "Paragraphs over [fill-in-the-blank] sentences should be avoided." "Sentences with more than [fill-in-the-blank] clauses should be avoided." Wishful thinking? Any suggestions based on your experience? Lynn (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know how we could do something like what you suggest. For instance, both Faulkner and Twain are lauded as great authors but each had vastly different writing styles. In the end, more importance needs to be put on making the subject readable and convey information. In the end, someone could just ignore all the rules. So, why not make it vague and let people have some freedom? Dismas |(talk) 03:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If you find run-on sentences and long paragraphs, then please feel free to split them if they are excessive. Remember, though, that such style "rules" are really a matter of personal preference, so it is probably better to restrict your edits to the worst examples where most editors would agree with you.    D b f i r s  

suggestion to improve wikipedia.
I'm a physics student. When i reafld some article then sometimes I've some questions about the article and i can't find answer anywhere. My suggestion as well as request is that please start question and answer option about every article. This will be more helpful for students. 46.251.122.111 (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You can ask questions about the articles on their talk pages. Sometimes, if you can't find information you seek from the article, it's an indication that the article is lacking in coverage. This is a problem with the article that you can point out on the talk page. Not all questions are like this, though. If you are seeking for answer for something very trivial that shouldn't be answered in the article in the first place, it's not something we can help you with. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a Q&A service. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * We have Reference Desks where users can ask - and answer - questions on a wide range of subjects. We especially welcome questions that could lead to improvements to articles. DuncanHill (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

James Smith 1737-1813
Help. I made some much needed corrections to the article on Col James Smith 1737-1813 including the references that were all published in the July issue of Kentucky Ancestors. Then I reopened the article and to my surprise they were not there. Help? Some of the information is in error in the article and really should be corrected. I can document and provide references for all corrections. What do I do. I am a direct ancestor of Col. James Smith and my research is extensive and verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DruMajor (talk • contribs) 23:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, as far as I can tell your contributions are still 'current' here I.e. there have been no subsequent edits. However, the part of the 'mark-up' that you edited is a metadata section designed to aid searching, known as 'Persondata'. The information contained therein is not visible to readers of the article. Furthermore the persondata 'section' is no longer used (deprecated) and the section will very shortly be removed in it's entirety. If you want to edit the information in the article then please do so but you will need (and this is very important) to add citations to reliable sources. Eagleash (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)