Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 January 27

= January 27 =

Who can edit?
who can edit your site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:c000:62af:450e:3e1c:2a47:a3b5 (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2016‎ (UTC)
 * With the exception of a few pages that are protected anyone can edit any page. RJFJR (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And with the exception of a few specifically identified individuals who have been banned or blocked for violation of rules.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Article Source
I am trying to write an article for an artist. The source that I have is a personal interview that I had with her. Her work is well known for she has a unique style. Is this an acceptable source to use, and if not, what can I do to make it an acceptable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrisScottFineArt (talk • contribs) 03:13, 27 January 2016‎ (UTC)
 * Hello, Iris, welcome to Wikipedia! The first thing you should do is read Biographies of living persons.  Please take a careful look at the discussion in there around "notability".  Basically, for an article to exist on Wikipedia, the subject of the article (your artist) has to be discussed in reasonable detail by a number of reliable sources.  I won't say much more than that for now, to let you get to grips with those things.  Below is the standard message about creating an article, with general helpful links and advice.  Please do ask more questions before going ahead and creating something, so that we can help you succeed.  I have also dropped a helpful welcome message on your user talk page, with lots of links to useful information about Wikipedia.


 * Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines with which all articles should comply. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.


 * Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.


 * If you still think an article is appropriate, see Your first article. You might also look at How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. An Article Wizard is also available to walk you through creating an article.
 * Murph 9000 (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Iris, a personal interview by itself cannot be a reliable source, but if it is published by a respected newspaper or magazine, it can be. Interviews by themselves are primary sources, so you would need much more before creating the article. Primary sources may be used once notability has been established.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Tables lose their sorting ability when a background color is added
Please see this page: List of oldest living Academy Award winners and nominees. There are four tables. I had all four of the tables set as "sortable" tables. So, they all looked like the fourth table at the bottom of the page. As in that fourth table, when a table is "sortable", the header label for each column has an arrow that the reader can click, so that the particular column can be sorted in ascending or descending order. Then, I added the gold coloring to the background of the labels for each column. This is apparent in the first three tables on that page. However, when I added the gold coloring in, the tables lost their sorting ability. In other words, those little up and down arrows have disappeared. What did I do wrong? How do I correct this? What I want is for all of the tables to look like the fourth table at the bottom (with sorting ability), but with the gold coloring as the column headers. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * All fixed. According to this, there is a known bug with the "background:..." style and sortable tables. Using "background-color:..." instead fixes the issue. --Majora (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Perfect! Thanks so much!  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Biografia Italo Salizzato
Non essendo molto esperto in Wiki, per cortesia, chiedo di aiutarmi a trovare almeno un articolo di riferimento ad una fonte affidabile e rimuovere il tag Biografia Italo Salizzato!.. Sempre se è possibile si potrebbe tradurre in inglese la pagina di Wikipedia in italiano! Io sono l'autore! Nel ringraziarVi per la Vostra pazienza invio distinti saluti. --Ermo casella (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Translation: "Not being very experienced in Wiki, please, I ask you to help me find at least one item of reference to a reliable source and remove the [PROD] tag from Italo Salizzato .. Also if you could translate the English Wikipedia page in Italian! I am the author! Thank you for your patience sending regards." Maproom (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

HDFC Bank vs ICICI Bank
I have been tracking a lot of brand pages. I see that while both HDFC Bank and ICICI bank have a lot of product mentions, HDFC Bank has been flagged as containing advertorial content. I looked at the citations and the number of people editing the page, and I disagree. Can you clarify please. Thanks, 103.245.12.13 (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Page: HDFC Bank


 * Both articles, HDFC Bank and ICICI Bank, fail various Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NPOV, WP:PROMO (and possibly WP:COI with undisclosed paid editing). I am not sure which one is worse, and such a comparison doesn't really matter. Each article should be independently checked on its own merits (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), but both should be trimmed down by an uninvolved editor. GermanJoe (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Laird
please help with ref. number 1 on this page. It is a book and I CANNOT do the IBSM numbers that books usually have. Please include the page number as well as the IBSM number - when you fix this up! Thanks 101.182.146.167 (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As a former bookseller, and also a Heraldry enthusiast who owns the book in question, I can say with certainty that this book did not have an ISBN (International Standard Book Number) when published in 1956, because ISBNs were only introduced in 1967, as an expansion of the SBN system which was invented in 1965.
 * If the book has been reprinted or published in a new edition since 1967, the reprint possibly and the new edition almost certainly will have an ISBN, but I will have to check into that later. [Watch this space!] If there is a newer edition with an ISBN, the reference should probably give that new edition's publication date, not the 1956 of the original.
 * I'll look for the page reference in my (1956) copy later this week: I won't have time today as I won't be getting home until around midnight tonight! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ISBN given at http://www.amazon.co.uk/Scots-Heraldry-Thomas-Innes-Learney/dp/0050009656, but indexes other than Amazon apparently don't recognise the number. David Biddulph (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, I now have the book in front of me, and see a couple of problems.
 * The first is that the reference [1] itself omits the book's Publisher. I'm not practiced at referencing on Wikipedia, but I would have thought that in
 * "Innes of Learney, T. (1956). Scots Heraldry (2nd ed.). Edinburgh & London: R. & R. Clark Limited."
 * the words "Oliver and Boyd," should appear immediately before "Edinburgh and London". (R.& R. Clark. Ltd [sic] were the book's Printer.) The same omission of Publisher but inclusion of Printer is evident in references [5] and [7], where I would guess, though do not know, that Oliver & Boyd would also be the Publisher.
 * The second and more serious problem is that I cannot immediately see in the book any passage that relates to the part [italicized by myself] of the statement that the reference supposedly supports, namely
 * "Laird (/ˈlɛərd/) is a generic name for the owner of a Scottish estate, roughly equivalent to an esquire in England, yet ranking above the same in Scotland.[1]."
 * The book's index does not include "Laird" (or "Esquire"). Chapter 1 'Scottish Heraldry and the Influence of the Clan System' includes the texts "Chiefs and Lairds reigned 6 in their ancestral estates like Princes, . . ." (p2) and "The "much-honoured" laird, or chief, . . . ." (p3).
 * (Innis' p2 footnote 6 refers to I.F. Grant, In the Tracks of Montrose, pp 4, 144 and 267, and his p3 quote apparently to D. Stewart of Garth, Sketches of the Highlanders, 1825, pp 50 and/or 97-9.)
 * However, neither in this Chapter, nor any other that I can see, does Innis directly compare the relative rankings of Scottish and English titles. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Melvin Holmes is deceased
Dear Wikipedia-

My father Melvin Holmes, born on January 22,1950 and played for the Pittsburgh Steelers passed away on December 24, 2015 in South Carolina. I wanted to pass this information along in case his summary needed to be updated. Thanks.

-Tara — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:3000:252:E1DE:4F6E:8355:3FF5 (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Obit at http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sptimes/obituary.aspx?n=melvin-holmes&pid=177073984&fhid=3622 Naraht (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Needs some consolidation: Mel Holmes == Melvin Holmes. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Tara, Sorry for your loss, I just wanted to thank you for taking a moment to provide the information. (it can be a little sterile around here) Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 15:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Help:~how do I fix the following error? Cite Error: The named reference 'patent' was invoked but never defined
Hi There I removed a reference to a patent on the article named Skipp Williamson I now see the below error in relation to one of the references related to the line I removed I looked at the help page but I don't understand how to fix this error - can you please help> Cite Error: The named reference 'patent' was invoked but never defined

Many thanks in advance for your help 2601:C0:8002:33E0:A8FF:C140:56A7:B668 (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You gave no reason for the removal of the statement with its references, so I have reinstated it. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi David, the reason I removed it is because Williamson does not actually hold a patent because the application was deemed unpatentable. Therefor I wanted to remove the line from the article and the two references associated with it. Can you please advise how I deal with the error? Thanks 2601:C0:8002:33E0:A8FF:C140:56A7:B668 (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * If you want to remove it, you'll need to give an edit summary to explain what you're doing, as repeated unexplained deletion would be liable to be regarded as vandalism. You also need a reference to a source that says it was unpatentable.  If you do have such a reference it would probably be better to reword the exising text to say that a patent was applied for, but then add text, with your new reference, to explain that it was unpatentable.  If in doubt, discuss it on the article talk page.  To avoid breaking the reference you would need to move the definition of the reference to the place where it is still used.  - David Biddulph (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help David and apologies for not writing in the edit summary. I will do so in future. I want to remove the mention of the patent altogether so I will add the refernce stating that it was unpatentable to the edit summary. I don't understand the line To avoid breaking the reference you would need to move the definition of the reference to the place where it is still used - can you please help me to understand this so I don't do anything wrong? Thanks for your guidance 2601:C0:8002:33E0:A8FF:C140:56A7:B668 (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, IP user. This is explained in WP:NAMEDREF. When a reference is added to an article, it may optionally be given a name: the purpose of doing that is that if the same reference is cited again in the same article, you just specify it by name, and don't give all the bibliographic detail again. What happened here is that you removed a named reference, but somewhere else on the page that same reference is used: it is of course called by name, but you have removed the place where the reference with that name ("Patent") was defined. If you remove a named reference (which will be something like <ref name=Patent...., you need to find where else in the source (which may be in a different section) that reference is called up again (as and replace it with the full definition that you are removing. --ColinFine (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Bio
Hi my name is Felix Castro how can I create a professional bio for myself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.35.239 (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Felix. Go to LinkedIn, or some other service where a professional profile fits with the type of site and form of work it is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a very specific type of reference work that can be summarized as a compendium of articles on topics of knowledge—as reflected by the world writing about a topic in detail (and not by the the subject or those connected to the topic writing about it). We have no place here for a write-up on you, unless you are truly a topic of knowledge. And even if that were the case, any such writing would be in the form of an encyclopedia article (warts and all), which would in no way be properly in the form implied by the expression "professional bio". Any such article would properly be written someone entirely unconnected to you. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For documentation, the IP is blocked "with an expiry time of 1 month (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Block evasion: Til Eulenspiegel, per WP:DUCK)".—  Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  23:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Doi filler
I have noticed that the cite journal filler that shows up in the edit window automatically when you click on "cite" in the edit toolbar is not working for me when I try to fill it in with dois. Strangely, though, this seems to only be a problem with NBER working papers--i.e. when I use dois from their pages (e.g. here), nothing happens when I try to fill the citation in using this tool, but with dois from elsewhere, it seems to work just fine. Does anyone know why this might be happening, or whether it's a problem with NBER or our tools? Everymorning (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Are these valid DOIs? I've noticed sometimes that DOIs which don't work on "cite" also don't work on https://dx.doi.org/, probably because they aren't registered or something.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * W/respect to one of them I've been having trouble with here, yes, it is valid: the DOI is 10.3386/w14276, the article is linked above, and the doi definitely works. What doesn't work is filling it in using the cite journal template as described above. Everymorning (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Other issues I've noticed with that "cite" tool are a long loading time for several DOIs. I ask, where is the JS or whatever other code that powers that stored?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Background colors for tables
I was reviewing this article: 12th Academy Awards. You will notice that the heading titles on the tables have a background that is a golden color. When I looked at the "code" to produce that gold color, I see (in the edit space for the article) the following notation  ! style="background:#EEDD82; width:50%" | Outstanding Production . OK. So far, so good. So, I presume that the gold color is coming from the notation (code) of  style="background:#EEDD82; . So, my question is: how would I (or anyone) know that #EEDD82 is the code to produce the color gold?  And what if I want another color (purple, green, whatever)?  Is there a list somewhere on Wikipedia (or the internet) that gives all of these codes and their corresponding colors?  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This page does a reasonable job. There may well be better alternatives. Maproom (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This list may also be helpful. It is too big for a single article, so you will have to pick one from the list.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Why is it that my color code (EEDD82) is not listed in those articles?  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The article lists only commonly used colours. There are too many shades (over sixteen million) to list them all.  Your shade is 238/256 = 93% brightness red (because EE in hexadecimal is 238 in decimal); 221/256 = just over 86% brightness of green (because DD in hex is 221 in decimal); and 130/256 = just under 51% brightness of blue (because 82 in hex is 130 in decimal).
 * As you probably know, when you mix pure 100% red with pure 100% green, you get a bright yellow (#FFFF00), and mixing some blue (the 82 in your code) makes it lighter and more straw/gold coloured, then reducing the brightness of red and green gives your shade. You can play with the colours in the site linked above.    D b f i r s   23:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text
Hello,

The "references" section at Wiki page Ester Noronha is loading with error:

Cite error: The named reference HT was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

The code used is:

Can anyone look into this error?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waseem0088 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 27 January 2016‎ (UTC)
 * All of the references which existed in the article prior to about a month ago have been deleted, including the one called "HT". This error message indicates that there is a reference with a name (see WP:NAMEDREF) where the reference that actually contains the information is not in the article.Naraht (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You added the use of reference named "HT" in without defining it. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at that edit again, it looks as if you were copying material from an article on another subject. You therefore need to check which parts are applicable to your subject, and correct or delete the irrelevant material. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Square brackets in front of a link
Is there a way to put one square bracket (like this "[") in front of a link? When I try to do so for "[ nu-metal" at The_Young_Souls, I got an error, so I had to put a space in front of "nu-metal". Please use Reply to when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Square brackets have specific function in Wikipedia syntax; try curved brackets instead. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You can use  – the code for left square bracket. Ruslik_ Zero  19:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You can also do, which produces " [ nu-metal", which some may consider much more user friendly / readable than using numerical HTML character references.   Murph 9000  (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Putting a bracket in nowiki tags is almost always easier, but exceptions exist, e.g. the [Parke County Museum] entry at List of Indiana state historical markers in Parke County, because the brackets needed to be inside the link, and nowiki tags might have made the link work oddly. But yes, it's better to use nowiki-ed brackets when possible.  Nyttend (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Automated warning edit error
I'm doing my first edit, the page for Rosie Batty.

I try to save but I keep getting: "Your edit has triggered an automated warning because it looks like you're trying to add an email address to this page."

I have no idea why that's coming up, as I'm not. I've spent quite a bit of time putting this together and don't want to lose it! Not even sure if this is where I should be asking for help. Completely new to all of this.

Thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by E ribbon toner (talk • contribs) 21:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Without seeing what you're trying to add, I can only guess that somewhere in your edit there is an @ symbol that is tripping up the filter. And yes, this is a fine place for your question.  Dismas |(talk) 22:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If it is not too lengthy, perhaps you can try to past your edit on this page, so we can see the content. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi E ribbon toner. Part of your attempted edit was to include in a citation (I've modified the at symbol) last = natalieb (AT) themonthly.com.au That is not a last name, which is what goes next to that parameter, and is what seems to have caused the problem. Please note that the attempted citation was deficient in a number of other ways. Not only should it have had the author's first and last names (e.g., |last=Garner |first=Helen) and no email address, but it needs the title of the article (|title=At home with Rosie Batty). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much Dismas and Tiggerjay! And Fuhghettaboutit, you're amazing, got straight to the problem!! You've all given me a real big warm welcome to Wiki, so thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by E ribbon toner (talk • contribs) 03:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No way to report abusive editor
There is no easy way to report an abusive editor. I was sent a message calling me a 'piece of shit' and had my addition removed claiming I did not cite a source, despite quoting the BBC. http://www.bbusc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-35259828 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.117.208 (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2016‎ (UTC)
 * did not leave that particular message for you. That old message, which I have now removed from the page, was left by another anonymous user at 07:33, 11 October 2013‎.  It was either pure vandalism or aimed at whoever was using your IP address back in October 2013.  Mike is entirely innocent, but you should certainly pay close attention to the information message he left you regarding a possible problem with one of your edits.   Murph 9000  (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The mistake you made was that you put the reference in the edit summary instead of in the article. Mike's automated message on your talk page was polite and explained what you needed to do.  Ask again here if it wasn't clear to you.
 * ... later ... Unfortunately, the BBC website article is about a different court case, so is not really relevant to the article in which you inserted it. I agree that a British court might well come to a different conclusion, and might defend the copyright of the camera owner, David Slater, who set up the shot, but that is speculation.    D b f i r s   22:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a reason to create an account, so that you won't have any junk left over from previous editors at your IP address. By the way, there is a way to report abusive editors.  Read the dispute resolution policy.  You can take abusive editors to WP:ANI, but Mike1901 is innocent and is a collaborative rather than abusive editor, and foul language left over from 2013 is stale and not reportable.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem with your edits is that leaving a bare URL in the edit summary does not really meet Wikipedia's required standard for citing sources. Leaving aside the issue of relevance of the case, what you needed to do was add the following at the end of the added text:


 * That produces a proper reference which can easily be referred to in the article, like this. A bare URL left in the edit summary is extremely difficult for people to find once some time has passed, which effectively makes your addition unsourced.   Murph 9000  (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)