Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 July 26

= July 26 =

Glen Affric
Ref number 10 is a PDF and it's citation  is done  all wrong. I have failed - please fix. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srbernadette (talk • contribs) 04:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * - I placed the URL in the url parameter and the publisher in the publisher parameter. -- John of Reading (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I have completely ruined refs number  14 and 15. Please leave in quotes. This is what ref number 15 originally looked like:

I also added and mucked up ref number 14 - it is from The Scots Magazine Sorry and Thanks 101.182.141.11 (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the edits for you. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

False comments
Hello, I am a registered user with some years standing, but am choosing to ask this question anonymously as I feel it is more appropriate to do so. Another editor has made comments about me that are false and potentially damaging, and I am wondering what the best way would be to ask for assistance in resolving the matter. I mentioned the incident at WP:ANI last week, but the discussion was archived earlier today without resolution. Should I contact an admin, or senior member of staff such as Jimbo, or is there somebody else that deals with this kind of thing? Thanks. 86.174.60.5 (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Without looking at the precise problem in the ANI thread:
 * In really, really urgent and dangerous cases, contact the Wikimedia foundation directly at emergency"at"wikimedia.org, or even your local police if you have substantial reason to fear for your "real life" safety.
 * If the issue has potential huge repercussions (e.g. you were WP:OUTed) but without an emergency response needed, WP:DWH says you should contact ArbCom.
 * If you just want closure of the ANI thread, you can try listing it at WP:ANRFC. This is probably better in theoretical terms than getting in touch with an admin directly because then you cannot be accused to have picked a friendly admin. In real terms, your request might hang in the limbo for some time.
 * In any of the cases, need I mention that if there is actually no pressing need for action, you will attract some nasty comments or worse?
 * I would also mention that "anonymity" is fairly relative given the amount of information that you give in your comment. I have not tried to identify you, but I have some confidence I could do it if I wanted, or at least considerably prune the candidate list (to 2-3 people max.). Tigraan Click here to contact me 14:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the advice. It's certainly not a police matter. The editor has accused me of being part of a smear campaign, and it's something about which I'm not very happy, particularly as the user would not withdraw the comments, and they will now be on the web for all to see. Sadly though I fudged the ANI report. Would ANRFC be the place to take it? 86.174.60.5 (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of this situation, and looking at the two diffs you claim are painting you as being part of a smear campaign, I don't consider that a reasonable interpretation. You added a questionable story sourced to the The Independent—which when it was a genuine newspaper was a respected news source but in its current incarnation is just a slightly posher version of Buzzfeed entirely owned and controlled by Alexander Lebedev—and were called out for giving undue weight to a questionably-sourced story about a living person. That isn't "painting you as being part of a smear campaign"; this is how WP:BLP is supposed to operate. I'd urge you not to escalate this to any of the above-mentioned venues, as the risk of boomerangs is high; if you do want further input, the best thing to do would be to write up a formal Request for Comment at the talkpage of the article in question regarding whether to include the incident in question and if so, how much weight it should be given. Bear in mind that the page in question is highly sensitive and has been the subject of lengthy recent debate, so ensure any RFC you draw up is a genuine request for comment, and not anything which could be seen as pot-stirring or trying to reopen recently-healed wounds. If you want me—as someone who really doesn't care about the issue—to draft an RFC for you, ask me on my talkpage with a summary of the questions you want asked. &#8209; Iridescent 15:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I hesitated to link WP:BOOMERANG from my reply, and thought it would feel pointy if the issue was genuine, but yeah. Tigraan Click here to contact me 15:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I have calmed down considerably since last week, but remain deeply unhappy about these comments. I take the sentence "And you have participated in that smear" to mean exactly what it says, and feel that by accusing me of participating in a smear I have been unfairly labelled.

In the real world I am an author currently seeking a publishing contract, and have cited my work on Wikipedia in my CV. Imagine for a moment how Gravuritas's allegations could be viewed by a potential publisher or agent. Disagreements are par the course, accusations of smear tactics are not, and carry with them the possibility of doing great damage to my reputation and career. I feel that Gravuritas should at least withdraw the accusation.

Indescent, you make reference to the strong feelings surrounding this topic, so it may surprise you to learn that I have no particularly strong feelings about it, other than keeping the article up to date. However, while I accept that the information was questionable I feel that Gravuritas's reply went against the principle of Wikipedia, and beyond what could be considered a justifiable response in an edit dispute. As I pointed out during the ANI discussion, comments of this nature would not be acceptable from a newly registered user, and they should not be acceptable from an experienced one, i.e., someone who ought to show better restraint.

Turning to the suggestion of an RFC, there seems little point opening one on whether or not to include this particular item. Please do clarify, however, if you think there is something else I should be asking.

Finally, I am being urged not to take this matter any further because the repercussions could reverberate back at me, so maybe all I can do is cease to be an editor. I have been here for eight years, have contributed much and enjoyed my time immensely, but I fear the atmosphere is becoming increasingly toxic. Comments such as those made by Gravuritas do not help the situation.

I will think this over for a few days, since I know that if I do decide to go I won't be back. 81.153.17.16 (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * One possibility I don't see mentioned above is to seek oversighting of the edits as defamatory, explaining, just as above, that you reveal your account name in your CV so the edits are not unlikely to come to the attention of a person vetting you, and your belief that they "carry with them the possibility of doing great damage to my reputation and career". I am not sure they would agree to act on your request, but the process is confidential so making the request should result in no attention drawn to you or any "boomerang" effect.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks for this suggestion. I must confess it hadn't occurred to me to ask them, but it seems like a good idea, and as I don't particularly want to leave, I'll put together an email. I do believe the comments amount to defamation, but wanted to avoid describing it as such on here because of our policy about not making legal threats. Reading up on that policy I came across an email address for reporting defamatory material, info-en-q@wikipedia.org. I guess it's primarily meant for articles, but would they be the people to contact in this case? 81.153.17.16 (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

What are the notability requirements for the Current events Portal?
Today, an item was added and deleted from the current events portal. I was about to delete it myself before somebody else did. Are there any objective criteria for current events notability requirements? If not, doesn't it become rather easy for individuals or groups to push their agenda? --Gerrit CUTEDH 14:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Some instructions are on Portal:Current_events/Edit_instructions. Ruslik_ Zero 19:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

How does one re-list an RfC to seek further input?
This RfC seems (IMO) to have formed a consensus, even though it ha only been open about a week. Is there a way to re-list? I've seen this done at AfD, but I've never done that so I wouldn't know where to start. I was thinking of asking for a SNOW close, but since I started the RfC maybe that's not a good idea. I don't know, what do you suggest?That man from Nantucket (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you want to relist it. An RFC runs for thirty days, and the RFC has been running for six days.  Do you want more input, or do you want a snow close?  If you want more input, you can publicize it neutrally at appropriate WikiProjects, being careful not to appear to be canvassing.  If you want a snow close, you can ask at WP:ANRFC.  The fact that you originated the RFC doesn't, to the best of my knowledge, prevent you from asking for a snow close; it only means that you shouldn't provide one.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I advise against asking for a snow close at WP:ANRFC. See point 1 on that page, or this drama which erupted when one editor listed tons of discussions (maybe overzealously).
 * It says that some discussions do not need closure. While I think this is one of them, it would also mean that the issue should stall for three weeks (waiting for the RfC to expire). I thought I could as well close it, so that's done. Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the responses. Sorry if I got some of the terminology incorrect.  I was reading about the 30 days, and something staid that was just the default length it runs before its de-listed. I'll squirrel your hints away for the future, if needed.That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe the 30 days should be clarified. Two things happen to an RFC after 30 days.  It is "de-listed", but that only means that the RFC header is removed by the bot; it doesn't mean that the RFC is deleted or inactivated or anything like that.  It also does mean that the RFC is ready for formal closure.  (Editors disagree as to when formal closure is expected or desired.  Some editors think that it usually isn't required, and some think that, while not required, it is usually helpful.  I belong to the latter camp, because I think that, even if there is a very solid consensus, there is sometimes one stubborn editor who dislikes the consensus and insists that it wasn't really a consensus and edits against it, so that formal closure defining consensus takes away any stupid arguments.)  In this specific case, I suggest just letting it run for the remainder of the 30 days.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Sources ?
Problematically, Wikipedia itself is NOT allowed as a 'source'.

This contradicts the very notion of 'traceable source'.

Consider that in the Electronic Equipment business, 'standards' are maintained by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. When you want to know what a 'meter' or a 'second' is, NIST is the place to go.

Since labs cannot always go to NIST, there is a way to make 'secondary standards' - that is, to calibrate e.g. a meter using the NIST standard. This e.g. 'measuring stick' then becomes a 'secondary standard', traceable to NIST.

In this way, accurate and traceable measurements are made; and in fact, these secondary standards are often used to make 3rd standards of end-user equipment by the labs that have the secondary standards -- ALL of them are traceable.

-

By stating that Wikipedia itself is NOT useful as a 'secondary standard' -- Logically, you are basically saying that, for all intents and purposes, Wikipedia should never be trusted.

This is a fascinating take on the whole point of Wikipedia.

---

For the particular segment I suggested, about Datapro, I did include the URL of the company: http://datapro.com  which is now absorbed into Gartner. However, although datapro CLEARLY existed, and was CLEARLY a very important part of the birth of the Computer Industry, the fact that is doesn't NOW exist as a separate entity does not mean Wikipedia should ignore it.

I am truly astonished and shocked at Wikipedia's decision.

What's the point of having Wikipedia if new articles are dis-allowed? I don't understand.

Thank you for your assistance,

Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.2.182 (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * WP does not trust itself as a reliable source since it can be vandalized. Also, WP is a tertiary source and references should be to secondary (or in rare cases, primary) sources.  But if you are trying to reference to a WP article then that article should have references to and those references are what you should be using.  In other words, if you want to use a WP article as a reference then copy the references that article uses as references for the new article.  RJFJR (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Another problem is that Wikipedia is a WP:USERGENERATED website. So a person could add an item (true or spurious) to an article and them use that article to support info in another article. Over the years there have been some elaborate hoax articles doing exactly that. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * By stating that Wikipedia itself is NOT useful as a 'secondary standard' -- Logically, you are basically saying that, for all intents and purposes, Wikipedia should never be trusted.
 * This has been the subject of numerous essays by contributors of Wikipedia (WP), but I will try to summarize.
 * First of all, you are committing a blatant logical fallacy. WP is not considered a reliable source because some of its content at any point of time is wrong, misleading, or poorly written. It does not follow at all that all or even most of its content is unreliable. For instance, Good Articles, in the version that granted them the status, could be considered reliable sourcing IMO.
 * As a result, whether you can really use WP depends on what you want to do. If you vaguely wonder who the first Byzantine emperor was, you probably do not care if the date of birth is off by five years. But if you are a diplomat for the Israel-Palestine conflict, you probably need rock-solid sources for the history of the conflict. What matters is the subject and the cost associated with wrong information; I would probably accept a 1% chance to catch a cold if it can save me an hour, but not a 1% chance of violent death.
 * If you insist on 100% accuracy, or even "significantly better than WP", you also commit the nirvana fallacy. There was a much-publicized Nature study in 2005 that concluded that WP was on par with the Encyclopedia Britannica in scientific articles, in terms of reliablity (link), and WP has improved a lot since 2005. I will grant you that scientific articles are probably Wikipedia's strong suit due to the demographics of editors, but the point is that you should have an objective reference point before claiming that "WP is unacceptably inaccurate".
 * Finally, note that "verifiable" information from "reliable sources" does not mean true information. It is probable that all newspapers that are considered "reliable sources" by WP have published factually wrong information at some point in time. It has also happened countless times that they publish wrong information while a WP article existed that disproved it. Tigraan Click here to contact me 08:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Rich Riley
PLEASE HELP, I KEEP GETTING FLAGS AND ALL THE CONTENT IS SOURCED: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Riley  See the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rich_Riley  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rampage45 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * First, don't SHOUT. Second, answer the question on the talk page as to who "we" is.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Unknown topic
LitRPG

I tried to make an entry regarding this explosive new genre of books and it was deleted. I would like it reinstated please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LitRPG (talk • contribs) 20:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * this question is the only contribution you have ever made to English-language Wikipedia. Without knowing what you are asking about, it is difficult to know how to help you. Maproom (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Only administrators can see edits to deleted pages. The user created an article at LitRPG. It was deleted as indicated by User talk:LitRPG. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Comparison between Wikipédias
Greetings,

I would like to ask if there is a bot or some tool to compare, for example, in aviation, which articles are created simultaneously in pt.wiki and en.wiki and get a list about those that only exist in en.wiki but not in pt.wiki... Or, for example, the aviation articles on en.wiki that does not have the interwiki about pt.wiki... Does anyone think there is a tool or a bot that could build a list like that? Tuga1143 (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Tuga1143 - such a tool would probably have to be done at WikiData rather than on either of the WPs. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Cassiel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassiel

I'd like to ask this page be locked to lower users as the Supernatural fandom continually edits it to be about a fictitious angel Castiel from their show, & not about the biblical angel Cassiel. I realise this will lock me out too (I made the last edit). But it's gotten to a point where several of us have had to remove their idiotic edits constantly now. There was no talk page, so I am putting this here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monroe St. Charles (talk • contribs) 22:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, you would probably need to go to WP:RFPP (unless someone with the appropriately authority sees this thread). Please sign your posts on talk-pages by typing four tides ( ~ ). If there is no talk-page you coould always start one. Eagleash (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, sorry, I didn't know how to create a talk page or that we could. Thank you for that knowledge and about the signature. I did post it in WP:RFPP as it looks like this is already escalated to them several times & I missed the code at the top. Thank you again. Monroe Charles (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems the page was protected one minute after your post at RFPP so, unless it was a coincidence (maybe someone saw this thread) they were very quick off the mark. There is a talk-page at Cassiel...click on the tab at the top-left...also click there to start a talk-page in the future if one is necessary. Eagleash (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)