Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 March 3

= March 3 =

Nick Diaz
I recently put in an edit letting you know that the page contained the wrong MMA history, that it was of Anderson Silva and not Nick Diaz, and I see that it has since been corrected...however your BOT claimed my edit was vandalism, it was in fact NOT vandalism as can clearly been seen that the mistake YOU made has since been corrected. In the future I will NOT try to assist you in correcting errors as clearly you do not appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.224.76 (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see the detailed message on your Talk page for an acknowledgement that Cluebot can occasionally make errors, and instructions to report them to improve the bot's performance. Posting your complaint here does not do so.  General Ization  Talk   00:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There is also a link in the page history, in the automatically generated edit summary by ClueBot, which enables the reporting of a 'false-positive'. Eagleash (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that sub-human response to my resentment that your BOT characterized my assistance as vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.224.76 (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, the sentence you added to the article, although well-intentioned, was in entirely the wrong place and would thus have been identified as unconstructive by ClueBot which is an automatic program that constantly patrols Wikipedia for problems of this nature. The place to raise issues with article content is on the talk-page or you can come to the help-desk for assistance. Please do not make disparaging remarks about other editors as this is something which Wikipedia takes very seriously. Please sign your posts on talk-pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Correction, I made no disparaging remarks concerning any editor, I made a comment regarding the ' response ' I received. That I felt was very robotic in itself, rather than a typical response I would expect from a human. However, it doesn't surprise me that your BOT can't tell the difference between a helpful post and vandalism, when you can't differentiate between a criticism of a reply and the criticism of a person. As for ' proper posting ' you must think that your navigation is wonderful, it isn't, it took me several minutes to find this page, as I couldn't find anything remotely suitable on your ' contact ' page. A typical response from a human would go like this : " Hello, thank you for assisting with correcting that article, we appreciate your support, and we apologize that the BOT mistook your edit as vandalism, when clearly you were trying to assist, we look forward to your continuing support. We realize that not everyone is familiar with Wikipedia can we suggest that in the future you ( insert recommendations here ) ". Try that next time and maybe your replies wont sound so sub-human. (99.250.224.76 (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.224.76 (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Your edit was correctly identified as unconstructive by a bot designed to spot such anomalies. What you did was equivalent to going into a library and writing on a book 'this is wrong, fix it'. When the bot removed it you came to the help desk 'shouting' (using capital letters) and adopting a provocative tone. I will leave some useful hints and tips at your talk-page to help if you intend to continue to edit Wikipedia. And just to be pedantic I did not say you were disparaging. I asked you not to do so as your wording &/or tone was borderline. Lastly, the bot is not 'ours'. It is Wikipedia's bot. Editors give whatever time they can spare to edit, and none of them are wikipedia. By even your sole contribution you are part of Wiki and the bot acts on your behalf also. Eagleash (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To give the new unregistered editor the benefit of the doubt and to assume good faith, my guess is that they didn't know the difference between article space and talk space, and that they should have posted their comment at Talk:Nick Diaz. The bot did its job correctly of removing a non-constructive post, even though the new unregistered editor didn't know that their post was non-constructive.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

My complaint was not concerning the BOT removing my addition, I fully expected it to be removed, and not linger as a permanent fixture; rather, just long enough so that the article could be corrected. My complaint was concerning my addition as being tagged as vandalism, when clearly it wasn't. Not everyone can navigate Wikipedia as well as someone who uses it often. I saw a mistake and attempted to get it corrected. And I was successful in that attempt, albeit not through the proper channels. As for disparaging, I quote " Please do not make disparaging remarks about other editors as this is something which Wikipedia takes very seriously. ", were you future tensing that statement, a preemptive strike so to speak? I think not. On another note: Robert McClenon, thank you for your reply. (99.250.224.76 (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.224.76 (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC) And what is this (Warning 99.250.224.76 - #1) and ANN scored at 0.881338? Have I been warned? You do realize this does not encourage me to assist in any way should I see another error, even through the proper channels. You do realize a simple ' thank you for helping, we will remove the insinuation of vandalism, and we encourage you to continue to help here is the proper channels... ' could have avoided this entire conversation.( 99.250.224.76 (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC) )
 * I'm beginning to think we're being trolled. IP, I really think your complaint has been accepted and your questions (at least the sincere ones) have been answered.  Please drop the stick, be happy, and go forth to edit productively. There is really no point in sustaining this dispute.  General Ization   Talk   22:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Trolling? Fine you don't get it. Stick dropped, I'm done. (99.250.224.76 (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.224.76 (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I defended the good faith of the new unregistered editor, but now I have to defend the design of the bot and point out that the unregistered editor's last complain is incorrect. They complain that their addition was tagged as vandalism, which it clearly was not.  That is just incorrect.  Their addition was tagged as possible vandalism (read the exact wording of the edit summary), and it isn't true that it clearly wasn't vandalism.  It certainly isn't true that the bot should have known that it wasn't vandalism.  The bot "knew" that it appeared to be a non-constructive edit, and the bot designer knew that most although not all non-constructive edits are vandalism, so the bot tagged the edit as possible vandalism, and that is exactly what the bot should have done.  Just because the unregistered editor didn't know the difference between article space and talk space doesn't mean that the bot designer should have gone to lengths to avoid hurting the feelings of new editors who don't know how Wikipedia is set up.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Tool to flip NRHP URLs?

 * I think that it would be wise to continue this discussion elsewhere because topics here can be archived before they are completed. To that end:


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

disambiguation in infobox
In Monroe County, Indiana, there is an Law Enforcement Agency infobox in the government section that has a field subdivname = Monroe. This results in a wikilink to Monroe, Indiana which is a disambiguation page as there are several places named Monroe in Indiana. This should refer to Monroe County, Indiana. The text in the infobox displays County of xxxx; changing Monroe to Monroe County would resolve the disambiguation but would display as "County of Monroe County". And this would be a circular link (Monroe County to Monroe County). So I think this should be displayed as "County of Monroe" where Monroe is not a blue link at all. I don't know how to do this in the infobox. MB (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any link-override feature in the documentation for Infobox law enforcement agency, but I could have overlooked it. The issue is that the infobox isn't supposed to be used in articles about counties, cities, etc.; it's supposed to be used in articles about the law enforcement agencies themselves.  Better just to remove the template, both because of this problem and because of the more general problem that bots may well interpret the infobox as an indication that the entire article is about a law enforcement agency.  Nyttend (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I removed the infobox from this article as suggested. MB (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Publishing an Article in Wikipedia (after final corrections made in the article created in Sandbox of my user)
Respected Sir/Madam,

I have created an article in Sandbox Area in my User. I would like to publish the article for public viewing in Wikipedia.

kindly provide me the complete details about the process.

Thanks in Advance.

G.Gagananand 05:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.gagananand (talk • contribs)
 * Hello . Thank you for your contributions. I have seen your contribution and they cannot be added on to the project. I would suggest that you first study two guidelines on Wikipedia that provide suggestions on what kind of articles are included on Wikipedia. The two guidelines are: WP:Notability and WP:Notability (web). If you find any trouble understanding, leave a reply here. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears that the draft is trying to use Wikipedia in order to conduct some sort of survey. That isn't what Wikipedia is for.  If you can explain in more detail here what you are trying to do, perhaps we can give you more specific advice.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Wileyfox corrections
Wileyfox

Hi there. Full disclosure I represent the company in a PR capacity.

How do we clean up the Wileyfox page as there are a number of inaccuracies and uncited comments criticising the performance of the Swift product and no mention of the Storm. Launch dates are in the wrong tense, present and future when in fact they are now past tense.

But key issues are namely:

Wileyfox at present does not offer replacement batteries

″The GPS and GLONASS reception is very poor″ - no citation seems like personal opinion

″Because the metal ring holding the rear camera lense has sharp edges...easily leaves scratch marks″ - no citation or proof point

It's been cited as a 'an absolute steal of a smartphone' by leading tech title Stuff and Forbes 'Smartphone of 2015' but these accolades are not mentioned or referenced.

We are happy to edit if you will allow it purely for accuracy purposes.

Dwcc888 (talk) 09:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)DWCC888
 * Dwcc888, thank you for approaching this in a good manner. Your best choice is to bring this up at the article's talk page.  I'll help with these problems now.  (1) Fixed the verb tenses.  (2) I don't understand what you'd like to see regarding the batteries.  Please give additional details at the talk page.  (3) I've removed the GPS/GLONASS bit.  This kind of information is important to include if reliable sources, e.g. technology writers addressing cellphones, consider it important (we're an encyclopedia, not a promotional website), but as I didn't find any such sources with a quick Google search, I've removed it.  (4) Ditto on the metal ring.  (5) Steal of a smartphone — these awards appear to be merely the opinions of a few technical folks at those websites, not major industry awards.  They don't contribute significantly to the encyclopedia article, so they should be avoided.  Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and levant
Please correct the subject name of state in your future writings to " State Organisation " only as these people have nothing at all to do with merciful Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.240.34.197 (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The current name of the nation in question now is Islamic State of Iraq and Levant. This is backed by many sources and it would not be correct to change it. The encyclopedia should represent neutral views, and the name of this does that. See WP:POV for more information. Fritzmann2002 18:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , you may also see Names of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to understand the reasoning behind the name and the various controversies surrounding the name change. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Wrong work of the text editor in image
In my sandbox in image with diagram of the gameplay is wrong work of hashs. I can't used hash to mark of parts by following numbers. BTW, is here someone who can check my English in this sandbox? My English isn't very quickly but I worked at this text a long time. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. Are you trying to make a list using hash marks? By hash marks to you mean this : #? The image shouldn't need hash marks, so why did you mention that? If you clarify some more I may be able to help, otherwise I just don't understand. Fritzmann2002 18:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Now I see, that in fact # aren't using in gameplay's diagrams but for notation in this game are useful numbers not any point's determineds (b7-a3 etc.). Here are just numbers, for example: : 1 : 35 :2 :3456789 etc. In case of this notice is more clear if for saved gameplay will by use of list by hashes (##) to highlight the importance and significance of points which define here the following players' rounds/tours. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So you want to make a graph that shows what moves were made. I believe there are templates for this for more mainstream games, but I don't think there is for paper soccer. If I find anything else I'll tell you, but I don't know how to do that. Fritzmann2002 20:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

How does one enter the geographical coordinates (latitude and longitude) for an article about a location?
How does one enter the geographical coordinates (latitude and longitude) for an article about a location? And (most importantly as far as I'm concerned) how do you get the coordinates to appear in the top, right of the article?

For example, I was just reading the article about the Italian town of Quaglietta. At the very top, right of this article it has the latitude and longitude, appearing as: Coordinates: 40°44′43″N 15°14′8″E.

When you click on these coordinates, it brings you to a GeoHack webpage, which gives you a variety of options to view this location on a map.

If I am editing an article about a location, which article does NOT have this geographical information in it, and I want to add the geographical coordinates for this location, how do I do it? How do I get the coordinates to appear in the very top, right of the article? And how do I get these coordinates to appear as a link for the GeoHack webpage?

By the way, Quaglietta is where Spartacus is believed to have lost his life in 71 BC after leading an unsuccessful slave rebellion against the Roman Republic. The article Battle of the Siler River describes his last days, but the article does not give the geographical coordinates for the location of this event. After searching online I discovered that the place he is believed to have died is near the modern town of Quaglietta (Source: Howard Kramer, "BATTLE OF SILER RIVER (SILER RIVER BATTLEFIELD)," December 7, 2015, http://thecompletepilgrim.com/battle-of-siler-river/6.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlg666666 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Unless you can find a reputable publication that gives an accurate map, it is going to be difficult to determine the exact position of the battle. If you can identify the location on Google Earth, then that software will give you the co-ordinates, but, without a good reference, this might be regarded as original research.  Perhaps the safest option is just to link to our article on nearby Quaglietta.    D b f i r s   21:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

In terms of the question on coordinates, it is the template Template:Coord that produces them. There is a lot of information on that page about using the template. For Quaglietta, I believe it is actually the specific infobox used on the page, Template:Infobox frazione that produces the coordinates. As to your comments about Spartacus, you may get more specific responses at Talk:Battle of the Siler River or Talk:Spartacus. -- Nataly a 21:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , user 's response is very appropriate for your query. If you feel any issues still in this, contact me on my talk page. I went through the same query some time back while creating an article on a beach and found various routes to reach the same solution. Xender Lourdes (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

MACP
I tried to post something to wiki and its been a day but it still hasnt published. i was able to add it to MACP but the actual article is not publishing. Can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fnw76 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You added "Mobile Associate Communication Platform" to the disambiguation page MACP. But it doesn't link to an article of that name because there is no such article. Maproom (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The "filter log" link at Special:Contributions/Fnw76 shows you have tried to save articles [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=Fnw76] but they were never actually saved for some reason. I'm not sure the filter is working correctly but try Articles for creation instead. "Mobile Associate Communication Platform" has zero Google hits. This is a very bad sign for satisfying Notability. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)