Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 May 29

= May 29 =

Harold C Helgeson
Hello I am the widow of the great Geochemist, Harold C. Helgeson and since this was the anniversary of his death I was looking at all of the wonderful articles on him and I noticed that Wikipedia has reduced his article down to mere sentence!! Wh does this??? This is very upsetting to his family as he was the greatest Geochemst who ever lived and I would like to know how we can return the article to its original context.

Thanks.

Frances Helegson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.248.188.4 (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The article was reduced to its current size after the removal of copyrighted text. Wikipedia cannot accept text that was copied and pasted from another site due to copyright law. Wikipedia articles must be written in your own words and must be summaries of what has been published in sources that have editorial oversight and a history of fact checking. I'm sorry but we are unable to restore the article to its previous state as the material has been permanently removed from the history. --Majora (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Signature Problem.
I'm trying to use this ( The Pancake of Heaven! ) as my signature, but it keeps saying "Invalid Raw Signature; Check HTML tags. how am I supposed to fix this? (If you could tell me the correct form that'll be great :) )

Code:  The Pancake  of Heaven! 

Thank you. →The Pancake of Heaven! (T &bull;&#32; C) 05:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You are trying to close a with a . -- John of Reading (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Then what would be the correct code? Thanks. →The Pancake of Heaven! (T &bull;&#32; C) 06:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Try this:


 * --  John  of Reading  07:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks(?) I see you are going to use my signature... :P → The Pancake of Heaven!  07:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that was only a test. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Mmm. Thanks a lot anyway! :) → The Pancake of Heaven!  07:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

HowTo? smarter searches within Wiki a'la Google with markup or Boolean logic?
My experience is that it is possible to do "dumb", "smart", and "smarter" searches with Google at the browser input field, with some "mark-up" with quotes and/or double-quotes and/or brackets to narrow the search. That would be something like regular expressions.

Is that possible within Wikipedia?

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help desk!
 * This page is only for questions about using Wikipedia, not for general knowledge questions. If you have any factual questions, please use the search box or post them on the Reference desk.
 * Before posting here, please read/search the FAQ and see if you can find the answer to your question there.
 * Please give the exact title or URL of any page you want help with.
 * If possible, please be specific in your question rather than general and link to any page or article your question involves, or at least tell us the title of the page.

In the above "Welcome to Wikipedia Help Desk!" that I can see during question creation, suppose I want to find only the two singular instances of "question", and exclude the three instances of plural "questions".

Or suppose in a very long Wiki article, I would like exact matches on the phrase "your question" rather than "your questions".

My impression is that this can be done with Google if you know what you are doing, and I haven't found a way to do the [admittedly contrived] search within Wiki.

Thanks! Lynn (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Google provides excellent search facilities. Wikipedia provides rather poor search facilities. This is unlikely to change any time soon. So, if you want to do any non-trivial search within Wikipedia, just use Google, and be thankful that they provide this excellent service for free. Maproom (talk) 08:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, Wikipedia does indeed have regex searching, as well as various other Wikipedia-specific searching tools: see Help:Searching or, for more detail, see mw:Help:CirrusSearch. Regex, non-stemming searches (match only "questions" rather than "question") and I believe boolean operators are all possible. — crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 10:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Extreme and persistent page vandalism
I have an issue and I don't know where to turn. I am really new to Wikipedia and am here to help a friend. At this point, my Wiki skills are somewhere between *zombie* and *newbie*. There is a living person I know whose page was set up by an unrelated party. That party has used that page to post defamatory content about the living person. I came in and edited it a few times to correct the problem, but now the unrelated party has locked me out and this rogue page is creating a lot of trouble. The content clearly violates any precept of the NPOV as Wikipedia governance suggests.

My question - What recourse do we have? The living person in question here only became aware of his own Wiki page a couple of months ago. The content is derogatory, defaming, hurtful and just plain inaccurate.

Help would be greatly appreciated.

ManjiroX (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you'd provide a link to the page you mention. Jarkeld (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You don't have any edits in your account in the Wikipedia mainspace, so it's really hard to give good guidance on what you can do. Please tell us what page you are referring to. I could suggest WP:RFPP but I don't know if that's the right step at this point. Dismas |(talk) 16:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Given that you seem to be talking about the page of a person you know. you have a Conflict of interest, and need to be very cautious about editing the page at all. However, the policy on Biographies of living persons says that you may (in fact, should) "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced". So, if the material your friend objects to is unsourced, then you may certainly remove it, and they should not be reinserting it: in that case, it is probably appropriate to report the issue on the BLPN - follow the instructions at the top. However, if the material they are adding is cited to reliable sources, then you should not remove it, even if the subject objects to it. As says, we can help you better if you tell us which article you are talking about. --ColinFine (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

username
if I create a username can I keep/merge my editing history/talk page into that? or will it all have to start over?68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You will have to start over. However, you can put a link on your new user page to your old contributions page. You can move your talk page over though. --Majora (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * alright I'll have to think about it then..68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to point out, there are a few reasons why you should create an account. See WP:BENEFITS for those. It is completely up to you however. --Majora (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * do you mean my current talkpage can seamlessly become my new talkpage or can it just be linked to or copied and pasted over somehow?68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Talk pages can be moved (afaik), so yes, it can become your current talk page. — crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 18:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to be able to keep my editing history as think this could be beneficial for a few reasons...what's the general philosophy behind not being able to move it over to a username? does it create technical problems? what's the difference between merging a talk page seamlessly vs merging an edit history seamlessly (if one can indeed seamlessly merge a talk page)??68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd assume it's a technical issue. If a registered user changes their username, the username will be changed in edit histories as well (ie. the user's edit histories are merged). But IP users without an account are a bit different. We always need IP contribution pages reserved to record edits made by you if you log out, or by others using your IP address while not logged in. That's why I don't imagine it's possible to merge IP users' contributions. You can always link back to your IP editing history: "my contributions when I did not have an account". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * okay, thanks, makes sense..unless they could keep the IP history in place and that could be potentially added to by unlogged in...and copy paste the same history into my new username account...but they are probably just not set up to do this so...68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

You should understand that IPs are often reassigned. This means your IP talk page can be given to someone else in the future. My advice would be to make an account, then copy/paste the talk page history and put a link to where you got it in your edit summary. HighInBC 18:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Couldn't the current page be moved using ? —  crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 18:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

yes, if someone can weigh in on what the specific steps would be in terms of A. create an account (just do that normally?) B. make my current talk page my new talk page (if this can really be done)..C. and then I guess I could only link to my current edit history on my new (same) talk page? (I'm not sure about all this anyway, leaning toward the status quo)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Step 1: Create an account. Step 2: Put Userbox/IP Editor or something similar on your new user page. Step 3: Have someone who has the ability to move pages move your IP talk page to your new user talk page. Step 4: Blank the old IP user talk page. There is no need for suppressredirect as the page can stay created but blanked. Step 5: Enjoy your new account. --Majora (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * okay, thank you..perhaps it's something I'll do..idk..68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I was suggesting suppress redirect as the IP could potentially change owner in the future, and it is undesirable for a future user of that IP to appear to be the same person as the current user, — crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 20:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

addition
in BSP u need to add Bromsulphthalein — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.81.137.216 (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ Eagleash (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this link behind a paywall?
Quick favor. Would someone mind telling me if the full-text of this article is free for other people?

All of a sudden my work computer started automatically logging me in even when I'm using the incognito browser and I don't want to tease people by citing the url if it's not free for everyone. Thank you! —PermStrump ( talk )  20:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The full article is visible to me. Note that WP:PAYWALL allows online source that require payment. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I was planning to cite the source either way. I just wasn't going to add the url if it was behind a paywall, because IMHO it feels like a tease. :-P I used to be able to open up the incognito browser to do a quick check, but it stopped working and I didn't know how else to tell without using a different computer. —PermStrump  ( talk )  20:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If a URL is not freely accessible,  or   can be added to indicate this in the citation template - Template:cite journal has some more details. GermanJoe (talk)

How do I go about proposing an article rename?

 * The article Hangang Bridge bombing I believe should be renamed to Hangang Bridge demolition (1950). What board would I need to visit to propose this. Regards, Irondome (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You should propose this on the article's talk page – as you have already done (without the unnecessary "(1950)"). Maproom (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The response is appreciated. Irondome (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Please delete my entry
How can I get my entry deleted? It his hugely libelous and makes me look crazy, and it is wildly inaccurate, based on bloggers' notes. How can I just get the whole thing deleted? I'm not anyone important and it is preventing me from even getting a job at a gas station. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1313:C2A7:7414:169E:7D29:A591 (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Without more information we cannot help you further. Please provide the name of the article in question so our volunteer helpers can take a look at it and suggest appropriate action. Thank you. --Majora (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Which article are you referring to? You need to specify that.
 * If you want to nominate it for deletion, then please see WP:AFD- you need to gain a consensus to delete pages, although if you really aren't notable, then it'll probably get deleted.
 * Finally, I highlighted this on your IP talkpage, but there is an implied legal threat with your comments, which is not permitted. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * read the page..there's nothing wrong with suggesting something is potentially libelous or discussing whether something is or not..your warning is misinformed and erroneous..68.48.241.158 (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the NLT warning with a welcome and a question seeking details about their concern. A polite mention of libellous material is not a threat unless it is used for intimidation. This person is trying to make us aware of a problem and they are doing it in a productive way. HighInBC 15:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If you are the article subject and have concerns, you should contact the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team here. They have the proper facilities to verify your identity and assist you. Eagleash (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Katrina Mathers
Do we need to highlight reasons to you as to why this overwhelmingly autobiographical page should be subjected to "Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion"  ?

A search on the internet clearly raises alarms regarding the complete lack of Notability of Katrina Mathers.

We have regularly  seen Wikipedia pages set up to promote one's own business - these pages have  always been removed very quickly.

We are concerned when autobiographical pages such as Katrina Mathers are created: Wikipedia's integrity suffers a great deal as I am sure you are aware.

Thanks and please place these concerns on the Talk page of Katrina Mathers page - I am unable to do so Srbernadette (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy deleted under criterion G11, unambiguous advertising or promotion. It was all promoting Mathers.  Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Help with Original Research
I'm trying to get my head around how to identify 'original research' in the non-obvious cases. In strolling through articles with OR tags, I ran across [Little Heath, Coventry]. Could someone please look at this page and tell me what the original research here is (if any)? Thanks Leschnei (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Little Heath, Coventry is the convenience link. Nyttend (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The third paragraph of Little Heath, Coventry appears to be possible WP:OR, including the assertion that the church hall is used for Brownie meetings. It needs sourcing to WP:RS Cheers, Irondome (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything that's likely to be original research. Most of it describes the current village, and it's stuff that could be found in the local telephone directory or Ordnance Survey map.  The only real exceptions to that are the groups using the church hall (that can probably be found in some Guiding publication) and the construction period for the terraced houses, and I'm sure that such a general statement as this would be sourceable from something that's been reliably published.  The real problem is the thorough lack of citations.  Nyttend (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with Nyttend on the above. It badly needs sources. Irondome (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed the lack of sources. I just wasn't sure that mentioning Brownie meetings warranted an OR tag. I suppose details like that could be added by someone living in the town without reference to any source at all which, of course, would not be good.
 * On that note, we addressed the issues of OR and sourcing, but we didn't address the issue of unencyclopedic content. Lots of the detail in the article is patently unencyclopedic, and sources or no sources, it needs to be trimmed.  Nyttend (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)