Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 May 5

= May 5 =

Vandalism By A Highly Regarded User
As both an informational and financial contributor I understand how important it is that this source be open and free. I understand that it is not possible to employ vast numbers of editors to fix problems and that it is necessary to have well meaning, community minded individuals to volunteer their time to make Wikipedia great. I acknowledge that I have made errors at times and am grateful that we have a wonderful community who have quickly picked them up.

Sadly, from time to time it becomes apparent that one of these users has their own cause to pursue: in particular, highly regarded User:Grayfell and his interest in the USANA Health Sciences page.

Since December 2014 User:Grayfell has consistently reverted changes made by various users. User:Grayfell has cited things such as "Previous version was more in line with WP:NPOV. Removing bit about sports certification, which would need WP:SECONDARY sources." "WP:NPOV" "Trivial. Needs more than just PR to be worth mentioning." and "What exactly does that have to do with USANA?" to justify these changes. These have resulted in responses such as "Opinions are not facts. If you are going to post opinion, post opposing opinion also."

Of particular note, User:Grayfell has cited an article by Fortune titled "Barry Minkow: All-American con man" (at 01:55, 5 December 2014). User:Grayfell has cited this article to reference that Minkow was a senior pastor at the Community Bible Church and executive of the Fraud Discovery Institute (FDI). (Without reading the title of the cite, one would assume from this that Minkow is a respectable individual.) Yet attempts to cite the same article to give an opposing point of view about Minkow are reverted. For example: The opening line of the article describes him as "entrepreneur, fraud fighter, pastor, movie actor – and serial swindler." The story goes on to say that Minkow has been convicted of embezzling $3 million from the above mentioned church and of using his position at the FDI to make false statements.

I suspect User:Grayfell has also incorrectly cited a story by "La Fracture" (http://ici.radio-canada.ca/emissions/la_facture/2008-2009/Reportage.asp?idDoc=75158). However my French is not good enough to be sure of this.

And then there was the "possible vandalism by 113.172.26.48, a Mobile edit / Mobile web edit. This simply added "Which don't work" to the end of the product description. Perhaps just a coincidence that it should occur so soon after my revision.

I respectfully request that a review of the USANA Health Sciences page and its edit history be undertaken. I further suggest that User:Grayfell be blocked from making further edits to the page.

I will also be forwarding a copy of this to USANA for their information. Given that Wikipedia is the world's top online encyclopedia, I expect that USANA will be keen to see a fair and neutral point of view adopted for their entry.

Kind regards 122.148.118.18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.118.18 (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The first step in any form of dispute resolution is to discuss the issue with the user, which I can see no evidence you have done. Additionally, referring to someone as a vandal is a significant accusation, so I would like to remind you to assume good faith and to remain civil. I am pinging to notify them of this discussion, in case they haven't seen it. —  crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 07:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Within Wikipedia, "vandalism" refers to "a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia", not to "expressing a view I disagree with". Thank you for the warning that USANA personnel may try to influence the contents of the USANA Health Sciences article: I have added it to my watchlist so that I can help ensure that it remains unbiased. Maproom (talk) 07:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yup, not much more to say. I'm certainly not defending Minkow, but WP:BLP still applies, even to convicted felons, and the Usana article isn't the place to lay-out his criminal history just to prove a point. I don't know what the Radio Canada link thing is about, as it doesn't look at all familiar. Maybe I restored it if it was removed as part of a larger edit, but a link search shows that it's not currently linked anywhere else on Wikipedia. Radio Canada certainly seems like a reliable source, though, so I don't see why it would be a problem. It's clear that Talk:USANA Health Sciences is the place to continue this. Grayfell (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Nine Network
please update Nine Entertainment Co. CEO name to be Hugh Marks. It currently says David Gyngell

Nine Network 49.255.227.193 (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * We need a reliable source for that. I can't even seem to get to the station's website to see if that has any info.  Rwessel (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Source is . Nine Entertainment Co. has already had Marks as the CEO since last November, I have put a mention of Marks as the new CEO on Nine Network — crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 07:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Don Orsillo Wikipedia page
Your page regarding Don Orsillo quotes some incorrect dates. "...following the 2016 season" (We just started it), and taking over as the play-by-play man in 2017:

Don Orsillo (born December 16, 1968) is a play-by-play announcer who served as the television voice of the Boston Red Sox on NESN from 2001 to 2015. He was subsequently hired by the San Diego Padres to replace broadcasting legend Dick Enberg following the 2016 season'. Orsillo will work select Padres television and radio broadcasts in 2016 before taking over as the primary play-by-play man in 2017.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B006:9603:598E:D94A:B695:3A2B (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If you have improvements to make to a Wikipedia article, you are welcome to make them (preferably with a citation to a reliable published source for any information you are adding). Alternatively, the article's talk page (here, Talk:Don Orsillo is the best place to discuss changes to the article. --ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The article is quoting CBS Sports who use that phrasing. If you think it is ambiguous, please improve the phrasing, but the content (correctly read as an event that will happen in the future) seems accurate.    D b f i r s   09:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

How to find/contact Dave/Transporterman
Hello,

I am a new contributor. Could you tell me how I can find Dave/Transporterman(?)'s talk page?

Thanks. Rivka Rubin (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, Transporterman's talk-page is here. To find a user's talk page, type 'User talk:username' into the search box at top right. Eagleash (talk) 05:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If you click on the "Contributions" link at the top of any page, it will take you to Special:Contributions/Rivka Rubin which shows pages which you have previously edited, including User talk:TransporterMan. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Where and how are a user's GAs and FAs logged/recorded?
How do I get credited for a GA or FA? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that most people just keep a list in their userspace of articles they have made a substantial contribution to, noting ones that subsequently become featured. If you want to be more thorough you could include a series of diffs with each article, to verify your more substantial contributions. — crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 09:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Like many users, I record that an article I've been the main contributor became featured or marked as a good article by placing next to them, upon their mention by me at my user page, the good and featured article symbols: [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] and Cscr-featured.svg.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, there is List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, so only FA nominations are actually logged. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding giving Feedback
Actally i need to give a feedback where can i give u a feedback. I think this is a help desk. plz Assist me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranjith vp (talk • contribs) 11:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Feedback about what? PrimeHunter (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Variations in spelling of names
The question yesterday on different spelling of words made me think of different spellings of proper names. An example is Golconda, also known as Golkonda - which both link to the same article (one is a redirect).

In an article on another subject, is it best to pick one spelling and use it consistently? Or is it better to use the spelling in the original references even if doing so may lead to different spellings in different parts of the article. The latter might aid someone checking the article against the sources, and it would show that different spellings exist. On the other hand, it might confuse readers of the article. MB (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:ENGVAR; within the same article, usage should always be consistent, though variant spellings should be noted briefly for the sake of completeness, such as in the lede section or in an "etymology" or "name" section later on, maybe a bit of both. Other than that, spelling in the same article should be consistent. -- Jayron 32 16:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And of course, different spellings can be appropriate in different articles. I was surprised to see that Golconda was also known as "Golkonda" (I had to visit the page to discover my error), because signs in the town and everything I've ever seen in print and online spells that specific town "Golconda".  No reason to change its spelling just because the namesake city has a different spelling!  Nyttend (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about an article about foo, but rather about some other subject where the other article might say "he came from foo". There would be no "etymology" section in the article, and foo isn't mentioned in the lede section.  However, different sources (referenced with inline citations) use different spellings for foo.  WP:ENGVAR does say to be consistent. It also says for proper names, to use "the subject's own spelling"; but that really isn't the same thing.  So being consistent within the article/inconsistent with the reference is probably best. MB (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference from arc hive.is?
I'm trying to cleanup Kappa Pi and a few pieces of information are "referenced" with external links to http://kappapiart.org/join.html. However that domain has expired and web site is gone. The website is *not* archived at archive.org, but is at archive.is at http://arch ive.is/jPlGB (without the space of course). However everything that I've seen indicates that archive.is isn't good and workarounds are possible, but I can't figure out how to do that. Suggestions on either how to use it or how to give a URL which includes the information?Naraht (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Naraht, I think the issue may be moot but I also found that, for example, trying to access the internal links from that archive such as the "about" page did not work for me. Anyway, after looking at the article, I found that the entire article's prose content was from two cut and paste copyright violation – everything but the first line. I have scrubbed and stubbed it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanx. Sometimes easier to start from scratch. And they do have what appears to be a new National website at http://kappapiart.com/ (note, com, not org, wierd). And since it's founded in 1911 and decent size, I can fill in with info from Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities.Naraht (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Recommending
I want to recommend that Dr. Brenda C.Snipes, Elected official for the constitution office (Broward County Supervisor of Election) be added. All information about her official role can be found at www.browardsoe.org.

The Supervisor of Elections Office is a part Broward County Government headquarters located at 115 South Andres Ave, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301. The elections office where Dr. Snipes performs her role is in room 102 of the above mentioned office.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.239.230.194 (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello. Which article are you recommending she be added to? If you mean that Wikipedia should have an article about her, then (assuming that she meets Wikipedia's criteria for WP:notability), you can request an article at Requested articles. --ColinFine (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

re-writing a wikipedia page
Hello, I am wondering what the process is for completely re-structuring and re-writing an existing page? The page in question is Stemcell Technologies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stemcell_Technologies). Full disclosure: I work for Stemcell, which I realize is not ideal in a wikipedia context, but quite frankly, I can't imagine how anyone else would know enough about the company to write/edit the wikipedia page. Wikipedia requires experts to contribute knowledge, and with a company that serves such a complex field (stem cell research), the only place to really find an expert is within the company itself. There has been a flag on the page for several years that the content reads too much like an advertisement, which I completely agree with. However, fixing this is not a matter of simply editing some content on the existing page. Rather, to do it well, it required an entirely different approach to the page, in order to remove the focus from the products that Stemcell sells, to the science and research areas supported. The new text is completely neutral, and focuses on how the company fits into the medical research world, and the scientific details about the products (not the brand names). I am confident that this is a better approach for this platform - it is far more informative and neutral. However, I am hesitant to just go in and tear down the old page and plop in the new text without alerting Wikipedia somehow because this is such a major overhaul that it would certainly be flagged. Is there a process for this? Many thanks, Nicole — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole Quinn (talk • contribs) 19:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Nicole Quinn. Thank you for asking this. Many users with conflicts of interest do not do so and get in hot water because of it.


 * The first thing you should do is post the disclosure notice for compensated editing required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to reveal your "employer, client and affiliation". You can post this to your user page at User:Nicole Quinn. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:   .
 * As suggested by the Conflict of interest guideline and FAQ/Organizations, you are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question.
 * After you have posted your suggested replacement text for the article there, you can draw users to your request using the template – unless the article happens to have many watchers, doing so is often key to getting any action.
 * While it is true that the squeaky wheel gets the grease – people from an organization interested in an article on that organization are often more motivated to fix it, "the only place to really find an expert is within the company itself" is untrue, because all of the content of the article should be based on reliable sources that verify the content, as demonstrated by citations – which anyone can find (and unconnected people are much more likely to post a balanced treatment of a topic with neutral language and neutral content). Most of those sources should be secondary in nature and independent of the organization (as opposed to primary sources). However, admittedly, a connected person may be more likely to know where to find those sources. Anyway, just keep in mind that original research – facts about the company known only internally and not able to be verified by  published sources is unacceptable as content.
 * Before writing/posting the draft of suggested changes, I think you might benefit from taking a tour through the Tutorial.
 * Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

external links that won't produce right results because of incompaticle characters
If I place this: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"documentcollectionid2":["GRANDCHAMBER","CHAMBER"],"ecli":["ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0426JUD001051110"]} in my browser, it brings me to the right page, but I can't get it to work on wikipeida using the standard external links syntax ( [www.xxxx... visible text] ). Is there any way to do this? L.tak (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi L.tak. Please see percent-encoding, which allows you to replace characters that will not be recognized in URLs with equivalents. For example, a [ and ] can be replaced, respectively, with %5b and %5d; a + sign with %2B and an = sign with %3D. See Help:Wiki markup for more. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, in order to get this one to work, I needed to use . However, a straight urlencode will not work in this situation. What you should enter is   The output would therefore be: , which (after adding http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng# to the front) works just fine. --  The Voidwalker  Discuss 23:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you; that helped a lot! The now gives, which was exactly what I was looking for! L.tak (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Anne Gascoigne
please check that my refs are OK. Please leave in the quotes/information as I think this is necessary. Make adjustments as you wish Please put an accent over the letter e in nee. Thanks so much Srbernadette (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've put the nee template in for you here. I know you've been shown how to do this a couple times. Is there some reason why you are not keeping notes on what you've been instructed on in the past and just referring to those notes? Dismas |(talk) 00:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Srbernadette has explained that she does not like the template, because it generates with a line of dots under it (indicating that it has hover text), rather than née. I have some sympathy for her view. Maproom (talk) 06:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Srbernadette has been told how to do it without the tooltip, and has been given copy of the word on his talk page to copy (see User talk:Srbernadette), but (as Dismas said) this editor refuses to learn. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)