Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 May 9

= May 9 =

Edward IV
Please help. Is ref number 1 on this page a valid citation? - The Peerage - (self-published) - is often tagged as such and/or tagged "unreliable" in many other royal /aristocratic pages. Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I can't help with your question, but are you aware that you posted it twice? Scroll up a bit. --Thnidu (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry - I thought that someone might be able to ascertain if the tag "unreliable source" was required in the ref notes for reference number one on Edward IV page. I cannot make that decision myself as I am not an expert. Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * From a quick scan of the WP:RS/N Archives, it looks like the complaints over ThePeerage.com revolve around WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. Because ThePeerage cites its sources, their source should be cited here on Wikipedia instead of citing ThePeerage. Also, a problem that I see is the first source that ThePeerage lists is an email that they received. That strikes me as a self-published source. Dismas |(talk) 02:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT says clearly that if SrBernadette's source is ThePeerage and she hasn't seen their source, she should cite them both:








 * --Thnidu (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear Thnidu
 * The information and help above is really appreciated but, even after reading your information, I am still not sure as to whether or not to place a tag saying "unreliable source"  beside ref number 1 on this page. I am unable to place the tag beside the ref. myself - should you all decide to put it there. I await your advice. thanks so much Srbernadette (talk) 04:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Going by WP:RS, I'd say that you shouldn't use that source at all. Any information on ThePeerage.com (or anywhere else, for that matter) that cites only an email is not reliable, being (as  says) a  self-published source}}. ThePeerage.com itself looks pretty safe as long as its sources are reliable ones.
 * A couple of procedural notes; please read them:
 * I have moved your most recent comment into the section where the discussion is going on. This is how we manage discussions on talk pages; if every comment were in a section of its own, it would be impossible to follow the threads on a multi-topic page like this. Please read Help:Using talk pages and follow its advice.
 * When replying to a comment on a talk page, unless it's the talk page of the person you're answering you can't count on their knowing you've done so unless you notify them; "Dear So-and-so" won't do it. Use Template: Reply to or one of its other names, e.g.   or   .
 * --Thnidu (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * --Thnidu (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines
Is there a guideline that says something along to lines of, it's against the rules to bring up a past and/or unrelated situation in a discretionary discussion which distracts from the actual topic at hand? Something along the lines of WP:NOTTHEM, which is aimed specifically at people filing an appeal. --Oatitonimly (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, is this an example of canvassing? Everyone I pinged already had their edits and warnings mentioned in the topic, so I felt that they all deserved a notification. Was I correct to do this? Did it violate WP:Canvass? --Oatitonimly (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Saving without edit summary
I accidentally saved a page without filling in the edit summary. I knew there used to be a setting in your preferences page that will not allow the page to be saved if you leave the edit summary blank, but I can't find it. Can someone help me with this? Thank you. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 06:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I belive it's in your Preferences, Editing tab, Editor section, option 'Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary' just below editing area parameters. --CiaPan (talk) 06:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

New COI Paid editor
Please see User:Seoul Seonbi/sandbox/Seoul Seonbi, this user is clearly confused about their role here as their COI declaration contains an indication of WP:OWN. I'm firmly opposed to paid editing so I do not feel capable of assisting this editor, I fear I might bite rather than help. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * His user page is blank. He has disclosed on a subpage of his user page that he's a paid editor for Sungkyunkwan University. He has made a few edits to that article, which I see as only mildly promotional, and probably acceptable. I guess there's some tag that applies, but I don't know what it is. Maproom (talk) 08:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The declaration should not be "hidden" in a sandbox. Some rewording would also be in order to eliminate the OWNership claim. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added a further message to his talk page. But I doubt I am any better at avoiding making him feel bitten. Maproom (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * He has changed his statement, but it is still not a proper conflict of interest declaration. As to what needs to be said, I am not prepared at this time to answer.  For one thing, my first impulse is indeed that COI editors should be bitten very hard.  My second impulse is that they not only don't know any better, but have been put in an impossible situation, because they may have been instructed to exercise article ownership.  The difficult question is how to explain that their employer has told them to edit Wikipedia in a way that violates Wikipedia's guidelines, and I don't have an answer at this time, but further thought is needed.  In this case, since he is no longer stating article ownership and hasn't actually engaged in article ownership or in COI editing, what needs to be done may be to wait and see.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I want to write how write this comments in Wikipedia.
Dears,

I want to write how write this comments in Wikipedia. Can I reach or can I know who write this comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.154.17.55 (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but I find your question incomprehensible. You may wish to be more specific as to your requirements. Britmax (talk) 09:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If the comment you wish to find the origin of is on a talk page, it should be signed by the right. To find the origin of content on articles, you need to look in the revision history of a page. This can be found by going onto the page and clicking the "View history" tab at the top right, and finding which revision the content was inserted in. Clicking "Revision history search" when on that page will allow you to search the history for addition of some specific content. — crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 09:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, WHICH comments?--Thnidu (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

speedy deletion of rambir singh sangwan
hello, i had added reference of page Rambir singh sangwan but still it is showing issue please take a look at reference http://bsf.nic.in/en/sports.html and remove the speedy deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangwansunny (talk • contribs) 09:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You have added references to two sources, but neither of them even mentions the subject of the article. Maproom (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And now you have added a third source. None of the three sources mentions the name "Rambir", nor the name "Sangwan". Admittedly there are many "Singh"s in those sources, but they are all different people. Maproom (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

oh like that...so what if i will make a change the title from rambir singh sangwan to rambir singh only. and in the third source i have requested to correct the name from ram mehar singh to rambir singh,hoping it'll be resolved soon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangwansunny (talk • contribs) 12:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The title of a Wikipedia article should be what its subject is usually called. If the man is not usually called "Rambir Singh Sangwan", that name should not be used for an article about him. In any case, you still haven't provided convincing evidence that he is notable. Maproom (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

this address is clearl showing his name and achievments..what else convincing evidence wiki needs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangwansunny (talk • contribs) 21:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Indian Map correction
Jammu&Kashmir, Arunachal Pradesh are whole part of INDIA. In the map you are showing are separated one. Please correct them ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.220.78.18 (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * (Copied from the FAQ on the talk page of India) The map shows the official (de jure) borders in undisputed territory and the de facto borders and all related claims where there's a dispute; it cannot exclusively present the official views of India, Pakistan, or China. See WP:NPOV.  CaptRik (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Morocco Map
Hi there, Please, I would appreciate it if you would let me asking you to change the real map of the kingdom of Morocco. I invite you to come in our country and visit all the cities and villages in southern areas including the Sahara and see with your own eyes that the map given on your website is an illusion. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.154.151.115 (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The article Kingdom of Morocco has several maps, I'm not exactly sure which one you're referring to, but I suspect it might be connected to this - Political Status of Western Sahara. If so, I don't see that any changes will be made without extremely robust reliable sourcing.  You can request an edit on the articles talk page, if you can provide some.  CaptRik (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking for very simple step by step instructions for the system for copying text from CC-BY-SA licensed sources into Wikipedia articles.
Hi all

I'm completely stuck trying to copy text from a CC-BY-SA licensed source to English Wikipedia, I found some instructions on Plagiarism but I don't understand them. Are there any really basic step by step instructions that explain exactly what to do when importing CC-BY-SA content from external sources. I'm looking for something like:


 * 1) Copy text into Wikipedia article
 * 2) Save
 * 3) Put  onto talk page

(assuming that is roughly how its done)

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have a guideline to point you to, but I'd add a few point to your otherwise great instructions: Besides copying the text into the Wikipedia article, also include the source as an inline reference. And, besides putting the note on the talk page, also include a notice in your edit summary: "Copied text from source by author (CC-BY-SA x.x.)." – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I have looked some more and can't find a clear set of rules and guidance for adding text from external sources to English Wikipedia. I'm really surprised this is the case and I'm a bit worried the bots will see it as plagiarism. John Cummings (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, nothing will get erased by bots for that. If a human editor sees proof of compatible license in your edit summary, I'm sure there's no problem. I believe this is the policy you are looking for, but it doesn't contain specific guidance: WP:COPYOTHERS. You can apply what's said in WP:COPYWITHIN since the case is very much analogous due to the license. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much, do you think this will be a workable set of instructions?


 * Copy text into an existing or new Wikipedia article from the source
 * Add a reference to the source URL
 * In the edit summary use 'created article using openly licensed text from SOURCE URL' or 'expanded article using openly licensed text from SOURCE URL'


 * Thanks


 * John Cummings (talk) 09:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds right to me, . – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Toto Cup
Hi,

I tried to fix something in the winning table in the article "Toto Cup". I made a little mess. Can anyone help me please? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KobiNew (talk • contribs) 18:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's ok now ? Toto Cup —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 19:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

America's Missing,Abducted and Lost Persons aka A.M.A.L.P MINISTRY
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8374:5830:2808:C354:1A2A:AB3C (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming you want to write an autobiography, which is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia only has articles omn notable things covered in multiple, independent, reliable sources- if you believe this applies to you, then you can request an article to be written about you here. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * And note that Wikipedia does not care how admirable you are: we have articles on wonderful philanthropic and creative people, and also on mass murderers. All that matters is whether you have been written about, as Joseph2302 says. One thing that Wikipedia is not for is telling the world about your cause. --ColinFine (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Change TRO Jung Brannen Wikipedia Name to TRO
Hello!

TRO Jung Brannen recently, legally became TRO. (See www.tro-design.com for reference) and I was wondering how I could change the Wikipedia page name from TRO Jung Brannen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRO_Jung_Brannen) to TRO.

Thanks! Lindsay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lopper22 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Nott Nott &#124;talk 20:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)