Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 July 23

= July 23 =

Requesting Salting
Sometimes, after I have tagged an article for speedy deletion on New Page Patrol, I see that the article title has been deleted three or more times, most recently at my request. If it is my opinion that it would be appropriate to create-protect (salt) the title, what is the best vehicle to propose that action? I am aware that if a page still exists, and has been previously deleted, I can add the to it, and the deleting admin will consider whether to act on the request. My question is about whether there is a more or less standard way to ask to salt a title if it currently does not exist but has been deleted several times in the recent past. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The two most common reasons that I see for the need to salt a title are either a stubborn company, possibly hiring paid editors, trying to advertise, or a stubborn or persistent editor on some sort of a mission, possibly to create their own article, or an article about their garage band or their girlfriend or their breadslicer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You could use Requests for page protection I suppose,, or simply ask any handy admin. It doesn't have to be the deleting admin, although it could be. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Robert. I know this doesn't answer your question but you can always ask me. Open invitation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * User:DESiegel - Thanks. Twinkle allows me to put a request on RFPP easily.  Works fine.  Thanks.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Someone please write about India Syndrome
Someone please write about "India Syndrome". I wrote 3 objective and neutral sentences about it, but it got censored and deleted by Acroterion within 1 minute of my submission. I wrote something to the effect that India Syndrome is when Westerners seeking enlightenment go missing or commit suicide in India. See also "Jonathon Spollen" and "Jerusalem Syndrome" (both are on wikipedia). I wrote the 3 sentences because I was really surprised that Wikipedia had nothing at all on the subject. It looks like no one is allowed to mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoyenneSavant (talk • contribs) 03:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , you wrote an article India syndrome with no sources or evidence. If you were to create an article with sevceral Reliable sources cited that establish that people have written about this and used that term, it would be handled very differently. I would advise you to use the Article wizard to create a draft, and work on it until you have something like a finished article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on verifibility, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your  subject  clearly meets the standards listed there.
 * Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
 * Third,  This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing. 
 * Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
 * Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
 * Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
 * Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.
 * Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Change case
Is it possible to use some functionality of the editor to change case, i.e. from all caps to lowercase? Currently, I have to copy the text to an external editor to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiros71 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:wikEd can do it on the icon [[File:WikEd case.png]].  renders as scream which can be previewed and copy-pasted to the source.   is converted to scream on save but you usually want at least one capital letter. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Very useful and necessary updates deleted by mindless robot
I was editing some very useful and much needed updates to the squier serial number listing for Indonesian made squiers... I noticed another typo and went to fix it and all my work vanished with a statement that a bot detected a problem and deleted my work and if I could be resolved I would have to redo the edit... seriously when the information that Has been there for years is so incomplete and lacking. I have seen thousands of squiers and have been reading the posts on knowledgeable forums I was simply filling in the details paying close attention to the conventions previously used and I had a few minor facts to check for the sake of completeness (which was entirely lacking to begin with) I made a minor adjustment elsewhere complete with a reference I imagine that was removed as well I do not even want to know, I do not need further upset but it makes it hard to be a responsible member of a community if a robot will just be following me to ensure the incorrect and incomplete information stays that way. Was it because of my lack of using the preview setting and i actually reedited the segment a number of times if so I realize I am in error but please reinstate my changes I was doing due diligence and rereading it to make corrections I would have listed references after I was done with the information as well I understand now how my saving the edits before they were complete would have caused this I am schooled and will be more saavy if I ever attempt to correct partial or incorrect information in the future please don't make me rewrite that I am a busy individual and it sucked to not have that information be complete it is not only for me that I ask this but for the many other guitar collectors that would have to do countless hours of research and without the experience I have with this topic. -Martin 11:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7223:4200:A96C:9726:FDC3:6D3F (talk)
 * That would be this edit, which was reverting this series of edits I am not sure why reverted here. I suspect it was the use of   in the article. eBay in particualr is disvafored as a source. and all three of these are merely links to the home pages of large sites. If they are to be used as sources, urls to specific, exact pages must be given, along with page titles, and, if possible, other bibliographic information such as the name of the site, the author, and the publication date.
 * In any case, this edit like all edits can be reverted itself, and a report made that the bot made an error. Your work has not been lost. I don't know enough about this subject to confirm that your edit was valid, does anyone here?
 * I notice that one of your edits gave as the summary: . Content in Wikipedeia articles must be based on what reliable sources say, not what any particular editor knows, because no one else can verify that. See our Verifibility policy. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The reversion had nothing to do with the use or non-use of the preview feature. Using it is a good idea, and can help catch mistakes in editing, but it is not required and skipping it will not lead to automated reversion. Unfortunately, when a bot finds a problem in an edit or series of edits, it usually reverts the whole thing, as it is not smart enough to know if part of the edit would work without another part. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response my srance I was taking with the citations I used was that it was easily verified by the simple use of the information for identification purposes I threw in the squire talk reference based on this " (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.)" taken directly from the Wikipedia guidelines regarding original research the information I was editing although it is a much improved revision has a few questionable aspects regarding dates I have read credible sources in regards to these particular dates and they have made a mistake here and there although I am certain I could provide a degree of legitimacy to my claim in such a way that works with Wikipedia guidelines I feel I can be far more thorough if I spent more time on the research I thank you for your analysis of my problem and returning my research to me I was relying on it and should have been taking proper notes in stead of directly making edits. I will wait to make those edits there is room for dispute about a few of the dates that I claimed and although I am certain about them myself there is contradictory claims directly on the fender site (one of which is that squier production began in 2008 in Indonesia it is common knowledge among squier enthusiasts and easily verified by even a simple photo to be otherwise. it is the origin of this production that is difficult to verify I would like to find solid verifiable sources to back these dates as well as expand on the Squiers crafted and made in china before attempting another edit. Thanks for your thoughtful response and returning my research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7223:4200:A96C:9726:FDC3:6D3F (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to have to tell you that and  are exactly Original research.  To make a statement or claim in a Wikipedia article one must generally have a specific source which provides exactly the information being put into the article -- in different words, of course. (if the statement is challenged or likely to be challenged.) Not common knowledge, not something that someone could confirm by studying a photograph. As for  you were editing an article so WP:OR fully applies. Do read reliable sources and citing sources please. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Nadarajah Selvarajah
Dear Sir

Re- a Biographical Article about myself (Original Writer not known) has not updated since 2009. So I have rewritten the article with uptodate information. Please be good enough to confirm the amendments I have made.

Nadarajah Selvarajah (Tamil: நடராஜா செல்வராஜா) (b. October 20, 1954, Jaffna) is a Sri Lankan librarian, writer and bibliographer. Selvarajah has written more than 43 books until June 2017. So far he has compiled 11 volumes of Noolthettam - a bibliography of Sri Lankan Tamil books. He has also compiled a bibliography of Tamil publications in Malaysia and Singapore (Malaysian-Singapore Noolthettam). He has also compiled a volume of Noolthettam in English, which contains English publications of Sri Lankan Tamils.

Selvarajah was born in Dandugama in Colombo District in 1954, and moved to Anaikoddai in Jaffna in his early 16's. He had his early education in Negombo, Vivekananda Maha Vidyalayam and St. Mary's College. His career began in 1976 as a librarian at Ramanathan College, Chunnakam in Sri Lanka. And then served as the Central Librarian for the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement in the Jaffna District. During 1981-82 he served for a year in Indonesia under the United Nations Development Programme, where he organised a Model Rural Community Library System for that country in the Village Marengmang near the provincial capital, Bandung, in the Island of Java. In 1983 he became the Chief Librarian at the Evelyn Rutnam Institute for Inter-Cultural Studies affiliated to the Jaffna College. In 1990 he became an advisor to the Department of Hindu Culture under the Ministry of Cultural Affairs in Sri Lanka. Since 1991 Mr. Selvarajah is a consultant to the Jaffna Public Library.

Selvarajah currently lives in Luton with his family. He has retired from the Postal Services (Royal mail Group UK) after 18 years of Services in March 2017. He is the founder of the charity European Tamil Documentation and Research Centre (ETDRC) in the United Kingdom in 2009. He is an active member, and Sri Lankan representative of the Books Abroad, Scotland service, through which has freely provided books to libraries in Sri Lanka. In 2017 he was awarded, the UK Informed Peer Recognition Award (IPRA). He is the first Sri Lankan who has received this prestigious award for his services to the Community, and the Country as a professional librarian.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by N.Selvarajah (talk • contribs) 12:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * , Discussion about the content of the article Nadarajah Selvarajah should go on talk:Nadarajah Selvarajah. I can tell your that it currently does not cite any reliable sources at all. It has accordingly been tagged (by myself) for deletion, unless at least one such source is added within 7 days. (See Referencing for Beginners for how to insert a citation.) Do note that autobiography is discouraged here, and that the article does not yet demonstrate the notability of the subject. See our guideline on the notability of biographies and our guideline on the notability of authors. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Citing problems
I wish to cite some facts but the references are a little odd and I am not sure how to go about it. The page Chorley States: the presence of a church, a temple; the name of the temple and the fact the temple is tha largest in Europe. The obvious place to look for references is to look on the Mormon's website. However, they just provide a map that you scroll and click on the icons. Is it ok to just reference this page? The remaining fact is that the temple is the largest in Europe. I can satisfy myself by going to Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sorting by size and scrolloing down until I find the first European temple. This doesn't seem to be original research, however I am unsure of how to cite this. Can you help? Op47 (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, . While the Mormons' website would be acceptable as a source for the uncontroversial claim that the temple exists, an independent source would be preferable: surely there is some local source, eg an article in a local newspaper? In fact, this looks ideal - and it is also a source for the "largest" claim. Your method is clearly an example of synthesis: "... do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". --ColinFine (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Buzz Sawyer
I am a family member and his date of birth is wrong He was actually born in 1958. It says online his birthday was June 14th. Its really October 14th can some one please fix this? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 614buckeyegirl (talk • contribs)


 * I moved your question here from the Category where you mistakenly placed it, --ColinFine (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * We can't blame the Internet for this bit of misinformation (if it's even wrong at all). The February 17, 1992 issue of The Wrestling Observer gives the June 14 date (here's the same story from somebody who joined a forum on October 14). That's not to say Dave Meltzer (or maybe Herb Meltzer) was never wrong, but he's more reputable than whoever first said October online. Still 1959, in that version. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 614buckeyegirl I've been searching all records online for Bruce Alan Woyan and his stage name "Buzz Sawyer" with the birth date of 1958. Except for the extremely rare hit that results in a source that is far from reliable, I am coming up completely empty. Could you perhaps provide even one reliable source that could / would back your claim? Thanks! Maineartists (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weird. I tried checking through the social security death index, using the widest search possible using just his (real) last name and year of death and nothing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)