Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 September 13

= September 13 =

Picture error
I am creating a new page called Humphreys Middle School. I attached a photo, but I get the following error, "Lua error in Module:Location_map at line 442: Unable to find the specified location map definition. Neither "Module:Location map/data/Pyeongtaek" nor "Template:Location map Pyeongtaek" exists.

How do I fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher.moran (talk • contribs) 05:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Cured by . --David Biddulph (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Editing a template
Sorry for this question, but I just edited a template but the changes still has not shown in the articles while the change has shown in the template itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Protestantism

I added Criticism of Protestantism in the template. Thanks. Marax (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * That is normal. It can take up to a day (and rarely even longer) for changes in templates to filter through to the article on which they are in.--Penbat (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Penbat! Much appreciated clarification. Marax (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Personal details about Yahya Khan
My query is about user:MBlaze Lightning undoing the changes made about President Yahya Khan's personal life by a relative and Mr. MBlaze's source to justify that Yahya Khan did not marry or had wife and kids?

The reference article highlighted with this statement i.e. "night of the generals" does not mention ANYWHERE about the lies that he never married or that he use to go to brothels. So i take it that it might most probably be a personal assault by MBlaze Lightning. Obviously, a person having his country of origin (India) will distort facts about a Pakistani President of whom the user has no knowledge of and have no connection with. And if by any chance i am wrong and he holds no bias then do bother to read the article in the link below in case a reference is required to establish that he was married and had a son which i added afew days ago but was undone by the user.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1072322 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.39.199.186 (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Convenience link: . Maproom (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The information added did not provide a source (see WP:RS & WP:BLP) which is required for information of this nature. Personal knowledge is not acceptable. Also the addition of the information claimed a connection to the subject and WP:COI would apply. Eagleash (talk) 08:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Kindly explain how the addition of the so called information claimed a connection or establised that he was NOT married or ever did? the reference is just an article by a journalist of least credibility as compared to the article in the below link by who is a renownded Journalist. and tells about his conversation with Yahya Khan's Son. Personal knowledge is not acceptable...agreed. But assumptions made by refering to an article of a different nature should be treated as personal point of views not facts. https://www.dawn.com/news/1072322 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:CB80:402A:1F8A:CCF0:5396:9895:6E83 (talk) 09:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No source was provided. Inline citations are necessary. I think "I am a relative" establishes a connection. Eagleash (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * AND I would not so kindly demand that you keep your vile bigotry to yourself, IP. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Caution - Please be aware that discussions of Pakistan and India are subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions. If you can't discuss India or Pakistan without refighting the Indian-Pakistani wars, fight them somewhere else.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Donating to wikipedia by mail
Please email me an address so I can donate without putting info online. Thanks Pennie Cohn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.50.5 (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Pennie. You may donate via mail by check at the following address.  T J W  talk   15:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. P.O. Box 98204 Washington, DC 20090-8204 USA
 * This help desk can be edited by anyone so I will also give a link to the Wikimedia Foundations own website which requires approved accounts: wmf:Ways to Give. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Twycross Zoo - problems updating page
Hello,

We have tried to update the Twycross Zoo page a number of times but it keeps reverting back to the old information. Are you able to help us update this?

We have confirmation emails sent to our Twycross Zoo email address and are a registered member of Wikipedia now. Our page is this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twycross_Zoo

thanks Helena — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwycrossZoo (talk • contribs) 15:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Firstly, you probably want to get your account renamed to something like "Helena at Twycross Zoo", as account names should be clearly identifiable as belonging to a single person. See Changing username for more information.
 * The problem with this edit is it seems to be a copy and paste from the zoo's marketing brochure. A Wikipedia article on the zoo should give basic facts, history and facilities, but it shouldn't be written with any intent to encourage people to attend the zoo. The best thing to do is base what you write on independent news reports like these, and add those as sources of new information (see Referencing for Beginners as a basic guide to how to add references and what information is required). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. The main problem here is that your edits removed referenced material and added much information without references which could also be seen as 'promotional'. Furthermore, you have an obvious connection to the subject and therefore need to look at both WP:COI and WP:PAID before editing further. Wikipedia has little if any interest in what a subject has to say about itself but rather what has been written about the topic in in independent reliable sources. You can propose changes to the article at its talk page but must include reliable sources. Thank you; good luck. Eagleash (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Getting photographs to display on map
I am trying to get photographs I have taken to display on this map. https://tools.wmflabs.org/wlmuk/#/gps/52.8583029,-2.2480762 I can upload them by clicking on the button but they do not appear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eccy Snapper (talk • contribs) 18:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Do I have the right to delete a section that I added to an article?
I was wondering whether I am entitled to delete a section that I added to an article. Am I allowed to have a change of heart? I recently added several sections, all properly referenced to Share a Coke. All the new content added was inter-related and intended to provide a more holistic overview of the advertising campaign and its process - from its inception through to its post-campaign evaluation. An editor, who has been stalking me on WP for more than 5 months, decided to revert some of the new sections, leaving just one remaining section. My problem is that the only section he elected to retain now lacks any clear context or history. I have tried to delete this section, but the editor in question refuses to allow me to revert that content, intimating that to do so would be tantamount to an edit war. (Apparently he can select what is to be deleted and retained, but I cannot.) However, he has also added tags to the article claiming that it is incomplete because it lacks an intro and historical context (curiously, the intro and historical context are the very sections that he chose to delete). It is my belief that these edits amount to vindictive editing on the part of the editor in question (as there have been other instances of this type of vindictive action against me and also against other editors in the past). I realise that he cannot be stopped and there is little I can do about it. However, I am not happy about being involved in a major revision to an article that has since become half-baked and disjointed, due to the actions of others, especially when I am powerless to do anything about it. So, my question is: If I added a section to an article, do I have the right to change my mind and delete it? Or, once content has been added, must it remain there for all eternity, or until somebody else decides they don't like it and reverts it? BronHiggs (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * No, you don't have a right to change your mind. The basis on which you made your contribution, shown under the edit box for every contribution, was that "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL."  If there is a dispute regarding content, the place for discussion is on the article talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree a little bit with David. You do have the right to change your mind.  You don't though have any right to enforce that change of mind.  Your opinion on whether the content you originally wrote has no more weight than anyone else's opinion.  Like David says you should use the article talk page to try to convince other editors why all the content belongs or none of it does.  You can always try dispute resolution to try to come to a consensus.  ~ GB fan 23:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it appears that the sort of attitude being displayed by User:BronHiggs doesn't work well at any of the dispute resolution forums. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also note that Text of the GNU Free Documentation License gives others the right to modify your edits. You cannot demand it is either kept intact or deleted but the page history will show your own edits. I haven't examined the dispute but just give a general answer. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not demanding anything. However, I am concerned that following a number of reversions, the article has been left in an inferior state and has become very disjointed, vague and unclear. I have no problem with people modifying content, provided that such modifications are accurate and referenced. My view, as expressed to the editor, is that the article would be better if it was reverted back to the state it was in prior to my decision to overhaul it. I have tried using the talk page, but this editor describes such attempts as edit warring. There has been virtually no activity on the talk page since I began adding to the article, and apart from my edits and the other editor's reversions, there were no edits to the article since 2015. In effect, this means that I am the only editor working on the article, and the other editor is intent on selectively reverting entire sections. This editor does not appear to be at all interested in evidence-based arguments; instead he only appears to be interested in vindictive reversions. I do not feel able to make any further edits to improve the article because I am sure that they will be reverted on very spurious grounds, just as previous content additions were. BronHiggs (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have mentioned that this character has a very long history of bullying on WP and works as part of a tag team to impose his decisions. If an editor questions or disputes his reversions, he brings in his mates to provide weight of numbers - and sometimes they also take up stalking type behaviour against recalcitrants. A lone editor, operating independently, cannot hope to engage in a good faith discussion in the face of this. That's all fine. In my view, the article in question could be improved. I tried and failed. It probably would be best to take the article back to the point before I began. However, if there is no interest in doing that, it will have to stay in its current disjointed form (and where experience on marketing articles suggests it will remain for about 8 years before any further substantive changes will be made). The editor in question does not add content, he only reverts material. I am willing to add content and have overhauled many articles in the marketing/advertising area - but am unable and unwilling to work on any pages that are patrolled by the bully and his friends. BronHiggs (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, when I see an editor making entirely too much noise about bullying or combative editing, it is usually because they are themselves either an aggressive (combative) editor or a passive-aggressive editor. Do not waste our time in a neutral forum such as the Help Desk complaining abstractly about bullying.  Report actual bullying at WP:ANI (or Arbitration Enforcement if appropriate), or discuss content.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's really giving it to me! I am relatively new to WP - only been editing for a scant 10 months - and for 7 of those months, I have been stalked, harrassed and bullied by an editor who has a long history of bullying at ANI. After enduring this for 7 months, you'd think I should be getting used to it by now and should be inured to further attacks. BronHiggs (talk) 04:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What have I learned from this interaction? It's OK for bullies to target other editors with wholesale vindictive editing. However, it's not OK for victims to seek advice about potential solutions for they will be branded as bullies themselves and have questions raised about their attitude.  It's no wonder that WP has difficulty retaining editors, and that editors are reluctant to seek advice on WPHD! BronHiggs (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)