Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2018 May 9

= May 9 =

Richard Cordray and Consumer Financial Protection Bureu edits removed
I added properly cited, researched edits to the Richard Cordray and Consumer Financial Protection bureau pages - especially since I was the Union president under Cordrays tenure and cited the additions with 3 different articles AND properly factual. Can you explain why someone would delete properly cited additions without discussing with the editor first? this seems to be fairly partisan on the eve of elections does it not? Any help with these dimwits, one an administrator about baseball but probably has ZERO01:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Hogfanjax (talk) clue how government entities work would be appreciated. It is quite maddening this "process" you developed nd he threatened me, or thats the way i took it.

Hogfanjax — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogfanjax (talk • contribs) 01:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Before going to mediation, you need to discuss on the article's talk page. If you can't get consensus there, then follow the guidance at WP:DR to resolve disputes.  You can read WP:BRD: it is normal process for a change to be put in like you did, then reverted (as has been done I surmise), then the next step is to discuss.  RudolfRed (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC

I do not feel safe talking to this person who undid the revision, sorry do you all not have built in safety protocols for things such as this? I did an addition, shouldn't a discuss be done before a deletion, that sounds appropriate, not to remove then discuss after someone threatens you...I did discuss...no one answered, or the one that did on the second page threatened me. Is that your normal process. removal and a threat? Sounds extremely dangerous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogfanjax (talk • contribs) 01:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly where were you threatened, . I looked at the pages whre you hd edited, and your user talk page, and did not see a threat. Please link to a WP:DIFF of the threat. Threats are definitely not acceptable, but reverting edits that an editor thinks are not helpful is very routine, and should be followed by talk page discussion in most cases. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't see where was threaten but do see here that he threaten to see us in court.  NZFC  (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Sure feels like threats to me, I will feel free to discuss legal recourse per my attorney. I find your opinion inconsequential and the process a bit bass ackwards as they say. I saw a threat and its my perception that matters. I believe thats all that has to be said we will discuss and any further remedies including legal recourse should I feel the need. As is my right in this country. I have already had someone take affront to my decision to take legal recourse, which tells me all I need to know about "the process." yall do understand I can go to court based on whatever legal decisions we deem appropriate and necessary. Upon the advice of counsel this is all i am going to say at this point, and were i you I would also cease communications. Threatening to block someone for instituting their right to legal recourse is in no way appropriate. I did try to complain about my rejection, could not verify my in use email. which seems fishy and strange, and there fore cannot reach out to complain, all seems biased and non functional. Again, this is all I will say on this legal matter. Good luck.

Hogfanjax  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogfanjax (talk • contribs) 01:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Bye bye, since you don't appear to want to listen and are continuing your legal threats you will see the ban which Wikipedia is allowed to do. NZFC  (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

How very grown up of you....thank you for allowing me to let my attorneys view your responses. this has been saved and will be disseminated appropriately. It is my opinion this will go no where but I will 100% cover my bases in case this seems factually and legally inappropriate. You do what you need to do, it is also to show users and readers this treatment as I have saved and printed it all to also disseminate. Again thanks for proving my presumption 100% accurate. Have a nice day. oh and it is threatened not threaten....helps with legal analysis if you word it appropriately. :=-) Hogfanjax (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogfanjax (talk • contribs) 02:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It's very common and not breaking any rules that edits are reverted without discussion first. Per BOLD, revert, discuss cycle it is usually up to you to start a discussion if your edit is reverted. At User talk:Hogfanjax you received a standard warning concerning Edit warring. The warning was made with Template:Uw-3rr, one of numerous templates at Template messages/User talk namespace. We call it warnings and not threats when the possibility of a block is mentioned. The administrator who warned you is in an editing dispute with you and should not personally block you per Administrators. Anyway, looking at your edits you should probably be more worried about being blocked for No legal threats. Receiving a standard warning is not an acceptable reason for simultaneously insisting on an edit and refusing to discuss it on the talk page. It seems clear that Mediation Committee/Policy point 4 and 5 are not satisfied in your dispute when the issue has never been discussed on the article talk page and you are the only part who wants to use the mediation process now. I don't see a complaint about mediation rejection going anywhere. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

email to send to verify did not go through
I am trying to verify my email so i can dispute a mediation resolution rejection to the chairman. no emails seem to go through to verify, This all seems highly suspect...i can only hope the help desk can actually help as no one else seems to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogfanjax (talk • contribs) 01:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Check for spam filters in your email service, or try another service. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , what PrimeHunter is saying correctly is to check the folder titled "SPAM" in your email service. I'll quickly add that sometimes, the mobile version of Gmail places Wikipedia notification under the folder titled "SOCIAL" too (and rarely, in the folder titled "PROMOTIONS"). So you can perhaps check all these folders whenever you are expecting a verification email. Thanks, Lourdes@Talk 04:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

made mistake
was trying to create an article using sandbox(eventually got it right) however need to delete this?, any help is welcomed, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why the template is showing like that, but the page has been added to the list for deletions, so an administrator will see the request. RudolfRed (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Democratic Republic of the Congo Ebola outbreak 2018 displayed oddly because you moved it from User:Ozzie10aaaa/common.css.  and   pages have a different page content model which moves with the page. You did the same by moving User:Ozzie10aaaa/common.css to User:Ozzie10aaaa/vector.js earlier. I have changed the latter back to the CSS JavaScript  content model. Don't move js and css pages to other page types. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you PrimeHunter--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

correction on article
In this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_no-hitters

note 118 is inaccurate since the Expos first no-hitter was outside of Montreal, it was Bill Stoneman in 1969 and he did it in Philadelphia, wikipedia confirms that in this other link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Stoneman

please correct this

thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.142.83 (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears note 118 is referring to a catcher and Bill was a pitcher. Please discuss any changes needed on the article's talk page.  RudolfRed (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit war
Hello,

I'm new to editing on Wikipedia. I have made two edits via IP address. For Wikipedia help desk discussion, I decided to sign up.

My issue has to do with the edit I made on the Western New England English page. In the Overview of Phonology section, it reads "The English of Western New England in fact shows some minor variation throughout rather than one uniform accent" This was put on the page without any source backing. I looked at the pdf file for the book Atlas of North American English over the Internet, which has it's own Wikipedia page here,, where it stated that the regions of WNE English have sharp differences from one another.

I edited this part here on the Western New England English wikipedia page. It was reverted here by a user stating "Nope, source fails verification" in the edit summary.

If you look at what I sourced, you can find the book "Atlas of North American English" in pdf format over the Internet. Here is the exact URL of where you can find what I sourced from on page 210:

I highlighted this by taking a screenshot where this information was on page 210, which can be found here

Can anyone please help? It seems like the user that reverted the edit claims that my source failed verification. It seems like to this user, it's a closed issue. Can someone here with experience help? Thank you. Lai2lex (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I think this is the revert that you're complaining about. The source you cited does indeed use the phrase "many sharp differences". The edit summary "Nope, source fails verification" may refer to the way you've used a Harvard-style reference in an article that generally uses direct references. But the right place for this discussion is Talk:Western New England English. Maproom (talk) 07:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Do you by any chance know how that would be sourced? Maybe that's why was confused? Apologies to Wolfdog if that was the case. Lai2lex (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If I were citing that page, in an article which does not generally used Harvard-style refs, I'd do it like this. But I'm not an expert, there's probably a better way to list the three co-authors. Maproom (talk) 10:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not lump all authors into a single-author parameter. Additionally, publisher location has its own parameter location so does not belong in publisher. Instead write:
 * cs1|2 templates produce metadata so misuse of a single-author parameter to list multiple authors propagates into the metadata. Because it is very difficult to extract multiple human names given the limitations of the tools that we have, the use of authors is likewise discouraged.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, when a source has a wikipedia page, you can (and probably should) link the title in the cite, like this :
 * -Arch dude (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I'd never realised that "location" was for the place of publication, I'd wrongly thought it referred to a place where a copy was available. Maproom (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * -Arch dude (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I'd never realised that "location" was for the place of publication, I'd wrongly thought it referred to a place where a copy was available. Maproom (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Some minor additional points: First, thank you for your contributions. Next, this is not an "edit war", but is part of our normal collaborative process of "bold, revert,discuss" (WP:BRD). Your next step after the revert is to "discuss" and this is done on the article's talk page. Please assume that the other editor is trying, like you, to build a high-quality article (WP:AGF) and discuss in a collegial manner as that usually has good results. An actual edit war (WP:EW) occurs when two or more editors continue to make the same edits, and it means that some additional escalation is needed: don't do this. -Arch dude (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello : The reason I reverted your edit, I now see, is because you are in fact looking at a draft version of the ANAE (it seems to be a "second draft"). In the current published ANAE, the page with the "sharp differences" quotation is page 212, so feel free to return that wording and source, but with the correct page number and at the end of the sentence. I apologize for my terse edit summary, but there has been a recent spate of new-user sockpuppets editing this and other linguistics pages who also tend to drop in-line citations right into the middles of sentences, and so you can see that you fit that profile. Also, you say you edited it, meaning that you are the anonymous user,, correct? We like to be transparent here at Wikipedia. Wolfdog (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Moving pages on mobile
How do you move a page using the layout on a mobile device? The "more" button shown at WP:Moving a page does not exist on this interface. DangleSnipeCelly (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)DangleSnipeCelly1
 * You can temporarily change to the desktop version of the site by clicking "Desktop" at the bottom of the page. Click "Mobile view" when you want back to the mobile version. If you want to remain in the mobile version then the only method I know is to manually insert  before the page name in the url, e.g. changing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MovePage/Example. Lowercase   will also work via redirecting. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but I ended up moving the page from a school computer. There was no "desktop" button at the bottom of the page, and I could not figure out how to change the URL. DangleSnipeCelly (talk) 05:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)DangleSnipeCelly1
 * It sounds like you were using a Wikipedia app or other limited feature and not a general mobile browser like Safari on iPhone. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

How do I reverse turning off the informational drop-down dialog boxes?
Hi,

I inadvertently turned off the drop-down dialog box feature that you would get when running the cursor over a link. Now all I get is the same word showing up in a little dialog box and to view any information about the link, I have to click it and get transferred to the web page.

How do I turn that feature back on? When I clicked the little icon before, I figured that I could turn the feature back on at any time... but I don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.150.5 (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Click "Enable previews" at the bottom of a page. There is an instruction about it when a user first disables it. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

how to assess a article?
I want to assess a NASCAR article and change it's rating.Kpgjhpjm (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpgjhpjm (talk • contribs) 15:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * At the article talk page you will probably find a project banner. This will give ypu a link to the rating scales used by the various projects that are involved with the page. You cannot change a 'rating' just by re-assessing it. It would probably need some developmewnt at least and will likely have been assessed by editors with experience in the project. I would recommend that you gain some more experience before attempting to assess or review articles. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also please do not ask similar questions in more than one location and Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes . Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I manage a band and the information on the band's wiki page is massively inaccurate
how am i able to edit out a TON of the false information on my band's wiki page and ensure that the person who originally added it is unable to revise it? i know exactly who it is who has provided the false information as there is some previous bad blood/lawsuit that stems from it.

thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copenhagenslang (talk • contribs) 16:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, and thank you for declaring that you have a conflict of interest at the page. Please follow that link for more information in that respect. What you have to do is propose the changes you wish to see made, at the article talk page and it is very important that you provide reliable sources for your changes. I'm afraid that personal knowledge (original research) cannot be used without corroboration. If your changes are accepted by the community, an experienced editor will edit the page accordingly. You can of course discuss changes with them if necessary. Please sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It's possibly worth clarifying that a reliable source is required for content, rather than for changes. If there is contentious material on a page, especially about a living person, without a reliable source, you shouldn't need to provide a source to request that it is removed - it shouldn't be there in the first place.  (Obviously if you can provide a reliable source showing that it is untrue that's even better.)  TSP (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * once you have indicated the specific changes you want made on the article talk page, and provided any sources that support them, you can add request edit This will draw attention to the talk page, and should attract an experienced editor to review your request. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC) DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Reignwolf for more detail on this issue. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Rhino Party help
Hello! I am the Leader of the Rhinocéros Party of Canada. Yes, you can say a future Prime Minister of Canada has a wikipedia account for more than 10 years! (My french account probably date from around 2003 or 2004...) I have 2 questions : 1. People just add their own promises (often very poor), can we lock the page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceros_Party For example, if you list the promises, you will see "kill everyone", some school stuff like "ban pyramid schemes" and lot of anything. Probably some people that think they are really funny :) but not funny enough to write us and be a candidate! 2. Can we "merge" our 2 pages ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceros_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceros_Party_of_Canada_(1963%E2%80%9393)

Honestly, I think there is 2 pages because when the party restarted in 2006 it was names NeoRhino.ca. Now we have the same name, and it really is the same party going on from 1963 to today, exept we took a 13 years break because of electoral laws and bla bla. Lot of journalists ask me questions about the fact we are "2 different parties" but these questions are really based on what they've seen on wikipedia. Well that is a suggestion, but I think it should be made only 1 article with more details about history.

Also, I know the articles are quite poor and we would like to do an effort to make them better soon. More historical, more encyclopedic way of writing. I'll find some people that write good English to look over it.

Thanks,

-Séb Xerwer (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Séb, Bonjour, et bienvenue sur Wikipedia en anglais. Welcome to English Wikipedia.  "Locking the page" (Wikipedia calls this page protection) is probably not necessary at this point.  For the moment, but I've removed all the unsourced items in the platform section, and added a new Talk page entry at here.  Let's see if this is enough to stop this activity; if not, post again and request some form of page protection.


 * As to your second suggestion about having one rather than two articles, I think this has merit; at the very least, it's worth discussing. I would suggest you create a new Talk page section, Talk:Rhinoceros Party, and follow the instructions WP:MERGE on how to proceed. If you have any questions, you can ask below, or at my User talk page, or at your User talk page; in the latter case, add  somewhere in the section with your question.  Je suis disponible pour toute renseignement complémentaire.  Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot! I did a merger proposition here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rhinoceros_Party#Merger_proposal Xerwer (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Citation Needed - how can I provide a citation ?
Hello

On this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Longley_(gunfighter) Under: Hoaxes The family even came up with alleged letters said to have been written by Longley from California. The legend spread, and many believed it for quite some time.[citation needed]

I have a letter written Bill's niece Berta Longley where she claims to have had a letter from him stolen from her purse. (I do not think she really did) People just believed he somehow lived.

See http://home.earthlink.net/~james_longley/Myth_of_Bill_Longley_Hanging.pdf Who can I contribute this to in order to added if this is valuable.

Thanks

Bob Boys  107.131.122.54 (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid we can't cite unpublished letters. If this letter has been published and discussed by a reliable source, then we can draw upon that discussion. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  00:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Problem with references on misophonia
I was just trying to fix the citation "invoked but was never defined" errors on misophonia, but, much to my frustration, I couldn't fix them and am not sure how to do so. If another editor could fix them/explain how I can fix them that would be awesome. Every morning  (there's a halo...)  20:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Preceding signed comment added by Lourdes (talk • contribs) 21:14, May 9, 2018 (UTC)

No title
how can i request a public edit of mine to be hidden? I do not want to show I made the edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cricketinuk (talk • contribs) 23:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:OVERSIGHT. RudolfRed (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Request to change a redirect to a more appropriate target
Coding efficiency currently redirects to algorithmic efficiency, but data compression would be a more appropriate redirect target.

"Coding efficiency" is not synonymous with efficiency of algorithm. "Coding efficiency" is a term commonly used in scholarly writings on data compression, perhaps particularly compression of video data. The term is apparently also used in the context of neural processing of sensory information.

The results of this Google Scholar search seem to confirm that "coding efficiency" is most commonly used in data compression in scholarly writings.

I tried to submit a redirect request, but it resulted in an error because a redirect already existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.242.92.97 (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for the request! I have made those changes. ⇒ Lucie Person (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I see that this has been transformed from a redierect to a dab page, which i think is an improvement. There is at least one sense still missing. "Coding efficiency" can refer to the productivity of a computer programmer (coder) in creating software, or to the degree of software reuse. I am not sure what item to add to the dqb page for this sense, however. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)