Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2018 October 24

= October 24 =

Informative (Welcome) Advice VS Provocative (Not-So-Welcome) Threats
I am receiving two types of complaints regarding my amendments to pages regarding the island of Cyprus, the Republic of Cyprus, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, the Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus, and other related articles, which aim to provide neutrality and fact to information that is otherwise biased, misleading or incomplete, typically against the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

Every time I make an amendment I also make sure to remain neutral while also referencing my amendments without applying any personal comments or opinions, but I am repeatedly finding my edits being revoked, followed by messages ranging from informative and welcome advice (thank you very much Mr. user, whoever you are) to baseless provocative threats (not so thank you Mr. same user), which state: "Please do not add or change content, as you did at Cyprus, without citing a reliable source. " and "... stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary...".

Why is this happening? What am I doing to warrant this happening? What is there to warrant the actions of the user in question? What can I do to prevent this from happening? What can Wikipedia do to prevent this from happening? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nargothronde (talk • contribs) 06:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * has left warnings on your talk page. He could have probably invited you to the talk pages of the two articles in question and initiated discussions rather than leave those warnings. Anyway, as it stands now, the best step forward is to read the dispute resolution procedure and follow that. For a start, you may open up new talk page discussions, each at Talk:Hymn to Liberty and Talk:Cyprus and ask why are your additions not acceptable to other editors. Wikipedia works on consensus and you should basically follow that once the talk page discussions are initiated. Come back here for any assistance, Lourdes   09:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate the measured tone of your response, this account is an SPA bent on pushing a strong pro-TRNC POV across many articles related to the Cyprus conflict. The account's edits are very similar to those of past blocked socks who have been blocked indefinitely. The POV/propaganda nature of this SPA account's edits is self-evident and it is a waste of time discussing this propaganda with yet another SPA. Please read this account's edits and if you can find something of value, or that has escaped me, please let me know so that I can correct my mistake. Dr.   K.  13:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ...and includes turning something as innocent as halloumi into an ethno-political weapon against all things Greek. ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the advice. It's very well appreciated. Nargothronde talk 07:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not promoting a strong pro-TRNC POV, and while I appreciate your concern that these edits may have been propaganda, your argument and your tone is not warranted, and your response here with a pro-Greek/Greek Cypriot view is simply testament to your own politicising of and bias to the subject. The edits clearly did not intend to change or bend anything, but added to the available information, and were clearly referenced point-for-point. AND on your opinion that my edits were "turning something as innocent as halloumi into an ethno-political weapon", my edits simply added the Turkish spelling hellim to a product which, and wherever you read it you will find this to be the case, as people on both sides have consistently argued, Halloumi/Hellim or whatever you wish to call it, is a Cypriot product, as in Turkish Cypriot AND Greek Cypriot product, NOT a Greek product. You have no right to judge this subject with your own pro-Greek agenda, nor without committing yourself to a well-rounded un-biased well-informed round of research, something which you are clearly not doing, as I'm sure that if you had done, you will know that halloumi/hellim is exactly as I have described. I also appreciate that some of my edits were rightfully reverted in the beginning and allowed me review and amend the information, such as any points that were lacking the correct format for references or may have unintendedly let an irrelevant dribble get through, as was the case with one of my first edits definitely, but do not pretend that any amendments unintentionally perceived as biased etc warrant either your tone your answers or your actions. Nargothronde talk 07:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I can feel the frustration of as I have experienced the same welcome in a specific article. As for Nargothronde's contributions, some of them were rightfully reverted but some not. We should be careful not to create a hostile environment. I do not feel your contributions had a strong TRNC POV, and I suggest we all Assume Good Faith. Having a POV should not be a reason for creating a hostile environment towards a user. A piece of advice to Nargothronde: use high-quality sources. Whenever in doubt, ask in the Talk Page. I am sure many of your contributions will improve many Cyprus-related articles. Cinadon36 (talk)


 * Having a POV should not be a reason for creating a hostile environment towards a user. Please do not misrepresent facts. This is not the case here. This editor was informed in a nice way in May 2012 to use reliable sources. He was again informed in a very nice way about the same problem in September 2018. Then he came back in October 2018, repeating the same behaviour for which he was warned in a nice way before. This is why we have escalating warnings. They are not "hostile" warnings. They are meant to emphasise previous, milder warnings, when the milder warnings were ignored. This is about POV that will not stop, despite earlier warnings. Dr.   K.  14:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not misrepresenting anything. I have seen some of his contributions that were reverted due to claims of pov-pushing. (ie in Halloumi and ). Cinadon36 (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The links you provided show an unsourced diatribe and opinion which was rightfully reverted. I stand by my assessment that it was POV-pushing. But you are missing the point. Calling POV-pushing POV-pushing is not a threat. It is WP:SPADE. Dr.   K.  17:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * So, you now claim that it was not a suitable source? Anyway, I stand by my assessment as well, and thanks for the spade essay. Cinadon36 (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with the supplied source. The OR commentary: was not part of the source. It was a POV interpretation of some comments a Turkish Cypriot made, and it was also closely paraphrased. Also the edit claim an aim that was not met. is a POV interpretation of the source. The source states: Many in the north now claim that aim has not been met.. The source doesn't say that the "claim was not met". Please don't defend POV, misleading edits that do not correspond to the sources.  Dr.   K.  18:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I am talking about removing the Turkish name from the first sentence. How was that POV pushing? Anyway, goodnight. Cinadon36 (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * That was a small part of the edit. My edit-summary was describing the overall edit, given also the history of the rest of the reverted edits of this user. Anyway, have a good night too. Dr.   K.  20:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The source both writes and quotes: 1) "... “It is our national product. It is very important to everyone,” says Mr Yucesoylu, 59, who has been producing hellim since he was 28 years old. “It belongs to our community – all of Cyprus. This is where it was created. We make the real hellim. We will prove this around the world. It is our duty as Cypriots in Cyprus to protect this product. I lived through the war. My father was killed in front of me. But I don’t want my children to go through the same thing. We should live as brothers.”" and 2) "... As the second Greek application was submitted in 2013, in London the Foreign Office told the European Commission that its verdict on the PDO application must “ensure that its decision takes due account of inter-community relations”. Many in the north now claim that aim has not been met.", so 1) yes, it was a part of the source, and 2) while you're failing to realise that I did base what I wrote on the source and clearly without any interpretations, you're also failing to realise that I did not keep the word "claim" because as I understood from the article "Many in the north now claim that aim has not been met" meant that as far as the North was concerned, that aim had not been met, so intended to put that point across, but was not aiming to make a misleading interpretation, which would perhaps be to your pleasing, but was instead trying to be more acceptable. A simple suggestion on your behalf that the word "claim" be included is a welcome consideration, but please, like I said, while I do appreciate any constructive help wherever it comes from, which honestly, I do 100% welcome, be it critical or not, your needlessly hostile take on my edits just doesn't add up. I will concede that my edits could be improved, as they are increasingly getting; it's not my intention to do anything malicious here, but just get the facts right and be as inclusive as possible to all sides of the coin, and I will keep trying to do things better. So thank you for all of this. But please, all the same, be more civil about your tone and your assumptions, and don't throw threats or accusations where they are not warranted. Nargothronde talk 07:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * By the way, I'd like to remind you that my amendments to these pages are simply aiming to provide neutrality and fact to information that is otherwise biased, misleading or incomplete, typically against the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. This DOES NOT mean that I am POV-pushing. On the contrary, I'm trying to rectify already existent POV-pushing that doesn't give a voice to all sides i.e. you believe halloumi is Greek, when it is CYPRIOT, as in TURKISH CYPRIOT and GREEK CYPRIOT, as in it has TWO official names in the TWO official languages of the island of Cyprus, Greek and Turkish, which developed halloumi/hellim TOGETHER, with different parts of BOTH communities taking great pride in making their own authentic takes on the traditional Cypriot cheese. And if you want to get into more details about it, there's an even more complex origin to it, if you're interested to read up on it (it's also all ironically on Wikipedia; look it up!). AND on misrepresentations and the bending of facts, the Hymn to Liberty page states "the Turkish representation broke away from the government of the Republic of Cyprus; there followed a period of intercommunal violence", suggesting that it was the Turkish representation's abandoning of the government in '1963' that caused the intercommunal violence between '1955 and 1964'. Go figure. Naturally, I fact checked, and changed that to: "... after rejecting the amended Constitution proposed by Makarios in 1963, and following the period of intercommunal violence during the Cyprus crisis (1955–64), the Turkish representation were left with no choice but to abandon the government of the Republic of Cyprus." So I'm doing the community here a service. And please do feel free to give me suggestions. Any unintended mistakes will be changed of course. And like I said, any and all suggestions critical or not are 100% welcome, but I'd prefer if you had a bit of civility. Nargothronde talk 07:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I know next to nothing about Cypriot history (I knew the island is split, but that's about it). However I know you just described POV-pushing in your actions. You do not need a source to remove blatantly anachronistic stuff, but you do need a really really robust source for after (some stuff), the Turkish representation were left with no choice but to abandon the government of the Republic of Cyprus (emphasis added - the NPOV version of that sentence whould be "the Turkish representation abandoned...", and considering how controversial the topic is, you would probably even need a source making the logical link between the previous events and the Turkish rep withdrawal). Tigraan Click here to contact me 09:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * * I think I'm trying my best not to POV push, but maybe it unintentionally comes across that way? That being said, I'm confused by what defines my edits or descriptions etc here as POV pushing. Maybe I should have another read through what I'm writing. I also feel like there's a bit of hypocrisy going on in regards to Dr. K, who seems to be incredibly inclined to either idly condone or push a strong pro-Greek/Greek Cypriot/Republic of Cyprus/Southern Cyprus/Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus POV and anti-TRNC POV, while claiming that I'm a strong pro-TRNC pusher, which I still don't get. And yes, it is a highly controversial topic to lots of people, though I think it should be an easy case with a clear line between what's right and what isn't. That's what I'm trying to do anyway. I'll fish out all the sources I used for those edits and think about how to add them to make those logical links. AND I'll be more careful of how I come across. I don't want to be pushing pro- or anti- anything. Thanks alot for the suggestions!
 * Look, *, while I do get that you could be trying to be helpful here, and although I'm starting to feel that's probably just wishful thinking on my part, I'd still appreciate it if that were really the case, but you're just monotonously crying strong pro-TRNC POV pushing even though that is clearly and demonstrably not the case, while you're also demonstrating your own blatant pro-Greek/Greek Cypriot/Republic of Cyprus/Southern Cyprus/Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus POV and anti-TRNC POV approach, which I'm sorry to say, but you're either very very strongly pushing yourself, especially your strong anti-TRNC POV, which is demonstrated by your attacking of anything defined by you as strong pro-TRNC POV, or you're just being ignorant on the subject(s) and attacking anything or anyone else that says otherwise. I'm not exactly seeing where you're drawing the line here on what pro-XXX POV pushing is, or who's committing it. First you say of me that "this account is an SPA bent on pushing a strong pro-TRNC POV", followed by "...and includes turning something as innocent as halloumi into an ethno-political weapon against all things Greek" and then some. Who is politicising what here? Who is strongly pushing what pro-XXX POV here? Who is strongly anti-XXX POV pushing here? What kind of "assessment" are you "standing by" here? The article is clearly and demonstrably already POV pushing a pro-Greek/Greek Cypriot/Republic of Cyprus/Southern Cyprus/Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus POV, which you yourself are clearly just onboard with, which again, is demonstrated by your hostility against anything on the contrary. AND I could tell you right now, Dr./Sir/Madam or however else you'd wish me to respectfully address you, that I could be very well inclined and justified to say that I want to push a strong pro-TRNC POV, owing to the already easily demonstrable strong pro-Greek/Greek Cypriot/Republic of Cyprus/Southern Cyprus/Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus POV and anti-TRNC POV that dominates almost every Cyprus topic, but perhaps much to your dismay, and I'm sorry for bursting your bubble here Dr./Sir/Madam, I'm actually demonstrably and intentionally NOT. If anything, I'm saying "I'm not pushing your POV, Mr. Turkish Cypriot, and I'm not pushing your POV, Mr. Greek Cypriot, or yours, Mr. Greek (and I also concede, Mr. Greek: I don't exactly know why you even think you're supposed to be involved in this; you'll have your say and your place in expressing your opinion in articles that concern you, or when certain things regarding Cyprus concern you etc, but on subjects concerning that country's own internal affairs or rights or cultural heritage etc that have absolutely nothing to do with you, you need to stop trying to get involved on false or misleading pretenses). I'm just getting the facts right here, for both communities' benefit (sorry again, Mr. Greek, but like I said, I don't even know why you're here), and getting all that has happened across. I think you'd appreciate that, especially Mr. Turkish Cypriot, because you have been sidelined and abhorred so much, and whenever someone tries to speak up for you, people cry "POV-pushing" and the politicising of innocent "Greek" things, that aren't actually Greek, and aren't even just Greek Cypriot, but that also belong to you aswell, and that you equally have a right to. Lets just get the facts right here and give credit etc where it's due."
 * AND about your argument concerning bad sources i.e. "unsourced diatribe and opinion which was rightfully reverted", it is laughable, to say the least, that you can attempt to find such reason to discredit the sources while also ignoring that they can easily be referenced and compared to other existing articles, which provide equal if not scarily similar testament to the very same concessions ie if you just type: the name of the article or anything similar, for example, I typed "in defense of halloumi" in Google, where the third result from the top is, the article you are decrying as including nonsense spurted by a worthless Turkish Cypriot man, while the first result is which states: "Euripides Evriviades, Cyprus’s High Commissioner in London, vowed: "We will fight to the bitter end to secure our halloumi hellim, a truly Cyprus product"... which shows that this is not being politicised, but is an obvious issue of contention which both sides have come to agreements on, and which "has become an unlikely symbol of hope for reconciliation between Greek and Turkish Cypriots", where such emotions and experiences as those expressed in the original source were very consistently and ratifyingly contributed, as in where "Britain acknowledges what a Cyprus government spokesman calls the cheese’s “historic unifying nature”. Indeed, Britain is taking some credit for coaxing the Greek Cypriots, who represent Cyprus internationally, to ensure the PDO application included Turkish Cypriot hellim producers. “In keeping with our strong support for the Cyprus settlement talks, the UK encouraged the relevant parties to ensure the PDO application took into account the interests of all producers in Cyprus,” said a spokesman for the British High Commission in Nicosia.". This also included that "The joint Cypriot bid to secure commercial protection of the brand from foreign competition has powerful backing from Jean-Claude Juncker... He has hailed the halloumi affair as proof of the island's leaders’ commitment to re-unifying Cyprus. “This is not a small thing,” he declared in July when the application was published in the EU’s official journal. “It is a highly symbolic issue for both communities. We build confidence with such measures”." , this again shows that both the words halloumi and hellim are equally weighted and that there is a political significance, not to say that it needs politicising as you have wrongly accused me of doing, though the latter is still sidelined on Wikipedia as a small peripheral phrase that has been discounted to the bottom of an Etymology, instead of where it should be (at the top), with the most inconspicuous of wording, and I quote the Wikipedia page on halloumi/hellim as it vaguely and timidly describes at the sidelined bottom of the Etymology section: "In Northern Cyprus halloumi is generally known by the Turkish name hellim". This, I think, strongly warrants the edits in question, and the research and the edits themselves also credit the sources, and visa versa, as nothing but strong and completely reliable. I applied similarly rigorous research methods (and then some) for all my edits, and used the source that I believed was most applicable to get the message across in the most un-biased way possible. You can't discredit my sources. Your arguments regarding my sources are completely baseless. But I think like * said, and considering the controversy some people might see on this topic, more sources could be provided to make that logical link between certain events being described etc, i.e. where I wrote: after (some stuff), the Turkish representation were left with no choice but to abandon the government of the Republic of Cyprus (emphasis added - the NPOV version of that sentence whould be "the Turkish representation abandoned..." But again, that's not to say the sources I've used can be attacked or discredited. The argument you've provided just doesn't stand up.
 * AND as * very admirably said (by the way, I forgot to thank you for the comments *; they were really helpful), as I'm sure many others will, unless they are just as pro-Greek/Greek Cypriot/Republic of Cyprus/Southern Cyprus/Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus POV and anti-TRNC POV pushing as you, he very rightly feels my contributions do not have "a strong TRNC POV", and his suggestions that we all Assume Good Faith, and that "a POV should not be a reason for creating a hostile environment towards a user" I think should be respected instead of attacked by you. And I'm just corresponding with you here in good faith. Please don't take my standing up to your blatant hostility and accusations with any hard feelings. Just take it as a hint that you could better engage with the user you are absurdly accusing with wild "assessments" in proper conversation, rather than with a demonstrably hypocritically biased and hostile approach. And like I said, please, do feel free to give me suggestions. I'm only trying to contribute something good and void of pro- anti- anything here. Any unintended mistakes will be changed of course. And like I said, any and all suggestions critical or not are 100% welcome, but I'd prefer if you had a bit of civility here.

Involved in a Dispute with a User Who Is Censoring An Article
I read the article concerning the clandestine Planned Parenthood videos which created quite a flap when they released in 2015. Multiple article were written about the videos, including by such prestigious institutions as The New York Times, and the videos drew the attention of congressmen and senators. I noted that the article was brief and had omitted to include facts concerning the actual contents of videos. So, I wrote 1 or 2 paragraphs on the basic contents of the videos. To my surprise, I discovered that a user going by the name Joel B. Lewis (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joel_B._Lewis&action=edit&section=27) had simply deleted my paragraphs. He also went out of his way to make insulting comment on my talk page. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VaniNY&action=edit&section=48) The fact is, the Planned Parenthood incident has international significance. They videos are readily available all over the net. The expurgated version of the event is an embarrassment to Wikipedia because it makes it like a biased organization which has lost sight of its own mandate: to provide access to unbiased facts. I see not reason to leave these facts out, other than to provide an article that is less than forthcoming about what really happened. It also makes Wikipedia appear biased against the author of the clandestine videos. −   The following is the insulting and condescending statement Joel B. Lewis left on my Talk page when he deleted my two paragraphs: −   Don't be ridiculous There are many things wrong with your edits to Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy, but at the simplest level the problem is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for you to write personal essays. For that kind of content, you are welcome to do what I do: go get yourself a blog. --JBL (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC) −         The following is the statement I left on Joel B. Lewis' Talk page requesting that he reinstate my two paragraphs:

−The title refers to the fact that you came to my page and made a reference to "ridiculous". Whether this was about my accusation of censor, or my contribution to the article which you deleted, I have no idea. I have to come this page to decry the various forms your aggression against me has taken. You have purged my paragraphs on the Planned Parenthood videos in which human vivisection was discussed with offhand dispassion. Such incidents constitute a medical first in American history as there is no record of any such event heretofore. Yet you are seeking to erase it from memory. This is nothing more than censor. Furthermore, you came to my talk page to call me "ridiculous" for denouncing such a practice. The article concerns the videos and the contents of the video must be included. This is even more true when the content has sparked an international furor, as in the case of the Planned Parenthood videos. There is no reason to hide these facts. If they are of no importance, how can we explain the intense interest which they generated? These video influenced the actions of many of our nation's top leaders, many of whom made comments or took actions in direct relation to them. These videos were addressed in all of the nation's top news outlets: Newsweek, NYTimes, NPR, CNN etc. They were discussed around the world and impacted perception of America in foreign nations. The content of these videos is very important for a number of professions including journalists, educators, historians, health care and medical professionals, human rights activists, animal rights activists, those in the legal profession. No one should have to go scrounging around the web for facts that can easy be thoroughly addressed in a Wikipedia article. I insist that the content of the videos be addressed in at least one paragraph. So, please reinstate my paragraph ASAP. Also, I enjoin you to never return to my talk page to disparage or distress me again. Such an action will be reported immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VaniNY (talk • contribs) 11:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is stale old news of fraudulent editing and false presentation; no amount of propagandizing on your part is going to change that, or to induce Wikipedia to pretend that these old fakes are significant (except for the brief period before they were rebutted). Your persistent failure to recognize that is making it hard for you to do whatever useful things you would like to do here. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  12:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute. When consensus fails on the talk page as in this case, you should then follow the process at WP:DISPUTE. A long rant on the help desk is not part of that process, and your approach severely weakens your position. It is especially important to maintain civility in a case like this, even (or especially) when others fail to do so. If nothing else, third parties tend to side with the more civil editor, other things being equal. -Arch dude (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

How to find deleted posts
Hello Please could you tell me how to find a deleted post — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.187.137.20 (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Deleted pages can only be viewed by site administrators. If you can specify exactly which deleted page you wish to view, then it may be possible to have an administrator determine whether it would be appropriate to show it to you.  Deli nk (talk) 15:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * If by "post" you mean a section on a talk page, help desk, reference desk, or similar, many pages of these types have archives, with a link at the top to the archives. These pages also have page history, so you can retrieve earlier versions that contain the "post". -Arch dude (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

External link in | = error
Hi there,

I'm editing a page about an organization called Surel's Place. When I insert new citations that refer to the Surel's Place website, I get this error. I clicked on the help button, but as a waaaay end user using the visual editor, I still don't get how to fix it.

Any help appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebaKela (talk • contribs) 14:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, . You haven't made any edits to Surel's Place. Presumably you tried to, got the error, and abandoned the attempt; but it's hard to help you without seeing exactly what you were trying to add and what the message was. It sounds as if you are trying to give the URL as the wrong parameter to the citation template, but that is only a guess. Incidentally, before citing the subject of the article's website, please read PRIMARY: you can cite information to non-independent sources only in limited cases. --ColinFine (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Founding fathers entry
I don’t believe snoop dogg was a founding father. Would be nice if you could protect against these entries
 * Founding Fathers of the United States was vandalized as you describe, but that vandalism was removed within minutes. These things happen in an encyclopedia that anyone can edit.  If the problem persists, a request can be made at WP:RFPP to have the page protected from anonymous edits.  Deli nk (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Identity Theft Support from Wikipedia
Please run a search on Michael Webb Architect. A Wikipedia link to Michael Webb comes up with Michael Webb from Archigram. The picture is another Michael Webb who write architectural review books. He's posing as an Archigrammer and selling his books using Michael Webb's, Archigram, identity, and career prestige. I've been trying to edit Michael Webb's Wikipedia, but I'm being told I'm threatening, I can't copyright my own material, and a family member cannot edit or create a page. How do I get this blatant identity theft removed? The current bio is copied from Cooper Union's website and Cooper did not give anyone permission to post that information on Wikipedia without their knowledge or the real Michael Webb's knowledge. The authentic Michael Webb doesn't want a false Wikipedia page. Can you help us, please?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancywozniak (talk • contribs) 16:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Please read what you were told in response to your question yesterday at above. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You have already been told at that the Wikipedia article Michael Webb (architect) has no images. You can click the link and view the article to check it. You haven't said where you search when you see the picture but like GermanJoe, I guess it is a Google search for Michael Webb and not a Wikipedia search. It is Google which places images on Google searches and controls content at google.com and other domains owned by Google. It is not Wikipedia and it is not the subject of the image. Wikipedia controls content at wikipedia.org. Here is a stock answer:
 * Symbol move vote.svg Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit Summary box not accessable
I have edited a few pages today, and in each case NO Edit Summary box has been available for me to create an edit summary. In one or two cases, an Edit Summary box has appeared very briefly, then disappeared. When I've gone ahead and clicked Publish changes and then been prompted to leave an edit summary, again no Edit Summary box has been available. I will be editing more pages today (during the Canadian history edit-a-thon) and I'd like to leave summaries, including for the pages already edited.

Two questions: How can I make the Edit Summary box appear? How can I go back to edited pages and leave a summary? Man1t0ba (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, . I've formatted your header so that it appears as a header.
 * I'm afraid I don't know the answer to the first one - it sounds like a bug, but I've never seen it. In answer to the second point: there is no way of changing an edit summary after it is committed; but what you can do is make a dummy edit and leave a summary then. (In your case, this might still hit the same problem as you are already having). --ColinFine (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Subject/headline
is there an activity limit on my sandbox? kinda scared right now

i meant it say to edit it instead of the article.

thanks

-By SlimTempet — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlimTempet (talk • contribs) 18:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC) ‎
 * welcome to the Teahouse. Firstly, it will be helpful if you "sign" your entries here (or on any Talk page) by putting four tildes (" ~ ") at the end.  This will automatically fill in your user name and the timestamp.  About your Sandbox - it is pretty much free for you to use however you like.  You don't have to use it at all, or you can experiment with layouts before going live.  You have your own personal sandbox at User:SlimTempet/sandbox, or there is a shared sandbox page at Sandbox.  There are some basic constraints, such as they must not be used for malicious purposes, and policies such as no personal attacks, civility, and copyrights still apply - see the details at About the Sandbox.--Gronk Oz (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Table formatting problem
How come the columns of the two horizontal table sections here are displayed in such a staggered way?--Neufund (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The width percentages in each of the two tables sum to much less than 100% so the browser gets significant freedom to make a column wider depending on the content. You can restrict it by saying  in all four columns of both tables. In narrow windows it can cause line breaks which could have been avoided without this restriction. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for commenting! Just for clarity, what exactly would be your general recommendation in this case? ("... which could have been avoided without this restriction" – Should there be no restriction at all then?)--Neufund (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I generally prefer to let the browser handle tables according to the circumstances rather than placing restrictions that may look good on your screen but bad for others. width="25%" would split "L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poets" in two lines for many people. But using tables at all is maybe a poor choice compared to something like Col-begin. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks once again! May I ask again how you would exactly format in this particular case?--Neufund (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not a layout expert but maybe Col-begin and associated templates with two columns where 1930s to 1960s are in the first column. The content seems more list than table suited per WP:WHENTABLE. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Would you mind demonstrating your vision?--Neufund (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed all the table code and used Col-begin as suggested.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Contemporary_literature&diff=865874627&oldid=858257667] It probably shouldn't be presented as "This table ..." now. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A big thankyou for taking the trouble! Can you make do with my rewording?--Neufund (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks fine. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Trying to do Frank Smith Page
Hi!

I keep getting denied for the Frank Smith page but all of this is the correct information. May you let me know how I can improve this. Thank you, appreciate it!
 * Is this about Draft:Frank Smith (film executive)?Naraht (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I made a few easy fixes, but the article is a bit light on sourcing. I recommend that there be at least 8-10 decent reliable sources, including at least two in-depth profiles of him.  You shouldn't have to use the Walden site (considered a primary source) to source his bio.  Also, since everything reliable is about his role at Walden Media, unless you can beef up the sourcing, you'd be better off simply adding a one or two line bio to that article and doing a redirect. The best source there now is the Hollywood Reporter article.  You should also fill out the references, so the article looks more polished.  Since you're very new, you might be better off reaching out to experienced editors who work on film articles. Take a look at the people who have edited The Chronicles of Narnia (film series). Good luck. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  22:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Script to show number of new unread recent changes and new unread notifications in the title bar
Hello,

I am looking for a user script which can show the number of new unread recent changes and/or new unread notifications from Echo in the title bar of the tab, as '(3,5) The normal title goes here' for example. --Gryllida (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)