Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 February 1#VBV

The article on East Meadow, New York has gone under several disruptive edits in the past (such as the adding of unnotable persons and picture changes) Currently, instead of showing the location of the town in New York, it shows a map of the state of Washington. How does one change the map back?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winnsley (talk • contribs) 00:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

:Hi User:Winnsley, I've reverted the recent vandalism. Thanks for pointing that out! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

:Hi {{u|Winnsley}}. First thing, please try to remember to sign your talk page posts as explained in :WP:TILDE. Signing your posts will making much easier for other editors to see who is posted and when they posted.

:Now regarding your question, the image has already been replaced so this is really just for your future reference in case it happens again. Go to the article's page and click on "View history" and try and find the edit which changed the map. This may be a little tricky if there is no edit sum and you may have to look at a couple of edits until you find it. When you do find the edit, click on "undo" to open the edit window. Scroll down to the bottom of the window and add an edit summary explaining why the change was made. An edit summary is very important and not adding one might me your edit will be reverted as an unexplained change. Something simple such as "Changing back to correct map" should be fine. After adding an edit summary, click "Show preview" to verify that the changes made are the ones you wanted to make. If everything is OK, scroll back down to the bottom of the page and click "Save changes". If you make a mistake, don't worry about it. You can try and fix it yourself or ask for help on the article's talk page.

:Finally, before you "undo" the other persons edit, try and make sure that you're only changing the map back and not undoing any other "improvements" the editor may have made to the article. Many editors often make lots of little changes as part of a single edit, and clicking "undo" will undo them all. Also, sometimes intermediate edits are made to the relevant content and the software will not let you undo the edit. In such cases, you may have to go in a simply manually replace the image yourself. You do that by clicking on "Edit", finding the file for the incorrect map, removing it, and then re-adding the file for the correct map. As before, click "Show preview" to check you edit and "Save changes" to save your edit. You can find out a little more on how to do this at :Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

::In this particular case there was some good luck, in that the vandalistic changes occurred only a bit more than an hour before the OP reported it. A revert would have fixed it, although I'm guessing the OP couldn't do that, not being autoconfirmed yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Is this OK?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AFeminist&type=revision&diff=763070338&oldid=762891704] (look at the before and after). before I make an issue of it I want to ask, is this allowed? I thought that formatting the page title like this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AFeminist&type=revision&diff=762891704&oldid=761853003] was weird but OK, but hiding the user name entirely? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

: Does that fall afoul of WP:SMI- {{green|CSS and other formatting codes that disrupt the Wikimedia interface, for example by preventing important links or controls from being easily seen or used, making text on the page hard to read or unreadable (other than by way of commenting out), or replacing the expected interface with a disruptive simulation, may be removed or remedied by any user}}...? Or some similar UPG. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 06:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

::Thanks! I am going to try WP:BRD[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AFeminist&type=revision&diff=763089814&oldid=763070338][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AFeminist&type=revision&diff=763089814&oldid=763070338] and see whether I get an R. (If I do I will try D). --Guy Macon (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

:::You could have at least alerted me to this discussion. feminist 08:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

::::You see, the problem is that sometimes you simply don't know whether something is or is not disruptive. I am on the fence about this case, and wanted some advice before confronting you. That is also why I picked the least confrontational action I could think of (a bold edit, with an expected revert then discussion should you disagree) rather than potentially angering you with something like an ANI report. I reserve the right to seek council as to whether I am on the right path before alerting you and getting into a fight where I might very well be wrong. If you disagree, revert me and I will open up a discussion on your talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

:::::Ah. I see that you reverted me with the edit comment "what a joke".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFeminist&type=revision&diff=763093378&oldid=763089824] The revert is fine with me (WP:BRD). I will attempt to discuss this with you on your talk page (it may take a day or so to get to it). --Guy Macon (talk) 11:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

::::::It appears that User:Feminist decided against doing this and went back to a normal title. BTW, I don't think anyone would have had a problem with leaving the title all-lowercase; that's a minor bit of originality that doesn't violate any policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I want to known the page number and quotation from the book for Vestigial_response#Goose_bumps. How would I request that and who to approach? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• In such cases, you are usually out of luck. The best shot is to view the page history, find who added the reference, and contact them directly. When page history is long, you this tool is your friend but here, it is short enough to review manually. In that case, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vestigial_response&diff=prev&oldid=638286334 this edit] by {{U|Joshua Issac}} added the link; let's see if they can help.

:Another option is to go ask at the appropriate reference desk, if you want more general information about a specific claim. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

:You could try asking at WP:WRE - X201 (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

::I copied the reference from Goose bumps, to where it was {{diff2|573960259|added}} by {{u|JSquish}}. I assume that the relevant part in the book is from page 101 to page 103. --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I have been around for a while but am really unsure how to handle this issue. A new editor, Susan Schneegans is creating articles which are solely, or mostly, cut and paste creations from copyright free UNESCO publications such as at :Challenges for innovation in Malaysia. COPYVIO doesn't seem to apply since attribution is given, but it feels totally wrong; but I can't find the policy or guidance that constrains such action. I would welcome advice and suggestions. Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   11:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• If the copyright is indeed compatible with Wikipedia's licensing requirements (note that some "free" licenses, e.g. CC-BY-NC, are not compatible), there is no policy or legal reason against copy-pasting en masse. However, the copied content may not be appropriate for inclusion - for instance, the link you gave seems to me to violate WP:NOTESSAY. And of course, repeated inclusion of such content disregarding any warnings would be construed as disruptive. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• We have a lot of articles copied and pasted from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with the {{tl|1911}} tag added to them. Perhaps there should be a similar tag for these UNESCO publications. --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• This type of copying is allowed provided it is attributed (as is being done in this case). See Wikipedia:Plagiarism. However I personally think there should be text added to the body of the article saying something like "What follows has been extracted from a 2015 UNESCO report". Thincat (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Hi all, I'm Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO and working with Susan Schneegans, who is a subject matter expert and wrote some of the publication that is being used, she has kindly agreed to work with me to share information from the report on Wikipedia. I also developed the template to make simple to add openly licensed text to Wikipedia which creates a credit for the report (see the Sources section). I wrote these instructions to make this process easier. My main motivation was to make it easier for experts to contribute to Wikipedia, either directly as Susan is doing, or indirectly through other editors adding text from sources written by experts. As Joshua Issac has said this is not a new approach to creating Wikipedia articles, we are simply expanding use of the technique. Please let me know if you have any suggestions on making this tool easier to use. Thanks--John Cummings (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Note: the UNESCO Science Report is available under the CC-BY-SA license, [http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002354/235406e.pdf as stated on page 4 of the report], text from it is not a copyright violation. --John Cummings (talk) 09:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• For the record, I am an experienced editor who can confirm that John's claim that copy/pasted text from sources free from copyright is perfectly fine for use on Wikipedia, as long as the source is properly attributed. I do this all the time for paintings which were well described in text before photography became cheap and easy to reproduce in art catalogs. See this Pieter de Hooch painting article as an example: Teaching a Child to Walk. Jane (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Endorsing John's and others' rebuttals. Furthermore, look at how many articles we have which are copies of, or include material copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Certain pages like Mithila, India and Mithila (region) have inccorect summaries at the top when viewing from a mobile or tablet. These don't appear when viewing the desktop version of the site. Is it possible to remove these since they are incorrect and unsourced? Thanks. Damien2016 (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

:{{ping|Damien2016}} They are on Wikidata, and can be edited by clicking the "Wikidata item" link in the sidebar and changing the description. Pppery 12:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

::Thank you for the help!Damien2016 (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

wHAT IS WIKIPEDDIA>

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.128.160.41 (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

:Please see Wikipedia:Introduction. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipeddia is apparently a level6 summoner in the game Lolking. See [http://www.lolking.net/summoner/eune/32123076/wikipeddia]]. -Arch dude (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

::Seriously? Go back to WP:RD/E, you freak. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

How do i easily verify my own wikipedia information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.207.65.36 (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

:What do you mean "verify"? On Wikipedia, we take verifiability to mean: can I find reliable sources that say the same thing that this Wikipedia article does. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

:Wikipedia is not Facebook or Instagram. Accounts or pages can't get a 'verified' status. Lyrda (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

:If you mean Jed Armstrong then you need to establish the WP:Notability of the subject of that article by finding WP:Reliable sources that discuss this person in detail. If you are not able to do so, then the page will be deleted. In general, Wikipedia strongly discourages people from writing their own WP:Autobiographies here. Dbfirs 00:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

::I notice that entering "Jed Armstrong musician" in A Well known Search Engine throws up a few relevant sources, but probably not enough to verify much of the article's content. Archives of music journals (such as Melody Maker, New Musical Express and doubtless many others) may contain useful contemporary references – I wonder if the Musicians' Union (UK) (of which the OP is doubtless a member) could advise where such archives may be electronically or physically accessed. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.94.189 (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

:::The article has now been deleted. Dbfirs 09:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Recently, the page Never Gonna Dance Again (Sugababes song) was merged to Change (Sugababes album) per consensus at Talk:Never Gonna Dance Again (Sugababes song).

Meanwhile, Never Gonna Dance Again (song) was redirected to Careless Whisper. I was going to convert the dabpage to a redirect to the George Michael song. However, I read Talk:Never Gonna Dance Again and realized that the dabpage was the result of RFD, where I participated (I long forgot it). Shall I be bold and change the page anyway, or shall I do the AFD? --George Ho (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to use the 1920 Edition of Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities in the same manner that the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition and the 1905 Jewish Encyclopedia both of which have :Category:Encyclopedia source templates. The 1920 Edition is available in Google Books (https://books.google.com/books?id=1qoVAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover) but not at Wikisource. The 1879 (first) Edition is at Wikisource, so I'm not sure there would be any problem putting it there other than the work of copying the 1920 version from google books to wikisource. Does anyone have any suggestions as to where to get more specific information as to whether this is appropriate and whether copying to Wikisource is needed before going forward. I've worked with paraphrasing out of a number of editions both prior to 1923 and after (I own copies of 5 editions).Naraht (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Whether or not to put it in Wikisource is a Wikisource question, not a Wikipedia question, but I will be so bold as to answer here: Yes, it is appropriate. Whether to do it first: Yes, better to do it first, because you will then have a proper Wikisource target for your Wikipedia template. Paraphrasing is not needed and is often not even appropriate for out-of-copyright works: you should probably just directly quote the work, with attribution:See WP:Plagiarism. At Wikisource, you may (or may not) find the DNB project to be a more complete example than the 1911 project. -Arch dude (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Adding_open_license_text_to_Wikipedia provides instructions on how to properly credit the text, please let me know if you have any questions, I wrote the page and developed the template. Thanks, --John Cummings (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I moved Cypress (provincial electoral district) to Cypress (former Alberta provincial electoral district) (because there are two others). I adjusted the links accordingly in three election templates, so I thought, but they're still showing the old link in Perren Baker. What gives? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

:WP:PURGE may be what you're looking for. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 21:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

::I though exiting Firefox would do that, but I guess not. It's fine now. Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)