Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia Help Desk
  • This page is only for questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia. For other types of questions, use the search box or the Reference desk.
  • Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
  • We are all volunteers, so sometimes replies can take some time. Please be patient. Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.

  • New users: While this is a good place to ask questions, new users may prefer to ask for help at the Teahouse, an area specifically for new users to get help with editing, article creation, and general Wikipedia use, in a friendly environment.
Are you in the right place?
Search Frequently Asked Questions
Search the help desk archives and other help pages

July 22

Deletion of Maria Luisa Hernandez

Maria Luisa Hernandez ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have contributed to the Maria Luisa Hernandez article and have failed in the past find ways to improve it much. It has been nominated for deletion, and I agree as the page looks bad, but do not know the correct process from here.Anna Jones (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Anna Jones. This can be frustrating. Especially when you are passionate about a certain subject. However, to have an article on WP there are certain expectations of a subject for their inclusion on the site: i.e. notability and reliable sources detailing coverage of the subject. First: notability -- make sure your subject meets the qualifications found here: WP:ARTIST. Then make sure your article has reliable sources to back the claims for their notability: reviews, major art exhibits, etc. It can be timely, but in the end will pay off. Good luck! Maineartists (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Gamergate controversy

Hello, I am writing because of the article Gamergate controversy is incorrect in several instances.

1) GamerGate is a Consumer Revolt against the corruption of journalism in the Gaming industry. The article you and others around the world are seeing, is a one sided issue: "The Gamergate controversy concerns issues of sexism and progressivism in video game culture, stemming from a harassment campaign conducted primarily through the use of the hashtag #GamerGate. Gamergate is used as a blanket term for the controversy, the harassment campaign and actions of those participating in it, and the loosely organized movement that emerged around the hashtag." This is incorrect, in fact, if you go to YouTube and look up GamerGate, you will find that it is exactly the opposite on what this article is saying.

2) "Harassment campaigns against others included doxing, threats of rape, and death threats. Gamergate supporters claimed unethical collusion between the press and feminists, progressives, and social critics. These concerns have been dismissed by commentators as trivial, conspiracy theories, groundless, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics." That too, is incorrect, there was plenty of corruption by not only the Gaming Press, but other media outlets are the ones who claimed unethical collusion between the press and feminists, progressives, and social critics. These concerns have been dismissed by commentators as trivial, conspiracy theories, groundless, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics without a shred of physical evidence to back up these false allegations, while GamerGate supporters have evidence of the corruption by these same media outlets, throwing Gamers "under the bus" sort of speak, and refuse to hear their side of the story making the media very unethical.

3) "Many supporters of Gamergate oppose what they view as the increasing influence of feminism on video game culture; as a result, Gamergate is often viewed as a right-wing backlash against progressivism." It is actually feminism that has invaded our space and they not GamerGate, are left-wing backlash against progressivism. These 3rd Wave Feminists are liars, frauds and will do anything in their political corrupt culture to make sure that video games are the cause of harassment, violence and sexism and that the players who play these games are male and misogynistic.

These references shown below that no one wants people from GamerGate to really tell the truth on what the movement was really about. These references contains the lies and deception on which feminists claimed to have been threatened, harassed or swatted. No, in fact, none of these women speak for GamerGate while there are plenty of women including developers, people with disabilities, even the LGBT community is on the side for GamerGate and they were the voices that the feminists tried to silence and failed horribly.

[1] [2] [3] [4]


  1. ^ Eördögh, Fruzsina (November 25, 2014). "Gamergate and the new horde of digital saboteurs" . The Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original on November 25, 2014. Retrieved November 25, 2014.
  2. ^ Stuart, Keith (October 11, 2014). "Brianna Wu and the human cost of Gamergate: 'every woman I know in the industry is scared'" . The Guardian. Archived from the original on October 25, 2014. Retrieved October 25, 2014
  3. ^ McWhertor, Michael (October 11, 2014). "Game developer Brianna Wu flees home after death threats, Mass. police investigating" . Polygon. Archived from the original on October 12, 2014. Retrieved October 12, 2014.
  4. ^ Wingfield, Nick (October 15, 2014). "Feminist Critics of Video Games Facing Threats in 'GamerGate' Campaign" . The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 24, 2014. Retrieved October 24, 2014

There are more of these false references on the main article's page, but I don't have time to cite them all. As the first Girl gamer for 38 years, I am deeply offended by the article and its citations claiming that GamerGate was nothing more but harassers and trolls, when in reality, we're all human beings that play video games just to get away from Real world issues like that foolish page. Ever since the movement began three years ago, GamerGate has been fighting to keep our games from being censored, changed and silenced to the 3rd wave feminists' deceptions and once again, they have failed because they know nothing about video games, nor have any of these feminists with the exception for two of them, played hardcore games in their lifetime. I am hereby requesting, that the article in question remove its semi-protection status on the basis of false allegations on the person or persons made the article what it is, must issue a public apology to the supporters of GamerGate, be banned immediately and never be welcomed on Wikipedia or any on-line source that discredits persons or movements in a way that unless the other side is heard from, then you Wikipedia, have violated your own terms including vandalism. Yuri Jacobs (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Yuri Jacobs: Talk:Gamergate controversy has been semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. Your account needs 4 days and 10 edits to be autoconfirmed. Note there are 57 archive links and various information in the boxes at top of Talk:Gamergate controversy. Wikipedia:Database reports/Talk pages by size says there are 11 MB of discussions. I'm not getting into that. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

How to resolve the issues from an article:

Hello Volunteer,

First of all, I want to thank you for doing the noble job that you are, without any monetary interest. I really appreciate the niceness. Now my concern is this article:

I am hired by a person, I am not sure if it is this same personality or someone connected to them, to help them remove the errors from this article. Now there are two errors that need to be removed.

1. This article is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject. (April 2017)

Question: How do I remove this error?

2. The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. (April 2017)

Question: This personality is notable and I have enough references to prove that, however, I don't know how to forward these references to a wikipedia admin so that he would remove the error, if that is how we remove that error I mean. Can you please guide me with this too?

As I am getting paid for this job, I would like to payback a little to this community and especially the volunteers, is there anyway to donate to the community of volunteers?

Thanks a lot! Nayab K. Siddiqui — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank-you, Nayab, for asking here rather than editing the article yourself while having a conflict of interest.
  1. It's not exactly an "error", just a warning about possible bias. And you, as a connected person, can't do anything to correct it, your editing the article would only make the warning even more necessary. What you have done, by asking here, is to increase the chance that unbiased editors will make some improvements to the article. After enough such improvements, the warning can be removed.
  2. It won't need an admin to add references to the article. I could even do it myself if I knew of any acceptable references. If you have some, preferably to reliable independent published sources that discuss the subject, please list them at the article's talk page. Maproom (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I've managed to find one reference.[1] BUt it doesn't help much (and it's not compimentary). I hope you have something better. Maproom (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Best Local Girl Gone Bad". Miami New Times. 

Cite an essay inside a book

How do I cite an essay inside a book that is a collection of essays? I can't find it anywhere and everything I try just ends up with it being invisible. It's a reference I want to use for several of the essays contained in it and I really need to figure this out! Help! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: I moved your post from the talk page. You can use the |at= parameter at Template:Cite book#In-source locations. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I have no problem with it being moved but I am still relatively new here and don'y understand all the nuances so if you wouldn't mind--take a teaching moment and explain why? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
In general, Jenhawk777, a talk page is to discuss how to improve the corresponding page. So Wikipedia talk:Help desk is to discuss how to make the page Wikipedia:Help desk better. The actual questions are to be asked on this page. Simialarly each article has a talk page, where people can discuss how to improve the article. It is just a convention at Wikipedia and other wikis that use the same software, but a rather firm one. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay--I see now I was in the wrong place. I should have looked more carefully! Sorry! And thank you. I am still having trouble with this reference!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Or you can use |chapter=, Jenhawk777, which i think would be better, See the following example from the template documentation:

Citing a chapter in a book with different authors for different chapters and an editor

  • {{cite book |last=Bloggs |first=Fred |editor-last=Doe |editor-first=John |title=Big Compilation Book with Many Chapters and Distinct Chapter Authors |publisher=Book Publishers |date=January 1, 2001 |pages=100–110 |chapter=Chapter 2: The History of the Bloggs Family |isbn=978-1-234-56789-7}}
Bloggs, Fred (January 1, 2001). "Chapter 2: The History of the Bloggs Family". In Doe, John. Big Compilation Book with Many Chapters and Distinct Chapter Authors. Book Publishers. pp. 100–110. ISBN 978-1-234-56789-7. 
Is that helpful? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I wrote it down exactly--I will now go and see if it makes those sentences miraculously appear! You're a gem! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
It didn't work but I think it's because my book has more than one editor. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Jenhawk777, Instead of using |co-editor= use |editor1-last=, |editor1-first=, |editor2-last=, |editor2-first=, |editor3-last=, and |editor3-first=, for the first, second, third etc editors. The same can be done with |first1=, |last1=, |first2=, |last2=, for co-authors. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
It's still not working and I don't know what I am doing wrong. This entire section disappears: "" Evan Fales, Professor of Philosophy, calls the crucifixion and its doctrine of substitutionary atonement ”psychologically pernicious” and ”morally indefensible.” Fales founds his argument on John Locke’s statement that revelation must conform to our understanding. While philosopher and Professor Alvin Plantinga says this rests upon seeing God as a kind of specially talented human being, adding there is no guarantee our moral intuitions are entirely correct, and human moral intuitions have shifted over time. [1] "" Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I looked at your sandbox, Jenhawk777. I made two small edits. The first I have also made above, removing the quotes on the chapter name (they are added automatically) and using isbn= instead of ISBN=. But the one which mattered was to comment out <ref name ="Oxford Bible"/> You were trying to use the ref "Oxford Bible", but it was nowhere defined. This prevented the rest of the section from displaying properly. Refs can be a bit tricky. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ Fales, Evan (2011). "chapter 3: Satanic Verses: Moral Chaos in Holy Writ". In Bergman, Michael; Murray, Michael J.; Rea, Michael C. Divine evil? The Moral Character of the God of Abraham. Oxford University Press. pp. 91–115. ISBN 9780199576739. 
OMG!! Thank you! I have moved stuff around so much I am losing track of what's where! I knew I was doing something wrong but I could not spot it to save my life. It's late. I'm tired. my brain has turned to mush! May a million blessings fall upon your head!!! Oxford is defined somewhere!! I will find it--tomorrow! Thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
well--I totally appreciate the help--truly--but it's still not showing up in the article. I don't know what the heck the problem is but I'm going to bed. It's 1 AM and I have to get up in the morning. I hope I do not dream of Wiki citations... Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
The missing content was displayed by fixing an ending </ref>.[1]. If content doesn't render then look for a problem right before. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! I have learned this lesson the hard way haven't I? Perhaps that means I won't forget it! I live in hope... Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
@Jenhawk777: Another lesson: Be specific from the beginning when you ask for help. If your original post had quoted some of the invisible content then my original answer would have fixed it. Unclosed tags causing undisplayed content is a common issue I would immediately have looked for. I did try to guess which reference you referred to but the page was full of references and none of them used the word "essay" you described it with here. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry. And thank you. I'll do better. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

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 {{salt}} 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 Wikipedia:Requests for page protection I suppose, Robert McClenon, 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 (talkcontribs) 03:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

DoyenneSavant, 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, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. 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 here or at the Teahouse 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 (talkcontribs) 07:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Spiros71: WP:wikEd can do it on the icon WikEd case.png. {{lc:SCREAM}} renders as scream which can be previewed and copy-pasted to the source. {{subst:lc:SCREAM}} 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

Squier ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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 ClueBot NG reverted here. I suspect it was the use of <ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref> 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: "The claim I changed was contrary to the 7 various models I own 4 of which are the bundled versions of various Affinity and Bullets and 3 stand alone Affinity models I have viewed hundreds if not thousands since". 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 "easily verified by the simple use of the information for identification purposes" and "common knowledge among squier enthusiasts and easily verified by even a simple photo" 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 "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, ..." 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.

extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 (talkcontribs) 12:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

N.Selvarajah, 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, Op47. 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 (talkcontribs)

I moved your question here from the Category where you mistakenly placed it, 614buckeyegirl --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, July 24, 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)

July 24

a problem

I am having difficulties with a person editing my posts on the link "Blessings of Same Sex Churches" Originally, I posted that the Bible does not endorse such things and provided scripture asserting such. That seems to have been deleted by someone calling themselves BroWCarey. I assumed perhaps I had put the issue in the wrong place, perhaps. The second area where I posted it is the title: "Theological differences between support and opposition" I figured that was the proper place to put my content. I wrote my comment, along with scripture supporting what I was saying. Well, he seems not to have liked that also. The title was for "Theological differences," yet, he censored mine and verged on accusing me of vandalism. I substantiated my assertions using scripture that is very clear, easy to read and easy to understand. The items I submitted were not a personal opinion. They were not another author's opinion. They were taken from the Word of God and what His views were on the issue. I do not believe I have done anything wrong and would appreciate this person stopped. Whomever has been editing this issue is not telling the entire truth on the matter and is misleading people. sincerely; sjluckins — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs. PGL (talkcontribs) 00:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

For refernence: Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mrs. PGL. This is a content dispute. As such, it should be discussed on the article talk page, in this case Talk:Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches. You don't seem to have done that yet. But you should be aware that all Wikipedia articles must use the neutral point of view. People interpret the Christian scripture differently, and not all people concede that it is the "word of God". Wikipedia does not assume the truth of any religion. We can and do describe what various groups say, believe, and do, but we may not say that this or that position is correct according to scripture much less according to God. We can say that Person X asserts that this or that position is correct, and give their reasoning. But we must also give the views of others who hold different positions, if reliable sources cover them. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
As indicated above, all articles on Wikipedia MUST be neutral in tone. Your edits were not. You posted scripture as "proof" that one understanding/interpretation is the only correct one, stating as much, and implying that those who believe otherwise are in error. That is not neutral. That some Christians do not support same-sex marriage is already documented in this article and others. That's all that needs to be said in that regard here. There are other articles that go into detail on why, for example List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality. It is inappropriate to insert your belief that those churches opposing same-sex marriage are right, even with scripture quotes you believe support that view, and that all others are wrong. Doing so negates the neutrality of the article. I was not the only one to revert your edits. Continuing to edit an article in such a manner that destroys its objectivity and neutral tone does indeed suggest vandalism. It appears vandalism was not your intention, and that is good. But you do need to understand that an encyclopedia, including an online one, must maintain complete objectivity, not making pronouncements on who is right or wrong. I hope this helps you understand why your edits were reverted. BroWCarey (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I assume, forgive me if I'm in error. The comments - taken verbatim from the Bible - in a category asking for the "Theological differences" about a matter within the churches, and God's word is too extreme for you? Would it not just be easier to say that you don't want to know what Christ has taught on the matter and do not wish to expose it? Forgive me if I am doing this improperly, but I am very new to all of this and haven't quite figured things out as of yet. Is Wikipedia saying that God's word on Christian matters is too extreme? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Mrs. PGL (talkcontribs) 18:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Mrs. PGL, I, for one, am saying that there are those who accept the Christian bible as God's word, and those who do not. Of those who do, some accept one version and some another; some interpret fairly literally, and some otherwise. It is not Wikipedia's role to judge which of these, if any, is correct. It is not Wikipedia's role to pronounce what religious truth is. It is Wikipedia's role, in some cases to say: "The Baptists Take view A, while the Methodists Take view B, and the Catholics take view C..." etc, provided that there are reliable sources to confirm which views what groups hold. A statement asserting, in Wikipedia's voice, what God's view is, is never appropriate anywhere on Wikipedia. (Note also that different editions translate the passages you have cited differently.) The heading "Theological differences" on a section of that article is unfortunate, and should probably be changed. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

thank you for your response. I would say in an article presumably discussing Church thoughts on an issue, a Christian perspective would be appreciated. I would certainly be interested in which translation disagrees with the translation I cited. Next, so if I were to say "a Baptist" view it would be more appropriate when the comments endorsing the marriage have no such title or category, they just endorse the action, so would you not then say they were improper? They claim to be of a church - as the article indicates, yet not defining which church - last I read, anyway. I believe you can now understand why I feel this is more about censoring, than truth. Please correct me if I am wrong. For instance, when discussing church positions, normally scripture is used. In this case, it is totally avoided, "These disagreements are primarily centered on the interpretation of various scripture passages related to homosexuality," What scripture are they referring to? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs. PGL (talkcontribs) 18:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Mrs. PGL, You will see that each of the existing statements in the article section is cited to a specific source, naming the particular individual or group that has voiced that position. Your edit did not do this in any way. Yu included such statements as "The Bible is the basis for Christian belief." and "The Bible is the authority for Christians." without qualification or source, as if these were statements of fact, rather than of religious opinion. The article's Lead Section does currently say: "These disagreements are primarily centered on the interpretation of various scripture passages related to homosexuality, and in some churches on varying understandings of homosexuality..." and perhaps some section of the article should list some of those passages and the views of them taken by various individuals or groups. Provided always that a reliable source or sources for who has considered what passage to be significant to this issue, and what views they have stated, can be properly cited. Such an addition could be proposed at Talk:Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches which is the proper place to discuss what should and should not go into the article. Please continue this there, if at all.
Please in future sign your posts with four tildes, like this ~~~~ The software will replace them with your user name and a timestamp. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

How to create my organisation's page?


I wish to create a non-promotional page for my company. What would be the ideal flow?

AmyWest, you can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~~~~. You should not write the article yourself; instead post a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles for the article to be created. See Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

Ref number 19 is dead - but it does work if you re type. But should the dates of birth for Michael Middleton and wife be on the page at all? 2001:8003:4E8F:6D00:C90B:879C:59E:AC54 (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done I've tagged ref #19 as a {{dead link}}, and I don't see why their dates of birth shouldn't be on the page - but if you feel that they shouldn't, you should raise this at the article's talk page. Thanks for pointing this out!  Seagull123  Φ  11:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

AfD question

How does one close an AfD? The consensus for the following is clearly "keep". The corresponding article should be getting considerable traffic, since the subject is currently receiving international press coverage, (and the tag on top of page is distracting and ugly).

-- 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:1C:247F:9E77:82FF (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:CLOSEAFD. Eagleash (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I have read that, and it seems that being neither an admin nor "nominator", closing this AfD is beyond the scope of this anonymous IP. — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:1C:247F:9E77:82FF (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC) --P.s: I did find: " non-admins are encouraged to recommend a "speedy keep" in the body of the discussion", which I will do soon-ish (time permitting).
Other than the "distracting and ugly" tag, there's really no rush. Anyhow, from the looks of it, it will be closed early. RivertorchFIREWATER 17:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, per WP:NAC, only registered accounts may close formal discussions. TimothyJosephWood 21:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I would have said "Fortunately" :) --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Empathy TimothyJosephWood 21:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • While a keep outcome looks likely at the moment, there have been some strongly argued views for deletion, so a WP:SNOW close does not seem proper to me. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Stupid question

This is of exactly zero importance, but how to I make the color of the userbox collapsed table on my user page match everything else? (I learned to computer before CSS was really a thing, and basically everything was written in HTML. I am a literal dinosaur.) TimothyJosephWood 21:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Timohty If I understand what you're looking for, you can replace:




Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Or is [2] what you want? It makes the box similar to the others. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Yup PH. That's what I was going for. And in about ten previews I managed to jack with the formatting to make it do just about everything but exactly that. Much appreciated. TimothyJosephWood 01:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

July 25


I just wanted to say burly is a word, though it's not in your dictionary. Look it up in a real dictionary. It means sturdy, corpulent.02:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)02:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)~~

Hello IP You used too many tildes, which is why your signature didn't work. Four is the magic number.
It isn't clear what you mean by "your dictionary". Wikipedia doesn't have a dictionary. Maybe you mean Wiktionary, which is a separate project, but burly definitely has an entry there (which is unsurprising because it is a real dictionary). RivertorchFIREWATER 06:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not have permission to create any pages.

When I try to create a page of any title, I see the following image. I have not vandalized or been restricted to my knowledge... Galactikapedia 02:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: The problem has been resolved. Nonetheless, does anyone have any idea what happened? Galactikapedia 02:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Galactikapedia message.png

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Galactikapedia (talkcontribs) 22:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Galactikapedia, It didn't say that you have been restricted, but that the proposed article title had been. This is often done when an article has been repeat4edly recreated against consensus, and for other reasons. it is known as "salting". DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC) @Galactikapedia: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Galactikapedia, it seems that you have been creating lots of pages, all redirects. over 500 of them in the last day or so. Would you care to explain what you are doing? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
It was a problem with MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, which prevents people from creating pages with titles that meet certain patterns. At 2:41, an administrator meant to remove a line entirely, but he accidentally left a metacharacter there, and the way the blacklist works, this metacharacter qualifies as an indefinite number of actual characters. If you have nothing but this character, literally everything is blocked, so until the mistake was resolved, it was absolutely impossible for anyone (except admins, to whom the blacklist doesn't apply) to create any page whatsoever. Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

aditing of an existing page

I edited twice the page antidepressant discontinutaion syndrome but the creator of the page deleted both times my editing. The last time I also received an email from wikipedia saying that I uploaded material covered by copyright (while the paper I quoted are open source) and I used primary sources, however this is not the case since I used secondary sources and I modified the source before uploading it. In particular, apparently the creator of the page does not want to have the paragraph "diagnosis" which, according to me, is important since it represents a step forward the knowledge of the syndrome and is an issue which has been described in the scientific literature via a review article. Please let me know what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papilio2017 (talkcontribs) 03:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Papilio2017 "Open source" does not mean "public domain". Open source papers are generally covered by copyright, and may be under a license not compatible with Wikipedia's. Besides, even public domain text must be properly attributed and cited.
This entire matter should be discussed on Talk:Antidepressant discontinuation syndrome, which does not seem to have been done, yet. Please do not reintroduce the text deleted as a copyright violation without discussing it there and with Hut 8.5, the deleting admin. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 07:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)