I hope this isn't too minor a question to bring up here, but I frequently cite articles from the online Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, to which I subscribe, and The Complete Peerage, which I have on CD-ROM.

Up till now I've been using the cite book format for both. For example, this is how I recently cited an article in the online ODNB:

• Chibnall, Marjorie (2004). Matilda (1102–1167). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Retrieved 11 October 2012. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) (subscription required)

However another editor recently changed all my citations for both the ODNB and The Complete Peerage in the article on Edmund de Mortimer, 5th Earl of March to a cite encyclopedia format at this link:

Article on Edmund de Mortimer, 5th Earl of March

• Bean, J.M.W. (2004). "Percy, Henry, first earl of Northumberland (1341–1408)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Retrieved 3 October 2012. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) (subscription required)
• Cokayne, George Edward (1932). H. A. Doubleday (ed.). The Complete Peerage. Vol. VIII. London: St. Catherine Press. pp. 445–53. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

These look the same in the Read version of the article (and in this message as well unless one views it in Edit version), and in one sense it probably doesn't make any difference whether I use the cite book format or the cite encyclopedia format, but I've never considered either the ODNB or The Complete Peerage as an encyclopedia, and it somewhat irks me to adopt that format unless it's the standard format for those works on Wikipedia, in which case I'll do it.

Any help with this would be much appreciated. NinaGreen (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cite encyclopedia}} is for any publication that is a compilation. See the template documentation. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your help. I looked at the link, and this seems to be applicable:

Despite its name, {{Cite encyclopedia}} is actually used for citing articles in any sort of edited collection. This can include works such as encyclopedias and dictionaries, but more generally any book or book series containing individual sections or chapters written by various authors, and put together by one or more editors.

This description doesn't fit The Complete Peerage, so it seems Cite book would still work best there. It fits the ODNB somewhat better in that all the articles are written by different authors, but it doesn't seem to offer much advantage over Cite book because there are no overall general editors who need to be cited, so I think it's a toss-up, and one could use either Cite book or Cite encyclopedia for the ODNB.

I did learn from looking at this link that Cite encyclopedia is really useful in citing articles by individual authors in a book published under the name of an overall editor, and will tuck that away for future reference. Thanks again. NinaGreen (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information is incorrect

Inia Te Wiata's first born son was/is not Iwikau it is Ianui William Te Wiata, then Kirikowhai Evelyn (dec) , then Hinemoana Tauhia, Budgie Gloria ( who died aged 4 1/2 not a toddler) then came Gloria Ngahoki the youngest girl then Inia Watene Jnr

I know this to be correct I am Gloria Ngahoki ( Rona Constance) (Te Wiata) Tukere202.59.224.49 (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* Bring this up on Talk:Inia Te Wiata, not here. —Tamfang (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing about removal of an unauthorized article concerning my job. Please remove it. File:Marshea_work.jpg This entire article needs to be removed ASAP please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.38.73 (talk) 01:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that you are Marshea Garner and nobody has a right to publish the fact that you have a Federal job? Or perhaps that Mgarner1 (talk · contribs) does not own the copyright on that photograph? —Tamfang (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the image for deletion, as it seems that no actual Wikipedia article uses it. If no objection is raised within seven days, the image will be deleted. PleaseStand (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think a Wikipedia article should be deleted, you are welcome to nominate it with suitable arguments, using Wikipedia's WP:Deletion procedure. But Wikipedia's criteria for the inclusion of articles (basically whether or not the subject has been written about in independent reliable sources) make no reference to "authorization" by the subject or anybody else. --ColinFine (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article - it is an image that is being discussed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent's firm Banc de Binary is listed in the SEC Public Alert: Unregistered Soliciting Entities (PAUSE).

http://www.sec.gov/investor/oiepauselist.htm

It is also rated F (lowest) by the Better Business Bureau.

http://www.bbb.org/new-york-city/business-reviews/investment-management/banc-de-binary-in-new-york-ny-118878/

It seems wildly inappropriate for Wikipedia to be seen as promoting what appears to be an investment scam. Either these 2 warning links should be included, or the page taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.7.204 (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not promote anything, neither is its function to warn readers about anything. See What Wikipedia is not. That said, you are free to add significant reliably sourced information about the subject - which is Oren Laurent the person, not the company he heads. I have cleaned up a few minor issues and tagged the article as a possible coatrack. Roger (talk) 11:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added your statements about the firm's F rating, and the PAUSE warning, to the article, with the references you gave. Maproom (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone agree with me that there is a coatrack problem? Roger (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

We are a company offering very cheap logbook loans. Is there any way you can list us at the base of the article shown at Logbook loan. Our company is <redacted> Within our site we have referenced this article if the reader wishes to know more about this type of loan.

If this isn't the correct place to request this, please cna you point me in the right direction.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.176.82 (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. And there is no correct place to request this. —Tamfang (talk) 08:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have policies (External links to avoid and Wikipedia is not for promotion) that specifically prohibit this. Not going to happen. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reading over the article about John D. Rockefeller, Sr. The article states his mother was Baptist. According to National Geographic, and an interview with the Rockefeller family, they state that Eliza's religion was Puritan. But I don't know how to go about getting the article fixed. For reference, it's in a recent show by National Geographic about the Rockefeller Home, Kykuit, in the Hudson Valley, in New York. Very interesting show about the building of Kykuit. Thank you! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.203.31 (talk) 08:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* At the top of the article there should be a "Talk" button. Click it, and then click "New section". —Tamfang (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's a tab, not a button, and the label is "Discussion" rather than "Talk". Roger (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For me the label is "Talk", not "Discussion"; your settings may be different. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using the default Vector skin. Such differences can easily confuse new users, I think this type of thing should be consistent across all skins - because it makes nonsense of help desk advice. Roger (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In U.S. religious discourse, "puritan" is an adjective rather than a religious affiliation. You are reading far too much into the use of that word, especially in describing a family once famous for their Baptist faith. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, puritan was used as an adjective, as in puritanical. By the time of Mrs. R., there were no basically no more religious Puritans (captol "P") in the US, because there was no establsihed Church to "purify."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanscottwalker (talk • contribs)

Also, a careful reading of the article Baptists indicates clearly that the Baptist movement originated with the Puritan and English Separatist movements, so modern Baptists are among the descendants of Puritans anyways. Though, the sentiment is correct that there is no "Puritan Church" in the modern world. However, John D. Rockefeller Sr. may have, being born in 1839, been old enough that the terms were used semi-intechangably. That is, while there were clearly Baptists at that time, there may have also been Puritans, or the terms may have been used alongside each other. --Jayron32 19:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I have created a page and that is a blunder or a page with some major problems. How can I delete it. Note: I haven't created a page yet, but its for future reference . -- KAS^{( talk)} 10:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're the only contributor, you can put {{db-g7}} at the top of the page, and a passing administrator will delete it for you. If the page is a draft in your userspace, you can use {{db-u1}} instead. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and yes the case was only considering me as the sole contributor -- KAS^{( talk)} 11:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I have two sentences based on the same page of a source, should a citation be given at the end of both sentences or only at the end of the second one? The sentences are like this

It was proven that blah blah. The authors also showed that blah blah.

Both are referencing the same page of a paper. Should the first cite be kept or removed? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there is no specific rule for this. If the sentences are short, give it at the end of the second sentence. If the sentences are too long, you can give it at the end of both sentences. --Anbu121 (talk me) 12:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would advice you to keep both references, because editors later can split the sentences, or remove the last one and then the whole reference gets lost. Of course, ideally, editors should check that they don't do this, but sometimes they do... Lova Falk talk 19:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hello there! it's probably some typo i can't seem to find, but my taxobox is not showing correctly at Cryptosporidium fragile. i'd appreciate your help. cheers! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i made a mistake with the regnum! fixed. thank you! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to upload photos to a wikipedia page and is unable to do so. I'm not exactly for sure if I'm doing anything incorrect, but i would like to get this problem resolved as soon as possible.

Reggie3155 (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't currently have enough edits to be autoconfirmed, meaning that you cannot yet upload images to Wikipedia. However, assuming that the images in question are available under a free licence or are in the public domain, you can add them to Wikimedia Commons, a shared file repository for all Wikimedia sites (including this one). Use the Commons Uploade Wizard for step-by-step instructions (you'll need to create an account there first). Yunshui 雲‍水 13:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am being called a Holocaust denier when I am not and when the Press TV panel in which I had participated did not deal with the Holocaust in any way, shape, or form.

In addition, the editor distorted my comments on the role of ethnic networks on Wall Street.

This behavior constitutes vandalism by the definitions that Wikipedia supplies. Can I get some relief from a malicious, biased, and mendacious editor?

Here is the link to the offending page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorsProvoni (talk • contribs) 13:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, in case it is not clear from the above, I am Joachim Martillo ThorsProvoni (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this moment the section in question reflects my view of the panel discussion, but the editor has already reverted it to the defamation once and will probably continue to do so. ThorsProvoni (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note on the article's talkpage pointing out that this claim is a violation of the biographies of living persons policy and requesting that they refrain from adding it back in. If they persist, warnings and potentially blocks can be handed out. I would also add that you yourself have made a clear threat of litigation on the same talkpage, which you should redact if you don't wish to be blocked yourself under the No legal threats policy (warning on your IPs talkpage, since you were logged out when you made that edit). Yunshui 雲‍水 13:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with removing that comment, but I have no idea how to do that. It seems that modifications and comments are protected once there are succeeding modifications.ThorsProvoni (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can strike through the relevant text by using <s> before and </s> after it. Use the same IP that you used when inserting the comment, as one user shouldn't strike out another user's comment. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see how that works in the edited text but how do I do that on the edit summary line? ThorsProvoni (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you can't edit existing edit summaries.But if you've removed or struck through the comment on the page, that will be adequate. --ColinFine (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries cannot be edited but administrators or oversighters could delete them if necessary. Rmhermen (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

what happened with my talk page? Why is there such a gibberish and duplication of the actual archive box? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an edit to remove the bullet-pointed list. Any good? -- John of Reading (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Respected Sir/ Madam

In your website given information about educational institutions in gujar khan distt. rawalpindi pakistan the name of Super Wings Group of Colleges is missing.......This is the leading educational network providing degree and masters level education.it is affiliated with virtual university of Pakistan/university of Sargodha / NACTE and Rawalpindi board.

It is requested Please to add the name of this college in your website.

With regards WAJID HUSSAIN <contact details redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.24.149 (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed yout formatting so your question would render properly on the page. I also removed your contact details, which must not be added to this page as per the notice at the top. - Karenjc 15:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this has been done. However, the section requires improvement as it is currently unreferenced. - Karenjc 15:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, I looked at the FAQ but my question was not there, I am building an internal Wiki for my work, and was wondering if I can use some of the Wikipedia help code for my own

Basically I would like to use some of the code in the help page, like “what you type, what you get” etc, the presentation is really good so i would like to use it. Although its all open source i don’t want to infringe on copy right etc.

Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.79.208.19 (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same rules apply to articles, help pages and other types of pages. You can use it if you attribute the source as required by the license. See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PrimeHunter

last question, more technical.

I have put in the extension that allows me to imput a search box where ever i need it.

However i want to be able to out a search box in the page that will utalise another search engine

For example, when someone searches in the box, i want it to return the data as if i has searched Google or SharePoint,

Basically want to have on page where the user can search everywhere, I had tried to take the URL for the search off of a page , but it just opens a new tab, I appreciate all the help i get from here and would like to help other to if can, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.79.208.19 (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about using the Mediawiki software outside Wikipedia are not really in scope here. I suggest you start at mw:Help:Contents. --ColinFine (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the page 4Player Podcast needs a title change due to them renaming themselves 4Player Network. However the 4Player Podcast search should redirect to their page still. I haven't the foggiest how to get this done. (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Moving? - Purplewowies (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is User:Ashbeckjonathan. I got a question. I understand you may delete Frank Forte or Chuck Cooperstein. How can I add a reliable source on those two pages? Will you help me with any of these? Thanks. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS and WP:Referencing for beginners.--ukexpat (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - please help. My website has been used as a citation. While as far as I know the information is correct, it is absurd that I should be considered anything in the vicinity of an authoriative source and I think the citation should be removed. The Help section here is bewildering - please, how do I go about reporting a bad citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sloopie72 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you tell us what article the source is used on and what source you are talking about. With that information we can help you. Without that information there isn't much we can do. GB fan 20:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GB Fan - I wanted to be sure I was in the right place before putting everything up.

The Wiki articles that cite my website are:

• The Next Food Network Star Reference #10
• Food Network Star Reference #10
• Martie Duncan Reference #1

All of these articles say Martie Duncan (a living person, she was a contestant on the show) gave her age as 50.

The exact statement in Zin's blog post was: "...she finally says this is the culmination of 50 years! Wow! She finally gave her age!" that is not the same thing. It is an indirect quote followed by a snarky intepretation.

The citation to my website is A Just Recompense - Food Network Star 2012: Episode 10 – “Pilot Greenlights” - http://sloopie72.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/food-network-star-2012-episode-10-pilot-greenlights/

My blog is just a personal Wordpress blog, and though I go to some efforts to make sure my posts and Zin Kenter's posts (including the one cited) are accurate, I have from time to time made mistakes (I incorporate corrections immediately when notified). It's self-published; there is no editor, no board, no oversight at all, so I could actually say anything I wanted within the bounds of slander, which makes it inherently unreliable.

So it should not be used as a source by anyone. I will delete the post if you will not delete the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sloopie72 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If you ever see something like this again, I encourage you to be bold and make the change yourself. You can always leave a note on the talk page, although it looks like both of these pages are rather low traffic. Livewireo (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I do not know much about Wiki, I just saw it on the list of referrals to my blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sloopie72 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud your integrity. —Tamfang (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Helpdesk, i copied information from joshua project but edited it but the edits seem to not be there can anyone help or tell what i should before creating new article thanks!--Indrabuddha (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the copyright flag, and apparently Webclient101 (talk · contribs) didn't think your other changes were deep enough to justify doing so; so he undid your changes. (It would have been better to restore the copyright flag without undoing anything else.) —Tamfang (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]