Help desk
< March 28	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

March 29

Can we use a paid source of information as a valid citation for Wikipedia? If so, how do I cite it?

Hi all,

I apologize if this is a question that has been asked before, but I'd like some help.

I am writing a wikipedia article about an organization. The confusion is, one of the citations that I want to include is a paid service ACRA, which gives out information on payment of a nominal fees. Following are the questions I have:

1. Can such a paid service (not a subscription) be used as a valid citation in articles?
2. How do I cite such sources. Can someone please guide me with a format?
3. Is there a signifier I use (For example: Open, Restricted or closed as in case with subscriptions)?

I have tried looking for alternate sources, but this source is definitive. Would really appreciate it if someone can guide me in the right direction.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhatnagar.S (talk • contribs) 08:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bhatnagar.S, you can use paid sources as long as they are otherwise independent verifiable sources. For paid web sites, see refs 7 and 8 of Siberian accentor for format Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

blocked

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines.

why am i receiving this message? i'm adding new reference links including websites that have similar subject of each word — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurasrour (talk • contribs) 08:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because you've been adding spam links to Wikipedia articles. You're likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you continue, as explained on your talk page. Maproom (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hook nose

you say hook nose was a Cheyenne, and you say his brothers were spotted elk and touch the clouds. spotted elk , miniconjou, Lakota. touch the clouds Miniconjou, Lakota. can you help clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.168.237.254 (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This must be about Hook Nose. The best place to discuss it will be that article's talk page. Maproom (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: This must be about these parts:

Hook Nose: ...was a Native American of the Northern Cheyenne
- Hook Nose#Biography: ...son of Lone Horn and brother of Spotted Elk and Touch the Clouds
Spotted Elk: was the name of a chief of the Miniconjou, Lakota Sioux
Touch the Clouds: ...was a chief of the Minneconjou Teton Lakota (also known as Sioux)

I suppose OP 68.168.237.254 is curious how the brothers might belong to different tribes or people (Cheyenne and Sioux). --CiaPan (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If so, I suppose the question better fits Humanities or possibly Miscellaneous Reference Desk. --CiaPan (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably an error in the articles, rather than something the Reference Desk can explain – and so better brought up on a talk page. (My uninformed guess is that the word "brothers" is not to be taken in its literal sense.) Maproom (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: You're probably right. The Hook Nose article says Hook Nose was son of Lone Horn, same who is mentioned as a father of two other men – however, the Lone Horn article does not confirm that; it only mentions Spotted Elk and Touch the Clouds as Lone Horn's sons. Definitely a matter for the article's talk page. --CiaPan (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added a question at Talk:Hook Nose#Who was the father of Hook Nose?. --CiaPan (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delsort archiving

I wanted to know how to get AnomieBOT to automatically archive closed AFDs from the delsort page for psychology, as it does for almost every other delsort page. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Everymorning: The bot's source code has a comment saying it loads the list from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Compact, so I've added psychology to that page. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Every morning (there's a halo...) 16:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tenali Rama

Hello, Tenali Rama is not true or proper name. Can you see talk on this at [[1]]? Please change with Tenali Ramakrishna. Thank you. NehalDaveND (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article to Tenali Ramakrishna, as this is the name most used in the sources cited. Maproom (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a Reference

Hi I am new to Wikipedia, have only added photos to existing articles so far. How can a reference be added to an article? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jag9889 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jag9889: Welcome and thanks for wanting to make the encyclopedia better. Check out WP:REFB for how to get started with references. RudolfRed (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC) THANKS![reply]

@Jag9889: A very quick tip for you: the editing tool has a toolbar of common functions. Click the one labelled 'Cite' and then select an appropriate Template offered to you (book, web, journal etc). Then just fill in all the relevant fields like title, author, date, url etc. and save to insert the reference into the document. In Visual Editor mode you can even paste some urls and it will autofill the reference for you. Anything not included can always be added manually. Hope this helps a bit, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU, Rudolf and Nick! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jag9889 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page gone

Hi,

just a short time ago I looked at my talk page, and there were a couple of older contributions, like a greeting etc. . Now the link is red, and no talk page ever seems to have existed. What's going on? Am I hallucinating? Thanks, --Anna C. (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Anna. I'm not really sure. It doesn't look like your talk page has ever been deleted. Since it's been so long, it's possible you registered two different account on accident. But I did leave you a brand new welcome message so you can have the helpful links handy in case you need them. GMG ^talk 18:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the friendly welcome!

The weird thing is, when I said a "short time ago", I meant "a really short time ago", like an hour or two ago. The contributions were old, but I saw the page today, and it was definitely there.

It's not a big deal, I don't think there was anything important on the page, but it does seem very strange that pages simply disappear! --Anna C. (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna C.: Is it possible that you weren't logged in at that time and those were on the talk page of your IP address? LittlePuppers (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could they have been your sister accounts on commons and meta? - X201 (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. No, I don't think so. I do remember there was an older welcome message on there, and something about some article, and I have never (consciously) been active on commons or meta. And, @LittlePuppers, I am actually quite sure I was logged in at that time because I came over here logged in with my global account. --Anna C. (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your account is automatically created at a wiki if you view any page while logged in. Special:CentralAuth/Anna C. shows many wikis. Some wikis post welcome messages to new accounts with no edits. You have talk pages at many wikis. The only ones with English text are commons:User talk:Anna C. and meta:User talk:Anna C. You have one edit at each of those wikis. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True. Those were so long ago I can't even remember making them.

But the user talk pages there and the welcome messages look quite different from the ones here, so I am quite sure it wasn't there that I had a "blue" talk page link today.

Anyway, it's not all that important; nothing memorable has been lost, I am sure. I was only curious what might have been going on there. So, thanks everyone. --Anna (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page comments

Talk pages ask for comments to be signed. If they're not signed, can they be removed?

You asked this question and not signed your own comment? Was this intentional? Ruslik_Zero 20:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page comments can be removed, but shouldn't be without a very good reason. Whether they are signed is irrelevant. Maproom (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Make edits to a page

Someone edited information on a page under my name. I am not being allowed to edit my own personal information. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charnahalpern (talk • contribs) 21:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Charnahalpern: Hello, you can request an edit by placing {{request edit}} on the talk page of the article. Please see Template:Request edit for full instructions on how to go about this. Please remember to provide a reliable source for any changes you wish to see made. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charnahalpern, in addition to the advice Eagleash has given you, you might find it helpful to read WP:AUTOPROB. --ColinFine (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Direct links count as references?

Do direct links to pages count as references per Wikipedia:Citing sources? Are they an acceptable form of reference? (albeit not the best obviously) This article as an example. (and yes, I did look at Wikipedia:Citing sources, couldn't find an answer so that's why i'm asking here) Nat965 (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nat965: They count, but as it says on that page it is better to convert them to full citations. RudolfRed (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether it's mentioned in any guidelines but there is an established practice in some sports: If an article lists a series of matches with reports on the same site then the matches can have direct links to that site. Other examples: 2014 FIFA World Cup#Group stage and 2017 World Men's Handball Championship#Preliminary round. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could that not be vulnerable to WP:link rot? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's only slightly more vulnerable than giving full references. There is no named author on such reports. The publisher is clear from the url. The subject of the page is obvious. The reports are undated but can usually be assumed to have been created right after the match. The work to create a bunch of very similar references (often one at a time when a match ends) may not be worth the effort. And readers may prefer the direct link. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah made a simple change I don't understand and then a large one I will broach later.

Why would you remove a link from the term GREEK EMPIRE to Homosexuality in ancient Greece and replace it with Rise of Macedon if the page is about a Heritage Of Pride a NFP created in part to welcome people to and educate people about the greater LGBTQIA+ history they are becoming a part of?

" Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Heritage of Pride— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)"

I understand what the sandbox is, disagree with some of Oshwah's summary edits of my changes. Before I continue, How is ancient Greek social constructs on sexuality not relevant or constructive here?

That's all PhilEdits (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilEdits: Hello, please discuss content changes at the article talk page, or you can raise directly with Oshwah at his talk page. You will find him very amenable to discussing edits. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]