Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 353

< Wikipedia:Teahouse‎ | Questions
Archive 350 Archive 351 Archive 352 Archive 353 Archive 354 Archive 355 → Archive 360

Need help correcting info about me..

Need help / editor to assist correcting and adding info about myself. Jerry Jewell - currently listed under Siriius Software but there is much missing. Skulltronix (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Skulltronix, and welcome to the Teahouse. What info seems to be incorrect? What do you want added? Do you have sources that you can cite? Moreover, this would probably be better discussed at Talk:Sirius Software, as that is where the content now is. Jerry Jewell is now about a completely different person. DES (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh and do please read our conflict of interest guideline and our guideline on autobiographies. In short, you are urged not to write in articels about yourself or things you are clsoely conencted with. If you do, you must be particularly careful to write in a neutral and factual manner and to cite sources to support any saements you add to an article. DES (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
That is a different Jerry Jewell, Des. Actually, the article is about the company you founded, Skulltronix, it's not a biography of you. If you have information to add about the company and its history, you can suggest it on the article talk page. As DES says, please provide reliable sources that will support the edits you would like to see made. Liz Read! Talk! 11:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Liz, that is why I said "Jerry Jewell is now about a completely different person." However, it was once, back in 2006 I believe, about the founder of the software company, as one can see from the early hsitory of the article, and someone with a very simialr user name, who i suppose to be Skulltronix, edited it at that time, and commented in the deletion discussion which made it a redirect to the Sirius Software article, before it was repurposed. DES (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I neglected to see the importance of the word "now". Thank you for the explanation. Liz Read! Talk! 14:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

getting help with a potential AfD

I was surprised this person has a page, because most local activists or directors of non-profit organizations in my city don't have a page (without doing something else notable, that is). but I'm really nervous to start an AfD process or even flag it with a notability template, because I'm a beginner editor, and I'm not even sure my interpretation of the notability guidelines is right. can a more experienced editor help assess this for me, and recommend next steps? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Trottier Cycloth (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Cycloth, a good step for you to take to check notability would be to go through the most reliable sources (major newspapers, etc.) and see if they are actually supporting the assertions they are listed as supporting, and that they actually mention Justin Trottier. valereee (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I have incorporated suggested changes in my draft article. Do I have to re-submit the draft article for approval?

I received suggested changes to my draft article, "Harold Edwards (RCAF Officer) which I have incorporated into the draft. Do I have to re-submit the article to have it approved or do I wait for the editor to get back to me? Chiefeagle (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Chiefeagle: Welcome to the Teahouse! Looking at your draft, it looks like it was never actually fully reviewed. FoCuSandLeArN (talk · contribs) did leave a helpful comment on it, though a comment is technically not full a review. Comments are typically made by editors to point out smaller problems that can be quickly fixed. Your draft is still pending a review, which unfortunately can take anywhere from a day to over a month due to a large backlog of drafts.
If you've improved the draft based on FoCuSandLeArN's comment, you could let them know, in case they would like to take another look. Note that article reviewers (and especially commenters) aren't obligated or even necessarily expected to take multiple looks at a draft. For example, after reviewing and declining a draft, I tend to like to leave that draft to another editor to review so the draft can get a second thought on it (unless the draft has some major problems I can help out with). But it doesn't hurt to ask! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello there! Thanks for bringing this to my attention again. I'll try and copy edit the article a bit this afternoon, hopefully approving it by the end of the day. You'll get a notification when that happens. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

My page was taken down

Good day, Please i want to find out why a page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Terragon_Group was taken down so i can fix the errors? Haphenie (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Haphenie: The draft is back at Draft:Terragon Group now. What happens is that if no-one edits a draft article for 6 months, then it can be deleted as an abandoned draft (see WP:G13) and the user has to request it back, like you did 2 days ago. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Waiting for approval and publishing

Hello, I have just finished working on an article, this is my first time. I will like to know what I should do next or what the process is in getting it published. thanks. Omogbe (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Omogbe: Welcome to the Teahouse! I assume you're referring to User:Omogbe/TWA. You could technically move the article right to the article space, but you shouldn't right now as the article isn't ready. What I recommend is moving your draft to a more suitable name in the draftspace (such as Draft:Tony Ohifeme Ezekiel), and then place {{subst:submit}} at the top. This will submit the draft for review, and an experienced editor will drop by and review the article as part of the articles for creation process. The reviewer will either approve the article, or tell you what needs improving. Note that there is a large backlog of articles pending review, so it can take anywhere from a couple hours to several weeks for a draft to be reviewed.
That all being said, I can tell you one major issue with the draft: it doesn't cite any reliable sources. Information in articles, especially biographies of living people, should be sourced to reliable sources using inline citations. Another thing that needs to be improved on is the article's promotional tone and wording. I would work on these being submitting the article for review. Hope this helps. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
To me, this needs improving, mainly because it reads like a CV/resume. You should add some reliable sources and make it more neutral tone. Also, the similarity of their name with your username implies that you might be creating an autobiography- this is strongly discouraged per WP:AUTO. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, SuperHamster, I will work on it. Will newspapers be a good resource. Omogbe (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
@Omogbe: No problem! And yep, for the most part, newspaper articles are generally considered to be reliable. However, each source should be judged for reliability individually, and different sources should be used in different ways. For example, newspaper articles from established news outlets are typically reliable for factual statements. WP:SOURCE discusses what counts as a reliable source, and Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Some_types_of_sources goes more in-depth into the various types of sources out there. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Correcting name for main title of entry

I am editing an entry on Lyman H. Howe. The main entry name is currently Lyman Hakes Howe. But he was never known by that name. So it should be Lyman H. Howe and then his full name below in the main text. How do I change this?Chamuss (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Chamuss: Near the top of the screen, near the "View History", there's a drop-down box saying "More". Click that, then click "Move". Then there will be a screen to choose the new name. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Adjudication of names

Well I got in my first small tiff on wikipedia. Hopefully not too serious but I wonder how we resolve this. I was updating a entry for Lyman Hakes Howe, about whom I have written a book quite some time ago. Anyway, Howe was --and is--generally known as Lyman H. Howe. His wikipedia entry is Lyman Hakes Howe. It seems to me that his full name should be at the beginning of the text, not as the main title entry but someone who had worked on the page before quickly undid my change. I left him a note so we will see what happens. Still I am curious. What happens if we don't agree?Chamuss (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Chamuss. One possibility is Wikipedia:Requested moves but others have already agreed with you at User talk:Jakec#Lyman H. Howe so I guess it doesn't come to that. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi Chamuss. What you would do is start a formal requested move on the talk page. In that discussion (and confirming your sensibility, though it was un-moored from the article titling policy) this very likely should be at the title you moved it to, under the section of that policy know by the shortcut WP:COMMONNAME. In short, Wikipedia topics should generally be given a title that reflects how the topic is most commonly referred to in reliable English-language sources. In such a discussion I would cite Google Books results (not web results), which strongly support that Lyman H. Howe is massively more commonly used than his full name, e.g., [1] vs. [2]. However, because those result are so stark, I am going to move it back, and place in my edit summary some links to the policy so that the user might be informed and reconsider. If that gets reverted, however, then there should be no move warring, but a requested move made. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

reset password?

I've tried to reset my password so that I can log in. I receive a message telling me that an email has been sent, but I have never (multiple attempts over a period of days) received an email. It appears there is a problem on the Wikipedia end.71.38.125.170 (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

What is the username? Check any spam folders in your mail software or mail provider. Are you sure you are checking the right email address? For privacy reasons Special:PasswordReset does not reveal whether an entered email address belongs to an account. If you give the username then we can at least see whether the account has stored an email address (we cannot se what it is). PrimeHunter (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
By any chance is your email address at Yahoo!? There is a long standing problem with people receiving Yahoo!-based emails, not on Wikipedia's end, but having to do with a certain email authentication security protocol it implimented called DMARC . See e.g., here, here and the bug report at T66795. As far as I know, if it is, the email will never arrive and there's no workaround.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Missing message

Hello, I have logged in and out a few times over last 24hrs. The 2nd last time(?) as I logged in I saw the orange new message bar but nothing new appeared in notifications nor on my talk page. I have cleared my cache and refreshed. ThanksJennyOz 17:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi JennyOz. User talk:JennyOz has not been edited since April 16 and as far as I know, an edit to your user talk page is the only action which gives an orange bar. Other actions only give a red number. Is it possible you saw it when you were logged out and it was about a post to the talk page of your IP address at the time? The big orange bar at Help:Using talk pages#You have new messages would indicate it was the IP address while the small at File:Echo Notifications new message indicator.png would indicate it was your account. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you PrimeHunter - yes it was the bigger bar. It appeared on the login page and it didn't occur to me the message wouldn't be available once logged in (blush). I have just logged out and in again but could not find a talk page for my IP address. (I'm pretty sure I have never edited nor corresponded whilst not logged in.) Thanks for your patience. JennyOz 22:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
@JennyOz: If you log out then Special:MyTalk will go to your IP talk page and Special:MyContributions will show edits by the IP address. But your IP address can quickly change depending on your ISP (Internet Service Provider). The message you missed may have been about an edit made by somebody else who previously had the IP address assigned to you when you saw the orange bar. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - I logged off and was able to see (via the 2 Special: links you provided which I had not come across before) the IP pages. There had been only one small (silly or accidental) edit over a year ago as the only IP contribution and 3 messages regarding it, on IP talk page. Whilst I'd thought I had a static IP address, the article edited was about a ship I've never heard of and during time I was not active. It would be unusual for that IP to receive a message after 12mths inactivity? Nothing has landed on IP talk page since then. I am fine to leave this as a mystery for now - will revisit if it happens again. Thank you for your time. I have learnt some handy insights. JennyOz 01:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
If an IP talk page has ever been edited then I think users with that IP will get the orange new messages bar forever until somebody with that IP address views the talk page. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Account in different language

I have an account in English, can it be merged with accounts in Hindi and Marathi? My primary concern is that I've 3 different watchlist in 3 languages which I'd like to merge as one.srini (talk) 04:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Srinivasprabhu933, welcome to the Teahouse. You can have a unified login, which means that you use the same username and password on all wikimedia projects, including all the different versions of Wikipedia. (In fact I think you get a unified login by default.) But my understanding is that each project has its own separate watchlist, and those cannot be combined for a particular account. However, you could ask at the Technical section of the Village Pump. Someone there might know more about this than I do. DES (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no global watchlist. See Wikipedia:Global, cross-wiki, integrated watchlists. If you mean the account Srinivasprabhu933 at all three wikis then Special:CentralAuth/Srinivasprabhu933 shows it's already unified but has 1 and 0 edits at the othe wikis so maybe you have other usernames there. I don't know your non-primarty concerns but you can make a global user page at meta (see meta:Global user pages), and Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering has meta links to "Shared CSS/JavaScript for all wikis". PrimeHunter (talk) 12:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Citation issue

I'm having a problem with one of the citations on Good For You (song), it keeps saying "check accessdate value" but the citation itself is exactly the same as all the other working citations. I honestly don't know how to fix this, lol. Can someone please help me out, it's only the one citation. Thank you. Abi-Maria (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Abi-Maria the date was in the future so not valid for when accessed (unless you have a time machine) - I've changed to today and the error has thus gone. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Abi-Maria (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Having trouble with an edit

Who can I talk to about correcting an article? I don't have all the details, but I have the information for the correction, I just don't know how to reference it. The article is "USS Santa Barbara (AE-28)". It has to do with the awards section. MR2David (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, MR2David, and welcoem to the Teahouse. What you should do is descibe the change you think should be made at Talk:USS Santa Barbara (AE-28) and state what source(s) supports it. Don't worry about the formatting, but give all the info on the source(s) that you can, enough to find it online or in a library, and why it is reliable. Then wait a few days. If no one responds, you can put {{helpme}} on the article talk page or on your user talk page, or post here again. You might also post to the relevant wiki project, if it is active (all too many are not), asking for help. Or post to the talk page of any active experienced editor, asking for help. DES (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

My website's URLs have changed. Can I change existing links on Wikipedia to point to the new one?

I run a website which was once called Media UK and is now called media.info.

The Perthshire Advertiser page is one example of over 500 which link to pages on Media UK and should now link to pages on media.info. The URLs do correctly forward; but I'd like to slowly change these to point to the new URLs.

Is this allowed? To be clear, I'll be changing URLs added by others. I'll not be adding any URLs to my website. James Cridland (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

My gut reaction is that this is fine. If you are just shortening redirect sequences for users, this should be OK. However, this is the kind of thing that will make everyone suspicious. I would recommend exceedingly clear edit summaries. Also, don't worry if you are reverted. Just reply that the website has changed and let them decide. Also be sure to explain what you have explained above on your user page. If you follow those best practises, I can't see you getting into serious trouble. Happy Squirrel (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Editing lead paragraph?

Lawrence Tenney Stevens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I want to edit the lead paragraph of the Lawrence Tenney Stevens page. When I click on "Edit" I am able to access the rest of the page (which I will also be editing), but have not been able to access the lead paragraph. How do I access it? I should note that I have been told that clicking the "edit" tab SHOULD give me access to this, but, I have tried it and it doesn't work for me (I'm using Safari). I've also been told that the lead paragraph SHOULD be visible for editing if I scroll below the code that appears when I click the edit tab. But it isn't. 71.38.125.170 (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC) 71.38.125.170 (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi @71.38.125.170: in current absence of a host I'll have a shot - someone will correct me if there's more to it:
a) To edit the complete source text of a page, you need to click the edit link at the very top of the page, to the left of the search bar. The lead paragraph then isn't marked specifically in the source text - rather, it's the first bit of text that follows the article header (title, infobox etc.). Just scroll down past that bit and you will see the text that becomes the lead. If there is a sufficient amount of material after it, the software will generate a table of contents and place it after that paragraph; again, that isn't marked in the raw text, it happens when the page is displayed.
b) There is an option under your preferences (Gadgets -> Appearance, first option) that provides you with a special edit link to the lead when turned on - just a shortcut. You do have to be signed in to set your preferences, however.
Hope that helps! --Elmidae (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Gadgets are not available to IP users.--ukexpat (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The Edit tab should have the link Edit. If you click it then you should see a box with a vertical scrollbar and content starting {{Infobox artist | ... }} '''Lawrence Tenney Stevens''' was an American sculptor..., where ... indicates text is omitted here. You may have to use the scroll bar to reach '''Lawrence Tenney Stevens''' was an American sculptor... What do you see when you click Edit? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
oops, i have edited the lead so it will not read as quoted above - sorry! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I always find it better when getting to any type of edit that might be confusing white in edit to locate it by copying a short unique string previous to the edit then putting it in the "find" capability of the computer. That way, especially with the ref citations those that might be multiples of the same are not confused.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Only One Original Historical Source

I'm creating an article for an organisation (which has already been deleted but that's another story). A lot of the historical information comes from one source, and I shall cite that as a source. Is that a real issue as whilst I'm trying not to quote the relevant paragraphs word for word, it's difficult not to show a similarity. Incidentally, the book is published under the name of our parent organisation.

Petechilcott (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Petechilcott: If there's only 1 source about it, I highly doubt it's notable enough for Wikipedia. We require evidence of significant, independent coverage from reliable sources, per WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
So, I could leave out reference to that source?

If I leave it in, should I just refer to it under Notes, Bibliography or keep it as a Reference?

{thanks for the speedy reply, by the way!)

Petechilcott (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Petechilcott. When you write, "Incidentally, the book is published under the name of our parent organisation", that is strong evidence that this book is not an independent, reliable source. Such a related source contributes nothing to the notability of the topic. Establishing notability is the first and most important objective of any Wikipedia editor writing a new article. So focus on that first of all. If you have passed that notability threshold, then the book you mention might be an acceptable source for basic, uncontroversial facts like the date the group was founded, the names of its founding members and the city where it is headquartered. But such a source cannot be used for any evaluative claims like "the best known group" or "the most successful group" or any such praise of the group. Such evaluations must come only from independent sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Good morning, Jim.

Thank you. It is really only a book of facts and dates and does not make any claims. Indeed, when trying to write my article I was trying to make it factual (even though we are the only such group and therefore must be the best - and worst!). So rather than cite it, should I not include it at all but extract information from it?

Petechilcott (talk) 08:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Petechilcott If you extract information from a source, even a non-independant source, you should cite it, so the reader knows where the infor came from and how reliable it is. Jus tdon't use such a primary source as your sole or main source for an article, or it will be dismissed for lack of notability. DES (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. So I'm sort of between a rock and a hard place. In trying to write this article about our organisation, I have to use 'corporate' memory, self generated material (Handbooks and rules) and this one off book. How can I make it clear that this is what I'm doing? If I can persuade the reviewer to undelete my draft, then this will be the first place a lot of the information has been brought together in one place and properly recorded Petechilcott (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
If there are no independent sources available it is probably a good indicator that the proposed subject does not meet our notability guidelines and therefore does not qualify for an article about it.--ukexpat (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I shall go back to the drawing board and try and come up with another tack. I'm finding this difficult to achieve.

Petechilcott (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes what appears to be a "source" is not a "source of information verified by a credible third party". It sounds as if your source is in effect a primary source rather than a work written from a primary source and could count as original research. Now if your source cited statements from original documents then it might fall into being a credible source especially if a credible third party has commented about its credibility. No reflection on any organisation but what they put out may go by what their own people may say without regard as to where in the paper chase it can be found; others have to be able to verify statements after the fact. As you may be aware, original research is not a trait WP wants in its articles. It also has to be remembered that "sources" that are self developed such as the database of the cinema that people and films can contribute on their own without regard to third-party verification may be a source that the layperson may rely on for anecdotal information but you may not want to use it in a PhD dissertation as the basis of your work.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

List of edits as they are made for entire WP

Where do I go to see what edit, particularly for spelling, are recorded so that I can see what misspellings are being found. I generally want to only spell edit as my skills in the other areas are so limited. I have finished with words that I generally know have been misspelled and need to see what else others have come across to apply my system, especially for articles that have very little traffic or the arrangement of the characters is or that people commonly miss them. Thank you.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Srednuas Lenoroc: - The Category:Wikipedia_articles_needing_copy_edit and the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors can always use some help!
You can also type a frequent misspelling of a word into the search box and find the articles where the misspelling occurs. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

What is it they say, "Been there done that" that is why the better identification of what is already being found by others misspelled.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey .Srednuas Lenoroc. Start at Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings/0–9 and continue from there. You will never be done! Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Help with edits to Kalispell Regional Medical Center

A reader contacted Wikimedia regarding an edit which did not seem to appear. If you look at Kalispell Regional Medical Center and the two edits on 20 June, you can see what was intended to be an addition to the article but was accidentally placed within an existing ref. In addition, while the material has a source it was added as a raw URL. I am inviting that person to join in the conversation here and I hope someone will help the editor clean up the edits.S Philbrick(Talk) 17:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, S Philbrick, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have cleaned up the formatting and goten the info out of rhe reference where it didn't belong. What I'm not sure of is whether this is a reliable source or not. Can you comment? DES (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't look at or review the source, just trying to clean out some OTRS questions.S Philbrick(Talk) 19:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The person failed to be able to respond. I copy below what they intended to post:
They ask if the post was accurate, it is national hospital rating: http://www.hospitalsafetyscore.org/h/kalispell-regional-medical-center?findBy=city&city=Kalispell&state_prov=MT&agree=agree&rPos=285&rSort=distance
Click see past grades by C on right. Their quality has declined.
S Philbrick(Talk) 01:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@DESiegel: I see you incorporated the information, thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

deleting wiki acct

how to delete my wikipedia account? Gladys Haiti Alley (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You cannot delete it. You can just stop editing and not use your account any more. You can also read WP:VANISH and see if it applies to what you want to do. RudolfRed (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply. I wonder if I just deleted my content whether that would render my page blank? Or would wikipedia restore the content? Gladys Haiti Alley (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gladys Haiti Alley. You can blank your own user page and/or your user talk page if you wish, or you can add a "retired" banner if you want. But you cannot delete any useful encyclopedia article content that you have created. You donated that irrevocably. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply, Cullen328. It's just the answer I needed because I only wanted to blank my user page and user talk page, since my article was deleted or moved to my user page. Thanks, again. Gladys Haiti Alley (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gladys Haiti Alley: You can also request your userpage to be deleted by placing {{Db-u1}} at the top of it, if you'd like to rid of it completely (since right now, the page's history is still accessible). Note that you can't request that your user talk page be deleted. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Interesting question in the sense that there is a rising tide supporting the "right to disappear" (which does not have an article here or even very many mention). My thinking is that there might be some work to be done on this matter in cases where people have used their real name (or a version of it) as their username ... as I have myself. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

India area articles

For this particular part of the world and articles in WP, while editing misspellings I have come across articles that need some clean up in regards to punctuation, capitalization, expression choice and links probably due to English/American not being the primary language of the writer. I would like to find more of these articles because it gives me an opportunity to work on articles that ordinarily are not worked on by others and seems a waste that people may not be able to access them while in search because of the inconsistencies. Is there a way to zero in on articles from this area of the world and possibly the less developed or reviewed articles. This would be minus the cinema related articles as they seem to have a life of their own. I think that not being from that part of the world but wanting to learn more about it gives me a perspective especially about linking for those characteristic that the native-born may not think significant enough since they grew up with it verses the lay-person from a different experience/situation in the world. Is there an India area of the world list of articles needing attention?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Srednuas Lenoroc. You could try a Catscan search with the following settings:
Categories
India;
Depth
4;
Has any of these templates:
copyedit
copy edit
Using that I found 249 pages. A depth of 5 would likely find more but when I tried it timed out. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
What does depth mean? Thank you. Alec Station (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@Alec Station: Depth means how many levels of subcategories to include. For example, depth 2 means to include subcategories of subcategories. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Editing

Hello. I am needing to edit a page and am completely lost on how to do it! What do I do about dead links? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tari327 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Tari327: Dead external links (to other websites, like in references and "External links" sections), or dead wikilinks (links to other Wikipedia pages)? In the first case, you can try to find where the page has moved to, assuming it hasn't just been deleted entirely. Websites get reorganized sometimes and pages move around, so the page may still be there at a different URL. If it looks like the page doesn't exist anymore, you can just remove the link. If you're talking about red wikilinks, it's fine to leave some in the page if they could reasonably become articles, and you could even create them yourself, if you like. If there are excessive red links, feel free to at least delink some of the less relevant ones, by removing the brackets in the wiki markup so the link becomes normal text. Wikilinks to things that obviously do not need pages of their own can be removed, of course. dalahäst (let's talk!) 09:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
You can use the {{dead link}} template to mark it as something that needs attention. if it was being used as a reference, you should be very careful about removing it, unless it would not have been an appropriate source, anyway. You can find a different source that validates the claim and replace the dead link. You can search the Wayback Machine to see if a version has been stored in its archive. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed the documentqation for {{dead link}} suggests leaving it up for 2 years if the link is not fixed, allowing tome for archives to process their crawl results and update their pages, and for editors to find and supply a valid replacement link, or archive link if possible. DES (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
This may be a good piggy back question. I sometimes read that you have to have caution about dead links since the situation may be just that the host network is down. So how do you tell if a network is down/under maintenance instead of link void?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
@Srednuas Lenoroc: Coming from the public internet, that is a distinction you usually cannot make. If you are really keen on knowing, you could contact the owner of the domain accessible via a WHOIS service. For instance, looking at a recent edit from my watch list, I see the external link http://www.hospitalsafetyscore.org/h/kalispell-regional-medical-center?findBy=city&city=Kalispell&state_prov=MT&agree=agree&rPos=285&rSort=distance mentioned. You can find WHOIS lookups via web searches with "WHOIS" as the search term. Using one, I see that there are email addresses for both the registrant, admin and tech for hospitalsafetyscore.org ... all the same contact information for the same person. If I had questions about whether the domain were live or not, I could use this contact information to place an inquiry. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
AS a practical matter, if you find a link down, wait several days and try again. If it was maintence, or a temporary problem, ther is a good chance it will be back up. If it is still down, the odds that it is a long-term or permenant outage are much higher. DES (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

What is the WP standard about adding a contact of a web link say if the original access was more than 5 years ago? Sometimes, the original link was made years ago and if an internet link was active in say 2005 and then again in 2015 it might be a good idea to show that the link has longevity and thus it might be a technical issue rather than a web site content issue?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Srednuas Lenoroc, if a link is active today and goes to the relevant content, and if it seems reasonably likely to be stable, it may be added today. We don't ask for, and editors usually don't have, any history of how long it has been live. I(n fact, I don't think we even have any standard place to record such information. when using a url in a cite XX template, the "accessdate" parameter should show the most recent date on which the link was accessed and the content was checked to support the citation. If the link should later go dead, acccessdate may be used to help detrmine which archived vrsions to check, if using internetarchive.org or another archive that periodically caches versions of a site. DES (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

What constitutes a Credible Source?

First, let me apologize for being so new to Wikipedia as a contributor (just 3 days). John from Indegon has threaten to ban from here, but I trying my best. Apparently I don't have appropriate sources. At least that appears to be my biggest of many problems.

I am trying to put together a nice page for my High School, where I graduated from in 1971. I used the school's website as a source and that was rejected. I also used the Michigan High School Athletic Association as a source for various state championship won by the school's athletic teams and they were rejected as well. Can anyone help me out? Thanks so much!

donnerpassDonerpass (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

John explained in one of his messages that you need independent sources. While a few sources from the school can be fine, using nothing but sources isn't (one might as well just visit the school's website at that point). This was obviously inappropriate, which is why the warnings have started off so severely. Normally, they would have started off far more gently.
You might want to check our reliable sourcing standards as well. The best sources are academic sources (for example, books by historians), followed by high-quality journalism. Random sports websites are less likely to be accepted. You might also want to read WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTPROMO -- just because sources are reliable doesn't mean that they deserve attention. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Great input. Thank you Ian. I hate being the new kid on the block.

Thanks again. donnerpass2602:306:33CA:4550:AC79:B33F:776C:BA17 (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Donnerpass. Guess I finally got your attention. I am glad. We all were the new kid on the block once. Just to clarify to you, MHSAA is probably the best source available for state championships in Michigan. Your edits were reverted because you were capitalizing them incorrectly. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to have just fixed them for you, but when my initial attempt at collaboratively assisting you was met with what happened at the link above.....I think you get my point.
Some things to keep in mind. The entries here on Wikipedia are not "pages", they are encyclopedia articles. They are not created "for" the school and its community, in fact, that is the one group they are not created for. The target audience for any Wikipedia article is the entire English speaking world. The local community has other resources to learn about the school. Stuff added to a Wikipedia article is not to be slanted in any way. Most adjectives are your enemy when writing an encyclopedia article. There are guidelines for content for school articles. They can be found at WP:SCH/AG.
Again, I will be more than happy to help you in any way I can. Although Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, it takes some skills to edit it well. Any help I can give I am happy to do so. Just drop me a note on my talk page, or come here and ask. happy editing. John from Idegon (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

This brings up an interesting conundrum about such things as sports and other activities at any level of school, especially with the long standing institutions that have as their source material school newspapers as local papers may have been merged over the years and the original titles were not maintained by the newspaper or the area library collections. There are university articles with tables and text of such information without stating a source. How does WP handle this type of occurrence? I imagine it can be created by searching credible newspapers of the area but probably for expediency school newspapers and almanacs are used. As for any "threat" about banning, I wish that someone would revamp the templates commonly used probably solely for expediency rather than degree of content misapplication since they do seem to be rather harsh especially for recent arrivals. This be "nice and respectful" of others seems to get lost. Use the harsh sounding templates on those that egregiously have shown a disregard for the article with a real content intent on vandalism rather than what appears to be an attempt at contributing and is merely in arrears on policy about sources. Concentrate the use of calling something vandalism when it is apparent instead of a violation of a policy a newbie may not totally comprehend based on their experience to date.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Srednuas Lenoroc, School newspapers are often considered low-quality sources, and many editors prefer to avoid them in favor of other sources. But there is no absolute rule against them. Many newspapers, not only school papers, change names or are discontinued. But old editions can often be found in libraries. If they can, such old editions can be used as sources, sources need not be online, as long as they are available to the public. In such a case, iuf using citation templates |quote= allows the editor to specify the exact source text that supports the citation, provided it is not excessivly long.
as to warnign tempaltes, i don't know which one you refer to or in exactly what circumstancs it as used. For most issues there is a seeries of four templates, growing gradualy more "stern" from 1 to 4. Some issues have only a single tempalted message. And an editor can always alter the standard tempalted messsage if it doesn't quite fit the situation, or choose to leave an individualized message instead. Most of the relevant tempaltes are listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. DES (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I hope this is not a situation of semantics but listen to that has been said, "First, let me apologize for being so new to Wikipedia as a contributor (just 3 days). John from Indegon has threaten to ban from here....." This is the impression made by the template sent "them". They felt threatened. I have never received that particular template but I have read other people's talk pages where it has been sent. You use the word stern. Well, maybe it is a situation of the anonymity of the internet. If I were in a situation of face-to-face I would be VERY CAUTIOUS about saying as much to someone. If I were in someone's personal space and said to as much for whatever infraction caused I would consider that behavior rude especially if it is from someone that I have had absolutely no previous interaction. That impression I can clearly understand that "Donerpass" has from the experience. I do not know much about California but I do know about the Donner Party and that the pass is in the mountains. Where I live the mountains are not populated by the masses as are the flatlands. When you communicate with others it does take reasonable amount of finesse in how you communicate with others in an area that you have more to loose than gain by being so "stern". If that is the impression made to a newbie then it has to be recognized. As for the use of such a stern message I have seen following some of the edits I have made to articles the changes that can only be characterized as vandalism because the content had absolutely nothing to do with the article. The latter I would deem appropriate for such a stern message but for a newbie that has trespassed on sources it seems a bit too far. If the impression made to a newbie is "threaten" then the implications of such a template possibly can cause a more defensive stance than conciliatory by the presumed offenders. Again, if this is a template of first warning that gives the impression of threat then the implications of that template seriously need to be reviewed and used in more appropriate situations than what was experienced by this particular contributor. Of any one, a more experienced contributor should know the implications of how they present themselves. Again, you have a newbie that felt threatened. That is the impression that they have come away with during this experience. Is that a good impression? The only thing I can surmise from the situation is that they could be words of someone wanting to pick a fight. I do not expect for any one to understand that because we all have different experiences and conditions in our lives but for an "isolated" person from the mountains that impression can be a result.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit Wars

Prior discussion: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 240#Accurate vs. Concise

Several months ago, I had a question on balancing accuracy and being concise (unfortunately, I do not know how to link to my question for reference).

As background to my initial question, Person 1 made edits to tv episodes summaries that greatly improved their accuracy but greatly exceeded the word limit.

Person 2 undid the edits in order to have the summaries fit a word limit but reverted the edits and, thus, reverted the summaries to their inaccurate state.

Person 3 redid all the edits, arguing for accuracy.

Person 2 re-undid all the edits, arguing for conciseness.

Eventually, I came along and increased the accuracy and reduced the words in each of the summaries in order to make everyone happy. I also asked a question on here asking whether accuracy or conciseness was greater.

The individual answering my question said that accuracy was more important. However, the individual also said that Person 1 was responsible for starting an edit war, whereas I assumed that Person 2 started it.

Is this person right?

Also, if Person 1 actually is responsible and he just edited the page (rather than initiate or propagate the edit war), then how can we be proactive about preventing edit wars? Coulson Lives (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Coulson Lives! You might not like this answer but it depends. You'll find that portions of an article like plot or episode summary vary quite a bit from article to article. You'll find some articles with several paragraphs outlining what happened in a story while different articles will just have one sentence summing up the plot.
The "official" guidelines can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Plot summaries (and several links in that section as well) but within this guideline what is next in importance is editor consensus. Editors that focus on editing this particular series should discuss this the format of plot summaries on the article talk page and come to some agreement so that there won't be lot of reverting back and forth. I encourage you to initiate this discussion if it isn't already happening. It sounds like there is currently some disagreement so there will probably be a variety of arguments put forth. But since often the same editors work on articles pertaining to a specific TV show, it's important that you come to a resolution you can all live with. If not, dispute resolution is that a way. Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@Coulson Lives please clarify what you mean by "word limit". How/who/when/where was it decided that there should be a word limit? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
@Roger (Dodger67) Person 2 was the first to mention the word limit once he reverted the edits made by Person 1. When I chatted with him about the word limit (so that I could satisfy Persons 1,2,3) he claimed that the word limit was 200 words and referenced a page on Wikipedia. However, I do not know where the page is. Coulson Lives (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Coulson Lives, It seems thsat the reference was to WP:FILMPLOT or a related page. But note that that guideline page says, in part: "The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction‍ '​s non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.)" Which makes it clear that this is not a rule set in stone. See also MOS:PLOT. DES (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
On the subject of edit wars and responsibility for them, my feeling would be that if Person 1 only made the one edit, they did not edit war by any stretch. However, they may have been disruptive in another way. If there is an ongoing debate or recent tenuous concensus, editing too boldly can be disruptive. It is better to discuss or go for dispute resolution. Furthermore, if some of the reverts were carried out by editors who are known to regularly back up Person 1, that can be tag teaming. However, I seriously doubt Person 1 could be succesfully accused of actual edit warring in particular.
To avoid accidentally opening a can of worms, my first step when coming to a new article is to quickly scan the talk page and edit history. That way I can try to gauge how controversial my edits will be, and what concerns I should keep in mind. In really contentious articles, I tend to get involved on the talk page first. Good edit summaries are also good for avoiding knee-jerk reversion. I also try to avoid reverting edits with salvageable content. If I do, I leave a clear edit summary and often a message to the editor I have reverted. Politeness and communication can help prevent edit wars. That being said, please don't let the fear stop you from making informed, good faith bold edits. Just know that you may be called upon to justify and discuss those edits. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
In regards to activity with the edits of an article, if there are particular contributors involved over a time period you may approach them with a message on their talk page about what you would like to do. If they disagree then ask them why. If there is a continued conflict then take it to the article talk page. If there is no conflict then try an edit. If it proceeds to a 3revert then take it to the attention of the appropriate WP hierarchy for consensus arbitration. Despite the guidelines, plots can be a bucket of ants when it comes to what stays although more concise AND fulfilling plots can be developed. What some secondary editors look for is consensus building activity rather than contention. The added effort at the beginning clearly can show that you are being conscientious and following the WP ways.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Images of school logos

I'm very new here and I'm sure this question has been asked a numerous amount of times (but I'm not sure how to navigate this page). How exactly do I place an image on a wikipedia page? I want a school logo and have an image in mind but the html does not seem to coordinate (it does not show up when I simply insert the url. Pretty sure that's a bad place to start. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated :)

Peacekeepurwar (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Peacekeepurwar. You cannot hotlink to images. Instead any image used here has to be uploaded – either to the Wikimedia Commons (only for free media) or here. For a school's logo, that would likely be non-free copyrighted - if it passes threshold of originality. If it's not much more than lettering, you can upload it to the Commons. See e.g. File:Sony logo.svg to emulate if this is applicable.

If non-free on the other hand (highly likely), then it would have to be uploaded locally and could only be used in the article on the school it is the logo of (nowhere else), under a claim of fair use in that specific article. For some of the nitty-gritty, see Wikipedia:Non-free content.

If this is applicable, you would start by uploading it at Special:Upload (there is a file upload wizard, but it is in my view way overcomplicated, especially if you've been given advice about what the page must contain, which I will get to right now). The upload must include a copyright license template and a fair use rationale, and the image itself must be at relatively low resolution (there is no exact formula but think about 200 to 300 pixels × 200 to 300 pixels). For a file you might emulate, see File:Oberlin College Seal.png – click edit at the top of that file's page and see the code inside; that's what you'd be cribbing from. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Fuhghettaboutit

How to edit an article on a notable architect?

I have been writing an article on a notable architect (accepted as such by the editors) which has eventually been declined as reading too much like an advertisement, despite having a huge number of external references which support his notability. As the architect in question has been in practice for four decades and is the most decorated in his domain I have tried to edit the list of his notable works and the long list of his awards to focus on the most prominent. I have also included a list of his publications and articles about him in other journals. If Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, why would I want to provide less than a comprehensive article on this person? I am at a loss to know how to do a better job. I would be happy to point an experienced editor to the article in question to get some more precise guidance. Thanks.Orbitzoll (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Orbitzoll, I suppose this would be Draft:Robert Morris-Nunn. It is as much a matter of tone ans anything else. Phrases such as: "He uses architecture to tell stories about place and to inspire consideration of the social and environmental impacts of the buildings he designs" and "Morris-Nunn’s collaborative approach has led to his working with many other creative Tasmanians[5], including Man Booker Prize winning author, Richard Flanagan, eminent structural engineer, Jim Gandy [6]and Master of Australian Craft and furniture maker, Kevin Perkins" may be sourced, but the the WP:PUFFERY in the adjectives is not acceptable, unless it is the opnion of the source, in whoch case it must be quoted and explicitly attributed. The lists of awards and publications are much too long, in my opnion. Only the most significant ones should be included, perhaps with a link to a page (external?) that does have a complete list. The comments from the previous reviewers should be taken seeriously. I hope that helps a bit. DES (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Orbitzoll. You include a big long list of completed projects, including words of praise for the various projects. The majority of the references in that list are to the architect's own website. It is not appropriate to use a person's own website to determine which projects are notable. It is even less appropriate to cite praise of their work to their own website. A Wikipedia article must be based primarily on what independent reliable sources say about the topic. The subject's own website is not an acceptable source for praise or evaluation of importance or significance. This encyclopedia is based on the neutral point of view, and what people say about themselves is never neutral. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion tag

If the image file is marked with deletion tag,{{delete|reason=}} and it is on "Commons:Deletion requests" Who will remove the tag or delete the file permanently? 182.185.67.18 (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. The Teahouse answers questions about editing the English Wikipedia. Wikimedia Commons is a separate project with different goals and with its own policies and guidelines. The decision will be made by an administrator there, and we have no influence over the matter here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

how to verify my page is not same as another wikipedia page that has the same name?

My page is not yet approved, and it says 'Warning: The page already exists. Please verify that it is not a copy of this submission and that this page does not need to be moved to a different title' but it doesn't say how. So, how? Ghm33 (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ghm33: If you simply type the name of the page into the search bar, it will open the page if that page exists. (Alternately, you could open another article, then replace the name of that article with the article you want to check in the address bar.) In this case, it's a redirect: Epal redirects to Enterprise Privacy Authorization Language currently. You've submitted your draft already, so you don't need to do anything else for the moment. If your draft is positively reviewed and ready to become an article, you can address it at that time. Most likely, the redirect would be replaced with the new page, and a hatnote would be added to the top, with text along the lines of "This article is about X. For Y, see Z." dalahäst (let's talk!) 07:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@Dalahäst: Thank you Dalahäst yes I had seen that page and I meant to add a link to it after it was approved. I thought that maybe there was something to click or whatever to indicate I recognize there was a similarly named article. I suspected I didn't need to do anything like you mentioned, I suppose the instructions should be improved into saying what you just said, that there will be a hatnote added to the top with text, etc. Thanks again.

Userpage problem

On my userpage in this section I am unable to type that I have recently begun working on NPOV disputes and I genuinely have no idea why. When I try it reads 'I have recently begun working on.' Thanks, Rubbish computer 18:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

  Done When linking to a category, you must use [[:Category:NPOV disputes|NPOV disputes]] rather than [[Category:NPOV disputes|NPOV disputes]]. Without the leading colon, you put your user page into Category:NPOV disputes rather than linking to the category. You can also use {{cat}} to link to categories, it avoids this error. DES (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Thank you. Rubbish computer 09:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

profile page

Hello, how do I put the boxes and stylish information on my page? Are there templates available? Thank you. Alec Station (talk) 06:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

You are probably looking for an Infobox, and you can add it on your profile.The best way to do this is to look at Help:Infobox, and from there you can get what you are probably asking for. Your welcome if this helped! Pezminer12 (talk) 08:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Alec Station. Your question is rather unclear. I guess you are talking about User:Alec Station/Lisa Casagrande: if so, Pezminer12's reply is spot on - but please bear in mind that it is not "your page", and that what you are creating is not a "profile" but an "article". On the other hand, if you are talking about your user page (which is the only thing on Wikipedia which is even close to either a "profile" or "my page"), then you need to look at Help:Userbox. --ColinFine (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@Alec Station: Hi, although your user page is yours to edit and others shouldn't edit it unless there is something there that shouldn't be like vandalism, typos amongst other things, you may want to read the article WP:OWN, which states that no editor owns an article, others can make changes and you cannot prevent them from doing so. Thanks and happy editing. TeaLover1996 (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@TeaLover1996: @ColinFine: I'm sorry for the confusion. I am referring to the boxes that state what languages and preferences and memberships at Wikipedia. For example [3] I tried to copy a very colourful one I saw but I could not get it to look decent as everything was all over the place! Alec Station (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Yup, those are userboxes, Alec Station. The link I provided gives information about what is available, and how to lay them out. The User page design center might help as well. --ColinFine (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_353&oldid=1038444212"