Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 131

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Wikipedia talk page as a Discussion forum/Chat Room

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not describes a widely accepted standards that all editors should follow. Half way down that page you find WP:NOTFORUM, part 4 of which tells us that Wikipedia not a Discussion forum. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines says Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject.

Am I being too concerned/fussy over this? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you are. The section you started labelled "Remember folks Wikipedia not a Discussion forum/Chat Room/Debating Society" now has over 3,000 words of the same endless discussion. If editors can't reach agreement on something, they should 1) agree to disagree and move on, or 2) request outside comment or dispute resolution. A perpetual back-and-forth of trying to score rhetorical points off each other, in the vague hope that one of them is going to somehow "win" the argument, is not what a talk page is for.--Trystan (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

What would be an appropriate way to stop discussion forum like use of the talk page? Rab V (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This discussion has led to Newimpartial, H Remster, and I finding consensus on something close to: "A Trans woman is a person of the female gender who was assigned male at birth." Now the question is whether the previous RfC already addressed this. The discussion shouldn't be shut down just as it's making progress. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This is true. We're at 1 now. Possibly this has been missed because both the termination of the "rhetorical points" discussion and the progress of the more fruitful discussion have taken place further up the page. For the former, see my post from 20:14, 19 August 2020 in the section referred to above (I'm afraid I can't work out how to link to it), for which the other editor thanked me and moved on. For the latter, see the section Talk:Trans_woman#Created_new_subpage_to_collect_definitions, which has been entirely constructive apart from my early intervention in the "Straw tally" section. For the record, I have no interest in scoring rhetorical points; I was just doing a really awful job of conveying to someone with a different academic background my thoughts about the intelligibility of the first sentence of the article to the non-specialist reader, and it got heated. Now we're making progress, I'd be perfectly happy for my comments outside Talk:Trans_woman#Created_new_subpage_to_collect_definitions to be deleted if appropriate. H Remster (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you can strike through your own words H Remster if it would help make things clearer for other readers. I doubt if we can delete them.

I am seeing light at the end of the tunnel. I must positively admit after a very very very long journey I can now see some fruit emerging (not saying if its useful fruit atm). Apologies for some of my doubts. However 3 folks agreeing on page like Trans Woman after what seemed like an endlessly long and tortious impenetrable private chat room fencing match (which was at times off putting)...is not really a new majority when compared to the huge RfC two years ago. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I haven't said a word about the significance of three-editor consensus! H Remster (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Accepted (you did not). ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Wrong Information

All the information posted about waqar zaka is either wrong or fake details, I request you to please fix it or else allow me to fix, Mr Waqar Zaka has asked me to move legally against all the information posted against him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaheryar Shabbir (talk • contribs) 12:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

If you are aware of false information in the article Waqar Zaka, please give details, preferably with supporting references, at its talk page. I see you have already asked there "Kindly delete all the wrong information", but you've said nothing about which information is wrong, let alone provided any evidence. Maproom (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Maproom, The claim is that All the information posted about waqar zaka is either wrong or fake details. I could just nominate the article for deletion, that would solve the problem. Vexations (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Seeking advice on how/whether to proceed

I have suggested edits on the talk page of this article. I suggested them indirectly because I have a COI, which I have disclosed with a tag on the page. I would like to have a dialog about those suggestions (and additional ones based on subsequent research) with the editor who responded to my request for edits, or another editor(s) (preferably other, because I feel that my motives are misunderstood by the one who responded). My hope is to work more collaboratively with someone to add new content to this article. I am more than willing to accept a veto of any given part of my entire request, but I don't think that everything in it is inappropriate for Wikipedia (I have read other articles about politicians that have very similar content to what I am suggesting--See, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Blood#:~:text=Carol%20Blood%20(born%20March%205,member%20of%20the%20Democratic%20Party).

You can find my additional discussions with the editor who responded to my request by searching for Melanie A. Stansbury on his talk page and on my talk page (entire page). Thank you. BiostatSci (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)BiostatSci

Editor assistance requested / reporting negatively biased editing and possible vandalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Errico

Hello, I would like to request assistance and report vandalism by someone who is continually policing that page in a seemingly biased/negative nature:

The user Grandpallama (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Grandpallama) is negatively mis-characterizing professional accomplishments AND repeatedly removing cited, sourced and accurate information.

Myself and several other users have addressed these issues via edits and also in the Talk page with Grandpallama, but the user has not taken any of that into account and has continued this negative editing behavior each time it is attempted to be resolved.

Any assistance you can provide would be greatly appreciated and I thank you in advance for taking time to read this.

2604:2000:1480:8B72:78CA:B539:8682:1AA0 (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I see that you and Grandpallama have been discussing things on the article's talk page, as you should. I see no evidence of bias, and certainly not of vandalism, by Grandpallama. Your case might look stronger if you withdrew those accusations. It would also help if you registered and used an account – a long-standing editor with thousands of edits has more credibility than an IP address with only five edits, four of them to the same article. Maproom (talk) 10:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Maproom. The history of this article, specifically of IPs and SPAs that have appeared to puff up less notable aspects of Errico's career, or to add peacock, promotional language, led me to suspect COI and place a corresponding notice on the talkpage some time ago. There are other telltale signs, too, that require only minimal digging. Grandpallama (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Upgrading Article Quality?

Hi this is RJ Bustami, and I wrote and edited the WikiProject Medicine page on Brief Resolved Unexplained Events (BRUE). I took a lot of time in researching the topic, writing a lot of information, and adding to the source list as well as getting it peer-reviewed during a WikiProject course earlier this year. How can I start the process of upgrading the Quality of the article, as it is currently labelled as a "Stub" article, which was the label prior to my additions and edits?

Best, RJ--Rjbustami (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

You can request a reassesesment on the medicine project page. Specifically Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment_or_re-assessment. ---- Work permit (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Seeking editor advice on how to proceed

I have been subject to language from an editor on my talk page that is insulting and inappropriate. Looking to stay cordial and productive but the editor in question makes that difficult since the editor appears to weigh in on most of the edits and additions for the page. I am offering suggestions and have for over two years had a COI template on my personal talk page. Since this is the first time I am experiencing language from another editor that seems inappropriate, I am seeking advice on how to proceed.

Thank you, Hello-Mary-H (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328 has criticised your attempts to add misinformation to an article. The language he has used appears to me clear but civil. If you find his criticism hard to handle, you should stop trying to get misinformation added to the article (you're unlikely to succeed anyway). Maproom (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Maproom: Thank you. On my personal talk page, messages from Cullen328 include language such as: "My volunteer time is valuable. I do not get paid like you do. Please stop wasting my time with this baloney." Was curious to hear from others if that approach is common. Thank you. Hello-Mary-H (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello-Mary-H: it's not common. But neither are explicit requests to add misinformation. Maproom (talk) 07:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Bibliography

Imelda Marcos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hi, I removed a bibliography per WP:NOTDIR here. Some editors on the talk page are asserting this breaks some references, but I dont have any knowledge of how this appartently old ref system works. Can someone please have a look and advise if this indeed broken the refs, or if it is just WP:TE on the article (as this article suffers from WP:TOOMUCH in general), and removing content always results in complaints. I am trying to figure out if this really breaking something and if so how to fix what is broken so the directory can be removed. Also being discussed here on the talk page Talk:Imelda_Marcos#Bibliography. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

That article uses a confusing mixture of the usual referencing method and "Harvard-style references", where the reference looks something like "Ellison 1988, p. 134" with "Ellison 1988" being defined in the bibliography. So your removal of the bibliography would have rendered many of the references unusable. Maproom (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Merging student work to a current "stub"

Hi, I would want to move a completed student's work. However, the move was hit by a standing stub. I would like to propose a merge, but it is not controversal, and Twinkle failed (I think this is intentional though). How can I do that, or where can I find assistance?

The page: Papillary_renal_cell_carcinomas, and the student's work:User:Angksehwjs/Papillary renal cell carcinoma--1233 ( T / C） 07:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@1233:, it appears that Delta1020 and Angksehwjs were collaborating on this draft as between them they have contributed all the text. Their contributions stop on April 27 so possibly this was a class project that was never completed. In any event, the text at the user draft is far superior and merger is a good idea. The merger instructions here explain manually merging two articles and how to preserve contribution history. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@1233 and Eggishorn:

Done There wasn't really anything to merge. Since the stub was at Papillary renal cell carcinomas (notice the plural) I moved the draft to the singular form at Papillary renal cell carcinoma and redirected the old stub there. Let me know if you need more help. — Wug·a·po·des 23:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Steve Scully, biden intern

why was the wikipedia page of steve scully allowed to be scrubbed of references of his ties to biden on the eve of his being announced as a moderator in the presidential debates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C56:6708:5DE:A0:4B24:EBDD:F2A2 (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

You should discuss this at Talk:Steve Scully. It will help if you specify there which edit you regard as "scrubbing". Maproom (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Sandbox for user Asadbhatty

I want to move my sandbox to another page with a specific title. It has been a couple of weeks since I requested a move, as I do not have access to a 'move' button. I also want help linking sources for many of the facts I have given in my article.

Asadbhatty (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC) - Asad Bhatty

If you reveal where you'd like it moved to, someone might move it for you. But User:Asadbhatty/sandbox is certainly not ready for a move to article space; for one thing, it cites no sources at all, and so fails to establish that its subject is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Maproom (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

please help the wiki China English presentation with correct information but not the propaganda lies for the chinese Communist party.

i just find out that china wiki presentation become the chinese communist party propaganda tool to scam english speakers to misunderstand the chinese history and hide the ccp massacre blooding history. please rewrite the wiki presentation of china or write in people republic of china to stop misleading people who search for china presentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.0.245.13 (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Someone added unsourced information that is inaccurate to undermine our movement. ADOS

Someone keeps editing this page with an Agenda. Ados was on the cover of the NY Times in print. And has chapters across the country. Please block the person adding this to our page. Or just remove the page if you cant monitor it properly. This is the inaccurate line: "It is a group of about 60 people in the Atlanta, Georgia area, as of early 2020" --

The source they are using is a local Atlanta news site piece on one single chapter in Atlanta which is 60 people. That is not ADOS nationally. Our movement didn't start in Atlanta its nationally in cities across the country. There has been coverage of ADOS from the print cover of the New York Times, ABC and CNN. Marianne Williamson and Cornell attended our conference.

The source clearly says it this is just that single chapter remove this immediately. Lawson describes ADOS as a loosely formed confederation of people interested in reparations and political advocacy that has grown to about 60 in number in Atlanta.

I removed the line and they add it back. Please remove it permanently. It is inaccurate.

ARTICLE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Descendants_of_Slavery

  Truthsayer21 (talk) 01:19, 07 September 2020 (UTC)

Although Truthsayer21 is correct, he hasn't stated his COI in relationship to ADOS. Doug Weller talk 17:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

How to deal with someone that deletes sourced content based on personal opinion

In Turkish people page, I'm adding dictionary definition of the term (from Oxford and Merriam dictionaries), since it seems to confuse some people, and another editor is undoing the change based on his/her personal opinion. It's just the two of us in talk page, she/he claims their opinion is consensus. What's the next step? Bogazicili (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Help with distrubtive editor

Answered

Hi, user 41.254.66.237 have done distrubtive edits that are against the source in the article Arabs in Sweden now for almost a month. I have not got the time to undo his edits everytime, so could you please find somekind of solution to this? Velivieras (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you attempt to make a case for page protection at WP:RPP. I'd note that the IP editor has stated "scb.se" as a source for their change in the edit comments. Before seeking page protection, you might want to consider whether that is or is not a legitimate source (I have no idea one way or the other). If it is, then attempting to keep the information out of the article might boomerang on you. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Photo deletion & position

Answered

Hello,

I uploaded the same photo twice and would like the one without the caption deleted but I don't know how. Also, I'm not sure but is it possible to get the photo up in near the body of text? Right now it's in a weird place where nobody will see it. It's the beach photo here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cow_Head_(town)

Thanks! RBOW — Preceding unsigned comment added by A bag of rabbid weasels (talk • contribs) 17:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixed by another editor. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

REPORTING RACISM ON WIKIPEDIA

I would like to report RACISM by user Salix Alba who is haunting me and deleting everything I edit because I am BLACK and he is RACIST AND HAUNTING ME AND HE HATES PICTURES OF BLACK ARTISTS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muranda wa She (talk • contribs) 17:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

For context this user added several images of himself playing Handpan drums to several pages. These images all had special effects filters added resulting in images like

there are 7 or 8 such images on commons and I have listed them for deletion on commons as they out of scope for the project, by not being quality images where its clear to see details. I had also removed these images for several wikipedia pages. --Salix alba (talk): 18:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Editor now blocked.[[1]] --Salix alba (talk): 18:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Assistance with an Article for Creation

Hello!

I am currently working on my first ever Article for Creation! I am here to ask for assistance with said AfC which is for Kurt Kerns (Draft:Kurt Kerns), who was a member of the band Gravity Kills and is now a notable architect operating out of Missouri, US.

The Article for Creation has hit numerous blocks for not passing notability guidelines, and just recently an editor Rejected the draft. After discussing the topic at length with this editor, he told me that he was not convinced. He did mention that I should try to ask another editor for their opinion, so that brings me here.

I would love for any editor to take a look at the page if they have time and let me know what you think! If you look at the draft's talk page, you can see the dialogue I had with the other editor about the AfC meeting the WP:AUTHOR guidelines, and his reasoning for Rejecting. I do not agree with his reasons, but I am interested in learning what other editors think of this issue.

Any assistance would be much appreciated, and I look forward to receiving your input. Thank you!

Calvin Foss (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The draft has been declined twice, and then rejected. You have done what you can to demonstrate that Kerns is notable, and failed. My advice is that you should find a better direction for your time and effort. Maproom (talk) 11:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Antifa

Why is this posted as an anti fascist group? And not allowed to be edited? Yes it's what the name says, but the group it self isn't. It basically exudes fascism in our country. Suppressing any opinion they disagree with. How is that not fascist? Please publish them as a fascist organization. Cause it's the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reynoldsag1 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I assume you have convincing, reliable sources for that stance? The Banner talk 13:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what country Reynoldsag1 regards as "our country", he doesn't say. I would regard a bunch of people in black shirts who use violence to suppress free speech as fascist. You want references? Try https://www.post-journal.com/opinion/local-commentaries/2020/06/antifa-the-left-wing-version-of-fascism/ (I haven't read it, it's not available here in Europe) and this https://medium.com/@antonymueller/how-fascist-is-the-antifa-a3ad70b19c9a . Maproom (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Maproom:, just an observation: When an editor asks for "convincing, reliable sources" an editor with nearly fourteen years of experience here should know better than to present an opinion piece from a sports broadcaster in their local paper they admit to not having read and a blog-hosting site generally recognized as unreliable. All those demonstrate is that at least two people agree that antifa is fascist. It's a heck of a leap from two people agreeing with the OP here to stating something as fact. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Antifa are Marxist, not fascist. Not that the end result is any different. Either end of the political spectrum is equally vile and repressive. SolarFlash^Discussion 01:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Close enough Fascism is a political ideology that espouses that individuals and corporations should operate to maximize the benefit to the state. It rejects the idea that the state should serve the people individually and in that way is more similar to monarchy then democratic or communist countries. Fascism is not just a blanket pejorative against authoritarianism. In that way the author of the comment is both right and wrong as common usage of the term has shifted its meaning (by including Franco and others into this term and other more recent popular usages) to include any politically regressive movement that is overly nationalistic or smells of authoritarianism. And as words are defined by popular usage . . .. Basically you cant call them fascist's because they fit neither definition as they are left wing and not speaking on behalf of the needs of the state, but you could say they are not anti fascists in the strict usage, but they are in the modern one192.26.8.4 (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

SolarFlash The end result isn't the same yet opposite. Please keep your political bias to yourself. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Reynoldsag1 Here is a free encyclopedia. Antifa is antifa. Facts don't care about your feelings. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Help in editing Frances Chinwendu Theodora Okeke Wikipedia page to standard.

Iceone2000 (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC) Kindly help put Frances Chinwendu Theodora Okeke Wikipedia page to standard so as to avoid problems and deleting.

Regards

Courtesy link: Draft:Frances Chinwendu Theodora Okeke. You'll need to find and cite some reliable independent published sources. See notability. Maproom (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect re-direct

When searching for information about the actor Amir Talai I discovered that the English page about the actor has been re-directed to a page about womens march: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Women%27s_March#Signage

Can someone change this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryemNasri (talk • contribs) 21:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. The redirect page Amir Talai is a member of nine categories, so an article must once have existed. But I can't find any deletion discussion. Maproom (talk) 07:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@MaryemNasri:, @Maproom:, the original Amir Talai article was deleted Feb 14 2017 by Kurykh as a result of this discussion. The current redirect was created on Jan 18 2020 by Miraclepine "to draw attention to draft" but no such draft appears in any logs. MP is currently not available to clarify which draft they may have meant. The redirect page can be expanded into an article by any editor, provided there are sufficient sources. In the three years since the deletion, there may have been significant coverage but I haven't checked. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

CivicActions

Hi. I need help for fixing the bias in CivicActions, for which the article is signed for speedy deletion. I have tried my best to provide information from the objective actions of the company, while I have (very likely) missed some bias that damages the neutrality. I am currently trying to fix it as much as I can, but a delete and fundamental rewrite is suggested so I need your help to fix it. Hope you can help me saving the article by editing it. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Comrade-yutyo:, as it is now, speedy deletion is completely appropriate as this is plainly a piece of promotion. Including a list of all employees and using the company's descriptions of its projects are massive red flags. It is possible that an article about this company could be created but it would need to demonstrate notability under Wikipedia guidelines, i.e., significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. An article would also need to comply with the Core Content Policies of Neutral Point of View (e.g., not "CivicActions is said to love those technologies"), Verifiability, and No Original Research. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: the respectable organization is mentioned in some articles like Defective by Design but with blank interlink. It was obvious that its a notable org to write article about but the content of it is of course editable. I will do that and ask help about it. You don't need to delete it, let's just edit it. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Comrade-yutyo:, just for clarity's sake: the presence of a redlink does not make it obvious that the redlink target is notable. I see you've done a lot of work in the meantime which has improved the article and that Chlod has removed the speedy delete tag. In the future, the "Contest this speedy deletion" button on the pink template box will generally get better results than posting here. At this point, it is not a promotional piece and it complies more closely with the policies I mentioned above. Congratulations on the improvements. I would suggest that the citations be improved from bare urls to actual citation templates. You can find more information about that at this link. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding a solved case but can't refer per Wikipedia standards

Good morning,

The case of Edgar Latulip, who went missing in 1986, has been solved in 2016. He suddenly remembered his identity and a DNA check proved that he was indeed Latulip.

Articles from CBC, Canada Broadcasting Corporation: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/ktichener-missing-man-30-years-1.3443529 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/kitchener-missing-man-30-years-amazing-end-for-edgar-latulip-1.3445455

I was told that CBC is not a reliable source. Now what?

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2FB4:4C80:AD85:F4B5:FFA4:5DFB (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you want to add info to an existing WP-article, if so, which, or do you want to create a new article about Edgar Latulip? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, I can't find where you may have been told CBC is not a reliable source but I think there may have been some misunderstanding. While we have no article about Edgar Latulip, you are free to add this information to the List of solved missing persons cases article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Please help me.

I made this account by mistake. I was checking if Wikipedia knows that this is a fake email address when the format and all is correct, and it did. I gave www.none.cares44@gmail.com. I want to be anonymous user, not NZC Meow. Please DELETE MY ACCOUNT. I don't know how to delete my account. So please please help.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NZC Meow (talk • contribs) 11:59, September 16, 2020 (UTC)

@NZC Meow:, a couple of things: The main one is that it is not possible to delete Wikipedia accounts. If you don't want to contribute under this name simply don't sign in using this username. Your only contributions under this username are requests to delete the account so there is not harm that can come if you stop using it. The edit summary of "Delete my account I will die if you don't" you made for this edit suggests that you may have some other issues going on. If you truly believe that having this user name is a threat to your safety please immediately email emergency@wikimedia.org with details of the threat. If you contribute in the future, under another username or as an anonymous user, then please add new posts at the bottom of a talk page using the "New Section" tab at the top and please sign your posts. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Reactionary and malign editing activity

Disregard this section. Article previously mentioned in It's current form seems acceptable unless other sources come to light. Thank you.

--JLavigne508 (talk) 06:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Outside sources

Hello. This is in relation to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Manic_Kat_Records

My most recent comment on rejection was saying that the article did not have enough independent sources. What makes the sources in my article, besides referencing the labels website, not independent? Thank you.

Afar13 (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Afar13: I've replied with assistance at Draft talk:Manic Kat Records. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect information

Today, one featured article is:Ealdred (archbishop of York). The individual lived in the 9th century. In the article, it states he traveled to Jerusalem in 2020. Obviously this would be incorrect. I do not know the correct date , if there is one and I don't understand how to use the "talk" page. I do not know what to do.66.189.136.42 (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. The vandalism has already been reverted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

How do I set the size of an infobox image?

I put an image in a military person infobox using Wikimedia Commons, but it is way too big. How do I make it appear smaller? I tried using image_size but I can't find what it wants me to input.

mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 12:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Mossypiglet, Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! Add |#px. For example, [[Cool Image.png|120px]], will shrink it. HeartGlow ^(talk) 12:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I did it for you, hope you liked it. Feel free to play around with it though, happy editing! HeartGlow ^(talk) 12:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@HeartGlow30797: Thanks so much!

mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 13:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Help to back the article which is deleted on 18:24, 17 August 2020 by GeneralNotability talk contribs deleted page Jolly Silks (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (TW)) (thank)

I just done my edits in a manner i respect the wikipedia guidelines , if you still think im like come under Unambiguous advertising, please some one edit and backup the article. Bibinkerala (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Jolly Silks has now been Speedy Deleted. Maproom (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bibinkerala:, please see the response to your previous undeletion request at this link. As Hut 8.5 noted, you should have first asked the administrator who deleted it but it is not likely to be undeleted. Please see this link: ...content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:...Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about ... local companies are typically unacceptable. emphasis in original I hope that helps explain the deletion a little better. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Please help me

Hello,

Some one from this notice board please help me improving my RfC @ Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies#RfC Whether to allow Ibn Warraq and Swami Vivekananda opinions in the article? and shift the same to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

data ip ban

add language links to wikidata for this en Iran-China 25-year Cooperation Program fa برنامه 25 ساله همکاری های مشترک ایران و چین Baratiiman (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

How to deal with an aggressive editor?

I tried adding reliable material, but User:CaradhrasAiguo claimed this was debunked. Accused me of being an advocacy account. Gave me reliable sources warning [2], when I was using reliable news sources. Makes rude comments and claims I was attacking him [3].

What are the steps I can take here? Thanks! Bogazicili (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The unsourced warning was for Talk:Turkish_people#Use of "native to" in lead sentence, for which you had not previously been warned. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

That seems like another fake accusation, I have discussed it in the talk page of that article with other editors. You also didn't specify that in your warning. Also that warning was too soon after what happened in Uyghur genocide, so I find your claim unlikely.Bogazicili (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I simply forgot the parameter in the Twinkle software since I had not edited at Talk:Turkish people or Turkish people. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I did not add anything unsourced in Turkish people article. I hope anyone reading this can take a look at that article too in addition to your behaviour. Bogazicili (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

See the above facetious report by the above editor. They are doubling down on the WP:HOUND WP:ASPERSION-casting. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I did not see your edits in China, and you also reverted me there right after reverting me in Uyghur article. You said I'm doubling down but you linked to your own edit. I'm also tired of your rude and aggressive language such as "retract...at once", "The next time you make up shite like that", etc, so I will not be responding to you any further here. I hope someone else can take a look at this.Bogazicili (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC) (Edit: Now that you changed the link, I undid your edit in my talk page due to your general rude language "retract...at once" Bogazicili (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC))

William the Carpenter

In your article "William the Carpenter", you state that William was related to Hugh 1, Count of Vermandois and Philip 1 of France. How are they related? Thank you. Ihaveaquesti (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Request resolving dispute with user Potaman considering my edit on the page "Backtracking line search"

I am writing concerning Potaman keeping deleting my post.

You can see from the history page here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Backtracking_line_search&action=history

At 7:18, 24 September I already removed my paper in the reference and wrote neutrally. However, he has kept deleting my post, and uses reasons like "the paper is not generally accepted", "the paper does not have enough citations", "the paper does not appear in the top 10 when he searched GoogleScholar with the term Backtracking line search", "I violated the Self-citing of Wikipedia"...

When I answered 1 of these, he popped up with one new reason, and keeps going.

I asked him what does he mean by "not generally accepted", or "not have enough citations", according to Wikipedia's policy, but he did not reply. On the other hand, he keeps inventing new reasons after I replied to his old reasons.

So I hope that you can resolve this issue. I think he is trying to obstruct me with spreading useful knowledge on Wikipedia.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Best regards,

Tuyentruongoslo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuyentruongoslo (talk • contribs) 21:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that Potaman is correct here, Tuyentruongoslo. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research, which all this appears to be. Editors aren't "making posts" here (noticeboards and talk pages aside), they are improving articles. We're not here to discuss ideas, we're trying to summarize what reliable, secondary sources state about a topic. Even if there is an academic paper containing this elsewhere, it would not be appropriate. The claim that "published paper for this is available, but not listed in the references" means little, if anything. We don't just say that a reference is available, we cite it. I would suggest refraining from reverting it because you are already engaged in an edit war, which is not allowed. If you explain on that article's talk page what you think (in non-specialist terms) is important and why you think it should be included and (most of all) what the sources are, it may be considered by other editors. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

User Eggishorn: At beginning I cited clearly the theorems and results. However, then user Pontaman deleted many times. Actually, part of what I wrote there also contained in other papers there. I will follow your advice to write in the talk page. For now, I will write what is in the other papers.

Backtracking line search cites no sources whatever. It lists some, but some of those are original research papers and so should not be used as sources. Someone needs to find and cite some secondary sources if the article is to accepted as worthy of Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 05:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

User Maproom: What do you mean by "secondary sources"? Why not citing original papers/books but secondary? I am confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuyentruongoslo (talk • contribs) 07:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Tuyentruongoslo, please see Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Maproom (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Maproom Thank you. However, I understand that this kind of primary, secondary and tertiary sources which you mentioned are about events. In the case of the Wikipedia page I have edited, I am using peer reviewed papers, which are considered as "Reliable sources" in the same page which you sent me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuyentruongoslo (talk • contribs) 16:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Tuyentruongoslo, the recommendation does not only apply to events. A statement such as "symptoms of diabetes can be alleviated using metformin" needs support from secondary sources (such as review articles), not just from research papers. Maproom (talk) 06:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Maproom Can you give me precisely which sentences in Wikipedia saying this, in particular for mathematics and computer science papers? Maybe for medicine, since not everyone has equipments to do experiments to check, one needs that. What I can see is what I wrote above, that peer reviewed papers are considered as the most trusted source for Wikipedia articles. For mathematics, in particular simple things like the ones I write in this Wikipedia article, one can check quickly with a paper. For things about Deep Neural Network: maybe one need a GPU to run, but I guess even Potamon (or if not them, many other readers and Wikipedia's users) can have that from their employer. For the example f(x,y)=x^4+y^4, which is used to illustrate the algorithm Unbounded Backtracking Gradient Descent (which I deleted, waiting for this dispute to be settled), one can check with a common personal computer. So, instead of keeping chanting a lot about their own rules, I think it is better for Potamon to just check some of what I claimed here, and if seeing something wrong, can argue with that. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuyentruongoslo (talk • contribs) 06:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Please see also the related discussion at Talk:Backtracking line search. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

How to deal with this?

Please have a look @ a reverted dif [4] @ article Liberalism and progressivism within Islam (A discussion happened on the talk page, I explained how that was correct wording as per sourced ref) later latest an ip not only repeating the same deletion in sourced text vide [5] but also makes serious changes in sourced quote @ article Regensburg lecture vide [6] and [7].

I don't know how one repeat minute deletion @ Liberalism and progressivism within Islam without being pre decided to do so.

I have no idea how to deal with the issues.

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Publishing a translated page

Hello,

I recently translated the page for Serge Godin from French to English (User:WikiContenu/Serge_Godin). I however am not able to publish it, it is almost as though the page created is for WikiContenu/Serge_Godin. How do I proceed to publish if there is no such functionality available in Edits.

Many thanks ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiContenu (talk • contribs) 18:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@WikiContenu: I hvae published the page for you, as Serge Godin; please note that you must now give attribution to the French original, as described at Wikipedia:Translation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet added non-notable section to Alvarez & Marsal article

Answered

Hello, this user has added a non-notable section to the Alvarez & Marsal article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alvarez_and_Marsal&oldid=973860067#Management). Could an editor please revert these edits? Note: I am a staff member in the marketing dept of A&M.

Thank you, Eric 2601:81:C300:B680:F506:F5DD:DBD0:9679 (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Vim (text editor) and vile (text editor)

Vim (text editor) is being edited by User:Tedickey AKA Thomas Dickey, developer of vile (text editor), specifically removing a university course about Vim (text editor) because it does not help vile (text editor). Oko5ekmi5 (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmm - that's a personal attack (and demonstrably untrue) TEDickey (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

You should seriously consider not editing the article due to conflict of interests. Using your own website as a source is quite suspect, too. Congpric (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Bizarre subtitle, I don't know how to fix it

I ran across this while browsing, it needs to be fixed. Monkeys in Chinese culture has a bizarre subheading when linked from the bottom of another article, it looks like a bullying comment about someone named Anna. You can see it at the bottom of Monkey mind, I'm sorry I can't attach a screenshot. Spaceboss (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

It was vandalism; which I've reverted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Do these stand-alone lists comply with Wikipedia guidelines?

Do the stand-alone lists in Category:Lists of political office-holders by age comply with Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists and WP:INDISCRIMINATE guidelines? StellarHalo (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Search within an article

How difficult or cost intensive would it be to incorporate a "word search" within an article posted on Wikipedia?

G5guy (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

It would be possible. But most users can already use their browser to do the word search, for instance by typing ctrl-F, or on an Android smartphone the "burger" icon and selecting "Find in page". Maproom (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

A newcomer to WP keeps changing my edits

I have been editing the Health psychology entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_psychology). One of my edits from some years ago indicated the field of occupational health psychology is related to health psychology. I included a source for that edit. Recently I added additional sources. An editor named Psyballed has continued to undo my edits. Sometimes he removes two sources. Sometimes three sources. On the health psychology talk page psyballed challenges the idea that occupational health psychology is related to health psychology, which is absurd.

Given the absurdity of the editorial efforts of psyballed, there are two other aspects of this matter that are concerning. The first is that Psyballed is new to WP. He is much more adept at editing as a newcomer than I was when I was a newcomer. Right after joining WP he started targeting my mention of occupational health psychology in connection to health psychology and reverting my edits. He seemed to know a lot about WP although he is new to WP. The great majority of psyballed's edits on WP are aimed at my edits.

The second matter is related to the first. For years, different editors who came to WP aimed at picking apart my edits, but only my edits that pertained to occupational health psychology and not to other entries I edited (e.g., School violence, Concept inventory, Organizational behavior, the City College of New York, Occupational burnout). These editors have gone by names like MRM7171, Psych999, Mattbrown69, and Lightingstrikers. All these editors have had something in common. They took aim at my work on occupational health psychology, whether it was the occupational health psychology entry itself or my writing about occupational health psychology as it relates to the entry on health psychology, industrial/organizational psychology, or occupational stress. These editors have worked serially, never at the same time. When one was barred from altering my edits, another showed up a few months later.

I would like an editor to judge for himself/herself that my edit of the health psychology entry indicating that occupational health psychology is related to health psychology as well as my sources is valid. If the editor agrees, I ask the editor to politely ask psyballed to desist from relentlessly disturbing my edits. Thank you. Iss246 (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Buddha information

On the "Buddha" search site it is noted about him first "Philosopher" and that is right. But then further underneath I read "founder of Buddhist religion" and that is wrong.

Buddha distanced himself from any religious beliefs and asked explicitly the followers of his teachings to not worship him because he is just a humble human as everyone else. It would be necessary to correct your information on the site.

Please keep the high standards of accuracy on your much appreciated pages. Thank you very much for doing such a great great job.

Gabriel Nedelcu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel Nedelcu (talk • contribs) 23:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Gabriel Nedelcu: Muhammad is the founder of Islam, Muslims do not worship him. Same applies for Jews and Abraham or Moses. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

how to use a bot to delete a deprecated parameter

jfp 07:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC) How to use a bot to delete the deprecated parameter lastauthoramp= yes in one click throughout the whole Soil wikipage? This would save a lot of time for me. Thank you in advance for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfponge (talk • contribs) 07:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Fictional "Influences" Section on Blue Man Group article

This issue comes down to the validity of this edit from September of 2019. This entire new section relies on a single podcast episode as a source. I have listened to the source podcast carefully and documented it on the Talk Page. The single source given for the claims made in this new section does not support the claims made in the section. Robert lavery (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding non-articles to disambiguation pages?

If and when should subjects without Wikipedia articles be added to disambiguation pages? Here because the page Kinky boots links to a few things, but doesn't mention the IRA song Kinky Boots--which is probably not notable enough for a Wikipedia article but has 2 million+ views on YouTube, and therefore may be searched for. Thanks! IRA song I mentioned mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 03:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Question re: maiden names

What is the guideline on when / how to use maiden names? I personally know Rebekah Marine but Marine is her maiden name (her married name is Paster). By notability standards, Marine is how she's written about for her modeling career. Can someone please advise on the correct way to edit her article? I feel like Paster should be included but I don't want to mis-format. Thanks! 71.56.244.35 (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Please read WP:COI before editing. In terms of naming convention, the article's name should remain the same as it is how she is most commonly recognized. The introductory sentence and infobox should reflect her married name if verifiable. Happy editing! Mr. Heart ^(talk) 04:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! 71.56.244.35 (talk) 04:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Second opinion of using a template for people winning the Nobel prize to handle link problems with Nobelprize.org

I guess a second opinion of the usage of Template:Nobelprize to implement a new more stable linking model is needed to convince an user reverting some edits of me... I have tried to get some understanding why he does this but I feel the user is not interested in the technical details but are more interested of others opinions see link / change.

I have discussed/shown this before see Talk page, Wikidata discussion page for Nobel Laureate API ID (P8024) and some user has reacted HouseOfChange/ArthurPSmith

Background Nobelprize.org handling the Nobelprize has a website that documents all the winners. Problem is that they have redesigned the web more times and many Wikipedia articles on many languages get a lot of link rot as e.g. Albert Einstein has articles > 200 languages see task T251055 a query languages with Wikis with more than 1 article about a prizewinner > 250 wikipedias... --> if the Nobel prize people move pages we get a mess in more languages linking those pages....

Video how we synch / Jupyter Notebook used / Number of views during the Nobel week on en:Wikipedia

templates created to use Wikidata property Nobel Laureate API ID (P8024)

More background

see T248939 the Nobelprize.org people has themself seen that we have a major problem that they have been moving around all pages and we have link rot in many links to Nobelprize.org... I wrote in Swedish 20 feb 2019 a blogpost to explain the issues....
email Oct 7 2018, 1:08 PM to Nobelprize.org where I suggested a more stable linking model using the unique id of a prizewinner
tweet oct 20, 2019 to Hans Mehlin CTO/CIO Nobel Prize of Nobel prize IT
new Wikidata property P8024 Nobel Laureate API ID
- feedback Nobelprize.org Apr 15 2020
new linking model that we now have templates for 8 languages see Wikidata Q91652187 and see comment 23 April 2020
task for implementing templates on more languages T251055
Jupityr Notebook to keep Wikidata and Nobel API in synch

I think it would help if we get more opinions if this is a way of working for en:Wikipedia - articles with the template / missing template and maybe involve user Xxanthippe

my task T251055#6536575

- regards Salgo60 (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The web presence NobelPrize.org has been in chaos for years, as "branding" teams demanded multiple changes (e.g. disappearing Nobel Museum website and then changing museum's name etc. etc.) plus years of upheaval around failed Nobelcenter project. I applaud the creation of a template where Wikipedia can respond to a future decision to change. So I think it is fine to use that template, as I see it used on Julian Schwinger for example, as one of the external links.

We can and should make the template even better. Its target webpage ( https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1965/schwinger/facts/ ) is very badly designed. Only by scrolling down (and the top of the page gives no indication you should do so,) can you find https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1965/schwinger/biographical/ (the biography) and https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1965/schwinger/lecture/ (the lecture.) Now, the logic behind these URLs is simple and uniform -- I think it would be more helpful if the template included actual links to the biography and the lecture, rather than merely stating that they can be found at the "facts" URL. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange: thanks for the feedback. All feedback is welcome I will do a try to contact the Nobel people soon and give some feedback of our experience of the Nobel week and maybe explain what we do and feedback what changes we think would help. I also guess we have much more link rot in those articles so I plan to write some code that will check that - Salgo60 (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully I request, please get wider consensus before making wide changes to Nobel laureate websites with your next newly-changed template. The reason my name showed up on your talk page was that your then-template had replaced inline links to the Nobel biography and Nobel lecture with the single mysterious link to the "scrollable" Facts URL. There are hundreds of Nobel laureates, most of them watch-listed by many people. I have no objection to your using a template to create a new and informative external link, but I have a strong objection to a renewed effort to replace working inline links with a novelty template that links to a different page. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood page

Something happened in the character descriptions part of the page. Most was removed and edited in a way that is confusing and inaccurate. I have messaged a seasoned editor who referred me here. There is nothing in the editing history that indicates how this happened. It happened sometime in the last twelve hours or so but again, there's no indication as to how it happened. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Relativity priority dispute

Hi all, this I have a question that is related to an ongoing content dispute in the Relativity priority dispute article. It was recently proposed for a split and after I waited seven days and there were two support and no objections, I went ahead and started splitting. However, then I got a bunch of flack on the article's talk page from an IP user who claims I "vandalized" the page and that I "had no business" making any of the changes. No one else has chimed into the debate and it is not a super popular page, so it may not get many responses. I was just hoping I could get outside opinions on what to do going forward. I am not experienced with disputes like, especially ones where I am personally being attacked rather than someone just disagreeing with the edits. I think the talk page might need to be refactored to exclude much of the current conversation, which is related to how I'm a bad editor rather than any details on what can be done to improve the page. I did not think it was appropriate to post to dispute resolution yet, as not enough time has passed and no other editors have joined the conversation yet, so I am just hoping for assistance on how to move forward. If this is the wrong forum, I apologize for wasting any of your time. Thank you for your help. Footlessmouse (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Nothing more has come from this, I think it may have resolved itself, a couple people from the physics project joined in after another editor posted a message on the project talk page about it. Thank you.

‘Great barrington declaration’

I would be grateful if an independent moderator could review this article.

The tone and structure are not consistent with other Wiki articles. It would appear to be a campaign against whatever the declaration is about (which is impossible to discern as the declaration image is illegible)

Every section seems to be an attack of the authors, sponsors, content etc... although this may all be valid it would normally all be contained in a section entitled Criticism of the declaration’

The other titled sections should contain what they purport to.

I am not a supporter of the declaration itself, but I am a supporter of Wiki, accurate information and free speech. This article can not possibly meet Wiki’s high standards and should be referred to a higher moderation authority.

Many thanks for your time and hard work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.252.133.70 (talk) 08:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The declaration image is clearly legible if you click on it (and then, if necessary, click again on the larger version you now see). I am not surprised that the Declaration has attracted extensive opposition. Maproom (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Ambassador John Rood

The editor referred to Mr. Rood as "Food." I know it's a typo error, when convenient please correct? Thanks.

Wellington — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1A70:A080:806F:3C6B:FEE1:E915 (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Done Thanks, note that anyone can edit Wikipedia, you can fix typos yourself, just click the edit button, fix the issue, and click the publish changes button. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) Dylsss (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

List of Musical Acts that Played at the Omni

There was a list of musical acts and concerts that played at the Omni coliseum in Atlanta, on the Omni Coliseum page, until someone streamlined the page and we lost a wealth of compiled information.Lets rebuild the list please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krautank (talk • contribs) 19:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Krautank, this is more appropriate to bring up at the article talk page, though you should read Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a directory for why this was removed and why it probably shouldn't be re-added. It was simply a trivial listing with no references or contextual information. Dylsss (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Map syntax fix

At Template:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict detailed map, after the news of the takeover of Mincivan by Azeris, somebody has tried to recolor it with green, but seems like ge messed syntax up, the dot denoting the village is invisible on the map, you see a red link with messed-up title as well. A quick technical fix required. Fixmaster (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, someone fixed it. Fixmaster (talk) 01:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Copyrighted material

Hi, I edited Cousins Properties' entry on Wikipedia to match what is on the company's website (cousins.com). The current copy on Wikipedia is out of date. After including the new copy, I received a note saying that all my changes were removed because it is copyrighted material. The material, however, is from a public website. Could you please clarify what Wikipedia's standard on this is?

This is the Wikipedia page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousins_Properties This is the Cousins.com copy I was using: https://cousins.com/content/about-us

Thank you, Melissa — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPM3344 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Material that is on a website is by law automatically copyrighted unless it is explicitly released to the public domain or otherwise licensed, and Wikipedia respects that. Information is not copyrighted, but the words you copied are protected by copyright. Also note that we seek impartial, third-party information from reliable sources, rather than statements coming from the subject of an article, since the latter are unlikely to be neutral and reliable. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you scroll to the bottom of the company's website, you'll find a copyright notice (the situation would be the same even if that wasn't there, since almost all copyrightable material is automatically copyrighted under US and most countries' laws, but it removes any ambiguity). Under US law, the material on that page is copyrighted and cannot be copied. The fact that it's publicly visible on the Web is irrelevant. English Wikipedia policy about copyrights is more restricting than US law, but in this instance it doesn't need to be more restrictive since the law itself prohibits copying. Wikipedia only allows copying from materials which are in the public domain or which have a public copyright license equivalent to a Creative Commons CC BY-SA 3.0 License or the GFDL (basically which allow copying, including copying for commercial use, so long as attribution is given). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

PS: Wikipedia's basic copyright policy, as it applies to copying stuff from outside of Wikipedia, can be found at COPYOTHERS. And let me fully second what Orange Mike says above about the idea of copying in general (even when copying doesn't conflict with law or policy). — TM 15:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

david agus page helpIceone2000 (talk) 07:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Iceone2000 (talk) 07:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

kindly help in bringing DAVID AGUS PAGE TO STANDARD.

YOUR HELP IS HIGHLY APPRECIATED.Iceone2000 (talk) 07:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Remove Nazi word and related content from Swastika

Hello Team,

Twice I have tried to delete content from Swastika article but author restored deleted content. Here I too have one mistake that I did not mention why I have deleted content. So now I explain why I have done this.

Here Swastika != Hooked Cross. So Hitler's Hooked Cross is different and Swastika is different.

Author combined both Swastika and Hooked cross and mentioned that swastika is a religious symbol and the same is used by Hitler in his Nazi party flag.

As per my research I got to know that Hitler used Christian cross and modified it a bit in order to resemble his Nazi party symbol. Nazi party or Hitler are anti Jews so he used Christian cross to represent his ideas.

Hindu, Jain, Buddhism uses swastika where it is written four sides parallel but Hitler used it as it is 45 degree turned in clock wise.

Please remove Nazi related content and other politics related matter in Swastika.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pradeep1618 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Swastika, as defined in that article, come in many versions, but they're all Swastikas. Nazi use of the symbol is well-covered in WP:RS, and therefore the WP-article should cover it too.

User:Pradeep1618 your account has never edited Swastika and no such edits were made recently by anyone. Can you explain? And in any case we don't care about your research, see WP:NOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 10:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

How do I report harassment?

Hi all

Apologies if this is not the correct place to ask this. How can I anonymously report harassment happening to someone (not me) on English Wikipedia?

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

John Cummings, you'd have to use email, but depending on context, consider WP:EMAIL an admin of your choice, or look at WP:RFO and Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee#Contacting_the_Committee. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: thanks very much for your help, just to be clear, there is no specific process or written guidance on reporting harassment? How do I understand which of the options you've presented would be the most appropriate? Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

John Cummings Sure, WP:HARASS/WP:DWH. However, I don't see an obvious answer to "How can I anonymously report harassment" there, afaict at least the e-mail you use will be revealed to the one you chose to contact. Personally, if I was in the "not sure what to do here" situation, I'd use the "WP:EMAIL an admin of your choice" and see what they say. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Bishonen, care to comment? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, pretty much like Gråberg says, John Cummings. If there are privacy or outing issues, e-mailing the ArbCom at arbcom-en@wikimedia.org is best. You can be completely sure of their discretion. They get a lot of mail, so be sure to put a significant subject line to get attention, such as for instance "Harassment". If it's nothing like that, e-mail an admin of your choice. They will also treat your communication with discretion. But I have to ask why the harassee doesn't report it themselves. Why would it be you? Are you sure the person in question is feeling harassed? Bishonen | tålk 11:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen:, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång:, thank you very much for your help, I will email arbcom. Can I request that some written guidance is provided somewhere on how to report harassment? I've been editing Wikipedia for quite a while and found it really confusing. Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

To create a new page

Hello We are Indian Poetry Review Press.We have published an Amazon Bestseller poet, writer and artist Sandeep Kumar Mishra. We want to create a Wikipedia page for Mr Mishra. We have written the article. We need someone to create a page. Here is the author website link-

https://www.sandeepkumarmishra.com/

Thanks IPR Press — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iprpress (talk • contribs) 03:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Requesting help on understanding "incentive" use of restriction policy.

First of all, I would like to apologies: I consider myself a Wikipedia "newbie" and my first language is not English. So, please forgive me if this does not go exactly by the book of Wikipedia. m(_ _)m

TLDR: a "long standing restriction about list to prevent spamming of non-notable packages" coming from Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists is being used by an enthusiastic member as an attempt to force people into making more Wikipedia pages (see "Request: Write the Article!" in the Talk page). It does so by suppressing entries of the list with a very short notice delay. Such strong incentive have so far meet no success (there was no new page creation), and is creating a notable bias toward commercial content. Should the rule be enforced out of all other considerations for notability? WP:LSC for example? Should a list consisting of only one element remain?

THE RULE: "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles."

ACTUALLY IN EFFECT: all entries without a Wikipedia page, regardless of their relevance, have been, and are, actively removed from all lists of the page, leaving one table with only about 20 (from about 60) entries and the other with 1 (from 19) entry, the latter usefulness being questionable.

DISCLAIMER: I maintain several other lists of molecular graphics systems, within other institutions and (sorry) other encyclopedia-like pages (i.e. not Wikipedia). Also, even though I first added an entry on a program that I regularly use as an enthusiastic user, I have now become one of its contributor.

WHAT I DID: I first add an entry simply because of the rule "Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?" of the section WP:LSC (it was my first Wikipedia experience BTW). I act again by reverting part of the deletion change because I mistakenly believed commonly accepted criteria (peer-review publication, WP:LSC rule, etc. ) would be sufficient to meet the newly enforced rule. Then react (with a disagreement to the strict nature of the enforcement) on the Talk page. I understand that my partial reverting was premature and I have left the page unchanged since, requesting for an editor opinion instead. I also agree during the talk with the user enforcing the new strict deletion rule that I would make a page at a later date (probably soon, in a few years).

OPINION REQUEST: Firstly I would like to know an editor's opinion about if the rule should be strictly enforced, or whether any other commonly acceptable form of recognition for example WP:LSC could be used to deem an entry acceptable. Also I'm curious to know if this kind of incentive policy (Write an article!) in exchange for a content not being deleted is part of a new (I mean official) Wikipedia-backed policy. I admit I haven't read but a small part of the Wikipedia policy, sorry for that. I would also gladly take an editor's advice on the bias introduced by such strict enforcing: the commercial software have people dedicated to write Wikipedia page (and I know that sometimes the boundaries between encyclopedic content and advertising or self-promotion is thin). Actually, the new strict enforcing of the rule have artificially enrich the commercial content of the list significantly. What is Wikipedia's general policy to prevent this kind of bias from happening? Finally a more general (I would say naive) question: is letting anyone suddenly come and delete more than 50 entries (that is 70%) of a list sustainable? Given the high bar for the creation of a new Wikipedia page, and the even higher bar to reach to a solution / resolution, shouldn't Wikipedia have a safeguard? Is it the safeguard?

Well thanks in advance for reading my (I hope not too long) request. Have a nice day! Ovhpa (talk) 05:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I see that the issue is already being discussed where it should be: the talk page of the list. (My own view is that we must draw the line somewhere about what packages are to be included, or the list will fill up with cruft. The obvious place to draw the line is "packages with Wikipedia ~~pages~~ articles". The only alternative is to have a tedious argument about every package that someone wants included.) Maproom (talk) 09:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear Maproom, thank you for your quick answer! You are right, the discussion is being held at a proper place, I think. While I disagree with you (I think the fact that selection is difficult, but so is writing an encyclopedia, should not be a reason to replace it with indiscriminate deletion rules) it is not fully why I asked editor's help about (but maybe I mistake the place or English or both). I guess my main interrogation is more: is it OK to deviate the rules of Wikipedia "selection of content" for proselytism (albeit being for Wikipedia itself). Anyhow I would like to also thank you for your comment which taught me how to do small letters (it's funny but I didn't know until now that Wikipedia can accept html tags directly, and I find it kinda nice). Have a very nice day! Ovhpa (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Sonia Gandhi

Answered

Your page says she was born Sonia Maino. That is wrong. She was born Edvige Antonia Albina Maino in 1946,a fact she wants to hide from the Indian public. Please correct as I am unable to do so as she is a polititian in India. Head of the Congress party(not in power at the moment) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caliocean (talk • contribs) 22:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

There is an existing consensus against that change. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_3#Edvige_Antonia_Albina_Maino. If you would like to challenge that consensus, conduct a discussion on the Sonia Gandhi talk page, but you'll need to produce some reliable sources as defined by English Wikipedia that such information is true and not a hoax since that consensus was based on the absence of such sources. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

What to do with a possibly nonexistent future event

Miss Universe 2020 was postponed without a new date being stated, as discussed in my nomination for deletion. The consensus was to keep the article. All of the sources are to regional subsidiary contests, not the international contest which still doesn't have any planned occurrence as far as I know, even virtually like some other 2020 pageants have done. Since my preferred remedy was to delete something that's very WP:CRYSTAL, I'm not sure what to do with the article now, but it's very strange without any date being mentioned, nor a discussion of the postponement. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding a chart - issues

I want to make a Stacked Graph on a page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla,_Inc.#Production_and_sales_by_quarter using the data from their table. And I am using a sourcecode of a chart from this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_spaceflight so that I could only change the data and it would be ok. But it doesn't work, I need a little bit of help with this. Thanks for any advices!

--JK020624 (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

My Template sourcecode:

50

100

150

200

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

Failure
Partial failure
Success
Planned

And my attempt is here: (I tried to use this template as well but it needs a different source of data I guess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Graph:Stacked)

Lua error in Module:Chart at line 301: bad argument #32 to 'max' (number expected, got string).

This question was duplicated at User talk:JK020624#Adding a chart - issues. I suggested WP:VPT. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

This article needed to be updated 7 years ago!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_inscriptions_in_Somalia needed to be updated in 2013, and it still hasn't!? I have no idea how to do this anywhere near decent, so I am leaving this up to the people who go here.108.51.31.114 (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

You can find a lot of that on WP, since we have about 6 000 000 more articles than we have active editors, and all editors work on what they are interested in. WP:SOFIXIT is the easy response (for me). Gather WP:RS about the topic, see WP:TUTORIAL about how to edit and start improving. At Talk:Ancient inscriptions in Somalia you'll find links to the talkpages of related Wikiprojects, and you can try to find editors to cooperate with there. Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Disruption on the article Tejashwi Yadav

Dear Editors,

Some users are reverting legitimate edits based on reliable sources but are critical of the subject Tejashwi Yadav. These apparently motivated rollbacks demand serious attention of editors who should intervene and, if possible, should help update the article with some original research that I have been doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OptimisticNihilist (talk • contribs) 11:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@OptimisticNihilist:, firstly and most importantly: No. No editors should "help update the article with some original research that [you] have been doing." The Policy on Original Research is crystal clear on this: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. Emphasis in original text. The Policy on Biographies of Living Persons also makes it clear that original research is not allowed in articles about living persons. I see that Suneye1 has already informed you of this but you said you were "aware of WP policies". WP policies certainly include the two I mentioned. WP policies also include discussing controversial changes on the article talk page and that it is up to the editor proposing controversial changes to gain a WP:CONSENSUS for such changes. I suggest that this complaint here is not going to achieve much. Please discuss these allegations and their sourcing before attempting to restore them. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Biases

Far too left wing for me to support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.242.107 (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

What is? And what's your proof? — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

You always have Conservapedia to fulfill your needs. MarnetteD|Talk 01:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

page of person was deleted fully (Edvardas Strončikas on lt.wikipedia.org)

Hi, wikipedia, page of person Edvardas Strončikas (Edvardas Stroncikas) was deleted fully from lt.wikipedia.org. He is my father, asked to check how this can be resolved, restored, and who did that and why?

Personal data and real existence of Mr. Edvardas Strončikas can be verified on external sources, he was candidate to Lithuanian parliament, but has not won mandate: https://www.vrk.lt/statiniai/puslapiai/rinkimai/2004/seimas/kandidatai/kand_biog_l_295789.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarijusStron (talk • contribs) 15:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@MarijusStron:, this is the English Wikipedia. Each Wikipedia in a language is run as a separate project and although many people think the English one it the "central" or "most important one", it is not. To address problems on the Lithuanian Wikipedia you will have to discuss the issue there. This project cannot restore anything to that one. Maybe something in this category: lt:Kategorija:Pagalba will point to editors who can help. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: I have replaced an URL to lt-wiki with an interwiki-link in you reply, so that it functions correctly both in desktop and in mobile browsers. --CiaPan (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Same question has been asked at Wikipedia:Help desk#page of person was deleted fully (Edvardas Strončikas on lt.wikipedia.org). --CiaPan (talk) 11:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Trump at Wharton

Answered

Donald Trumps Page says he went to Wharton, he didn’t. Please fix it.

This has been discussed at length on the Trump talk page. See this search. The consensus appears to be that the information is adequately supported by reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia. If you believe that you have conflicting sources which are reliable sources under Wikipedia's definition, please propose the change and give those sources on the article talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Spanish Flu Grammar Clarification Blocked - “Protected Content”

Answered

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu I’m concerned that the qualifying statement at the bottom of the overview section of the introduction to the Wikipedia article on the subject of the Spanish Flu, misleads. The article, in my experience, is unique; the message “This page is protected against vandalism” appears when I attempt to edit it.

“ ‡Suspected cases have not been confirmed as being due to this strain by laboratory tests, although some other strains may have been ruled out.”

I believe ought to read:

“ ‡Suspected cases have not been confirmed by laboratory tests as being due to this strain, although at least some of the other possible strains may have been ruled out.”

You can make this edit yourself by registering an account and becoming autoconfirmed, which requires you to have had an account for 4 days and have made 10 edits to pages other than ones which cannot be edited by non-autoconfirmed users. Alternatively, you can make a request that the change be reviewed and made via the Edit Request method. Please click on that link and follow the instructions. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Please ignore the advice above. The sentence (which I agree should be rewritten as you recommend) is not in the Spanish flu article. It is in Template:Infobox outbreak, which reads "Consider discussing changes on the talk page before implementing them." So, please make your recommendation at Template talk:Infobox outbreak. Maproom (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I've now made the recommendation there myself. Maproom (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden / Kamala Harris

Why are the edits saying “president elect” being allowed (they are already on every page mentioning either candidate). Even though he was announced by news media as the winner, until the electoral college meets, or the GSA signs off, he doesn’t become “president elect”. Even though people want it, it is technically a VERY bad precedent to allow this. Midtex44 (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Because that's what reliable sources are saying, and we go by reliable sources. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I personally feel that what "reliable sources" such as established media should always be viewed with sceptical glasses. I agree with @Midtex44:. Just because sources claim something does not change the constitutional law and due process. With that said I am not sure what changes should be made. It's not very easy to edit every single page mentioning the president-elect. A better course of action could be writing an essay trying to change policy on how these things should be handled in the future. /VFD Very Fantastic Dude (talk) 11:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Chalfont AFC

Hi I work a researcher on a video game, Football manager. I was updating the squad lists for a local team. But someone with no interest in the team wishes to revert changes. I dont understand why if refrenced correctly it can't stay? Chalfont_St_Peter_A.F.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:14ee:f00:1d5b:7b97:e427:bfba (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

IPA systematic error

User:IvanScrooge98 apparently made a large number of edits inserting IPA transcription of article title, off by one character. Examples: changed the transcription of Joan from ʒuˈan to ʒuˈam, transcribed zaliv as zalif but here transcribes it as zaliv and so on. No good idea on what to do. Nikola (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nikola Smolenski: IPA transcriptions in square brackets are allophonic transcriptions and the edits you mentioned don't require any "correction" as they conform to the established conventions. See Help:IPA/Catalan, which says "/l/ and /n/ assimilate to the place of articulation of a following consonant", and Bulgarian phonology, which says "The voicing contrast is neutralized in word-final position, where all obstruents are voiceless".

Also, use the talk page of the relevant IPA key (Help talk:IPA/Catalan and Help talk:IPA/Bulgarian in this case) or of a relevant WikiProject (e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics) for inquiries of this nature from next time, as they are more likely to be watched by people with expertise on the topics. Nardog (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Enwiki page link needs to be deleted please - https://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/9234229

Dear Wikipedia Editor,

I am hoping you will be able to kindly assist and help me.

There is a page that I asked to be deleted back in 2007 that still comes up in Google. This is causing me huge issues with incorrect information posted.

Can you please source where the link is coming from and delete the content please and link entirely.

The link that needs deletion is : https://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/9234229

I am hoping you will be able to resolve this for me I would appreciate hugely.

I dont know where else to go to resolve this situation so thank you for any help available.

Kindest regards,

Melanie Parry § — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.62.88 (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this page has been deleted on Wikipedia since 2017, that content is from an external mirror site and there isn't anything anyone here can do to help. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 00:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Alias Ali studied ...

Alias Ali studied creative writing at the Writer's Workshop at the State University of Iowa in Iowa City, Iowa. Not at Iowa State University — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:881:8400:8260:31d2:d698:1c40:cb2f (talk)

This seems somewhat plausible; however, the Iowa Writer's Workshop program isn't an undergraduate program. The only references I've found is a PDF of unclear provenance and a grant site. Without some other reference, it's possible he attended both schools. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Editing my description of my edit

I made an edit to the Regius Professor page, and added as usual a brief description of my edit.

I’m happy with my edit but not with my description of it. Is it possible for me to edit that description?

Eppigramm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eppigramm (talk • contribs) 21:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Eppigramm, unfortunately not, it is not possible to change an edit summary after the fact, you can ask an administrator to remove it, but this is usually only done when the edit summary is disruptive (e.g. an advertisement or personal attack). Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 00:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Eppigramm, what you can do, if you feel it necessary, is to make a "dummy edit", like adding a space somewhere, and write a new ES like "What I meant to say in my previous ES was..." Details at Help:Edit_summary#Fixing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Moving Article to Mainspace

Hi,

I've just submitted an article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BEAMSTART

Have verified all sources as well as produced it to ensure it is factually as accurate as possible.

Would appreciate it if an editor could assist in moving it to the main article space if it is sufficiently credible.

Thank you!

- Ken

Iamkenho (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Draft:BEAMSTART has not yet been submitted for approval. When it is, it will have to wait for a reviewer to look at it, along with all the other submissions. I had a look at it myself (I am not a reviewer). It may well be declined, as failing to establish that its subject is notable. The sources that I checked were not independent, being based on interviews with members of the company, and on press releases. Maproom (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Iamkenho, try Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Submitting. Detail: On WP, it's punctuation before ref, and no space between. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

American Record

Answered

Dear Wikipedia volunteers,

If you can please add this information found at the link below to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_Baver that would be greatly appreciated. Also, if there is an editor that would be willing to work with me and properly represent my full bio that would be amazing. Please reach out to me on my website as we have collected links and have everything as organized as we can. I competed in three Olympics and the bio is missing some history, so this would be wonderful. Here is one addition I hope you can please make. This addition can also be verified at the World Cup Results Website. The record was broke in the Semi-Final Samsung ISU World Cup 2007/2008, USA, Salt Lake City. This is the still the American Record today. https://shorttrack.sportresult.com/

2007 - 2008 World Cup Season

Allison Baver is the US Short Track American Record Holder in the 1500m with the time of 2:17.244 set on February 9, 2008 at the ISU World Cup in Salt Lake City, UT. https://www.teamusa.org/US-Speedskating/Athletes/Rankings-and-Records/Short-Track

Baver finished bronze in the 1500m Final at this world cup and also bronze in the ladies 3000m relay that broke the American Record in the semi-final and again in the finals with a time of 4:13.793. https://shorttrack.sportresult.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.184.240 (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The best way to get this information added to that particular article, since you have a conflict of interest, is to make a request on the article talk page using the {{Request edit}} template. Click on that last link to get instructions on how to do so. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary TOC numbering

Is there a TOC template that allows the TOC to start at an arbitrary number? Or is there a way to get the TOC magic word to do so? I would like to break a long user page into a main page and two sub-pages while maintaining the numbering that the current TOC gives the current page items. So if the current TOC has, say headings labeled 1-120 I'd like one subpage with a TOC of 1-40, a second labeled 41-80, and the main page labeled 80-120 and the item currently labeled by the TOC as #97 would still be #97 on the main page when the first 80 headings are removed instead of being renumbered to #17. I hope that makes sense. I'm aware of the horizontal ToC templates but they are for too many items compared to this and not exactly what I want. Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Henri Pourrat

Wikipedia English and Wikipedia French each have an article on the French writer Henri Pourrat. However, the two articles are totally different. The English one is extremely limited and focuses on a single period the writer's life. The French one is comprehensive and thoroughly informed. Could I translate the French article into English, and with this translation replace the current English one? (NB: In 2020 I published a book on Henri Pourrat: HENRI POURRAT AND LE TRESOR DES CONTES.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wirritin (talk • contribs) 21:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Our preferred procedure is to edit the existing article, utilizing sources such as those in the French-language version. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Fix allspice

The English page for Allspice is on a different wikidata entry than most others, therefore the links to other languages don't appear. 2A01:36D:118:584:84E:EBEE:8BE6:AA8F (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Jesus Appearence

Jesus DID NOT have olive skin. He was Caucasian not of Middle Eastern descent, not a Palestinian. He was of the seed from the House of David. Not people literally, yes but no. That is God’s mystery. Bathsheba had some kind of flaw, her father spoke the truth the Bible says, SHE DIDN’T. Too much drama with the females in the group, and a harem model that the cat scratch fever brought down on an unsuspecting poor King David. They ALL turned on King David except for a few that includes Solomon. That pride and joy was there to help him. If the stitches had more to do than to lay on their backs, and there wasn’t, you know, all that hair that ends up swimming in ones mouth. THENNN the house would not have fallen down around their ears. All that hair later, to redeem you have to step in, then Jesus. A white boy. God in his heaven saying , ‘Ohhh, these people’s fascination by putting their hands on a BLACK stove. I told ya, and I told ya.” So, I cast my pearl before them. The pearls responded. But, the swine didn’t. The goats didn’t either, he and she asses didn’t either, and the he and she cows didn’t either, and everything was fine, but not, because the Goat was already bleating up there in heaven unknown to God but you have to read, and he doesn’t see things from our perspective. So, he didn’t know, and then there was the hotdog bacon picnic message that gave all those groups an incentive to get nasty like they weren’t before? Ohhhhh, but they WERE! Word, I am a Biblical scholar and a terrorist expert. HOUSE OF DAVID WHO SLEW GOLIATH THE PHILISTINE. As in Palestinian. They are the modern day equivalent to those types. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:C:5012:0:0:0:146 (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

What do you need assistance with? Maproom (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Bharadwaj Ventures

" Bharadwaj Ventures Private Ltd." Does not appear in a search of Wikipedia. Yet this entity owns a news service, the usaexpress.com

Not my topic. Just noticed it had been stuck in the header of the page. Didnt want to just delete it, so giving it a section Slywriter (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Sydney Hilton Hotel bombing - undue weight given to conspiracy theories?

Here

The article (to me at least) seems to spend a lot of time dedicated to what seems to be conspiracy theory fringe nonsense. In particular the section is mostly based on two sources: statements made by politicians when calling for an inquiry into the matter and Green Left Weekly. The statements in parliament are almost impossible to verify as we have no idea where they came from. Green Left Weekly is not exactly a very good source either and to me have always sounded like a left version of Brietbart. I feel that given the very extraordinary claims being made far more robust sources are needed and that the entire section should probably be removed as if someone comes up with better sources they can rebuild the section with those sources.

But I'm not comfortable making that call myself. There has been some discussion on the issue of bias in the article in the talk page but no action has been made. I would like a few other opinions before taking that step.

Thanks. Kylesenior (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

15 years and that article has seen limited progress due to edit warring and lack of consensus on how to handle the conspiracy material. A read of the talk page seems to suggest the conspiracy material only survives in its prominent form due to constant edit warring way back when.

With that said, the article is a disaster.

Conspiracy theories are given undue prominence and then a house of cards is built on them.
Primary Sources are used to build the conspiracy
rambling profile is inserted towards end of article.

I'd say the conspiracy material can be removed or at least tidied up and reduce its prominence but you are likely to face substantial opposition and the article may ultimately need DR or an RfC to get it into a state that is useful for a reader, our actual consumerSlywriter (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

IMPORTANT ASSOCIATED ACTS NAME LEFT OUT OF FUNK BROTHERS

Answered

As I read the Funk Brothers page in Quick Facts section I noticed that Jackie Wilson’s name was not listed as one of the ASSOCIATED but should have been. They were back up musicians for Jackie Wilson and since he did not get recognized like he should have I feel Jackie Wilson should be on that list of ASSOCIATED ACTS. Please rightfully put JACKIE WILSON’s name on that list. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConfuciousPix (talk • contribs) 08:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. Source, Song article and body of Funk Brothers confirm they did work with Jackie Wilson Slywriter (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

"Notable Faculty"

I've noticed this on a few articles recently, lists of notable faculty, such as this. I assume this isn't considered encyclopedic, which policy if any does this fall under? ~ Chip 🐺 18:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It's unsourced content. Without any independent documentation of why these particular faculty members are notable, this is WP:OR. If a faculty member had their own independent and sourced Wikipedia article, that would be one thing - their independently established notability and the biographical fact of their association with the institution would be the only way to make this sort of list acceptable. Notability isn't a transitive property. Van Isaac_WS^cont 18:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Recent destructive edits

See Madilu System, recent edits, and my comments on talk page. Was I to soft? Any thoughts on better approach to this? Thanks. Sullidav (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted the article to the state in which you had left it. More recent edits had trashed the formatting, removed two references, and trashed the third. Your comments on the talk page show exemplary patience with incompetence.Maproom (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. I was going to wait before reverting those edits, after seeing advice not to scare off new editors, instead encourage them. And because of partiality, as it was my own edit (in part) being trashed. Appreciate your stepping in. Sullidav (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Calamity Jane

I read the article on Calamity Jane regarding her appearances on television shows. There is one show missing from the list - section 4, episode 35 of "Have Gun - Will Travel". The episode is called 'The Cure'. It stars Richard Boone as Paladin and Norma Crane as Martha Jane Conroy (Calamity Jane). In this episode, Martha is a drunk who shows up at the hotel where Paladin stays. No one recognizes her but Paladin. He tells her that he remembers watching her do a gun trick. Martha is dirty, depressed, and alone. Paladin takes her up to his room where she takes a hot bath. Paladin tells her that there is a doctor who believes her problem can be cured. Martha then starts crying and asks how can she pay. Her 'manager' took all her money. After she sobers up, they set out on the road to find the manager. Martha tries to sneak a drink while Paladin goes to take a bath. He has taken all the whiskey out of her bottles in an attempt to keep her sober. Once they locate the 'manager', Martha gets all dressed up to confront him. Paladin finds the 'manager' and finds another woman playing 'Calamity Jane'. While Paladin is talking to the 'manager', the Martha shows up drunk, dirty, and loud. She decides that she wants to go back to the 'manager' leaving Paladin alone with the fake 'Calamity Jane'. As the scene fades, Paladin tells the fake 'Calamity Jane' to keep her hands on the table at all times. 426Maat (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@426Maat:, thank you for the suggestion. Usually, content suggestions like this belong on the talk page of the associated article. In this case either Talk:Calamity Jane or Talk:Have Gun – Will Travel. If you look at the other entries in the "Representations - Television" section of the Calamity Jane article, you'll notice that none are nearly as detailed plot summaries so a more concise version may be more likely to be accepted. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Domenico Losurdo

Could someone please read the last two sections on the talk page of Domenico Losurdo and tell me if other users are trolling me or I'm crazy? 188.252.196.122 (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

World Peace Prize

Additional eyeballs on World_Peace_Prize would be appreciated, it seems to attract POV editing. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

List of Bohemian Club members - need assistance researching data for the table

Page

The last column in the table in this article is incomplete, and completing it requires an extensive amount of work. I am requesting assistance on helping fill this out. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomUser1035763 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Meaning of "Uninhabited" Island

What does it mean for an island to be "uninhabited"? People with permanent residence on an island obviously make an island inhabited, but what about when people live year-round an island but aren't residents, like military personnel? What does it mean for an island to be "uninhabited"? Thanks for any guidance. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Accordingly to Wikipedia:Editor_assistance#What_to_expect_from_assistance, this page is for "learning how to work with the community's standards, norms, and policies to achieve consensus, and how to correctly and non-disruptively make use of policy and process" and "what is and is not appropriate behavior, and how to deal civilly and rationally with other editors," So you may want to search for an answer to your question elsewhere. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

If you are asking what the term generally means in that regard, @Geographyinitiative:, you should try the Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities. If you are asking what it means on a particular article, you should try that articles's talk page. Generally speaking, the use on Wikipedia of "uninhabited" to describe an island should be used when the majority of reliable sources use that term for that place. Wikipedia itself does not need to have such a definition. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Objectivity/Bias & Request for Financial Contribution

I looked up “Antifa” and I looked up “Proud Boys”.

There exists a very clear political bias in how they are portrayed. Until this political bias is eliminated...Until you fundamentally change your behavior, and eliminate bias, why should any American contribute to your organization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.247.18.78 (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses reliable sources to provide its content, and they will be mostly American sources. Your concern about "a very clear political bias" might be better directed at those sources. HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Using a YouTube video as a source for the biography of a living person

I'm trying to edit in information about where the parents of a famous person are from as the article doesn't have it. I found a YouTube video of the person in question stating where his parents are from himself. It appears it is a recording of a livestream he did uploaded by a fan. Can I use this? I am also not sure how to cite it.

Thanks.

Procakes (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Procakes Per your description and WP:RSPYT I wouldn't. On citing, see Template:Cite AV media. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång I guess I am a bit confused since, as far as I know, this information would be okay to use if it was him stating it himself in the form of an article written by someone else or an interview. But using a video where he stated it himself isn't okay? I can't find any other source where he or someone else explicitly states it so that's why I wanted to use it.

Procakes Yeah, it doesn't seem like common sense, does it? My reasoning is: We don't trust anonymous YT-uploaders with anything. We assume by default that they got the person wrong, added fake audio as a prank, and that there will be some WP:COPYVIO problem with linking them (quite possibly they're mean to their pets, too). So per "appears it is a recording of a livestream he did uploaded by a fan" and the "when in doubt, exclude" mentality of WP:BLP, I wouldn't use it.

That said, where his parents are from is info that could be sourced to a reliably published interview with him, assuming there's no contradictory claims in other sources. Per a strict reading of WP:BLPSELFPUB, a selfpublished source should not be used, though.

One more thing. For a WP:PING to work you have to include a WP:SIGNature, and in the same published edit as the ping-template (can't add it in a later edit), otherwise the pingee don't get a notification. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thanks a lot. I'll hold off for now then. If I can't find anything else, is it worth trying anyway to see how people react to it? Also thanks for the tip for pinging, I hope it worked this time.

Procakes (talk) 11:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Procakes Yep, that worked. Per WP:BRD, I see no harm in trying. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Appropriate way to resolve dispute when other editor ghosts?

WP:Avoid instruction creep (edit | [[Talk:WP:Avoid instruction creep|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(1) Other editor does a single revert of a month and a half of edits. (2) I take the issue to Talk and other editor initially joins in the discussion. (3) Other editor stops participating without explanation. (4) I try reverting other editor's revert, but the other editor just reverted again. I'm sure there is a better way out of this situation than an edit war. I hope you'll be able to tell me what that is. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

If anyone is curious, I'm trying this. If that doesn't cause the other editor to either start discussing or stop reverting then I suppose I'll have to seek outside assistance. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

In retrospect, I should have gone directly to Wikipedia:Third opinion. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Help editing a page with an editor who keeps reverting all edits as trivial

Hello,

I’m attempting to edit the Infinite Flight page but the editors, specifically one Editor, keeps rejecting all of my edits as “trivial details” for the game. Things like:

Any past history of the making of the game.
Past company’s name.
The names of the creators of the game
etc.

Infinite Flight is a flight simulator so most of the source material that can be used are more traditional real-world flight publications covering the app for real-world application. Could you offer any advice on how I could add just some extra information to provide more context into the history of the game and it’s current application?

Thanks! [08:43, December 19, 2020‎ Hellotrio]

Looks like you're trying to start a dialogue on the talk page. I think you're heading in the right direction. Feel free to return to this page if the "one Editor" does not discuss in good faith. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Saving a link before the site closes

I am including a link on Max Crabtree (here) from Questia which is closing in 2 days. Can I ask if someone can save the link in the Wayback Machine/Internet Archive and amend the article to include a link to the archived version please before we lose it forever? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

conflicting entries

hi, i googled "covfefe" because i didn't know what it meant, and found two wiki entries which are disconnected. one indicates it's a typo, the other indicates it was an acronym for a bill introduced in congress in 2017. perhaps these entries should be combined for clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:500:E160:B0DA:BFDB:8872:2930 (talk) 21:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Here's the Wikipedia alternative approach: Covfefe (disambiguation). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Superdigital Draft Page

Hi,

We need help getting our Superdigital page published. The editor told us we didn't have enough resources on the page, but we have plenty of valid resources on the page that qualify for passable information . Please reexamine the resources as they are reliable and secondary opinions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Superdigital — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashernorris22 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

"Passable information" is beside the point. What is missing from the draft is any evidence that the subject is notable. This has already been noted by both reviewers. Maproom (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring on college rock page.

user:Binksternet keeps removing sourced content from the college rock page. I have provided several sources that show jangle pop and college rock are the same yet he keeps removing them.--2601:3C5:8200:97E0:E54A:68DA:F1B5:7F0D (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The sources use lots of descriptive words to describe college rock including jangly guitars. Nothing explicitly says that college rock and jangle pop are synonymous. Nothing at all, nowhere. Binksternet (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Of the sources added, only the PopMatters review states the music scene was experiencing a groundswell of what were called “college rock”, or sometimes “jangle pop”, bands. While there might be some overlap (genres are fluid, not an exact science, etc., etc.), that by itself does not seem to support the assertion that the two genres are identical and/or conflated. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

As an aside, the best place for this discussion would be the article's talk page. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. If you read the rolling stones source I posted it says college rock is defined by its Jangle sound and jangle is another term for jangle pop, but I will bring it to the talk page.--2601:3C5:8200:97E0:5DBB:279A:D261:CD66 (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Aldabbagh

Dear Editor The above link had wrong and false information in the English page as well as in Arabic, both of them are misleading information and wrong. The party of Mr. Ali Aldabbagh was quoted in English as he is from Baath party while in Arabic quoted as he is in Dawaa party while he is independent. Also it was quoted the details of his resignation falsely. I tried to edit them but someone keep changing them back purposely. The right quote is :

<He served as Government spokesman till 29th November 2012 when his resignation was accepted by Maliki. Aldabbagh resigned from his post due to false accusations and political machinations agaisnt him regarding a Russian arms deal which was proved untrue by tribunal> Thanks Awad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8F8:182D:81D8:C55C:B78E:D1A7:12FC (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Ip editor, thank you for bringing this to attention. The best place to address these concerns is the talk page of the article in question. Wikipedia does not have one editor - everyone is an editor, including you. If you have reliable sources that support your changes, you can even make the changes to this article yourself. Also, every language of Wikipedia is its own project so the English Wikipedia does not have any control over the Arabic Wikipedia. You'll have to address any discrepancies you see on the Arabic Wikipedia separately. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking for editor for help with tone and making sure article remains non bias!

Hey editors,

First off thank you for all your hard work! I am currently looking for editor to help an article I am in the midst of creating. I want to make sure the tone of the article is encyclopedic, which can be done well in my opinion from someone who is a bit better experienced here on Wikipedia. I also want to make sure that my article is not bias to any new readers. The new page is currently only 4 paragraphs.

Any help is greatly appreciated!

- Internet() — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CF0:D3D0:ACD2:8A02:C71D:D1B9 (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

You didn't mention the article, but from your contributions I assume it's Draft:Azazie. I made some minor formatting corrections to it, but it needs more work before it is acceptable in tone and content. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

list of cryptocurrencies

Hi, i was looking at the list of cryptocurrencies and it would be great if someone could periodically update this page. So many new tokens are out and would like to always see the most recent list. Thank you so much for your time in this matter. Here is the link to the page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cryptocurrencies — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wess12345 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Wess12345, only cryptocurrencies with existing Wikipedia articles will be added, you are welcome to make an edit request on its talk page. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 18:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

There are many worthless cryptocurrencies that are not notable and may not be around tomorrow. That article lists only the notable ones. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Addition to a page being refused

I made 3 tries to add a properly cited (to the best of my ability) addition to a page but was refused 3 times. The first time was clearly my fault as I had not used citation. The second and especially the third try was well cited. The comment I received it was poorly cited. I provided urls of all the references. They are a report from a well-respected Dis information tracking lab (EU DisinfoLab), CBC Canada (National News channel) and a well-known publication (scroll. in). I do not know how else I can make the citations any better. Please provide some help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Husainsn (talk • contribs) 03:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I took a look at the page and the edit history. I only see two edits by you. And I don't see any comments or any discussion on the talk page. Where did you receive the "poorly cited" comment? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I also think the users @Ohnoitsjamie: and @Kemalcan: should have used a more descriptive edit summary than the default content-free blind revert summary. If a new user takes care to add properly-cited content in good faith and use a descriptive edit summary, it behooves the more experienced editors to show the same courtesy.

I'll note also that the article editors seem to have established a standard practice of reverting all contributions from inexperienced editors, which tells me that pending-change protection isn't working, and should be changed to semi-protected for a longer period than the 10 days that was done in December. That would save time for everyone; the experienced editors would have less work and the inexperienced ones would be directed to the talk page to propose changes. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

This is one of many accounts adding the same poorly sourced "fake news" crap about the subject; most likely sockpuppetry. The "reception" section of the article already covers criticism regarding the veracity of some of his tweets. The information this editor has tried to add via this and an IP address amounts to WP:SYNTH. The first source doesn't mention the subject; the second source is a rehash of the criticism already in Tarek Fatah, and not related to the other assertions. The third source simply mentions that the pro-India network run by Srivastava has reprinted Toronto Sun articles by the subject. I left warnings on this user's talk page policy links including WP:NOR and SYNTH.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Good on you for explaining things to the reverted editor. That said, it would be helpful to others who come across your reverts to provide explanations in the edit summary, particularly when you elect to discuss the matter on the reverted user's talk page rather than the article's talk page. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

suspect vandalism

Can some admin have a look at the edits of this IP address, i suspect they are vandalism. If so some/they need to be reverted and the IP address addressed/blocked. Kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding categories/tags

Courtesy link: Navy Region Center Singapore

Hello, can someone please help me out by adding any suitable categories or tags to the mentioned article? I'm not sure which ones to add, which is why I'm asking here. Thanks. SenatorLEVI 03:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Look at articles on similar topics for inspiration. For example, Navy_Command_(Ministry_of_Defence)#External_links and The_Pentagon#External_links. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The 2021 Storming of the US Capitol article

Incredible. I did a search to find out how many rioters were estimated to be in the Capitol building. I'm still searching for that answer however; in the meantime, I read the fantasy account of what the editor wanted to deliver. It's not "totally accurate" and is "totally slanted!" I didn't attend the rally, but I did watch the entire 4 hour video and transcribed ALL the speakers and their words. Trump DID NOT tell them to run down and storm the Capitol - he told them to walk peacefully down PA Ave, the beautiful PA Ave, and give support to our Republican leaders. THAT IS VERBATIM! NONE of the speakers called for it. Your editor is making it up. Need help? I have the transcript. Why don't you read it, or better yet watch the video on YouTube and LISTEN with your ears open instead of being inside your head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandpa Nick (talk • contribs) 18:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You should raise this issue on the article's talk page. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Questions about User Conduct / Harassment / Reporting

Answered

– I'm marking this answered as I'm happy with the answer provided and I don't think it's more complicated than this. It seems like in general, encountering colorful personalities is simply an inevitability when editing. Reporting is a measure probably best left for more severe negative interactions with editors as opposed to single encounters. If anyone else would like to add their thoughts, please do. ThereWillBeTime (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ThereWillBeTime/Archive_0

I was recently involved in a content dispute on an article with another editor, and I just can't shake the feeling that their attitude towards me on my talk page was very hostile. I did read the guidelines on harassment a bit before posting this request, but I still couldn't really decide if I was assessing the situation correctly. I've included a link to our discussion on my talk page. What I'm looking for in terms of advice here is;

Perhaps a second opinion regarding my discussion with this user. Is their language / tone pretty much par for the course and what I should expect from other editors on Wikipedia, or am I correct in assessing that they seem to be acting aggressively towards me? If I am correct, should this behavior ever be reported and at what point?

More in general, I would appreciate just any general advice from a more experienced editor about what to do when met with an editor whom I think is being aggressive on my talk page.

I want to emphasize I am not looking for anything resembling arbitration or anything like that. I'm simply hoping might benefit from the wisdom of other editors who have dealt with similar situations themselves in the past.

If this was a dumb ask, I'm really sorry, and feel free to let me know :)

ThereWillBeTime (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

There are experienced editors here who are abrasive and annoying while staying just barely on the correct side of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL boundaries. It happens. Behavioral issues could be reported to WP:ANI as a last resort if you see it repeatedly from the same editor. I'm sure in the real world you have encountered assholes who are nevertheless highly intelligent, accomplished, and competent. The same is true here on Wikipedia. I encountered one who even views civility as "overrated". ~Anachronist (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

That's fairs enough. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. ThereWillBeTime (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I would just like to add another thank you for sharing your specific experience in a content dispute. Reading over those notes and conversations was very helpful for me and gave me some insight into the editing experience. ThereWillBeTime (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Rejected edit to Toorbos

Elder's Pen (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC) THIS VERY BENIGN DESCRIPTION OF A MOVIE WAS REMOVED. NO REASON WAS GIVEN EXCEPT THAT MY DESCRIPTION OF EMOTIONS AS "COMPLEX" WAS SUBJECTIVE. I EXPLAINED COPIOUSLY, WHY SEEING HUMAN EMOTIONS IN A COMPLEX SITUATION AS "COMPLICATED" IS VALIDLY AND OBJECTIVELY DESCRIBED AS "COMPLEX". SO . . .I ASK YOU WITH TEARS IN MY EYES. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM???

Toorbos explores the uprooting of a young forest woman and her community during the time of the last forest inhabitants of South Africa’s Knysna forest of the 1930s. The movie is based on the factual situation of a group of poor white (and also some mixed race) Afrikaners whose dwellings were deep in the Knysna forests of South Africa, and whose work and livelihood was based on both on forestry and subsistence farming. The forest folk have a deep, almost mystical connection to the forest (no less than any national group that praises and sings about its local environment, its mountains, rivers, plains etc). The greater South Africa, outside of the forest, in this period which is leading up to WWII, is being led by Afrikaans nationalists who regard these poor white Afrikaners as a blight on the nation and the country, and, in the name of "progress" to forcibly remove them from the forest and bring them to "civilisation", proper jobs and education and living "properly" in brick houses and not being so worshipping of the very ancient, indigenous trees of the Knysna forests. A love connection happens between the very attractive heroin forest girl and a rich young townsman who, it turns out, comes from parents, long ago, who were forest folk, and lived out a sordid, dysfunctional life that he escaped from and transformed himself to a "proper living person". He asks the heroine to marry him, and she agrees, and comes to live in the town and gets transformed into a beautiful, well dressed, well-mannered "princess". When she realises the patriarchal atmosphere in which she is expected to effectively pander to her husband's every idea as to what constitutes a good wife, her doubts about her love for him begin. But they are doubled when she realises the disgust, and deep hatred he has for the forest, a world she still deeply loves and respects . . . This causes a rift in their marriage . . .and the "love" story plays itself out against the background of both South Africa now going to war in North Africa with the Allies, and also the governments forcible removing of the forest folk . . . and the cutting down of many of the ancient sacred trees. The complex playing out of the emotions of that love story and its dramatic ending is what the movie is about.

Elder's Pen (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Your edit seems to have two issues. First, you are placing analysis in the plot section instead of the theme section. To read more about what goes where in film articles, read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Primary_content. (I don't know why the Toorbos article editors have chosen to call that section "Synopsis" instead of "Plot.") Second, your analysis seems to be original research that is unsourced. (Note, the plot sections of movie articles are one exception to the general rule that Wikipedia content must be sourced.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit got deleted

The subject I edited some date about in an already existing page Jammu and Kashmir, is recently published by many national and international news media agencies like yahoo news, MSN, ANI, TOI, DNA, DailyHunt, India TV, Zee5, Kashmir Reader and many more. He's a notable person as clearly seen on Google search engine but has no Wikipedia page. So, I thought I might add him to Jammu and Kashmir artist's list but I couldn't. Can you please help me out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UriBoyka10 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

This must be about List of people from Jammu and Kashmir – when you have a question about a specific article, it's always help to specify which article. You added the name "Saraf Ali Bhat" to the Literature section. But the list is of people from Jammu and Kashmir who have Wikipedia articles about them. I can find no such article about Saraf Ali Bhat. It may be that Saraf Ali Bhat is notable enough, in Wikipedia's sense, to warrant the creation of such an article. But until such an article has been created, please do not add his name to the list. Maproom (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Maproom: It seems to me that this analysis runs counter to Wikipedia:Red_link#Dealing_with_existing_red_links, a guideline. Am I missing something? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Butwhatdoiknow – when writing an article, it can be appropriate to use a redlink. But in an article which is explicitly a "list of notable people from Jammu & Kashmir", it is not appropriate to include a person who is not notable. Incidentally, the name added by you and UriBoyka10, and subsequently removed by other editors, was not a redlink. Maproom (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I've edited List of people from Jammu and Kashmir to explicitly state this criteria. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Why? It's already explicitly stated in the page's editnotice. Cabayi (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cabayi: Two reasons: First, the template only appears when someone does an edit. Without text in the article casual readers will never know the "already have an article" criterion. Second, when I click "edit" on that page I land not at the top of the page but at the edit box - I don't see the template unless I think to scroll up. I don't know whether this is unique to my setup but, if it happens to me, it must be happening to others as well. So even some editors could easily miss the warning.

Now, if you'll permit me, a question for you: Why not explicitly state it in the text? Where's the harm? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

First, why would a casual reader care about the editing restrictions?

Second, the relevant editnotice should appear whenever you edit the page. You say "I don't see the template unless I think to scroll up" but the same would hold true for text on the page.

I've tried the Vector skin, the monobook skin (as you have a monobook.js), the visual editor, the source editor, and I always see the editnotice. I'm intrigued about what may be preventing you from seeing editboxes. Is it a browser setting maybe?

Why not have the text on the page? Because editing instructions have no place among the content. To follow this lead, wouldn't we need to define who's notable too? -- Cabayi (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's put your "second" aside for the moment.

With regard to your "first" and last thoughts, it seems we are coming at this from different perspectives. You see the "only list folks with articles" as an editing instruction, I see it as a content restriction. I agree that casual readers don't care about editing instructions. But when those "instructions" enforce a content restriction they become substantive. I hope you will agree that casual readers do care to know all the substantive criteria restricting the entries of a list they are looking at.

(And, yes, I do think the word notable in the lede sentence should be "defined" by a link to WP:NOTABLE.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

If you're convinced you're right, and all the other list articles are wrong, you've got your work cut out - CategoryTree. Cabayi (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven't done a survey but, following your link, I quickly found one article that doesn't have explicit edit restrictions and includes a red link. The guideline suggests this is acceptable: "Lists of "notable people" in an article, such as the "Notable alumni" section in an article on a university, tend to accrue red links, or non-links, listing people of unverifiable notability. Such list entries should often be removed, depending on the list-selection criteria chosen for that list." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

[outdent] Is there a rule prohibiting the change you reverted? If not then, I suggest, it's not a matter of right and wrong but of improvement, neutral, or detriment. I think my edit stating the chosen list-selection criteria is an improvement. You say it is unnecessary, which seems to suggest neutral. Do you also see a detriment? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

FYI, another red link has appeared. Would my change have prevented that? Who knows? But it might have. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Requests for Gillette article

Hello! Erin here with the public relations firm Ketchum Inc. I've identified quite a few problems with the current Gillette Wikipedia article, which needs updating. I've submitted a couple requests on the article's talk page using Template:Request edit, but I'm struggling to get any feedback from editors or updates to the article.

I've tried reaching out to multiple WikiProjects and individual editors. Can any editors here lend a hand? Thank you! EA.Ketchum (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I have answered the open requests. Thank you for your patience. Also remember, Wikipedia has no deadlines. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Thanks for your reply here and for helping on the article's talk page. I've posted another request to add citations for some currently unsourced content and to fix a typo, if you are other editors have a moment to review. Thanks again! EA.Ketchum (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Problem with the translation of a page

Answered

Hello, I noticed today that the French version of the English page Space technology did not correspond to the same content : the French page only concerns the space industry in Europe (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrie_spatiale_europ%C3%A9enne), while its English equivalent concerns space industry in the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_technology) just like the Spanish and Portuguese pages (for the other languages, I am not sure) The information on the two pages is correct but they are not equivalent so I think it should be made so that they are separated and that they are no longer seen as the same page but in a different language. I think I can't do it so maybe this requires the intervention of an admin ?

LeaBjoy (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

While there may be a few editors who might read this who also edit at the French Wikipedia, every language-version of Wikipedia stands on its own and none of them are controlling or precedential as to any other. (Indeed, each language sets its own "rules" for what can and cannot be included and what and how much documentation is needed so some variation in article content from language to language is common and inevitable.) This is really something that should presumably be taken up at the French Wikipedia's talk page for that article, not here at English Wikipedia. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

 COVFEFE IS NOT A MISSPELLED WORD  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B103:36CA:95F3:27C8:FB23:35AC (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Help at MasterClass

Hello! Alyssa here on behalf of the online streaming platform MasterClass. I've disclosed this on my profile and at Talk:MasterClass, where I've suggested some changes to make the article more accurate and up to date. More specifically, I've asked to correct language about the company's founding and remove content not specifically confirmed by sourcing. Editor feedback has been limited, even though I've reached out to several WikiProjects, so I'm hoping some editors could take a look and update the article for me. Thanks! MC Alyssa (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

How to deal with complete updating of articles?

Case (e.g.):

Direct Action and Research Training Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Special:Diff/1002057901
National Association of Convenience Stores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Special:Diff/1002043623

Hello,
When dealing with articles found on Special:DeadendPages, I found examples of replacement of articles with new texts, saying it's an update. I want to know how to deal it or is there any rules established to follow in such cases.
Thanks, Anas1712 (talk) -- 20:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The Most BIAS Inflammatory BIO of Anyone I have ever witnessed!! ..About Lin Wood

The Most BIAS Inflammatory BIO of Anyone I have ever witnessed!! Lin Wood

I will never believe anything that comes from you at all. Disgusting!

The inclusion of the major cases in full detail does sem unnecessary--we have at least one good article on each of them DGG ( talk ) 10:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC) .

This is a statement, not a request. Do you have a request? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Need a review of the article

Good day. Please give your opinion on my recent article The old-age-security hypothesis. Thanks in advance. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Vyacheslav84, it looks pretty good to me. I'm surprised that Wikipedia does not already have an article on this topic. My advice would be to trim the bibliography, by removing the research papers and just keeping the secondary sources. Maproom (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Maproom Thank you, but I don't have time for Wikipedia right now, you can expand it yourself by sources. If you want to. Do you have suggestions for better wording here Template:Did you know nominations/The old-age-security hypothesis --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

national record for 24hrs precipitation

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records

24-Hour Precipitation i 49.69 in. April 14 - 15, 2018 Waipā Garden (Kauai)

NOT the 40" in Texas

I know because I lost Two business two vehicles my tractor my entire apiary and and and my mental health.

Aloha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.103.245 (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia holds no sway over what NOAA publishes. You should take this up with them. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Advice on dealing with in-experienced editor

I have a situation with another editor on the page Sharif Sheikh Ahmed who opened an account and their first edit was to change the photo on the page to an older version. There had been an attempted change of the photo by an un-logged in editor a few days ago, and I reverted it and asked them to log in and discuss it on the talk page if they wished to change the photo back to the old one.

The new editor wrote on their edit summary , 'To the annoying troll who keeps changing the picture of the former president of Somalia, to hideous, unprofessional and unflattering picture of him - please stop, this is an important time (election season).' I left a warning on their talk page not to use abusive language as I considered the words 'annoying troll' abusive and as they have only had an account for two days and made one edit with it, accusing another editor of such repetitive behaviour is odd.

I would like advice on how to deal with this editor. It is true that elections are coming up, but I consider the older photo which the user wants to change it back to, to be the less flattering, as it is dull, blurred, and also shows a headphone on one side of his head. The old picture is also 3 years earlier and it has been digitally altered from the original, causing it to have a dull and tired appearance. I find it hard to believe that this new editor actually believes that the old photo is better and I am tending to feel that his changing this photo to a digitally altered, less flattering photo so close to elections is a deliberate act of vandalism, while he is claiming the opposite.

I would appreciate advice on the best way to deal with this editor please. Amirah talk 06:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, AmirahBreen. As a totally uninvolved editor who had never seen either image until a few minutes ago, I consider the image with the headphone to be far superior to the other one, which is way too dark and does not really reveal his facial features. I completely disagree that the photo you oppose is less flattering. Yes, I wish we had a similar photo without the headset, but to me, that aspect just shows that he is a 21st century man. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion on the photo Cullen328 it goes to show how differently people can see things. I still feel that the comment left by this new user about being an 'annoying troll' is abusive and I still prefer the more recent photo which has not been digitally altered to lighten the person's skin tone. Amirah talk 07:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

AmirahBreen, I agree that "annoying troll" is wrong per WP:CIVIL. I see you warned them at their talkpage, which is the right step at this point. If they don't repeat the behaviour, that's good enough. An apology would be nice, but don't expect it. As for the images, IMO they're both acceptable, and for whatever subjective reason I like the glasses one a little more. That it's newer (but still president, I think) is a +. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. It would have helped if you had signed your message. Amirah talk 12:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Correct, my mistake. And you should take a look at WP:INDENT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Proper english

As a monetary contributor I have faith that Wikipedia (of all sites) would know the difference between the word 'done" & 'finished’. I hope you not only provide unbiased but correct words, information & set/keep standards.

Just because people use it incorrectly does not make it correct. Wikipedia sent me a lengthy survey that ended with a button called 'DONE'. I am both offended & disappointed.

Since I am not food (and no cannibals or a pot & fire were nearby) there is no possible way I could be DONE as I am not food. Therefore the correct word is 'finished' or 'complete' i.e.with a task or survey.

People get 'FINISHED';' only food gets DONE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.112.251.80 (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

"Have you done your homework?" sounds to me like standard English. Maproom (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

IP user, three things:

Contributions go to the Wikimedia Foundation and are used for administrative costs, while editors here are volunteers and never see a dime (with limited exceptions). Whether you contribute monetarily has no bearing on your postings.
Prescriptivist grammar is not necessarily correct grammar. If enough people use a word "wrongly" it becomes correct. Think of peruse for only one example. This is how English has worked for literally over a thousand years.
If there is a particular article you are objecting to, you need to mention this objection on that article's talk page or at least provide some sort of indication of where you saw the objectionable usage. We have no way of knowing this. In this form, your complaint is not going to provoke any correction.

That is surely not what you want to hear but I hope it helps explain some things. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for using "literally" correctly (I think). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

the information of my wikipedia is fake and discriminatory

Hello, could you please delete my wikipedia because the content of information about myself is fake. best — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.69.4.251 (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

If an article (about you or anyone or anything else) is found to be fake, or otherwise incorrect, Wikipedia policy is to correct the errors, rather than to delete it. If it's about you, you should detail the errors on its talk page. If you just complain here, without specifying who you are or what article it is, there's no way we can help. Maproom (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Monument missing from one article - present on another article - merger information ??

List of monuments erected by the United Daughters of the Confederacy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monuments_erected_by_the_United_Daughters_of_the_Confederacy#Kentucky

The following monument is is not on the above list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_Monument_(Murray,_Kentucky) Confederate Monument (Murray, Kentucky) Robert E Lee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:BFC0:41:48B6:E8C:3628:A484 (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I have added the entry to the table. Thank you for bringing this to attention but usually these are handled on the talk page of the article. You can find this at Talk:List of monuments erected by the United Daughters of the Confederacy. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Hateful content in locked page

On this page;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims

This passage in this locked article is offensive;

"The Nazis also targeted religious groups for political and ideological reasons. Thousands of Catholic clergy and nuns were killed, including some with a Jewish background (Edith Stein, for example). The Nazis considered Jews a racial group; secular people and those of other religions who had Jewish ancestry were, therefore, Jews (a belief shared by some Jews).[72]"

By Jewish law a person who converts to Judaism is considered more pius because they came to the religion voluntarily by free choice, not just by an accident of birth. Therefore, it is by Jewish law, not a racial group. I could expand this but the crux of it is that by Wikipedia including this line in this article, "a belief shared by some Jews" Wiki is creating a gratuitous equivalancey between the Nazis and the Jews which is deeply offensive.

If you do not understand my point, imagine the article said, 'Nazi murdered people, an act shared by some Jews.'

The line adds nothing other than offense and a false equivalancy. Any no racist knows all groups have murderers, criminal, racists etc. To point that out in this context is just hateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.33.227 (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it. The sentence was cited to jewfaq.org; I would want to see at least two respected history books cited before making a claim like that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

2021 storming of the United States Capitol BIASED

I believe that Wikipedia has a policy of submitting articles without bias. The recent article entitled "2021 storming of the United States Capitol" is a very biased piece and should not be anywhere but an editorial page, not a site based on fact. I hope that your team will review and notify the writer of the severe bias contained within this article. It can't simply be edited to not show bias, that would essentially eliminate the entire article. 165.214.68.108 (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)rinedesign

Not done This article was not created by a single writer! To date, 1,093 editors have contributed to it, and have based its content upon 473 published sources. You failed to identify any specific examples of 'bias' that you believe needs altering. It sounds more like you simply don't like it. That is not a rationale for making an edit request. Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

How to deal with Wikipedia:Autobiography violation?

I've looked through Wikipedia:Autobiography and don't see a procedure for dealing with the issue, so I'm not sure where to go from here.

Basically Helen Caldicott has been edited by the user User:Hcaldic. The edit comments seem to indicate that this user is the article's subject matter. Further, the article has previously been tagged as having neutrality and citation issues.

Some edit comments include "I changed some statements that were not true and inserted some other sentences fro my autobiography A DESPERATE PASSION" and "correction of inacuracies and brief addition of facts re PSR". In both cases citations were not added.

Any insights would be appreciated. Kylesenior (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Kylesenior, good question. On the editor, some guidance at WP:COICOIN. On the article, well, this is a WP:BLP, so cutting uncited and badly cited stuff is quite allowed, for example faqs.org is not a WP:RS (actually it seems to be blacklisted). Finding good sources is of course even better, if it can be done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Please

Please Accept Me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arya Kinchitkumar Shah (talk • contribs) 09:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Arya Kinchitkumar Shah, if you mean a WP-article about you, no, see this link: WP:AUTO. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Help and Clarification needed

Salutations! I am dealing with situation which seems to be beyond me as a new user. Let me start what is this about. I have recently contributed an article Veleco which I have published, out of my own good will, not being paid for it etc. When creating it, I have taken reference from other articles of similar kind like Daelim Motor Company or Aeon Motor as an example, to correctly write my own. Since publishing my contribution, it has been a very tiring battle of attrition to keep it published. Firstly someone assumed I had a COI. Ok I have clarified it not being the case. Then it was assumed the article has not enough notability, granted I agreed it might not to someone, even though it does reference an independent newspaper source from Poland (where the company originated from), which is more than the company articles above do. Still, it was marked that it might need additional notability so okay, needs one more reference. However, the next thing I see, the article was PROD'ed by an editor and later moved to drafts by another user. Granted, I do believe the article I wrote could be improved still and am okay with adding more to it and making it even better, but could anyone clarify for me this: why are articles like those I based my own off okay and in published state, without references whatsoever, while the one I wrote that is slighty under referenced keeps being targeted constantly as if some people just wanted it gone altogether? Is this abuse or someone being overzealous? I would like someone uninvolved to look into this if possible since it is not very pleasant situation and to be honest what I thought would be pleasant experience contributing in wikipedia has turned into a rather unpleasant stuff. MartinOrl087 (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I've had a look at the article, and see only one cited source (the last one cited, cited twice) which might help to establish notability. I can't read Polish, but I'm suspicious that even that source may be based on a press release. So the article has at present either zero or one source that helps with notability; even if you find and add another, that won't be enough.

The argument "I've found a crappy article on Wikipedia, and am therefore justified in creating another equally poor article" does not convince anyone here. Most of us are here to help improve Wikipedia. If you find an article which does not meet Wikipedia's standards (and there are plenty), you can try to improve it to an acceptable standard. If you become convinced that that would be impossible, you can submit it for deletion. Maproom (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't think MartinOrl087 is trying to "justify" the quality of the Veleco article by reference to other articles. Rather, MartinOrl087 is simply wondering why Veleco is removed when the other articles are not. (And I'll add that MartinOrl087's experience is that a seasoned editor effectively deleted the Veleco article (by moving it to drafts) without any effort to improve it.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Butwhatdoiknow it would be just like you have stated, I am pretty new to wikipedia myself so many guidelines still are slighty confusing to me, and it's not the easiest system to get into, so I'm trying to learn more as soon as possible to 'fit in'. Regarding the articles on topic of scooter manufacturers, as Maproom suggested, I did indeed found many 'crappy articles' being in published state and staying that way for years. What bothers me is the why it feels like the one I have submitted was targeted almost instantly and no effort was made to improve it. First it gets PROD then as soon as PROD is removed with valide objection, next day it gets moved to draft space by someone else. I'm not trying to justify quality of my contribution at all, as I see myself that it can become better with more references for notability, which I will be adding. It is just that the situation seemed as if two people were deliberately trying to get rid of exactly this one article and it was contributed only on 5'th January. So in pretty much less than a month, effort by two people is made to get rid of it instantly. I would understand editors clearing up wikipedia, that's good but again, it was only my own contribution, while all those others stayed unchanged, even tho I suggested to those editors they might want to look up those others too if they are cleaning up the house, as it would be inappropriate of me to submit company contribution and go around PROD'ing other companies of same kind. They didn't seem interested in improving wikipedia by clearing up those other articles at all though. That's suspicious and feels like they were insterested in only targeting my contribution, so I'm trying to get advice and viewpoint from uninvolved editors who have more experience than I have. MartinOrl087 (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's another, less suspicious explanation: Wikipedia flags new articles. Some editors monitor this list. Perhaps the other articles were posted when no one was looking at new articles. Or perhaps the editors who looked at your article were more persnickety than the editors who looked at the other articles. These two possibilities seem much more likely than either (a) a scooter company cabal bent on excluding Veleco or (b) someone at Wikipedia has it in for you. Whatever the reason, you'll need to find some solid references to Veleco before it gets back into the Wikipedia mainspace. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

True, either way I need to improve references, and thank you for clarificaiton, those possibilities you have mentioned indeed are much more likely. I don't honestly believe in some conspiracy theory that someone was out there to delete it for the fun of it or at least I hope that was not the case. Thanks Butwhatdoiknow, this makes it much clearer for me. MartinOrl087 (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Experienced User reverted my edit and them made the same edit himself

Hello, few days ago i spotted an error in an image caption on the Wikipedia Logo site. Under the Wikipedia_logo#Milestone_commemorations for 6 million Articles just stood "6000" Articles. So i fixed the error by adding the missing zeros. After that i noticed this is an inconsistency, so i made ANOTHER edit and changed the zeros to "millions" like in the other captions. This was my very first edit ever and i felt a little bit proud. Since i have no account, i made the edit just under my IP. When i looked today if my edit was acceptet, is saw that Bruce1ee just reverted my changes with the comment "no need for that". Three minutes later he made the same edits again himself again which then got automatically accepted.

Is there anything that somebody can do for me, like grant me the edit? I just feel sad that my only ever contribution to Wikipedia got "stolen"... Thanks for every answer, Peter --62.46.198.43

You added the "File" prefix to some image names, and altered "6 000 articles" to "6 millions articles". Bruce1ee undid your edits, then altered "6 000 articles" to "6 million articles". I don't know about the "File" business - but your correction of the wrong number is still there, in a somewhat more grammatical form. Maproom (talk) 07:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The "File:" prefix is not necessary in image galleries – it's implied. —Bruce1ee^talk 09:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Peter, I know the feeling. And perhaps it would have been better for the other editor to modify your edit rather than reverting it and then putting in the modifying text. But the goal for Wikipedia editing is improvement, not scoring edit points. You can take pride in the fact that you found an error and set the wheels in motion to get it fixed. Thank you for that. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the Answers! I did not add the "File"-prefixes intentionally, that happened automatically! I will watch out for that now! So thanks Bruce1ee for correcting that.

I wanted to change it to "million" instead if "millions" but English is not my native language, so I wasn't sure about the "s" and made it consistent with the other Captions. it seems the version without "s" is the correct way to go.

The main thing is that the number correct now and I do still feel proud about my contribution. Additionally, the statement "I know the feeling" made me happy, thanks for that to you Butwhatdoiknow!

Case closed, Stay healthy and have a nice day! Peter --62.46.198.43

American Descendants of Slavery

FBA or Foundational Black Americans has been added to this page incorrectly. I attempted to use the talk page it has been ignored. The page is locked so I can not amend it. There is no affiliation between ADOS and FBA and it is listed there is no affiliation on the ADOS Homepage = ABOUT US https://ados101.com/about-ados

In addition, the citation source used by the editor for the recent major change is one blogger that has clearly stated his blog is only his perspective. And upon detailed review that blogger misinterperted the link he used randomly from twitter which was a dispute with FBA. That is not a source for changing the About US or having any mention of FBA or Tariq Nasheed on the wiki page of ADOS. https://honestmediablog.com/2019/11/12/whats-the-difference-between-fba-and-ados/

All of the below in the about should be removed:

The term Foundational Black American (FBA) is a synonym with the same meaning in referring to the sub-set of African Americans, coined by Tariq Nasheed. The main difference is that the term "Foundational Black American" is described as more apolitical than "American Descendants of Slavery" and its corresponding movement with the same name, in that it is seen more as an ethnic identifier rather than a political movement.[3]

and this entire subsection removed

ADOS and Foundational Black Americans as an ethnic group

African American Descendants of Slavery or Foundational Black Americans, can be described as an ethnic group within the larger African American community separate from that of the various ethnic groups that make up the modern group of Black African immigrants to the USA and Black immigrants from the Caribbean that are considered African American today.[4]

SECONDLY In addition the top of the page added African American Descendants of Slavery it is American Descendants of Slavery alone as found on ados101.com their homepage. Please remove that

Johnways21145 (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Johnways21145

@Johnways21145: The content in question was added without explanation by an editor less than ten days ago. I have reverted to the version before that, which (as far as I can tell) does not contain the content you are complaining about. Can you check the state of the article now? Incidentally, you can't edit the article directly yet as it has been protected against new users owing to persistent disruptive editing from other people. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Editing/changing format of existing content

This article contains a section that is flagged for improving, before editing I wanted to confirm whether I am able to separate the existing content under *additional research* into subsections which would allow me to add new material to the article?

LACreswell (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)LACreswell

Courtesy link: Scarr-Rowe_effect. Maproom (talk) 08:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Editors have a fair amount of leeway regarding making sections. IF another editor disagrees then the community editing that article would need to resolve the difference. Short answer to your question: "yes." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA and GAB

Sir/Madam I am somewhat concerned or baffled by the way YOU describe GAB, as a far right micro blogging site. I have only started it using it in the last couple of months, and do not find it as offensive as TWITTER or FACEBOOK. both of which seem to allow far extremism from terrorist groups, or even I came across (immediately blocked) paedophilia, which is of extreme concern to me. YET I find GAB a more relaxed posting, polite. On twitter the most polite comment was "i hope you die" when I stated I did not want the Covid Vaccine as it is experimental. I closed my accounts on Facebook due to the horrendous abuse i received during the Brexit referendum, again "i wish you die was one of the most polite" On FB and Twitter you dare contradict a left wing group and 1000, arrive to insult you. Additionally of FB and Twitter politician and blue ticks due to their certified accounts seems to be able to post fake information and "get away" even when being reported to Twitter, if i do the same my accounts gets blocked (like the last one) I think you should review the description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.248.236.4 (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

(1) Wikipedia content results from the consensus of independent editors, there is no "YOU." (2) At the time I viewed the GAB article it described GAB as a site "known for its far-right userbase" - not as a far-right site. (3) That characterization is supported by a cite to four independent sources. (4) If you find something incorrect on Wikipedia the best way to resolve it is to click the "edit" button and fix it, not to come here and complain. Note that you will be required to support your edit with a citation to a reputable source. Your personal experience is not enough. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Capital Punishment

I just happened across the subject article and was taken aback by the use of the term “homicide” to describe it. No matter your personal views about capital punishment, it is not homicide according to the strict definition (see article on “homicide” in wiktionary), which describes it as a crime committed by a person.

I would have changed the Wikipedia article on “Capital Punishment” myself to use an accurate term to describe it (“ending the life” is a decent way to put it; just plain “killing” would be OK if you prefer to be more crass about it) but the article is locked to editing. I recommend someone either unlock the article or fix the inappropriate term.

Thank you!

2601:192:100:297B:94F1:DF2F:51EE:233E (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Tom Green

Not that Wiktionary is a WP:RS, but the first definition there is "The killing of one person by another, whether premeditated or unintentional." Another source says Homicide is when one human being causes the death of another. If one accepts the meaning "One person kills another", it fits. However, suggestions to change that article should start at Talk:Capital punishment (not locked). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

African American worthy of a Wikipedia

I would like assistance in creating an article for a subject named Rashad McCrorey. After several attempts I am now rightfully considered havingCOI. However. I feel guilty that my lack of experience in creating article has significantly hurt this person's chance of having a Wikipedia article as I do not know him personally, nor has he paid me, or asked me to write the article.

The subject has established borderline notabilty with Features on CNN, ABC World News, Forbes Magazine, Black Enterprise and more. He has far surpassed the Wikipedia 3 and is notable for 2 "seperate" actions. First for helping Black Americans visit Africa (specifically Ghana) and 2nd for choosing to move to Africa during the covid 19 pandemic. These actions have all been covered by the previously mentioned news cycles...

I believe an experienced editor would have more than enough information to create an article for the subject and format the page properly for review.

It would be good to have more African Americans on Wikipedia who are not athletes, entertainers or discussing negative images of Black Americans such as mass incarceration and drug abuse.

I have a stub draft where you can find some of the more High Profile 3rd party independent news sources including CNN, ABC World News, New York Daily News, Forbes Magazine and More...

please give guidance... — Preceding unsigned comment added by NanaKofiER (talk • contribs) 23:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Rashad McCrorey. It seems from the draft that all he's "notable" for is getting stranded abroad by Covid quarantine regulations. Maproom (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

To read more, go to Wikipedia:Notability#Notable_topics_have_attracted_attention_over_a_sufficiently_significant_period_of_time. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

For further context, see the editor's history [8] and the conversation at my talk page [9]. There's reason to have a closer look at ref-spamming in articles such as Tourism in Ghana, which is seen as an opportunity to squeeze Mr. McCrorey's name into multiple places. 2601:188:180:B8E0:8804:65CA:7CE3:366C (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Photo montages of cities' articles

Hi, i don't know if i'm right here, but it would be nice if someone could help me - i tried to make look nicer some photo montages of some cities, but there is someone - and (s)he is the only one who keeps doing it all the time - who reverts my changes. The cities affected are mainly Lübeck and Dresden, but also Schwerin, Stralsund, Erfurt, and Leipzig. It would be nice if someone could have a look at my changes and at the changes of the user who reverts my edits all the time, and also at what (s)he wrote on my talk page. One of her/his arguments is, that no photos of buildings' interiors may be included in photo montages of cities. I'd like to know if that is correct, and how many photos are allowed in a city's photo montage.

Example Lübeck: i made this photo montage:

and the user changes it to just this one photo:

and says that i have to reach consensus on the talk page for the photo montage. This can't be true? Thank you in advance.TheCarlos1975 (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@TheCarlos1975: Since you've posted this at the help desk, it's probably best not to post the same question here as well - WP:CROSS-POST. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you John of Reading, i posted the question here as well, because i only found this page after i had already posted the question at the help desk. I thought this page here is more appropriate for the question, and i think my question might not be answered adequately at the help desk, because it rather belongs here. It would be nice if you or anyone would help me. Thank you.TheCarlos1975 (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

TheCarlos1975, you were given a clear answer at the help desk (which was the appropriate place), you didn't like it, so you're having another shot here. Sorry, that doesn't work. Maproom (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Will Estes Bio

Please replace the bio you have on Will Estes's Wikipedia page to the below. His last name is NOT Nipper. Thank you.

WILL ESTES

Will Estes has amassed a diverse body of film and television credits, challenging himself with each role. On the small screen, Estes received critical acclaim for his performances as Jamie Reagan in "Blue Bloods" and as JJ Pryor in “American Dreams.” Additional television credits include a starring role in “Reunion,” and guest-starring roles in “The Cleaner,” “In Plain Sight,” “The 11th Hour” and many others. Also, Estes starred in the television movies “Dive from Clausen’s Pier,” “The Familiar Stranger” and “See You in My Dreams.”

Highlights of Estes’ feature film credits include his role in the Academy Award-winning World War II film “U-571” and the third installment of Christopher Nolan’s Batman franchise, “The Dark Knight Rises.” Additional feature film credits include “Mimic 2,” “New Port South,” “Terror Tract,” “Blue Ridge Fall,” “May” and “Not Since You.” Estes’ 2011 indie feature, “Magic Valley,” premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival. In 2012 he starred in two independent films: the award-winning “Line of Duty,” playing a drug dealer searching for redemption, and the noir thriller “Automotive,” which premiered at the 2013 Dances with Films Festival in Los Angeles. Also, he appeared in the psychological drama “Anchors.”

When Estes is not on set, he spends time with his dogs, friends and family. He is a surfer and a cyclist. His interests include film, literature and mixed martial arts. Estes’ humanitarian efforts include the Natural Resources Defense Council, World Wildlife Fund, Heal the Bay, Best Friends Animal Society, wild land conversation, humane treatment of animals, and Vote Solar because they’re consistent with his belief in advocating sustainability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.100.17 (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The way to correct articles in Wikipedia is to click the edit button and make the changes. Note that any new content should be supported by a reference to a reliable source. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Editor assistance required

Certified Professional Coder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) published via afc process and after few day another editor placed COI and I have responded to all queries mentioned by editor. Since than I am trying to get in touch with editor (on editor talk page, my talk page, article talk page) for guidance on what are next steps or if there is something more I can do to improve article. Assuming he/she is busy or not available I am asking for help/guidance on what I should do next?

I am new to Wikipedia editing and need guidance on next steps like if I have to do more research on topic to find references like book (I am able to locate one https://books.google.co.in/books?id=-FKcxQEACAAJ&dq=certified+professional+coder&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&redir_esc=y ) or something else. Jamesinhere (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I know nothing about books on Wikipedia editing. My guess is that, if there are some, they would not be particularly helpful in this somewhat complicated situation. Unfortunately, the best way to learn - which really isn't very good - is to deal with issues as they come up. Hang in there!

I'm thinking that the reason you haven't heard from the editor who did the re-direct (GSS) is because GSS doesn't know that you're asking. To get GSS's attention either post on GSS's talk page or start your post on the article's talk page with "{{ping|gss}}" or one of its variants. Simply typing a link to GSS's talk page doesn't do the trick. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Butwhatdoiknow: I have already posted multiple times on GSS talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GSS#Regarding_Jan_2021 and article talk page as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Certified_Professional_Coder , now I am using "{{ping|gss}}" and hopefully will receive GSS reply. Thanks for advice.

I am just wondering if an editor is not available can't any other editor take over this? Jamesinhere (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, any editor can modify what a prior editor did. But, how do you interest an editor in doing that in your case? Perhaps through one of these options. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Third opinion help

Gospel for Asia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello, I recently asked for a 3O to provide an independent opinion on a content dispute between editors concerning the lead. The 3O denied my request for this opinion. The 3O editor labeled me as a single-page user and deemed me therefore biased in my edits. Would it be possible for someone to look at the merits of my edits and claims versus another editor's claims without solely analyzing my history as a user? I am a new Wiki user and I find the platform exciting, but every edit I make is reverted or deemed biased. I have tried to compromise with the editor who reverts my changes in the talk page, but it has not worked. I am looking for direction, please. Thank you for your time - I appreciate your help! Shelbychesbro (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)shelbychesbro

It looks like the third opinion editor found your edits to reflect a lack of neutrality in and of themselves. That editor's suggestion to edit other pages was most likely meant to say that, while you probably shouldn't edit on this topic, you should feel free to edit on other topics. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Cultivation theory: Got feedback for ongoing rewrite?

Cultivation theory (re: effects of modern media) saw short bursts of growth over many years, achieving verbosity (see pre-rewrite version) seldom seen by this editor. Much revision is done, much more is needed. What Talk pages or Noticeboards might welcome such a request? Today, I added a {{Multiple issues}} template, and now figure it best to invite others for input. azwaldo (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Just make the revisions you believe are appropriate. If someone thinks you've done it wrong then they'll change, revert, or post on the talk page. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Converting a page to a biography

I was able to get a page published for Thomas Adam Regelski but now realize there is a biography template that would have been much better for his page. How do I convert his existing page into the biography template format? I have tried on my own with no success. Kruguitarz (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Kevin Kruger

Are you talking about {{Biography}}? It appears limited to new pages. Since you're dealing with an existing article you'll need to make individual edits to bring it into conformity with the layout at {{Biography}}. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

I just made a Sepak raga article but not long after, my article was interrupted by Heinztabs, he changed it according to his nationalist view, this is also very strange, how can an account that only edits a few pages to know my new page, except he is an account specifically spying on me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northheavensky (talk • contribs) 13:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests for some options to deal with this situation. (Looking over your edits I see that you rarely add edit summaries explaining your changes. I encourage you to change to almost always adding an edit summary. See Help:Edit_summary#Always_provide_an_edit_summary for more on this topic.]] Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Edits get reverted without proper explanation again

I edited the article Sepak Raga based on the references, but the other editor, Northheavensky called it "vandalism" for no reasons and did not even engage in the talk page Heinztabs (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

my response : I just realized that he has copied the article from Sepak takraw, note, I was previously involved in an edit war with a blocked editor AksIarsd he tried hard to restore the page I edited, there is a similarity between the two that the account was created specifically to disturb/restore my edits. not only sepak takraw but also Baju kurung and songkok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northheavensky (talk • contribs) 05:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

To you both: This is not a page for airing grievances. Take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests for some options to resolve your differences. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Changing Sauli Niinistö Malay wikidata description

Help changing Sauli Niinistö wikidata Malay wiki description to " Presiden Finland ke-12 " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidlfarhn (talk • contribs) 18:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Question regarding achieving consensus (or lack thereof) for a biography of a living person

Hi! I am a (relatively) new editor in Wikipedia and am unsure how to go about this process. Recently, there was a dispute regarding the page of Padma Lakshmi. There was a non-registered user (just IP number) who added the ethnicity/birthplace/birth nationality of the individual to the lead of the biography. I reverted this per MOS:Ethnicity but then a separate registered user reverted me and stated that I need to start a talk page on the matter and that I cannot revert until consensus has been achieved, which I did. Today, something similar happened with regards to the nationality of the same subject in question and the same thing happened subsequently. I am in discussion with the user who disputed my edits via the subject's talk page but my questions are with regards to what the "stable version" of the article is and also what version of the article continues if there is no dispute resolution? I have evidence for why the additions stated by the other editor are in fact not factual which I have provided in the Talk page. If there is no consensus, does the disputed material remain in the article? What is the protocol? Does WP:Onus apply here?

Thank you, Apoorva Iyer (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Apoorva Iyer, hard to say. People sometimes cherry pick policies and guidelines to support whatever they want. For example, if I wanted to get rid of an edit no matter what, I could argue WP:ONUS or WP:BLP. If I wanted to argue for the pre-edit war version, I could argue WP:BRD. Looking at how minor the edit war is (over including the word "Indian" in the lead), I would recommend taking that one to the talk page, which should hopefully defuse the situation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your response. I have been discussing it on the talk page but I have a feeling we may not come to an agreement. I hope we do though. What is your recommendation if Talk page discussion leads to an impasse? Would you recommend getting a third opinion at that time? And how long should I wait until I do so? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apoorva Iyer (talk • contribs)

Apoorva Iyer, you're very welcome. This is all just my personal opinion, so take it with a grain of salt. If I get out-consensus'd on a talk page over something minor, I usually just accept it and un-watchlist. I've had it happen to me a couple of times. It's not fun, but it's the mature thing to do, and it will help avoid making enemies in the long run. But! Based on who was reverting you, you're only at 1-2. Some other people may chime in on the talk page. So could go either way. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguating "Bhrama"

I would edit the current redirect myself and turn it into a DAB, except i have no idea how to phrase it.

Or i suppose a hatnote at Brahma might work, but i don't know if that's indeed a common typo which would deserve direct access instead of the Bhrama (Hinduism) article.

Maybe even a 3rd approach, changing the redirect to go to the only article that matches the term as spelled out, and add a hatnote there towards Brahma.

And now i really can't decide which of those three should be the result. :-| Hope y'all have a better time with these. -- 188.27.105.107 (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. I changed Bhrama to point to Bhrama (Hinduism), and I added a hatnote to Bhrama (Hinduism) that says "This article is about a Hindu concept. For the Hindu god of creation, see Brahma." Feel free to adjust if needed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Page needs a rewrite

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masonic_Temple_(Windsor,_Ontario) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.233.119.34 (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I reverted to a revision from before the conflict of interest editing. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I see that the unreferenced and promotional content removed by Novem Linguae was a copyvio of this. Maproom (talk) 08:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Maproom, nice catch. I saw that copyvio but I got confused about the dates, so I figured Medium copied from us. Now I see that we copied from Medium. User warned and revdelete requested. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:SysCAD

Seeking some assistance finalising the article Draft:SysCAD for submission (chemical process engineering software). Please let me know if you would be available to review. DanMunchie (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I gave a detailed reply to this on my user talk page, where the user posted something similar. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Writing in encyclopedian language

Hi, I need help regarding an article I wrote whose submission was completely rejected. I have edited the article please tell me what I need to do to have it reviewed again. Please also help me understand if I have complied fully with the requests of the previous editor which I believe I have done my best to change. Here's the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Grant_Proposal_Video#Grant_proposal_videos_are_videos_versions_of_written_proposals_used_by_nonprofits_to_raise_funds_for_their_projects.

Videos4world (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you think the contents of your article would be better served as a subsection of the Grant writing article? --Reedside (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Peer review suggestion

I expect this has been brought up before, but I have not seen it, so in case it has not, it might be a good addition if there were some way for pages to be marked or certified as reviewed by an independent expert. While it is true that people could edit the page after it was peer reviewed, those changes could be made easy to see and dated so people would know. This would add confidence to the pages for readers and could potentially aid academics who could list the pages they write and has reviewed as publications. While it would not carry the same weight as a journal article, it would count for them as public service articles and academics are always looking for ways to add to their publications as part of their own job performance reviews. A reviewed page would thus count more for them than would a standard wiki entry. I would also suggest the certification be done such that the reviewer could publicly identify themselves, something along the lines of "This article reviewed for accuracy by Dr. ----. on this date --/--/--." That way people could check to see if that person really was an expert.

The reason I bring this up is that it has become clear to me that many academics are publishing a wiki entry on their findings at the same time their peer-reviewed journal article is published. While the entries do have the journal citations, there is no way for anyone to know who wrote it, as the entry author's identification is hidden behind a username, so their expertise is unknown to the reader and are not helpful to the author for their CV. Considering the reach of Wikipedia, in terms of finding a wider audience, it is better than any other publication they could do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDMimic (talk • contribs) 18:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey JDMimic. Thanks for your feedback. That sounds like it'd be a little bit bureaucratic to implement. The way it normally works around here is that many different people polish an article until it reaches a good equilibrium. Higher traffic articles in particular tend to be in pretty good shape, because there's so many eyes on them and so many people polishing.

Experienced editors keep articles they're interested in on their watchlist, and make sure that changes to the articles are improvements and follow Wikipedia's policies. Policies like requiring inline citations for anything controversial are very helpful to keeping quality high, as they let us check where ideas are coming from.

If you'd like to bring any specific articles to our attention, please post links to them here and we'll take a look. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Revisions keep being deleted. The Shining & Dr Sleep.

Hi

I have been trying to update the soundtrack info for the movies. , “The Shining” and “ Doctor Sleep”.

In the late seventies I worked for the Decca Record company in London on their nostalgia re releases. My boss was Geoff Milne.

We compiled a double album called, “ And the bands played on” (Decca DDV 5001/2) to support a UK ITV production , which in turn, supported a book release by author Sid Colin.

One song chosen for the album was “ Home” by Henry Hall & The Gleneagles Hotel band. This song was recorded by Decca at its London studios in 1934 but was NEVER released.

It was included on this album and sleeve notes clearly state this as its first ever release. The album was released in 1977.

In 1980 our remaster of this song was used in the movie. “The Shining”. I know it was ours because only three vinyl pressings were ever made of the stampers for the 1977 project. The Decca recording was also released in 1980 on the Shining OST album. Credited to Decca on the sleeve. This album was quickly deleted because of copyright issues.

In 2018 our version was again used in the movie Dr Sleep. The sequel to the Shining. A version of this song has been released , but swamped in echo. But it can only have come from our Decca master tape. I repeat. It was never on 78 record.

I have been trying to update and correct the Wikipedia page for the Shining and Dr Sleep but my accurate revisions have been deleted on a number of occasions. I have only added catalogue numbers and credits for the remaster. Geoff Milne is turning 100 this year and he should be recognised for his contribution to the two movie soundtracks.

I have provided evidence that this recording can be the only one used in the movies. Brian Rust, the vintage music specialist and consultant on The Shining was also a good friend of Geoff Milne’s.

Many people want to obtain this s recording and cannot because the revisions Ali make to the pages are deleted again and again by anonymous users.

Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryelane (talk • contribs) 16:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide any sources beyond your own knowledge? Original research, no matter how accurate or well intentioned is not allowed on Wikipedia. Slywriter (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

For more info, see WP:SOURCE. If you find an appropriate source you'll need to add it as a reference in the article (not just in the edit summary). For more info about that see WP:SITE. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

i want to create a page

i want help to create a page for an organization called letsupgrade — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heamanthnani17 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Heamanthnani17, see WP:NORG. If you conclude "Yeah, I have those sources, no problem", move on to WP:TUTORIAL, WP:YFA and if it applies WP:COI. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_length_of_coastline

Hello, please help me to edit the above page. It lists countries in order of length of coastline. Ireland with a coastline of 6,226km is not even in the list Can you add this or help to enter it. Yours sincerely John Devoy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.43.145.63 (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello! You are welcome to WP:BOLDly edit the page yourself, WP:TUTORIAL may be of help, or you can start a sicussion/make suggestions at Talk:List of countries by length of coastline. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Ireland is already there. The list is sorted by the length given in The World Factbook which says 1,448 km for Ireland. World Resources Institute says 6,437.1 km. As the article says, a coastline does not have a well-defined length. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

What does it mean to be "from" a place?

This question is directly related to Talk:List_of_Middle_Eastern_superheroes.

The wikipedia page for Jews says Jews originated from the Middle East. There's an ongoing battle closely tied to politics where the opposing sides are trying to label Jews as "native" or "foreign invaders".

It seems the neat and clean resolution to this dispute is there should be a universal policy for when someone counts as being "from a place": Born there, parents born there, 5 generations removed, 20?

Does such a policy exist? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Bob drobbs, not that I'm aware of. One idea that often works well on Wikipedia is to check and see what reliable sources say, and then follow whatever wording they use. Another idea is to use a more specific wording that sidesteps the issue (i.e. say what year somebody arrived, rather than that they're from there). A third idea is to not take a side in the debate. The Arab-Israeli conflict is the subject of an ARBCOM case and arbitration remedies, which means that it's a touchy issue. Hope that helps. Good luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Renaming file

Hello. Will there be an administrator who will be kind to help me renaming the File:This is the logo of Padre Pio TV, the Catholic television channel belonging to the Capuchin Friars of San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy.jpg to File:Padre Pio TV.jpg? I would be very grateful for this help. Thanks. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Anjo-sozinho: I see that you've correctly added the {{Rename media}} template to the file, so your request will be seen by an administrator or file mover. Whenever I've used this template, someone with the right permissions usually does the renaming within 24 hours. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Mansigh

Hi there, I'm looking for a place to apologise and explain my edit actions regarding the subject above. My previous questions e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=1008441157 did not satisfy. Thanks for help? Regards. Ema--or (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ema--or: I couldn't find a Mansigh article. Generally, you can explain your edits on the talk page for the article where you made the edit. With regard to apologies, as explained to you at Help, if you have made an inappropriate edit the best course of action is often to learn from your mistake and move on. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC) The name of the article is Mary Ann mansigh. Sorry for delay. Ema--or (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Disrespect and different standards to non-abrahamic Gods

In the Wikipedia page on "Jesus", "God" is used 85 times (99%) and "god" is used 1 time. Together Jesus is referred to as God/god 86 times. on "Muhammad" page, "God" is used 19 times (100%) and "god" is used 0 time. Together Muhammad is referred to as God/god 19 times.

Whereas, on... Hindu God, "Krishna" page, "God" is used 4 times (44%) and "god" is used 5 times. Together Krishna is referred to as God/god 9 times. Hindu God, "Rama" page, "God" is used 3 times (60%) and "god" is used 2 times. Together Rama is referred to as God/god 5 times.

Buddhist God, "Buddha" page, "God" is used 2 times (50%) and "god" is used 2 times. Together Buddha is referred to as God/god 4 times.

Several times, changes to refer non-abrahamic gods as Gods have been erased or over-written.

Could you please fix this religious bigotry and replace the word "god" for "God" for non-abrahamic Gods as mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:4200:45:A01F:551B:2E2D:AD3D (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a content dispute. Since you've been reverted, the next step is to get consensus on the article's talk page. You need to convince a majority of editors on that particular article's talk page that your changes should be made. Also, you may want to become familiar with the page MOS:GOD, as it's likely to be the relevant guideline here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a rule of English that proper names are capitalised, common names are not. So if there is just one god, it's reasonable to use the proper name "God" for that one being. If there are multiple gods, each has his or her own proper name, "Vishnu", "Lakshmi", etc., while each is a god and together they're referred to as "gods". (Incidentally, the article Muhammad does not refer to Muhammad as "God". It states that Muslims regard Mohammad as the prophet, or messenger, of God.) Maproom (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Reference to parental alienation

Dear Editor

It was with great alarm and dismay to see the changes in the reference to parental alienation which is wholly based upon a false narrative.

I'd welcome the opportunity to send you all the evidence required to show that 1) it does exist 2) the research, case law and evidence to support it 3)the long-term psychological damage it causes to children and victim parents alike. Baron Robert Winston himself - a leading scientist, medical doctor and specialist in Human Development has referred to it as 'child abuse'.

Our website which includes genuine stories from survivor children may be of help. www.parentalalienationuk.info

We are a non profit social marketing and behavioural change organisation and I committed our award winning brand to raising awareness of this hidden scandal after watching the emotional destruction of two beautiful children I'd grown to love deeply. What I witnessed - the weaponization of vulnerable children to extract maximum revenge on their co-parent, was a horror story which will stay with me until the day I die. I'm no longer in that relationship and have no connection with them.

We set up a global task force of experts around the world to study the issue and launched a survey which generated over 2,000 responses (1500 in the UK) which underlined the devastation and irrevocable loss of children from safe mothers, fathers and wider family members. It's catastrophic.

By putting this false narrative into the public by those intent on furthering vested interest and ideology, you will consign many more children to a similar fate. I implore you to take another look at the reality of parental alienation - as recognised by our Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) who deal with 140,000 cases annually. They know exactly what this is as they deal with the fall out daily.

Please Wiki, be part of the solution, not the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:7BAC:AE01:8452:5EBF:8595:A5DB (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia aims to base its articles on reliable published sources, not to solve problems. Anyway, if you want to suggest improvemnets to Parental alienation, you should do so at Talk:Parental alienation, preferably including references to reliable published sources. Maproom (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Malcolm Borg entry

I hope my middle initial can be added to my bio: "A." I feel naked without it. The entry is otherwise correct. 22:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Malcolm A Borg (talk)Malcolm A. Borg

Kamel Nacif Wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Paisarepa is deleting my contribution without factcheckin my article on the millionare accused for torturing a journalist who revealed a sex traffic and child pornography network involving Kamel Nacif and other influent mexican people. He claims my sources are not reliable, but they are. The article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamel_Nacif_Borge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2806:2F0:9240:5228:1C86:3D10:8652:84A4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:2F0:9240:5228:1C86:3D10:8652:84A4 (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello friend. I'm pinging Paisarepa, the person who reverted you, so you two can discuss this directly, as I don't know anything about this topic or about Mexican news websites. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Ignoring all other issues, you can't simply go onto a BLP and replace most of the lead with accusations of sex crimes that are very weakly sourced and only accusations, not convictions or even charges. It appears that you have a right to wrong concerning the subject of this article, but this isn't an appropriate way to do it. You need to comply with WP:RS, WP:V, and especially WP:BLP. Paisarepa 02:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Reference to Melbourne bus page at PTC

Tried to add a reference to PTV page for bus route 627 The link: https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/route/13554

I placed the link as external, but my change was reverted. Now I try using 'MetlinkBus', similarly to the links for other routes.

I code: |- |{{MetlinkBus|display=number|route=627}} |[[Moorabbin, Victoria|Moorabbin]] ---- [[Chadstone, Victoria|Chadstone]] |[[Ventura Bus Lines]] | * Commenced 16 June 2019. Original route number for Routes 625 & 626.

However the route number does not appear in the preview. What is wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acidophilusau (talk • contribs) 2021-03-13T04:34:24 (UTC)

@Acidophilusau: I would like to request you to provide a link to the article you were trying to edit with {{La|article title goes here}} next time. I figure out that you were trying to edit List of bus routes in Melbourne this time.

Anyway, the problem is that the route "627" has not been added to Module:PTV route/data yet. ~ Aseleste_{charge-parity}^time 06:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Data added to Module:PTV route/data. Try editing List of bus routes in Melbourne again. ~ Aseleste_{charge-parity}^time 06:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Resolved - Special:Diff/1012433746 ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Username change

Hello, my name is Rafael Reese, and I am requesting that my user name be changed to rafaelreese38. I was rushing and I didn't go through the page carefully before picking the user name. rafaelreese38 is the user name I use for everything; my new user name is always in small case. I would appreciate it very much if you can please help me change my old user name to my requested new one before I continue writing my page. Thank you very much for helping me with this !!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafael A. Reese (talk • contribs) 00:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Asked (multiple times) and answered at the TeaHouse. User has been provided link to the thread so he can find it. Meters (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Editor dispute

Hello, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask but I need some advice following a dispute with another editor. We've discussed the same issue at my talk page and the talk pages at Talk:Argentina national football team results (2020–present) and Template talk:Football box collapsible. The crux of the issue is that I have pointed out numerous occasions where consensus has been reached to use tables in list articles because they fit with MOS:LIST and the alternative football box templates don't but this doesn't fit with the other editor's preference. One of my most recent comments has unfortunately been misunderstood and I don't know what to do next. I accept that I have become frustrated with the situation and I would really appreciate any advice on how best to take this forward. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Stevie fae Scotland, it sounds like at this point you may need to use dispute resolution to get some opinions from previously uninvolved editors. If it's just you and one other editor involved in the conversation, a third opinion can be a quick way to do that. If there are more than two involved, you may want to consider using a formal request for comment. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Seraphimblade. We've been through Third Opinion which ended with the same result. The two neutral parties involved at Talk:Argentina national football team results (2020–present) agreed that wiki policy takes precedence over any personal preference so tables should be used. As a result, I genuinely don't feel an RfC would result in a different outcome nor do I believe the other editor would accept the result of an RfC which didn't agree with their preference. I probably should have mentioned this earlier but I wanted to be concise and allow you to look at the previous discussions without any bias from myself but I am worried about the civility of any further discussions. I have already been accused of vandalising Wikipedia twice and I don't want to make things worse. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking more at that talk page discussion, I think it's rather degenerated to going in circles. You might be surprised; oftentimes an actual RfC can help to break the logjam in cases like that just by getting some fresh eyes on it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)