Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 129

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

non-administrator abuse of rollback

Hi, if a non-administrator has abused rollback, what is an appropriate response? In this case, the article which was disputed is not currently being edited.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Epiphyllumlover, that's outlined at the page on permissions: If you believe someone's actions merit removal of a permission flag, you should raise your concern at the incidents noticeboard. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Since the noticeboard says it is for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems" than I don't think I can post there, since it was just once.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

If someone only did it once, yeah, that's not really enough to merit removal, maybe just a reminder that it's only supposed to be used for vandalism and the like, and anyone can remind them of that. If someone keeps using it inappropriately after receiving such reminders, then it may indeed be time to discuss whether they should have it at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

"the article which was disputed is not currently being edited", does this mean that the last edit(s) -- the ones rolled back -- were old? If so, that is problematical... it depends on the content of the material rolled back (how clearly good is it?), but my personal opinion is that in that case you'd have a case for reverting the rollback one time only, with an edit summary explaining why and inviting discussion; a note on the editors talk page would also be good.

If the rollback is of recent edit, my advice would be to treat it mostly like a regular revert -- do not revert it, instead go to the talk page, open a discussion on the merits of the material. If you get a reply, engage on the merits. If not, you'd be well well within rights to revert the rollback after waiting a few days for a reply, considering that it was a misused rollback.

What was the article? I wish people would post the names of articles they're having a question about, so we can look at it directly. Herostratus (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Seraphimblade, for clarifying the policy. Thank you, Herostratus, I will remember that next time this problem comes around. Sorry I was unclear. The edits rolled back were good-faith article development by a small group of editors (but mostly me) over the course of about a month prior to the rollback. As for the name of the article, I don't mind sharing it, but I didn't post it because I thought I was only supposed to ask general questions here per the instructions (with the more specific stuff being material for the dispute resolution noticeboard), and because the problem is about an editor more than an article. As for attempting to undo the rollback, that is "water-under-the-bridge" at this point so I do not intend to bother. "Stale" is what I meant by "old"--I could have been more clear. If you are terribly curious about which article it was, check my talk page from 2019 onwards and I think you'll see what article the fuss was about.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh Jeez, I didn't know you're not supposed to post specific article names here, sorry if I gave you a bum steer on that.

Yeah, no, rollback is not for month-old edits, and not for edits which are OK or for which a reasonable argument could be made that they're OK. As to the editor, maybe it was just a slip or something. You could ask her on her talk page what the deal is. Herostratus (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if I can't post specific article names, but trying to be on the safe side. When I looked into it a few days ago, it seems that sometimes mis-clicks cause inappropriate rollbacks. But this case wasn't just a slip (evident when talking it over with the editor afterwards).Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

List of best selling artists in the U.S.

Disregard

Hello,

Riaa updated their certification on singles and albums

Cardi B i has been at 26m for months but should be at 28M per updates from Riaa earlier this month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.150.76 (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Writer's main name (Carvalho Calero vs. Carballo Calero)

Helped
Hello there!

I'm requesting for help on the article currently known as Ricardo Carballo (writer). That Galician writer was indeed name Ricardo Carballo Calero at birth, but after that he changed his public name to Ricardo Carvalho Calero. Some time ago the article was right. The title, and the main name used in the text, was Carvalho. Recently, another editor changed it to Carballo, and he keeps changing it, and I keep changing it back. I posted about it at the Talk tab, but nobody is reading it.

So, I request for a mediator or an experient wikipedia editor in order to take a decision in what should be the name used and put an end to this "war".

Thank you!

—AmilGZ (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @AmilGZ: I see you've posted this to the article's talk page (which is where the discussion should take place). I've posted a response there. Orville1974^talk 16:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Need cropping of infobox picture for E. Jean Carroll

Helped
Hello, can someone direct me to people or a wikiproject that are skilled in cropping / producing derivatives of pictures? The infobox picture for E. Jean Carroll can be greatly improved with a crop to show her face. Please ping when you reply. starship .paint (talk) 03:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The method I prefer is exemplified here. I don't have time to apply it now; I may do sometime in the next few days, if you don't do it first. Maproom (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Maproom: - thank you, but does that work for infobox images...? starship .paint (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: It took a little tweaking, but it does work in the infobox. Orville1974^talk 17:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Susana Clark

Answered

I edited the page on Susana Clark concerning co writes.. It is on hold because of no reference.. My reference is one of the writers now passed a friend of mine..Richard Dobson himself. I dont know what to do here. It did take the change when I added him to the filmography. I dont know what to do or I would do it . 65.173.108.95 (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy link: this is about Susanna Clark. Maproom (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Is the information you've included verifiable to independent, third-party reliable sources? If so, you can cite those as references. If not, the information will end up being removed, since it can't be verified using Wikipedia's criteria. Orville1974^talk 15:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

My page PermaGO was deleted as an advert

Resolved

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PermaGO_Inc.&action=edit&redlink=1

So I've attempted to post this article a couple time and it keeps getting deleted as unambiguous advertising under the CSD G11. I am not affiliated with this company or on their payroll, I have no conflict of interest with this company. I have completely reworded this article twice and included at least 3 sources in each article. I attempted to contact both admins who deleted the article, and have gotten zero information about the deletion. One admin basically told me "if you cant see why this article was deleted, you have no idea how this website works." IF the page can't be restored, I would at least like some help understanding why it can't be published and help me word it in a way that isn't an advert, because that is not my goal with this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by HirmizM (talk • contribs) 21:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Account blocked for spamming. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

article review

Answered

Hello,

I wanted to ask about the article review process. I created an article which took 2 months to be reviewed, corrected the article following feedback (added additional sources as requested), now its been re-submitted it seems I may have to wait another 2 months for another review. Why are articles reviewed randomly rather than in order of submission? If this is the case the article Craig Jones (Royal Navy) will have taken 4 months to be submitted. thanks! Samcherry5 (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Samcherry5: The page reviewers at the Articles for Creation Help Desk may be able to provide more detailed feedback regarding your article. That help desk is here: WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Orville1974^talk 11:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Samcherry5. The reviewer did not ask for "additional sources", but for better sources. I'm not convinced that you've added any. You've provided sources based on interviews with the subject, but these don't count as "independent", and so don't help to establish that he's notable. If the next reviewer shares my view, your draft will be rejected again, making it at least six months. Maproom (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Which is no big deal; we are not under any kind of deadline here. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Maproom Thanks for the feedback. The reviewer did actually say unsourced (early life/education and naval career) rather than better resources the sections were not originally sourced but these have now been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samcherry5 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Maproom Talk I do also think that the sources used in the article meet Wikipedia's criteria for verifiability as they include books, magazines and newspapers (see Wikipedia verifiability) the sources are also reliable: (see wikipedia reliability) categories included are scholarship (Brookings); News Organisations including BBC News, The Guardian, New Statesman, The Times etc. Samcherry5 (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Samcherry5: what is needed is references to reliable independent published sources with in-depth discussion of the subject. You mention BBC News, Guardian, New Statesman, Times — that all sounds great, definitely reliable. But I've done what I can to check those sources, and I find:

BBC News: three references. Two do not mention the subject, one reports what he has said (so not independent) and says he is a gay serviceman (that's a long way short of "in-depth discussion").
Guardian: two references. One does not mention him, the other reports what he has said and does say a very little about him.
New Statesman: one reference, to an article he wrote himself, so not independent.
The Times: two references. Both are behind a paywall, so I haven't been able to check them.

A conscientious reviewer will be obliged to check all twenty references before (I suspect) rejecting the draft again. No wonder the review process is backlogged. Maproom (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

::Courtesy link to draft in question Draft:Duncan Lustig-Prean. IMHO this is already sufficiently covered in Lustig-Prean and Beckett v United Kingdom, and is at best a redirect. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

My remarks are about Draft:Craig Jones (Royal Navy officer). My apologies if I've misunderstood something. Maproom (talk) 06:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi (talk) many thanks for the further feedback and looking through the sources again, much appreciated! Some of the sources are to support the other elements of the article rather than just the individual. Ive done some more research and added a few more, found some from CNN, NYT and 2 radio interviews. Ive also included his inclusion in the Independent newspapers Pink List from 2 different years which outlines the 100 most influential gay people in the UK. Hopefully they should all help to get the article accepted, of course they vary in detail but there are over 37 different sources included now on the subject and individual. Samcherry5 (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

In assessing notability, references are judged by quality, not quantity. What was missing when I last checked was references to reliable independent published sources with in-depth discussion of the subject. Interviews don't help at all with that, as they are not regarded as independent of the subject. There are several problems with trying to compensate for a lack of good references by adding a load of worthless ones: they don't help; they waste the time of the already overworked reviewers; and they may be taken for a smokescreen, intended to conceal the lack of good references. Maproom (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

Answered

There is a dispute regarding the content on this page. Defamatory citation and content is being presented despite factual evidence refuting it. This dispute needs to be settled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritasveritas666 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Veritasveritas666: The article has been temporarily protected. As advised by El_C, please discuss this on the article's talk page. Orville1974^talk 17:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

FYI the article in question is apparently Ross Levinsohn. (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.) TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Veritasveritas666: I started a section to discuss this on the article talk page. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Removal of a redirect. A user did edit that page for the wrong reasons.

Disregard

The original page from Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal has been edited by someone on July one with a redirect to the Guns N Roses page which is unnecessary and now deleted the original content of the artists full biography( https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:WqRBC4nL92AJ:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_%2522Bumblefoot%2522_Thal+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nl&client=safari). I can find the info in the Google cache, but it should be restored by removing this illegal redirect. That artist already left GNR 9 years ago.

Need some help, I tried to remove the redirect but I don't get authorised and I'm not experienced on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jellybeard (talk • contribs) 04:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia ~~still~~ once more has an article about Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal, a former guitarist with Guns N' Roses. Maproom (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit; disregard, has been fixed/reversed to the right content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jellybeard (talk • contribs) 07:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

managing a conflict of interest tab

Helped
One of my articles has been tagged with a COI banner and I want to know how to resolve this. I have been accused of writing for payment (Iam a volunteer and doing LGBT research on gay military issues) The only connection I have with the subject is that I share the same sexuality and surely this does not have to be declared as a COI? thank you Samcherry5 (talk) 08:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Samcherry5: I'm responding on your talk page. Orville1974^talk 17:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

King Farouk of Egypt

Helped
Under King Farouk's photo it says he died on Capri but in the article it says he died in Rome so which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.120.252 (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. According to the sources I see, he died in hospital in Rome shortly after collapsing in a restaurant and being rushed there. Orville^talk 14:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I've updated the infobox and included sources in the content of the article. Orville^talk 15:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Specifically, San Camillo Hospital. - Nunh-huh 15:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Drive by Editors Constantly Changing My Edits, Help?

I made an edit repairing the alphabetical order of the women on the show throughout the article and it has been reverted repeatedly by a user who received a one week ban for edit warring and that person is still within that week. Now there is another user, maybe more than one, that has reverted my changes but they aren't members of Wikipedia, there's only IP addresses to identify them. I don't want to have to keep correcting the page and get into trouble myself so how do I handle this? I have provided plenty of reference that 100% backs up my edits on the talk page. It looks like these are drive by editors, can you help, I don't know how to handle drive by editing? AnAudLife (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

In one edit summary you said:

"See discussion on Talk:The Real Housewives of New York City page under "Infobox" heading for consensus & conclusion."

When I look there, after only one other editor commenting, I see you say:

"Due to the above preponderance of evidence in support of my revisions ..."

That is not consensus.

While I do find guidelines (MLA) that are definite about ordering of names involving the prefix 'de', we would need to know if there are any 'definite' rules here at Wikipedia. I'll look. You should also. Shenme (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I have looked...and looked and looked and looked and cited quite a few sources on the talk page, and those sources were "definite". I made the edit because the conclusion is obvious AND definite. AnAudLife (talk) 03:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi @AnAudLife: I only see one semi-suspicious IP edit (the most recent one). If you want to pursue it, you can open a sockpuppet investigation here: WP:SPI. But,

On a general note, there's really no rush to re-alphabetize (no WP:DEADLINE). As you've pointed out, your edits have been reverted by multiple users. When that occurs, I tend to wait a week or so to allow consensus to be reached, to give everyone sufficient time to read and weigh in if they care to, to see if we can come to an agreement about what should be done. Single-handedly declaring consensus just a day after you posted to the talk page, citing the preponderance of the evidence, when you hadn't even received a reply yet from any editors, is in bad form. Orville^talk 03:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Orvile, The only editor that was repeatedly changing my edits was put on a one week ban due to edit warring, her credibility compared to definitive evidence was bad form. If she really wanted a consensus she could have just as easily let my edit stand and request a consensus, but no, her edit is the only "correct" edit in her mind, I always explained my edit to her in detail, she didn't care. Waiting for any other opinions is futile, there won't be any other opinions and in the end we will disagree. She has been involved in and reprimanded for edit warring 6 times now, clearly she's one of those editors that always thinks they're right and that's not what wiki editing is about, when is this madness going to stop? I'm absolutely convinced she is behind the recent alphabetical edit. Behavior like hers and the fact that there's no real help in Wiki makes me just want to leave it. AnAudLife (talk) 03:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I tried to find definitive Wikipedia guidance regarding alphabetization regarding de but didn't have any luck. Your citations regarding other manuals of style are valid, but consensus is a core principle of Wikipedia. I've tried to be helpful as has the editor directly above me response. Help that has been provided includes the editor reverting your edits being blocked for a week, two editors here (counting me) providing guidance on handling content disputes, and me suggesting that you can open a sockpuppet investigation if you're so inclined (and where to do so). Since consensus hasn't been reached regarding the alphabetization, I think the one action you may have a harder time getting help with is having another go back into the article right now to alphabetize them a different way. Orville^talk 04:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the help y'all have provided, but I only foresee constant changing if no one can agree. I made the change as suggested, we'll see if there are any more disputes, if so, I will simply give up. I won't lower myself to keep editing just because other people are editing out of spite. Thanks again. AnAudLife (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi again @AnAudLife: This just occurred to me. Since none of us can find anything in the manual of style, and you seem to have done your homework, why not present your findings here Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style to work on getting it added to the Wikipedia Manual of Style? Orville^talk 04:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh my...I can give it a shot, it takes me a while to catch onto the forms here, but I can certainly try it. Thanks again for your help. AnAudLife (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Orvile, I took your advice and started a discussion on the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style page, we'll see what people think about the suggestion. Thanks again. AnAudLife (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Rye schools

Answered

I wanted to add content to my town’s page (Rye) regarding a Resurrection grammar and middle schools, that have been there for 90 years, under the education section. I just said it was a parish school, 90 years old and provided a solid academic and faith based education.

It was then deleted by an administrator. Can you tell me why?

It exists. It has been there for 90 years. It provides a solid faith based education. Everyone in town knows it exists. What is the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.11.213 (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem is not that anyone doubts the existence of the schools. When GorillaWarfare reverted your edit, he wrote in the edit summary "not adhering to neutral point of view". I agree. The wording you used, "have continued to provide a solid academic and faith based education", is promotional, and therefore unsuitable for an encyclopedia. I would also point out that "for 90 years" would be suitable in an ephemeral work such as a newspaper, nut Wikipedia hopes it will still exist 100 years from now — so it's better to write "since 1917" or whenever it was. Maproom (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Secondary schools are considered sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Primary schools and middle schools are not, unless they have some exceptional distinguishing features or history and that it has been well documented in reliable sources. For more information about writing Wikipedia articles about schools, please see WP:WPSCH/AG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Please DO NOT delete the Alice Little page.

Answered

To Whom It May Concern, My name is Charles William Luke II, I go by C.W. Luke II. Beg my pardon, but I do not know who I am addressing and I hope that this gets to the correct person. I was recently informed by Miss Little that edits that I made to her Wikipedia page has created issues between you and her. Alice had absolutely nothing to do with the actions that I took. After she first announced she had a Wikipedia I went to the site to check it out. I had never used Wikipedia before except to view information on subjects a handful of times over the years. My understanding was that they are a site that welcomed input from everyone. Additionally I did not know that Alice had paid a 3rd party to create and maintain the page for her.

I have been a follower of Alice on social media for the past year. Frankly, I admire her and when I read the page I felt it was a little dry. She shares so much about herself with her audience and I felt like the article needed more heart. Mainly to see how big of a heart that I have come to know that she has. Unfortunately I did not consult Miss Little prior to making my edits. She was not complicit in any way to my actions. It was a result of my good intentions and ignorance that has led to this discrepancy. Alice does not deserve to be punished or fined as a result of my misunderstanding. I had not intentions of undermining the service you provide or to create turmoil for Miss Little.

My hope is that this issue can be resolved with this message clearing the air and that you will give Alice a chance to continue to do business and maintain her Wikipedia page. She is a unique person and helps people in what most people would consider and unconventional way through her industry. She is making history and should be included in the Wikipedia encyclopedia for others to learn about her and continue to be educated by her. Educating people and helping them is her passion. It has caused me extreme sorrow to know that I may have jeopardized her ability to do this with you through Wikipedia. Please, please...PLEASE! Do not hold her at fault for my mistake. Thank you!

Sincerely, C.W. Luke II — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyber69surfer (talk • contribs) 05:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy links: Alice Little, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alice_Little. Cyber69surfer, the article is likely to be deleted because its subject fails to meet Wikipedia's standards, particularly regarding her notability; not as a punishment, or because of anything you have done. Maproom (talk) 06:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Cyber69surfer, we understand your concerns. However, Wikiupedia is an encyclopedia and its use to promote a person, product, or service is strictly forbidden. Also creating articles for pay is only allowed under extremely restricted circumstances according to our strict Terms of Use. In other words, if the subject has paid for an article to be written, then there is clearly an element of promotion, and a Conflict of Interest on the part of the user who created it. This often results in the article being deleted and and the paid editor and others who have a COI being blocked. Based on our policies, our editing community decides by consensus on what articles or content are retained. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

User Adwalking is subject of content he is editing, and reverting edits without discussion

Helped
Hello, I am an infrequent editor requesting assistance with this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Blessitt

I and another user made good faith edits last week and had them reverted without comment by the user Adwalking. I opened a talk subject yesterday and edited the page again. The user has again reverted the edits without reference to the talk page and despite the request to refer to talk in my edits.

Looking at the edit history, user Adwalking appears to be the subject of the page he is editing.

I would welcome advice and assistance in improving this page. Sirfurboy (talk) 11:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the absurd claim that Blessitt carries 19 billion pounds. Maproom (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Adwalking meets WP:SPA and WP:NOTHERE. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Sirfurboy, this is a content issue. Please relist your concern at WP:DRN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, Thanks. this was not solely content as the issue was the person the article is about was editing the article, but other editors have dealt with that and the user is clearly now aware as he has backed off. From here on in it will be content only so please mark this item as helped/resolved. Many thanks. Sirfurboy (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Accidentally :"moved" talk page for Medici (TV Series)

I accidentally renamed talk page for Medici (TV Series) and now talk page seems to be inaccessible.Fb2ts (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Should be all fixed now. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

last names vs first names in movie plots

Helped
Hello, I see a lot of movie articles' plot sections using characters' last names to describe them, but i also see some using their first names. so simple question: which names should we use in plot sections? does it not matter? Thank you. --SacredDragonX (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

According to MOS:SURNAME, for fictional entities the given name should be used, implicitly except where this would create confusion. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

surname only, okay thanks, got it. --SacredDragonX (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

wait, the first name should we used? i'm confused :P --SacredDragonX (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Lol, I didn't notice at first until your post, yeah, it probably is a little eyebrow raising that the rule to use the given name is under the rule titled "surname"! Consider it a negative rule. Q: What's the rule on fictional character surnames? A: Only use it once. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

hmm, still a little confused.. so you're saying after the first time, we should only use the first name to refer to said fictional character again? --SacredDragonX (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Literally, the relevant part is "Subsequent use... For fictional entities, use common names." So I actually shouldn't have said given name. The common name is usually the given name, but the exception is when the character is referred to throughout the movie as something other than their first name. Only a Skrull would refer to Nick Fury by his first name, so he's just "Fury" throughout the article. Almost no one refers to Thomas Anderson by either his first or last name, so he's just referred to as "Neo". So, sorry for needlessly confusing you, you can forget everything I else I said, all you need to know is that after the first mention just refer to the characters by the name that other characters use. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

common name, got it. tyvm for your help --SacredDragonX (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Wrong geographical caption on picture

The picture of the volcano on Volcanoes National Park page (on the right side) has the wrong caption as it says it's showing Bisoke volcano but it's actually Muhabura volcano instead. How do I change it on the page as it's not part of the editable page? The Talk section of this page doesn't work either. Thanks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanoes_National_Park — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elxxvs (talk • contribs)

Elxxvs, the article's talk page works fine. It is at Talk:Volcanoes National Park. You could try starting a discussion there, though it doesn't appear very active. You might also ask an appropriate project, listed at the top of the talk page, for their input. Of course, they are going to ask you how you know the caption to be inaccurate, so it would probably be a good idea to lead in with that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

song names in plot section

Hello, I recently edited camp rock 2, and I included the names of each song they sing in the plot section. however, i am unsure as to whether this is necessary; I looked at similar articles such as Camp Rock and High School Musical which do include the song names in the plot section. The first just includes them in the plot like I did for camp rock 2, the second includes them, although in brackets, so I am unsure as to whether i should include them, and if so, how. Thank you. --SacredDragonX (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Change of Heading for article titled 'Ronald Lawrence Hughes'

Resolved

I have edited the article to correct the spelling of Hughes's middle name from "Lawrence' to become 'Laurence'. Unfortunately I do not know how to correct the heading through the edit function. Could the heading be changed please?

I am the son of Ronald Laurence Hughes that is mentioned in the article as Geoffrey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travel9901 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I have moved it to Ronald Laurence Hughes for you. I don't have access to the sources cited in the article (except the first, which does not give his full name), but I found this https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/P10679345 which confirms the "u" spelling. It might be best to cite that source in the article, but I'm not familiar with the style of referencing it uses. Maproom (talk) 06:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Change minimum amount of calories in the Cambridge Diet

Hello, I am a fully disclosed paid-editor representing The Cambridge 1:1 Diet on behalf of LucrePR. I have been trying to get some of the information on the page changed so that it accurately reflects the diet in its current form. Specifically, the minimum amount of calories the diet prescribes is dangerously wrong. The most recent study puts the minimum calorific intake at 800 and stresses that the diet should only be taken under supervision. I have tried raising this issue on the talk page but everytime I do another editor lowers this number and keeps referring to a source that is no longer online. Essayist1 (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

That source may no longer be online, but it is still a reliable independent published source, and so is acceptable in WIkipedia. That reference should not be removed, nor should the statement which it supports. Maproom (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

How/when to close a contentious RfC

Resolved

Talk:List of concentration and internment camps

Hello! I am looking for advice on when and how to go about closing a contentious RfC at Talk:List of concentration and internment camps, regarding the inclusion of U.S.-Mexico border facilities. I am the one who originally opened the RfC and, per another editor's evaluation of longstanding text and recommendation for a formal RfC, I worded it as a being about content removal (rather than content inclusion).

The RfC has been up for more than two weeks now, with no consensus reached. Currently more editors support "Keep" than "Remove," but as I understand it, consensus in this kind of case is not about a straight up-or-down vote. About one or two editors per day now contribute to the RfC survey, which I personally think is enough engagement to keep it open.

However, another editor has rightfully pointed out that the survey responses remain evenly split, even recently. Given this, and given the contentious nature of the content being discussed, would it be appropriate to now request a formal closure? With the lack of consensus and my clear and heavy involvement in discussion, I clearly shouldn't close it myself.

Whoever responds, thank you for your advice!

--Pinchme123 (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinchme123, early closure of RfCs is extremely ill-advised except when there is an absolutely overwhelming consensus one way or the other, and they are not closed just by head count, but by evaluation of strength of argument. If the outcome is still unclear, it should be left to run for the full thirty days. Once that's done, if the outcome is too close to easily call, you can request that it be formally evaluated and closed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! This is what I generally thought to be the case, but wanted confirmation. I have no intention of closing it early now. --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Name/career path change. Would like my page deleted.

Answered

Hoping someone can help as I've tried to delete information from this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Arthur_Maxwell and/or have it deleted completely so I may start fresh.

Reasoning is: I have change my name from Brad Fillatre to Bradley Arthur Maxwell. I am embarking on a new career in music and thereforeI do not wish any association with my previous alias or to have personal information about this part of my life on the wikipedia (as it pertains to family members, birth town, date of birth, and so forth).

I really would just like this page deleted so I can create a new one once I have a new bio written.

Please help me. I am not that familiar with wikipedia but keep getting requests rejected.

Happy to provide whatever proof you need! My website www.bradleyarthurmaxwell.com has info and you can see my old label's post here regarding the name change as well as with a quick google search. https://sparksmusic.com/bradley-arthur-maxwell-on-tour-across-western-canada/

Hopeful for a deletion so I can start fresh. I am the one who created the page originally with my wife but now I can't remove it :(

Best, BradBradleyarthurmaxwell (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Bradleyarthurmaxwell, please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradley Arthur Maxwell. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

2019 AFC Asian Cup#Qatar football shirt fan incident

Hello. Me, User:Anbans 585, User:Wikiemirati and User:Masgouf are in dispute about 2019 AFC Asian Cup#Qatar football shirt fan incident. Anbans 585, Wikiemirati and I have have discussed the issue on the article's talk page and the discussion resulted in this but some still disagree with the shape of the paragraph and I'm not sure if it complies with Wikipedia policies and I wish your help to resolve this. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Super ninja2, please continue the discussion on the article's talk page. If that fails, please take it to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I need a seasoned editor's help please

Peter Perkowski

Hi,

I need a seasoned editor to help me as I'm new at Wikipedia and have a little problem. My only previous submission was trans activist, Ashlee Marie Preston, and that was a smooth process.

I recently submitted the most high-profile LGBTQ Civil Rights attorney and activist, Peter Perkowski. I receive a notice last night that his profile was tagged for deletion by '‪Athaenara'. I rushed home to send them a message explaining Peter's incredible body of work and how he is currently making headlines in Reuters and NY Daily News for suing the Trump Administration on behalf of trans service-members. But the submission was deleted immediately with the reason that I had been paid to submit it. I don't know why ‪Athaenara thought that and how one's submission can be deleted without proper evidence of such accusation. I was not paid, nor will I be paid to submit this or any other submission.

I would appreciate someone's help in navigating me through this as the process is very confusing. I tried my best to follow aforementioned guidelines for posting this, including the title. I hope that it is correct. I don't even know how this works in terms of someone getting back to me.

Thank you and kind regards, vic gerami

The process of convincing other editors that a subject is notable does not involve telling them what a great guy you think the subject is. Notability is established solely by citing, in the article, reliable independent published sources with in-depth discussion of the subject. If Perkowski is indeed "making headlines", you ought to be able to manage that. Maproom (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Vicgerami, I wanted to follow up there, though Maproom is correct. The reason you might have run across a thought that you might be paid to edit is that the article was promotional. Note that "promotional", as defined here, goes beyond commercial promotion or attempts to sell. Wikipedia articles must be strictly neutral, and must not promote anyone or anything, even just by "talking them up". The piece has an entirely inappropriate "profile" or "get to know ya" tone, rather than the formal, neutral tone expected of an encyclopedia article. I note that in your DRN posting, you even refer to it as a "profile". Wikipedia articles aren't a "profile", they are an encyclopedia article. (Just to start, references after the first to him would be "Perkowski", not "Peter", and we would say he "has" HIV, not flowery language like "living with HIV". Also, such a controversial assertion about a living person would absolutely require a specific, in-text citation). And it looks like most of the references just name-drop Perkowski or quote him. That doesn't establish notability. For that, it is necessary that multiple reliable and independent sources cover him in reasonable depth, not just quote or mention him. If there are such sources that cover him to reasonable depth, you can certainly give it another go, but be careful not to have any hint of non-neutrality or trying to say or show how great he is. Just the facts, just from the sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Much like Wikipedia, editors should not be able to make wild accusations of someone getting paid without proof (citation). Further, I appreciate ‪Seraphimblade‬ explanation and hope that others are not as hostile when editing a rooky's mistake. A little tact is nice when someone new is trying to include the most high-profile queer lawyer currently in the country. I don't expect for ‪Athaenara to walk me through anything, but false accusations are just as much in conflict with Wikipedia's mission as my 'promotional' sounding edit. I didn't realize how much hostility existed in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicgerami (talk • contribs) 04:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, many of us will try to help you. User:Seraphimblade, for example, gave you some good advice above. I will be in touch with you on your WP:Userpage. Best wishes, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

What to do about a POV article title?

Suppose the title to an article is POV. Is it legitimate in Wikipedia to use a pejorative label, a label used primarily by opponents of the idea under discussion, rather than a neutral non-POV label? In such a case, what should I do? (1) Copy the article text to a (perhaps new) article with a better title, and then redirect the old title? Or (2) Same, but put a disambiguation notice at the top of the old article with a link to the new NPOV version of the article? I tried the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, but it just resulted in an edit war, and now both articles are frozen. PhilLiberty (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

PhilLiberty, you are already doing what you should be doing, which is to discuss it with other editors. You have also stopped doing what you shouldn't be doing (though not necessarily by your choice), which is to edit war over the matter. If you and other editors involved can't come to a consensus just by discussion, you can settle the matter via a move request. At such a request, editors (including you) can discuss what the appropriate title for the article should be. Copy-and-paste moving is strongly discouraged and is in many cases a copyright violation, and only one article on a particular subject should exist; POV forks are not permitted. You and the other editors will need to, by discussion, decide what the best title for the article is, and then move it to that using the move tool, or failing that an RM will decide and the closer will (if necessary) move it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and no, disambiguation is for disambiguation, not creation of POV forks. That would not be at all appropriate. For example, when there is both a bird and a country called Turkey, a disambiguation note is used in case a reader who arrived at the article for the country actually wanted the one about the bird. They're not for the purpose you suggest using it for. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I tried to explain to you that you need to launch a move request, but instead you ended up personally attacking me. You did not actually follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle, instead, you continued edit warring by inappropriately redirecting, which is why the articles were protected. I suggest you conduct yourself without resorting to insults or innuendo. El_C 19:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I do not consider it to be a POV fork if one article is about the subject, and another article is about criticism of the subject. Example: Socialism and Criticism of socialism. That is perhaps analogous to having a Libertarian capitalism article and a Right-libertarianism article. We can put the criticisms and use the perjorative title for the Criticism of Libertarian capitalism aka Right-libertarianism article. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The question isn't only what you consider it. Since the move seems contentious, please discuss it at the article's talk page. That may be one option you'd like to present. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Mysterious warnings from Dab solver

At Dab solver – Plus and minus signs I find:

WARNING: [[Minus (disambiguation)]] not found

WARNING: [[+ (disambiguation)]] not found

What do I need to be warned about? Where are these disambiguation pages "not found"? They certainly exist and the warnings themselves provide links to them.

Peter Brown (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Typically when scripts like these give "warnings" it's just a notice that something happened that wasn't an error (i.e., the operation completed successfully) but might be undesirable. Unless you're developing the script or it's doing something clearly incorrect you can usually ignore warnings. Worst case, report them to the script developer/maintainer... who is Dispenser... and who is apparently not very active at the moment (fewer than 15 edits/month since last August). I've pinged Dispenser, who may come visit. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect number in lede

Hello, I am a fully disclosed paid editor representing The Cambridge 1:1 Diet on behalf of Lucre PR. My client believes that some of the information about The Cambridge Diet is factually incorrect and the article is biased. I have been trying to engage the page's editors constructively via the article's talk page but everytime I ask them to change something they make the article more biased towards the subject whilst referencing sources that are over 30 years old and overlooking newer sources. The main problem we have at the moment is the page states that the minimum calorific intake is 330 calories per day, while the source (an old book about marketing, not nutrition) states;

"The Cambridge Diet, similar to Slim-Fast in product concept, entered the market as a powder that was mixed with water and used as a substitute for meals. However, its number of calories was significantly lower - 330 a day - and one could not eat any food or a regular dinner with it. Because of pressure from the FDA, Cambridge Plan International laterr increased the daily caloric intake in the diet to 800. The product was well received by consumers; by 1984, the diet had garnered more than five million customers."

This source, if legitimate is actually stating that the FDA approved version of the diet available to the public prescribed 800 calories a day. The 330 calorie diet (if it ever existed) was a prototype that did not make it to market.

Recently, there has been renewed interest in the diet, particularly from the NHS. A more recent academic study of the diet in its current form is available here however certain editors are keeping any new information about the diet off the page.

Is there anyway the page could be rewritten so the lede reflects the actual caloric intake and also states that the diet is a supervised diet, not a fad diet? Essayist1 (talk) 09:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

You might want to try WP:NPOVN. I'm particularly worried about the use of the word "guises" and phrase "made from commercial products" in the lede, which make the lede read like negative advertising copy. "Guises" especially sounds sinister, and "made from commercial products" is particularly nasty if you consider the amount of fearmongering that goes into food chain FUDmongering advertisement (like the people who promote "natural" foods when the term "natural" has no legal meaning). Same with "from the 1970s", instead of "created in the 1970s" or "developed in the 1970s" (the original makes it sound like it isn't something anymore). It's almost comical, that lede. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Mendaliv I agree. My client's only wish is that the page is fair and accurate but two of the page's editors do seem to want to push a negative viewpoint of the brand under the rationale that the page takes a "historical view" of the subject. I will take the issue to the WP:NPOVN.Essayist1 (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Afghans in Finland

Need help in article Afghans in Finland, I was routinely going through checking new pages been created & tagged it as per my thought. When i watch listed the article i came to learn that creator of article is reverting my edicts hence i reverted them back. Now a new user Nilzko is giving me unnecessary Warning and blaming me. Please help , as i had already mentioned my views on article talkpage.( !dea4u 04:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC))

!dea4u, you are indeed inappropriately edit warring and editorializing. You added the following text to the article: Many young Afghans in Finland are studying careers in the health, construction and metal fields. They usually speak good Finnish, and they have strong social ties to other Afghans living in their area. While that does have a reference, it doesn't give any meaningful information. How many is "many"? How frequently is "usually"? That's weasel wording. (I've also removed the "Crime" section as utterly undue weight for such a short article, though that wasn't your doing.) But what the two of you need to do is quit reverting, discuss it on the talk page, and use dispute resolution if you can't come to an agreement. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello. This is very confusing but as i understand it the creator of the article used a opinion piece as a source which you didn't like. He then removed that and you reverted it to have the same thing again. So, it seems that you are the one who writes in non-neutral tone. Nilzko (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear Seraphimblade, Could you check the edit history of article because i have not added any content from my end which seems to be objectionable as you mentions "you are indeed inappropriately edit warring and editorializing" It was added by creator for which i had tagged the article for Improvement. please relook your thoughts.( !dea4u 08:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC))

This [1] is the edit in which you added the exact text I quoted above. In addition, I just noticed that you're adding a {{COI}} template to the page. What on Earth are you asserting that the conflict of interest would even be? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

How do I add the alphabetical heading to this category page?

Bit of a newbee. I've added a film title to this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_set_in_1828

but I can't work out how to add the

Pages in category "Films set in 1827" This category contains only the following page. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).

At the top as it appears on the other years. The edit page for this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_set_in_1827

Doesn't include that material so I can't even copy/paste. Any ideas where I've gone wrong?

Feelinglistless, categories are added to the article page rather than adding articles to the category page. The template {{Films set in year cat}} then takes care of creating the B. I've made the changes to the article and category. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Anil CS Rao

I repeated updated my titles - removing the ones I have taken out-of-print on Amazon and elsewhere - they are reinstated for some reason by Wikipedia or some Third PartyAnilcsrao1 (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Young Living

August 03, 2019

I know that Young Living is not an MLM Company, they are a Direct Sales Company! I do not know where you found the MLM information but it is incorrect. I hope you will find what I said is the correct answer.

Thank you,

Doris Sajer

References

DSN Staff (July 30, 2019) Young Living Essential Oils https://www.directsellingnews.com/category/by-company/young-living-essential-oils/

https://www.businessforhome.org/2018/12/young-living-essential-oils-classified-as-triple-a-opportunity/

You don't know where we found the MLM information? Try reading the sources cited in the article, as references 2 and 4. Maproom (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Upcoming album article help

Hello, this is for the article, Black Anima by the band Lacuna Coil. My goal here on Wikipedia is to create good articles to become an active editor on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Metal. I've chosen this metal band because they are noteworthy, yet their pages lack several updates, including articles about their latest live DVD and book. Their latest singles are outdated on their template, many seemingly notable headlining tours are not listed anywhere. There's no bias towards this band as I've only become familiar with them around 2016 and know three of their songs. But tidying and updating their Wikipedia with the help of whoever is willing to help is my current project to expand to different metal artists. So I've bought their book, I've bought magazines (where they have featured articles) on sites like eBay and I'm actually researching this band and I'm trying to maintain their upcoming album article to the best of my ability. My goal is to get their main band page as a good article, like Bullet for My Valentine.

Could you please look over this upcoming album article and let me know if anything could use work? Thank you.

@MisfitGhoul: Since the album isn't out yet, it's a bit WP:TOOSOON. It could be delayed. I would have instead added a new Black Anima section to Lacuna_Coil#History, with the announcement of the album being planned, but not actually do the album article before it drops. Nonetheless, with the exception of too much detail about the album's promotion, you're on the right track. (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.) TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

How to recover the code/text of a deleted article

I need help on how to recover (if possible) the text of a deleted article... My article Queer Glass was deleted, and as discussed during the deletion process, several significant new sources have emerged. I asked the deleting editor (twice) the same question (how can I recover the text/code of the deleted article, so that some point in the future, once several more RS have been established, I could re-submit) --- but so far my question has been ignored twice.

Any ideas???--BoriquaZurdo (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

BoriquaZurdo, the debate was heavily attended and in those circumstances a request to provide copies of a deleted article are often refused (the deletion is considered "final" unless new content emerges). Nevertheless, you are wanting to submit a "request for undeletion" which is something of a misnomer: at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, you'll want to ask for a copy of the deleted text. There are also admins who actively volunteer to email you the article text, and those admins can be found at CAT:UNDELETE. AGK ■ 09:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

AGK: Thank you for your ideas! Will try it! --BoriquaZurdo (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

KritiKal Solutions

Page was not published. The page "KritiKal Solutions" was deleted under the "speedy deletion" category, highlighting "This article or image appears to be a direct copy from the website". I've the permission to use content since it's our property. Tank Blown (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Appears to be related to (now deleted) Draft:KritiKal Solutions rather than KritiKal Solutions (which was deleted under G12 over 10 years ago). The draft page, according to the deletion log, was deleted as unambiguous advertising rather than a copyvio. So, while there were clearly copyright issues that could have been remedied with a formal donation of the rights to those materials, I don't want to waste your time: You can't copy and paste content from that website as-is because it's too promotional for use here. So no amount of proving that you have permission to use it will fix this issue. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

In fact, now that I look at it, the draftspace page wasn't deleted for copyright reasons at all. The only copyright violation notification anybody received was regarding the mainspace page in 2007. The draftspace page, which this request is clearly regarding, was deleted solely because it was unambiguous advertising. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

You say "our". Who does this account belong to? --kingboyk (talk) 06:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Kingboyk, note that they did say "I've the permission..." immediately prior to that. CThomas³ (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Film credits

Hi Editors,

I am the Producer of the new $25 million independent Australian movie Danger Close: The Battle of Long Tan.

A user Truth6557 (Jim Robison) is disruptively editing the Wikipedia entry for our page adding himself as a 'Producer' in the 'Produced By' credit listing. He is not a Producer and only has a minor, back-end Executive Producer credit on the film itself. But he is not entitled to use the Executive Producer credit anywhere else, let alone claim he is a 'Producer'. There are only three Producers on the film entitled to be credited as 'Produced By' as per industry standards and the Producer's Guild; myself Martin Walsh, John Schwarz and Michael Schwarz.

No only did he make an edit adding himself to the Wikipedia entry, at the same time he also removed my credit which was listed first under 'Produced By'. I am the lead producer on the movie who has spent 15 years getting this movie made, financed and produced.

We would greatly appreciate any action or mechanism to stop him from disrupting this Wikipedia entry for our film.

Kind regards, Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddunefilms (talk • contribs) 01:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the names as they're in this source and warned them about adding unsourced content. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for editing Albus89 (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

I would love someone to review a draft for an article. In particular, I'm looking for advice to see if it would meet the standards for notability. Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albus89 (talk • contribs)

Albus89, no, I don't believe it does. Most of the references there are just name drops or entries on a credits list. To meet the notability standards, there must be substantial quantities of reliable and independent source material that is primarily or entirely about the article subject, not that just happens to mention them. No number of brief mentions or name drops add up to notability. I would generally recommend that new editors begin by editing existing articles rather than trying to create a new one; trying to create new ones is one of the more difficult tasks to do here and selecting an appropriate subject is something you might want more experience before you try doing it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade Thanks so much for your time Albus89 (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Grammar

so the original sentence on WP:User pages is User talk pages and user talk archives created by page move are generally not deleted;

the subjects of the sentence are 'user talk pages' and 'user talk archives created by page move', but the first one could also be 'user talk pages created by page move' instead. I tried to fix this ambiguity but had my edit reverted because user talk pages cannot be created by page move, and so no one would interpret it that way. But what if a new user came along and did? Also, why not just improve the sentence to remove the ambiguity? Thanks --SacredDragonX (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization of the word black

I was doing some WP:RC and saw someone in the edit summary capitalized the B in the use of the word Black. Where would I look to see if this is correct or not? The article in question is Black_cowboys. Thanks Rob110178 (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware of an explicit MOS rule for "black" where it refers to race. Guidance from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Peoples and their languages and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) would be to capitalize a word or phrase if it is being used as a proper noun for an ethnic group. When "Black" is used interchangeably with "African-American", you could argue it is referring to an ethnic group, but even the article on African-Americans does not capitalize "black" this way. Consistency within an article is important either way. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Jorge_Perez_(Evelyn)

I have placed the link to the article (draft) on the subject/headline. I am not very familiar with Wikipedia yet, so please forgive me if I did a mistake. I have corrected the article to the best of my knowledge and I think it is a great article but I do not know how to move it from draft to the space in Wikipedia. Can please editors help me? thank you very much! RagazzoRagazzodeitalia (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Ragazzodeitalia, as above, I would normally suggest new editors get some experience editing existing articles before diving into attempting to create one. At this point, there is no indication that the subject of this article is notable, as most of the sources do not even mention Perez, let alone provide the kind of detailed coverage necessary to demonstrate notability. Several citations are to either other Wikipedia articles or Wikipedia mirrors, which should not be used as sources. Much of the rest of the content is unreferenced entirely. The article would need substantially more reference material which is reliable, independent, and which is substantially or entirely about Perez, not just which mentions him in passing. If such reference material does not exist, this individual is not an appropriate article subject. Regardless, the article would need some work, such as refraining from using ALL CAPS and referring to individuals by first and last name on first mention; last name only thereafter. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Image upload

Hi, I've updated an image for Ideal World to reflect their recent rebranding. The image has successfully uploaded, but the thumbnail remains the same, and the image in the article is the old one. Ideally (see what I did there), I'd like to update the main logo to the new one I've just uploaded, and retain the old logo as a smaller one in the text, with a caption along the lines of 'logo used between 1999 and 2019'. I've been careful to ensure the logo continues to meet the 'fair use' criteria, but I'm a bit stuck on the technicalities of getting the image to appear on the page etc. Would someone mind giving me a hand with it? Thank you. Fortnum (talk) 10:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Fortnum, I see it now having updated. You may just need to purge the page to get it to show up for you, and blowing out your local cache as well. Unfortunately, also retaining the old image is a no-go. One nonfree logo is permitted by general custom. To use any more than that, the old logo would need to be in and of itself the subject of extensive discussion by reliable sources. That does not appear to be true in this case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Fortnum (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Page move request

Resolved

– Moved by Cthomas3 on August 22. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

:

Hello,

I am a fully disclosed paid editor representing Richard Wayne Lewis on behalf of Tristan Capitol Partners. My client requests that the page about him be moved from its current location to Ric Lewis. My reason for this is that RS refers to him as Ric Lewis. Essayist1 (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

You've already started discussion at: Talk:Richard_Wayne_Lewis#Requested_move_15_August_2019 and that's the right thing to do. The discussion will be listed for 7 days and thereafter closed by an uninvolved editor; if there's consensus for moving the page, it'll be moved. You don't need to request it again.– Ammarpad (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Ammarpad. There no appears to be something of a consensus in favour of the move at talk:Richard Wayne Lewis is it ok if I move the page myself?Essayist1 (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not OK. You should leave it, an uninvolved editor will close the discussion when it's appropriate. There are many pages in various stages of discussion, it's not only about that page. – Ammarpad (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

PAUL CARROLS THE WORLD FLAG IMAGE HAS BEEN DELETED AND REPLACED WITH AN IMAGE THAT VIOLATES COPYRIGHT.

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

 Paul Carrolls "World Flag" image has been deleted and replaced by "the combined world flag"by Baka888 . This is a blatant and clear violation of copyright law.

 Thank you for your assistance.
 The WorldFlag Team.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehellolife (talk • contribs) 01:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Looked into this, Wikipedia originally held a local copy of the actual flag (admins see Special:Undelete/File:The_world_flag_2006.png) under a fair-use claim. This was CSD'd during a period of time when the file was orphaned. A series of images, two identical and one derivative to the original, were then uploaded to commons with false/misleading source and authorship information, see commons:File:Worldflags19.png, commons:File:The world flag 2006.png, commons:File:The world flag 2006.svg. Note: I haven't actually done anything about any of this, just for everyone's information. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

First off, FIX YOUR CAPS LOCK KEY. Second, it is not a violation of copyright to simply assemble other public-domain images into a particular pattern, even if someone else happened to make the same pattern. See Bridgeman v. Corel and Feist v. Rural Telecom. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Policy/Ethics on articles about dangerous Internet Challenges

I posted on Template_talk:Challenges asking about the ethics of a navbox listing internet "challenges", many of which are dangerous activities. I am concerned that collecting all of these challenges into one navbox is a horrible idea and could be encouraging self harm. I don't know if anyone will ever happen across this discussion page however, so I want to somehow draw attention to the question to allow for some discussion amongst more experienced editors. Dragonjimmyy2k (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Dragonjimmyy2k, Wikipedia is not censored. Our job is to provide information, not suppress it or make it more difficult to find. What people do with such information is, to be quite frank, not our problem. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

certain edits

This user has added cambridge scholarships to several university articles, but when I follow the ref, I cannot find what the ref is supporting at all. Am I missing something? Thanks --SacredDragonX (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks like the standard brochure/boosterism crap that always seems to sneak into university articles. If it isn't supported by the reference, by all means remove it for that reason. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

cast pictures

so, the cast pictures for this page current look like this for me: https://imgur.com/a/AEWS6pk

I would like to know if this can be fixed, or if removing them would be the best course of action. Thanks --SacredDragonX (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

What is it that needs to be fixed? (If merely "that the photos don't appear next to the table", this hardly seems worth worrying about.) And if you think that there's some technical problem, you might specify which browser you're using. -- Hoary (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Chrome, if it helps. and yeah, "that the photos don't appear next to the table" is exactly what I'm getting at. doesn't that strike you as looking pretty bad? also I question the need for 3 pictures of former cast members. --SacredDragonX (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The pictures are there; life's too short to worry about exactly where they are. Photos aside, I find the entire article pretty mind-boggling: isn't this just trivia-mongering? However, I'm immune to the charms of TV series and so leave well (or not) alone. If the photos do worry you, how about suggesting on the article's talk page that they could be cut? Wait a week and if nobody objects, remove them. -- Hoary (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

SacredDragonX, the {{nowrap}} instructions in the "Role" column keep that column from shrinking enough on narrower screens to display the images next to the table. Try taking those out. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma: Lifesaver. --SacredDragonX (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

COI user - can you help me understand what is relevant history for a company that I work for?

As a public relations professional, I love Wikipedia! I often consult Wikipedia articles as a way to learn about companies and people. Wikipedia is a superior resource because I can get a high-level summary of newsworthy facts, and most importantly a deep-dive into the history and story--good and bad--of a company or person. In contrast, reading news articles and company websites gives only part of the story, but Wikipedia is unique in that it summarizes the big picture (with citations so I can dig in!)

As a Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Paid_editing editor new to wikipedia, however I am struggling. Booster_Fuels#History is a section that I would love to update/flesh out for a company that employs my PR organization. Booster Fuels has been in the news a lot in credible, WP:SECONDARY sources, and the history section is bare bones and out-of date. As I am working with a neutral editor, I have consistently gotten feedback after a lot of back-and-forth that some of the information I am providing (on the Talk:Booster_Fuels) is not noteworthy/relevant/germaine/significant enough, even if the information appeared in the news and is properly sourced (I am learning how to do this). The hard part is, the factual details I am providing are EXACTLY the kind of story information that I value as a PR professional who regularly consults Wikipedia! (Funding received from big players, a major headquarters move to a new state, the CEO's prior employer/occupation, and where the company was incubated.) Does anyone have any guidelines/advice for me how to determine history/relevance? I'm asking for help from the community in part because I've only had one editor help me so far...as a COI user who follows Wikipedia's guidelines for neutrality, I can't make my own changes, so I post requests to talk pages and then I wait for help. I'm grateful that this neutral editor is willing to help. I am not sure if this editor is being too strict on what is germaine, or if I just don't understand what historical information is relevant to Wikipedia? Thanks!

Chaud321 (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

As the review editor in question, my response and additional input is at the COI editor's talk page. Regards, Spintendo 11:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Thank you for that explanation. You hold me to HIGH standards, which reflect the values that wikipedia espouses! For anyone else in PR looking at this, reference (from Spintendo) Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper What I found most helpful for determining relevance is this reference: Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Inclusion_criteria. As a PR person who has spent my career focusing on News values--not the same thing as what wikipedia is looking for--this is the guidance I needed for what IS "Wikipedia-worthy." My question here has been answered--thank you! Chaud321 (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Chaud321: Editor's assistance request page stalker here. I just made some improvements to the article, including clarifying the business model. You were too close to the subject to realize that you needed to tell people how the gas got into people's cars, and how the company made money. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Thanks so much! Great improvements to Booster Fuels. You and @Spintendo: have both pointed out another learning curve for COI/PR...not only are we studied on/close to our subjects, we're conditioned to keep our messages (to journalists who often know the subject well) as BRIEF as possible, which means a tendency to leave out details/explanation that could be useful to a global audience. A good piece of advice to COI/PR writers would be to envision that the person you're talking to knows NOTHING about the subject you are describing, and fill in the gaps accordingly. Chaud321 (talk)

Question about reporting potentially valid fair use rationales

I've tried making sense of Template:Di-no_permission, but can't. I've tried posting the templates, adding in the Wikipedia page name in question on the image uploader's Wikipedia user space and to the Wikimedia Commons caption line. What am I doing wrong here? Instructions aren't well explained, in my view. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I honestly can't tell from your question what you are even trying to do. That template goes on the information page of the file you are tagging - nowhere else. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank's for the reply, Someguy1221. I was randomly browsing a couple credit union pages, First West Credit Union and Steinbach Credit Union, and noticed the provided licensing for the logos was "public domain," which I believe was in good faith but rather was an easier attempt at ensuring the logos wouldn't be auto-removed by a bot. So, I wanted to tag them with the appropriate notifications that they'll be removed within 7 days if they don't correct the non-free licensing. As logos, my understanding is we can use them on pages, but I just think that the licensing information/rationale should be correct. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, the tagging of those logos as public domain was not only good faith, but is in fact correct. Logos consisting of only text (including stylized text) and/or simple geometric shapes are not copyrightable, and are therefore in the public domain. (They may of course still be restricted by trademark regulations, but that doesn't matter for purposes here; all we care about is copyright.) So, tagging them as nonfree would be inappropriate; they aren't. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

horse is a horse

Is there anything wrong with the construction "A foobar is a foo with bar"? For instance, "A riding horse or a saddle horse is a horse used by mounted horse riders... (my emphasis). This came up at a GA review recently, and I would be interested to know if any style guides have anything to say on this. SpinningSpark 14:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: It seems like it would depend on the context, and the sourcing. Can you point us to a real example in an article? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I did point to a real example in the link I provided. More examples are easily found with a search; horse is a horse, train is a train, gun is a gun, car is a car, dress is a dress. Sourcing has nothing to with it. This is a question about good style, not whether the fact is verifiable or not. Namely, is the repetition in the construction poor style, or is it just inevitable when describing a subset of a set of things. SpinningSpark 19:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Spinningspark, English teachers will tell you to avoid this if possible, so it does sound strange to many people. Often a sentence can be rewritten without too much trouble. In an initial sentence like the horse examples it would be difficult to do without complicating things. Further on in a paragraph it is easier to avoid duplication. You could say "Electrical telegraphy uses signals sent over conducting wires, ..." which adds a bit of information and avoids the issue. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Spinningspark Doh - of course - my bad. Yes it's awkwad, but sometimes unavoidable. I agree with StarryGrandma. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Theme Park Character Lists

So, the Character Lists for certain theme park pages seem pretty hard to verify, and their notability is questionable. Another editor and I are of the opinion that they should be flat out removed, but I wanted to gain some consensus first. So, should they be removed? Thanks. --SacredDragonX (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

For the Universal Studios Hollywood page, the characters lists were removed because only a handful or two of characters could be verified by the official page, which is NOT comprehensive [2], and snapshots on Wayback. Most of the characters could only be verified by 1) unofficial / unreliable sources 2) actual visits to the park. Their debuts and departures from the official list are also questionable. It is similar to having TV listings which goes against WP:NOTTVGUIDE, but without the press releases or secondary reliable sources to announce their debuts and departures. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Belasco Theatre, New York City

About the New York Belasco Theatre - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belasco_Theatre

You state:

"Meyer R. Bimberg was the actual owner of the Stuyvesant/Belasco. He made his fortune selling political campaign buttons."[1]
(Anthony, Ellen. "Passing Strange Broadway Ghost". Broadway Magazine. Archived from the original on December 30, 2010)

Facts: - The theatre opened as the Stuyvesant Theatre on October 16, 1907. - "Bim" died April 1908. (see "Bim-dies_Hot-Springs_SD_weekly-star_4-10-1908_Image-6.jpg") - He was hardly in a position to own a theatre, having been evicted by Sam Shubert from the Wagner Cafe for unpaid rent in 1901, and sued for bankruptcy in 1903.

 (see "Bim_Evening-World_12-5-1901_Night-Edition_Image-1.jpg" and "Bimberg_NY-Tribune_4-5-1903_pg6_Image-6.jpg")  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbaylesyeager (talk • contribs) 20:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Dbaylesyeager, the cited source indeed did not support the claim of ownership, but did state that Bimberg was involved in the theater's founding and construction. I've changed the article to reflect what the reference actually supports. Note that you can do that too, but we always go by what reliable sources actually say, not our own interpretation or synthesis of them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Zaka weezy

I want to create own page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaka xans (talk • contribs) 11:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Editor has been blocked as a sock. If you're successfully unblocked, come back and see if you can make a clearer request. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Natural Born Citizen

This issue was taken up by the United States Supreme Court in 1875 and this is their decision on this question:

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that it was "never doubted" that natural born citizens are those born in the U.S. of U.S. citizen parents. Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162, 167 (1875).

So, this show that you definition of it is wrong and that your statement that the United States Supreme Court has never taken up this issue is as well wrong. If you are going to be a so-called encyclopedia than you need to state the facts and not what you want to be truth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:247:C202:69B0:C91:E03D:8181:E478 (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The best place to discuss this will be the talk page of the article in question – which I assume is Natural-born-citizen clause. Maproom (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The lead of Natural-born-citizen clause actually says: "The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and by some lower courts that have addressed eligibility challenges, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen." The 1875 case is already mentioned in Natural-born-citizen clause#1800s with the real quote. It is not about presidential eligibility, and it does not say that natural born citizens are only those born in the U.S. of U.S. citizen parents. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Kosovo

Hello,

I am writing in reference to Kosovo 'Famous Artists' section, and I would like to add that my late father Arif Vala was an actor and he played along Richard Burton in the movie called "Sutjeska". Would you be able to add this information?

Many thanks, G.Vala — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.73.85 (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

You would need to show that there's reference material that indicates that this was significant. If you can do that, then there may be a possibility of adding it. Material on Wikipedia requires references, and since such lists would be quickly flooded if we allowed just anything to be put on them, it's generally restricted to the most significant and notable of examples. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Goshawk

I have tried to log in to provide additional information on "goshawk." However, your computer does not recognize my existence.

Your information on goshawk indicates as sub-species..."A.g. langi" as existing on Vancouver Island and Queen Charolett islands of British Columbia. It ALSO EXISTS ON WASHINGTON STATE'S OLYMPIC PENINSULA.

  FYI... I am an experienced falconer and when I was with the WA wildlife depart in the 1970s,  I wrote the first falconry regulations.
  The smaller, darker goshawk of that region is also localled called by ardent falconers as "the black gos". In the 1970s I took a tercel for falconry from a site within view of Pilar Point,  on the Straits of Juan de Fuca, elevation of 3,800 feet..

  Your discussion of plumage of goshawks worldwide is blantly lacking in one respect:

...The adult goshawk of NORTH AMERICA has VERTICAL BARRING on the breast... ...The adult goshawk of Europe, ASIA, AND FAR EAST..has HORIZONTAL BARRING on the breast.

  Trust me...I have seen them both, up close.

Further, the NA goshawk occupies a dense wooded habitat and is a very excitable bird. The European, et al goshawk occupies a habitat similar to the NA red-tailed hawk, which Europe does not have, and is considerably more mellow in temperament.

Thank you. Feel free to enter my details as a future possible editor. Tom Knight in Tamarindo, Costa Rica (Retired WA State expat) 😎🏖🐕 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.64.236.79 (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

This certainly could be something useful to add to the article. The first thing to do would be to find reliable sources which verify what you're saying. Unfortunately, we cannot accept someone's claim of personal expertise or knowledge as such a source, but such knowledge can be a great start to knowing where to look and what to look for. You also might talk to the project on birds, as editors there may have more specific advice or be aware of specialized sources to use. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Article merge? Bneid Al-Qar & Bnied Al-Gar

I've found two articles that I think should be merged due to being slightly different transliterations of the same thing, they are both stubs that haven't been touched in years.

Bneid Al-Qar & Bnied Al-Gar (internet also suggests Bneid Al-Gar as majority-non-Wikipedia version, which reflects neither current article) appear to be pages about the same neighbourhood of Kuwait. Is there an authoritative source? Quuux (talk) 05:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The arabic version has one archived source, though it does not even contain population of the suburb, only the governorates. The more accurate title should be "Bneid Al-Qar" though Banayd Al-Qar/Al-Gar and Bneid Al-Gar can also be used. So my suggestion is to merge Bnied Al-Gar into Bneid Al-Qar. Because of transliteration you can't say there's one "correct version" only what is more prevalent in English sources. The substitution of "q" with "g" stems from the fact that, the sounds of the former (as it's pronounced in Arabic) does not exist in English. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Quuux: OK, I have added newer source (2018 pop. figure) to the Arabic version. The sources uses Bneid Al-Gar. I have merged the articles and moved it to the most used title.– Ammarpad (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

How to open an RfC for politics, government, and law

Hi,

There's currently a dispute about the political position of Fidesz. I would like to open an RfC for politics, government, and law to let other editors weigh in, but am unsure about the process involved in this. Can I please have some help?

Cheers,

-MWKwiki (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Peach

There's reason to believe the person making edits to Andrew Peach is the subject himself. The article has been nominated for deletion twice but survived both nominations. Having reviewed the article once again, it still appears a lot of the information included seems too in-depth to be knowledge from a "fan". There was an edit that stated Peach is the longest serving network newsreader on BBC Radio 2. I have removed this as there was no supporting content and/or links to support this. If you look at the edit history, the user has ony edited items relating to Peach himself. A while ago, there was an edit war which argued that he was still a newsreader on BBC Radio 2. This was changed to say "he had been heard ...", and this appears to have been changed back to still being on the radio station. Again, no evidence or supporting links to assist with this claim. Could this be looked into as this could trigger another edit war. In addition, most of the links are just passing comments on Peach, and don't point to him directly. Advice would be great, cheers! - Funky Snack (Talk) 18:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding information to a page

On the following page Marko Rog the player is recently be sold from Napoli to Cagliari I already added the paragraph about Cagliari that bought the player I am trying now to include the following source https://www.tuttonapoli.net/calciomercato/tmw-rog-al-cagliari-affare-chiuso-prestito-con-obbligo-fissato-a-18mln-402272 but I cannot refer it into the reference at the bottom page, when I click on edit in references paragraph I do not get the list as it showed in the web page. Any chance to explain to me how to do it so in the future I can edit it by myself? Thanks Falankuk

user:falankuk What you want to do is use a cite tag like this^[1]. If there is already a reflist tag at the bottom of the article, it will update accordingly, otherwise you need to add the appropriate template. The default web interface also has a ">Cite" link which if clicked allows pulling up templates to automatically fill out the citation (which is what I did). Hope this helps. Rockphed (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

^ [www.placeholder.placeholder "World Awsomeness Title Won By Rockphed"]. Placeholder. Retrieved 13 September 2019. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)

Discrepany in Actor's birthdate

Hello, I have encountered a discrepancy regarding the birthdate of American actor William Devane within the different languages existed. Some show 1937, while others 1939. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benito2077 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the source we use in the article was from a newspaper, and does indeed state his birthdate as 1939: [3]. If there are other sources which actually say his birth date was 1937 and they are also reliable, we may wish to note that discrepancy in the article, but otherwise it's possible that the other articles simply contain an error. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Convenience link William Devane. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Benito2077: This confirms that he was class of 1957, which would make him 18, the right age for someone born in 1939. [[4]] (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.) TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Extrapolating his birthdate from his high school graduation date is wp:or. He could have graduated early. I certainly know people who have graduated high school at 16. You need another source directly stating his birthday.---- Work permit (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Coronation of Queen Victoria#Queen Victoria's account

Apologies for not using the talk page for this article. The section linked above is mostly copied from an old source (written in 1907), and so can be used. Should such a large quantity of text form part of the article, and if not, what's the best thing to do with it? Your guidance would be appreciated, thanks, Amitchell125 (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Proper move without history at Foreign relations of China?

Is this a proper move of material from Foreign relations of China to History of foreign relations of China if the history is not included? That is, from here to here

I raised the question on the Talk Page here.

ch (talk) 05:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The edit summary is sufficient for attribution [5], though they should have linked the page with a wikilink. {{Copied}} template can also be used on the talk page, but I see there's already a note to that regard. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for detailed information. – Ammarpad (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

21 grams experiment

I have added technical information that the critical writer did not have. The writer removed them without contacting me first. I may be new here but in the interest of minimal accuracy this must be changed. The entire story is satire and missing the actual data. I offered and was flatly rejected and bullied, threatened more than once to face removal. My motives are sincere and background actual.

talk--------------------

User talk:PriorQavah From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search 21 Grams experiment

PriorQavah (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)PriorQavah as much as possible the edit needs to be done to have factual content.

Extended content

Where did you find copyright issues?

My information is from the actual report. What I inserted was actual result and conditions.The version You put back cites a ghost story site that is copyrighted and does not include the actual report. The story you added does not include the actual test The story You submitted does not include the actual test conditions. the story you submitted includes criticism outside the criticism area.

PriorQavah (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC) Damien Linnane

   You're lucky I found this. When you want to contact someone else on Wikipedia you leave a message on THEIR talk page, not your own. Leaving an initial message on your own page is like writing a letter in the mail to yourself. The person you are writing to is not going to get it if you send it to yourself and don't notify them in any way. I only noticed this because I was coming here to leave you a message asking you to stop what you're doing at the article.

No offense but as evidenced by the fact you left a message for me on your talk page, you clearly don't know what you're doing on Wikipedia. Firstly, you can't copy and paste large texts from the actual report. That's a copyright violation, regardless of whether you put it in inverted commas and attribute it to the report itself. Please do your homework and read Wikipedia:Copyright violations.
A Wikipedia article is supposed to be a summary of the subject. You, however, have gone into gross and absurd levels of over-detail. Even if it wasn't a copyright violation, the reader doesn't need to know MacDougall's drawn out quote about why he thought souls have weight, all we need to know is that he did. We don't need the exact measurements for every subject, we just need the overall findings.
In order to use a source on Wikipedia, that source needs to satisfy the criteria at WP:RS. There is no requirement that the source needs to contain the entire report itself, so your argument that the "ghost story site" (what does 'ghost story site' even mean???) doesn't have the original report is irrelevant. There is no requirement that it needs it. If every scientific article could only cite sources that contain the entire report rather than a summary of it, Wikipedia would pretty much have to delete 99% of its coverage of experiments. Even scientific papers only refer to other paper's findings, rather than reproducing the papers entirely. Your argument is not justifiable.
You have also deleted criticism of the experiment without adequate justification. This appears to be a violation of WP:POV. More disturbingly, you deleted the criticism from the lead. As per MOS:LEAD, the lead of an article needs to summarise the article's contents; if there is a substantial amount of criticism in the article, it is a requirement that this criticism is summarised in the lead.
As evidenced by your comment above, and your edits to the article, you have an extremely poor understanding of grammar, capitals and spaces. This is an encyclopedia with high standards; your terrible writing is not improving the article.
Lastly, the article you are writing has already been peer reviewed and has been promoted as a good article, meaning it has been accepted as one of Wikipedia's best pieces of content. If you want to make drastic changes to something that has already been peer-reviewed and accepted as Wikipedia's best pieces of content, you need to obtain consensus on the article's talk page first. Trying to make the edits again after it has been explained to you why they are not appropriate is as violation of WP:BRD, and could be considered starting an edit war. Logging out of your account and making the changes again from an IP address is a violation of WP:SOCK. Repeating any of this behaviour will likely result in your account being blocked from editing. I trust these explanations will bring an end to your disruptive and un-constructive edits. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

PriorQavah (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)PriorQavah I have done my own reports, but mostly engineering type where facts are all important. After all it is called an encyclopedia, and the rules do call for accuracy. If we let one thing leak in that is not true in engineering on a car, it will be millions of faulty cars. As a rule we strive for accuracy. I did not get that feeling when I read your article and looked at your references on the 21 grams experiment. Disrespect is what I feel when You do not use Doctor MacDougall's title. What I feel when data is buried with hype that there is some underlying anger or impossible wall that will not look fairly at the information.

I have studied the experiment also. Seems to me the 21 grams (actually 3/4 oz) is the weight of the first person tested. When I read the account of the tests, I felt astonishment in his words the first time. It makes me feel he was not predisposed to an outcome.

The other seem to vary and where they were being attacked Doctor MacDougall discounted the result,,from looking at his writing and knowing these kind of people, possibly out of frustration or anger. then there is the one test again where they got a measurement but death at just the moment they slid the weight on the balance beam. Now you know what that slide is for ,on a scale, the fine adjustment. so even though the two were discounted as not within spec. , there were measurements. There are 52 cites in the real report.

Is there any special reason you chose to use the version at the Ghost site to link? (The site has a recent copyright at the bottom.)

PriorQavah (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC) Damien Linnane

In answer to your question, I didn't add that document there. Someone else did, but the link was fine. The fact it has the word 'copyright' down the bottom means nothing. It's not necessarily a copyright violation to add an external link to something that is copyrighted, but it's definitely a copyright violation to copy and paste from the source and add it to the article. I've been writing Wikipedia for 11 years. I know what the rules are. I'm not violating any. You on the other hand, seem to be on a mission to violate as many as possible.
By repeatedly using 'Doctor' MacDougall's title, you have violated yet another guideline. Please read MOS:SURNAME. It is a violation to repeatedly refer to someone as 'Doctor' or any other professional title. I've refereed to him as a physician at his initial mention, then only by his last name, as per the accepted standard.
Disrespect is what I feel when you make multiple errors writing a Wikipedia article because you didn't have the common decency to do any research whatsoever into the accepted standards, then have the audacity to criticise me for adhering to the rules.
I believe the article is objective and neutral. The article has been peer reviewed and accepted as one of Wikipedia's best pieces of content. If you disagree with how it is written, please start a discussion on the article's talk page regarding your concerns (and please start signing your comments - see here for instructions: Wikipedia:Signatures) and wait to see what other editors say so that a consensus can be reached about the issue. And just so it's clear, if you make any attempts to find people to support your proposal on the talk page this would be considered a violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing and would likely result in an immediate ban. I feel like I have spent enough time explaining why your edits went completely against Wikipedia's standards, and have no desire to discuss this with you any further here. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

PriorQavah (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)PriorQavah

Thank you for your candid comments. IO can see your editing is near and dear to your heart by the threatening and exclusionary manner of commentary. I assure you I am only adding what is necessary for the experiment to have meaning. As for the copyright you claim I have violated of a 100 year old report, I think you are off base, rather it seems to be an attack on fellow editors. I know this because at the same time you bring in a page with a recent copyright, the guy is claiming he wrote it himself and it is not the real thing. I can tell real information by the content. Fake has no data, is just that personal commentary. an only imagine you cited it because it is not real. I fear you copy and make it your own. everything is a threat and attack to you to keep the information hidden. This is not acceptable on an encyclopedia. Perhaps to a casual observer your criticism of the experiment rates good, (as a sort of joke story) but to a educated person this is not acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PriorQavah (talk • contribs) 15:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

This discussion should be moved to the talk page. Providing a courtesy link for other editors. Talk:21 grams experiment TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I already told him to move his grievance to the talk page of the article, but he refuses to listen to sound advice. I'd advise anyone who is interested to actually look at the absurd overdetail this person was trying to add to the article, and the fact he was trying to remove valid criticism at the same time (and his subsequent sock-puppet attempt to restore his changes without explanation), and then read the full conversation about it on his talk page. By his own admission, this editor wishes to downplay the criticism of the report from leading experts because it conflicts with his personal feelings that the experiment has validity. He has repeatedly criticised me for the crime of adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines. I will not add further comments here, I just wanted to point out the absurdity of this request. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

K Callan Name listed incorrectly -- there is no "period".

Examarie (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)The name is K Callan -- not K period Callan I would like to take the period out of the headline as well as other places on the page where a period exists, but can't figure out how.

Exa Marie

I have moved the article to K Callan. Maproom (talk) 06:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The minister general of Franciscan secular and youfra

I am concerned about the decreased óf the youfra and Franciscan secular order

Let us develop the our region

The following group must take action The minister general of Franciscan OFM The minister general of Franciscan secular The minister general of OFM cap The minister general of OFM conv

The last two groups are The sacred líturgy commission for the Franciscan The commission for the Franciscan order Our Holy see is the only one who granted ànd Approved the issue

Of Franciscans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.114.109.187 (talk) 06:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

This page is for requests for help in using or editing Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Help copying over markup for approved edit requests.

3M (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello, I'm Kelsie, and I've submitted a couple edit requests at Talk:3M on behalf of my employer, 3M. Both of my requests to update text in the introduction and replace unsourced and inaccurate lists with sourced prose have been approved by another editor, but they are not sure how to update the article's markup on my behalf. Might someone here be able to help? I've tried to make the markup as easy to copy and paste as possible. Thank you! KM at 3M (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

the biographical page on me - Todd Gray History

Good morning,

I have tried to correct some mistakes on the biographical page on me which someone very kindly set up but each time I have done this these changes are later deleted. I cannot understand why. I have also tried to update the content and have soured it properly but this too has been later taken off. Is this an editorial issue? I am concerned as I just do not know what to do about this.

Can someone help? I am grateful to whoever it was who thought of writing a page about me - and surprised - but it is not easy having inaccurate information posted on the site and it would help if it was factually correct,

Yours Sincerely, Todd Gray — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnolia444 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Town or City in Greece Not Recognized In English Version

Hello, I was looking up information regarding the area in the link below and realized that the only information regarding the area was written in Greek and not mentioned anywhere in English written pages even though the island and other towns and cities are mentioned and also listed. Someone basically forgot this place all together!

Avgeniki, Heraklion, Crete, Greece — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nygriego74 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we all forgot it. It should be easy to create an article on Avgeniki in en-Wikipedia, at least for someone who can read Greek. Maproom (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hunter Biden

I read the page on Hunter Biden a few days ago. It's been significantly rewritten. It stated he was given an officers commission in the Naval Reserve after attending two weeks of classroom courses in military history and etiquette; after which he was discharged two months later for a positive cocaine test, of which he had previous arrests. It stated he received multiple waivers, including being over age. A few days later, that is rewritten. It simply states he was discharged for a positive cocaine test. It would imply to a reader that he earned a Naval commission. The waivers (of course raising the question, by whom and for what, such as prior drug arrests) are not apparent.

Question-Why was this rewritten and by whom. Many people turn to Wikipedia for knowledge. Part of the take away info has been lost or covered up by web "SPIN". What's going on here?2601:49:C201:1401:A166:30B4:1664:29EC (talk) 07:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Bruce Turner MD

It was changed because a volunteer editor thought his change was an improvement. If you are terribly interested you can peruse the history tab to figure out who did it. You are also welcome to visit the article's talk page, Talk:Hunter Biden, if you would like to suggest that the article should explicate that Biden was a Direct commission officer, by whatever proposed wording. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

"Factual Inaccuracies and Grave Misunderstandings"

On Rudolf Kjellén, an IP made significant edits to several sections (the four most recent edits), and I don't really know what to do as I know nothing about the subject, but I question this IP's edits. In two of the edit summaries, they claim that the entire article is "riddled with factual inaccuracies and grave misunderstandings" with "mistakes from an unnamed low-quality secondary source". Are these edits acceptable, or should they be reverted? I'm stuck on what to do about this. ∞^southern_kangaroo ∞ talk∞ 16:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

To my eyes, the content that was removed was drawing parallels between Kjellén's ideas and Hitler's. It is unclear from the reading whether the author was reporting an analysis drawn from a source, or making his own. Without any source cited, I think the removal is completely justified. The reformatting of the statement of Kjellén's ideas themselves replaces the uncited version that is explicitly written to sound like Nazism with something else that cites specific page numbers. Not a properly formatted reference to be sure, but it is one that can be checked. I would not suggest changing that back without interrogating those pages for corroboration. The article is largely the same prior to those four edits as it was when originally written by Perceval (talk · contribs), but never had footnotes, so it was unclear what was directly from Kjellén and what was interpretation by later authors. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I just wanted to be sure about those edits. And don't worry, I haven't reverted them. But do you think the IP was right to suggest the article be translated from its Swedish WP page and be completely rewritten? ∞^southern_kangaroo ∞ talk∞ 11:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The Swedish biography is much more extensive and thoroughly footnoted. Many of the sources are in Swedish, but I think it's a terrific candidate for, if not replacement by translation, at least expansion by translation. Ideally that would be done by someone fluent in both languages who can make sure the sources are being cited accurately. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

That does sound like a good idea. ∞^southern_kangaroo ∞ talk∞ 11:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Creation of Ermenegildo Zegna (1955) entry

Hi there, I'm writing you because a couple of weeks ago I created a new entry for the present CEO of Ermenegildo Zegna Group (Ermenegildo "Gildo" Zegna). Shortly after the upload, the entry was deleted and redirected to the Group entry as it was considered "not notable and promotional", in spite of the presence of various and different external references. I tried to get in touch with the editor that removed the entry, asking for further explanations and suggestions on how to improve it. However, the request was archived without receiving any feedback. Could you please help me understand the reasons why it was deleted and how I could improve it in case you consider it relevant for Wikipedia?

Thank you in advance, --Erisimo (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Erisimo: It's very hard to write an article and get it approved. In your case, Praxidicae left feedback in the deletion record: "not independently notable and a raging promotional piece". Without reviewing the deleted article, it's likely that the tone was too promotional, and the sourcing didn't show that the CEO was notable for anything besides being CEO. If you can find media coverage of him for things other than being CEO, you can ask to have your content restored to your sandbox using WP:REFUND, but if it is resubmitted without such sourcing, and the tone/phrasing is still promotional, it will be deleted again. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I have written the the entry as a draft on my Sandbox, then submitted for review. I should be grateful if you could take a look at it - it's quite a short article - just to understand whether the entry could be OK with the tone and sourcing. Thank you very much, --Erisimo (talk) 12:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Referenced article link is 404ed on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_assignment_matrix#References

Reference 6 Smith, Michael (2005). Role & Responsibility Charting (RACI) (PDF). Project Management Forum. p. 5. I am the author of Role & Responsibility Charting (RACI) (PDF). I guess PM Forum is no longer on-line. Is there any way I can post my article so people could use it (and a basic Excel Chart Template)?68.196.228.3 (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. The source had been archived at the Wayback Machine. I've updated the reference so that it now links to the version there. There are bot tasks on Wikipedia that try to make sure links used as references can still be used if the original goes away. See Wikipedia:Link rot. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

My Name is wrong spelled and it cause me a lot of problems in my working and personal life

Answered

Hi. I would like to have my artistic name correctly spelled on Wikipedia. The correct way is Elli AvrRam, (any other spelling is wrong). I have tried to figure out how I can change this myself, but with no success. Every time my name is used by media I have noticed they use Wikipedia and copy my name which is wrong spelled, and I have tried so many times to correct this, without any success. Could I kindly ask you to change this asap. Best Regards Elli AvrRam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.192.202 (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Being addressed at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Elli_AvrRam, so closing here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

ship wrecks in 1943

there is a ship not listed : brazilian freighter stranded at 12 of may in 1943 at the coast of south africa. the name : piratiny. you can read a lot of articels in the internet about that ship wreck and there was an TV contribution ! is there someone who can add(?) that ship to the list of ship wrecks ? Thanks greetings markus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DE:2F14:5C74:6C06:B498:4CB9:695 (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hide and Go Seek or Hide and Seek title war

Answered

How do you vote on a title of an article or in wiki world rules find consensus? In Ohio the child's game is "Hide and Go Seek". An Editor has changed the title to Hide and Seek Hide and Seek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and adds a note that 'go' is not in the title. I immediately wanted to change the title and add 'go' but I do not want to start an edit war. How do you start a blue box? Eschoryii (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by a "blue box". If you disagree on what the title of the article should be, you should discuss it on the article's talk page – I see you have already started a discussion there. Maproom (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

That note was added by the vandal who removed a large section of the article yesterday. I've restored the article. See the talk page for a discussion of the title. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both. The problem was solved removing the vandalism.

Eschoryii (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Weird timeline on Blink-182

Hi everyone, I hope I'm at the right place here to ask such things. The timeline on the bottom of page Blink-182 looks weird for me, with black lines converging from the upper line to the lower left corner. I see it on my PC (firefox/chrome/IE) and iPhone(safari).

it I look at the history, it's only since the last edit. But if I look at the delta modification, it makes no sense why it happens.
if I click on "Edit" then "Show preview" immediately without editing anything, it looks good again.

Am I the only one? Does anyone knows what's going on? Vonvon (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Vonvon: I saw it too. The timeline software sometimes does this. It's usually fixed by a purge or any edit to the timeline to force a new rendering. Purge worked for me. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) Vonvon (talk)

St. Helens in Pennsylvania?

Hi

Im not sure where to post this… I’m afraid there is a problem with the page about St. Helens, Oregon, "Demographics": note number 19 reads Pennsylvania: Population and Housing Unit Counts. Huh? St. Helens is in Oregon, so this must be a mistake. Can someone help? Best, Jihaim (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jihaim: The link was right but the title was wrong. An editor probably copied the reference code from another article and changed the url but forgot the title. I have fixed it.[6] PrimeHunter (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Cool, thanks ! Jihaim (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

What the Health page has been vandalized and Luk3 is allowing it.

The "what the health" documentary Wikipedia page has been vandalized and the user "Luk3" is reversing any edits I make. He claims I have gone against Wikipedia's rules of neutrality when in reality I only added "the film has both been critiqued and praised" and I offered sources. Because as it stands, someone is stating the film promotes a vegan agenda, which is not true. The film is about a diet which is "plant-based". Veganism is also an ethical standpoint encompassing clothing, etc. The film isn't about that.

The edits also claim the film has been critiqued, and I added sources where the leader of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine responded to this criticism, and this edit was reversed.

Here is how the vandalized page looks now: "What the Health is a 2017 film promoting a vegan agenda.[1]

The documentary has been criticized by a number of medical doctors,[2][3] dietitians,[4][5][6] and investigative journalists[7][8] for what they describe as confusing causation with correlation, cherry picking science studies, using biased sources, distorting study findings, and using "weak-to-non-existent data"." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.57.138.108 (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy link: What the Health. Please note that Wikipedia defines Vandalism as "the act of editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive". I see no vandalism of that article. You write "in reality I only added ...", whereas in fact you deleted a whole paragraph with seven citations. You and Luk3 have a content dispute, and should discuss it on the article's talk page. Maproom (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Maproom: FYI: You pinged to wrong person, the user in question is LuK3 with an uppercase K. --Luk3 (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping Luk3. As for the edits, it looks like the IP added their own commentary, violating the WP:NPOV policy therefore I reverted it. After a discussion on my talk page, I re-added a more neutral lead. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Abrahamic Religions: Mandaeans

There has been consistent emphasized vitriolic polemics against Mandaeans in the article on Abrahamic religions. After undoing the polemics twice with no avail, I have been threatened with having a SPI case started against me. I have been accused of having a religious agenda. Mandaeans are a vulnerable minority religious group in the middle east. Strong language in the article such as considering Mohammed and Islam demonic along with other Abrahamic religions and the use of words like "hating Abraham" persist in the article. One of the sources clearly states they consider him a founder of their faith which been ignored. Other words like "false prophets" to describe Mohammed, Jesus, and Moses are used. Previously Mandaeans have been completely removed from the article. Considering they live in the middle east, this can only cause them considerable harm. There are other religions listed in the article, but polemics are not emphasized apart from the focus on Mandaeans. I don't think polemics should be emphasized for any religion, especially vulnerable minorities. I try to check for polemics against all religions, but this one seems obvious. I believe it is against Wikipedia policy to have an agenda against a religion or certain group of people.GF46238 (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC) I have edited the post to remove editors user names to comply with Wikipedia policy. (I am new and just learning the ropes)

Hi, not quite sure if it is appropriate for me to comment here, but as my user name was mentioned, I thought I would comment (if it is inappropriate please delete) - everything I wrote about the Mandaeans is from cited sources, particularly "The Mandaeans: The Last Gnostics" by Edmundo Lupieri. The question is whether or not the Mandaeans are an Abrahamic religion. The article section Abrahamic religions#Common aspects states that "All Abrahamic religions accept the tradition that God revealed himself to the patriarch Abraham." The Mandaeans do not accept that God revealed himself to Abraham, so to include them as an Abrahamic religion requires some explanation. editor Epinoia has consistently emphasized vitriolic polemics against Mandaeans - everything I included is from cited sources, and I have only used material relevant to the relationship between Mandaeanism and Abrahamic religions. Epinoia used strong language such as..."hating Abraham" - Lupieri states, “they hate Abraham” (p. 66) and quotes another writer Ricoldo who said, “They detest Abraham” (p. 65). This is not vitriolic polemics, but a statement of what the Mandaeans believe. one of Epinoia sources clearly states they consider him a founder of their faith which Epinoia chooses to ignore - none of the sources I cited say that Abraham was a founder of their faith. On the contrary, Lupieri says, "Shem, chosen by the Mandaeans as their own founding father" (p. 50) and E. S. Drower says, in "The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran", that Abraham was a priest who left the Mandaeans and started his own religion worshipping the powers of Darkness (p 266-268). Epinoia also uses words like "false prophets" to describe Mohammed, Jesus, and Moses - again, this is directly from Lupieri who says that Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed are regarded as false prophets (p 116). I do not have an agenda against a religion or certain group of people. My intention was to clarify the relationship between the Mandaeans and the Abrahamic religions. A reader seeing the Mandaeans listed in the Abrahamic religions article without knowing what their beliefs were would be misled for, as Dr. Dylan Burns says, that while they are biblically informed they are "not-exactly-Abrahamic". Sorry to go on at such length, but I feel my views and contributions have been mischaracterized. I have no prejudice against the Mandaeans whatsoever, but they do not have a clear claim as an Abrahamic religion. There is further discussion on User talk:Epinoia#Mandaeans User and on Talk:Abrahamic religions#Mandaeism is not an Abrahamic religion - as no other editors contributed to the Talk page discussion I would be welcome additional input - Epinoia (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

There are consistent references to Edmondo Lupieri who could very well be a biased writer. There is a reference to an article from The Telegraph that states "followers of a pre-Christian religion that considers the prophet Abraham as one of the founders of their faith." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/16/pictures-day-16-march-2019/iraqis-sabeans-followers-pre-christian-religion-considers-prophet/ but this appears to be ignored. There is also a documentary (in Arabic) on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6CJWOrnS_s where a Mandaean priest describes Abraham in their religion as a prophet in their faith and he is called "Bahram Rba" meaning Abraham the pure. Again, this is ignored. Wikipedia articles about them in French https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mand%C3%A9isme and Arabic https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D9%86%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%8A%D8%A9 clearly state they are Abrahamic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GF46238 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC) GF46238 (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Another article from Spanish Wikipedia on Abrahamic religions also counts Mandaeans as Abrahamic and Abraham as founder of their religion https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiones_abrah%C3%A1micas — Preceding unsigned comment added by GF46238 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

~~Article from Latin Wikipedia listing Mandaeans as Abrahamic https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiones_Abrahameae GF46238 (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)GF46238 (talk)~~

The issue is "what do followers of this religion believe?" Unless we have cited evidence that they lie about it, it must be better to go by what they say than by what their enemies say. Maproom (talk) 06:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not a new editor but a sockpuppet and I've struck through their posts. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ANMC001. As an aside I did look at several reliable source and none of them confirmed that they were Abrahamic. Doug Weller talk 12:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

minimum refernce to publish a new article

i like to know how many reference do i need to publish an article?

Siyanco (talk) 05:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC) -

Siyanco, per WP:GNG, there is no set number, but editors fairly often suggest something like at least "3 good ones". "Good ones" here means that they are at the same time reliably published, independent of the topic and mentions the topic more (the more the better) than in passing. Your article will easier be accepted if you go beyond the bare minimum. Try to make it obvious via your refs that your topic is WP:NOTABLE.

The number of refs is only part of it, their quality and what they say is very important. If you are trying to write a WP:BLP the demands will be higher, but you can probably get away with 3 good refs even then. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2019 (

            thanks ````  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siyanco (talk • contribs) 08:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Professor Johann Cook

In the following wikipedia article ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Organisation_for_the_Study_of_the_Old_Testament_(IOSOT) ) Professor Johann Cook is briefly mentioned. I request that an article about Professor Johann Cook be created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.255.54.28 (talk) 09:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Follow these instructions and you can do it yourself. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Finnic peoples

Hello, is someone able to jump in to help with regards to the Finnic peoples article, which was renamed into Baltic Finns by an editor without discussion or consensus on the article's talk page. The article had previously been moved into Finnic peoples about a year ago with an overwhelming majority on the talk page. The editor that reverted this has not provided any reasoning or sources for their action, and has not been responding on the talk page anymore. I am unable to move the page myself, because they created a new disambiguation page for Finnic peoples, hence the page move is not working for me. "Finnic peoples" is the most common synonym for "Baltic Finns". It is more commonly used than the "Baltic Finns" term. The editor moved the page, because they thought "Volga Finns" are also Finnic peoples, hence a disambiguation page is needed. But as is evident on the Uralic languages article, "Volga Finns" belongs into the "Volga-Finnic" group, not Finnic group. Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Note that language groups may be named after ethnicities (which is why the Finno-Permic languages were originally called 'Finnic'), or spuriously ethnicities after language groups, but language does not necessarily define ethnicity. — kwami (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Film Soundtracks

I was editing The Rebel Set and I saw an area set aside for the soundtrack. Should the movie soundtrack songs be listed for films or is that an area that has been stopped by film editors? Eschoryii (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Sanders_(gastroenterologist)

Hi, I disclosed a conflict of interest on the article's talk page when creating the page but it's copied my COI disclosure several times within the template and it looks really bad. How do I fix this?Essayist1 (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Dave Meltzer/ Peyton Royce Controversy

A editor keeps deleting my my edit about Dave Meltzer body shaming a WWE wrestler. It was covered by the BBC in the UK and numerous famous wrestlers commented on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Meltzer

Source https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-45214183

The editor has deleted this section before according to the Talk page and seems biased.

Can you please review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddydavis69 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I have never been to this page, so I'm a bit unsure if I'm allowed to comment here, since I am the editor Freddydavis69 is refering to but I will state that I removed the section because I and another editor (LM2000) who has been on the wrestling project for a long time both agreed that Wikipedia:NOTNEWS (as well as Wikipedia:UNDUE) applied, celebrities say dumb things every day, this is likely only one of thousands of dumb things this man has said in his life, there have been no actual fallout from this event and it has had no impact on his life/career or anyone elses in the long run. I have urged Freddy several times to take the discussion to the talkpage, which he has refused to do, instead I started a conversation on the Wrestling Project, which he has not replied to either.★Trekker (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

So 2 editors don't think this isn't relevant and that is fine? This editor has removed this before by another editor, so at least one person agrees with me. Please do a Google search on this subject, and you will see many videos and articles on this subject. I was important news and should be covered. I feel Trekker is biased towards Dave Meltzer. - Freddy Davis 69 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddydavis69 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not biased, and I won't magically become so because you keep claiming it, I simply know Wikipedia guidelines.★Trekker (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Here is my take on the matter. Meltzer said something foolish about a female wrestler but not actually vile. He then withdrew his comment and apologized repeatedly. Meltzer has been a professional wrestling journalist for 36 years and it is fair to assume that he has said other things in bad taste. Wrestling revels in bad taste. This seems like a pretty trivial incident in the context of such a lengthy career, so I am oppose to adding it. The proper place to try to resolve the matter is Talk:Dave Meltzer, where no one is discussing it currently. As for bias, I am not a wrestling fan and have never read Meltzer's work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The incident happened a year ago and has proven to have caused no long term damage. WP:NOTNEWS is relevant here so it should stay out.LM2000 (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Will my email address be visible?

Hello! Please refer me to whom/where I should ask if it's not you here.

I'm brand-new to contributing to Wikipedia. Please tell me:

If I choose the option that readers may email me, will my email address be visible to readers or to those who email me?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PiepZeiDeMuis (talk • contribs) 07:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@PiepZeiDeMuis: If you answer those e-mails, yes. Otherwise no. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Uploading a photo: John Fleming.jpg

I have attempted to upload a personal photo (of me) to Wikimedia Commons but it was not approved. I went through the appropriate steps to have it licensed. Can an editor with more experience assist? --Book Reader 205 (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Book Reader 205, I know this isn't a particularly helpful answer, but the people at C:Commons:Help desk will be better placed to assist than here. - The different Wikimedia projects are independent of one another, so policies etc differ. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I've had a look at commons, and they are asking you to use OTRS (i.e. email special Wikimedia volunteers) to confirm you own the rights to the image. Please see C:Commons:OTRS ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Editing conflicts with myself

I have a very aggravating issue that over a not so long of a period of time I started receiving edit conflicts that proved to be with myself. The problem is that it is not actually a "conflict" as the edit will post. I will edit a page, preview it, and when publishing any changes I made I may hit an edit conflict. This has happened several times but in nearly 10 years of editing it had never occurred before. I brought it up "somewhere" (technical I think) but did not receive any constructive comments.

It causes me to have to open a second tab to verify that the shown edit conflict is actually with myself and that the edit actually posted. Surely I can't be the only one that has had this issue so I thought I would check here. Otr500 (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I started to experience this two or three months ago (I only use the source editor). Maproom (talk) 07:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you still having the issue (@ Maproom)? I think I use the regular editor but not sure. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I haven't noticed it for a week or two. (I don't know the term "regular editor". There's the "visual editor" which I believe is now the default for new users, and the "source editor" which used to be the default, and which is still preferred by most users who've tried both.) Maproom (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I suppose then I use the source editor. At a point I was given an option on the editing screen but now it just states "edit source". I have still encountered the issue a high percentage of the time. Since there apparently others are not having this issue it must be on my end somewhere. Otr500 (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Amazing! I hit an edit conflict with myself again, when posting the above, and the page gave me an option of which I would like to use. I opened another tab to check and it was posted. I suppose throwing the laptop across the room would solve the issue. I can't see how it in not somehow an issues within Wikipedia. Otr500 (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Question about multiple accounts.

Are WP users allowed to operate 2 WP accounts as long as they never use one of them deceitfully? Such as trying to get a leg up in an argument on an article's talk page. As long as they don't do that, they can operate 2 accounts? TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry for a list of things you can and can't do with multiple accounts. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Wrong date

Zoltán Pál Dienes (anglicized as Zoltan Paul Dienes) (June 21, 1916 – January 11, 2014) This means that he was nearly minus two years old when he died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:263F:EC01:F06C:3ACD:6C7A:BECF (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

ahh... no? it says he was born in 1916, and died 98 years later, in 2014. I think you are misreading 2014 for 1914. Curdle (talk) 06:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

How to ask for help from a Spanish-reading editor

Is there a template or noticeboard that I can use to request help from an editor who reads Spanish? We have an article about Universidad del Este but it's no longer listed in the U.S. Department of Education's database so I think it may have been closed or completely merged into another institution. My Spanish is not up to the task of even the basic research necessary to figure this out. ElKevbo (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Ravi_Shankar_(spiritual_leader) improvement

There's been a lot of discussion on various issues on the talk page. The article itself looks little scattered. People adding content seem close to the subject and either adding promo stuff or vandalising the article. No experienced accounts seem to be adding content. They only seem to revert the non-compliant stuff.

I was wondering if someone could take a look?

Thanks. 122.172.46.119 (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Laotian PM list

Would someone be interested to remodel Prime Minister of Laos#List of prime ministers according to List of prime ministers of Cambodia#Prime ministers of Cambodia? The Cambodian lists seems much better to me, both in terms of data and graphical elements. I would remodel the Laotian list myself, but it seems like a too big task for me, and someone with more experience in creating such complex lists should do that work. ––Sundostund (talk) 04:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Identifying issues with an article

As far as I can tell there are definite issues with this article, but I can't seem to identify them (Another user has disputed every issue i've raised, so i'm assuming they were incorrect.). Assistance requested, thanks.

--MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Copenhagen Business School

Hi I was just involved in an edit-war on the article. I'm formally concerned with how to understand Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism. Can sentences like that a university belongs to the universities with the highest prestige be included? I have always found these sentences to be subjective, and most of the time you can also find that in the rankings, but these sentences are tolerated at the same time. But there is also no justice in injustice. I hope that I am right here. ZaaraTE (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

List of sources that are not reliable?

There's a page somewhere of sources that the community has decided are not reliable, but I can't seem to find it at WP:RS, etc. Can anyone point me there? Thanks. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deprecated sources includes a table of formally deprecated sources. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is a list often often discussed sources, but may be what you're after. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, John and Gråbergs. Deprecated sources was the one I was after. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Biased and nonfactual comments used for deletion

Answered

I am finding comments made by an editor proposing deletion to not have changed from one edit to another. In addition, the same editor has posted claims of 'payment for service' being made. This is unfounded and only facts should be associated with their vote for deletion.

I propose the subject of paid work be removed. Further, 'promotional' comments remain the same no matter the edits. The editor in question: Atlantic306

Article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Nichelle_Rodriguez — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKinderWorld (talk • contribs) 20:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

This isn't really within the scope of this noticeboard. To the extent that this is a conduct matter, file a case at ANI after carefully reading and following the instructions there and being aware that such complaints often BOOMERANG. There's no problem with using the same comments in multiple deletion requests if the issues are the same, as would appear to be the case here. But in any event the place to express disagreement with a deletion request is at the request, as you've already done. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Umar ibn el khattab(wiki english version)

In the introduction of the wiki of “Umar” the 2nd rashidun caliphate it is written that he let the jews into jerusalem which is wrong bec in the assurance of Aelia he made it clear “jews are not allowed in Aelia” so why there is conflict here? Is it wrong or mistake from editors. Thank you for helping us, i only ask for doing my report in Urbanism in Middle east :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.239.115.24 (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The best place to discuss this is the talk page of the article, Talk:Umar. Maproom (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

How do I modify my username

Good day,

I erroneously omitted a letter in my username when I was creating my account on Wikipedia. Instead of Akinrinlola Olumide, my account was wrongly created as Akinrinlol Olumide.

Kindly assist in the modification. My account should be Akinrinlola Olumide and not Akinrinlol Olumide.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akinrinlol Olumide (talk • contribs) 10:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Akinrinlol Olumide, please make your request at the username change request board. It can be done for you there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Editors requested

Hello all. If this is the incorrect place or format, I apologize. I am a disclosed paid consultant on behalf of The Daily Caller. (Thus, I will not make any direct edits to the article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Caller.)

Previous efforts to make changes to the article were clumsily handled by The Daily Caller, and the editors on the talk page have very generously accepted my coming abord to hit the "reset" button and engage in correcting some NPOV, factual and other issues. They have all acted with respect and good faith.

The issue is (without contaminating this request with substantive details) that so far, only a few editors have engaged, and most of those were involved in the early edits and unfortunate edit war that preceded me. Without casting any aspersions at all of bias or anything, I am asking that interested editor volunteers who have no history in the article review the article, my proposed edits and rationale, and become engaged in whether you think the article meets WP standards and consideration of my suggestions. Although my coding is dreadful, I have tried to break the article up into different sections on the talk page to make it easier.

I thank you all in advance for your open minds and open hearts. CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

How can I write a biography with high importance?

The article I wrote is rated as a less important biography, but how can I write a biography that is specifically important? I'm aiming for an article. The article I wrote is from Nagura Hiroo. I would be happy if you could add a biography article of high importance if possible.--Tepapi (talk) 10:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Tepapi, you'd need to write a biography of someone who is in fact of high importance. Given the sheer number of biographies, the number of people who would qualify for that are rather thin. For "high importance" in the arts, you're talking about someone like Salvador Dali or Paul Gauguin. Chances are, the person who you're writing about is just not that significant. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Certainly, it is not as famous as Salvador Dali or Paul Gauguin. However, in the world of Japanese painting, I see it as a notable person. I don't think that Salvador Dali or Paul Gauguin is highly artistic. Just because it is famous. The article I wrote was written because it was judged to be highly unique in the Japanese painting world. If you read the contents of his book, you will surely understand it. International critics from Japan, Spain, France and Italy have reviewed his work. We want you to judge by looking at the contents of the book. The standard of Wikipeda is superficial and the content is not scrutinized. I didn't write an article about a “very important” person in art. I wrote an article as an artist who wants to remain in the world because it may be low.--Tepapi (talk) 05:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Nagura Hiroo article

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. ・・・・ Not the first person who created this article, but the person who edited the Japanese version of this article. This article may be less important, but it is a painter that I want to keep. He is a highly acclaimed artist in the Japanese painting art. International critics from Japan, France, Spain and Italy have written reviews of his work. These reviews are published in Japanese art books and magazines. This article also introduces a book that contains his work. If you read the contents of these books, you will surely know his achievements. I'm not native American, so I can't express well. The thing I want to ask you is not to delete this article.--Suhein (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Deletion matters should only be discussed at the deletion page. ~~Moreover, you are pretty clearly a sockpuppet of Tepapi and if you continue to edit under the Suhein account (and maybe even if you don't), both accounts will likely be permanently blocked.~~ — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Reverted edit to talk page w/comment WP:NOTFORUM - how to repair?

Expressing a concern with the parent article in the talk page (Talk:Hitchens's_razor (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Hitchens's_razor|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)), my edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hitchens%27s_razor&diff=925859841&oldid=925858934) was reverted as WP:NOTFORUM. I feel this is a valid and useful concern over the content of the article and how it might be improved, but am not confident editing the article at this time (needs secondary sources, etc - adding two sentences represents many hours of time). How can I appropriately express this concern over the content of this article without violating community norms?

The removal of your talk page post was appropriate. You might try again specifically stating what change you would make to the article. But remember that anything added to an article must be sourced with a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. Making suggested changes without reliable sources is usually unsuccessful. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Harriet the movie - metadata hacked by white supremacist group?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:155.64.23.56

FYI - when I looked up Harriet the movie, the Wikipedia one-liner blurb calls it a propaganda film.

"Harriet is a 2019 American propaganda film about slave-turned-abolitionist Harriet Tubman. Directed by Kasi Lemmons, who wrote the screenplay with Gregory..."

Go ahead - google it.

I was dismayed. When I read the entry for Harriet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_(film)) the words propaganda weren't there.

I think you've either had your meta-data hacked by white supremacists or other hate groups, or you've allowed some seriously negative/racist folks to post.

155.64.23.56 (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Jeannie Warner

It's vandalism. Google is showing an older version of the page when you look it up. It'll be fixed eventually, but the best anyone can do is wait --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's the revision that caused this: [7] MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Improving poor quality Wikipedia page - help!

Hello!

IWG plc is the world's biggest office space company, but it has a particularly low-quality Wikipedia page. I am looking for writers and editors to help improve the quality of the existing page.

If you've been following the WeWork story in the news recently, you may have heard of IWG. They are the bigger, more profitable rival of WeWork. But there is literally no information about this company on Wikipedia!

I am a paid editor for the company, I have declared this publicly and will, therefore, be making no edits or changes myself to the IWG Plc page.

Thanks for reading this, and I'd welcome your help. Kate — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatherineBusby2019 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Situational analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am planning to revise the title above to "Situational logic." Will this title change cause any problems with existing links? IF so, how can I resolve those problems? Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive BLP editing by an editor?

(Not sure where to put this request so ask that others with more experience move it to the correct place in your complaints system.)

I would ask for the edits by User:G. Finknottle to be investigated as I believe he/she is adding disruptive (invented) quotes to articles about living people and there may be a lot of this sort of thing in his/her edit history.

To explain, I removed one false "quote" this morning (I checked the full article from The Times which was cited and the alleged quote does *not* appear):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Sentamu&type=revision&diff=926939324&oldid=926733810

As the editor's trick when trying to fool Wikipedia into accepting obviously nonsensical material into a BLP depended on:-

(a) claiming to cite an article from The Times newspaper which had been previously published

(b) while relying on most Wikipedia editors not having access to a full text database of The Times (this newspaper lies behind a paywall)

...it therefore seemed worth checking whether he/she had tried this sort of thing before. Yes, I quickly found the following (and then corrected matters):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Justin_Welby&type=revision&diff=904345400&oldid=903926145

One can speculate as to the basis for this sort of hoaxing. Here in the UK a well-known comedian called Victor Lewis-Smith became known for hoaxes against, among others, the Church of England (not of course that I am suggesting Victor Lewis-Smith is User:G. Finknottle): it would appear that targeting senior figures in the Anglican church is not unusual when it comes to this sort of behaviour. However this speculation may be wrong and it may be that User:G. Finknottle's dishonest editing is not restricted to articles about senior Anglican clerics. He/she has a long list of edits which are now, I suggest, unsafe (particularly if they rely on claimed citations from The Times and/or the edits are unusual, "humorous", or potentially damaging).

I do not know how to complain about this editor apart from posting here. Nor do I have the time to check more of User:G. Finknottle's many edits to see whether there are any other obvious hoaxes but I suggest someone with the authority to do this do so as a matter of urgency. Thank you. 46.69.61.0 (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this user's edits are hoaxes and vandalism. I have reported the account to WP:AIV and reverted some of their edits. Their contributions should be thoroughly checked to make sure that everything gets removed. Peacock (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The notice has been moved from AIV to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:G._Finknottle to ensure longer visibility and to allow discussion and detailled explanations with diffs, such as nicely presented above. Thanks for taking the time to do this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Requesting assistance on new article "Deepin Desktop Environment"

I'm looking for editors w/UNIX know-how to help flesh out my article Deepin Desktop Environment. So many people seem to mix up the Deepin operating system (a dialect of Debian) and the desktop environment used by Deepin, Manjaro, Pardus, Antergos, Fedora and others, and they get even more confused when Deepin DE shows up on the Deepin Linux page...

If anyone feels competent to help out on the task, be my guest (especially as regards sourcing).

-- Deus omnipotens sum (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Plunkett Lake Press intern "rewrote our wikipedia pages"

Yesterday, I received a promotional email from the alumni association of my high school alma mater. It promoted the association's program that connects alumni with other alumni or current students who are seeking employment or internships. The alumna featured in the email is (or was) connected to Plunkett Lake Press and she describes how a then-freshman student (judging from the email, this was during the 2016–17 school year) they hired as an intern "helped us with our online presence, critiquing our website, rewriting our wikipedia pages, and helping us think about social media outreach". When I read this, I saw the possibility that Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy was violated. I see there is a conflict of interest noticeboard for reporting such things but I don't know which articles (if any) should be reported. So I figured I'd post here and perhaps someone else would have a look around the articles about authors and books published by Plunkett Lake Press. —⁠184.248.174.229 (talk) 05:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I just looked at the edit history of the article about Plunkett Lake Press and it's obvious which of the Wikipedia editors who created or edited the page was that intern. That editor does not have a user page, therefore she has not disclosed her connection to Plunkett Lake Press and is in violation of the conflict of interest policy. —⁠184.248.174.229 (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Fatal translation

Dear Sirs,

I have noticed fatal translation into Polish of a sentence about Warsaw Uprising and the Second World War in the part of the article entitled:

Mayor of Warsaw

There's a sentence: "He strongly supported the construction of the Warsaw Uprising Museum and in 2004 appointed a historical panel to estimate material losses that were inflicted upon the city by the Germans in the Second World War (an estimated 85% of the city was destroyed in the Warsaw Uprising) (...)"

which has been translated into Polish as:

"Powołał panel historyczny do oszacowania strat materialnych, które Niemcy ponieśli w czasie II wojny światowej (szacuje się, że 85% miasta zostało zniszczone podczas Powstania Warszawskiego ) (...).

"inflicted upon the city by the Germans" was falsely translated into "które Niemcy ponieśli"

which obviously falsely denotes that it is the GERMANS (AND NOT THE POLES!!!???...) WHO SUFFERED MATERIAL LOSSES in the Warsaw Uprising and the 2nd World War. And that maybe by default it is the Poles who inflicted them upon the Germans. The mistake is offensive for the Poles.

The correct translation should be:

instead of "które Niemcy PONIEŚLI", there should be "które Niemcy WYRZĄDZILI", and the phrase "upon the city" which was omitted in the translation should be added here as "w Warszawie"

I am looking forward to your applying of this correction in the translation of the article into Polish.

Yours sincerely

31.60.29.167 (talk) 13:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Katarzyna Seredyńska

I am sorry that Google translate is making this mistake. We at Wikipedia do not have any control over how Google translates pieces of text. We don't trust it when we are trying to translate articles here from other languages. Google translate does have feedback available. I submitted an alternate version there but my attempt may not have been grammatically correct. Click on the vertical dots at the lower right of the Polish translation and put in the correct version. I don't know if that actually has any effect. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hometown error for Miss Georgia USA 2018

Dear Wikipedia,

The hometown for Miss Georgia USA 2018, Marianny Egurrola, is incorrect. The hometown should state Buford, Georgia, but list Brookhaven, Georgia. Would you be able to assist with the correction?

Source: https://www.news-daily.com/news/new-miss-georgia-and-miss-teen-georgia-crowned-in-mcdonough/article_f65771cd-cad2-5e8d-8725-2dbdb84861b1.html

Link to Wikipedia page for correction:

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

Sincerely, L. Leighland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leigh Land (talk • contribs) 06:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Leigh Land, looks like the source confirms that, and the old entry was not referenced. I've changed it accordingly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Something like this should be added to the article on Queensland history. It is alluded to in the caption to a pic of the Mater Hospital, Rockhampton

. In the 19th C, the imperial government considered dividing the colony of Queensland into three colonies, and a grand house was built in Rockhampton for the first governor of Central Queensland. The idea was rejected and the viceregal residence became Rockhampton’s Mater Hospital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.35.210.68 (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to do that, if you have reliable sources which confirm it. If you're not comfortable doing so yourself, you could always raise the matter on the article talk page. Note your sources there so other editors can confirm it. You can put {{request edit}} above your suggestion to bring it to the attention of other editors. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Barringun, Queensland.

I find it difficult to follow all of your various instructions, so am asking that someone corrects the following information that appears on the Wikipedia Site, please.

1. Barringun is NOT in Queensland, but actually in New South Wales, and part of the Bourke Shire Council area. As with all border towns, the other side of the border had another name. On this occasion it is Wooroorooka for Queensland, which is in Paroo Shire Council area based in Cunnamulla. 2. The section under "History" needs correcting to indicate that Barringun & Wooroorooka are on the Warrego River - NOT Maranoa River which is well to the east and joins the Ba–lonne River near St George in Queensland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bneee 1 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Bneee 1, it looks like the government of Queensland confirms it to be so: [8]. Do you know of any reliable sources which dispute this or say otherwise? I'm afraid we must follow what good-quality sources say, not the personal opinions of editors. If there is a dispute among such sources, that can certainly be reflected in the article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Your article on 2020 primary caucus schedule by state

I've been an active registered Dem in Hawaii since 1978 & a former elected office holder. Hawaii is NOT a primary state, we have always been a CAUCUS state. Our 2020 presidential poll (which is the 2nd step in our Hawaii caucus 2020) is 04/04. Our Primary which is set by law is Aug 8. We have an open primary. We are given 1 ballot & each voter chooses which party (all on 1 ballot) they choose to vote.

Sorry, but you've not told us what article you're talking about. If you can let us know which article you believe to contain an error, and provide reliable sources that confirm what you're saying, we might be able to help. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Request for Assistance (Beto O'Rourke article)

Hullo,

I'm requesting some kind of editorial guidance or assistance regarding disputed edits on the Beto O'Rourke article. Most specifically, on the section titled "Legal issues."

I have more than once made edits citing reliable sources and quoting from them only to have my edits reverted wholesale.

I then posted on the "Talk" page in hopes of furthering a discussion, and I also wrote directly to another editor (on his "Talk" page") about the topics in dispute. I attempted to specifically address that editor's concerns.

My comments on the article talk page have received no response, and my edits were again reverted wholesale.

My first inclination was to ask for some kind of arbitration, but I understand that addressing my concerns here is a preferable first step. Help would be appreciated, as it is frustrating to spend hours checking sources, writing text, and citing the sources, only to have the text wiped out.

NicholasNotabene (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

NicholasNotabene, it appears that there's already been a fair bit of discussion over this (both currently and at Talk:Beto_O'Rourke/Archive_1#Washington_Post_fact_check_of_Beto's_denial_that_he_tried_to_flee_the_scene, with many editors raising concerns over undue weight and others arguing for inclusion. The fact that it's sourced doesn't seem particularly relevant as I don't see anyone arguing it's not; being referenced is only part of the consideration of whether something should be included, and like I said most of the concerns are over it being excessively detailed and undue. If agreement can't be reached in the discussion, you might consider a request for comment to get the opinions of previously uninvolved editors. (Arbitration doesn't decide content questions.)

Questions on my draft entry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Trace_Borroughs

1. In regard to books I've written will you except links to a photo of the book cover as verification? Here is where I can post photos of my work on .postimg.cc

2. In regard to animations I've produced for television will you except links to a screenshot taken from the animation as verification? Here is where I can post photos of my work https://i.postimg.cc

3. I hired a writer to write my profile and my name is spelled wrong in the title. How do I fix that?. I don't see a edit function there.

Thank you.

Trace Burroughs

TraceBurroughs (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

TraceBurroughs, the title of the page can be changed by moving the page. If that should become necessary, an editor able to do it can do so. So far as the rest, what we'd generally be looking is a substantial amount of independent and reliable source material about an individual. One's own works would not be independent. I can also see several other issues straight off: External links are not permitted in article text, so those would all need to be removed, and the article is written in a very "profile" fashion, and is generally not neutral. Wikipedia does not permit promotion, including any kind of "talking up", and articles must be neutral in tone and content, sticking only to facts verified by reliable sources and avoiding puffy language like Burroughs decided to go all the way - he played nonstop for 21 days. (Just "Burroughs played for 21 days" would quite suffice there.), or He felt he needed to perform an even more outrageous act, so he tried to invest his talent in something different. ("Something different" is meaningless; we don't do teasers. In what?) What you are writing there will not be permitted as an article on Wikipedia. If you would like to write a "bio" or "profile", you are likely better served on social media or a personal website. An article here will be strictly neutral and factual. No flowery language, no puffery, no PR. And if substantial amounts of independent, reliable source material haven't been written about you, I'm afraid we can't have the article in any case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

10 pound poms, Australia and New Zealand

You show 10 pound poms went to Australia and New Zealand. Australia was the only country with that scheme.

In which article? If you tell us what article this is in, we may be able to help. Thank you! Puddleglum ^2.0 16:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Women in Wikipedia

How gender neutral are you? Woman's Hour, BBCRadio 4, this week showed how Wikipedia is much too male with requests to post a page on important women being inexplicably turned down. I have donated to Wikipedia but will not again until your posts have more important women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.174.97 (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

IP editor, both the editing community in general and the Wikimedia Foundation (the owner of this project) are aware of the systemic gender bias in both article coverage and in the corps of regular editors. While anyone (including you) can edit pages or contribute new articles, the regular editors have tended to be overwhelming male. In fact, 59% are males age 17 to 40. The only way this will change is if more women contribute not money (although I'm certain the foundation appreciates that form of support) but time. That cliché "be the change you want to see in the world" really does apply here. There is, in fact, a project of editors within the Wikipedia community specifically devoted to increasing the coverage of notable women. Perhaps you may want to join and help out? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Norman Lloyd is still alive

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Lloyd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:DFC0:5B:5884:43EC:A134:6E59 (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the article was briefly edited to say otherwise, but that was quickly reverted as no references confirming his death were cited. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding television producer, Lee Mendelson

Television producer, Lee Mendelson, has 4 children, not 5. They are Glenn Mendelson, Lynda Mendelson, Jason Mendelson and Sean Mendelson

Best regards, Glenn Mendelson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.222.252 (talk) 06:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Since that's entirely unreferenced, I've removed that piece until a reference can be found to confirm. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

CXT

Hi, so I've recently created a more well-organized list for all articles under the X2 scope, and would like some assistance in clearing it. Any takers? ToThAc (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Chris Cantwell header

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

Currently having an argument about whether an insulting nickname that was never used by the figure is acceptable to be in the header. Erik10293802023 (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

This is under discussion on the talk page and is premature to bring here. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Rules For Posts About Racism

I would like to add something to the Talk Page of a Wikipedia article regarding an internet forum, regarding an act of racism from the mod staff. I would like to call it "Racism Controversy" and include quotes from the site. But I'm worried that Wikipedia will consider that vandalism and ban me. Could you please help clarify what is considered acceptable when bringing up the issue of racism on a group's Talk Page?2602:306:CE74:5710:EC7A:7799:B9DD:2CC4 (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Generally speaking, reliable and independent sources would need to have noted the incident. Wikipedia isn't the place to carry over forum grudges. If no independent and reliable sources have written about it, it's not important enough to write about on Wikipedia either. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Feldenkrais

Hello, I have three questions regarding the Feldenkrais page:

1. How to have it removed from alternative pseudo-medicine section? If whomever is managing this page insists it stays, please provide proof that Feldenkrais is a 1. alternative 2. pseudo and 3. medicine.

2. How do I remove this opinion from David Gorski from the body of the text?

David Gorski has written that the Method bears similarities to faith healing, is like "glorified yoga", and that it "borders on quackery".[4]

I have deleted this sentence twice which resulted in me being blocked, therefore I am hesitant to do so again and am seeking guidance as to the correct avenue for its removal.

3. What quantifies as reference material? Am I able to add journals from 2017, 2018, and 2019 as references without risk of them being removed? ThatWildCard (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)— ThatWildCard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hello ThatWildCard, and welcome to Wikipedia!

1: I don't think it should be, but you may find editors interested in commenting on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative medicine. There's also Talk:Feldenkrais Method, but there's probably not many editors watching that (I could be wrong).

My thinking is that wikipedia is a source of truth, rather than opinion. I am asking for proof that Feldenkrais is an "alternative" "medicine". How do I connect with editors that can monitor these conversations?

2: I don't think it should be removed, seems WP:DUE to me, but see above.

3: The central policy on that is in this case WP:MEDRS, but there are other policies and guidelines that matters too. It is the nature of a wiki that anything can be removed (or added). Sometimes it's for a good reason (like WP policies), sometimes it's not and corrected, swiftly or not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, if you are currently blocked with another account then you are now WP:SOCKING, please see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Another account? This may be a practice for people that want to work their way around issues, that is not what I have done. As I stated in my initial message I am working my way through the WP protocol to get what I see as a discrepancy with the Feldenkrais page resolved. I simply opened the page and discovered I can now edit. ThatWildCard (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

ThatWildCard, you have already been invited to bring up your objections at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative medicine. Please do so. Please do not attempt to pursue the matter here. -- Hoary (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Advertising in edit summary

About a day ago, the article Stroopwafel was edited by Hathairud1999, and this inappropriate content was added. Apparently none of the usual editors watching the page caught it quickly, and today WahootAndHoller (a editor with many year of constructive edits) removed the content, which is good, but in doing so left an edit summary that includes a URL to a commercial website. This edit summary certainly doesn't feel right to me, even if I don't believe it to have been left with deliberate promotional intent, but as far as I can tell neither WP:ES nor WP:SPAM directly addresses this matter. Do we have policy on leaving commercial URLs in edit summaries (and if so, is any action required here)? Thanks. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 04:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

So WahootAndHoller removed content which was both promotional and a copyvio, leaving in the edit summary a link to the site of which it was a copyvio. Seems to me commendable in all respects. Maproom (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The secondary issue in this case is that I don't think that the removal of obviously inappropriate content needs to be justified on the basis of copyright violation. The inclusion of the URL in the summary struck me as so gratuitous that I first interpreted WahootAndHoller's edit as some sort of good-puppet-bad-puppet ruse. A minute spent reviewing his or her edit history convinced me otherwise. No editor is going to leave edit summaries that are perfectly clear to all other editors all the time—totally understandable. The more significant question I'm asking is if there's any policy on leaving commercial promotion in edit summaries. I don't think there's questionable intent in this case, but it makes me interested in understanding where the lines are drawn. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 07:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Help with someone's edits

Apologies for being rude, but I think this editor needs some guidance or help with this editor's edits. From what I've seen, this person keeps adding original research (Please correct me If I'm wrong). He was warned 4 times. I need help with this editor. Can somebody just guide him in the right direction or at least suggest some tips with which he can make more constructive edits? I have nothing against this person. It's just that his ways of editing do seem to suggest original research and I need someone else's opinions. Also, as I'm a bit new to wikipedia, I don't know how I could help him in a constructive way. Thanks in advance. DarkSpartan (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

DarkSpartan: if you discuss another editor's actions in public, it's polite to notify them. I suggest that you either strike the above message, or reply here pinging the editor. Maproom (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Maproom: Do I need to delete my message as well? And my real question is, how do tell someone that their content is orginal research? DarkSpartan (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@DarkSpartan:You don't need to delete it, but I don't think anyone would mind if you did, as it's the first message of the thread and your deleting it wouldn't be misrepresenting anyone's stated views. You could tell the editor that their content is original research by writing on their talk page. I see that they've already been warned there by others about original research, and by you about something else; and not responded there. Maybe if you do write on their talk page again, you could ping them there; sometimes new users appear never to read their own talk page. Maproom (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The Rock

Hi, I Love You Guys, Can someone please tell them that it's true that The Rock DID make an appearance on the Kelly Clarkson show on September 4, 2019, please? You see, the day they first reported how Kevin Hart was In that car accident, The Rock texted Kevin Hart, And offered to fill in for Kevin Hart to promote their movie and show and the Kelly Clarkson show and Kelly Clarkson herself confirmed that it was all true, SO did The New York Times, SO did WWE, so did Reuters, SO did Time magazine, SO did Ebony magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TelleyTell (talk • contribs) 00:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello TelleyTell! I'm guessing you are talking about this edit [9] you made at Dwayne Johnson filmography.

You were reverted by AngusWOOF who said Rv talk show guest appearances aren't to be listed in filmography. That sounds reasonable to me, but I haven't looked closely at how we usually "do" this. Also, there were some other things wrong with your edit.

If you disagree with AngusWOOF on this, what you should do at this stage is to talk to him (more at WP:BRD). Either you start a discussion at Talk:Dwayne Johnson filmography (and then you should WP:PING him so he knows you want to talk) or at his talkpage User talk:AngusWOOF. I hope this helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers/Archive_14#Talk_show_appearance AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Removing COI and AUTO tags without adequate proof

Hello,

The article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Lauwereyns

is observed to have been created by someone with a close connection to the subject, almost certainly the subject himself, and therefore tagged with COI and AUTO tags.

An anonymous editor (no other edits) has removed these tags without giving reason, proof, or even justification for removal.

Some input/assistance from an experienced editor would be helpful in this case.

Thank you.

118.12.45.75 (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

There's definitely something funny going on there. Thanks for bringing it up, I've got it on watch now. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

118.12.45.75 (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC) Thanks for that. Hayimi seems to have re-considered and decided to take the article down. The amount of 'third-person' autobiographical material in the contemporary Wikipedia is depressing. It is one of the weak points of the whole project. I wonder if it would help to explicitly require autobiographical material to be explicitly identified as such. That would likely discourage would-be autobiographers.

Hello I am currently experiencing aggressive deletion of judiciously added COI and AUTO tags from several articles. A user is editing all of the article I have tagged, removing tags without justification. This seems to be a focussed attack on my attempt to identify material in the Wikipedia that is autobiographical or written with a conflict of interest. I would be grateful to receive some assistance from an experience Wikipedia editor. Thank you. 118.12.45.75 (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You boldly made a proposal and acted upon it without anyone agreeing, at Wikipedia_talk:Autobiography#A_modest_proposal. Now clearly no one agrees with you. You're edit-warring to enact your proposal. Please stop. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

118.12.45.75 You've raised your idea at the Autobiography page, bringing it here as well starts to look like forum-shopping. There's obviously a genuine disagreement over appropriate use of the COI and AUTO tags. I don't think it helps to personalise it or suggest you are being attacked. You will see at Talk:Kiwao Nomura that I suggested taking that example to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard as a way of airing the general issues to begin with and getting the opinions of those most familiar with policy on BLPs. I see that Ronz has followed up on that now so let's see how that goes. @Seraphimblade: FYI the bio in question here is apparently a co-author of the deleted person mentioned above (Jan Lauwereyns). FrankP (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Kartik288888

Only contributions appear to be repeated attacks on the article about Sunil Pandey. Rathfelder (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing the post

How much time does it take to review a post — Preceding unsigned comment added by Packtpublisher (talk • contribs) 11:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Edits to Wikipedia articles are not formally reviewed. But you must by now have observed that linkspam is not welcome here, and that all your attempts to add it to articles have been removed fairly promptly. Moreover, your username suggests that you have an undeclared conflict of interest. Maproom (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Entry not appearing

I don't understand why an article I wrote more than 2 months ago is just stagnating as a draft. I understand if it takes that long, there's probably some problem, but I think I've done everything right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Thomas_Alexander_Souter Phenders7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phenders7 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

You must have removed the submission template when you created the draft, or made the draft outside of the article wizard. As a result it was never entered into the queue. To do so, edit the page to add the following text, curly braces included: {{subst:submit}}

Someguy1221 (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Recovering deleted article contents

If an admin would get me the contents from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyber attack on Pensacola, Florida, I would greatly appreciate it. I am wanting to work on the article in a draft space. -Thanks Elijahandskip (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

You may consider asking any active member of Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles, if your request has not been granted till now. – Ammarpad (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Photo of Actor Tom Conway

Although Tom Conway looked a lot like his brother, George Sanders, the photo on the page is that of Sanders, not Conway. I'm quite sure of this, and it should be corrected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Conway — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.163.37 (talk • contribs)

The image in question appears to have been cropped from this still from the trailer for Grand Central Murder, in which his brother George Sanders was not on the cast list. So on the face of it, the attribution looks good to me. FrankP (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to the San Francisco Chronicle archives for me?

I want to expand the article for Richmond Progressive Alliance but I am hitting pay walls. Also the San Jose Mercury News and East Bay Times would be great!Ndołkah☆ (talk) 05:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Ndołkah, try WP:REREQ. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

User:1292simon

Editor assistance is required at the BMW M6 page. User 1292simon is constantly trimming the infoboxes excessively and is not keeping the Template:Infobox Automobile into consideration. He has also not presented one Manual of Style that supports his changes. His style of the article is optional and according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, his arguments about it are unfavorable.U¹ _quattro TALK 14:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

This has been going on for a month at least and I don't think it's within the scope of this page to fix it. It's sheer edit-warring, and if there has been any attempt to resolve this by discussion (it seems impenetrable to follow) that's clearly not working. |

I've seen a lot of changes recently from 1292simon across the "broad level" car engineering topics such as V8 engine and none of them have been impressive. Certainly nothing seems to end up any clearer afterwards. But as to these BMW M6 / BMW M8 changes, neither of you are making a clear enough case for a third party to easily make any judgement on this. If it went to ANI, as is, I think there'd be a boomerang block in both directions.

All I can suggest is tht you try and give the talk: page a clear and itemised list of the changes you're after, with per-point justification and sourcing. Then invite other editors to try and judge from that. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Dwayne Johnson

Hi Much Love as a friend, You see, It really actually IS true that September 4, 2018 The Rock DID appear on The Kelly Clarkson Show. Kelly Clarkson herself and several actors including Christopher Meloni and Kevin Hart all confirmed the day the advertisement aired and actual episode aired September 4, 2018, when they all confirmed that as a direct result of the accident on Kevin Hart the weekend before, The Rock texted Kevin Hart and offered to fill in for Kevin Hart to replace Kevin Hart and talk about their movie and show and she said a true story how she met Andre "The Giant" and a few other wrestlers when she was growing up and confirmed, TMZ confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TelleyTell (talk • contribs) 08:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests/Archive_129#The_Rock and User_talk:AngusWOOF#The_Rock_on_The_Kelly_Clarkson_show. No one is saying it didn't happen (it's on Youtube), we're saying it's not interesting to add it at Dwayne Johnson or Dwayne Johnson filmography. Actors go on talkshows a lot, unless it gets noticed like Cruise jumping on Oprah's couch it's probably not worth including in their WP-articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Donation Recommendation

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T241308

Just a thought about the donation requests:

Provide a button that says “I already gave this time”

Which if selected...gives WP the chance to respond with a “Thank you for your continued support”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C46:6C00:D92:F53F:8FB1:9413:DC55 (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The Fundraising team are aware of this issue and working to provide that button. See phab:T241308#5759275 – Ammarpad (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for adding that feature!... Risk Engineer (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Help needed please

Hi, I am an editor who has been editing some of the Pakistani historical and literary articles and others, from time to time. Of late, I have been facing some problems with disruptive editing on 3-4 related/linked articles by the same editor and I am not sure what to do or how to classify these issues? These articles are: Tareen, Muhammad Habib Khan Tarin, Abdul Majid Khan Tarin, Omer Tarin and Talokar (village) . I am spending too much time fixing and refixing these articles as the disruptive or seemingly disruptive edits show up on my watchlist and I am thus unable to work on other articles requiring more work. I have left several notes for the editor concerned but he/she either seems to ignore these or leave insulting or threatening comments for me, in return. It is quite discouraging. I am not sure what to do. Could someone kindly guide/help me? I would be grateful thanks. AsadUK200 (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)AsadUK200

AsadUK200

Hi,

The user AsadUK200 isn't concerned about anything but constantly vandalizing other pages without a reason and pages that he protects their references aren't verifiable online. Similarly, he hasn't been letting anyone else but members of one family to listed under Tarin Tribe notables.

He himself did alot of insulting things at other pages on account of which his talk page is full of complaints from other editors.

Can someone please help him not to do vandalism or negative propaganda against other editors through private messaging and leaving the messages like he left regarding Talokar village, Abdul Majid and Habib Khan. All we ask of him is either to give online verifiable links as references to these essays or not whine.

Any senior editor can please visit these pages and see for himself that much of references and citations given against the pages he mentioned are either 'dead links' or unknown sources. Even the documents mentioned as the references / citations in these essays if found don't have the information that serves as main body of the essay. Further, he has three Wiki handles that he uses from the same IP address to just vandalize only a few pages and protect a few.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azmarai76 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Azmarai76, please read Vandalism on Wikipedia. I can see no edit by AsadUK200 that fits that description. Anyway, you and he both need to discuss your disagreements on the talk pages of the relevant articles, rather than criticising each other here. Please both assume good faith in the other. Maproom (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear Maproom Wish that was the case however he isnot even ready to accept online verifiable books for many pages while wants to keep each and every Honorifics that cannot be verified by users online on certain pages. He has been constantly vandalizing different pages, for which not only me but others also have left him messages on his talk page. The amusing part is he takes even an inquiry or a report of a dead link on these pages so serious that he starts vandalism and even insulting people of an area on these pages. I leave it to you I didn't bring the debate here but it's him and he thinks he's a professor. Regards.... and Many Thanks

Incorrect information on entire page

I have contacted the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Geographic Names Information System about incorrect information it has on its web site, which was used as a reference for information on Wikipedia. The incorrect information concerns COOL SPRINGS, WEST VIRGINIA. USGS lists Wood County, West Virginia as the location of Cool Springs. However, Cool Springs (aka Cool Springs Park, http://wvwaterfalls.com/index.php/mountaineer/coolsprings)) is in Preston County, West Virginia. I didn't edit the Wikipedia page at this point because the entire contents would need to be changed (reference, map, etc.).

I'll send along any response I get from USGS. It's important to me -- as a native West Virginian -- to have details about my state be as correct and factual as possible. And, I've visited Cool Springs since I was a child (more than several decades ago!) and want to see it be given full credit for where it is and what it is.

Thanks for your attention to this issue. Dorisp.dean (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe this relates to Cool Springs, West Virginia? You might post at the talk page of that article, namely Talk:Cool Springs, West Virginia and say exactly what text should be changed. That would require an updated reference but it would be useful to record your findings there. Johnuniq (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

India OBC

List_of_Muslim_Other_Backward_Classes_communities_in_India

Can someone with knowledge of India's caste system review the recent edits to this page? Slywriter (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I've had a look, there is a long series of edits from a single user and they do look a bit odd. I don't have particular topic knowledge (you might try asking at the Reference desk where many topic experts hang out). But I see you have already warned the user in question for disruptive editing at Mali caste and the common fetaure of the Muslim OBC edits is the repetition of the phrases like "Hanfis are Muslim Mali", not always seeming to make much sense in context. I suspect this is disruptive too, perhaps some kind of POV pushing. It would seem reasonable to revert the changes and request some explanation/discussion on the article Talk page. FrankP (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The size of Koh Chang, Thailand (on the Koh Chang Thailand page) compared to Phuket and Koh samui as being larger

Dear Sir,

      Koh Chang is the 2nd largest island in Thailand not Koh samui. This is land mass. Probably not in any economic pr population just land mass as this article quotes a dispute of land mass of Koh Chang. Both sizes are much larger than Koh Samui. Please check the measurements and re quote your quotation.
  Thanks

Ian Wilton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.192.241 (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

See responses here Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#How do I contact you with more 'info' about an incorrect entry? Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Danny Wagner

Danny Wagner, keyboardist with David Lee Roth, is not the Danny Wagner with Greta VanFleek. Danny Wagner with David Lee Roth, is the former drummer/keyboardist from Warrant (1995-2000). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1907:C3DA:2DDF:6525:7FF7:9C21 (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

A mistake in wiki article about Bible

Hello,

I found out there is mistake in the page (The Bible page) that I really would want fixed, but since I can't edit the page (it's protected I'm writing here.

Link to the page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

In this sentence: 'By the 2nd century BCE, Jewish groups began calling the books of the Bible the "scriptures" and they referred to them as "holy"...'

It should not be BCE, but the CE instead.

Please help, I would love if Wikipedia fixed it.

Thanks in advance.

Best regards, Kseniya

It's not a mistake, Ezra reads from the Book of the Law. Nehemiah 8. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Anightinomelas: The Hebrew Bible existed in the second century BCE/BC, so it may well be true that Jewish groups were using those words about it at that early date. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Can't find any support for it in the citation given, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd also like to know the Hebrew word that Nehemiah uses for important religious writings. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Photo

Hi, somehow a dark photo was imported to my page Tom Patti. I've downloaded a couple of recent photos in your common media files Tom Patti as description of the pictures but I have no idea nor option to add photos to the published profile. How can I update my photo on my public page?

Tom Patti aka 1tompatti on my login ID — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.75.83 (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence that, while using the username "1tompatti", you have uploaded any images to Wikimedia Commons. And the only image of Tom Patti that I can find there is the dark one. Where did you upload the photos? And what names did you give them? If I can find one, I'll probably use it to replace the one in the article about you (we don't regard them as "profiles"). Maproom (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Move a file

It turns out that File:BradfordColliery.jpg has been misidentified for quite a few years. We now believe this non-free image is actually of Ellesmere Colliery. An article has been started and the image used in it. However the fair-use rational needs altering (which I think I can figure out) and the name needs changing. This is not something I've ever tried to do before and unless I'm mistaken I can't actually do. Can admins do it or will it need to be re-uploaded?TiB chat 19:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

If you stick a {{Rename media}} template on the file page, an admin or file mover will rename it for you. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks that seems to have worked a treat. I've moved on to the next part of the process and got stuck again! I uploaded File:Bradford Colliery, Manchester.jpg and attempted to copy the needed info from the old file. I couldn't figure out which license to use, so I took a guess and now there is a big red speedy delete warning! It is not immediately apparent if I should be starting a discussion or fixing it myself?TiB chat 19:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

If you are claiming fair use, the upload wizard should not have required you to choose a license, I think. I have removed the too-restrictive license, leaving only the "fair use of non-free content" notices. -- John of Reading (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I likely did something wrong, the complexities of licensing has made me avoid uploading other people's work thus far. I've added it to the article and hopefully everything is now sorted. Thanks for your help.TiB chat 22:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Advice on talk page conversations that appear to be WP:OR issues

I am looking for advice because I really don't know what to do. Starting late December 2019 there has been talk page discussion about edit content disputes. There are two users, one of whom is blocked right now, that seem to be suggesting article changes that 1) they don't want to make, 2) generally come from a sweeping thought, and 3) without ever providing suggested proposed language and sources to support the language.

Both users seem to be from the UK and want to ensure that the UK perspective is clearly expressed.

My last comment here expresses my frustration about this and why it is so exasperating.

I would like to know if there's a better way to approach this. Or, if there is a competency issue, how should one address that?

Any advice or coaching for me is greatly appreciated.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I have a couple of comments. I regret that neither is at all helpful.

The argument you link to, and others on that talk page, are a mess. My own feeling would be that there are better uses for my time than continuing to join in. You've been doing your best (and IMHO you are right on the issues), but there must be better uses for your time and effort.

The opening paragraph of the article lead implies that occupational stress is caused either by weaknesses in the person, or by failings in the organisation or in colleagues. It regards occupational stress as a disease. It doesn't allow for occupational stress being the natural consequence of a difficult and demanding job. Maproom (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I think it's very safe to say that my efforts haven't been productive. I was hoping to get to more productive ways of communicating on the talk page to stop edit warring. Hmmmm. I'm stumped and a break for now sounds good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

E number article

Hello,

There is incorrect info for E153 vegetable carbon that is actually for E152 carbon black. The link is also to carbon black. The is no article to be found on vegetable carbon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.148.106.109 (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit war over 2 words.

Wikipedia reports the facts according to reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a place for campaigning. Johnuniq (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Hi, I am quite new at editing in Wikipedia so please forgive me for not being up to date on the syntax.

I chanced upon a page about a movie a am familiar with^[1] and was disappointed that the writers were using it as a place to promote the theory Evolution and attack the theory Intelligent design.

I am not requesting help to defend or attack either of the two theories. Rather an "edit war" was initiated over my attempt to remove 2 Wiesel words that create ambiguity. The words I removed do not constitute a change worth all the backlash I have received, and are in the interest of maintaining a neutral point of view. I removed the word "scientific" from the opening statement "It portrays the scientific theory of evolution" and I removed "pseudoscientific" from the statement "Although intelligent design is a pseudoscientific religious idea"

This concept only occurs in the opening paragraph and is not repeated throughout the article.

There have been WP:PERSONALATTACKS against me, and against the sources I quote when trying to show that there is a specified criterion for a theory to be a "scientific" theory^[2]^[3], and there are more than one mainstream ideas about the origin of life. There has been no good faith on the part of those who are religiously preventing the removal of 2 words.

Please help, and may reason prevail.

Johnbplett (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Johnbplett, we've had this discussion far too many times. The outcome is the same every time. "Intelligent design" is indeed pseudoscientific, as it is essentially unfalsifiable. Evolution is not only indeed a scientific theory, but is one of the cornerstones of modern biology. So, that's why you're seeing such a reaction. The answer to such attempts to equate the two is "no", and will be "no" again. They are not of equivalent validity. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Seraphimblade

For some clarity, I am referring only to Macroevolution as the theory of evolution. Microevolution is a scientific theory. Please could you clarify who "We" is, as the other editors also make the same statement? Also, you have made similar statements to the other editors, without providing references. I have appealed here because I am tired of statements made as fact without providing the fact?

Johnbplett (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbplett: Then go to Talk:Evolution and waste everyone's time there so you can be topic-banned already. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Ian.thomson

Still bashing me Ian? I am not here to argue with you and do not appreciate your continued harassment. This is for new eyes to look objectively and not for the same editors to renew attacks.

Johnbplett (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbplett: Where have I commented on you as a person? I've commented on your actions. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

As for the harassment accusation, I've been posting at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests for about a decade. It's on my watchlist. More uninvolved eyes are going to tell you the same thing: the Expelled article is not the Evolution article, our article on Evolution describes it (including macroevolution) as a fact for a reason, and our article on Intelligent Design describes it as pseudoscience for the same reason -- we just summarize mainstream academic sources, we don't do original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Johnbplett, I'm used to that "microevolution" and "macroevolution" canard too, and it is patently false. "Macroevolution" is "microevolution" done many times over a long period. So, no, it doesn't work like that, either. The "we" are people who are beyond tired of people who want to see a false "balance" between creationism and evolution by natural selection. However, the most reputable sources on the matter are overwhelmingly in consensus: Evolution, including whatever you call "macroevolution", is as clearly demonstrated as gravity. "Intelligent design" is unfalsifiable. (That doesn't mean it's untrue; it just means it's untestable.) So, not going to happen. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Arbitrator requested at WikiProject:Film: Manual of Style

This isn't a heated dispute or anything like that — the parties involved have been collegial and working in good faith, and the majority are in consensus, though it's not unanimous. We're hoping to have someone knowledgable with WP:Film come and summarize the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#We should not be italicizing RT, MC and BOM and the attached Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Summary) and help us find a way to move forward. With thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Tenebrae, it sounds like you might have more luck at requests for closure. That's the usual place for requesting formal closure/summary of a discussion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Much appreciate the guidance. One question: Since this was not a formal RfC needing closure but a discussion needing help from an arbitrator to help us sum up in a way amenable to the parties, would WP:AN/RFC still be the correct venue? Again, thank you for taking the time, Seraphimblade.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if consensus is indeed unclear or in dispute. If it seems to have a relatively clear outcome, formal closure isn't actually required. You could try summarizing what you believe the result of the discussion to be and see if anyone objects or disagrees. If they do, that may be when you need an uninvolved third party's evaluation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Dakota Access Pipeline article

This article appears to have been attacked or defaced. Note pipeline capacity and costs, and "Alexsys Soriano is cool". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.110.200.45 (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

It was just vandalized. Someone's already reverted the vandalism. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism of accurate edit by user

Answered

The user Waleewedemi has been vandalising the page of his employer Segun Adebutu and reversing the update on his page. Segun Adebutu was detained by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission but the user has been removing the update to make his boss look good.

Below is the new column he keeps removing

Segun Adebutu was detained and quizzed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission on January 28, 2020 at the anti-graft Lagos office for economic sabotage and tax fraud associated with Premier Lotto, a company he is an Executive Director of.^[1]

Opelogbon (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the Controversy section because it appears to be in violation of the WP:PUBLICFIGURE policy, especially since there are other reports (such as this) that the person has not been detained (though it would be in violation of that policy even if that were not the case). Please see my comments at the article talk page for specifics and recommendations. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

References

^ Samuel Ogundipe (28 January 2020). "EXCLUSIVE: EFCC goes after 'Baba Ijebu' over alleged multi-billion naira tax fraud". Premium Times.

Help publishing a translation for young editors

Hi, I've just finished translating an spanish article Draft:ASAMACI into English but as I'm a newcommer it doesn't allow me to publish it. Can anyone, confirm or correct my translation ? --Cristoforo~eswiki (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Cristoforo~eswiki, I have added an AFC submit template to the article which i believe is what you were looking for. You can click on the Submit for review button once you're ready. Happy editing. Lapablo (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft

Help, how change this page name to Tama Tū? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tama_T%C5%AB --Nonunblog (talk) 10:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Nonunblog That already is what it's named. If you're talking about moving to mainspace, you will first need to cite substantial amounts of reliable and independent source material that directly covers the film, and then have the draft reviewed by articles for creation. If such reference material does not exist, the answer is that you don't, as it is not an appropriate article subject. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Seraphimblade I did it, it's ok now? --Nonunblog (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Nonunblog, if you would like the article reviewed by AfC, please use the button on the template at the top of the article. This page is not a way to jump that queue. However, to save the time on the current iteration, no, those references are not sufficient (the second one isn't even about this film, it's about a different one.) If that's the best reference material available, the film is not notable and we should not have an article on it at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

botched afd

Hi, i botched an Afd. I was using Template:AfD_in_3_steps to create Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LockerDome. I for sure botched something. I also botched the log Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_February_3. Maybe someone could comment on what I did wrong so I can learn from this. I also botched my last AfD as well trying to use the 3 steps. Please ping me in your response. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf:, it's a lot easier to create AfD's using Twinkle, and nearly foolproof. If you go to your Preferences page and click the Gadgets tab, in the "Browsing" section you'll see an option for "Twinkle: add menu buttons to automate common tasks...". Enable that and when you go to an article, you'll see a new tab labeled "TW" next to the "More" tab at the top of the article. Selecting "XFD" from that tab's dropdown menu brings up a dialog that takes care of most of the formatting problems that creating an AfD manually can cause. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn:, yes Schazjmd suggested that yesterday. Really appreciate both of your suggestions on this. I have already tried it and hope to find a chance to use it sometime in the future. Thank you both! :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Saint Jean-Baptiste (Léonard de Vinci) --wikipédia française

Someone has inserted an erect penis in the 2nd picture.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.188.180 (talk) 09:19, February 3, 2020 (UTC)

English Wikipedia has no control over the other-language wikipedias. They are all run as separate projects. If this is happening in the French Wikipedia, you will have to let editors know at their noticeboards. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

That was always there. Leonardo drew it. Vexations (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, en-WP has the same "problem": Saint John the Baptist (Leonardo). Seems Incarnato meant something different from what I would have guessed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Am I missing something? The only vaguely phallic part of the painting I see is definitely John's finger pointing upwards. Maybe the IP editor's problem is perceptual? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Eggishorn, no, their perception is quite good. Check the Angelo Incarnato drawing further down in the en-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh. Oops. Well, that's interesting. Thanks, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, for pointing out the obvious. We still can't go back in time to 1515 and tell Da Vinci that "kids are going to see this". 19:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Request to change document title

I want to change document title "Kepco Nuclear Fuel" to "KEPCO Nuclear Fuel".

KEPCO is short for Korea Electric Power Corp. KEPCO NF is a subsidiary of KEPCO and it is important to capitalize on "KEPCO." I'm sorry to bother you and thank you for your help.

The link : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepco_Nuclear_Fuel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.251.240.21 (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Please do not re-post questions that have already been answered elsewhere. You can find yesterday's answers at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Kepco. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Help trimming down redundant content between 2 articles

Hello, I'm Caroline, an employee of Dish Network (as disclosed on my profile page as well as the article's talk page). I've been working with editors at Talk:Dish Network to propose updates and other changes to the company's Wikipedia entry. In my most recent request, I've identified significant redundancy between Dish_Network#Criticisms_and_controversies and Criticism of Dish Network. Much of this content was added by a banned editor who "abusively used multiple accounts." Since I cannot engage in a discussion with this editor regarding possible changes to either article, I was hoping some editors here might be willing to help out by trimming down redundant text and/or leaving feedback on the talk page. Thanks in advance for any assistance. CK-DISH (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

[Placeholder-1] [www.placeholder.placeholder "World Awsomeness Title Won By Rockphed"]. Placeholder. Retrieved 13 September 2019. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed

[3] ttps://www.scribd.com/document/367457475/Encyclopedia-of-Scientific-Principles-Laws-and-Theories

[4] ttps://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/g201508/dna-in-your-cells/

[5] Samuel Ogundipe (28 January 2020). "EXCLUSIVE: EFCC goes after 'Baba Ijebu' over alleged multi-billion naira tax fraud". Premium Times.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]