Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 July 22

Help desk
< July 21	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 23 >

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

July 22

Deletion of Maria Luisa Hernandez

Maria Luisa Hernandez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have contributed to the Maria Luisa Hernandez article and have failed in the past find ways to improve it much. It has been nominated for deletion, and I agree as the page looks bad, but do not know the correct process from here.Anna Jones (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Anna Jones. This can be frustrating. Especially when you are passionate about a certain subject. However, to have an article on WP there are certain expectations of a subject for their inclusion on the site: i.e. notability and reliable sources detailing coverage of the subject. First: notability -- make sure your subject meets the qualifications found here: WP:ARTIST. Then make sure your article has reliable sources to back the claims for their notability: reviews, major art exhibits, etc. It can be timely, but in the end will pay off. Good luck! Maineartists (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Gamergate controversy

Hello, I am writing because of the article Gamergate controversy is incorrect in several instances.

1) GamerGate is a Consumer Revolt against the corruption of journalism in the Gaming industry. The article you and others around the world are seeing, is a one sided issue: "The Gamergate controversy concerns issues of sexism and progressivism in video game culture, stemming from a harassment campaign conducted primarily through the use of the hashtag #GamerGate. Gamergate is used as a blanket term for the controversy, the harassment campaign and actions of those participating in it, and the loosely organized movement that emerged around the hashtag." This is incorrect, in fact, if you go to YouTube and look up GamerGate, you will find that it is exactly the opposite on what this article is saying.

2) "Harassment campaigns against others included doxing, threats of rape, and death threats. Gamergate supporters claimed unethical collusion between the press and feminists, progressives, and social critics. These concerns have been dismissed by commentators as trivial, conspiracy theories, groundless, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics." That too, is incorrect, there was plenty of corruption by not only the Gaming Press, but other media outlets are the ones who claimed unethical collusion between the press and feminists, progressives, and social critics. These concerns have been dismissed by commentators as trivial, conspiracy theories, groundless, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics without a shred of physical evidence to back up these false allegations, while GamerGate supporters have evidence of the corruption by these same media outlets, throwing Gamers "under the bus" sort of speak, and refuse to hear their side of the story making the media very unethical.

3) "Many supporters of Gamergate oppose what they view as the increasing influence of feminism on video game culture; as a result, Gamergate is often viewed as a right-wing backlash against progressivism." It is actually feminism that has invaded our space and they not GamerGate, are left-wing backlash against progressivism. These 3rd Wave Feminists are liars, frauds and will do anything in their political corrupt culture to make sure that video games are the cause of harassment, violence and sexism and that the players who play these games are male and misogynistic.

These references shown below that no one wants people from GamerGate to really tell the truth on what the movement was really about. These references contains the lies and deception on which feminists claimed to have been threatened, harassed or swatted. No, in fact, none of these women speak for GamerGate while there are plenty of women including developers, people with disabilities, even the LGBT community is on the side for GamerGate and they were the voices that the feminists tried to silence and failed horribly.

References

There are more of these false references on the main article's page, but I don't have time to cite them all. As the first Girl gamer for 38 years, I am deeply offended by the article and its citations claiming that GamerGate was nothing more but harassers and trolls, when in reality, we're all human beings that play video games just to get away from Real world issues like that foolish page. Ever since the movement began three years ago, GamerGate has been fighting to keep our games from being censored, changed and silenced to the 3rd wave feminists' deceptions and once again, they have failed because they know nothing about video games, nor have any of these feminists with the exception for two of them, played hardcore games in their lifetime. I am hereby requesting, that the article in question remove its semi-protection status on the basis of false allegations on the person or persons made the article what it is, must issue a public apology to the supporters of GamerGate, be banned immediately and never be welcomed on Wikipedia or any on-line source that discredits persons or movements in a way that unless the other side is heard from, then you Wikipedia, have violated your own terms including vandalism. Yuri Jacobs (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Yuri Jacobs. Thank you for our concerns regarding the page Gamergate Controversy However, this is the Help Desk; which is designed only for questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia. You really should bring these comments up at the article's Talk Page here: Gamergate Controversy. Thanks! Maineartists (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Yuri Jacobs: Talk:Gamergate controversy has been semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. Your account needs 4 days and 10 edits to be autoconfirmed. Note there are 57 archive links and various information in the boxes at top of Talk:Gamergate controversy. Wikipedia:Database reports/Talk pages by size says there are 11 MB of discussions. I'm not getting into that. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

How to resolve the issues from an article:

Hello Volunteer,

First of all, I want to thank you for doing the noble job that you are, without any monetary interest. I really appreciate the niceness. Now my concern is this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana_Veciana-Suarez

I am hired by a person, I am not sure if it is this same personality or someone connected to them, to help them remove the errors from this article. Now there are two errors that need to be removed.

1. This article is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject. (April 2017)

Question: How do I remove this error?

2. The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. (April 2017)

Question: This personality is notable and I have enough references to prove that, however, I don't know how to forward these references to a wikipedia admin so that he would remove the error, if that is how we remove that error I mean. Can you please guide me with this too?

As I am getting paid for this job, I would like to payback a little to this community and especially the volunteers, is there anyway to donate to the community of volunteers?

Thanks a lot! Nayab K. Siddiqui — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.48.93.234 (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank-you, Nayab, for asking here rather than editing the article yourself while having a conflict of interest.

1. It's not exactly an "error", just a warning about possible bias. And you, as a connected person, can't do anything to correct it, your editing the article would only make the warning even more necessary. What you have done, by asking here, is to increase the chance that unbiased editors will make some improvements to the article. After enough such improvements, the warning can be removed.
2. It won't need an admin to add references to the article. I could even do it myself if I knew of any acceptable references. If you have some, preferably to reliable independent published sources that discuss the subject, please list them at the article's talk page. Maproom (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I've managed to find one reference. BUt it doesn't help much (and it's not compimentary). I hope you have something better. Maproom (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Cite an essay inside a book

How do I cite an essay inside a book that is a collection of essays? I can't find it anywhere and everything I try just ends up with it being invisible. It's a reference I want to use for several of the essays contained in it and I really need to figure this out! Help! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: I moved your post from the talk page. You can use the |at= parameter at Template:Cite book#In-source locations. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with it being moved but I am still relatively new here and don'y understand all the nuances so if you wouldn't mind--take a teaching moment and explain why? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

In general, Jenhawk777, a talk page is to discuss how to improve the corresponding page. So Wikipedia talk:Help desk is to discuss how to make the page Wikipedia:Help desk better. The actual questions are to be asked on this page. Simialarly each article has a talk page, where people can discuss how to improve the article. It is just a convention at Wikipedia and other wikis that use the same software, but a rather firm one. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay--I see now I was in the wrong place. I should have looked more carefully! Sorry! And thank you. I am still having trouble with this reference!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Or you can use |chapter=, Jenhawk777, which i think would be better, See the following example from the template documentation:

Citing a chapter in a book with different authors for different chapters and an editor

• {{cite book |last=Bloggs |first=Fred |editor-last=Doe |editor-first=John |title=Big Compilation Book with Many Chapters and Distinct Chapter Authors |publisher=Book Publishers |date=January 1, 2001 |pages=100–110 |chapter=Chapter 2: The History of the Bloggs Family |isbn=978-1-234-56789-7}}

  Bloggs, Fred (January 1, 2001). "Chapter 2: The History of the Bloggs Family". In Doe, John (ed.). Big Compilation Book with Many Chapters and Distinct Chapter Authors. Book Publishers. pp. 100–110. ISBN 978-1-234-56789-7.

Is that helpful? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I wrote it down exactly--I will now go and see if it makes those sentences miraculously appear! You're a gem! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It didn't work but I think it's because my book has more than one editor. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, Instead of using |co-editor= use |editor1-last=, |editor1-first=, |editor2-last=, |editor2-first=, |editor3-last=, and |editor3-first=, for the first, second, third etc editors. The same can be done with |first1=, |last1=, |first2=, |last2=, for co-authors. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It's still not working and I don't know what I am doing wrong. This entire section disappears: "" Evan Fales, Professor of Philosophy, calls the crucifixion and its doctrine of substitutionary atonement ”psychologically pernicious” and ”morally indefensible.” Fales founds his argument on John Locke’s statement that revelation must conform to our understanding. While philosopher and Professor Alvin Plantinga says this rests upon seeing God as a kind of specially talented human being, adding there is no guarantee our moral intuitions are entirely correct, and human moral intuitions have shifted over time. "" Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I looked at your sandbox, Jenhawk777. I made two small edits. The first I have also made above, removing the quotes on the chapter name (they are added automatically) and using isbn= instead of ISBN=. But the one which mattered was to comment out <ref name ="Oxford Bible"/> You were trying to use the ref "Oxford Bible", but it was nowhere defined. This prevented the rest of the section from displaying properly. Refs can be a bit tricky. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

References

OMG!! Thank you! I have moved stuff around so much I am losing track of what's where! I knew I was doing something wrong but I could not spot it to save my life. It's late. I'm tired. my brain has turned to mush! May a million blessings fall upon your head!!! Oxford is defined somewhere!! I will find it--tomorrow! Thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

well--I totally appreciate the help--truly--but it's still not showing up in the article. I don't know what the heck the problem is but I'm going to bed. It's 1 AM and I have to get up in the morning. I hope I do not dream of Wiki citations... Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The missing content was displayed by fixing an ending </ref>.[1]. If content doesn't render then look for a problem right before. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I have learned this lesson the hard way haven't I? Perhaps that means I won't forget it! I live in hope... Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: Another lesson: Be specific from the beginning when you ask for help. If your original post had quoted some of the invisible content then my original answer would have fixed it. Unclosed tags causing undisplayed content is a common issue I would immediately have looked for. I did try to guess which reference you referred to but the page was full of references and none of them used the word "essay" you described it with here. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. And thank you. I'll do better. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)