Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2019 February 25

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.

February 25

Non sourced list of LGBT people

How would one go about removing a list of people and images that are unsourced at a cultural article? The article is LGBT culture in New York City and has an image of me that I don’t want to see there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:543:9626:A07C:B368:D445:D6D3 (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Anyone may remove unsourced material at any time, although it's more courteous to start by proposing the removal on the talk page of LGBT culture in New York City in a new section and reaching a consensus. If you are not comfortable with editing the article yourself, then just ask for the removal on that talk page. If nobody adds sources, the material should be removed based on our fairly stringent WP:BLP guidelines even of no consensus evolves -Arch dude (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Impossible to use or enter date into your Wikipad!

I’ve been trying now for a week. Replaying Wiki youtube links. I download wiki. It is installed. I put information into the program and it doesn’t save anywhere. My RECENT files have some information but I can’t use it. Nothing is saved and it is GONE into cyberspace! Impossible to contact or email any Wiki help! NO emails. No telephone numbers. NOTHING! If no one responds, I will delete Wiki forever. Wiki need BASIC tut

Impossible to use or enter date into your Wikipad! I’ve been trying now for a week. Replaying Wiki youtube links.

• I download wiki. It is installed. I put information into the program and it doesn’t save anywhere. My RECENT files have some information but I can’t use it. Nothing is saved and it is GONE into cyberspace!
• Impossible to contact or email any Wiki help! NO emails. No telephone numbers. NOTHING!
• If no one responds, I will delete Wiki forever. Wiki need BASIC tutorials – with step by step initial startup information.

Carl Water – New Jersey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.80.40.114 (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

This is the help desk for the English language Wikipedia, which is one of thousands of unrelated sites using one of hundreds of types of Wiki software with "Wiki" somewhere in the name. Are you sure you are in the right place? In general, there is no need to download anything to use this site. If you are in the right place, then please use a plain old web browser to read our introductory material. You can start at Help:Contents. If you are still stuck after that, come back here.-Arch dude (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

And specifically, we have no connection to wikipad.com. Rojomoke (talk) 06:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

How To Contact People Make Simple

There is way too much information and I can't figure out what I need help with. I was trying to update an article to be more accurate and after only 1 or 2 back and forths with edits shortly thereafter I am blocked from a page and from the talk page. I see no way to contact any admin. I am new to this and feel very confused, frustrated, and offended at how this community has treated me in the short time I've been here. It is very frustrating to see what appears to be very biased treatment and impatience and lack of kindness from people here and I can't even figure out how to private message people to discuss my disagreement. Very frustrating and unwelcoming and unkind experience so far. Makes me feel like boycotting wikipedia if this is how honest kind people get treated who are just trying to do good!

Is there anyone who isn't mean here that will help? Very frustrated. I clicked a persons name but instead of going to a private message box it goes to their page and I see no button to PM so it's not clear what to do. I don't even know if this is where I am supposed to post my question.Rcontributor777 (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rcontributor777: I'm sorry your initial experience was frustrating. You started right out by editing an article that was created in October of 2001, (over 18 years ago) and that has been evolving with contributions of hundreds of editors ever since. Your contributions were unsourced and not written in an encyclopedic form, so an experienced editor reverted them. You next move is to discuss your edits with that user, on the user's talk page or on the article's talk page, to reach a consensus. We very rarely use private communications on Wikipedia, because we are trying to reach a collegial consensus. Discussins on user talk pages are not strictly private, but are really intended to the kind of person-to-person interaction you want here. You are not blocked from editing. The Yaweh article is protected because of persistent disruptive editing. Your attempts were therefore perceived as a new instance of this ongoing problem with that article, so the article's protection level was raised. Please read the introductory material on how we work on articles: links have been provided on your talk page, then try again. You will probably have a better experience if you discuss your proposed edits on the article's talk page first, so experienced editors can help you through this mess. -Arch dude (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

TonyBallioni - Something’s not right. Brand new account showing unexpected editing and forum experience, and reverts which triggered article protection being implemented. Possible sock? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Arch dude: I do not see a "reply" button here so I'm not sure how you did what you did to reply - so the way I'm trying to reply is by clicking the edit button and manually figuring out how to reply and editing the source. If there is an easier way to @ reply like you did besides directly editing this please let me know.Rcontributor777 (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Arch dude: I appreciate your response but some of your statements I disagree with. You said "your contributions were unsourced" - this is incorrect. The source I cited was the Christian Bible - that was my source. So I started out by citing my source initially. The Bible is a legitimate source of information. To say I did not cite my source is simply incorrect - I cited the Bible as my source. Secondly, you said my edits were "not written in an encyclopedia form" - this is a matter of opinion in which I simply disagree. If you look up the Encyclopedia Britannica's entry for "Yahweh" you will see some verbiage there similar to how I wrote mine (in my opinion). https://www.britannica.com/topic/Yahweh - So this is really just a matter of opinion what is "encyclopedia form". The current article as written on Wikipedia I do not view as being written in encyclopedia form. The Encyclopedia Britannica is much more encyclopedia tone than Wikipedia's and much more well written, and I was making improvements to what I consider to be a better encyclopedia. This is is all matter of opinion though and everyone has their own opinions. I appreciate the education about how to message people and that talk pages are the intended way to communicate as I don't really know my way around here yet, but after the bad experiences I've had I may not try to find my way around anymore. Regarding the Name of the article I was attempting to edit - I am very well educated on this Name - and I have many sources to cite and I was only beginning to edit the article but before I got to put more sources up and other helpful information, I got blocked from editing the page right away through the page being restricted. I had much more helpful and knowledgeable information to share, but if this community reacts so fiercely the moment something is not written the way the majority wants even when someone knows what they're talking about, then it seems more about majority rule than truly allowing information to freely be published if that information is accurate. I did not post anything inaccurate or untrue and I was not given sufficient time to even finish the edits I wanted to do. You suggested I use the article's talk page to discuss changes - I tried doing that as someone suggested and I was blocked from adding topics there. It said something about a status or protection or account something or another - I can't remember - some message blocking me from adding a topic to the talk page. Regardless, anyhow, after what's happened to me and the way I have been treated I don't see a point in trying to talk on the article's talk page because an underlying problem I see is unfair treatment and assumptions of negative things about new users who truly are just trying to do good. I can take my work elsewhere. Majority rule is not always the best way to get a good encyclopedia written. Sometimes you need someone to step in and keep things fair so that the majority does not unfairly treat people in a way that is unjustified just because that person has information others don't want posted. If I had posted an untrue statement, that's one thing - but nothing I posted was untrue. If the majority rule is how wikipedia functions then that can also lead to censorship to exclude information that, while factual, is disliked by some people.Rcontributor777 (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Regarding what you said, you stated "Brand new account showing unexpected editing and forum experience, and reverts which triggered article protection being implemented. Possible sock?" I don't understand fully what you mean, because I don't know what "possible sock" means and I was looking this up online to try to understand if this is Wikipedia lingo that I'm not familiar with. I may be mis-interpreting your statements, but if they are implying bad conduct on my part of some kind that is not the case. I am a kind law abiding citizen who is very well educated and one night took it upon myself to make a Wikipedia account. I have education and experience in many different fields and regarding the Name for the article I was editing I am very, very, well educated. I am very tech savvy, program in various languages, and generally can figure out IT things quickly regardless of how new or not new I am to a site. Before making this account I had zero experience as a registered user on Wikipedia and absolutely zero experiences editing articles on this site. In fact, I was shocked that it was so easy to make a change and see it live on the Internet immediately. I didn't realize that's how this site worked until I made this account and tried. I made a small edit to test it out and then look at my work, then I was going to make more edits and cite more sources to improve the article, then before I even finished my second edit I was blocked. I wasn't trying to do wrong or violate policies or write in a non-encyclopedia tone - I was just a new curious user who was excited by the prospect of improving a page and seeing it go live to the Internet to give people more accurate information. But now, after all this, I have less respect for this site. It doesn't matter how educated or knowledgeable someone is - they get judged as a meddler or troublemaker quickly without people even knowing who the person is or what their real intentions are. Sure, there are a lot of people on the Internet who cause problems or have bad intentions, but that's not me. I have server and forum admin experience so it isn't hard for me to learn how to use a new site like this if things are easy to see/understand where to click. But again, I'm not fully sure I understand what your statement means but I'm guessing at what you are saying and trying my best to reply. But if anyone else replies here I may not reply back because I may not be logging in here ever again as I do not feel appreciated and will focus my efforts elsewhere where I am appreciated for what I have to offer. Or, maybe start my own encyclopedia website.Rcontributor777 (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Rcontributor777: I'm only replying here since so others don't waste time trying to figure out what's going on. Brand new user came to the Yahweh article and his very first edit was in the hidden comment section at the top: [[1]]. He was reverted, warned, and then restored the content marked as a minor edit. I like to assume good faith, but his somewhat advanced editing is usually the sign of a returning editor using a new name, classic WP:SOCK. It is also likely no longer an issue, as the editor has stated he is retiring from his short career as a disruptive editor, and tried to remove all traces by requesting his user page be deleted. And Yahweh has been protected in case he tries to come back. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review of a category

I have never really understood the category category, but recently a category was deleted. It seemed to me that a version of the category would be useful for people who make use of categories. I went to the discussion of its deletion, but it was closed. There was a message to go to the deletion record. But I couldn't find any record there of this particular category. The category is "category:Lists of works of fiction, by geographical setting..." (it continues with text about being in chronological order). I concur that the chronological order is extraneous, but (if I figured out how to use the categories pages, then) I would find a list of lists of fiction according to setting helpful since many of these places don't have links to fiction about them. Apparently, such a category does not exist, since I couldn't find it by searching under the shorter name. So, how, without incurring the wrath of speedy deleters or the editor who eliminated the long category, do I try to get the shorter category going?Kdammers (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Locations in fiction exists. It has subcategories for, e.g. Category:Countries in fiction, and those subcategories have subcategories for regional and local levels. So, The Great Gatsby is part of Category:Long Island in fiction, which is part of Category:New York City in fiction, which is part of Category:New York (state) in fiction, which is part of Category:United States in fiction by state... etc. Is that what you're looking for?~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 13:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Cannot reset password

I want to edit Wikipedia articles but I forgot my password. When I tried to reset it by specifying a mail, no mail is received. Could be that I have created my account without specifying my mail? Is there a way to use the account or can I connect it to my Google account?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.57.20.13 (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is no way to recover the account. You will need to create a new account. See: Help:Logging in. You can then redirect the old userpage and user talk page to your new user page and talk page. Make sure to specify an email address this time. -Arch dude (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

If you give the username then we can see whether it has an email address but we cannot see what the address or password is. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Pronouns in Infoboxes?

Currently, Infoboxes for people do not include a given person's pronouns (or information about their gender identity). Yet that would appear to be relevant information to know about a person that also should be available at a glance.

MOS:IDENTITY states that we refer to anyone using the latest known pronouns / gender identity. It would be helpful to collect and note such information and the infoboxes seem like a good place to do so.

Where would I need to go to start a discussion about implementing this change? I have not found any previous such discussions in the archives. --Jonas.betzendahl (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jonas.betzendahl: Hi there, I'd recommend Template talk:Infobox person as a place to get some initial feedback, but this is a big proposal that will require widespread community input I think, so it will almost certainly require a Request for Comment (RFC). This sort of discussion would affect several biographical infoboxes Template:Infobox musical artist, Template:Infobox YouTube personality, etc. so maybe another Help Desk participant might have a better idea as to where the discussion could begin?

You could also ask what the folks at WikiProject LGBT studies have to say. This seems like a change that would only affect a small percentage of biographical articles, since we'd probably require self-identification of preferred pronouns. Unless Tom Cruise has gone on record to declare his pronoun preference, we probably wouldn't presume to add his. However, I can envision this creating issues with overeager editors blanketing articles with these changes, but that's just me being negative. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Thank you for your answers. I will follow your suggestions and gather some input before starting the discussion on Template talk:Infobox person.

Concerning your other point: It would appear to me we already do presume Tom Cruise's (and almost everyone else's) pronouns. The second sentence of the article starts with "He started his career at age 19 [...]". However, while I think it would be prudent to include this information for a large number of people, even if it includes only few people, it would already be a big step in the right direction.

Thanks again for your feedback! --Jonas.betzendahl (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Bold

Hi helpful bunch, table formatting isn't my cup of tea. Can someone please look at Mouni Roy#Films and figure out why the last four titles are rendering in boldface? I'm missing something. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The cells were formatted as heading cells. I've cured it in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: Ah, right, the wily exclamation mark... Thank you for the assist! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

typo

Hi there I don't know how to submit an typo message but you should know, your Platt Amendment article says that it was signed in 1803 but I think it's actually 1903 Thanks, 147.126.10.153 (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)college student studying for midterms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platt_Amendment

• Note: David has fixed this. Eagleash (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

New logo for Creative Technology

Creative Technology have new logo. Please update... thanks! --151.49.64.189 (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

You're better off posting this on that article's talk page. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Timtempleton:, I have posted in that page, but no answer yet... --151.49.64.189 (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You posted here less than six hours after posting on the talk page. Give it some time. It would also be helpful if you were more specific about what to look for. I went to the creative website and all I could see is that the logo is all black now. No public announcement about the rebranding. Is that the change? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: is not changed only the color. If you examine the details, you notice that the serif are deleted and the font is in sans... --151.49.64.189 (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

changing photo

I am trying to change a photo on the school portion of the Johnson Creek Wi page. The current picture shows our old school and now 2 1/2 years into the new school it would be nice to have that picture.

Help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneilcjo12 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Oneilcjo12: Its less difficult if you use a picture you have taken yourself, because you own the copyright that way. Go take the picture and get it onto your computer as an image. Then go to the upload wizard for Commons, at c:Upload Wizard, and follow the instructions there. Finally, edit the article to use your file at Commons in place of the existing picture. If you have problems with any of this , come back here for help. -Arch dude (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Question on policy interpretation

Hello,

Is there anything like precedent like in common law, but for Wikipedia policies? Like is there somewhere where people can look at how one policy is weighed against another? It seems like it would be helpful to have something like that if not. Also, where can I suggest a policy for rating the quality of essays?

Cheers, Pokerplayer513 (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Pokerplayer513: Does this article about content assessment help? Wikipedia:Content assessment TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

TimTempleton does this also apply to Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays as well? Pokerplayer513 (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Probably something more like this actually Category:Wikipedia supplemental pages Pokerplayer513 (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Pokerplayer513: That question about "precedent" is very broad, and many parts of it are recorded in different places. For example, when articles are proposed for deletion, common themes started to emerge so the editors have tried to document those precedents at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. Perhaps if you could be more specific about what you're looking for, we might be able to point to something relevant.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Gronk Oz and TimTempleton, something like the Selective Examples section on the Wikipedia:Casting aspersions page. Like how generalized rules have been applied in specific cases. That way other users can expand on an already established understanding of a policy. On casting aspersions there's even a link included to explain the rationale. I hope that helps and makes things more clear! Cheers, Pokerplayer513 (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Pokerplayer513: if you are asking specifically about casting aspersions, then the page you gave is the only one I know about. Or are you asking for something else like that, but about some different subject? If so, once again we will need to know the actual question you are trying to answer in order to point you to the right source. Wikipedia has a number of "information pages" which "are intended to supplement or clarify Wikipedia guidelines, policies, or other Wikipedia processes and practices that are communal norms." Some of them may have what you're looking for if you are reluctant to spell it out here - they are listed at Category:Wikipedia information pages. Or feel free to come back and ask about a particular topic.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Visual Editing and Award Tables

I am trying to edit the page for musician John Daversa and wanted to add an Awards table for his grammy awards. When I am editing using the visual editor, everything looks fine, but when I go to publish, it puts the additional information, reference list and other stuff into the table. I don't know how to fix this as everything seems to be codified correctly in the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:B860:14D0:D5B7:A08C:7DF1:AA70 (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

As usual in such situations, the problem was an unterminated table. Cured in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)