Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2020 May 14

Help desk
< May 13	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 15 >

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.

May 14

Change dates and some prayers time

Ramadan dates not correct because indicates one day ahead please help us and edit Some prayers time not corresponding to place of stay like me am in Uganda Kampala thus allows me to use settings and change time thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.84.3.58 (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Help desk! If you are asking for help changing an article (e.g. Ramadan), please post your request on the article talk page (e.g. Talk:Ramadan). If your request is not about an article, could you please be more specific? Thanks! (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.) GoingBatty (talk) 04:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the date will depend on the geographical location. This is clearly detailed in the infobox at Ramadan.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

How to delete templates?

I am not sure how to delete templates. Can somebody help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRandomWikipedian (talk • contribs) 03:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@TheRandomWikipedian: Which template do you want to delete and why? New users usually don't think about deleting templates as we understand it. Maybe you are thinking of another meaning like removing a template from an article. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Is it OK to copy from TALK to Article? The Rise of David Levinsky

While the author of the present article's chapters 1-9 has done what he described he'd do in Talk/2006, Chapters 10-14 are just sitting dormant, but at least some text, in TALK. Is it OK to just copy to the main article, and if so, how do you suggest crediting him? Pi314m (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Pi314m, You can simply say "Copied from talk page from user: so and and so, see talk page for attribution". Although taking a look, a chapter by chapter summary seems a bit excessive... CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pi314m: Yes it's OK. Every addition to Wikipedia, to any page including talk pages, is contributed under the CC-BY-SA copyright license. It is one type of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, so you must say where it came from in your edit summary or on the article's talk page to comply with the "attribution" requirement of the copyright license. Of course, the stuff you move into the article must still adhere to all the same guidelines (reliable sources, BLP policy, etc.) as stuff you type in yourself. -Arch dude (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Spam filtre now blocks me from contributing to the COVID-19 article

In the last few weeks, I've tried to improve COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom, and discuss any edits which are disputed by others. There is a massive pro-England bias on this article. It ignored the fact that there are 4 governments in the UK, that B Johnson usually speaks only for England, that there are 4 NHS entities, not one, and that there are 4 Public Health bodies, one for each country. Today, I'm unable to edit ('spam filtre'); id 'discretionary sanctions' have been used by one of the editors, then I would like to know by who and why. I have 6,103 edits, and never come accross this type of behaviour before. John Jones (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing it but I cannot locate any edits of yours that have involved a filter (not "filtre"?). See empty list. Can you see the problem anywhere such as a history or talk page? By the way, I saw this edit. It's not "bias" for that image to have a short caption saying that people were wearing masks on a certain date; it's not saying everyone was wearing them (that would be surprising). Also, "the wearing of masks were not made compulsory" is not right: it should be "was not". Johnuniq (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I ask for help, and chastised for my spelling! Thanks Johnuniq! Talk page also inaccessible. I was able to undo one edito's contribution however. John Jones (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You weren't chastised for your spelling: Johnuniq tactfully pointed out that your spelling was unconventional, that's all. Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom may have temporarily been inaccessible, just as any page in Wikipedia may be. However, it is not protected or semi-protected, and never has been. If you're trying to add a reference to website that's in the spam blacklist, then you won't be able to do so: that's what the spam blacklist is for. (You may of course argue that a website should not be on the spam blacklist.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I only questioned the spelling in "('spam filtre'); id 'discretionary sanctions'" because I wasn't able to find any mention of a filter action. If you see the message again, please copy some of it to make it easier to identify what is going on. Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

John Jones, I see the filter that you seem to be referring to. Adding links to petition sites are generally disallowed, for everyone. See, e.g. the discussion here as to why. There doesn't seem to be anything else that would prevent you from editing. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all. Yes, there is a ref here to the UK Government webist! It's petition . parliament.uk / petitions / 301461! Interesting that we label a UK government as 'spam'! ;') I deleted the reference, and it has worked. Thanks again! John Jones (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft

how to make draft text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chang Eugene (talk • contribs) 09:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Chang Eugene, see Help:Userspace draft. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

If you are trying to ask how to create a draft article, you will find advice at WP:Your first article, but you need to understand how Wikipedia works and gain experience at editing existing articles before you try to write one from square one. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

How to increase font for certain election box templates

For some reason the font/text in the “Template:Election Box” is bigger when it’s a basic template (e.g., "Election box begin"). When the template changes to "Election box begin no change" then the font/text gets smaller. Why does it get smaller? And is there any way to increase the font when using "Election box begin no change"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:98A:200:CE30:9DE2:404D:91BC:BD67 (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

HMS Maidstone

HMS maidstone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.58.49 (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Which one and what about her? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

If you have a comment, concern, or suggestion about an article (e.g. HMS Maidstone (1937)), you can discuss it on the article talk page (e.g. Talk:HMS Maidstone (1937)). GoingBatty (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Indian Claims Commission errors

In the 1970s I edited the publication of The Records of the Indian Claims Commission on microfiche and in two books. I worked closely with the Commission. I have not had any financial interest in the publications since 1987. The current article is horrendous--full of bizarre comments and omitting most of the actual facts. For instance: "The Indian Claims Commission was a judicial relations arbiter.... The commission was conceived as way to thank Native Americans for their unprecedented service in World War II."

What in the world is a 'judicial relations arbiter'? The Commission functioned as a court, hearing claims. The legislative history, which I also published, begins in 1929 with the introduction of the legislation in Congress.

I have prepared a completely new article that I tried unsuccessfully to post. Can you help me with this?

Extended content

The Indian Claims Commission The following article was written in 1973 by Harry E. Webb, Jr., Chief Counsel of the Indian Claims Commission (edited slightly in 2020). The Indian Claims Commission was created on August 13, 1946. Its purpose was to serve as a tribunal for the hearing and determination of claims against the United States arising prior to August 13, 1946 by any Indian tribe, band or other identifiable group of Indians living in the United States. In this it exercised jurisdiction formerly resting with the United States Court of Claims under the previous system of passing special jurisdictional acts by Congress for individual tribes. Under 28 U.S.C.A. 1/1505 the Court of Claims had jurisdiction over claims arising after August 13, 1946. Under the terms of the original Indian Claims Commission Act there were three Commissioners and a period of ten years in which to complete the work. It became obvious however, from the size and complexity of the cases, that ten years was insufficient. The Commission was extended for five-year periods in 1957 and 1962, and in 1967 it was extended a third time and enlarged to five members. Subsequently the staff was increased in size to accommodate the increased workload. The Commission was finally extended to April 10, 1977, and on that date the remaining cases were transferred to the United States Court of Claims. In creating the Indian Claims Commission, Congress broadened the jurisdictional grounds upon which Indian tribes might sue the United States. This wider jurisdiction reflected an awareness of the problems arising from the relations between the United States and the Indians who occupied the lands sought by an expanding nation. Two hundred years of westward expansion produced much conflict and created some of the harsher episodes in the history of America as the United States acquired the Indians' lands. By treaties–and after 1871 by agreements--the Indians' lands were ceded to the United States and the Indians were moved onto reservations. These cessions are the primary source of the 370 original petitions filed with the Commission prior to the cutoff date of August 13, 1951. (Under the terms of the original Act the Commission could no longer accept new claims after this date.) The 370 original petitions were separated into 611 claims, each of which was given its own docket number. The claims consisted largely of unconscionable consideration claims arising from the cession of aboriginal title lands. The Commission also received claims of uncompensated taking of land, as well as of other wrongs cognizable under the Act. (A determination of unconscionable consideration is a finding that the compensation originally paid by the Government for Indian lands ceded by treaty or agreement was so low when compared to the market value at the time as to shock the conscience and entitle the tribe to recover, subject to gratuitous offsets, if any.) The first four clauses under Section 2 of the Act cover every actionable wrong under law and equity. Clause 5 permits suits on claims based upon fair and honorable dealings that are not recognized by any existing rule of law or equity. In the trial of these cases the plaintiffs, as permitted by statute, were represented by attorneys of their own choosing under contracts approved by the Secretary of the Interior or his designated representative. The United States Government was represented by the Department of Justice. The passage of time since these claims arose in the 18th and 19th centuries created considerable difficulty in establishing the factual background of the claims. In the absence of living witnesses the parties relied upon documentary evidence consisting of available contemporary accounts, as well as historical and ethnological writings and studies. This type of evidence goes to the question of the area occupied by a tribe. This is the first, or "aboriginal title," phase of the typical land cases that were the large majority of the cases filed before the Commission. After the area was determined and the Indians' title established, it was necessary to determine the value of the land and the consideration, if any, given by the defendant (the United States), for the purpose of determining whether it was conscionable or unconscionable. In this second portion of a typical case the parties introduced land appraisal evidence for the purpose of establishing the value of the land on the date it was ceded by the tribe. The third part of the typical case is the determination of all payments made by the United States on the claim, and of any and all offsets, counterclaims and demands claimed by the defendant. Basically, this part of the case is for offsets of land or other items given the tribes by the defendant since the date on which the lands were ceded. The evidence consists of statutes or Executive Orders involving land transfers, and vouchers evidencing payment of money or goods. In many instances the Indians held their lands by recognized or reservation title confirmed by Act of Congress, or had title under an Executive Order of the President. This removes the necessity of proving title, and that step is therefore omitted from the proceedings. Included among the claims were a number of accounting cases wherein the tribes asked that the defendant account to them for its management of their assets. Owing to the nature of the cases their determination was interesting but difficult. Progress was been made, however, and more cases were completed by monetary awards in the five fiscal years since 1968 than were completed during the entire preceding life of the Commission. On this basis it is possible to foresee the completion of the remaining cases by April 10, 1977, when the Commission is scheduled to terminate. Harry E. Webb, Jr., Chief Counsel, Indian Claims Commission Washington, D.C., April 1, 1973 [From “Index to the Decisions of the Indian Claims Commission.” See below.] The Records of the Indian Claims Commission were published in the 1970s in a series of microfiche collections by Clearwater Publishing Company, New York, NY, under such rubrics as • The Expert Reports before the Indian Claims Commission • The Decisions of the Indian Claims Commission • Transcripts of Expert Testimony before the Indian Claims Commission • Legislative History of the Indian Claims Commission • Docket Books of the Indian Claims Commission Altogether Clearwater published thousands of microfiches containing the legal briefs, expert testimony. findings and decisions, as well as special documents of the Commission containing their internal records, such as the Journal of the Indian Claims Commission, which recorded the receipt of every individual document deposited. All of the Commission’s documents and records were lent to Clearwater by the Commission, including on its final day in operation (in order to ensure that the microfiche edition would be complete). The microfiches of the “Decisions,” were published serially as each volume was issued (as a typescript) by the Commission, supplemented by Abstracts written by Frances L. Horn, an attorney with Wilkinson, Cragun &Barker, the firm that represented the largest number of tribes of any one firm, and which lobbied for the passage of the bill from 1929 through 1946. Clearwater also published two books as guides to the collection, “Index to the Decisions of the Indian Claims Commission,” and “Index to the Expert Reports before the Indian Claims Commission,” Norman A. Ross, president of Clearwater, was the editor of both books and the microfiche collections, the latter of which were supplemented by documents lent by Wilkinson, Cragun &Barker and several other law firms around the country that represented various tribes when copies of those documents were missing from the Commission’s own files. In addition, some documents that had been deposited by the Commission for closed cases were microfilmed for Clearwater by the National Archives. Both indexes contain a numerical list of all of the dockets as well as a tribal index, both of which were created by the Commission. The Index to the Expert Testimony contains a list of the Written Expert Reports and an author index. Although most courts do not permit written reports as evidence, the Commission ruled that all of the reports submitted by both sides had to be in writing because the contents were too complicated for oral presentation. However, both sides were permitted to cross-examine the witnesses that authored written reports. (Transcripts of the cross-examinations were also published on microfiche.) Land was the dominant concern of the litigation by tribes before the Indian Claims Commission (ICC). The statutory authority did not permit this tribunal to grant or restore land to the tribes, but only to award money based upon a net acreage figure of lost lands times the monetary market value of an acre at the time of taking. This limitation on the authority of the ICC was resented by many tribal peoples, who wanted the return of their lands more than money—e.g., the Pit River Indians of northern California, and the Teton and Lakota of the Black Hills, South Dakota. In a few instances, by way of settlement acts, tribes gained some monetary funds to buy acreage when they had no communal land (as with the Penobscot and Passamaquoddy of Maine and the Catawba of the Carolinas). Special congressional acts on occasion did restore some acreage, as with the Havasupai at the Grand Canyon.[6] Anthropologists, ethnologists, geographers, historians and specialists in such subjects as water rights, timber rights and minerals, were employed by the tribes to prove their claims. The Department of Justice defended the Government and hired other researchers in the same fields to counter the tribes’ claims. The two sides collectively spent hundreds of millions of dollars on research, resulting in the most well-funded research archive on American Indians ever created Some of the most well-known and highly regarded anthropologists of the period agreed to work for one or the other side. However, many such experts were criticized for their participation, especially those who testified on behalf of the United States, and therefore against the tribes. In preparing expert testimony for litigation brought by the tribes as plaintiffs or for the defense by the U.S. government, researchers explored all forms of data, including the earliest possible maps of original title—i.e., native or indigenous—territory and the cartographic presentations based upon treaties, statutes, and executive orders—generally identified as recognized title. In most cases, recognized title lands could be more easily demonstrated in litigation, while native territory depended upon Indian informants, explorers, trappers, military personnel, missionaries and early field ethnographers. Scholars sought to reconstruct native ecology in terms of food supply and other resources of the environment. In this way, some concept of original territory could be gained that could be mapped. As the Final Report of the ICC revealed, compromises over territorial parcels led to rejecting some acreage which had been used by more than one tribe over time.[7] The greatly expanded amount of anthropological research conducted by both sides led to the foundation of the American Society for Ethnohistory (ASE). Some of the research and historical reports compiled in evidence for Native American claims was first collected in 1954 at the inaugural Ohio Valley Historic Indian Conference, the predecessor organization later renamed the ASE. The Commission was adjourned in 1978 by Public Law 94-465,[3] which terminated the Commission and transferred its pending docket of 170 cases to the United States Court of Claims on September 30, 1978. By the time of the Commission's final report, it had awarded $818,172,606.64 in judgments and had completed 546 dockets.[4][5] In 1987 Clearwater sold its microfilms and books to Congressional Information Service (CIS) a division of Elsevier, which in turn sold its microfilm titles to ProQuest 25 years later. All of the microfiches and the two index volumes are available from ProQuest. Garland Publishing, NY, also in the 1970s, published some 200 books that contained a sampling of the written Expert Reports and reprints of some of the books submitted in evidence. References Decisions of the Indian Claims Commission. Microfiche. --- --Index. 1. Indians of North America-Claims-Cases. I. Horn, Frances L., 1915- . II. Ross, Norman A., 1942- III. United States. Indian Claims Commission. KF8208 343'.73'025 72-13850 ISBN 0-88354-001-0 Expert Reports before the Indian Claims Commission. Microfiche. --- --Index. 1. Indians of North America-Claims-Cases. I. Ross, Norman A., 1942- II. United States. Indian Claims Commission. KF8208 343'.73'025 72-13850 ISBN 0-88354-002-0

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Norman20c (talk • contribs) 14:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your attempts to improve Wikipedia. However, your edits have raised copyright concerns (among other things). Please see the page User talk:Norman20c. @Doug Weller: has detailed the issues with your edits and provided many links to help you. Best ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 14:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Norman20c. Some of what you want may be possible, I'm ignorant of the topic. However, is any of the above copypasted from other sources? If so, it can not be included on WP but must be removed. You may be able to find interested editors here, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Norman20c and Gråbergs Gråa Sång: See the right side of this page, which quotes it from: U.S. Indian Claims Commission (1973). Ross, Norman A. (ed.). Index to the Expert testimony before the Indian Claims Commission : the written reports. Clearwater Pub. Co. ISBN 9780883540022.. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

A part of the song (for music theory and idea illustration)

Sorry for my English. I saw some articles about songs where a short part of the song can be played. There is an article about song New Rules by Dua Lipa and there is a section Composition and release. Song is very influencive and interesting from music theory view, and three rules are in this section. There are lyrics description in this section. Can you add a short part with these lyrics to play for readers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.69.97 (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Doing... Juliette Han (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples for more information on using music samples in articles. Apparently Juliette is adding the sample you requested, but in the future, that article could prove helpful. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 17:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done See New Rules. Juliette Han (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Juliette Han: FYI: I reduced the quality a bit in complying with the linked MOS. --MrClog (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

How do I make a table of contents go to a certain page?

How do I make the "0-9" section of the tables of contents at User:Jax 0677/Templates for Creation (A) go to User:Jax 0677/Templates for Creation, or a page of my choosing? Please {{ping}} me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: 0-9=[[User:Jax 0677/Templates for Creation|0–9]] with a normal hyphen in the parameter name 0-9, not an en dash. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

BLP in cases of "ruled dead in absentia"

Does WP:BLP apply to an article if the subject is a missing person who has been declared dead in absentia by a U.S. court judgment? This question has cropped up with the newly-created article Kim Dong-shik. Muzilon (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Muzilon: the first footnote on the WP:BLP page says: People are presumed to be living unless there is reason to believe otherwise. This policy does not apply to people declared dead in absentia. Therefore I would assume that with the article you're referring to, the BLP policy doesn't apply.  Seagull123  Φ  23:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Pinging RetroCraft314, for the record. Muzilon (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

kukri or khukuri

The kukri or khukuri (Nepali: खुकुरी khukuri) is a knife, originating from the Indian subcontinent, associated with the Nepali speaking Gurkhas of Nepal and India.

this sentence is not correct as it didnt originate from an indian subcontinent. It came to view of the nation from gurkha an nepali state at the pre war ages. The gurkhas were also orginated from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.60.85.226 (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

If you have a suggestion for the article Kukri, please make it within the article's talk page: Talk:Kukri. -- Hoary (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

37.60.85.226, the Indian subcontinent is defined geographically, not according to current (or past) political boundaries. The area of the (current) country Nepal is, by definition, part of the Indian subcontinent, which is often referred to just as "the Subcontinent" to avoid such geopolitical confusions. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.24.23 (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Added info re sexual orientation ... it was deleted.

The reasoning was irrational. This information adds to our knowledge of a key individual in our virus response. Hiding this information is detrimental to our understanding of this serious current issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.0.191.14 (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The main reason it was removed is because it was an unsourced addition to a biography of a living person; see the BLP policy. I also don't see how his being gay is pertinent to his work, but in any event, if it is to be included, it needs to be sourced to a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Temporary page protection requested. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I've given it a month-long partial immunity to the obsessions of anonymous contributors to Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)