Help desk
< November 2	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 4 >

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.

November 3[edit]

IIBF (Indian Institute of Banking and Finance)[edit]

Information provided in the page is misguiding as the following organisation which is stated is as government organisation is not a government organisation and does not come under ambit of ministry of finance.Only the name is such that it is wrongly assumed to be one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.121.50 (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@114.143.121.50, I noticed that misguided term, and it is clearly known that it is corporate company. I removed Ministry of Finance from owner. Dhaneesh 💙 Ram 07:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! The best place to make suggestions for the Indian Institute of Banking and Finance article is the article's talk page: Talk:Indian Institute of Banking and Finance. Please provide a reliable source if possible. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly change the DP of Chansung with good picture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Chan-sung[edit]

Dear Wikipedia, please kindly change the DP of our Chansung with some good one. We hottest(chanwives) try to edit but facing copyrights issue and it is getting removed. so please kindly consider it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Chan-sung Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.207.101 (talk) 08:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were given advice at User talk:Mardhiyah.yazid. Please don't ask the same question at the Teahouse and here on the Help Desk, as it wastes the time of volunteers replying to a question that has already been answered. In general the place to discuss an article is on its talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also commons:User talk:Mardhiyah.yazid. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My edit is partially duplicated[edit]

Hi there, I've just corrected a factual error in the "Evaporative Cooler" article, "Design" section, "Shading" subheading. I replaced the entire subheading section. It is now about four times the length, but the first paragraph is duplicated, and no matter how many times I remove it, it stays. Initially it was triplicated, but removing the two extra copies successfully removed one. Any ideas what's causing it or at least how I can fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by At least I try (talk • contribs) 10:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@At least I try: I have restored the page to the version before your edits. You can therefore 'have another go'. Unfortunately, the text had become rather jumbled so starting from scratch seemed like the best way. I note you were using the visual editor and it may be an issue with that. Use 'edit source' to make the changes and preview before saving. The content of your edits is still available via the page history so you can C&P just the wording you need from there. Please add sources where necessary. (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.). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashes 2021 CRICKET[edit]

yes hi i was wondering on about the 2021 ashes cricket series i was just wanting to know if australia only needs to win or draw the series to retain the ashes — Preceding unsigned comment added by BULLETS2004 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BULLETS2004 This is a help desk for questions about editing Wikipedia, not a general help desk. Although in answer to your question, Australia would hold the Ashes if they draw the series, as they won the 2017-18 series and the 2019 series was a draw (so Australia still hold the Ashes, until England win more matches). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

View a user's new article creations only?[edit]

It's possible to view a user's contributions in chronological order. Is it possible to filter this list to see only a user's (either one's own or someone else's) new article creations? Basically, to filter out the countless entries where one has only fixed a typo or so? Ni'jluuseger (talk) 11:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ni'jluuseger, if you select contributions at the top of the screen in desktop mode, and the edit count at the bottom of the screen, the General statistics section includes the number of pages created, and you can click on the number to get a detailed breakdown. This should also work for other users. TSventon (talk) 11:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TSventon, thank you kindly for your response! You helped me locate this and several other useful statistics on the English Wikipedia. For other language versions I looked at, it unfortunately seems that none of these tools is available (just the undifferentiated chronological list of a user's edits). Ni'jluuseger (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another way: from Special:Contributions, you can tick the box that says "Only show edits that are page creations", and if you just want article creations (i.e. not userpage or draft creations), change the Namespace dropdown to "(Article)". Joseph2302 (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Ni'jluuseger I can't speak for all language versions, but in French Wikipedia, if you seek out a User's contributions, there is (in desktop mode) a drop-down menu ("search for contributions") which allows filtering by various criteria including "Only show edits that are page creations". Note that I've got my language preferences so that these menus are in English. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Ticking "Only show edits that are page creations" does also work for the other language versions I've looked at, so I've found precisely what I was looking (hoping) for. Great stuff! Ni'jluuseger (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do you setup lowercase sigmabot III on your talk page?[edit]

So the documentation is a little confusing for me, so I was wndering if this was the right place to ask? My tak page used to get a lot of messages and I want to not have to scroll down everytime to view a new message. How do I setup lowercase sigmabot on my talk page? SoyokoAnis - talk 11:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find help at Help:Archiving a talk page and User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph Thanks, but the documentation or how to is a little cnfusing so is there like a simpler way to explain it? SoyokoAnis - talk 13:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand what it says at User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo#Setting up archiving, starting with "To quickly setup archiving, place {{subst:Setup auto archiving}} above the first heading. You'll get incremental archives, much like in Example 2 below.", you should perhaps avoid the English language Wikipedia, and stick to editing a Wikipedia in your own native language. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find the question (and lack of immediate understanding of the 4k+ words of documentation that you first linked them to) completely reasonable from a relatively new account and I'm not sure that throwing out insinuations that they don't speak English very well to be helpful. But yes SoyokoAnis, you can used the specific code that David pasted or one of the specific "easy use" examples in here. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph My native language is English, I just don't understand the instructions? SoyokoAnis - talk 13:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SoyokoAnis, let me know if you still have issues, but if you paste {{subst:setup auto archiving}} on your talk page, threads will be archived after 30 days. Alyo (chat·edits) 05:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bias[edit]

I use to religiously rely on Wikipedia for truthful information. Ha!!! What a fool I WAS!!! Wikipedia is a farce at best, especially when it comes to biographies. The American people are becoming aware of the vast liberal bias in every spoken and written word that comes from major media sources. I think pathetic is apt in describing Wikipedia but actually, not nearly severe enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1016:B118:2415:38DA:4941:9D5D:AA28 (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! When you come across a Wikipedia article that could be improved, feel free to suggest non-biased reliable sources on the article's talk page. GoingBatty (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not claim to be unbiased, as everyone has biases. We also don't claim that what is presented here is the truth, only that it can be verified. See WP:TRUTH. Only you can decide what is true for you. If you are interested in collaborating with others to improve articles, please offer your suggestions. If you just want to read what you want to see and what fits your worldview, this isn't the place for you. 331dot (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first commandment on religious use of WP is WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. Hearken Unto This, Sayeth Jimbo and ARBCOM. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Might I make a suggestion, to all those responding to the obvious troll? Revert it off. They're not after help. They're after a reaction. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's our goal to represent the mainstream view like major media sources. Thanks for telling us we are succeeding. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally requested a merge to the wrong article[edit]

I was trying to request to merge the Ford Fusion Hybrid article to the Ford Fusion (Americas) but I accidentally request the merge to to the Ford Fusion article instead Lunacats (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've fixed it. I changed the merge template on Ford Fusion Hybrid, and moved the merge to template to Ford Fusion (Americas). Possibly I missed something, but it looks okay to me now. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:Joseph2302 for fixing it Lunacats (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to Brent Olson's page?[edit]

I can't find it anywhere on Wikipedia. He is a book author that just published a new book called between the helpless and the darkness but I can't find him to get it. He used to be here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capman 99 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article was deleted as the result of an AfD debate. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Capman 99: If you try to create the Brent Olson article, you'll see a link to the AfD debate provided above. GoingBatty (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're trying to buy the book you would probably have more luck on a bookselling site.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion[edit]

Hi There, I am trying to create a page for Nomina Wellness. I understand my first attempt was deleted because it was too promotional. I redid the article and modeled it after the Betty Ford Centre, as Nomina is much like them. I also researched other treatment centres and created an article that is in line with most of them. I once again received a message that the article was going to be deleted. How can I create an article for Nomina Wellness that the moderators will not find too promotional?

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

Regards

jtoller — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtoller (talk • contribs) 22:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtoller: By providing independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the company. Interviews don't count as independent, and directory listings don't count as significant coverage. Also by removing the external links in the body of the article per WP:EL (an official website link in an "External links" section is fine). Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtoller: It also appears that you have an undisclosed paid relationship with this organization. I will post more extensive information on your talk page. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am actually not paid, but am a sober woman who is trying to help them because they helped me. I do technically have a relationship with them then. I am also a new editor, so I am still very confused :-) Jtoller (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Jtoller5. your wish to help them, though laudable, has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia. I imagine that you think, like many people, that an article about them is somehow for their benefit: it is not, except incidentally. An article about them does not belong to them, is not controlled by them, will not necessarily say what they want it to say, and should be based almost entirely on what people unconnected with them have chosen to publish about them (even if some of it is negative or critical), not on what they say or want to say. The existing article is clearly based mostly on what the center says, and is therefore not acceptable as it stands. That is why GoingBatty emphasised independent sources . --ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've assumed good faith, Jtoller, and, instead of deleting the article, have moved it to User:Jtoller/sandbox. I'm in complete agreement with GoingBatty and ColinFine above. However, your first task is to find reliable, independent, published sources about this place. If you don't succeed in this, then no article will be possible, so simply delete the draft from your "sandbox"; if you do succeed, then do what GoingBatty prescribes. (Additionally, decide if the subject's name is "Nomina" or "Nōmina".) -- Hoary (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]