Help desk
< January 9	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 11 >

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.

January 10[edit]

Potential citogenesis incident - what to do?[edit]

Hello.
I have found a potential citogenesis incident at Conclavism. I have described the problem at Talk:Conclavism#Pope Krav?. I do not really know what to do, so I would appreciate if people who have already dealt with those kind of incidents as well as people familiar with the topic of Christianity could give some insight on what to do next.
The topic is extremely niche so I do not expect a discussion to take place on the article's talk page, hence why on top of needing help I opened a thread here.
I am pinging people I saw working on the WP:CITOGENESIS article @Alexis Jazz, Shāntián Tàiláng, NatGertler, Ganesha811, and Tomruen: and users familiar with the topic @Ad Orientem, Pbritti, Inter&anthro, Zfish118, and TheLionHasSeen:. Veverve (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest posting a request for comment at WT:CATHOLIC. You can also request input at WP:RSN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond the suggestions above, I would also promptly remove the material from the article and add a WP:HIDDEN note describing the issue and asking people not to re-add the info without a reliable, pre-Wiki source. You could also add a a note to the list of citogenesis episodes. Finally, nice work on figuring this one out - citogenesis is hard to detect and basically impossible to prove beyond doubt. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811: Information removed, invisible comments added. I am waiting for more inputs before doing anything else. Veverve (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Ganesha811. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article rejection[edit]

can you plz publish my article. its genuine person. The source I have provided is valuable. Plz Help me. its urgent PlzAnjaleenaneethu (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The notices on your talk page clearly state why the article in your sandbox is not suitable. The help desk can't fix that for you. You may feel it is urgent, but from Wikipedia's perspective, it is not. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anjaleenaneethu, the first four references clearly derive from him, and so do not contribute to his notability. The last two have only passing mentions of him, and so do not contribute to his notability. I'm not sure about the Malayalam one: I think it is just a passing mention as well, but there may be more. Either way, one source is not enough. Please understand that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. Find at least three sources that meet the criteria of being reliably published, independent of Manohar, and having significant coverage of him, or you will be wasting your time and everybody else's. --ColinFine (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean?[edit]

So, on this articles's talk page, there's this message from the Committee authorizing, as I quote "uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan..." What does it mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:2D01:51E8:5DA8:6146:EA0C:6F6F (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AC/DS for more information on discretionary sanctions as a whole. (There's really no way to CliffsNotes it without losing a lot of nuance, but the gist of it is that admins may administer sanctions, whether on articles or specific users, that effectively are Arbitration sanctions that cannot easily be challenged or appealed.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 05:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Bros. Family Entertainment[edit]

Hello. I'm ZX2006XZ. A few months ago, I discovered that Warner Bros. Family Entertainment did not have an article anymore, now a redirect to Warner Bros. instead. I tried to restore the article a few times (See here and here) only to be warned that I would be blocked from editing if I kept trying to restore the article to its former glory (see my talk page). Is there a reason why the Warner Bros. Family Entertainment article does not exist anymore, almost as if the label of Warner Bros itself never existed? ZX2006XZ (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ZX2006XZ. The article had no independent references whatever, and so was useless as an article. If you believe that Warner Bros Family Entertainment is notable on its own, I suggest you create it anew as a draft using articles for creation: when you submit it for review, the editor who accepts it will handle the redirection. You need to start by finding at least three reliable sources, wholly independent of any Warner Bros company, that contain significant coverage of WBFE specifically. If you cannot, you will know that it does not meet the notability requirement, and a separate article is not possible. (I am deliberately using the present, because whether or not it meets the criteria for notability is a question for right now). --ColinFine (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To add to my reply, ZX2006XZ: if you do decide to do this, you may copy material from previous versions of what is now the redirect, but must say in the edit summary where it came from (see Copying within Wikipedia. But, while I haven't looked at that former article, generally writing an article without finding and using the sources is like building the roof of a house without preparing the ground or building foundations, and it's probably better to start from scratch, summarising what the independent sources you find say. --ColinFine (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Table issue[edit]

...at Orders of magnitude (magnetic field) where the 45 T entry is offset relative to the preceding 38 T one. I couldn't fix it myself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed rowspan.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request edits[edit]

I don't know who originally put my details up on Wikipedia - I am a published author/scriptwriter - but the details need to be updated. How do I do this please? Is there a third party I can turn to?

Thanks David Gilman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gilman_(writer)

88.97.62.209 (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for asking nstead of attempting to edt the page yourself – whch might not go well... To propose changes, please see Template:Request edit whch provides instructons for how to proceed. Please come back here if you encounter any issues. Eagleash (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! You can go to the David Gilman (writer) article and click on the "View history" tab to see all the editors who contributed to the article about you. You can also use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard to suggest improvements to the article. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to the excellent advice you've been given already, I wanted to mention a pitfall, which is that, perhaps surprisingly, you are not, in Wikipedia terms, necessarily a "Reliable Source" for your own information. The policies on Verifiability and so on mean that even though I might know perfectly well that I am 27 years old (ahem) and my dog's name is Steve, because the article is about me and obviously I know these facts, that is probably not enough to let anyone else verify my claims, and the average reader doesn't know me from Adam so I might just be making them up and I might not really be 27 and my dog might be called Ethel. But if the Guardian had published a lovely profile of me, my novels and CDs and award-winning jazz club/restaurant then, yep, there is my reliable source and I can quote it and a challenge is most unlikely. Or whatevs. Hope this helps, best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Draft Tag From Article[edit]

Hello! I recently created this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lillian_DeBaptiste but I forgot to remove draft from the title and add the middle initial "L"! Could someone please make these changes and also make "Lillian DeBaptiste" redirect there as well. Thanks! Tim--Physeters (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Physeters: Hi there! Wikipedia's notability criteria for politicians allows for articles about "[m]ajor local political figures who have received significant press coverage" but "[j]ust being an elected local official... does not guarantee notability". I think it may be too soon for an article about her based on the references you provided in your draft. After you add more significant coverage and you're ready to have the draft reviewed, add {{subst:submit}} to the top to submit it into the Articles for Creation process. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: Thanks for the reply! Should the page be down for now until more substantial sources are found or should it be left up? And what type of mentions should count as "significant coverage?" Stuff like being mentioned in multiple non local newspapers/TV stations? I'm VERY new at editing. Thanks!--Physeters (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts that are actively edited may remain. Drafts are deleted after six months of inactivity(though even then they can be restored). 331dot (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Physeters. A thousand "mentions" don't add up to a single significant coverage. --ColinFine (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an easy way to use different usernames on different wikis?[edit]

If I want to use different usernames on different wikis (e.g., the username "EnglishWikipedian321" on en-wiki and the username "ItalianWikipedian123" on it-wiki), is there any way to:

1) Edit both wikis at the same time without having to log out and in constantly between those two accounts? Or just:
2) Disable the unified login?

85.76.142.167 (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can use different browsers. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That works, but it's not very convenient. But that got me thinking that maybe it's possible to block login data interchange between two wikis (en-wiki <-> it-wiki) with some browser extension or something like that? 85.76.142.167 (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also brought this up at the Community Wishlist Survey. I asked if they could make the unified login togglable. 85.76.142.167 (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]