Help desk
< May 25	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 27 >

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 26[edit]

Mrbeast in notable people[edit]

Mrbeast or Jimmy Donaldson should be added under notable people in Greenville North Carolina 2604:2D80:E609:5B00:CC8:33F0:93B8:7778 (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Greenville, North Carolina#Notable people. He seems to be already there. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it say[edit]

I really want to know why, why can´t I just change that. Entwicklung europäischer Großstädte II (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi StrongALPHA
Firstly, let's make your question readable - your title should say Why does it say 
Secondly, you did not say which article, but I assume it is Richard Wagner ?
If so, please read the 5 (lengthy) discussions at Talk:Richard Wagner - to access these, put infobox in the Archive search box. If, having read these, you wish to continue the discussion, please do so at Talk:Richard Wagner- Arjayay (talk) 10:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I´m sure that you can see my question on the Talk Page there, so the answer to your question is yes. I´m afraid I don´t know how to access the Archive Search box, although I am aware of the option to view the history of the page, can you please explain to me how to access the archive? StrongALPHA (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the desktop view, if you go to the talk page, you will see near the top a list of archive links and a search box. If you are on the app or mobile browser view, I don't think you can get that: you'll need to switch to Desktop view. ColinFine (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

StrongALPHA, the discussion resulted in a lack of consensus. The balance of opinion may have changed in the last ten years. If you reopen the discussion, I expect you'll find there's more support for infoboxes now, even in classical music articles. Maproom (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of Rome[edit]

In the "Roman Republic" paragraph, could someone tell me (and maybe put it right) what happened here? "Also a formal treaty with the city of Carthage is reported to have been made in the end of the 6th century BC, which defined the spheres of influence of each city and regulated the trade between them.

At the same time, Heraclides stated that 4th-century Rome was a Greek city (Plut. Cam. 22).

Rome's early enemies were the neighbouring hill tribes of the Volscians, the Aequi, and of course the Etruscans. As years passed and military successes increased Roman territory, new adversaries appeared. The fiercest were the Gauls, a loose collective of peoples who controlled much of Northern Europe including what is modern North and Central-East Italy.". JackkBrown (talk) 11:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jackk. I have no idea at all what it is that "happened" or needs to be "put right". Please clarify. ColinFine (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine: I don't know; I just know that this part, visually, is messy. JackkBrown (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some blank lines, does it look better? TSventon (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: yes, much better! JackkBrown (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem with "Can somebody fix this?" posts - often, what is obvious to the poster is not obvious to somebody else. ColinFine (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine: exactly, you're right. JackkBrown (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown I saw the problem created by the extra blank lines but didn't remove them because I couldn't figure out what the "At the same time" was all about. How can a statement about 4th-century Rome be made at the same time as something going on at the end of the 6th century (in the previous paragraph)? Unfortunately, none of this part seems to be cited so one could work out what is supposed to be meant. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Section link does not consistently link to any section[edit]

Dear everybody--

I'm trying to link to a specific section on a different page. I think I've got the formatting right, because I tested it when the editor showed me preview mode, and it worked! But then, once I had published the change, the section link sent me to a random point in a different section.
Is it just a problem with my hardware, or is it displaying that way for everyone? Am I making some boneheaded error in the markup?

Is it just a problem with my hardware, or is it displaying that way for everyone? Am I making some boneheaded error in the markup?
For reference, this is the page and section into which I have inserted the link: User:LegesFundamentales/Separation_of_powers_(userspace_draft)#Constitutional_monarchy

Thanks! §§ LegFun §§ talk §§ 14:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It works for me. It doesn't put the heading "Constitutional monarchy" right at the top of the window, but near the top. ColinFine (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erm - I thought he was trying to link to Grand_Burgher#Hierarchy (piped from behind bourgeois class in the section "Constitutional monarchy") but that works every time for me in any case, straight to the top of the section. - Arjayay (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LegFun it may be a caching issue - please read and follow Wikipedia:Bypass your cache and see if that clears it - Arjayay (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are two section links in User:LegesFundamentales/Separation of powers (userspace draft)#Constitutional monarchy: bourgeois class and newly ascendant. Both are correctly formatted (spaces are preferred but underscores work) and take me to the right place in Firefox. If a page has collapsible content before a section then a section link may go to a wrong place in some browsers which position you a fixed distance from the top of the page before collapsing or expanding content. The second link has a sidebar with collapsible sections. In desktop browsers you can usually go to the right place by clicking in the address bar and pressing enter. This also works if you have manually scrolled away and want to go back. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to all who replied. Now that I'm on my desktop device, it works fine for me as well. I'll see if I can resolve the issue I had on mobile with the cache bypass. In any case, it's fine as long as everyone else will be directed to the section about late-modern bourgeois revolutions. (It's not an ideal article to link, but English Wikipedia's coverage of the intricacies of social class in 19th century Germany are a bit thin.)

§§ LegFun §§ talk §§ 17:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LegesFundamentales, you could mention the appropriate German term and/or link to de Wikipedia if the en Wikipedia link is not very useful. TSventon (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking specific feedback on a deleted article[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Help Desk,

Thank you for everything you do. At your convenience, I would like to better understand why my latest article—entitled “Glen Hiemstra”—was removed via speedy deletion. I am a long-time publisher of Wikipedia content who never previously encountered this scenario, thus your response will prove instructive for me.

Hiemstra, the subject of my article, is a notable futurist, and, as such, conformed with my efforts to bring more awareness to the futurist profession and the study of futurism. However, the article was apparently deleted on the basis that “the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic.” No further detail was given, and I have difficulty reconciling that comment with the article I created.

I applaud Wikipedia’s commitment to avoiding promotional content, and, for that reason, I approach my writing with a commitment to explicit neutrality. As with all of my past publications, the Hiemstra article conspicuously avoided such terms as “renowned,” “leading,” “lauded,” “accomplished”, etc., and only featured content that could be judiciously sourced. (Indeed, nearly every sentence of this article featured a citation to a high-quality source.) While I described the subject’s correct anticipation of information technology trends in the 1980s, this was only to demonstrate the importance of the subject within the futurist field, thus seeking to conform to Wikipedia’s notability standard.

Other portions of the article described Hiemstra’s philosophy and procedure in an objective, sourced manner, once more avoiding conspicuous praise. A section on media appearances was meant to demonstrate the areas in which the subject has been consulted, again in the interest of demonstrating notability, and again with a tone of strict reportage.

I’m fully willing to accept that despite my best efforts, the article unintentionally ran afoul of Wikipedia’s standards. I only wish to understand what portions of the article were deemed promotional. I believe the field of futurism to be an important area, and, correspondingly, I feel Wikipedia’s readers would benefit from an enhanced understanding of futurism’s practitioners. If I can receive any additional feedback about how to better facilitate that goal, I would greatly appreciate it.

I saved the article in its source-text form prior to deletion, and can provide it for review if requested. I would like to make another attempt at publication, but will wait to hear from you first.

Thank you for your time and for helping me be a better contributor to the Wikipedia community.Mbochart (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cc Seraphimblade and FatalFit, who deleted Glen Hiemstra and tagged for deletion respectively. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery — I marked the article for G11 speedy deletion. I believe @Seraphimblade is the one that deleted it. Dylan | ✉ | ✓ 15:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mbochart: There's a draft that you started very recently, so I'm going to assume that that's the content that was in mainspace. The article in mainspace was deleted under the G11 criterion, and it seems your idea of what constitutes as promotional writing differs greatly with the encyclopedia. There's a lot of editorialising (e.g., More broadly) and usage of words that I'd expect to see in ad copy (e.g., A professional futurist with a career spanning several decades, Hiemstra writes and speaks to organizations seeking clues for envisioning, adapting, surviving, and thriving in the future; emphasis mine). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Describing a person as an innovation specialist is going to draw skepticism and heightened scrutiny from reviewers. It's vapid and promotional and not encyclopedic. Nobody would describe Thomas Edison that way. Cullen328 (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, everyone, for the feedback you've provided so far. I want to make sure I follow protocol for the talk page. What would be best? Should I respond to comments separately (e.g. respond to Cullen328 in one thread and Tenryuu in another, or respond collectively if and when more comments come through? Mbochart (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)To the above, I would add the general tone. It starts out A professional futurist with a career spanning several decades, Hiemstra writes and speaks to organizations seeking clues for envisioning, adapting, surviving, and thriving in the future, as an example. That's marketese straight out of a brochure, and it goes on and on like that. And a lot of it is trying to make him out to be some kind of oracle for stating, well, the blazingly obvious: In a December 2020 interview, Hiemstra predicted a correlation between COVID vaccination rates and the widespread return of U.S. employees to the office environment (ya think? Will he predict that heavy rains might cause floods next?), and has urged companies to employ smart strategies, products, and services to handle the large amounts of data that result from widespread digitization. (And here everyone else was advising them to employ dumb strategies; what a revelation.), as some examples but by no means an exhaustive list. So, instead of just being a collection of quotes or interviews (which are not independent), an article should be based upon what reliable and independent sources said about him, not what he said. If there isn't a substantial quantity of such material about him, he's not an appropriate subject for an article at all. If there is, stick to what those sources actually confirm was significant, and write about it in a neutral tone and manner. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. Mbochart (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is semi-protection viable for a page in this scenario or just keep reverting edits?[edit]

I cannot seem to prevent an individual(s) from IP addresses performing edits, adding themselves as a mayor for a page for an unincorporated community that is ran by a township board of trustees. I have to keep removing this entry that the person keeps adding back in over the course of a year or so. This to make sure information on the page for the community is factually correct. Please advise and thanks. Boojiejuice (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Boojiejuice I'd request protection, they usually only do it for vandalism that is hard to keep up with and this sounds like one of those cases. WP:RPP. Dylan | ✉ | ✓ 16:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response is appreciated. Will attempt Pending Changes/Semi-Protection status of page going forward. Thank you. Boojiejuice (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone defaming me on my Talk Page[edit]

A person has come to my talk page and called me a racist, a fascist and anti-Turkish and claims I am racist in every article about Turkey, and demand I should be banned. They have deleted it from current view, it could have been seen by thousands of people, it is still in the page history, so could be seen by thousands of people. Turkey is not a subject I have interest in, so no idea what every Turkey articles are? There might be an occasion overlap with my Roman Empire interest, I assume the person reacted in an extreme defaming manner due to me commenting on the Edirne article, as I had searched for Adrianople and been directed there, I asked about why there is no Adrianople article. It is a very common name seen when reading about Roman Empire history.

They said: (Redacted)

There was also user Dudhher in my notifications, that comment was completely gone, so I don't know how severe it was? Seems likely they are also 37.155.84.69 ? Middle More Rider (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Middle More Rider I'm afraid you are likely to find you have triggered a Streisand effect by posting here at the Help Desk. The better venue is WP:ANI, using WP:DIFFS of the objectionable posts. Judging by the IP editors Talk Page, they are only a whisker away from a block already. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull I (nearly) had the same experience when I saw that some accounts were trying to vandalize my userpage (one was an IP, the other was an editor who seemingly tried to retaliate after I reported them for vandalism/disruptive editing). If you can help with this, where is the right place to ask for more protections on my page? It may not be needed right now, but it's always nice to have.

@Middle More Rider I think you can delete the comment if you want, as that's what someone suggested to me a while back when I was in your position. Hope this helps! Losipov (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Middle More Rider: You can try emailing WP:OVERSIGHT about this. It's probably much faster than ANI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... but a little late, given this thread! That's what the Streisand effect is all about. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a little late, but starting a discussion about such a thing at ANI only seems to further the "Streisand effect". -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, to everyone who replied, I really appreciate the help. I will look into the suggestions, as mentioned though, I don't want masses more people to see what I don't want anyone to see???

Middle More Rider (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did try to send a request to oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org. but my email said it is a bad email address and would not send it.

Middle More Rider (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Middle More Rider for antispam purposes, most email adresses are obfuscated slightly to Prevent bots from easely recognizing them. Not all email adress programs can handle that, most often you have to type the Adress manually. Its oversight-en-wp

wikipedia.org. Dudhhr most likely has nothing to do with this, looking at the page history they were the one to revert the 37.x.x.x IP (reverts also trigger notifications) Victor Schmidt (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Middle More Rider: Did you click on the "email the oversight team" link at the top of WP:OVERSIGHT? If you're unable to use that link and directly emailing them as suggested above by Victor Schmidt doesn't work. You can try emailing one of the oversighers listed at WP:OVERSIGHT#Users with oversight permissions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

problems with conformation e-mail[edit]

When opening the account I cannot confirm my e-mail address. I cannot get a confirmation code. Anna Bujarska Anna Helena Bujarska (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comma or not?[edit]

On some pages, when there are several jobs, I have noticed that there is a comma between the penultimate and last job; on other pages, however, such as "Rocco Siffredi", this comma is not present. I would like to know whether it's correct to add it or not (I know it's a subtlety, but it's better to be as precise as possible than to be less so). JackkBrown (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown: Either is correct, as long as it is consistent within the article. See MOS:SERIAL RudolfRed (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JackkBrown. You seem to be asking about the Serial comma (also known as the "Oxford comma"). You'll find some information on how Wikipedia treats said comma at MOS:OXFORD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]