Help desk
< March 10	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 12 >

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.

March 11

Convert an entry

I created the entry on Thomas Adam Regelski and was not familiar with the biography layout. I now realize the biography layout would be the better choice but have not been able to figure out how to convert the entry I created into a biography page. Can you help me figure this out?

--Kruguitarz (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kruguitarz: As far as I know, we to not have any explicit sample layouts for a "biography". Take a look at several articles on similar subjects and find one whose layout you think is appropriate (Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_academic is a list of possible pages). Next, make a note of what you are about to do at Talk:Thomas Adam Regelski and add the {{under construction}} template at the top of Thomas Adam Regelski. itself. Make incremental changes to the article to bring it gradually closer to the layout you picked as an example. You will probably start by adding an "infobox", possibly {{Infobox academic}}, Then add section headings to form the articles outline, and finally move the current material into your new sections. As soon as the massive rearrangement is complete, remove the {{under construction}} from the article and note this milestone on the talk page. Remaining work can then proceed as normal editing. -Arch dude (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kruguitarz: You might be interested in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography, specifically the "Lead section" and "Order of events" sections.

In the Regelski article, the whole "Music as Social Praxis" seems inappropriate. The article should be about Regelski, not multiple paragraphs about social praxis. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The long section Thomas_Adam_Regelski#Music_as_Social_Praxis appears to be an essay, with little relevance to the subject of the article. It only mentions Regelski once, in an unreferenced paragraph. Maproom (talk) 08:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sample: A praxical mindfulness of music instead recognizes the ongoing value of musics as serving the sociality that is a central trait of humans Being human through their sociability, their social interactions with each other. I can't actually parse this sentence as a whole, yet it seems to distil Exceedingly Deep Thought. -- Hoary (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing a profile

I want to publish on Wikipedia, the profile of a well-known educator from Pakistan.

No profile of her exists on Wikipedia presently. I am writing one with pictures and references from published material in local (Pakistan's)newspapers and magazines and previous published and unpublished pictures on her personal achievements, awards, and citations.

What are the basic requisites for publishing on Wikipedia? To whom I should send the article (or writeup)?

Please respond back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulazizansari (talk • contribs) 02:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulazizansari Wikipedia does not have "profiles", not a single one. Wikipedia has articles. You are welcome to submit a draft article at Articles for creation, if this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Abdulazizansari: please start by convincing yourself that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability requirements (WP:N). Do this before putting any effort into writing the article. If your subject is not notable we will delete your article and your efforts will be wasted. Once you are sure, take a look at several Wikipedia articles on similar educators to see what an article should look line. Then, go to WP:YFA to begin writing your article. -Arch dude (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May you please inform me of any issues on the article for North Toronto Christian School?

Few other editors have edited the article for my school. I would like to make sure the article is in good shape. In the past, I removed large amounts of promotional content from the article, and took and added a photo. Can someone please help me look it over and tag any issues that are on the page, please? Thanks! Félix An (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Félix An: My biggest concern is that I do not see enough references of the correct sort to establish notability. Please try to find such references, or someone may come along and nominate the article for deletion. See WP:NCORP and WP:CSMN. Otherwise, it looks pretty good. However even an otherwise perfect article on a non-notable subject will eventually be deleted. -Arch dude (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Félix An: I've cleaned up the references a bit. Reference #4 is a dead link. Is NTCS still a member of ACSI? I don't see the school listed on https://acsiec.org/member-schools GoingBatty (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect weirdness

I clicked on a wikilink to neotropical birds (at Towerkill) and ended up at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. That doesn't seem right at all, but I'm mostly clueless about redirects so I'm not sure how to fix it. I did adjust the link in the article to (I hope) point somewhere more logical. Can a more experienced Wikipedian fill me in on what to do about the strange redirect? If anything? Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 03:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikignome Wintergreen: Looks like neotropical birds originally redirected to Neotropical Birds Online, an online encyclopedia project sponsored by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. When the Neotropical Birds Online article was redirected to Cornell Lab of Ornithology in this edit, that meant that neotropical birds now leads you to Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Your edit to Towerkill looks good to me, so I've changed neotropical birds to also redirect to Neotropical realm#Endemic animals and plants, and confirmed that there are no articles that link to neotropical birds. Thanks for the report! GoingBatty (talk) 04:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! What an odd sequence of events. I'll file away how you did the redirect-switch-thing for future reference. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 04:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikignome Wintergreen: Neotropical birds was the original title of the former article Neotropical Birds Online. It was moved in 2009 and redirected to Cornell Lab of Ornithology in 2020. See WP:EDRED if you don't know how to edit redirects. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you too. I mostly stick to basic copyediting, but I'm trying to slowly expand my knowledge into other, scarier areas of the Wikipedia jungle. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 13:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing undiscussed move AGAIN

A user changed draft name from Super straight (sexual orientation) to Super straight without any discussion for the second time.

These changes were reverted by more experienced user yesterday and now it happened again.

Please undo this change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Super_straight

Also, another reason is that article with such a name already exists - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Straight — Preceding unsigned comment added by UkraineQueer (talk • contribs) 07:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done as requested. (The pre-existing article name differs only in capitalisation.) Maproom (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi

hello, if my edit is reverted and I think that's a mistake, how should I proceed?

For eg- the article says "However, Sides Three and Four sort of grab you by the throat." This is wrong english it should be "However, Sides Three and Four sorts of grab you by the throat." OR However, Sides Three and Four sort of grabs you by the throat.

I made changes , but it was reverted back. Also In most cases they're 10 times better." I changed it to In most cases, they're 10 times better." was reverted back.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratss31 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

@Pratss31: immediately after you were warned on your user talk page about 4 bad edits, you made another one: [1]. Explanations on your talk page.

"Sort of grab" was 100% grammatically correct. Check the expression "sort of" in a dictionary. And it was said in a quoted sentence. If/when you think your edits were ok, the way to proceed is on your user talk page where you received the messages.

~~Furthermore, the top of this page says; "IMPORTANT NOTE: DO NOT ASK QUESTIONS HERE, unless they are about the help desk itself.~~ - DVdm (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DVdm you probably owe this user an apology. This is the correct place to ask questions. I found most of the "bad edits" to be at least in good faith, and a few to be suitable. However, Pratss31, if we are citing a quote, we write down (misspellings and all) for these works. I'll expand a little on your talk in a bit Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: ~~The question was about how to proceed when one thinks someone made a mistake. It was clearly not about the help desk itself.~~ - DVdm (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pratss31 and Lee Vilenski: Ouch! Big apologies. I thought we were on the talk page.

Facepalm . - DVdm (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request from Burma

         Hello from Myanmar. I am an ordinary student from Burma. The military terrorists are blocking access to Wikipedia.

That's why we can't access directly Wikipedia from Myanmar. When we access through VPN and proxy, we can't edit because of Wikipedia's policy. Please, can someone help to fix this situation?

Thanks and regards, Thura Linn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kodualzaw (talk • contribs) 14:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kodualzaw, I'm sorry to hear that this is happening, but I'm not sure that we are capable of doing anything to address this situation. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 15:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kodualzaw. I'm not sure if we can do anything about this, but the problem is mentioned at WP:Open proxies#Rationale, and there are links in that section to a couple of pages which might help you. --ColinFine (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kodualzaw It's not much, but perhaps Block_of_Wikipedia_in_Turkey#Circumvention can give you some inspiration. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not sure what the exact granting practices in such cases are, users who need to use proxies to circumvent government censorship may request IP block exemption by emailing checkuser-en-wp

wikipedia.org – the details are at WP:IPECPROXY. Depending on how the blocks are implemented, changing your DNS server may also work – consider using DNS over HTTPS as well. I hope this helps. --Blablubbs|talk 22:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Hevesi Photograph

Good morning. The first picture that pops up in Wikipedia when you search Alan Hevesi is not Alan Hevesi it's former Eastchester Town Supervisor Jim Cavanaugh. Mr. Cavanaugh is wearing a blue coat with a brown leather lapel blue shirt with rust colored collar dark blue tie with oval designs and eyeglasses. Please remove this picture. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61unclestan (talk • contribs) 16:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

61unclestan the image was removed at 15.34, but is still showing on a Google search, which will presumably get updated at some point. TSventon (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Elizabeth of Great Britain

Please note:

Queen Elizabeth is the I (first) of Great Britain and she is Queen Elizabeth ii of England ONLY. The SCOTTISH King James VI JOINED the crowns of: Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales. He became JAMES the first (I). This infuriates most Scots. Scots are a Nation in their own right NOT a part or region, of England!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.188.24 (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please raise this issue on the talk pages of the appropriate articles. Make specific suggestions for changes to the articles, and provide references. -Arch dude (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Her WP:COMMONNAME is Elizabeth II- no sources used Elizabeth I to refer to the current monarch. So that should be the article title. And nowhere in the article does it refer to her as the second Queen Elizabeth of Scotland. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issues related to Scottish nationalism and their relationship with the UK or England will not be solved here; this is why we focus on what independent reliable sources state. If you have such sources, please do as asked above. 331dot (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the interest (curiosity) of any disinterested (uninvolved) bystanders, the following is extracted from our article Regnal name:

"Upon the accession, in 1952, of Elizabeth II the title Elizabeth II caused controversy in Scotland as there had never been a Scottish Elizabeth I. The Prime Minister Winston Churchill informed the British House of Commons that the practice since the Union was to use the higher numeral . . . . A legal case, MacCormick v. Lord Advocate (1953 SC 396), contested the right of the Queen to title herself Elizabeth II in Scotland, arguing that to do so would be a breach of the Act of Union. The case, however, was lost on the grounds that the pursuers had no title to sue the Crown, and also that the numbering of monarchs was part of the royal prerogative, and thus not governed by the Act of Union.

Winston Churchill suggested that British sovereigns would use either the English or the Scottish number, whichever was higher. For example, as there has been a James VII of Scotland but only a James II of England, a future King James of the United Kingdom would be James VIII."

{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.75.168 (talk)

Hester Diamond photo gallery

Hi. I can't figure out how to arrange the photos vertically on the left side of the Hester Diamond article; I've been trying for at least an hour and my dyslexia has kicked in. Maybe you can just do it for me! Smiley face. Thank you. JSFarman (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JSFarman Is this what you were going for? Frankly, I think it looked better the way you had it before. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 23:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ONUnicorn, you were right. I enlarged them a bit and put them back at the bottom of the page. AND! Memorized your code. Thank you thank you thank you! JSFarman (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticism" paragraph

I use Wikipedia constantly and have also donated to the service frequently. Recently I have noticed a disturbing heading that seems to accompany otherwise excellent entries: the "Criticism" paragraph.

These only seem to appear when a) an individual or organization takes centrist or center-right views; or b) an individual or organization supports Biblical Christianity.

This is neither a scholarly nor an impartial approach to the sharing of knowledge. If it is necessary to have such a paragraph - and incidentally, the 'criticism' is always negative - the 'critic' should state his or her name. Also, and this should be obvious, ALL entries that deal with important individuals or organizations need a "criticism" paragraph, regardless of their position on the political or religious spectrum.

Otherwise, Wikipedia is in danger of shrinking into another leftist mouthpiece masquerading as a legitimate knowledge service.

Thank you for considering these ideas. LM, California

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.68.113 (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism or controversy sections have long been a controversial part of some Wikipedia articles. See this page about the practice. In general, it's better to integrate negative and positive information in the article, but sometimes a dedicated section is warranted, and at any rate, the practice isn't going away soon. It also isn't limited to individuals or organizations with center right views or Christian views (I'm not sure what you mean by "Biblical Christianity"). It could be that you notice it more in those articles because you read more of those articles and are primed to notice it by the culture of persecution that has been intentionally fostered by the American right in recent years. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of articles with a Criticism section that are not political or religious: a quick search found Actor–network theory, Outline of Google, Environment Agency, Top Gear (series 17), Elections in Russia, Jay Leno and more. I agree that any items in the Criticism section should be accompanied by a reference that states the critic's name (or reliable source of the criticism). GoingBatty (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is worldfootball.com reliable?

Is it reliable? Dr Salvus (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Salvus, worldfootball.com do not exist or at least it redirects to a personal blog. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

worldfootball.com redirects to https://www.football-data.org/. If you mean worldfootball.net, then I believe that is reliable, and we have a template for citing from it: Template:WorldFootball.net. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to remove page from draft status

Hi,

I am attempting to update a page that is in Draft Status due to paid content. Previous contributors on this page have been banned for not disclosing payments. I, however, am not being paid, have no conflict of interest with the subject at hand and am compiling the page to Wikipedia standards. Why am I still being threatened with bans and not given the opportunity to update the page? Although I am not being paid, I am willing to submit any necessary disclosures.

I understand the need to remove paid contributors in order to maintain the objectivity standards of wikipedia. What I have seen in recent days goes beyond maintaining the standards of wikipedia. Is there anything I can do to publish a page that I believe deserves to be shared with the world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmartinkov (talk • contribs) 22:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Courtesy link: Draft:Spencer Moeller)

You were told when you came into IRC the other day that even if the page hadn't been edited solely by paid editors that the sourcing just plain doesn't exist. Did you not pay any sort of attention? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 22:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mmartinkov I'm curious as to how you found the draft and/or were aware of its existence; drafts are not easy to find unless you know about them. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind response. I pay attention to all individuals who respond to my inquiries.

To answer your questions:

I came across Spencer Moeller through his youtube page. I found his journey to be inspirational and believe he is a notable figure in professional soccer.
I would like to add new sources but was told not to make any more edits by mods. According to the chat you referenced, a newspaper article should suffice as a source. I have multiple that I would like to use as sources.

Mmartinkov (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mmartinkov. I'm not sure who told you not to make any more edits. Certainly you can add sources, but bear in mind that to establish notability they need to be not just reliable, but also independent, and contain significant coverage of the subject. An article in a major newspaper is usually reliable (though not necessarily a local paper), but if it is evidently based on an interview or press release, then it is not independent. I notice you have explained why you are interested in Moeller, but you haven't answered the question of how you came to find the draft. Drafts are not indexed by search engines, and within Wikipedia you won't find them unless you specifically say to search in draft space. --ColinFine (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me, though I can guess as to why he would think I said so. As I said above, this user was in wikipedia-en-help a couple days ago, wanting to get the UPE tag removed from it, so I also assessed the sources available on the draft and did a quick WP:BEFORE search. None of the sources on the draft help for notability (whether WP:N or WP:NFOOTY) and I found nothing in a Google search that would help for notability either. I advised them that even if the draft's history weren't essentially populated by paid editors that there weren't any sources, whether on the draft or elsewhere, to work with at this time. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 23:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. Just a note: While Mmartinkov's situation may seem a bit fishy, I encountered them earlier today at the Teahouse, where they were kindly asking for areas of Wikipedia were in need of assistance. This is the link. I believe that their intentions are true. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 23:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the feedback and the discussion that has arisen from my case. It is one that I believe the community should be having as it refines its governance policies. As someone who has donated to Wikipedia in the past and understands the importance of keeping our platform bias free, I do not believe (legitimate) articles should permanently banned with no appeals process for a harmless transgression. Moeller's story is one that deserves to be shared - there should be a remediation process for cases like this.

To answer your questions:

I found the page after Moeller mentioned in one of his instagram reels that his Wikipedia page had been taken down. Based on my prior experience with wikipedia, I knew it was likely placed in draft status.
Here is a link to to a moderator threatening to ban me if I edit the page before responding to his message: User talk:Mmartinkov#March 2021
I will update the page now - the updates will include the addition of newspaper articles on Moeller which should be deemed as reliable.

Mmartinkov (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Moeller's story is one that deserves to be shared" is rather telling of your objectives here. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 23:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, you refer to Praxidicae as a moderator. Wikipedia doesn't have formal moderators, and Praxidicae is not an administrator. Anyone on Wikipedia is free to warn anyone else about behavior they feel is inappropriate. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 23:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted evidence to arbcom based on off wiki evidence of this users paid edition status. CUPIDICAE💕 23:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given @Praxidicae tone when posting on my user page, I assumed he was the Wikipedia Sheriff. The article we are discussing contains no opinions and I am a third party contributor. Could someone please advise me on how to contact administration or the arbcom? Mmartinkov (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a he. But no need to contact Arbcom, I’ve already done so for you. :) CUPIDICAE💕 00:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone point me in the right direction? Many thanks! Mmartinkov (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mmartinkov: Having seen the off-wiki evidence, the right direction would be foundation:Terms of Use/en#4. Refraining from Certain Activities no. 7, as well as WP:PAID and WP:COVERT. That doesn't seem to be what you're looking for however – to answer your question directly: Means to contact arbcom can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Contacting the Committee. Blablubbs|talk 14:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: In an unsurprising and well-timed turn of events, OP has now been blocked for UPE. Blablubbs|talk 14:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With that addressed and given the only non-UPE edits are by MER-C (and they're moving the article to draft and tagging it), could we get some eyes on the draft and its articlespace counterpart (Spencer Moeller)? This is no less than the fourth/fifth UPE to edit that page, and given the subject seems hellbent on having a Wikipedia article on his terms we need to be a bit more aggressive with this. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 20:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is WP:BEFORE a guideline that applies to non-article deletions?

I.e. Categories, files, miscellany etc.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No - the fact WP:BEFORE is a shortcut to a section on WP:Articles for deletion makes this clear. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 23:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other processes have their own guidance, e.g. WP:FfD has a section on "What not to list here".

In AfD discussions, a WP:BEFORE check generally means doing a "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability". This is only relevant to AfD as notability is not a criterion for other XfD deletions. TSventon (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]