Help desk
< December 15	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 17 >

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.

December 16

Qrep2020

I feel like my suggestions and edits are very reasonable and well-intended and actually deal with violations of BLP policies! But this guy, Qrep2020, reverts my editions without any comments and doesn't seem to care about BLP policies. Sometimes he says there is no consensus, but I try to bring the issues up on the talk page, but he refuses to participate in any dialogue. I have looked through the archives, and I can't find anything that should oppose my recent contributions on the Elon Musk page except adding "entrepreneur" in the lead which there actually seemed to be a consensus on in the archive should be removed because it was implicitly understood in the term "business magnate" - something that I have objected to on the current talk page as well. Otherwise, I can't understand why he is never willing to enter a dialogue. Not even his comments on the talk page suggest that he is willing to enter any dialogue. He rarely puts arguments and reflections forward, but he just says "agree/disagree" (with his own words). I have seen he has been banned before from Elon Musk page https://www.reddit.com/r/elonmusk/comments/u86csy/guys_we_succeeded_qrep2020_is_now_indefinitely/ and I clearly understand why.

What can I/we do here? Jatlin1 (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only single purpose account here is you. You've only edited Elon Musk and its talk page. There is no consensus for your additions. ~ HAL333 02:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both me and and Slatersteven agrees on that the plane story is trivia (at least for now or in the context). Qrep2020 has reverted them without making any comment. Consensus was made on Adolf Hitler comparison that information about Canada convoy protests should be included. You removed the information without any consensus on the other hand! And without any comments too! Gadde Vijaya editions were good-faith work by Anythingyouwant and nothing on the talk pages oppose it. Please read WP:EDITCON carefully, and make explanations on reversions of good-faith work, instead of deleting them without context, or come forward on the talk page.

You can't call me a single purpose account because I have made contributions to Wikipedia in 2 weeks. You don't seem to understand the concerns of SPA's either which are outlined in that article you linked me. Read them and apply them on me with concrete evidence instead questioning my motives without any evidence. Jatlin1 (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One other person isn't a consensus lol. If you want to continue with these grievances, take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Otherwise, discuss the issue on Talk:Elon Musk and gain consensus. Stop being disruptive. ~ HAL333 02:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One other person (2) is definitely better than one person or no persons. Also, mind Explanations are especially important when reverting another editor's good-faith work..

I don't see this from Qrep2020 - that's why I wrote "[...] or no persons" above because I'm not sure whether QRep2020 even agrees on, disagrees on, or what the hell his stance is sometimes, or that his purpose is just to be destructive?

Otherwise, discuss the issue on Talk:Elon Musk and gain consensus. Stop being disruptive.

I have brought all these issues up on the Talk page already - but QRep2020 doesn't wanna engage in any dialogue, and he doesn't wanna find a solution that take all interests into account. Some of the issues deal with clear violation of Wikipedia policies, but you don't give a shit. That's why I'm writing here too. Thanks for your suggestion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents though. Jatlin1 (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jatlin1 indef'ed. DMacks (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What to do when a page removal template gets removed by an IP?

I nominated a page for deletion, and an unregistered user removed the template, what steps should I take? The same IP range always targets the same page, and I think that the page should be deleted because it doesn't cite sources that cover the entire page, and is just an useless list. Here's the permalink for my edition: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dire%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Geral_de_Jornalismo_da_TV_Globo&oldid=1127644582 Bastewasket (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Logged-out editors are allowed to contest PRODs in the same way as anyone else. If you still think the page should be deleted (which I have no opinion on), then you would need to take it to WP:AFD * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bastewasket. Anyone can WP:DEPROD a page proposed for deletion for any reason or no reason at all. Even bad-faith deprods are OK. Once an article has been de-prodded, it will need to go to WP:AFD (as pointed out above) if you still believe the article should be deleted. It would be also helpful if you added Template:Old prod to the article's talk page to let others know the article has already been prodded for deletion once before. You're not required to do so, but it's just helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can someone do that for me, on my behalf? I'm not familiar with Anglophone Wikipedia bureaucratic processes and robot assisted edits. Marchjuly, Pppery.

Bastewasket (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Managed to do it myself, it is a little bit too hard to do things on mobile. Bastewasket (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the Film Pages inconsistent? .

The wiki pages for the films-per-year are generally categorised with ‘[year] film releases’ and ‘notable films released in [year]’. However, browsing the wiki pages from 1930 - 2000, the ‘[year] film releases’ aren’t displayed in the following years: 1930, 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1957, 1958, 1970, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985.

Why isn’t this category included in these years? And what does the ‘[year] film releases’ category actually represent over the ‘notable films released in [year]’? 81.155.230.3 (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The answer is because the encyclopedia is incomplete and not fully consistent, especially when it comes to categorization. It takes many volunteers to do this type of work. Would you like to volunteer to correct the specific problems that you have identified? You are probably the person most highly motivated to take on the task. Please feel free to get to work on this. Cullen328 (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to find any such categories. I suspect you aren't actually referring to categories which means pages like Category:1985 films but to article sections. For example, 1950 in film and 1989 in film both have a section "Notable films released in [year]", but only 1989 has the section 1989 in film#1989 wide-release films. It takes far more work to make such sections than to add a category. Nobody at Wikipedia is assigned to do specific work. Editors are volunteers who choose which pages to work on. However, most of the years you mentioned do have such sections. e.g. 1980 in film#1980 Wide-release movies. Maybe you looked for the section before "Notable films released in [year]". The order varies. You can just compare 1989 in film#1989 wide-release films and 1989 in film#Notable films released in 1989 to see the difference between the sections, for example sorted by date versus title. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that sections ordered by date and title are inconsistent from one-another, that’s not what I'm describing as a problem. In the example I’ve provided, section X is a reduced count of the films in section Y, but what determines that difference hasn’t been clarified. And by ‘inconsistency’, I was referring to the 24 years that are missing section X, which is strange given there’s a consensus of section-structure for it to be included in the other 46 years).

Just to clarify,

section x = ‘[year] film releases’

section y = ‘notable films in [year]’

Thanks for correcting my confusion between sections and categories.

81.155.230.3 (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need to create and account

Hi Team,

Please let us know can we create and account in wikipedia. and who can help us to do it. 121.243.89.77 (talk) 06:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User accounts can be created at Special:CreateAccount. That being said, user accounts cannot be shared across multiple people, and you should review the username policy beforehand to ensure your name is appropriate.

Based on who can help us to do it, above, however, I suspect that you actually mean how to create a new article. If so, please be advised that creating a new article from scratch requires a good understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and is probably one of the hardest tasks to do as a new editor (particularly if one attempts to do so backwards). That being said, guidance for how to create a new article can be found at Help:Your first article Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 07:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never use the word "we" when speaking about a Wikipedia account as that instantly causes suspicion among experienced editors. A Wikipedia account is for one person and one person only. Cullen328 (talk) 07:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My pages keep getting deleted

Hi.

I've been creating a wikipedia about a famous social media guy from Spain. He's not known abroad but here he is so popular. It got deleted hours after I published it. Why does that happen? The "page" (if that's how I am supposed to say it) was serious and there weren't jokes. The librarian who deleted it is Marcelo and the page was https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faliyo Thank you so much for your time,

Greetings,

Bisdejos Bisdejos (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bisdejos This is the Help Desk for the English Wikipedia; we can't help you with issues on the Spanish Wikipedia, which is a completely separate project with its own editors and policies. I can suggest that you simply ask the user directly about their actions, or I'm sure they have an equivalent of a Help Desk there. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the sidebar links, the es help desk is here Beeblebrox (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

weird icons on the wikipedia.org homepage (on the arabic link)

I can't seem to post screenshot here, but on the wikipedia homepage, there seems to be a pencil icons on the arabic wiki. I don't know if this has already been reported, or maybe it's just my computer that has weird glitches with non-latin alphabet. Vincent-vst🚀 (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything odd there, Vincent-vst. ColinFine (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, after talking with some wikipedians on the discord, their guess is that either my os, or some browser extensions are messing with some fonts Vincent-vst🚀 (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Autoconfirmed

I posted a question for discussion, over at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Newly autoconfirmed editors, whether 4 days/10 edits is enough experience to allow a new editor to create an article directly in mainspace. (I hope this note is OK here; my musings are primarily based on what I see here at Help, and the Teahouse, and AFC help.) David10244 (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David10244: Yes, they can do so, but anything they create is subject to new page patrol where problems are quite often identified if the articles are not up to standard. NP patrollers can move to draft for development or nominate for deletion as appropriate. (As can most other editors who happen upon the articles). Eagleash (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it's not a good idea to post similar questions in multiple locations as this may lead to conflicting advice and / or make extra work for other volunteers. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagleash, I was actually trying to get more participation in the discussion "over there", rather than splitting the discussion. I understand the current policy (I think). But my comment here might not have been clear; thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify this. David10244 (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]