Help desk
< November 5	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 7 >

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 6

Personal Information

A wiki page of a family member who is simply a teacher has been created with false information. PLEASE remove my father's information and false information under Hassan Nagib! HaninGoma312 (talk) 05:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HaninGoma312, if by "personal information" you mean information such as his marital status or residence, I don't see any. As for the information that I do see, which of it is false? Please specify this on Talk:Hassan Nagib. Alternatively, if you don't want to draw more attention to the misinformation, write to info-en-q@wikimedia.org ; but before doing so, please read and digest Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help. -- Hoary (talk) 05:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elevated editor group violations on entire genre topics

WP:DNFT (LTA?). Bon courage (talk) 08:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I need to talk to someone about a group of less than a dozen Editors that have majority control of an entire category on wiki,over 7k pages, spanning back over 15 years. One editor was previously banned for sock puppet accounts, but his other alternates were never discovered by Wikipedia. I've isolated them. This involves some highly prominent people with their wiki pages caste in highly negative light, along with their discipline. Archangel1966 (talk) 05:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In such a short time here, that's quite some sleuthing! Well, in order to report sockpuppetry, read and digest Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases. -- Hoary (talk) 05:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent over 80 hours researching this over multiple websites to verify my findings. I have extensive documentation to support my assertions. I can assure you as insane as my claim is, I can prove it. I need to talk with someone within legal, or at least someone who is willing to discuss this. There is a small group controlling over 7k pages in one genre alone, which is only one of several. The person leading this is a very famous person, that is being very dishonest towards the living person's pages on Wikipedia being controlled by this group in addition to their profession. I would rather handle this internally with wiki, as it is of sufficient scale that could lead to defamation. Archangel1966 (talk) 05:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also represent several of the people who are having their Wikipedia pages unfairly censored by casting them in a negative light by biased editing, driving single positive editors from these pages by editing wars, ect. Archangel1966 (talk) 05:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Provide me 15 minutes of your time to prove my assertions. It's highly likely you will know who I'm referring to, as well as some of the famous people this negativity effects Archangel1966 (talk) 06:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hold on. I also represent several of the people? do you work for them? ltbdl (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You represent which people? I did not name the sock puppet editors, or the living person's pages that are famous friends of mine? The editor with multiple sock puppet accounts is well known also. I sent an email to Arbitration Committee to outline this as well. If you are serious about inquiring, I can prove my assertions. Archangel1966 (talk) 07:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no, you said you represented some of the people. sorry for the confusion. ltbdl (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have ever attempted a positive edit towards anything related to UFOs, Ufology, research of such, religion, then you have likely encountered this domineering small group of controlling editors. I have all their user names archived off site. Archangel1966 (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok... care to name them? ltbdl (talk) 07:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ever heard of Mick West? Archangel1966 (talk) 07:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My associates pages are Luis Elizondo, David Grusch, Garry Nolan, Christopher Mellon, Congressman Tim Burchett, Hal Puthoff, Ross Coulthart, George Knapp, Jeremy Corbell, Jacques Vallee. Their pages are highly controlled. Mick West was banned in 2006 for his sock puppet account Herd Of Swine, reinstated July 2023, with a comment he hasn't edited since then, but ready to begin again! He never left. His most prolific sock is LuckyLouie, but there are a few more. Archangel1966 (talk) 07:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

how do I protect my own wikipedia page?

please advise, how do I protect my own personal wiki page?

thank you Leam rico (talk) 10:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Leam Richardson

Leam rico You don't have a "personal wiki page"; Wikipedia has an article about you. Only admins can protect articles, and that is only done if there is a demonstratable problem with vandalism or other disruption- it will not be protected so you can lock it to the text that you might prefer be displayed there. You should not be editing the article directly anyway(see WP:AUTO and WP:COI) but you may make formal edit requests(click for instructions) on Talk:Leam Richardson, detailing changes you feel are needed along with independent reliable sources to support them. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi,

I do have a wikipedia page

'Leam Richardson'

The information is regarding myself and updated by myself.

please advise

thank you Leam rico (talk) 10:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leam rico The article(not a "page", which has a broader meaning) is not yours in that you get to exclusively decide what appears there. I've said above under which conditions articles are protected, and how you can propose edits. Content should be sourced to independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Leam rico: Please carefully read and assimilate WP:OWN. It is not your page. You have no more authority or rights to edit this article than any other editor. In fact, you have less rights, because you are supposed to follow the WP:COI guidance and not directly edit the article at all, while almost all other editors can freely edit it if they are following our policies and guidelines, especially WP:BLP. -Arch dude (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Italics or not?

Do "putto", "amaretto" and "Canal Grande (Trieste)" go in italics? Please also tell me if the terms in the gallery on the 'Canal Grande (Trieste)' page also go in italics. JackkBrown (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to MOS:FORITA, Wikipedia uses italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English ... Rule of thumb: do not italicize words that appear in multiple major English dictionaries. Under this rule, I would not italicise either "putto" or "amaretto", which both appear in all three of Merriam-Webster, the Oxford English Dictionary, and Chambers 21st Century Dictionary. As for "Canal Grande", the relevant part of the italics guideline appears to be A proper name is usually not italicized, so again it should not be italicised. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto-public: "putto" might be in those dictionaries, but I don't consider it in everyday use in non-specialised English, which is the criteria for the policy you quote. (Cambridge agrees with me.) Bazza (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's certainly a case that "putto" is only used in English as a specialised/technical term and therefore should be in italics; I think it's accepted as an English word in enough dictionaries that roman type is acceptable, though. (Along with the dictionaries I listed, it's also in Collins and the American Heritage Dictionary; the Cambridge Dictionary is intended as a learner's dictionary, not a full-sized dictionary and so is naturally less comprehensive; it's also not in Longman's which is also a learner's dictionary.) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I've never seen puttos used as the plural of putto; it's always the Italian plural putti. That suggests to me that it's better for it to be italicized as an Italian word even if it's in English dictionaries. With regard to "Canal Grande", it's apparently a proper name and we don't italicize foreign proper names (per MOS:BADITALICS). Deor (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown: Again (as you have asked similar questions before), if this is of concern to you, you need to read and understand MOS:FOREIGNITALICS. That also includes a guideline to correct your false assumption that foreign text "goes in italics": you should be using {{lang}} or similar templates, not placing text text directly in italics yourself.

Your question should therefore be Do "putto", "amaretto" and "Canal Grande (Trieste)" have everyday use in non-specialized English?, the answer to which I think is: no; yes; yes, as a proper noun. Bazza (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

When someone improperly removes something, what do I do? 2600:1700:66D0:C100:8493:2271:9D56:BFE4 (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Put it back, there's a button on the page's history to do so. (However, I think with your most recent conflict, nothing was improperly removed.) Remsense聊 14:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The very first step is to consider what you yourself mean by "improper". All information is Wikipedia ought to be backed up by references to reliable sources. If an editor (the "someone" in your question) finds or believes that this is not the case in a certain instance, then removal is one option (among others) the editor may consider. And, with experienced editors, that would be "proper", not "improper". Could you provide a real example of where you believe a removal has been improper and you would like to challenge it? Feline Hymnic (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a sourcing issue, it was a style/WP:UNDUE issue. Remsense聊 14:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The “editor” clearly has no insight into my genealogy or what my genealogist has discovered. 2600:1700:66D0:C100:8493:2271:9D56:BFE4 (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And why people bother with this is beyond me. 2600:1700:66D0:C100:8493:2271:9D56:BFE4 (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying your edit is wrong, and this isn't a place for you to ensure that your preferred style is maintained on articles you deem to be important to you. Remsense聊 15:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you, by any chance, Thomas Patrick Lane (the alleged tenth earl)? —Tamfang (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article in question (Earl of Lanesborough), I've added {{Unsourced}} as there are no sources cited except to the coat of arms. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Earl of Lanesborough. When you say my genealogy or what my genealogist this strongly suggests that you have some sort of very close connection with topic. In that case there is what Wikipedia calls a "conflict of interest": see WP:COI. And that in turn means you generally should not directly edit the article yourself. Instead you should request the exact change, with both a reason and a "reliable source" (see WP:RS) in the article talk page: Talk:Earl of Lanesborough, where it will be assessed by others. This process is described here: Template:Edit COI. Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Friuli Venezia Giulia

I would like to change all "Friuli-Venezia Giulia'" to "Friuli Venezia Giulia" (since 2001 it has been called "Friuli Venezia Giulia"), but it is a bit complicated to do this on all Wikipedia pages. Could you kindly start a bot and give it this command? I think it's doable. Update: could you at least help me with the 70 or so remaining communes? I have done 200 or so, I can't always do everything myself without being helped in anything. I repeat, I am not God, although in this encyclopaedia I am certainly among the best, or the best, in terms of accuracy! All municipalities can be found on this page: Friuli Venezia Giulia. JackkBrown (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown: Hi there! Try asking on WP:AWBREQ. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown: I don't think that the change should be done by bot, but manually so you can check that each change is appropriate. See WP:NOTBROKEN for some guidance. TSventon (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to automate it would be unwise. There may well be instances where the historical version should be used. For example, suppose somewhere in the text there is a statement such as in 2001 the name formally changed from "F-V G" to "F V G". Automation will almost certainly break that statement. Do it manually. Or at least ensure that there is a very strong manual check of every single proposed change. Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, any direct quotes from before 2001 that include the hyphen should not be changed, unless that change is also indicated: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Original wording. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.5.208 (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to edit or add to my annotated bibliography

Hello,

I am currently apart of a class that is editing wikipedia. I am getting warning messages and getting barred from making any edits to my annotated bibliography and sandbox. Please help. EmRedd25 (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EmRedd25: What page are you trying to access? Your personal sandbox can be found at User:EmRedd25/sandbox. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EmRedd25: I don't see any warnings like that on your talk page. Can you provide a link? RudolfRed (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove source

Hello. I want working on the Utah War and in the info box they say the 4th Artillery went to war for the US as started by this source. The Page for the 4th Artillery says it was founded in 1907. I also found the official army website talking about it. If the source is incorrect, is it still usable for the rest of the article?

LuxembourgLover (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the source is incorrect, but rather that there are two different "4th Artilleries" and the article infobox has linked to the wrong one.

As the article you link above, in full "4th Field Artillery Regiment", states, it was formed in 1907.

However, the Fourth Regiment of Artillery (there are various versions of the name), which is the one the source refers to as "the 4th Artillery", was evidently an older unit formed in 1821, which your external link mentions.

I have not found a Wikipedia article on the 1821-formed unit, but I haven't looked very hard because this is not my area of expertise (or country, or continent). If there is one, the infobox entry should be relinked to it. If there isn't, (a) the infobox entry should be de-linked, and (b) maybe someone should create an article for the older unit, and link the infobox entry to that. Beyond my scope, though. Hope that helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.5.208 (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Different dashes

I'm not saying it's wrong, but I'm curious as to why "Austria-Hungary" and "Hungary–Austria relations" (different dashes). I tried to change the title of the second page to make it like the first (perhaps risking getting it wrong), but it cannot be done. JackkBrown (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They look right. See MOS:DASH. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rightly or wrongly, "Austria-Hungary" (as both you and I have typed or copy-pasted it) contains a hyphen. The hyphen is rarely considered a species of dash. "Hungary–Austria" (as both you and I have typed or copy-pasted it) contains an en-dash, which is indeed a kind of dash. -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown: For the use of an en dash in the second case, where the title refers to relations between Hungary and Austria, see MOS:ENBETWEEN. Austria-Hungary was considered a single monarchy, and we (as that MOS section says) "use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities". Deor (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the logic above—it was hashed out over a prolonged period on the talk page, and that's the consensus that emerged. I disagree with the logic, but I'm glad the consensus is there, it's much preferable to none at all. Remsense聊 00:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]