Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2019 December 13

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 13

Contribution

I already sent some funds through PayPal and Wikipedia keeps asking for more? If I have different emails will I get different requests for donations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:440:8401:54F0:7D23:6321:9863:EA4A (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. Thank you for making a contrbution. Absolutely nothing in Wikipediahas any knowledge of who has contributed or how much: that is entirely within the Wikimedia Foundation, which is separate. Your position is the same as somebody who made a donation to a collector in the street yesterday and sees the collector still there today.

If you create an account (which is free) then you will have the ability to turn off the messages when you are logged in; but while you are using Wikipedia anonymously, there is no way to do that. --ColinFine (talk) 09:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Odd Name Change

I was looking at the Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom page it states that "Mohamed" directed the movie. You may want to have a look.

Fixed – thanks for pointing this out. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 03:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

New Profile

• Hi, I start by asking a question that "Is it not important to update a reference (Forbes profile) ? ". I have seen that in Mukesh Ambani's Wikipedia article his Forbes profile is updated as per December 2019. I had also provided a link of Shamsheer Vayalil's updated Forbes profile as per December 2019 on Talk:Shamsheer Vayalil heading is "Updation of net worth".Please! anyone help in updating his Forbes profile and if not I will do it myself and if any mistake happens then please don't blame me.

Thanks. (223.230.167.193 (talk) 11:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC))

Hi, anonymous reader! Please see WP:NORUSH and WP:NOTNEWS. This is an encyclopedia, not a news service. Imagine it gets printed some day, or mirrored on some other website (which actually happens all the time). Then the figures will get frozen, and you can't help for it. So instead of fruitless chasing variable 'net worth' please focus on presenting important (wide and long-lasting) impact of the person in the world. That will add a persistent value to our common project.
BTW, please also see WP:NOTSOCIAL – Wikipedia is not a social media, we don't host any profiles for people, we rather develop articles about them. --CiaPan (talk) 12:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Editing wiki pages in countries where wikipedia is banned

Hi there,

I work in Turkey, where I have to access wikipedia via a proxy because the site is blocked. I use wikipedia every day and during the course of my research I often want to make factual edits but cannot because wikipedia blocks edits from proxied addresses.

Is there a way around this, so that I can contribute to the accuracy of wikipedia from within a censoring country?

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghenghys (talk • contribs) 13:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

​You could apply for an IP block exemption, which is in some cases granted for a short time to newer users. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Ghenghys (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Thank you for your quick answer: I have just now sent the request that you suggested.

Request to remove semi-protected

By choice, I edit from an IP address, which changes regularly, but I'm a fairly experienced editor. I want to edit a page, Dubstep, that is semi-protected. Obviously, I can add a request at the talk page, but I don't think the page, despite being a GA, needs protection.

From the edit history I can only see one attempt at vandalism, detected by a bot, here on 1 May 2013 by User:ClueBotNG. Can you please remind me how to request that semi-protection be removed from this page? We don't usually protect pages "pessimistically". 85.238.91.41 (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello anon, looking at the protection log the article on dubstep appears to have been semi-protected on the regular since 2010 before permanent protection was implemented in 2012. This seems to have been effective in stopping the flow of vandalism which is probably why it remains today. The protecting admin ItsZippy has been desysoped for inactivity, so if you want the protection removed either ask another admin or post at requests for removing protection. – Teratix ₵ 13:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

linkspam question

I am seeing a lot of link spam for the following domains:

• boatid.com
• camperid.com
• carid.com
• motorcycleid.com
• powersportsid.com
• recreationid.com
• toolsid.com
• truckid.com

Is there an easy way to determining how much spamming they are doing before I ask about a filter? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

​There doesn't appear to be an easy way to find spam that has already been reverted (only way I can think of would be to grep a recent revision database dump). Of your list, only carid.com is still in any articles. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I removed the carid linkspam and requested an edit filter here: [1] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I added those links to User:COIBot/Poke. In a few hours all the report links should changes from red to blue. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Eligiblity of Username

My username is eligilble for Wikipedia editing? WeTalkWiki 14:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

WeTalkWiki, the username policy is at Wikipedia:Username policy.

Your username isn't misleading, disruptive, offensive, or promotional, so I don't see why it would be a problem. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

If I'm reading it wrong, and you want to edit your username, you'll need to follow the steps at Wikipedia:Changing username, although you may want to just register a new account and disregard the old one. This is valid, as long as you're not using it to avoid scrutiny. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'm wondering if by username they mean account. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

331dot,

I didn't clear what you meant?

WeTalkWiki 15:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

WeTalkWiki we are also not clear what you meant by your question. What are you asking? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@WeTalkWiki: the "we" in your user name implies that it is being used by more than one person. This is against the rules, and that means you should change your user name or simply abandon it and create a new account. See WP:USERNAME. -Arch dude (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Arch dude:

The "we" in my user name is nosism - I am the only person who knows the password.

So I didn't violate any rules unless you have lack of knowledge about wikipedia articles.

WeTalkWiki 19:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@WeTalkWiki: I am not familiar with all of the contents of all of the 6 million Wikipedia articles. Sorry, if you think volunteers here at the help desk should have this level of knowledge, you will be disappointed. I was unfamiliar with the collective term "nosism" for the three uses (imperial, editorial, authorial) of "we" listed in that article, although I am quite familiar with all three usages. All four possible usages of "we" in your username are prohibited. The usual collective "we" because it implies group usage, the imperial "we" because it implies you are editing in an official capacity as head of state or high church office, and the editorial and authorial "we" because they imply you have special standing beyond that of other Wikipedia editors. In any event your intent does not matter. What matters is that other editors get the wrong impression whichever of these four meanings they impute to the "we" in your user name. -Arch dude (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Naturopathy

This article is biased, misinformed, and hurtful to a growing profession. I tried to make a change this morning, and it automatically went back to the original text. I read the 'Talk' section and many people have had similar thoughts and comments. This makes me lose trust in the validity of Wikipedia. Please review the facts and fix this, or help me understand how I can fix this. There is good information now on accredited websites like WebMD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.168.55.116 (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

You removed soruced content from the page when you reverted it. Also, WebMD is not consired a reliable source. So the page will stay in its current state. If you can find reliabe soruces, then you can add the content.LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Note also, 108.168.55.116, that whether or not a a profession is "growing" is not, alone, a criterion determining Wikipedia's tone of coverage of that profession. That is determined solely by the tone of coverage found in reliable, published sources.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleting my biography

I respectfully request that my bio Mike Kelly (Gridiron Football) be removed.

Please either execute this request from your end or easily explain to me the procedure I need to process.

I would like this done immediately.

Thank you,

Mike Kelly — Preceding unsigned comment added by GridIronFootball (talk • contribs) 16:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be in response to this content about an arrest on the article Mike Kelly (gridiron football), which User:Hirolovesswords added recently. I think you might be too notable for us to delete the article, but I personally think we should not mention arrests on the articles of semi-notable people where the charges are dropped. You can request a second opinion on this at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the contentious sentence. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Þjarkur. It is clearly WP:UNDUE for charges that resulted in no conviction to be mentioned unless the charges or the case was in itself notable. ——SN54129 18:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Mike Kelly's arrest was a major news story, covered both in Winnipeg and nationally in Canada [www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/sports/football/bombers-coach-kelly-arrested-fired/article4317815/] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. One sentence about it is not WP:UNDUE - Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Note that this issue has been discussed before at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive257#Mike Kelly (gridiron_football). Jweiss11 (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Also worth considering the treatment of a similar incident on another bio article for a football coach: Michael Haywood. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Have to say that I disagree with the removal, as it is pertinent to what he merits an article for(football). One sentence is not undue. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@331dot: I added some sourcing and clarified the incident. Please take a look at it stands now. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

It seems okay to me. I wonder if we should just note the arrest and not state what the arrest was for. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd generally say remove police blotters that don't receive continued coverage. However, the arrest was in December 2009, and the court ruling was covered in January 2010.[7] The incident was again refeered to in 2014[8] and most recently in July 2019[9]. If there are errors in the media, I'd suggest contacting the affected agencies and have them correct the contested statements. Those public corrections could then be used to verifiably make neutral updates to the bio. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Madubani Art Page

Dear Sir We Are From Mithila For Your kind information thies page contant absolutlly wrong because in the name madhubani art is wrong madhubani art is not any art in india this art origin naame in mithila painting /mithila art so please veryfy thies content then publish .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.35.233.20 (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

You can discuss changes on Talk:Madhubani art. Note that we need to reflect reliable sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

...which, in this case, includes an Indian government website, articles in The Hindu, books, etc., all calling it "Madhubani". —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Watchlist tag filters

Sup Helpdeskers. D'you happen to know whether it's possible to invert the selcted tags? I.e. so that the watchlist excludes them rather than includes them? ——SN54129 18:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Main Page

Suppose the Main Page was vandalized by an admin. Since it is the most viewed page, would the normal procedures for vandalism (revert, warn, report, block) happen or something more? Interstellarity (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Interstellarity I hope you are speaking hypothetically, but if an admin engages in vandalism, it should be reported just as any other instance of vandalism, as admins do not 'outrank' non-admins, we just have extra buttons. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@331dot: Yes, this is hypothetically. If I were an admin, I would never do that. Would the admin just get blocked like any other user? Interstellarity (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. There has been cases of admin accounts being hacked or otherwise controlled by someone else that needed to be blocked and have the admin powers removed at least temporarily. If it were the admin themselves, there would likely be a discussion about their future status. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@331dot: That's clear to me. I was just curious about what would happen if it it really happened which hopefully won't happen anytime soon. Interstellarity (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I would hope/think that seeing evidence of an admin "going round the bend" would be handled with high priority, because of the potential trouble that can be inflicted with those "extra buttons". Sadly, it's not like it's out of the realm of possibilities any more, either. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Interstellarity, you might wish to read the pages linked from Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason/compromised. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@OxonAlex and AlanM1: Thank you for the info. Interstellarity (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I thought I had learned not to look at things that I don't want to see. I was wrong. The tombstone-shaped tabs are a nice touch, though. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

EDITORSHIP

How does one become a member of the "editorial board" of Wikipedia? I see all sorts of people reverting stuff and offering to block others. How do you attain this position of trust?Gustapus (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Gustapus. There is no "editorial board". You have edited this page, so you are a Wikipedia editor. Anybody may revert an edit if they think doing so will improve the encyclopaedia: the process that that forms part of is WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss.

Anybody may nominate a page for deletion, or tag an article for various shortcomings, or report another editor for disruptive editing; but doing so before you understand the relevant policies is inadvisable. Drastic actions like deleting pages and blocking users can only be done by admins, and in most cases, only after a public discussion.

In principle anybody may become an admin, but the process involves a public discussion, and generally people will not be appointed admins unless they have a long history of constructive editing, and a reason to want admin powers. (I have been an editor for fourteen years, and have made 16 thousand edits, but have never seen any reason to apply for adminship). See RFA for more on this. --ColinFine (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Gustapus: as ColinFine says, You are a member of the "editorial board". We all are. We each make editorial decisions every time we edit. If another editor disagrees, they revert the edit, and that is supposed to cause the first editor to initiate a discussion, usually on the affected article's talk page, to reach a consensus, possibly with some escalation (WP:DISPUTE). Once a consensus is reached, the resulting action (e.g., blocking) may require an administrator in some cases, but the admin is supposed to implement the consensus, not dictate it. Like Colin, I have no desire to become an administrator. It's tedious. -Arch dude (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Colin Fine and Arch dude for your input - much obliged!Gustapus (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)