Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2020 July 7

Help desk
< July 6	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 8 >

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.

July 7

Political bias

I am really sad to read that this company I had respected does edits for Kamala Harris , removing negativity and adding nice things !! That’s just WRONG. I will no longer donate or trust your information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:2590:8400:65B1:FF5D:ACFC:3E93 (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a volunteer project, not a company. Any edits to Kamala Harris are made by individual volunteers, not by a company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

See section #keep scrubbing kamala harris Wikipedia profil above. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Archived.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

IDK

Hello,

As I was researching about the g-mail software I came to a page in Wiki titled: INBOX In the opening it says Google got rid of their Inbox in 2019. I do not think this is true. I use my Inbox in my G-mail every day. I do not know. Do you? If so, can you take that last sentence off? Is that something a citizen like me would do? Does one need credentials or just to read the FAQ and learn how to do it themselves? At the moment I don't have time but in the future, I would be willing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbox_by_Gmail — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:C303:BA00:1DEF:9977:6871:3F36 (talk) 02:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. The place to discuss this is on the article's talk page, Talk:Inbox by Gmail. But it seems to me that this is not talking about the inbox that every gmail user has, but a specific service called Inbox by Gmail. --ColinFine (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Ban Ogoi

proposed article content

Bold textOrigin of Ban Ogoi Ban Ogoi is an electoral ward 10 in Tai LGA, Rivers State, Nigeria. The main language of Ban Ogoi people is Ban but also Khana, Eleme, Gokana, Igbo and Akwa Ibom languages. The crisis at Gold Coast between the 12th and 13th century led to the emigration of three brothers namely Khana (perhaps Ghana but differed by pronunciation), Eleme and Gbene Tutu through the sea to a safe location in the rich mangrove area of Niger Delta. Gbene Tutu settled at Ban Tutu, the foremost name of Ban Ogoi. The word Ban is translated as I have arrived at a safe place. The Ogoi which was later replaced Tutu, the founder of Ban Ogoi is translated as hide me or I am hiding. Literally, Gbene Tutu was shielding himself from crisis. These three brothers were later referred to by the Igbanis as Igonibo – strangers; when some early sojourners arrived at the shore and found their lights burning in the hinterland. That word Igonibo was later coined to Ogoni and that name is not acceptable to the Ban Ogoi people. The Ban Ogois refers to the Igbanis as Bani - beggars. History has it that the Igbanis would ask the Khana, Eleme and Gbene Tutus for food in the ancient times since their main occupation was crop cultivation. Gbene Tutu had seven sons which later resulted in the formation of seven mini-communities but later there was a formation of the eighth mini-community. These eight (8) communities that make up Ban Ogoi Clan are: 1. Bala Ban 2. Kuete 3. Ngoro 4. Bolo 5. Waala 6. Ngbuagbo 7. Bali 8. Muolu Muolu community was said to have been founded by an indigene of Kuete community who moved to that part of Ban Ogoi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonungw (talk • contribs) 06:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Duplicated content

Origin of Ban Ogoi Ban Ogoi is an electoral ward 10 in Tai LGA, Rivers State, Nigeria. The main language of Ban Ogoi people is Ban but also Khana, Eleme, Gokana, Igbo and Akwa Ibom languages. The crisis at Gold Coast between the 12th and 13th century led to the emigration of three brothers namely Khana (perhaps Ghana but differed by pronunciation), Eleme and Gbene Tutu through the sea to a safe location in the rich mangrove area of Niger Delta. Gbene Tutu settled at Ban Tutu, the foremost name of Ban Ogoi. The word Ban is translated as I have arrived at a safe place. The Ogoi which was later replaced Tutu, the founder of Ban Ogoi is translated as hide me or I am hiding. Literally, Gbene Tutu was shielding himself from crisis. These three brothers were later referred to by the Igbanis as Igonibo – strangers; when some early sojourners arrived at the shore and found their lights burning in the hinterland. That word Igonibo was later coined to Ogoni and that name is not acceptable to the Ban Ogoi people. The Ban Ogois refers to the Igbanis as Bani - beggars. History has it that the Igbanis would ask the Khana, Eleme and Gbene Tutus for food in the ancient times since their main occupation was crop cultivation. Gbene Tutu had seven sons which later resulted in the formation of seven mini-communities but later there was a formation of the eighth mini-community. These eight (8) communities that make up Ban Ogoi Clan are: 1. Bala Ban 2. Kuete 3. Ngoro 4. Bolo 5. Waala 6. Ngbuagbo 7. Bali 8. Muolu Muolu community was said to have been founded by an indigene of Kuete community who moved to that part of Ban Ogoi.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonungw (talk • contribs) 06:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sonungw: It appears that you wish to create a new Wikipedia article. Please read WP:YFA to learn how to create a draft article and submit it. If you have questions about the process, please come back here to ask for help. -Arch dude (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Misleading content

how can i raise my voice against a misleading content on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4063:2285:B4:6199:AAC4:CF15:1F22 (talk) 07:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, you should raise any issues at the talk page of the article concerned; you will find a link to the talk page top left of the article. You can also request edits (if you do not want to do this yourself) at the talk page. Please see Template:Request edit for how to do this. You will need to provide reliable sources to corroborate your information and (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

how to create new page

i dont have the knowledge in creating the page by my name for bibliography

how to start

send me the guide line — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudhakalyan317 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sudhakalyan317: Wikipedia doesn't have mere pages, Wikipedia has articles on notable subjects. Note that nobody "owns" a Wikipedia page and there are good reasons why you may not want to have one. If you are still sure you want to proceed, you can start at WP:YFA. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 07:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Helping out on English Wikipedia

Hello, I'm an administrator and an interface administrator over at Persian Wikipedia. Recently, I have been interested in getting involved with the EnWiki community but I'm not quite sure where to start. I've followed a few links linking to "Where you can help" pages but I didn't find much that I can be helpful with. As Persian Wikipedia mostly used technical and patrolling help. Where do you think I can be helpful in this community? contest-wise or technical, etc. Mohammad 08:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Proficiency in both Persian and English is a rarity here, and so your help in related areas might be particularly welcome. You might look for requests at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran for help on Iran-related (or Persian-language) matters. -- Hoary (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

How to choose picture for article?

If a celebrity has more than one picture on Wikimedia Commons, then how to decide which picture will be most suitable for Infobox of that celebrity?? Should it be the most recent image of that celebrity?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pritam Shaw (talk • contribs) 08:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Pritam Shaw! Some guidance at MOS:LEADIMAGE, but it's often quite subjective. Reasonably new (unless were talking like Greta Garbo/peak of career stuff), recognizable, looking somewhat towards camera, not making a funny face. Discuss if necessary, often it's no big deal, sometimes it is (Talk:Greta_Thunberg#Picture_change). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

In Sidharth Shukla, the lead image is more than 4 years old and the celebrity does not looks that slim now like he is in the lead image (thumb), and I suggest that thumb is a better alternative as this image is hardly 5 months old when he won a reality competition. Could you please decide which one is better?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pritam Shaw (talk • contribs) 10:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

IMO, the BB one is slightly better. Be WP:BOLD and see what happens. However, I would also recommend cropping it so it becomes more like the image at Daniel Craig (more head and shoulders). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you please fix the image on Siddharth Shukla, as I am unable to pass through the legal proceedings i.e. the copyright and all in Wikimedia Commons. Thankyou for the Cooperation. Pritam Shaw (talk • contribs) 13:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Geumho River

When I searched for "Geumho River," I was not directed to the article. Instead, I got a list of unrelated suggestions. I tried this three times. Yet, a Geumho River article exists. I was able to get to it by going to the article List of Rivers of Korea. I don't understand. Also, List of Rivers of Korea comes up red in my preview, whereas Geumho River comes up blue (I am using Chrome on Windows 7).Kdammers (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• I see, it is the capitalization of 'Rivers' that makes the link red. But shouldn't linking on it at least suggest that a variant exists instead of telling me that I can create such a page? Kdammers (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Geumho River, Geumho river. I wonder if a redirect for the second form is warranted. Maproom (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

comics

why doesn't wikipedia have comics or even wikisourse doesn't have comics why is that so???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.150.148 (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Try Category:Comics. -- Hoary (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there a more efficient way to add species common names?

Hello! I'm a fairly new Wikipedia user and I've been updating/creating Wikipedia articles for species to include the standardized common names developed by a national working group in Canada. The process is really slow considering that I've got thousands of species to get through and a lot of the species don't already have Wikipedia pages. I'm wondering if there's another way to accomplish this task that's less labour intensive. For example, is it possible to add the common names to a species list page? Thanks in advance! --VioletBrew (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

VioletBrew, if you haven't tried asking at places like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects someone there may have a good idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, thank you for your suggestion! As you suggested, I've made a post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects. VioletBrew (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Request to edit article/s to remove unnecessary and misleading information.

Hi Im new to Wikipedia and want to do a few edits, I work for the agency which represents Jazz_(company) and I want to remove some unnecessary and outdated information from the articles Jazz, Mobilink, Warid_Pakistan and Warid_Telecom. Looking for help to discuss this so I can proceed with the changes without violating any rules. Talhatauqeer (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Talhatauqeer, the first thing is probably this, read WP:COI and particularly WP:DECLARE. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• Simply scrapping a whole bunch of stuff like you did here is just not helpful. Information in the past tense is still information. Drmies (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Talhatauqeer, historical information is the most important for Wikipedia. We are far more interested in the history of a company (or any other subject) than the "latest news". In fact the "latest news" is frequently no more than thinly disguised promotion, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Johnson v Zerbst

apparently an alternative content for an article?

Johnson v. Zerbst Supreme Court of the United States Johnson v. Zerbst Reference: 304 U.S. 458 Term: 1937 Important Dates Argued: April 4, 1938 Decided: May 23, 1938 Majority Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes • Hugo Black • Louis Brandeis • Owen Roberts • Harlan Fiske Stone Concurring Stanley Reed Dissenting Pierce Butler • James C. McReynolds Johnson v. Zerbst was decided on May 23, 1938, by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case is famous for the court's expansion of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to indigent defendants in all federal criminal trials, unless a knowing, intelligent, and competent waiver of counsel is evidenced. Prior to the court's opinion in Johnson, federal criminal courts appointed "counsel in most cases based on the judge’s discretion. But here, the Court construed the Sixth Amendment guarantee of counsel to mean that, in federal courts, counsel must be provided for defendants unable to employ counsel in all trials."[1] Questions presented: Does the Sixth Amendment require a mandatory appointment of counsel in all federal criminal cases or is that appointment subject to judicial discretion in the absence of a waiver? Case background On November 21, 1934, John Johnson and an accomplice were arrested in Charleston, South Carolina. The pair were charged with "feloniously uttering and passing four counterfeit twenty-dollar Federal Reserve notes and possessing twenty-one such notes." At the time, both were enlisted in the United States Marine Corps on leave. They were detained but were unable to post bail. On January 21, 1935, both men were indicted. Though the court record indicated that both men were represented by counsel in preliminary hearings prior to being bound over to grand jury, the defendants were not able to pay for counsel at trial. At their arraignment on January 23, 1935, in which they plead not guilty, the defendants were asked by the judge if they had counsel. The defendants said that they did not have counsel, but when asked by the judge if they were ready to proceed to trial, the defendants said they were. After their arraignment, the defendants were tried, convicted, and sentenced to four and a half years in federal prison on January 23, 1935. During the course of his incarceration, Johnson filed a petition for habeas relief in U.S. District Court arguing that his uncounseled conviction violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. At his habeas hearing, Johnson provided evidence that a request for counsel was made not to the trial judge, but to the district attorney, who informed Johnson that the state of South Carolina provided counsel to indigent defendants only in instances where the defendant was charged with a capital felony; the district attorney, however, denied that Johnson and his accomplice had either requested counsel or that the district attorney informed them they did not have a right to counsel. The judge presiding over the hearing also acknowledged that Johnson and his accomplice "asked the jailer to call a lawyer for them, but they were not permitted to contact one. They did not, however, undertake to get any message to the judge." The habeas hearing record also indicated that after Johnson and his accomplice arrived at the penitentiary on January 25, 1935, "they were placed in isolation and so kept for sixteen days without being permitted to communicate with any one except the officers of the institution, but they did see the officers daily. They were no [sic] request of the officers to be permitted to see a lawyer, nor did they ask the officers to present to the trial judge a motion for new trial or application for appeal or notice that they desired to move for a new trial or to take an appeal. On May 15, 1935, petitioners filed applications for appeal which were denied because filed too late" because the time for filing a motion for new trial and for taking an appeal was limited to three to five days. The district court denied Johnson's habeas petition. Upon review, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.[2] Oral argument Oral argument was held on April 4, 1938.[2] Decision The decision was reversed and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.[2] Opinion Justice Hugo Black delivered the opinion for five of the six justices in the majority. Justice Black began his opinion with a discussion of the importance and necessity of counsel, particularly to the pro se defendant, and his reasons as to why federal courts cannot limit the right:[2] “ The Sixth Amendment stands as a constant admonition that if the constitutional safeguards it provides be lost, justice will not 'still be done.' It embodies a realistic recognition of the obvious truth that the average defendant does not have the professional legal skill to protect himself when brought before a tribunal with power to take his life or liberty, wherein the prosecution is presented by experienced and learned counsel. That which is simple, orderly, and necessary to the lawyer-to the untrained layman-may appear intricate, complex, and mysterious. Consistently with the wise policy of the Sixth Amendment and other parts of our fundamental charter, this Court has pointed to '... the humane policy of the modern criminal law ...' which now provides that a defendant '... if he be poor, ... may have counsel furnished him by the state, ... not infrequently ... more able than the attorney for the state.' The '... right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself wheter the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defence, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him.' The Sixth Amendment withholds from federal courts, in all criminal proceedings, the power and authority to deprive an accused of his life or liberty unless he has or waives the assistance of counsel. [3] ” What constitutes a waiver of the right to counsel? Justice Black evaluated the claim that the petitioners here waived their right to counsel, a contention that Justice Pierce Butler, in dissent, believed that Johnson and his accomplice had done. Justice Black wrote:[2] “ There is insistence here that petitioner waived this constitutional right. The District Court did not so find ... A waiver is ordinarily an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. The determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver of right to counsel must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused ... The constitutional right of an accused to be represented by counsel invokes, of itself, the protection of a trial court, in which the accused- whose life or liberty is at stake-is without counsel. This protecting duty imposes the serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused. While an accused may waive the right to counsel, whether there is a proper waiver should be clearly determined by the trial court, and it would be fitting and appropriate for that determination to appear upon the record. [3] ” Could Johnson's error be corrected by habeas relief? Justice Black next addressed whether Johnson's request for habeas relief was a permissible legal remedy. The district judge hearing Johnson's habeas appeal did not believe so, even though the judge stated, "It is unfortunate, if petitioners lost their right to a new trial through their ignorance or negligence, but such misfortune cannot give this court jurisdiction in a habeas corpus case to review and correct the errors complained of."[2] Justice Black argued that such a view of habeas relief need not be so restrictive, noting that the Congress had expanded habeas relief under the Sixth Amendment since the amendment's adoption,[2] “ The purpose of the constitutional guaranty of a right to counsel is to protect an accused from conviction resulting from his own ignorance of his legal and constitutional rights, and the guaranty would be nullified by a determination that an accused's ignorant failure to claim his rights removes the protection of the Constitution. True, habeas corpus cannot be used as a means of reviewing errors of law and irregularities-not involving the question of jurisdiction-occurring during the course of trial; and the 'writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a writ of error.' ... These principles, however, must be construed and applied so as to preserve-not destroy-constitutional safeguards of human life and liberty. The scope of inquiry in habeas corpus proceedings has been broadened-not narrowed-since the adoption of the Sixth Amendment. In such a proceeding, 'it would be clearly erroneous to confine the inquiry to the proceedings and judgment of the trial court' and the petitioned court has 'power to inquire with regard to the jurisdiction of the inferior court, either in respect to the subject-matter or to the person, even if such inquiry (involves) an examination of facts outside of, but not inconsistent with, the record.' Congress has expanded the rights of a petitioner for habeas corpus and the '... effect is to substitute for the bare legal review that seems to have been the limit of judicial authority under the common-law practice, and under the act of 31 Car. II, chap. 2, a more searching investigation, in which the applicant is put upon his oath to set forth the truth of the matter respecting the causes of his detention, and the court, upon determining the actual facts, is to 'dispose of the party as law and justice require.' 'There being no doubt of the authority of the Congress to thus liberalize the common-law procedure on habeas corpus in order to safeguard the liberty of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States against infringement through any violation of the Constitution or a law or treaty established thereunder, it results that under the sections cited a prisoner in custody pursuant to the final judgment of a state court of criminal jurisdiction may have a judicial inquiry in a court of the United States into the very truth and substance of the causes of his detention, although it may become necessary to look behind and beyond the record of his conviction to a sufficient extent to test the jurisdiction of the state court to proceed to judgment against him. ... '... it is open to the courts of the United States, upon an application for a writ of habeas corpus, to look beyond forms and inquiry into the very substance of the matter ....' [3] ” Given Justice Black's view that Congressional authority was sufficient to expand judicial habeas review and relief, Justice Black argued that, in fact, rather than precluding relief, Johnson's habeas petition was likely his only recourse for relief: "it necessarily follows that no legal procedural remedy is available to grant relief for a violation of constitutional rights, unless the courts protect petitioner's rights by habeas corpus ... To deprive a citizen of his only effective remedy would not only be contrary to the 'rudimentary demands of justice' but destructive of a constitutional guaranty specifically designed to prevent injustice."[2] Holding The court reversed the lower court's decision to deny habeas relief. In so doing, Justice Black pronounced a new rule in federal courts that counsel must be afforded to all federal criminal defendants:[2] “ Since the Sixth Amendment constitutionally entitles one charged with crime to the assistance of counsel, compliance with this constitutional mandate is an essential jurisdictional prerequisite to a federal court's authority to deprive an accused of his life or liberty. When this right is properly waived, the assistance of counsel is no longer a necessary element of the court's jurisdiction to proceed to conviction and sentence. If the accused, however, is not represented by counsel and has not competently and intelligently waived his constitutional right, the Sixth Amendment stands as a jurisdictional bar to a valid conviction and sentence depriving him of his life or his liberty. A court's jurisdiction at the hearing of trial may be lost 'in the course of the proceedings' due to failure to complete the court-as the Sixth Amendment requires-by providing counsel for an accused who is unable to obtain counsel, who has not intelligently waived this constitutional guaranty, and whose life or liberty is at stake. If this requirement of the Sixth Amendment is not complied with, the court no longer has jurisdiction to proceed. The judgment of conviction pronounced by a court without jurisdiction is void, and one imprisoned thereunder may obtain release by habeas corpus. A judge of the United States-to whom a petition for habeas corpus is addressed-should be alert to examine 'the facts for himself when if true as alleged they make the trial absolutely void.' ... Where a defendant, without counsel, acquiesces in a trial resulting in his conviction and later seeks release by the extraordinary remedy of habeas corpus, the burden of proof rests upon him to establish that he did not competently and intelligently waive his constitutional right to assistance of Counsel. If in a habeas corpus hearing, he does meet this burden and convinces the court by a preponderance of evidence that he neither had counsel nor properly waived his constitutional right to counsel, it is the duty of the court to grant the writ. [3] ” Concluding that the district court erred in dismissing Johnson's habeas claim, the court remanded the case back to that court for additional proceedings on Johnson's petition. Concurrences Justice Stanley Reed did not join the court's opinion but did concur in the reversal.[2] Dissents Justice James C. McReynolds stated that he would have affirmed the judgment of the lower court. Justice Pierce Butler stated that the record sufficiently demonstrated that the petitioners waived counsel, that the trial court had jurisdiction, and that the circuit court decision should have been affirmed.[2] Impact As a result of the court's opinion in this case, the court expanded the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to indigent defendants in all federal criminal trials, unless a knowing, intelligent, and competent waiver of counsel is evidenced. Case notes Justice Benjamin Cardozo took no part in the consideration or disposition of the case. Neither Justice Reed nor either of the dissenting justices authored separate opinions in the case.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.221.98.237 (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. I'm not sure what you are trying to do here, but we already have an article on Johnson v. Zerbst. If you want to recommend changes to that article, please discuss them on the talk page Talk:Johnson v. Zerbst. --ColinFine (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Uploading image on Wikipedia

Can I upload a image of a celebrity through File Wizard as Fair use??Pritam Shaw (talk • contribs) 15:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

If the celebrity is still alive then a fair use image isn't allowed. Fails citerion #1 at WP:NFCC as an alternative image could be created by taking a photograph of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

And if this is for Sidharth Shukla, a free image is already included in the article, so obviously a fair use image couldn't be used. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

REMOVE/DELETE PERSONAL PAGE

Evening,

Could you please advise how I can delete a Wiki page that is personal to me, but is hindering my ability to secure new roles given the negative stories that appear on the page, it was set up some time ago (2010) by a person who also set up blog sites about me, given my role in public life.

My employment advisor when Google searching my name felt the information on the Wiki page was unduly negative and would impact on my ability to secure a new role.

For your information I served in the UK Fire Service for 31 years with an unblemished record.

Thank you in anticipationJohn130540 (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

John130540, as unfortunate as it is to have an article like this, you do not own your Wikipedia page. However, if it contains libellous information or other information, you should follow the procedures listed at WP:BLPCOMPLAINT. Many thanks, Ed6767 talk! 19:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@John130540: FWIW, any potential employer who relies on a single Wikipedia article about you without following up on any negative material is, at least, irresponsible. If the material is wrong, do follow the link above for help getting it fixed. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Update: User blocked as a SOCK of Warren2922. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Note: For anyone that might be interested and judging by the contribs. of the 'sockmaster' seems to relate to Warren Bradley (politician). Eagleash (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

You know, whatever the facts and merits of this particular situation, it's all well and good to say that an employer who relies solely on a Wikipedia article is irresponsible, but that doesn't help someone who can't get a job because some problem material is "out there" somewhere. Put the case of someone looking for a job, and a Google search of that person's name turns up right on the first page a whole slew of hits on the extensive criminal history of someone who happens to have the same name. Very often, it's the employer who has the luxury of choice--and if they have a lot of applicants to look at, they WILL do a quick go-through and reject a lot out of hand, to pare it down to a manageable number that they're going to consider seriously. I remember seeing someone with a box full of resumes she had to look through; if, for example, there was one she couldn't read without a lot of strain--she didn't! Into the Don't Consider pile--and a roughly three-second decision. Uporządnicki (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up action on decisions to delete

Occasionally I find on a talk page a template that says the article was nominated for deletion and "The result of the discussion was delete." The article still exists, however, sometimes with the template dated years ago. For example, Talk:Blagoje Jovović has a deletion template dated February 9, 2009. When I find such a page, should I take any action, or should I leave the page as it is? Eddie Blick (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

If you look at the log you'll see that it was indeed deleted as agreed at the AFD, and if you look at the history you'll see that it was created again in 2014. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Teblick: I would guess that you would follow the normal deletion process, and people may take into account the previous history as needed. Perhaps someone more familiar (than I) with the deletion process can comment on what the appropriate next step would be. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

David Biddulph, You are correct that I did not look at the log. I interpreted "this article" in the template literally, not thinking that the template would remain when a new article was created. I appreciate your feedback. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

AlanM1, Thanks for your suggestion, but I see now that I was in error in my thinking. The deletion process did its job, and I misunderstood the template to apply to the current article rather than a previous version. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Matran Family of Shamizdin

Hi, this article about my own esteemed family has been deleted, is there at least a copy of it somewhere, I had important information in it.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.106.28.49 (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The correct way to do this is through WP:REFUND, but there is an archived copy of an older version of the page available at https://web.archive.org/web/20151012005836/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matran_family_of_Shamizdin Ed6767 talk! 19:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Compact ToC not updating

Someone had added "The Zodiac club" to List of fictional bars and pubs, but at the lede. I moved it to a new section "Z", and now it shows fine in the article itself, but the article's table of contents is generated with "{{Compact ToC|u=|z=|num=yes}}", and the table of contents does not show a "Z" link. Why is that? JIP | Talk 22:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@JIP: The TOC template was set to hide U and Z entries (u= | z= | ) I edited it to not hide Z and now it is showing. RudolfRed (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, so that's what the "u=|z=|" part means. Thanks! JIP | Talk 23:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)