Help desk
< August 30	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	September 1 >

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.

August 31

Flicknife Records

Flicknife Records www.flickniferecords.co.uk

Hello, FrenchyF. What is your question? I see that you have added an entry to List of record labels: A–H; but normally items should be listed only if there is already a Wikipedia article about them. Does Flicknife Records meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability? If not, then no article about them is possible, and they should not be added to the list. --ColinFine (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They were founded forty-one years ago, are still active, have rostered a number of well-known acts, and are mentioned in 49 existing articles, so I myself (FWIW) think it likely they're notable. However, this isn't by any means my area of expertise so I won't take on the task of an article myself. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.179.94 (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After 4 gold albums, 4 silver albums, 1 gold single, 2 silver singles, 42 years in existence, first label to release material by Soho, Adamski, Dogs D'Amour, Ozric Tentacles as well as being home for countless acts, being featured in Record Collector, Redefine, Shindig, Vive Le Rock as a label, plus countless features, reviews about our acts, over 50 mentions on Wikipedia, 3 nominations for 'Best Indie Labels (2 wins) and a Groundbreaker award, I think we have earned the right to be listed amongst labels that haven't done a tenth of what we have. If we don't because nobody here can be bothered to write an article about it then so be it but then, so will our financial contributions to Wikipedia. {FrenchyF} — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrenchyF (talk • contribs) 17:30, August 31, 2021 (UTC)

FrenchyF Donations or withholding donations has no impact on this matter. We editors have nothing to do with donations; they are collected by the Wikimedia Foundation that operates the computers Wikipedia is on. The Foundation is not involved in day to day operations. Attempting to blackmail us to get your way does not help you and does not confer notability on your label. Please review WP:ORG. . It also appears that you must read about conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blackmail?! (Personal attack removed) You can't tell the difference between blackmail and stating a fact? It won't change anything if you don't list us. You know sweet FA about what you are talking about and the day Wikipedia, Wikimedia cease to exit, so will you but we will still be a label. Whatever else you wrote means nothing to me because unlike you, I am not an IT nerd who lives solely for the thrill of making life difficult for others. Have a good life and go in peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrenchyF (talk • contribs) 17:49, August 31, 2021 (UTC)

Please calm down, people. 331dot, your use of the word "blackmail" was possibly ill-judged and inflammatory. However, FrenchyF, the fact remains that:

you are welcome to donate to the Wikimedia Foundation or not as your choose: absolutely nothing that happens in Wikipedia depends on who has donated - in fact, nobody involved in editing Wikipedia has any way of finding out who has donated, unless they say so themselves.
Wikipedia is not for promotion in any shape or form. If Wikipedia has an article about your label, the article will not belong to you, will not be controlled by you, will not necessarily say what you want it to, and will not be in any way for your benefit. (Of course the subjects of many articles do get benefit from there being an article about them, but that is no part of Wikipedia's purpose, and it is not guaranteed. See WP:PROUD).
Furthermore, you do not get to decide whether or not your label appears in lists. Once you have declared your conflict of interest, you are welcome to suggest changes, using the edit request mechanism; but an uninvolved editor will decide what is appropriate.
As the veteran IP editor said, it seems likely that Flicknife does indeed meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability; but none of the the things you mention guarantee this: notability is almost entirely concerned with whether enough independent material has been published about a subject to ground an article (since Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say, or what their associates say, but only in what people unconnected with them have published about them).
If the label meets the criteria for notability, then an article may be written. You are discouraged from writing it yourself, but not forbidden. Be aware, though, that writing a new article is one of the hardest tasks there is for new editors; and it is even harder when you have a conflict of interest.

This may sound as if it's all designed to "keep you out". But again, the purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopaedia - which summarises what reliable independent sources say about subjects, nothing else - not to promote or publicise anybody. --ColinFine (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FrenchyF No "IT nerd" here, just someone helping out in their spare time. I'm not techy at all. Didn't intend to offend.

ColinFine I appreciate your thoughts(really, hope it doesn't sound snarky). If I had to do it over, I would try to word my thoughts better, but that was the way I initially saw it. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Government of the United Kingdom one month IP edit war

Government of the United Kingdom one month IP edit war .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@0mtwb9gd5wx: I don't see any edit war on that article. There is some occasional vandalism, but nothing too persistent. Either way, this is not the better place to ask for assistance on that kind of issue. Isabelle ^🔔 19:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Isabelle Belato: 2021-07-11T08:15:42‎ to now are all reverts! So where do you think a restriction on editing request is more likely ? .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@0mtwb9gd5wx: I would go to WP:RFP and ask for the page to be semi-protected. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. That would qualify as persistent vandalism, and the IP responsible for that was blocked for 31 hours for those edits. But, even if they hadn't been blocked, the request would probably be denied today as stale. To answer your question, next time you see an user adding obvious vandalism to a page, warn them and, after a final warning, report them at Administrator intervention against vandalism. Isabelle ^🔔 19:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Negatively biased editor removing attempts to make it more balanced

Someone wants to add to a game console article only negatively biased material about a controversy and tried to change the introduction of the article to a negatively biased commentary. When material was added to his material to give a more balanced approach, it was removed as being unnecessary or irrelevant. This person also used a citation to a video blogger with very few subscribers on YouTube who posts speculative sensationalist material it is hard to take seriously. What is the best approach to dealing with this. Should action be limited to a POV banner being added to the article or can the editor be reviewed to avoid an editing war?

Thank you Daltonsatom (talk)

@Daltonsatom: Hi there! Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, the editors can discuss their ideas for improvement on the article's talk page to come to a consensus. (You didn't mention the article in question, so I don't know if this has already happened.) If needed, you could also post a request on the associated WikiProject's talk page to ask uninvolved editors to provide their feedback on the article's talk page. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I assume this is about Intellivision Amico. You have, correctly, started a discussion on the issue on the article's talk page. You have misguidedly accused 50.88.235.139 of vandalism, which means "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose", rather than "expressing an opinion I disagree with". 50's actions may be obstructive in outcome, but not in intention. Maproom (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed instances of the term vandal from my post. This did all begin because he removed material simply because he did not want the other side of his negative remarks or balanced material posted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daltonsatom (talk • contribs) 18:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

edits to the page of Gopal Prasad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopal_Prasad

Hello,

I made two edits to the page of Gopal Prasad: 1) replaced the photograph with a higher-resolution and more current photograph. 2) removed the warning blocks about lack of citations because these no longer applied.

The changes I made were removed by a different user, under the comment that the changes were "unconstructive". I dispute this claim as both changes were helpful and cleaned up the page. I would like to know how the user defends his/her claim that the older page was better.

Thank you --

8bagels

Who actually took that photograph you keep trying to add? You also added no sources, so the BLP sourcing tag must remain. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

8bagels, Wikipedia works by consensus: it is normal for editors to disagree sometimes about whether a change is constructive or not. When this happens, the way to move forward is to open a discussion with the editor in question to try to reach consensus. See WP:BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Abrar Hussain (filmmaker)"

Hi there, this page has been deleted by an editor called User:Explicit.

I have read the help notes on how to restore a deleted page, and it says in the first instance contact the administer responsible for deletion. But I can't see how to contact Explicit. The page was fully linked to several articles from mainstream newspapers like the Guardian, so I cannot understand why this page would be deleted.

Please could you give some simple advice on how to restore this page to wikipedia, or at least on how to make contact with this administer?

Many Thanks

86.20.89.57 (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you can write them a message at their talk page User talk:Explicit, and while you don't have to, Wikipedia:Creating an account makes communication easier. I didn't see the original article, but deletion reason was that it was an expire Wikipedia:Prod and "sources rarely speak about the subject, much content about the subject without source but of the films mentioned" ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding reflist on talk page?

I was just wondering if there was a way to hide the references list on a page (my talk page) since other editors tend to inadvertently add citations to their messages - I personally do not mind the reference list but a user spent 10 edits [1] trying to remove the reference list at the bottom of my talkpage while leaving me a message. If this is the wrong place to ask a question like this please let me know. Thanks! -Liance^{talk/contribs} 22:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liance: I added {{reflist-talk}} at the bottom of the section of your talk page that uses the references. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GoingBatty, thank you so much! :) -Liance^{talk/contribs} 22:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article Background Color

Dear Wikipedia,

How does one customize background? Every Wikipedia article is in white and I would feel comfortable reading articles with a different background. As I have not found any option for this issue I would recommend its incorporation.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalMufasa (talk • contribs) 22:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DigitalMufasa: If you want a dark theme, I would personally recommend Dark Reader, a browser extension that tries to automatically convert any website you visit to a dark version (and usually, including on Wikipedia, does a pretty good job at it). If that's not something you want, you could also try user styles. Another option would be the Dark Mode gadget, which you can turn on at Preferences → Gadgets → Testing and development. Hope this helps! – Rummskartoffel 23:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2021 August 31

Contents