Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2021 May 5

< Wikipedia:Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< May 4 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 6 >
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.


May 5

edit

Military issues...

edit

As a veteran, I very much look forward to to reading and seeing the details(awards and decorations) of my fellow servicemen and veterans. Good example, just read of BOB FELLER('bullet'-Navy). You mention 'bout his awards and all; and that's it. Those awards and medals are VERY important. And, there are those that read you information and all; but. Have no idea as to what's what...

Most of our articles on military people include their awards, often in the form of pictures of ribbon bars, but sometimes in the "awards" section of the sidebar. Here is a random example: Beauford T. Anderson. We know they are important and that the reader may wish to read about the award, so we provide a link to its description. In the case of Bob Feller, nobody added his awards. I suspect that the volunteer who created this article was interested in baseball and was perhaps not familiar with how to add military awards. Feel free to make a suggestion on the article's talk page at Talk:Bob Feller, or learn how to edit Wikipedia and add them yourself. -Arch dude (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hiding URLs

edit

How do I hide a URL in a footnote? This should explain what I mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thaddeus_Stevens&diff=1021340466&oldid=1021339601 I made the edit that was changed by Newone. I also added the two footnotes at the bottom of this entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietro_Aretino. I'd like to fix them as Newone fixed my Thaddeus Stevens edit.Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC) I fixed the Pietro Aretino entry (I hope properly) by changing the refs to brackets.Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC) I did the same in footnotes 6, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, and 32, all of which I originally wrote. They are numbered [1] through [8]. Some have no verbal description; is that all right?Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Maurice Magnus: If a reference is just a bare URL, I recommend ReFill. After using it a few times you will notice that it often adds a bit more than just a title, like a publisher (mainly for news reports), authors, an access date, or a website name. Victor Schmidt (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I want to follow these instructions, but I can't find the edit button at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietro_Aretino:

Open the article in question in your browser Click the 'edit' button Paste the following line into the very top of the article:

Click the 'preview' button to verify that your change did not interfere with any other parts of the article Click the 'save' buttonMaurice Magnus (talk) 10:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Style of References in articles

edit

Wikipedia Articles have references at the bottom. Does it follow any uniform Style? (APA/MLA/Chicago etc.) Are there Style guidelines for editors to add references in a particular style? --Dattatray Sankpal (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A number of styles are permissible and used; among them, the most commonly used is "Vancouver". Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources and the pages to which this links. -- Hoary (talk) 06:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those pages are comprehensive, but long. In a nutshell, Template:Cite web, Template:Cite book, and Template:Cite journal will cover a lot of instances. So for a book ref for instance you just fill in the fields in the "cite book" template:
{{cite book |last= |first= |author-link= |date= |title= |url= |location= |publisher= |page= |isbn=}}
(and sometimes more fields, but those are the basic ones) and it'll publish it in our default format. Herostratus (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dattatray Sankpal:, As Herostratus mentioned, Wikipedia has its own particular default style which it displays when using templates such as {{cite book}} and {{cite web}}: it is generated by WP:CSS, a customised piece of software written for English Wikipedia by its editors, and which includes elements of The Chicago Manual of Style and APA style, but is unique to Wikipedia. You might call it the 'Wikipedia Style'. The advantage of using templates is that every cited book, journal article or web page is formatted in exactly the same way. On the other hand, you can create citations manually, and many editors do so. Edit the 'Bibliography' or 'Sources' section at the end of an article - you will usually see either {cite book}s, or manually typed details of a book, etc. The idea is simply to give the reader a pointer to where the information can be found. No one style is preferred, but it should be consistent within any article.
The advice from the editors above is very good, but I'm afraid that referencing on Wikipedia is a complete minefield, even for the experienced. Every editor has their own favourite way of creating references (or simply 'refs'). Try WP:Referencing for beginners for a start. Unfortunately there is no 'best' way, or even any one 'recommended' way. In my personal opinion, I still find many of the Help or Documentation pages very confusing, even after a decade spent editing here.
Each article has its own referencing method, which should have been arrived at through WP:Consensus. If you just want to add a single ref to an article, it should be in the same style as all the other refs, but should also be from a WP:Reliable source. Clicking the 'Edit' button at the top of any article will show you how the previous editors have organised the referencing. There are two main approaches: <ref> ...Details of source here, e.g. {{cite web}}... </ref>, or a more complex technological system which uses Template:sfn and automatically links to {{cite book}} etc. Have a look at some of our best examples as found in WP:Good articles and WP:Featured articles. These will all have consistent and properly formatted references. Other articles can be a complete mess of conflicting styles where no-one has bothered to keep to any particular format. Writing WP:Your first article is almost the hardest thing you can attempt on WP. I would tend to start with small edits on uncontroversial articles, and to avoid anything likely to arouse deep feelings. Best of luck, MinorProphet (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MinorProphet: I am more concerned about the uniformity of referencing. Another concern is to know the style generated through cite templates, let's say, Wikipedia Style. The users who wish to cite Wikipedia Article should also get a citation in Wikipedia Style. As of now, citation formats users get from 'cite this page' are APA, MLA, MHRA, Chicago, CBE/CSE, Bluebook, AMA, Bibtex formats. To this list, Wikipedia Style may be added, where uniformity may be defined. --Dattatray Sankpal (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dattatray Sankpal: Thanks for your comments. 1). Could you please try to explain further what you mean by "uniformity of referencing"? Have you had a look at our WP:Manual of Style? Do you mean that you would prefer that all WP articles should use exactly one style of referencing? I most certainly agree, but it's not going to happen until Doomsday. As I mentioned before, our best articles display a uniformity of referencing, say Lage Raho Munna Bhai, whereas David Lloyd George - despite the honourable efforts of certain editors - is sadly a mess. There is a huge mix of conflicting referencing styles, and the last ten references in the 'Citations' section are nothing but bare URLs. Is the sort of thing you mean?
2). As I explained earlier, cite templates generate only 'Wikipedia Style'. That's what they are programmed to do. It is essentially impossible to generate any other style (eg APA, Chicago, MLA) with the use of WP's cite templates, except in very simple cases. You would have to do it by hand, and in some cases you do come across articles formatted in a specific way as if they had appeared in - say- a respected medical journal, or a humanities paper. Here are a couple of examples of {{cite book}}:
  • Bellamy, John G. (1998). The Criminal Trial in Later Medieval England: Felony Before the Courts from Edward I to the Sixteenth Century. University of Toronto Press. pp. 13–15. ISBN 9780802042958.
  • Mateer, David; New, Elizabeth (November 2000). "In Nomine Jesu': Robert Fayrfax and the Guild of the Holy Name in St Paul's Cathedral". Music & Letters. 81 (4). JSTOR 854536.
These are subtly different from every other well-known citation style, and the more complex the citation becomes, the more differences from other established styles become apparent.
3).You mention "citing a Wikipedia Article". Please be aware that 'Wikipedia Style' (i.e what is generated by cite templates on Wikipedia pages) is only valid on Wikipedia. As far as I know, no-one else uses it. Therefore there doesn't seem much point in providing the option. There are further difficulties. I suggest you read WP:Citing Wikipedia carefully, which says firmly at the top that Wikipedia itself is not authoritative since the contents of any article can change drastically at any moment: therefore you probably shouldn't be citing it. It's far better to read the books, journals, newspaper articles etc. referenced in the article and cite them instead. Anyway, most academic institutions have a specific ban on citing Wikipedia. All scholarly journals will have their own house style, which will very probably be one of the ones you mentioned and which are presented when you click 'Cite this page'. All publishing houses will also have their own house style, and every in-house guide will make it very clear what they expect if you submit copy to them. MinorProphet (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My create username not except

edit

Plz sir my usar name not create .Dear sir 38 yers not work create hire india goregaon my life is not solve no any budy show my self work anybody sum time create but no.salry back.plz help me than q — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.38.13.1 (talk • contribs)

Your English is difficult to understand. If you tried to create an account and the wanted username was not accepted then try another name. If you are looking for a paid job then this is not the place. We are volunteer editors. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Microsoft and archiving

edit

Archive 9 of Talk:Microsoft seems to go through November 2020. The current Microsoft talk page ... I see two items, one undated and one from April 2021. Did no one comment there for 6 months? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People edited there, but they were either empty edit request templates or nonsense/vandalism - all were removed. But in general, you're correct very little of note was said during that period. It happens some times. - X201 (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Under this heading, anti-Turkish propaganda continues.

edit
long rant about article content

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_War_of_Independence#Ethnic_cleansing

"Over 1 million Greeks were expelled as were all remaining Armenians in the areas of Diyarbekir, Mardin, Urfa, Harput, and Malatia—forced across the border into French-mandate Syria.[97]"


Errors can be easily detected even in the reference sources it has shown. In 1914, there were 1,500,000 Greeks and Armenians in population growth. 1914 - 1915 According to the claims of the Armenians, 1 million Armenians were killed.

1914 is the minority population in the mentioned Cities. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Proportions_des_populations_en_Asie_Mineure_statistique_officielle_d1914.png Referance Note : 5 Germans, 3 Danes and 1 There are a total of 9 foreign observers, including Swiss.

Diyarbekir(Mardin) 67,518 Urfa 16,718 Mamuratülaziz (Harput,Malatia,Elazığ) 76.070

It is claimed that more than 1 million Armenian and Greek were killed in 1919. There is not such a minority population in that area. To claim that there was such a large population in 1919 is to deny the Armenian genocide. or the Armenian genocide is a lie. or the lie that 1 million people were exiled in 1919. Most of the sources are cited from the book of the Armenian Raymond Kévorkian. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Proportions_des_populations_en_Asie_Mineure_statistique_officielle_d1914.png

8 references are given in the article. 91 Sjöberg 2016 92 Sjöberg 2016 93 Basso, Andrew (2016) 94 Kévorkian 2020 95 Kévorkian 2020 96 Kévorkian 2020 97 Kévorkian 2020 98 Kévorkian 2020 It shows as a reference in the article. : Vahagn Avedian

Some moderators are racist under this title. Please stop this information pollution to improve the quality of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmyazilim (talk • contribs) 07:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've already been told: "The proper place to discuss this is Talk:Turkish War of Independence, and be sure to bring reliable sources to the conversation." -- Hoary (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines

edit

Is a company notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article if it has a few sites publishing about its crowdfunding campaigns and opening of its production unit?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.220.156 (talk)

You may wish to look at the notability guidelines for companies; but in short, announcements of routine business activities such as the commencement of operations do not establish notability, but if independent reliable sources choose on their own give this company significant coverage(not just what it does, but the company itself) it could merit an article.
If you are associated with this company, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you may need to make. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram

edit

I 'd like to insert a diagram in an article. But I dont know how to draw it. One option is to draw it on paper and take a photo, but I d prefer a more sophisticated image. Where should I ask for help? Is there a board? Many thanks, stay safe, Cinadon36 10:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinadon36: Try Wikipedia:Graphics Lab. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks @Victor Schmidt:!Cinadon36 10:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First thing to do is to discuss it at the article in question and see if others think it's a good idea, or if something similar has already been removed from the article. It could save you a lot of wasted work in the long run. - X201 (talk) 10:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

publish a page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ckk76/sandbox

edit

hi,

I've created a page and published it but it isn't coming up when search online. Do I need approval from you before my page goes live? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ckk76/sandbox

RegardsCkk76 (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to submit the page for review. There is a grey box that says 'article not currently submitted for review'. There is a button to submit the draft. Click there. As it stands, it will not be accepted; it has WP:MOS issues and lack of notability.
When you are autoconfirmed, you will be able to publish pages without articles for creation, although I highly recommend you still use AFC to do so. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk)
User:Ckk76/sandbox is not indexed so it will not come up on any internet search results. You have to have it published as Brooklyn Kabongolo for that, as Sungodtemple pointed out above.
However, be aware that the article probably won't be accepted as is. It looks like Brooklyn Kabongolo hasn't played for a Tier One team, so per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football he won't be automatically presumed notable. And the only refs you have now are bare listings, except for the article in the East Anglian Daily Times which only has like two sentences on him. That's not enough to establish that Brooklyn Kabongolo is notable enough to have an article. See WP:GNG. Can you find more? A longer profile, an interview, something like that? Herostratus (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ckk76, I added the template to submit your article, and endorse the answers above. There is more information in Help:Your first article. Additionally, articles are not indexed by search engines until either they have been reviewed by Wikipedia:New pages patrol or after 90 days. TSventon (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Might I use Farsi references to write my article?

edit

Guys, I'm from a small city, Ab Pakhsh, and thinking to add some details to the page of my town. The problem is that my city is very small and there is not too much references and articles about my city in english. May I use Farsi references to write my article in english? Rohalamin (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rohalamin: yes, you may. See WP:NOTENG. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conference chairman in cite conference?

edit

There is no documented |chair= or |chairman= parameter for {{cite conference}}. Should the chairman be shown as an editor, or not shown at all? I noticed this while editing Talk:Multics#Multics versus MULTICS redux Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. Unless the chair is specifically noted as an editor of the proceedings, there is no reason for mention.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU

edit

I have tried to communicate with User:Elgerivani on their talk page and on Gerivan's talk page, but they are not responding, likely due to mobile communication bugs. Can someone help me find a way to communicate? They are obviously a good faith editor, and I don't want to drive him away with a block... Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sungodtemple: Your only edit to User talk:Elgerivani is a generic welcome message they have no reason to reply to. They are using the mobile version, not an app, so they probably hear you. You pinged them a single time at Talk:Gerivan. They have email enabled at Special:Preferences but you don't. You have mentioned MOS but not linked WP:MOS as far as I can see, so they cannot be expected to know what you refer to. Their account is only five days old. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I saw an email link on their user page but it isn't there now so maybe I was wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested to know precisely why Sungodtemple thinks a block might be an option...? ——Serial 12:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. I just think that someone will revert Elgerivani's changes, eventually alienating Elgerivani, leading to vandalism and a block. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Incredible. ——Serial 13:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sungodtemple, They probably reverted your edit because it removed 3.4 kB of their content and they may not have understood the edit summary "Egregious non-MOS compliance". You could try making smaller changes and linking in the edit summary to an explanation on the talk page. TSventon (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it seems to me that the issue isn't MOS but rather a lack of sources. Explaining that issue directly, on the talk page of the article or perhaps on their talk page, might get the conversation started. As you say, they're clearly working in good faith to expand the article but need help/encouragement to learn about verifiability › Mortee talk 13:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cite confetence: linking to external author page?

edit

When I use {{cite conference}} for a paper whose author has a page on wiki, I can use|authorlink= to generate a link. In the absence of a wikipage for the author, how do I link to an external wiki page? Is it supported to code, e.g., {{cite conference|author=[[foo bar]]}}? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the name-holding parameters (|author=, |contributor=, |editor=, |interviewer=, |translator=) allow external links. Yes, both of these forms are allowed when linking to en.wiki articles about <author>:
  • |author=[[<author's artice>]]
  • |author=<author> |author-link=<author's artice>
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statements without citation

edit

Hello,

New user here, keen to learn and do the right thing.

If I am writing something about a topic or person based on personal knowledge, how should I go about it? For example, if I am writing about someone that I once met and who could play five different instruments, can I write "She was able to play five different instruments." without a citation? It seems a shame not to be able to share this information with the reader, just because there is no supporting reference to be found on the web.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tak Kovacs (talk • contribs)

Thanks!

Tak Kovacs Wikipedia does not summarize personal knowledge; it summarizes what published independent reliable sources state. This is necsssary for verification purposes, an important principle of Wikipedia(especially for living people, which has stricter rules for editing). There is no way to verify your personal knowledge- even if you were willing to sit by a phone for as long as Wikipedia exists to take calls from readers(I assume you won't be doing that) and even then, there is no way to know if you are just making it up or not(I don't think you are, just saying). If something is not in a published independent reliable source, it cannot be on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources don't always have to be independent. It depends what they are used for. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. A claim of playing five different instruments is self-serving and would require an independent reliable source. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a brief aside, sources do not have to be web-based. Books and other offline media about the subject are acceptable if they're considered to be reliable sources, and are properly cited. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
edit

With the new position of the article in other languages (kudoz for that), the wikidata item edit link is gone. Also, it would be a good idea if the user could select which languages are most relevant to one (and hence display those first by default). Spiros71 (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiros71: It sounds like you have disabled "Use Legacy Vector" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering, or maybe been selected for a test. The language links can still be edited via the "Wikidata item" link under "Tools" in the left pane but you have to scroll down to the links on the Wikidata page. mw:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements#Deployment plan and timeline has a feedback link to the talk page. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm interpreting your message correctly, the add/edit language link issue has been reported at phab:T282026. Vahurzpu (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit heading of page

edit

I need to edit the heading of a page by adding a word. how do you do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rla2021 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the title of the page, you need to use the move function to move it to a new title. See Help:How to move a page. Is that what you mean? --Jayron32 14:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rla2021: Your user name implies shared use by the RLA organisation. That is not allowed on Wikipedia, see WP:ISU, you will probably need to change it. Also, Wikipedia has strict (mandatory) rules about conflict of interest WP:COI you MUST obey WP:PAID. - X201 (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
edit

If I take values of data from the plot shown in http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/Sciences/sn1987a-neutrinos-dwg.gif and plot these values myself, would it be considered a copyright violation? Astroriya (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asked and answered at the Teahouse.--Shantavira|feed me 15:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How should companies that have been phoenixed be presented.

edit

A phoenix company is a commercial entity which has emerged from the collapse of another through insolvency. The new company is a new legal entity set up to trade in the same or similar trading activities as the former, and is able to present the appearance of "business as usual" to its customers.

How should we represent a phoenixed company in Wikipedia? Should there be one article for the two legal entities? Or should there be two articles, assuming the new company meets notability conditions? 80.41.95.252 (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It will probably depend on the individual circumstances. Do you have an example in mind? TSventon (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at Everest Home Improvement. The company gives the impression they have been operating since 1965 but they are only 10 months old following administration. I have been editing about the administration and another editor in the talk section was wondering if the new company needed its own article. 80.41.95.252 (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My recommendation is to include the info about the new company in the old article, and explain what happened in the history section. The main reason for this is that the new entity is not likely to have enough media coverage for a standalone article, and the info has to go somewhere. If it grows in notability, you could do a fork down the road. It's not quite the same situation, but here's how the phoenixing of MCI --> Worldcom --> to MCI went. Original MCI entity: MCI Communications New entity after Worldcom bought MCI and then changed the Worldcom name to MCI after the financial scandal: MCI Inc.. I'll put this on the talk page also. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe that this is a case-by-case judgement call. There are three possible approaches, and I suspect that splitting the article is the least common of them. Split the article when the two entities are both notable and there is very little commonality as perceived by a general reader. The other approaches are actually two ends of a spectrum. Either treat the old company in the "history" section of a single article about the new company, or mention the new company in a paragraph in an article about the old company. The specifics of this will depend on the relative importance of the two companies. -Arch dude (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the perspective, both. What about the infobox showing the founders and founding date. Should that be the newer or older company? Or the more notable company? I'm leaning towards putting the new company details in the infobox even though it is less notable, and having the insolvent company details in the history section even though it is more notable. Does that seem reasonable? 80.41.95.252 (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest both per General Motors. TSventon (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice, TSventon. 80.41.95.252 (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Miss World Philippines USA

edit

Continental Miss Philippines America — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pageantwiz (talk • contribs) 18:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pageantwiz: Do you have a question about that page? AdmiralEek (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AdmiralEek and Pageantwiz: It looks like an attempt to propose the page rename – see the OP's entry in the history of Talk:Continental Miss World Philippines USA. I'm going to fix the talk page entry, but I know nothing about the subject so I refrain from renaming or arguing either for or against it. --CiaPan (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Text wouldn't indent

edit

I couldn't get some text to indent properly at the bottom of the page:

Why wouldn't this text indent? It indented in preview mode, and it indents when I use this form at other times. For example, earlier today on another talk page, the form is the same as in my "3" here, with a little extra text after the template.

74.98.192.38 (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May by be preceding a paragraph with a single or double colon would do...? --CiaPan (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess "indent" is the wrong word. I wanted it to look like this:
indented text
with a monospaced font. 74.98.192.38 (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I tested that and it doesn't work, indeed (Special:Diff/1021640113#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 May 2021). I suppose the {{Mono}} template could work in this case. There are other, similar templates mentioned in the 'See also' section of the template's description. --CiaPan (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another user has deleted my user page

edit

Hello, another user has deleted my user page. They claim that it made use of inappropriate promotion or advertisement; I do not believe it was doing that, and it certainly was never meant to do that, as I've tried to repeatedly tell them. Please help. Cjslaby (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was written in the third person, and included the marketing link, "You can find him on Twitter at...". A userpage is not supposed to be an advert for yourself, it is where you tell people who you are: what your areas of expertise are, and what your strong opinions are which might influence your edits. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was written in the third person because that's a common way to write a bio; I can write it in the first person if that helps. The link to my Twitter account is not a marketing link. My Twitter page is simply my most active online presence (it is not commercial in any way and my linking to it was meant to serve as an extension of my bio, not an advertisement for anything). I do not have a personal website, for example, otherwise I would link to that. Am I allowed to link to my Twitter page at all? (Some seemingly experienced users have pointed out that plenty of people on here link to their Twitter accounts.) And either way, what can I do to un-delete my user page? Thank you for your help. Cjslaby (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This user page probably shouldn't have been deleted; I think it's being seen as spam when it isn't. I'm half inclined to undelete it as not unambiguous, and thus not eligible for speedy deletion, and if someone wants to make their case for deletion at WP:MFD, they can. The other half thinks the proper thing to do is tell Cjslaby about Official Procedure(TM) and that they can take this to WP:DRV. The first is a little disrespectful to the deleting admin, who gets rid of a lot of spam, the second is a little disrespectful to the user who was treated too harshly and now would have to jump through more unfamiliar bureaucratic hoops. Can we possibly go with option C, @Deb: undeletes it herself, or tells me she's OK with me doing so? I have seen a lot of long-term editors with a twitter handle on their user page, and arguably more promotional than this. This user has been editing a little here a little there since 2018, created a new article... they're editing in good faith. This is not an account that created a user page as an ad and left. I've looked at the Twitter feed, and this seems like a pretty bog-standard Twitter feed. This really does not seem to me to be spam. Deb? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Floquenbeam FWIW, I brought this up with Deb and the discussion does not lend itself to option C. Alyo (chat·edits) 22:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I'm incredibly persuasive and irresistibly charming. Let's give it a while. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed Nosebagbear (talk)
@Nosebagbear: QED. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, fair enough! Would love if this could get resolved that way. Alyo (chat·edits) 22:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to @Deb: deleting User:Jimbo Wales as spam. DuncanHill (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How amusing. Yes, it's true that there was a time when nearly all of us had links to our websites on our user pages, but most people removed them about ten years ago after the consensus decision that editors should not be allowed to promote their external activities in that way. The guidelines currently say that "You are also welcome to include a simple link to your personal home page, although you should not surround it with any promotional language." It depends how you interpret the phrases "home page" and "promotional language". I don't see it as an invitation to get the rest of the world interested in the things you're interested in. Although I don't recall exactly, I believe my attention was drawn to this particular user's page after he was warned about canvassing.
I'm finding it difficult to achieve consistency in this situation. Look at some of the user pages that have recently been tagged and/or deleted recently as spam, and tell me what the difference is between my deletion of his page (after he had taken issue with my simply removing the Twitter link) and this deletion or even this one. Nevertheless, if Floquenbeam feels it's okay to link to a Twitter feed that promotes various events, I'm not going to get into an edit war over it. So I'm going to take User:Tagishsimon's advice and take a break from the spam-fighting effort. Deb (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Deb. I can understand a desire to take a break from spam-fighting - in the past, I was a big anti-vandalism admin but found that too exhausting and depressing - but I hope it's clear here I don't think you need to do so, this is just a difference in perspective, and maybe it's useful to consider this feedback you can use to occasionally recalibrate your spam detector. I agree we aren't 100% consistent in this. I hope you take a break if you want to; I hope you don't take a break if you don't want to. Thanks for letting me choose option C. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is this option C? Is my user page going to be un-deleted now? My bio and my activities here and elsewhere are not spam, I'm not trying to sell or promote anything, and if other experienced editors take issue with what was in the bio I've indicated I'm perfectly open to making sure the wording (etc.) follows Wikipedia's guidelines and rules. I'm still so confused about all of this. I can understand something seeming fishy and wanting to make sure it's above board; but I've now responded and, I'd thought, clarified things. There's still this suggestion that simply by including a link to my Twitter bio, which is my online home base, I'm "promoting" something. Myself? The fact that I exist on the internet? If I were trying to sell something or make money or do something else inappropriate, I'd completely understand. But I'm just a historian on the internet. I promise the second I make a personal website I'll make sure that that's what I link to. But until then it seems extreme to suggest that there's something wrong with me linking to my Twitter account. Cjslaby (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is option C. I'll undelete the userpage in a minute. I might comment a little more later, but I'm pressed for time IRL and wanted to log on just to get this taken care of. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to all those who helped resolve this!! Cjslaby (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Won’t send new info to wikipedia

edit

How to send the new info to Wikipedia? It’s my own career and name I corrected. I also added a bunch of career info. Maryann Price Austin, TX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9970:62F0:F8E8:6CCE:502A:75AE (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Maryann. There is no way to "send info" to Wikipedia: everything is done by editing articles, or talk or discussion pages, like this one.You are strongly discouraged from directly editing any article about you or with which you may have a conflict of interest. What you are welcome to do is to post an edit request on the talk page of the article in question. (pick those blue links to get more information about these topics). Note that, while Wikipedia is keen to have its articles accurate according to the best published sources, it will not accept any information which has not already been reliably published somewhere, so any request you make to add information which cannot be corroborated from a reliably published source, or to remove information which is in a reliably published source, is unlikely to be acted on. --ColinFine (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Maryann Price article nor Draft:Maryann Price, so we have no idea where you added the info. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And this ip has made no other edits to Wikipedia Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Maryann Price" is mentioned in eight articles, e.g. List of Asleep at the Wheel members. TSventon (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
edit

According to Wikipedia:Edit_requests#Making_requests "The simplest approach for edit requests for fully protected, template-protected or semi-protected pages is to use the View source tab on that page and use the "Submit an edit request" link at the bottom right; this automatically loads the correct talk page template". When I go to Template:Indian Independence Movement and View source I see no such link at bottom right or anywhere else. DuncanHill (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a blue button. It works for me in an alternative non-admin account. Is your language at Special:Preferences the default "en - English"? Do you see it if you log out? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Language is en-GB. If I log out I do see it. So the trick is to log out, click the button, then log back in. DuncanHill (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recommend en-GB (British English) or en-CA (Canadian English). You get a handful of different spellings but lose a lot of customisations made at the English Wikipedia, e.g. relevant links to tools, guidelines and processes. You see a mild notice at top of preferences: 'Your language setting of "British English" means that you may miss some local customisations.' I wanted a stronger warning in MediaWiki:Preferences-summary/en-gb but other editors opposed it. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do know that. I'd rather use my own language than a foreign one. DuncanHill (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2021_May_5&oldid=1022198509"