Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2023 August 25

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 25

Wiki page deleted, how to reinstate?

We realised that the Wiki page for our school has been deleted, and we were not alerted about the deletion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_the_Arts,_Singapore

Could we find out why it was deleted and, is there a way to reinstate the page? Sotaocc (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sotaocc: The reason given on that page is that the article was deleted due to copyright problems, so there will be no way to get it back in its previous form. You can recreate it, if you avoid the copyright problem. Check out WP:YFA on how to get started. Also, because you are using "we" and "our", remember that an account must only be used by one person and it cannot be shared. RudolfRed (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sotaocc, if you intend to do any editing (such as recreating the article), please review Wikipedia's guideline on editing with a conflict of interest: WP:COI. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Can people remove things that they do not want on their bio?

I am one of your donors when asked because I use your site all the time. Usually there is a mention of any controversy, however small and all new news seems to appear almost instantly. That does not now seem to be the case with Rachel Zeglar and I see so many articles about what she has said over the last few years, because of the Snow White controversy. Have things been added and removed? This is not the first time she has done things, including trolling others.

Thanks,

David Thompson DCTB (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@dctb:

for your header question, what you describe is forbidden.

and what's the "snow white controversy"? ltbdl (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Google her name and Snow White. Just her name will probably be enough. Dozens of internet commentators have been making content about it. The other things come up too. DCTB (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi DCTB. All content added to Wikipedia articles is required to meet relevant policies and guidelines, or it may be removed at any time. The policy regarding articles about living person can be found at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. This policy tends to be quite strict in many areas and demands a higher degree of reliable sourcing when it comes to content (particularly contentious content) about the article's subject. Any content questionably or otherwise unreliably sourced (as defined by Wikipedia or outright defamatory can be removed by anyone (including the subjects of articles) asap. When there are disagreements about such content, it is expected that it be discussed on the article's talk page or at an appropriate noticeboard (like here) so that it can be assessed by others and determine whether it's OK to include in the article. In principle, neither the subjects of articles nor anyone representing them (claiming to represent them) do not have any final editorial control over what's written about them on Wikipedia. In fact, they are pretty much highly discouraged from directly editing or creating any content about themselves on Wikipedia, except in certain specific situations. They are instead encouraged to seek assistance from other members of the Wikipedia community as explained here. Efforts are made to try and help them as much as possible, but only as far as is permitted under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Finally, you need to be very careful about accusing others of inappropriate editing unless you are clearly able to provide proof of your accustaions. It's better to assume good faith at first until at least there's a very good Wikipedia policy based reason for no longer doing so. For reference, content is added to and removed from Wikipedia articles all of the time, but this doesn't mean either is being done by the subject's of articles or someone representing them. The best thing to do when content you might've added tp an article is removed is to first try and understand why it was removed. Often the user removing the content has left an edit summary explaining why, and such edit summaries often include links to relevant Wikipedia policies or guidelines that provide further explanation. If after even after reading such edit summaries or policy/guideline pages you still don't understand or agree with the removal, then you can start a discussion about it on the article's corresponding talk page and seek further clarification. What you absolutely don't want to do is continue to try and force the content into the article after it has been removed (except in certain specific cases) because that can lead to edit warring, which in turn can lead to accounts being blocked. You need to particularly careful with respect to content about living persons because they tends to be very little tolerance for anything resembling edit warring with respect to such content. Finally, while it's great that you've donated to Wikipedia, please understand that doing so doesn't give you any special or additional editing priviledges. Your edits are also going to be expected to comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and they may be reverted when they don't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC); [Note: Post editted by Marchjuly to change "What you absolutely do want to do" to "What you absolutely don't want to do". -- 08:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)]

I think this post is missing the word "not"("What you absolutely want to do is continue to try and force the content into the article"). 331dot (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for catching that error. I've corrected that part of my post accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Just going to add that Rachel Zegler was protected by a Wikipedia administrator named El C about a week ago due to some serious disruption caused by sockpuppetry. One the edits made that led to article's protection was so problematic that needed to be removed from public view. So, if by chance, you (i.e. DCTB) were involved in any of that, I suggest you quit while you're ahead because continuing to do such things will certainly lead to more reversions and your account eventually being blocked. If, however, you had nothing to with any of that and just feel the controversy is something that should be covered in the article, I suggest you be WP:CAUTIOUS and first carefully read through WP:BLP, and only then start a neutrally worded discussion explaining your position at Talk:Rachel Zegler. You can propose what content you think should be added and explain how it can be done in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Be advised, though, that Wikipedia's policy on content related to living persons applies to all Wikipedia pages; so, you need to make sure whatever your post on the talk page doesn't violate said policy with respect to subject or any other living persons. You should also focus on the content you feel should be added and avoid making any accustations or claims about other Wikipedia users. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

DCTB, venomous hatred will never be allowed in a Wikipedia biography. Cullen328 (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you to all the replies and level of detail.

I am a Wikipedia fan and for clarification had not had an account until I had this question, I certainly have not been involved in ever putting anything on the site, wouldn't have the nerve as I am not an expert on any of the subjects I look up!

This is the first time I have ever seen so much controversy about someone and nothing shows on their Wikipedia page about them, yet more keeps coming up. Usually it almost appears in real time as if by magic.

If controversy can be removed, it seems odd that so many people and companies do not remove theirs - especially if it is biased or has an agenda that does not read neutrally.

Although I think one of the replies above indicates that someone with the power to do it, has decided to protect her for some reason DCTB (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The article about Zeglar was protected by an administrator because of disruptive editing by some of the accounts editing it; it wasn't protected to stop any mention of the controversy related to her from being added. Wikipedia articles aren't intended to be hagiographies, and negative content about an article's subject can be added as long as it's done so in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you feel this controversy needs to be mentioned in the Zegler article and can be done in accordance with these policies and guidelines, then you can propose such a thing on the article's talk page. It could be possible that the controversy regarding Snow White (2024 film) and Zegler's casting in it is in some ways more appropriate to add to that article about the film itself than to the one about her. There is, in fact, already separate section about the controversy in the article about the film so nothing is really being glossed over. Finally, just because something seems to appear by magic doesn't mean it should be there in the first place. I can't see the content that someone was trying to add to the Zegler article, but it was so inappropriate that an administrator felt it needed to be removed from public view. Cullen328, who commented above, is an administrator and he can see the content. Based on what he posted above, it was something that was truly bad that needed to magically disappear as fast as it appeared. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, that is well written and helpful. It makes sense too, with the comments being added to the product or project it is attached to.

It is a shame someone has not added content without breaking guidelines. Even today I saw a page of very unpleasant trolls she has aimed at other public figures.

I wondered if that was the same with other controversies and checked 'Bud Light'. Sure enough the controversy is attached to the product, but although referenced, is worded in a much more positive way on Dylan Mulvaney's page.

Not showing content, seems to be the same as hiding it. With regard to Rachel Zeglar, at least having the headings, with little content, that is acceptable or has had the abusive parts removed, would at least look honest and neutral.

From what I have read above, it appears that Administrators play God like Twitter Administrators used to.

Shame. I will keep donating, but am sad to see that accusations from the right have merit. If I ran the site, it would be uncensored for all points of view. DCTB (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

DCTB, if you prefer websites where people are perfectly free to spout hatred, tell bald-faced lies and foment violence against their cultural enemies, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the website for you. There are plenty of websites where vicious trolling is allowed. Wikipedia is not one of them. Wikipedia has been a top ten website worldwide for many years precisely because we have strict standards and, in particular, do not allow vile and false personal attacks on living people. If you ran this website, it would rapidly deteriorate into a cesspool and completely lose its crdibility. The deleted edit of 10:24, August 15, 2023 was beyond the pale and it is entirely correct that it was removed from public view, because the content was outlandish, ugly and false on the face of it. As for your donations, if you disagree with our core policies, then please feel free to stop donating. The Wikimedia Foundation is rolling in cash. They have net assets of about US$240 million and an endowment of over $100 million. As for people with power trying to protect her, I can assure you that I had never heard of Rachel Zeglar before this conversation. Administrators like me enforce our WP:BLP policies to "protect" every single living person who is discussed on Wikipedia, and we will keep doing that. Cullen328 (talk) 01:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

What a disgraceful response from someone claiming to represent Wikipedia. This is the first time I have felt like asking a question and even joined to do so. Much has been very helpful above. Nothing I have written has warranted that response, or even the one intimating I might have tried to add abuse to a Wikipedia page and to "quit while I was ahead".

I only wanted to know why there are 'controversies' on every page that the person it was about would not like on there, but nothing for this one person, it seemed odd considering how many television programs and podcasters were talking about it.

I have never edited anything on here or intend to in the future. I just like the information and some was missing for the first time.

Having said all that, it is I think unlikely that Cullen328 is a genuine Wikipedia Administrator and just a troll with an account like mine. No-one representing a top ten website would speak to members of the public that way for no genuine reason and nothing I have written is a reason for that diatribe. With any luck an actual administrator will see this and report the account DCTB (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328 is most definitely an admin. It's past time for you, DCTB, to drop this. Meters (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

DCTB, please read Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cullen328. I was selected as an administrator six years ago with 99% support. My long record of service to this encyclopedia goes back to 2009, and speaks for itself. I stand by what I wrote above that you object to with an argument based only on indignation. You are entirely free to blog elsewhere. Cullen328 (talk) 07:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

DCTB indef'ed by user:Star Mississippi Meters (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Can I find a person who can edit a section for me, to include my theories about Artificial Intelligence?

Is there a service who knows how to write an entry and do so respecting the policies and rules of the wite? Chuck (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Unless your theories have been subject to significant independent commentary in relevant published reliable sources, they will have no place on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Generalp2. To help clarify what AndyTheGrump posted above, you should take a look Wikipedia:No original research. In addition, although you might find someone willing to try and create an article for you for payment, be advised that such persons aren't affiliated with Wikipedia in any way. Wikipedia is pretty much a WP:VOLUNTEER service and everyone edits Wikipedia is subject to the same policies and guidelines. Moreover, even if such an article were to be created, you would have pretty much zero editorial control over it as explained in Wikipedia:Ownership of content. For reference, paid-editing isn't expressly prohibitted by the Wikimedia Foundation per se, but there are lots of restrictions placed upon it in addition to those that volunteer editors have to deal with. Some who offer their services for a fee do make every attempt to do things in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and are upfront about the limitations placed upon them, but they're so many others whose main concern is parting you from your money. So, beware of those whose promises seem to be too good to be true because they either are knowingly deceiving you or have very little or no idea as to how Wikipedia works. In either case, any problems you might find yourself having with such people will be between you and them. The Wikimedia Foundations won't step in to try and resolve things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Input energy

what is the input energy for stove, torch, radio 41.116.85.43 (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

please ask knowledge questions at the reference desks. ltbdl (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Template tries to use a nonexistent file

I'm having a problem where the 'Routelist row' template automatically tries to use the file 'Florida_Toll_686A.svg' (which doesn't exist). Is there any way to force it to use the file 'Florida_Toll_686A.png' instead? Andumé (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@I Am Andumé: Please link pages you want help with. I don't know whether {{Routelist row}} can display a png file but it has a noshield option. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I guess I'll have to either use the noshield option or find and upload a .svg image. Andumé (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

CBD Gummies

Is CDB Gummies is legal in USA Brijeshrb (talk) 07:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, can't help. It says on top: "This page is only for questions about using Wikipedia, not for general knowledge questions." -- Hoary (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Suggest that you use your preferred search engine to learn more about the legal status of cannabis or CBD in the US. 331dot (talk) 08:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that cannabis regulation in the US is effectively on a state by state basis, so what is completely legal in California, Oregon and Oregon Colorado may be a felony offense in Mississippi, South Carolina and Louisiana. Search for the applicable laws in your specific state. Cullen328 (talk) 08:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

There are two Oregons?! casualdejekyll 01:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Only in my tired brain and my typing fingers, Casualdejekyll. I meant to mention Colorado. Cullen328 (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Promotional-appearing edits to Travelodge (British company)

Please can an editor with rollback permissions (I think that’s what would be needed? Not entirely sure though [edit: it appears I may have been mistaken]) restore this revision on the article for Travelodge (British company)? Edits introduced since appear to be promotional and reference primary sources. (I have warned the editor in question on their talk, but am unable to restore the old revision myself.)

Thanks in advance, and apologies if this is the wrong place for this request! A smart kitten (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the promotional gumph about charity work, it was badly formatted as well. I've not touched the factual changes preceding that, someone with access to an independant up-to-date source needs to check it. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Confusing copyright issue re: ALS article

Solved it myself

I'm doing a GA review of the ALS page and I'm not sure what I'm looking at and have no idea what to do about it. This [1] appears to be backwards copyvio as it's a near perfect match for the oldest ALS revisions (2006 wiki v 2017 NIH 97.1% [2]). If that was the end of it I'd slap a {{subst:backwards copy}} on there and get back to my review, except that archived version is cited repeatedly by the current version in a manner inconsistent with copyvio.[3] Just to make matters more confusing, the article was tagged,[4] and then untagged, as copyvio from somewhere else entirely in 2006, and I can't figure out why it was untagged. The oldest version of that[5] matches the current version substantially[6] and matched the tagged version.[7] Can someone with an eye for copyright tell me what I'm supposed to do here? Rewriting it is well beyond my abilities, and I'm not comfortable tagging it as copyvio when it appears to have already been cleared and/or backwards copyvio. ~ Argenti Aertheri(Chat?) 11:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC) Digging through the archive of the talk page I found why the original copyvio tag was removed [8] and another comment that may help [9] (if those don't take you directly to the comment, try refreshing the page). I'm still not sure what to make of this though. ~ Argenti Aertheri(Chat?) 04:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC) More digging resulted in me figuring it out. The original page, back in 2006, was pretty much a direct copy of a public domain source. A source that appears to also be the source for everything else linked/mentioned above. I've added the appropriate public domain citation template and gone back to reviewing. I'm not sure policy on deleting questions here so I'm collapsing it instead. ~ Argenti Aertheri(Chat?) 11:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Question with talk page

i think this my first time using the help desk but how do i switch from source editing to visual editing on my talk page? it won't let me change it :( Lolkikmoddi (message me!) 13:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lolkikmoddi: VisualEditor is poorly suited to discussions and interface links to it are omitted in talk namespaces. You can use it by clicking the normal source edit tab and then manually change action=edit to veaction=edit in the url. You can also install User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/VisualEditorEverywhere. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

New entry declined, is it because of insufficient footnotes?

hi there! I just submitted my first-ever new Wikipedia entry and it got declined. It's this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Chris_Molanphy I carefully read the reasons for the decline and I guess I'm still puzzled. The subject of my article has been cited by many reliable secondary sources. Can you offer advice please? Thank you! MarcdePezenas (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)MarcdePezenas (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Your article does absolutely nothing to indicate that Molanphy meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. That requires an article based around significant coverage in secondary published reliable sources. Find the sources. Use them for article content. Cite them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@MarcdePezenas, the basic problem is that you've cited sources by Chris Molanphy. You need to summarize and cite sources about Chris Molanphy - ones written by folks with no connection to him. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

oh, thank you for the speedy response, Andy! If I may ask for a clarification, can these sources be interviews with Molanphy by people unaffiliated with him? For example, if he's been interviewed by a tv or radio show about his career, by someone with no connection to him, would this qualify? Like this for example: https://writeaboutnowmedia.com/podcast/2020/5/24/chris-molanphy-on-what-makes-a-song-a-smash-hit Thanks in advance! MarcdePezenas (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

No, interviews are NOT reliable independent sources so do not contribute to notability. Theroadislong (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@MarcdePezenas, I'd recommend a careful reading of WP:42. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

One way to look at it, MarcdePezenas, is that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Can another editor publish a draft article of an IP without asking?

Hi. My query is: can an editor publish a draft article created by another IP into an article, without asking for that IP's approval?

(Since IPs cant publish an article in the first place, they can only draft it) So if another editor decides to publish that draft as an article (without even asking for IP's approval), can that editor publish that page? Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Technically, yes, but it would be just as rude as publishing an account holder's draft without asking. Why not ask, @Shadowwarrior8? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Technically, the draft space is as collaborative as the mainspace, so the same rules apply, you can move, edit or rename a draft article, but the same rules around consensus apply. The only difference is that we do allow draft creators to move/nominate to AfC without issue (although, we still kind of have a consensus based approach when things are moved back to draft, or denied at AfC). There's really no reason to not at least communicate with a draft creator. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski An editor communicated, but what if:

i) the draft creator IP took too long of a time to respond? (suppose the IP didnt respond within a day)

ii) he just ignored the message?

(sometimes certain prominent events, incidents, etc. maybe happening on the ground) Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course it's more difficult to communicate with IPs, since we may be on a different address tomorrow than we are today, but @Shadowwarrior8 I would recommend leaving a note on both their latest talk page and on the talk page of the draft itself, then giving it at least a day. If it's Very Important Breaking News (despite Wikipedia having WP:NODEADLINES), consider simply making your own draft, using whatever sources you find, and publishing that. It's still considered impolite by some, but them's the breaks. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

A day is much too short a time. Not everyone has the time or access opportunities to use the internet every day, and if they have they may want to do other things than work on Wikipedia: consider that we wait for 6 months of no activity on a Draft before (maybe) deleting it as abandoned. Generally I would consider a week to be a minimum reasonable period to wait for a response. Remember, WP:There is no deadline. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.140.169 (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

It's August. People take holidays in August. I'd say, wait at least two weeks. Wikipedia has no deadline. Maproom (talk) 08:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

How do I become a contributor and or editor of articles?

I wish to do so, how may I proceed? The specific page is Biogeography, I wish to contribute an article, a map, dedicated to the that subject and the Ocean. If your current people wish to do so themselves, National Geographic March 1969 pgs 396-397 have the map in question, which will be a good starting point and or continuation for the subject. GabrielDDavis (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, GabrielDDavis, and welcome to Wikipedia. You become an editor and contributor by editing and contributing.

My advice is to start by finding some articles in an area of interest to you, (for example, soome of the articles in category:Biogeography) and making small improvements to them; always remembering that every single piece of information you add to an article should be verifiable from a reliable published source|. Please see Help:Introduction to get started.

It is likely that some of your edits will get reverted, either because you are not yet familiar with some Wikipedia policy, or because somebody disagrees that the edit is appropriate: when this happens, don't panic! This is the normal way that collaboration works here, and you are welcome to open a discussion with the editor who reverted you, either to ask for clarification or to argue your case for the change (see WP:BRD).

When you have spent some time getting familiar with how Wikipedia works, then is the time to consider creating a new article: read your first article.

Note that the subject of the article must meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, which says that enough has been reliably published about that subject to ground an article. If you are proposing an article about a particular map, then you need to find indpendent sources that discuss that map; but I suspect that that is not what you meant. It may be more appropriate to add information to existing articles such as Biogeography. ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, GabrielDDavis. A map published by National Geographic in 1969 is almost certainly restricted by copyright. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Cullen328 (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I was not aware of that, maybe the author or his estate can be directly asked for the map? GabrielDDavis (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

(The Magic Lure of Sea Shells

Zahl, P. A. & Boswell, V. R.) GabrielDDavis (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)