Help desk
< July 8	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 10 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

July 9

Help with potential vandalism and edit warring.

Hi Help Desk,

I am one of the previous editors for the article MAD Foundation (Australia). Yesterday, a user going by the name MrsSnoozyTurtle added a Cleanup-PR tag to the article. I was confused, as I believed that this was unfounded and unexpected for the previous work which had been put into the article. I believed their edit was unfounded.

I tried to follow up by seeking a discussion in the Talk Page of the article to find out more about what they felt had brought up this tag, and any evidence/reasoning they had to support it. I undid their tag and explained my reasoning, to which they responded by repeating the same original statement they made when placing the tag on the article. I undid that revision, believing that the situation had not changed, and that no evidenced was brought to the table. Today, worse than doing a third revert, they moved the article out of the mainspace to a Draft page and requested speedy deletion! I have re-read Wikipedia Editing policy (specifically, WP:UNRESPONSIVE, WP:CAUTIOUS, WP:AVOIDEDITWAR), and I am seeking a third-party's help.

I have looked at their contributions to Wikipedia on their profile, and it seems that they are doing similar things on other articles (speedy deletion requests, reverts, etc.). Is this vandalism? If not, is there some way in which this can be prevented? I can't figure out how to put the article back to its original place, because the name of the article 'is already taken'.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! RGBLight (talk) 05:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RGBLight: I am inclined to agree with MrsSnoozyTurtle that the article is promotional, especially when its mission statement is given within the lede; what notability does it serve? The two following sections name-drop celebrities and other organisations, and reference 4 (the YouTube video) isn't a reliable source as it is from the foundation itself; again, not much notability (if any) is established. MrsSnoozyTurtle was doing you a favour moving it into draftspace, as this would very likely be nominated for deletion on grounds of advertising/promotion. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu I would have to disagree with you in a few areas there - there's been consensus on edits for some of those issues you've raised, e.g. the YouTube video is a (necessarily rare but needed) primary source (see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD).

However, I am more than happy to have a discussion about all of these points which you've raised again and improve the article.

My main concern (which is why I've brought this here) is the way in which MrsSnoozyTurtle went about things. It seems to be a pattern of behaviour on their part, where they have brought controversial speedy deletion requests at several times in the past. I looked at their contributions just now for only half a minute, and already I count about 20 different articles in the past few days in which this is the case.

RGBLight (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RGBLight, instead of arguing about MrsSnoozyTurtle (an experienced editor with 25,000 edits, who's familiar with the relevant policies), how about devoting your energy to improving the article? At present it tells us what MAD says it aims to do, its management and supporters, and its publicity drives; but nothing about what it actually does. If no-one can add independently-sourced information about MAD's charitable activities, the article is very likely to be deleted. Maproom (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom I'd love to work more on the article - that's the whole point here. MST is being unhelpful in that process, for the reasons I've mentioned above. Again, I'm happy to talk about article content, but this issue needs to be resolved first. RGBLight (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OP is now blocked, but may wish to read WP:DROP and WP:MISSION. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does mean Guild?

In Talk:Ethiopia § Collateral damage, there is an issue addressed by Moxy over copy edit tag in the article and I need resolution to the problem which they referred a requirement of "Guilding". I don't understand the word. The Supermind (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody mentions "guilding" on that page, but the reference is presumably to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the context is copy editing and the actual quote is "now an editor that specializes in fixing these problems from The Guild won't be back". "The Guild" definitely refers to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Moxy had mentioned and linked it earlier in the page. You could also have searched on WP:The Guild to find out. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(GOCE coordinator comment) I believe the editor in question is an independent one who found the task through Newcomer Tasks or similar; the name doesn't sound familiar to me. That said, if {{copy edit}} is used on an article, one of us Guild members will eventually get to it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My napster account

For 8 years I was able to connect into napster and it automatically connected. Now it is asking for a password and I don't remember it. I tried to reset password and it won't connect me. Kevinmac106 (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6.5 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that the OP is refering to the User account "napster", which was registered in 2017 and exclusively edited the german Wikipedia. @Kevinmac106: Are you refering to the user account napster over at the german Wikipedia? If so, the following applies: Did you provide an email address for the account? If you did, you should be able to request at the log in page, that a new password is sent to that email address. If you didn't provide an email address, bad luck; you won't be able to gain access to your account. However, you can create another account, and using that account, edit your old account's userpage to mention that you no longer use it. Before creating the new account, please read up on Wikipedia's username policy, to make sure your account complies. Hope this has helped. Note that if you try to reset the password, you will most likely have to do so over at the german Wikipedia, since that is the only Wiki where the local account exists. Afterwards, you can use your username and the future credentials to log in to the english Wikipedia too, see Help:SUL for more info about that feature. (Note: If you encounter an error while resetting your password, it would be helpfull to know what it is exactly, so we can pin down the problem. You can reply to me by clicking the edit link in the section header, and then adding your reply on a new line) Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki policies

I'd like to request some clarification on the relevant Wiki policies. Re: Alvin Bragg. I added a section called "controversies". Some editor (User:Muboshgu) removed it and says -- in essence -- that we cannot have a "controversies" section because Wikipedia is "Not News". The relevant page is here: Alvin Bragg. The relevant Talk Page is here: Talk:Alvin Bragg (at the bottom of the page). Can others weigh in? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add. This guy is a high-profile public figure. The "head" DA of Manhattan (NYC). He has had many, many, many controversies since he began office -- only in January 2022. All covered by RS's. I find it quite odd that his article is completely devoid of any mention. So much so, that I even commented on this, at his Talk Page, several months ago. This all seems like white-washing and violations of NPOV. All while "hiding" behind biased "interpretations" of ambiguous Wiki policy. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's (part of) an essay on the subject: WP:CSECTION. ColinFine (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy links: Talk:Alvin_Bragg#Controversies and Talk:Alvin_Bragg#Controversy_section. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 17:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am still seeking help. This is the Help Desk. I am now informed (by User:Muboshgu ... an administrator) that "anything that appears in the news must be excluded from Wikipedia , due to the Wikipedia "Not News" policy. Is the editor (admin) correct in that interpretation of the "Not News" policy? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro I am not an official Teahouse host, but I think the statement "anything that appears in the news must be excluded from Wikipedia" is way too broad (assuming that you quoted @Muboshgu correctly). Wikipedia does not want to be a newspaper itself, hence the Not News policy. However, that essay says "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia...". Articles from newspapers are frequently (and correctly) cited to show notability of a subject, or to verify assertions made in an article. And the policy says that not all current events need to be reflected in an article. Perhaps others can weigh in here with more info. Thanks for checking. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 07:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Muboshgu's actual statement was "This is a story in the news, and that leads us to WP:NOTNEWS." The "anything" statement appears to be OP's despite the quotes. I find the following part of WP:NOTNEWS relevant: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. ... most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". In this case, the content dispute is about the article's subject's response to an incident that occurred on July 7, 2022. I doubt this has had much coverage yet showing that it is of "enduring notability", so I think "recentism" may be at work here. - R. S. Shaw (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Blah. Blah. Blah. The guy's middle name is "controversy". He's been embattled with one controversy after another ... and he's only been in the job for 6 months. Do a Google search. Read. Open your eyes. Yet, not a peep of any controversies in his article. Wow. What are the chances of that? Wow. I guess I must lack reading skills and/or reading comprehension ... after reading dozens upon dozens of articles about him and his "non" controversies. LOL. What a joke. And, this was merely his "newest" / latest controversy ... charging a store clerk with murder when the clerk killed a robber in self-defense. Must be my lying eyes. Move on, folks. No controversies here. Hmmmmm. Wonder what on earth could be going on? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And here's the, ummmmm, "not much coverage" ...which I uncovered in about 3 minutes. Not even searching for his myriad of previous controversies.

Not much coverage ... and not reliable sources (wink, wink)

CBS News: [1]

The New York Times: [2]

The Wall Street Journal: [3]

WPIX-11 News: [4]

CNS News: [5]

Fox News: [6]

Newsweek Magazine: [7]

NBC News: [8]

US Time Today: [9]

Daily Wire: [10]

TMZ: [11]

Independent, UK: [12]

Statement by New York Congressman Lee Zeldin: [13]

The Washington Times: [14]

Breaking Texas News: [15]

News Headlines UK: [16]

US Today News: [17]

Washington Examiner: [18]

News Max: [19]

Politics NY: [20]

Hmmmmm. Wonder what the "x-factor" might be here? It's a real head scratcher. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newsmax, Newsweek, TMZ, Fox, a comment from a political opponent campaigning? Come on @Joseph A. Spadaro. You can do better than that sourcing wise if the controversies are encyclopedic. Star Mississippi 01:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Star Mississippi ... You're being, ummmmmmm, silly. No? I listed about 20-25 sources. You "discounted" about 2 or 3 of them. OK ... so, what about the other 17 or 18 ...? Those 17-18 don't count? LOL. Plus, I could list a million more. And -- as I stated above when I listed the sources -- this search did not even include searching for his myriad of previous controversies. So, you lose on this point. I knew that exactly this would happen ... which is why I (tongue-in-cheek) (and pre-emptively) entitled the list as not reliable sources. Knowing that some one (like you) would cherry-pick 2 or 3 as "not reliable" ... and totally ignore the other 17 or 18 reliable ones. Typical (losing) strategy. LOL. In any event ... thanks ... for bolstering my point. Not the counter-point. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And ... the very first source listed ... says ... Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg facing bipartisan calls to drop case against bodega clerk charged with murder. If you need it, the link for "bipartisan" is here ---> bipartisan. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I could happily discount many more. But you're looking to win an argument, not improve the encyclopedia. I have no interest in this topic area, but perhaps you will find someone here who is and you can have a discussion based on appropriate sources for a BLP. Star Mississippi 01:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geez. I dunno. The article looks a lot different now, after I complained. So, apparently, some editors agree with me ... including an Admin. Translation: Indeed it was my actions -- not yours -- that did indeed explicitly improve the encyclopedia. (You're welcome!) Thanks again for bolstering my points. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and you also appear to have collected yet another edit warring win. Congratulations, you are the King. Star Mississippi 01:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, side-step the actual / real / substantive issues. And call people names. That's a pretty effective argumentation skill. I'll take note. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inexplicable (to me) ParserFunction error

I'll be dashed if I can figure out why an error message has suddenly appeared in the infobox of Alice of France. (It apparently wasn't there yesterday.) The {{marriage}} template seems to have the proper syntax, and there have been no recent edits to the article or the template. I've even tried deleting the template in the article and replacing it with one I filled out myself in case there was something going on with invisible characters or something. What am I missing? Deor (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is caused by Alice's Wikidata entry, which was edited today to have an "unknown value" for her death date. {{marriage}} seems to fetch that death date from Wikidata, but doesn't seem to be able to handle "unknown value" properly. For fixing the template, I think your best bet is asking at its talk page. Rummskartoffel 18:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The end date in the marriage template is the date of her husband's death, not that of her own death, and that's correctly given in the Wikidata item. (And I can't see how Wikidata could affect what goes on within a {{marriage}} template.) Deor (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The marriage template was updated to use wikidata a couple of years ago (unfortunately). The template loads information from wikidata using the {{#property:}} parser function, and the {{Wdib}} template. The wikidata item was updated earlier today to include a "date of death" parameter, with the value "unknown value" [21]. The problem is that the template includes a load of code performing mathematical operations on this wikidata property, e.g. {{#ifexpr:{{#time:Ymd|{{Wdib |P570|fwd=ALL|maxvals=1|noicon=true|pd=yes|df=ymd}} }} >= {{#time:Ymd|{{{3|}}}}}, which loads the "date of death" parameter from wikidata, attempts to convert it to a date using the {{#time:}} parser function then performs an inequality operation on it using the {{#ifexpr:}} parser function. Obviously "unknown value" cannot either be converted to a date or have mathematical operations performed on it, hence the template just produces an error. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deor Forgot to ping 192.76.8.85 (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I still don't understand. The Wikidata item (under "spouse") says that she was married from 1164 to 1191, which is what the marriage template in the article also says. How is the date of her death in Wikidata having any effect? The date of her death has nothing to do with the date her marriage ended. (People's marriages end for a variety of reasons other than their death.) This appears to be just one more instance showing how Wikidata is having a deleterious effect on Wikipedia. I guess I'll take this to Template talk:Marriage. Deor (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deor I haven't followed the entire template's logic through in its entirety, but having had a quick look at it it looks like the template loads a load of different dates from wikidata regardless of whether they are actually relevant, then attempts to do a load of calculations on them. This is apparently done so it can look for cases where the dates don't make sense (e.g. people being married after they died) to populate Category:Marriage template anomalies. I'm generally not a fan of integrating wikidata into templates, but to fix this as it is the template needs to be updated to account for the fact that date properties on wikidata can contain stuff other than dates. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently fixed by an edit to Template:Marriage. Thanks to you and to User:Rummskartoffel for identifying the problem. Deor (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An author added their own book as an external source.

An author added their own book as an external source. I am not able to discuss this with the author, but it seems inappropriate COI. The external reference to his book was added the year of publication. Is this an issue? rdenney (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the article Montopolis, Austin, Texas, and the external link to the book Austin's Montopolis Neighborhood, I'd say that you could delete the link per WP:ELNO #5 (the link goes to a publisher's page whose main purpose is to sell the book). If you think that the book has potentially valuable information about the neigborhood, you could, instead, create a "Further reading" section below the references and use the {{cite book}} template to create an entry for it there, omitting the promotional link but including the ISBN (which will link to libraries' and booksellers' info about it). Deor (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rdenney: Forgot to ping. Deor (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Thanks for the reply and help. ~~~ rdenney (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rdenney. While it might be true that the author of that book (or at least someone using the author's name as their user name) added that external link, the author does seem like some who might be recognized as an expert on the subject matter; so, there might actually be some value of using the book as a WP:RELIABLESOURCE for article content or in a WP:FURTHERREADING section as mentioned above by Deor. It is a bit odd though that you would be concerned about an author adding a link to their book, but you seem to be not too concerned about adding a photo of yourself (at least that's what the file's description seems to imply) to the article. I've removed that photo per WP:IUP#Adding images to articles since it seems its encyclopedic value seems quite questionable at best. Perhaps it would be better to find a photo of the crossing and why its receiving such recognition (perhaps an overhead shot?) instead of one showing three people (one of which is apparently you) standing at the crossing obviously posing for a photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

re: photo .. no problem. I had ownership of that photo so seemed like the easiest thing to add. When NPS / CTRMA / Camino Real completes the project (pedestrian bridge + signage is completed) I will hopefully have a better shot. Believe me, getting "me" in the photo was not the goal. rdenney (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rdenny:Perhaps your assessment of that author is correct, but perhaps it's also just your personal assessment. Whether that's truly the case may need to be something determined by others not somehow connected to the subject matter (e.g. WP:RSN) to sort out per WP:BIASED. Moreover, referring to the author the way you did above is pretty close to if not actually a WP:BLP violation; so, you probably should strike that and refrain from posting similar things on article talk pages or any other Wikipedia pages in the future per WP:BLPTALK. If you want to discuss the reliability or credibility of the author, try to do so in a more neutral tone. Finally, someone like the author of that book might argue that your position as the "Vice Chair of the Travis County Historical Commission and member of the Texas Historical Commission's History Stewards / Archeology Stewards Network (TASN)" creates at least the appearance of an WP:APPARENTCOI when it comes to articles that might fall within the purview of the things the commission or TASN tend to do, and, therefore, is also something that might need to be sorted out. So, you might want to, for that reason, take a peek at WP:COI to see if any of the information on might possibly apply to you. You might also want to take a peek at WP:EXPERT for similar reasons. Try to keep such things in mind when editing and discussing article content on talk pages about subjects which might fall within your wheelhouse (i.e. your recognized area of expertise). -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly We have communications that are crossing paths. I'm just trying to give Wikipedia a factual, well cited history. That's it. I don't see any COI. I assume you want people working on articles that actually have knowledge of the topic. Nothing I've provided is "original" research. It is well cited and as I said has been vetted by THC, TCHC and TSHA. I have at your suggestion hopefully retracted any BLP issues. I'm just trying to clean up what was a mess of an article. Casinos .. names of Indian tribes people couldn't spell correctly. I appreciate your feedback; keep me on the straight and narrow, but I'd ask you do the same w/ other sources of input as well. rdenney (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly Well I no doubt violated BLB by pointing out issues with the book so I'll delete that. So before I delete that let me address this point: you said Whether that's truly the case may need to be something determined by others not somehow connected to the subject matter. It has been vetted by the Texas Historic Commission, Travis County HC, and the Texas State Historic Association (we are working with them on a re-write of the Handbook of Texas entry). I don't think these are my personal assessments, but I welcome any inaccuracies in facts presented along with a citation. rdenney (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]