Help desk
< July 7	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 9 >

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 8

"Natural" Records?

Good afternoon, my name is Tom. I have a question and a problem when making edits. What happens is that I have tried to modify a couple of sports articles, adding the word "natural" to those world records that have been broken WITHOUT using any kind of innovative material, doping or enhancement. For example, in Olympic records, where records are broken without using any "support", it would be good to mark them as Natural World Records, since it specifies that they have been broken legally and within the rules of the International Olympic Committee. However, throughout recent history, new world records have been broken, but using some technological material, or doping. There are even alternatives to the Olympic Games, such as Improved Games, which plans to hold competitions without Anti-Doping testing. And I see the need to mark the records, to differentiate them from those that are not "natural" and thus avoid confusion, but also taking into account those that have been beaten using science. All this under the banner of "my body, my choice".

I understand that this is a controversial issue, but my goal is that I see it necessary to know how to differentiate one from the other. Ethics is a separate issue, but the story is a joint one.

I understand if my "objection" is rejected, I would just like to know if I would be allowed to do so. I respect any refusal, but I only ask to see the importance of differentiating what has been natural from what has not been natural.

Olympics Example: https://olympics.com/

Enhanced Games Example: https://enhanced.org/

TomDeMonaco (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TomDeMonaco The problem is, "natural" is new terminology that is not in widespread use. To attempt to label records in this way appears to qualify as original research. Unless there is a broad movement amount sports journalists to refer to records as "natural", Wikipedia will not adopt any such novel terminology. —C.Fred (talk) 02:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits will be reverted. Even ignoring the fact that you are clearly adding unsourced personal opinion to articles, your unexplained use of the word 'natural' in such contexts is entirely inappropriate, since it leaves readers guessing at what the heck it is supposed to mean. I suggest you read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and leave it at that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out: https://enhanced.org/update-wikipedia/ 136.152.143.2 (talk) 03:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I approached the subject with respect, I would have liked to have been reciprocated and not treated as if I was a "fool" or "someone from the crystal generation". I already saw that all the changes were waste, and at NO time did I try to support any cause, contrary to what happened with the wikipedia and Scientology scandal. That's even why I wrote this post, to ask for advice, and it is more than obvious that I never put any personal opinion.

I didn't know that the Wikipedia "community" was so hostile, even when I mentioned agreeing to a refusal of my proposal. TomDeMonaco (talk) 06:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TomDeMonaco, as a disinterested passer-by, I can see no hostility in the responses above, and no hint of calling you a fool or anything similar (your "crystal generation" is not an expression I have ever encountered, so I do not understand its implications).

All the responders have done is explain why your proposal is contrary to established Wikipedia protocols, and linked to relevant Wikipedia policy documents. You asked for advice, and you have been given it. I'm sorry it's not what you hoped for, but the concensus is against you.

It's possible some reverting edit summaries, which are generally terse, may have seemed less sympathetic (I haven't looked) but the volunteers who check many thousands of edits every day have to work as efficiently as possible, have no time to spare for niceties, and after dealing with much vandalism and boneheadedness sometimes can get into a dismissive mindset even with more thoughtful if misguided edits – they are only human. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.177.243 (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TomDeMonaco: "Natural" is very subjective. Any clothing could be called non-natural for humans. Most or all international sports federations have rules about allowed equipment and substances, and such rules are often updated. List of world records in swimming starts: "The world records in swimming are ratified by FINA, the international governing body of swimming." So that page is based on FINA and their rules. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. It's not for us to declare which records are "natural" if FINA or other official sources don't use that term about those records. Your edit [1] also broke 26 links by changing them to non-existing titles. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please let that be satire. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it is satire, it is brilliant. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Random person no 362478479 A headline commenting on the org said quote "Not ‘The Onion’" [2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WOW, it's amazing how badly you guys took my post.

I didn't even read more than half of it, nor do I plan to.

Save your time, I won't read anything.

I think it's a good idea to show your comments and make them public, because of how toxic this "community" is, so as soon as I get a chance, I'll post it. TomDeMonaco (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one here has taken anything badly, nor has anyone been rude to you. These comments are already public(you attempted to remove them). 331dot (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing -- actually, not all that amazing, because we see this behavior quite often -- how badly you took the courteous responses you received, and how quickly you leapt to the conclusion that being told "No, and here's why," was "toxic" and "rude." Like just about everywhere else in the world, Wikipedia has policies and guidelines which we follow, and which apply to everyone who seeks to edit here. You are the best judge of your own time and effort, and if you want no part of a collaborative effort where anyone could say "No, and here's why," to you or where such rules would apply to you as well as to anyone else, we'll soldier on all the same. Ravenswing 17:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I have things to do, and I didn't read anything, so keep writing, I don't care.

I noticed that some of your posts were mysteriously "modified" right after I said I will show them publicly, but I did manage to take screenshots. I wanted to delete my post because I don't have time for childish discussions. So I will just keep ignoring new posts, and close my account (in my devices) to avoid new posts.

Your obsession with a site where you are not even paid, and where no one knows who you are, is funny.

So keep writing, because I won't even receive notifications anymore. TomDeMonaco (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To everyone else, it's interesting how some people really don't get us even as they talk up a cause of their own. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a typical behavior of people of the crystal generation as it described here. Nitobus (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the interested, Enhanced Games. Well I had to, didn't I? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I offer the tentative suggestion that this user (not you, Gråbergs Gråa Sång!) is WP:NOTHERE? As an IP editor (due to ideological conviction) I will not pursue the matter, but possibly others may wish to. Or not. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.177.243 (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About arts

Can someone. Pls let me know where can I get some help to check for some pieces of paintings that from the 15 century up till now, thx 🙏 Pwohng (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Pwohng and welcome to Wikipedia! unfortunately, this is not the right place for this question. perhaps try describing the piece over at the Reference desk/Humanities? happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 12:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My page was deleted

Im trying to find out why my page was deleted. i'm a published songwriter, artist. i'va had the page for a long time and all the information was legal and correct. id really like it restored please

Any help on why and a clear break down of why it was deleted would be appreciated

grateful for any help on this matter

Amy Odell

WWW.amyodellmusic.com 46.253.44.103 (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are not this Amy Odell. The preferred term is article, not "page". It is difficult to be able to look at your deleted article(I am admin who can) and tell you what was wrong with it without knowing the exact title- your IP has no deleted contributions. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was an earlier Amy Odell article, apparently; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Odell. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A look at the deleted history of the page confirms that the article deleted in the AfD discussion linked above was about the Amy Odell who is (apparently) making this inquiry. Specifically, the artist's website correlates. —C.Fred (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can say that it isn't enough for the content of an article to be "legal and correct"- things like notability play into it(such as the definition of a notable musician or a notable creative professional). 331dot (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Juventus TV

This article has no references. JackkBrown (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been tagged with Template:Unreferenced and then nominated for deletion. TSventon (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can I deal with an article that might violate WP:NPOV?

Hello! By mere chance, I've run into the biography of Prime Minister of Lesotho, Sam Matekane, while I was looking for unrelated information. Having taken a quick read at the page, I've realized that, at its current state, it might have serious problems at meeting WP:NPOV criteria. Not only the article looks pretty one-sided and, at times, even unnecessarily pompous ("Matekane self-funded a state-of-the-art political campaign"; "the messianic leader that would bring stability to Lesotho politics"; "Politicians and businessmen [...] have been impressed by his meteoric rise in politics"), but several of the cited links look suspicious, too, with France 24 being the only reliable source I've recognized.

For now, I've just added a POV banner at the top of the page, but I don't think I have the experience, nor the time to go through the whole disputing process... So, should I still open a WP:NPOVD discussion on the talk page, or are there better methods to call for help to deal with this problem (for example, WP:RFC)? Oltrepier (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment saying why you think it violates NPOV is fine @Oltrepier, it doesn't have to be something all official-like. In fact, should be fine to just copy what you wrote here on to the topic. If anyone wants to say it better, they can say something themselves. You can also just remove the worst puffery yourself if you wanted to. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpha3031 Right, thank you very much! By the way, it seems like I wasn't the first to report this issue... Oltrepier (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can also post on the relevant noticeboard: WP:BLPN (or alternatively WP:NPOVN, but I think BLPN is better suited here) to bring this to more people's attention. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saving draft

Hi I am working on a new wikipedia page and want to know how I can save the draft so I can work on it later this week. Could you help me? BPutte (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BPutte You click "Publish Changes". "Publish Changes" should be understood to mean "save", it does not mean "publish this to the encyclopedia". The button used to say save, but was changed to emphasize that all edits are public. 331dot (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Dardanes

Hey can you guys find reliable published sources for Nick Dardanes. MagicalPrince863 (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@magicalprince863: no. you have to find them yourself. we will not do your work for you. lettherebedarklight 晚安 14:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[3]. I used google. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... lettherebedarklight 晚安 14:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help, please, with redirects

Can someone please help sort out the redirect hell I have got myself into? What I wanted to do was:

1. Move the current ‘Boston Manor’ article to become ‘Boston Manor House’, as proposed on the talk page.

2. Replace the current redirect from ‘Boston Manor House’ to ‘Boston Manor’ with a redirect in the other direction, from ‘Boston Manor’ to ‘Boston Manor House’.

I got myself in a mess, have tried to revert everything back to as was, but have ended up (I think) with:

3. The ‘Boston Manor’ page, as was.

4. A redirect from ‘Boston Manor House’ to ‘Boston Manor’, as was.

5. A redirect named ‘Boston Manor temporary page’ with all of the history of ‘Boston Manor’ until 2010 when (I think) an earlier ‘Boston Manor House’ page was merged into ‘Boston Manor’. Don't know what to do with this.

6. A redirect named ‘Boston Manor temporary 2’, which redirects to ‘Boston Manor House’, and needs to be deleted.

Can someone work out how to get this as it should be, and make the changes I need, namely points 1 and 2?

Eternally grateful, Masato.harada (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Masato.harada: I've fixed what I can, and the rest should be handled by an administrator (one of these redirects still needs to be deleted). In the future, if you're trying to move an article to a title you can't move it to, WP:RM/TR is the way to go – in this case, the original move is much easier to perform for users with the page mover permission, as a round-robin move. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

USS Glasgow

I wish to edit this entry, which is inaccurate. How do I go about changing it, please? *1quincey* (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You already asked this question at Wikipedia:Teahouse, and it is being well addressed there. Please ask in just one place, either there or here, but not both. Thanks. Feline Hymnic (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

donating to wikipedia

How do I change my method of donating to Wikipedia Sherw53819 (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Ways to Give, also Cancel or change recurring giving.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you also read about Wikipedia finances. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Auto

Auto is a large industry in the word. I am also found of autos and their usage. But by using these many issues are creating in vehicles. to solve the issues many sites are here where from you can get authentic solutions like ayttosolutions.com. Now i want to write an article on auto problems but i am new here i am unable to understand the usage of this site. Jackjonson123 (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jackjonson123. I'm not clear what you are asking. We have hundreds of articles on automobiles and the automobile industry - if you have reliably sourced information to add to some of these, you are welcome. You can browse Category:Cars for some examples.

But Wikipedia does not accept original research: it is an encyclopaedia, whose purpose is to summarize what existing reliable sources say about a topic, nothing more. In particular, it is not a "how to" site. ColinFine (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to delete a Wikipedia account?

How can I delete a Wikipedia account? Heart Dearest 1803 (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts cannot be deleted. You can simply stop using the account. You may ask for courtesy vanishing, but there does not seem much point in doing so for an account that has made only four edits and had no interactions with other editors. ColinFine (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old Catholic Apostolic Church

Please can someone write an entry about the Old Catholic Apostolic Church? We can't do it ourselves as we are directly involved. www.liberalcatholics.uk is a good place to start, there are other reference points too. (we are only briefly mentioned on Wikipedia on the Liberal Catholic Church entry). Thank you! 84.69.56.117 (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP user,

I have had a quick look, and I cannot currently find any reliable and secondary sources that cover Old Catholic Apostolic Church in detail and offer analysis/interpretation/discussion.

This probably means that unfortunately the Old Catholic Apostolic Church is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Have a read of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). These are the two policies that lay out precisely what we mean by "notability" in the Wikipedia context. Only organisations that meet the notability criteria can have an article, I'm afraid.

If you would still like to try writing an article, you can do so as long as you follow these guidelines:

Create a user account that follows the username policy: Wikipedia:Username policy (ensure only one person has access to this user account - we do not allow multiple people to access a user account via password sharing
Declare your conflict of interest on your userpage: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
Write a draft article via the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process
An editor will then review your draft and either decline or approve it, though this may take four+ months.

Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there are not enough reliable secondary sources for a stand alone article, an alternative is to see if a subsection or at least mention in an article on a related subject may be appropriate. Your homepage mentions a relationship to the Union of Utrecht. Other subjects with articles that may be related to your Church are Independent Catholicism, Old Catholic Church, Liberal Catholicism, or any of the Churches listed on List of Independent Catholic denominations. You could also see if there are enough sources for a stand alone article on the Independent Catholic Churches Council and/or the United Free Catholic Bishops Conference that are mentioned on your page.

Here are a few pages you may find helpful:

WP:Conflict of interest

WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide

WP:Edit requests

WP:Reliable sources

-- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gian Piero Galeazzi

The image on this page was inserted strangely. JackkBrown (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown That image has been cropped, using a template, out of a larger picture in which he is just one of the people present. Why do you think that is a problem? Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull: the problem is that the caption is, as usual, in the centre, while the image is on the left. JackkBrown (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me on Vector 2010. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am using the old vector and I don't see a problem either. RudolfRed (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Turnbull timeless and minerva (mobile) look problematic. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to fix those as I never use them. The picture is correctly centred in the current default vector 2022. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull: From a mobile phone the image is on the left, while the caption is in the centre (via computer I don't know). JackkBrown (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown I only use a PC and as I've said, I don't know how to fix this for other skins/devices. You'll have to wait for an expert to come along: either PrimeHunter or Cullen328, probably. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I edit on Android phones using the fully functional desktop view and the photo is properly centered there. I checked on the far less functional mobile view and the photo was shifted to the left. I have little technical expertise but I suspect that the problem is due to some bug/incompatibility between CSS image crop and the clunky mobile software. The Village pump -technical is probably the best place to deal with this issue in more depth. Cullen328 (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]