Help desk
< June 1	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 3 >

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.

June 2

Institute for Legislative Analysis Deletion

Extended content

Good Evening, this is now the second time the Institute for Legislative Analysis page has been deleted. I am both requesting both its un-deletion and a review by admin into the past deletion actions on the basis of WP:COI.

Upon the original flagging of the page for deletion (roughly two weeks ago) I made a long list of edits in an attempt to appease those seeking the deletion for WP:ORGCRITE. I added these additional four sources to meet WP:ORGCRITE: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-conservative-group-grades-lawmakers-limited-government-principles-see-where-yours-stands; https://www.gillettenewsrecord.com/news/wyoming/article_17db6053-4975-5b50-b1e0-3fe3ef4e4317.html; https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/2453025/nikki-haley-tops-limited-government-score-card/; https://marylandmatters.org/2023/06/14/political-notes-a-new-scorecard-gop-claims-vindication-in-poll-and-perezs-new-post/.

Despite the additions and edits made, these individuals still sought to delete ILA alleging it is not a notable organization. To be clear, any objective and rational review of the ILA’s work and influence confirms it is a major player in conservative politics. ILA’s CEO was recently named one of the 500 most influential people in public policy due to ILA’s work - https://www.washingtonian.com/2024/05/02/washington-dcs-500-most-influential-people-of-2024/?__cf_chl_tk=6efEngfVVSbtKjs3ytmihacmdrBsnFaeLcmivLKBr_E-1717299913-0.0.1.1-9001.

Plus, if that was all not enough, I learned a couple of days ago that the ILA is closely followed by Members of Congress. In fact, over two dozen U.S. Representatives posted about a recent ILA report in the last 48 hours alone. Upon reviewing a couple lawmaker posts, I learned that the ILA is actually an entity of the Conservative Partnership Institute – the most powerful MAGA org tied to President Trump and Mark Meadows. Therefore, I thought I could finally without a doubt put the entire debate to rest - there are countless articles that demonstrate the notability of CPI, including an extensive one from the New York Times. This solved every possible concern those seeking to delete ILA could have. I was in the process of adding additional documentation to the ILA page (such as financial disclosures on CPI and ILA with same address, members of Congress acknowledgement, etc.). However, before I could make the updates to the ILA page, it was deleted for yet the 2^nd time.

Since the ILA is one of the top players in conservative politics I could not understand why the page was coming under such attack for deletion. Therefore, I started looking at the profiles of those seeking its deletion. Interestingly, they appear to be philosophically progressive. While I am unsure if there is a political motivation behind their advocacy to delete the page, I think it is fair to say they probably do not have much understanding of conservative politics, especially compared to someone myself who closely follows conservative non-profits.

But perhaps even more interesting, when doing additional research into ILA’s financials, I found out that the American Conservative Union has filed a lawsuit against the ILA claiming multiple counts of “unfair competition in the marketplace”. Apparently, both of the orgs produce scorecards. And it just so happens that these deletion flags came around the same time as the filing of the lawsuit.

Thank you for your help in this matter and work to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia. Politicalorganizationjunkie (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the forum for either one of your purposes. Undeletion is requested at this page, and requesting the review of an administrator action is done at WP:AARV. 331dot (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since Institute for Legislative Analysis was deleted after an AfD, the correct place to appeal the deletion is WP:DRV. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module for handling text contrast

Hi. I'm working on {{Nominee table}} and couldn't find a module that would handle color of text on different colored backgrounds. Is one avilable? Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing mistakes and adding our contribution x

Hello! I represent the Canadian hip hop group Conspirituality from Vancouver B.C. We formed the Group in 2007 and are still active in 2024. In 2011 two academics took our name, wrote an academic journal called the Emergence of Conspirituality. In the journal we are cited as the inventors of the Word Conspirituality. We first used the word in 2003. And our Wikipedia page was taken over and rewritten with out mentioning us. In 2018 adding insult to injury a podcast also took our name, briefly citing us on their website home page as the creators of the word. No one has ever contacted us. I’m not looking to cause issues. I just wanted to contact you guys because I want to correct some things properly and be added to the wiki page. We deserve to be part of the conversation, we have more than enough evidence and receipts and there’s mistakes and lies on the page as we speak. I was hoping that someone who reads this might be able to help me with some advice and some guidance on how to do, everything properly Thank you Gemineye (Conspirituality) Therealconspirituality (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added to Conspirituality#Characterization. Cabayi (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article wasn't taken over by the current content. The current content was first written in 2020. The article about your group was deleted in 2011 following a discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspirituality. – robertsky (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing that, I appreciate knowing that. We didn’t create the page and did not know at the time, that it was not made properly. This is the exact reason I wanted to contact someone on here, to find out the situation Does this mean 14 years later, we are not allowed to try again? We are cited in an academic journal of Contemporary religion as the creators of the word Conspirituality (certainly we should be at least mentioned now in the conversation for our contribution) ????? The page now states that the writers of the journal created the term ( Which is not true, we are mentioned in the first note of the journal, we have also been written about in two published books, we have an IMDb page, and movie credits for a documentary we are featured in. Thank you for taking the time to inform me, it is greatly appreciated 142.183.237.254 (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't really want you to write about yourself. If you are a notable group (see WP:N and/or WP:GNG) then someone will write an article about you. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The best course of action would be to gather indepth coverage of your organization from reliable and independent sources, then post the request at appropriate section of Wikipedia:Requested articles. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Payment method

Need to update credit card 174.16.184.9 (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No payment is required to access Wikipedia content. If you wish to donate please see Wikipedia:Contact us/Donors. You might also be interested in familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia finances. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Officeholder table misalignment

Could somebody please fix this table? The table formating isn't very intuitive IMHO.

List of chairmen of the Free German Youth

No.	Name	Took office	Left office	Time in office	Party	Second Secretary
First Secretary of the Central Council of the Free German Youth Erster Sekretär des Zentralrates der Freien Deutschen Jugend
1	Honecker, ErichErich Honecker (1912–1994)	7 March 1946	27 May 1955 (reached age limit)	9 years, 81 days	SED	Edith Baumann (1946–1949) Gerhard Heidenreich (1949–1950) Helmut Hartwig (1950–1951) Werner Felfe (1954–1957)
2	Namokel, KarlKarl Namokel (1927–1988)	27 May 1955	15 May 1959 (not re-elected)	3 years, 353 days	SED	Werner Felfe (1954–1957)
3	Schumann, HorstHorst Schumann (1924–1993)	15 May 1959	13 May 1967 (reached age limit)	7 years, 363 days	SED	Günther Jahn (1966–1967)
4	Jahn, GüntherGünther Jahn (1930–2015)	13 May 1967	9 January 1974 (reached age limit)	6 years, 241 days	SED	Dieter Itzerott (1967–1971) Wolfgang Herger (1971–1976)
5	Krenz, EgonEgon Krenz (born 1937)	9 January 1974	1 December 1983 (retired)	9 years, 326 days	SED	Wolfgang Herger (1971–1976) Erich Postler (1976–1980) Eberhard Aurich (1980–1983)
6	Aurich, EberhardEberhard Aurich (born 1946)	1 December 1983	24 November 1989 (deposed)	5 years, 358 days	SED	Volker Voigt
7	Türkowsky, FrankFrank Türkowsky (born 1959)	24 November 1989	28 January 1990 (retired)	65 days	SED
8	Schröder, BirgitBirgit Schröder (born 1965)	28 January 1990	17 March 1991 (retired)	1 year, 48 days	PDS

Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxwhollymoralground: I have added | party_col = 1 above for the "Party" heading to only span one column. The default is 2 because such tables often have a colored cell there with a party color. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Thank you! Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What looks like hostile editing

I have been recently working on an article about an ongoing climate protest in Berlin and an editor who I have difficulty with in the past just rolled back some recent edits and removed most of the images I had added. Their commit messages were not especially focused nor helpful. I know from past experience if I engage with said editor, I will get swamped with Wikipedia legalese. If I roll back the edits in good faith and with considered explanations, an edit war will doubtless arise.

I should add that my interactions with other editors are normally productive and respectful. But in this case though, if I do react, conflict seems inevitable and quite possibly even sought. The said, that user's talk page also seems to consist mostly of strife with other editors [when I last interacted]. And I have had experience there too, batting stuff out in user space, when that discussion should really occur on Wikipedia talk pages in a more open and collegial context.

What can be done? Are there forums for resolving disputes of this type? Do I have to endure some unpleasant editing interactions before I can make a case? Are there proactive solutions on offer? Can some someone senior oversee the content development and adjudicate on the edit history as needed?

Indeed, the editing style on display seems to be solely confined to roll‑back and argument. The actual substantive contributions and good‑faith edits seem negligible, based on my past experiences. Surely such patterns of editing are identifiable by simple metrics? Or is there nothing that can be done against what appears to be hostile editing. Please help – this is likely to be very unpleasant and demotivating going forward.

And I should add that one roll-back happened so fast that the editor concerned would not have had any opportunity to read the source material, let alone make a considered judgement about the suitability and accuracy of that contribution. TIA, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RobbieIanMorrison You have taken the correct first step by raising the matter on the page at Talk:Starving for honesty climate hunger strike, Berlin, Germany, as per our usual process. The guidance the other editor is relying on seems to be WP:NOTGALLERY and that we require WP:INDEPENDENT sources. I'm sure that other interested parties will see this Help Desk thread and weigh in with comments on the Talk Page. The place to raise issues about another editor's behaviour is WP:ANI but I would advise against that at present. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull: Thanks. My preference is for dialog and due process and not escalation. And I understand that editing judgements can vary. But equally, the underpinning debate needs to be factual and reasoned. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One other consideration is that several of the pictures you want to include are your own work, which some may consider to be a conflict of interest if you add too many. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull: All the images were from me. And I willing concede that other editors should be involved in their assessment and selection. But there are very few quality open licensed images to be had. So I would be very happy if other editors could review that selection in a considered manner. But any kind of good process was certainly not evident to date in my view. (Moreover I sometimes put my potential images on talk pages and let other editors decide entirely, but time rather precludes that process in this case.)

I also want to mention briefly that one important passage I added (important in my estimation because it involved the German federal economics minister visiting the protest camp and thus quite remarkable in the current political context) was up for approximately one minute before being rolled back. How can that class as responsible editing? How can anyone check and assess the source and/or understand the merits of that material and then type in a commit message within that timeframe? Exactly how?

I don't find the current circumstances very conducive. but I guess I will just have to persevere. Involvement from experienced and neutral editors would be great, because I don't wish to face this quite possibly deteriorating and time-consuming situation alone. Really. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull: Anyone: I would like a senior Wikipedia editor to restore the Berlin hunger strike article to its state prior with reference to the recent controversial edits. In particular, this contribution covering written content should be reverted: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Starving_for_honesty_climate_hunger_strike%2C_Berlin%2C_Germany&diff=prev&oldid=1226915490

The related deletion commit message of "keeping it real. we are not the strike's website" is distinctly unhelpful and also pejorative in my view. Please read that earlier diff and its commit message to see what that content was and why it was added. And as discussed earlier and elsewhere, I believe this contribution to be important and relevant.

In addition, the full set of images should be restored so there can be a useful and sensible discussion on which photographs to retain and which not. And that will be a useful exercise which I particularly welcome.

I should add that I normally enjoy working on Wikipedia and value the input of other editors. But occasionally I encounter this style of what one might call "ill‑informed editing‑by‑deletion". And normally accompanied by several aspects: no attempt to rectify issues, no discussions on talk pages, high‑handed commit messages, and an avalanche of Wikipedia policy acronyms when challenged. And ofttimes, there are mistaken assessments regarding core facts and notability which are usually difficult to shift. In this case exactly, the resulting discussion on the talk page did not move beyond vague generalities and omitted issues.

Please, I am asking for help and interest. Editors acting in good faith should be respected and Wikipedia norms and practices followed. And, as I understand it (and although I am male), this form of broadly arbitrary editing‑by‑deletion is particularly difficult for woman editors.

Can we therefore roll back to the earlier positions and then discuss options and rectifications on the talk page? I much prefer modification, improvement, and ultimately deletion to be the starting points and not have to argue for restoration in the face of intransigence. Can we agree on that approach? Can someone make the requisite roll‑backs? Thank you in advance. (And yes I know the editor that I am in conflict with has administrator status.) RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Augment an article’s list of other languages’ analogues?

The “languages” drop-down that adorns our article on Gaussian elimination offers the corresponding article on the Wikipedia site of each of 49 other languages. These 49 other languages do not include French. How do I add an entry for French Wikipedia’s (Wikipédia’s) article to that list? PaulTanenbaum (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The French article that you provided is already link to a former English Wikipedia article that is currently a redirect to Gaussian elimination. If you want to link the two articles, you'll have to go to the French article's Wikidata page (In this case, here), remove the frwiki entry, then add the French article to the "languages" sidebar of Gaussian elimination. Only do that if you are certain that Gaussian elimination and Gauss-Jordan elimination are the same thing. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help with submitting new article for review

I created a draft new article. I hit publish but then I cannot submit it for review. It asks me to type the words in the field to check if I am a human. I have typed the words correctly several times but it time it does not recognize this. Then it says I have exceeded the number of attempts. Miamisunshine2024 (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're draft is already on the waitlist for review, maybe the system had an error and did not show you that you've successfully submitted. While you're at it, please remove the external links in the main body of the draft and put them in a separate "external links" section. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Don Vieira reads a lot like a CV rather than a biography, this would need to be fixed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick feedback. Can you please offer some feedback on how to revise in the style of a biography and less like a CV? I studied several other wikipedia entries for people in similar fields and theirs reads in this way so I am not sure what the best approach is. Welcome your recommendations. Miamisunshine2024 (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First thing to do, @Miamisunshine2024, is to remove all the external links from the body of the text. We don't allow links in the body. Check WP:EXTERNAL for guidance. Qcne (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wrong word used in Farsi

Hi. I work with some Iranian students and the word for "Bronze" is incorrect. You have written the word for "rice" and not "boronzee"... 2607:FEA8:7DE:CB00:2D06:7FC8:4F09:D7AE (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which article are you referring to? The English-language article on bronze says nothing about Farsi terms. If you are referring at an article on the Farsi-language Wikipedia, you (or one of your students) need to discuss it there, as this help desk covers the English-language Wikipedia only. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bronze has an interlanguage link to fa:برنز. According to Google Translate, برنز means bronze. But the poster gives no indication whether it involves any of those pages or that word. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are images transfers to WikiData working?

I use Wiki Shoot Me to take photos for Wikipedia while I’m traveling. Typically you can identify articles that need photos by looking for yellow dots indicating Wikipedia articles and larger red circles near by indicating WikiData items without photos (as previously these seemed to sync). In two cases recently I noticed articles with CC-licensed images placed correctly in the lead and appropriately sized that did not have their photos synced with WikiData: National Hotel and Wet Mountain Valley. I know the page image is being picked up because they display correctly on Special:Nearby using their coordinates: National Hotel and Wet Mountain Valley. It looks like they’re just not making it to WikiData. - Scarpy (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reposted this to the Village Pump. - Scarpy (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Howard's End" by EM Foster

I want to read an article about "Howard's End" by EM Foster. How do go about finding it? 2600:1700:4A50:1F70:C46D:1984:838E:EB77 (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Howards End by E. M. Forster? It helps to start by spelling things right. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a search box or a magnifying glass search icon at the top of all pages. There is a redirect from Howard's End to Howards End so it works fine to search for "Howard's End". PrimeHunter (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]