Help desk
< December 23	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 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.

December 24[edit]

Mohamed Karim Labidi[edit]

Hi Team,

Please check below article and provide your feedback.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dineee90/sandbox

Regards Dineee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dineee90 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dineee90: you can attract the attention of the appropriate reviewers by moving you article into draft space at Draft:Mohamed Karim Labidi, and adding {{subst:submit}} to it to generate the appropriate "submit" button, then click on that button to actually submit the article for review. I would ordinarily suggest that you make certain that your references establish notability (WP:N), which is the only absolute requirement for an article. I think your references already do that, but I'm not sure, because I cannot quickly evaluate the quality of the references. I therefore recommend that you add an explicit assertion of notability on your article's talk page, pointing our how those references meet the criteria. -Arch dude (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Team,

I have created below draft as requested, please let me know what to do next as I didn't get submit button or should I move it from draft to live article?

link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mohamed_Karim_Labidi

Regards, Dineee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dineee90 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dineee90: You successfully submitted your article. Please read the links in the big box at the top of the article. -Arch dude (talk) 05:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IABot Issue[edit]

I was trying to use the IABot to archive the sources on Islanders (video game), but I keep repeatedly getting the message "Blocked: you have been blocked from editing". What's going on? I know I haven't done anything wrong. Le Panini ^[🥪] 00:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Le Panini: if you don't get a reply here, ask at User_talk:Cyberpower678. RudolfRed (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RudolfRed, Nah, it's working now for some reason. Le Panini ^[🥪] 20:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I talk in AFD submissions?[edit]

I would like to chime in and contribute to the various AFD submissions and discussions, but I see no option to reply or anything. Is there something I'm missing? Do I have to edit my message in? Have I not unlocked it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pladica (talk • contribs) 04:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pladica: You would edit the section like I did to reply to you. Just be aware that there are conventions on these pages (for example, please familiarise yourself with AfD conventions before participating). (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 05:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why some users allowed to have alternative accounts at Wikipedia?[edit]

User called PrimeHunter, who openly described in his user page that he has one or two wiki accounts. What's the rule for alternative accounts? Rizosome (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rizosome: User:PrimeHunter says: "I have the non-admin alternative accounts PrimeHunter2 and PrimeHunter3 to be able to see the same interface as the autoconfirmed users and new users I help." Blue text is a link. Click on "alternative accounts" to see rules. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rizosome, read WP:SOCK. It gives examples of valid and invalid reasons. I have a second account myself, as detailed on my user page. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huge Disservice[edit]

I don’t understand why, and how, the content of Wikipedia could allow such a disservice to its readers by allowing their selves to be so blind to the bias for which exist and is absolutely noticeable to a lot of its readers. It is extremely disappointing that most, if not all, articles pertaining to individuals for whom do not share the exact same political views, and whose political views tend to lean to the right, are written by editors for whom so easily and often portray these people in such negative ways and tend to find as much dirt as possible, no matter how far reaching the content may be, and really just nitpick those who do not have the same views as them politically. It shows just how childish and mean spirited those who lean left are, and for whom most Wikipedia editors are. I don’t expect this to be noticeable though as those on the left tend to all suffer from blindness. It’s a side affect of having left leaning political views so, I know that you all can’t help it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.188.125 (talk • contribs) 2020-12-24T09:11:43 (UTC)

These generalities really don't achieve anything. English Wikipedia has over six million articles, and is edited by tens of thousands of editors, with differing views on nearly everything. If you think that a particular article does not accurately reflect what the reliable sources say about its subject, you are welcome to edit it, or (especially if it is a contentious subject) to open or join a discussion on its talk page. Note that everything in a Wikipedia article should be derived from a reliable published source: editors own knowledge and beliefs should not form part of any article. --ColinFine (talk) 13:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy. You show a strong anbi-left bias so you would probably enjoy reading Conservapedia instead. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are accusing us of that which you are doing. If you just want to stay in your bubble and be told what you want to hear, this isn't the place for you. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above three comments. Whose articles is he complaining about? I have checked the articles of three rightist politicians and two leftists. They were Donald Trump, Michael Howard, Anne Widdecombe, Michael Foot and Jeremy Corbyn.They were all scrupulously fair in dealing with criticisms and outlined some of the key policies they believed in. I couldn't think of any sufficiently leftist US politicians to check. Maybe centrists like Joe Biden, Barack Obama etc are too reasonable to atract criticism and our non signing correspondent hasn't read biographies of real leftists to compare things properly. .Spinney Hill (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP has a valid point. I'm much more in favor of a "no-instant-takeaway", "damn-with-faint-praise" approach to, for example, extreme political viewpoints and their proponents. I believe this on the grounds that Wikipedia should encourage analysis on the part of a reader, avoiding buzzwords and an instant good/bad judgment, as making "our allies" happy while alienating and angering "the other" is neither good for human knowledge nor for Wikipedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which type of deletion to attempt?[edit]

I've just encountered one of those memorial-type articles, dating from 2015 and supported by an overabundance of primary and connected sources. I've tagged it, but I'd like to try to get it off Wikipedia, as it does not belong here. Which do I choose to try first:

If some sort of flowchart exists on WP to assist in determining the best initial step in getting a non-notable article off Wikipedia, I'd like to know where it is. Thanks for your help.--Quisqualis (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Quisqualis. It's not a flowchart, but does WP:Deletion process not answer your question? --ColinFine (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see from a quick overview:

Being only referenced to primary sources satisfys none of the speedy deletion criterions (WP:CSD), unless you want to make a case of G10, which IMO is at least debateable
AFD is theoretically possible, but subject to a good WP:BEFORE
Prod is possible, needs a plausible reasoning, and I recommend doing a quick google search before nominating. PROD is often used before AFD.
WP:BLPPROD does not apply since the article has sources. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Schmidt, thanks for this information. I did notice that PRODBLP says "no sources", rather than "no sources which demonstrate notability", so I guess that "no sources" restriction is never loosened?--Quisqualis (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Quisqualis: I am not entirely sure what you mean, but yes, if the only concerns are notability-based (due to unreliable sources, rather than the absence of any form of source, BLPPROD is not possible. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer on BLPPROD, Victor Schmidt. In your first post to my original question you mentioned G10, which is articles which attack and disparage (quite the opposite of this article). Did you intend to indicate a different criterion?--Quisqualis (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Quisqualis: no, actually I intended on linking G10, becasue I think its the closest one to the current article, and as I said, you would have a very hard time trying to get this deleted under G10. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone approve The Death of Eishia Hudson[edit]

Someone approve and review the Death of Eishia Hudson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor6557 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikieditor6557: Approve it in what way? It is already in article space. Did you intend to create it as a draft? RudolfRed (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking that it be reviewed, Wikipedia reviews new articles in no particular order, with a lengthy backlog.--Quisqualis (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rukhshana[edit]

Deaths in 2020 states that Rukhshana died on 20 December. However the article Rukhshana does not mention this and claims she is still alive. I would update the article myself but the only reference for her death is in Persian, which I don't understand. Could someone take a look at this? JIP | Talk 19:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I sorted that out, thanks! SnazzyInfinity (chat? • what I've done) 19:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where to request help page updates/improvements?[edit]

There is information missing for the notification section of preferences: [1]. That is, this section is blank, and does not explain what these preference settings do. I don't know what the various settings do, so I am not the right person to add the missing details. Where can I post a request for this page to be updated with information about the notification settings? This is inspired by a question at the Tea House, where a new user is looking for this info. Alternatively, is there any other page that explains the function of the notification setting is preferences? RudolfRed (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would simply soft-redirect this page to the meta page. Ruslik_Zero 20:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing an infobox to allow images alongside[edit]

I'm wanting to try and edit Template:Infobox New Zealand suburb to make a few QOL improvements to it. Among these is wanting to change it so that other images on the page can appear alongside it, such as on the left of the page (for example: Taiari / Chalky Inlet has an image at the top of the Geography section which is still alongside the infobox, whereas the page for Sydenham, New Zealand has similar images pushed to the bottom of the suburb infobox.) Unfortunately I've got no idea how to do this, so I'm hoping someone might be able to point me in the right direction. Cheers. Turnagra (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Turnagra: I have used {{Stack}}.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 08:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: That looks much better, thank you so much! Turnagra (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have an question about the intent of this rule:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth[edit]

I have an question about the intent of this rule: "Verifiability, not truth"

I dont understant it, why its not ok to someone just write some true information at wikipedia and let it stay here, but its ok to someone just write some information somewhere else and then someone write it here and let it stay here? Inst that the same thing but with an extra layer?2804:7F2:68A:C6A:85AF:8AB5:495F:3545 (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If others can't verify the claims, how can one claim it's true? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 22:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough to "just write some information somewhere else". It has to be published by a reliable source before it can be used in Wikipedia. The intent of Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is to prevent users from writing something in Wikipedia just because they think or claim it's true. We want information with a reliable source others can examine. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The key is that a reliable source has editors, researchers, fact-checkers, etc., who have reputations at risk, so what they choose to publish can be considered reliable. Because Wikipedia has no professional, paid staff involved in content creation, we must rely on such sources to determine what "truth" is, and cite them so that readers can verify that what we publish correctly summarizes them. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help to unify wikidata Mark tree[edit]

Would you help to link former article to https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortinilla_(instrumento)?

--Opus88888 (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Opus88888. It will take some sorting out, because d:Q66553333 ("Mark tree") is marked in Wikidata as a subclass of d:Q1073120 ("chimes"), so it won't let me merge them. On a quick look, some of the article the latter is linked to ought to be linked to the former. I'll have a look tomorrow, if nobody has sorted it out by then. (It's bedtime here). --ColinFine (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Opus88888, I've moved several of the articles in other editions, including es:Cortinilla (instrumento), to d:Q66553333, but left others (such as fr:Chimes, which seem to be more general than just Mark trees), attached to d:Q1073120.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Sellner&direction=next&oldid=993649457[edit]

this article should be deleted because of:

[Long misformatted copy from Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria removed by PrimeHunter (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)][reply]

Martin Sellner is an insignificant person in world politics, not an official chosen position, in fact no one. An insignificant and insignificant character, unable to influence politics on a national or religious scale or the world as a whole, not the first person of the state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptic.necrew (talk • contribs) 22:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cryptic.necrew: Martin Sellner satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (people). It just means he "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". It doesn't mean Wikipedia endorses him. We have around one million articles about living people. You don't have to "influence politics on a national or religious scale or the world as a whole" to get a Wikipedia biography. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]