Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 October 5

= October 5 =

We have a problem our page


This is chun su jin, and I am PR manager from Zepetto, a development company of the game Point Blank.

As we read the wiki page about our game service “Point Blank”, we found that someone is keep adding inappropriate images on the page. We don’t want visitors to get wrong info about our product from the Wiki, so I would like to ask you to block the IP of the person (or the visitor) who is keep messing our page to prevent the such action. Best regards

Chun su jin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.91.29.3 (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The inappropriate content has been removed, and a warning given to the editor responsible.  If they continue to edit disruptively, they will be blocked.  Rojomoke (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would add to this that per Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest, editors are permitted to revert blatant vandalism, even on articles for which they have a COI. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Aggressive, abusive editing
A contribution I made to a page based on a recent book has been repeatedly deleted by someone making lengthy, abusive comments on Talk (and on my Talk page). Deletor says he has not read and will not read book because he 'knows' it is all nonsense, his PoV is right etc. This is not a reasoned dispute about content but mere wilful suppression. I asked for 3rd opnion but that has not happened. I see no point in arguing about a source which the deletor has not read, and the comments are upsetting. Although I am a leading expert of the topic and believe I have something to contribute, I seem unable to do so. I find the whole saga so disappointing and feel I am being forced to concede to this bully, but is this how Wiki works - who shouts loudest, and most abusive;y, wins the field? In which case, what is it really worth?Unraed (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)unraed
 * I've cleaned up the formatting on the talk page a little, in an attempt to make it easier for others to figure out who is saying what (the indentation was a bit odd, and it looked like there were unsigned comments in there, which wasn't the case). This seems to basically be a content dispute, which is a little out of scope for the help desk.  Please read Dispute resolution for details of how to proceed.  There's a huge wall of text which I have not even attempted to analyse, but I believe a critical factor in all of this is whether or not a book you are citing qualifies as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia.  If the sourcing is the key issue in all of this, then the Reliable sources/Noticeboard may be a good place to seek assistance.  For a more general content dispute, Dispute resolution noticeboard.  You are welcome to ask us more questions here, but this isn't the best place to actually resolve a content dispute.   Murph 9000  (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Table help
Could somebody with more table skills (and patience!) than I have fix the absolute mess of the table caused by the last couple of edits at Queensland Day? I'd be more willing to fix the links and so forth once the formatting is taken care of. Thanks! Graham 87 15:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * in technical terms, such as cleaning up the source and getting an ok visual result. I made no attempt to fact check anything, just working on getting the table into a reasonably clean and manageable state.  Please do check my work, as while I don't think I changed the data itself, it's possible that I snipped something off a name by accident.  Please do ask for more help with it, if you want; that's really intended as a good first pass at it, and I'm happy to do more with it.  I suggest that you take a look at the old "Queenslander of the Year" section and table (removed by the IP editor before you), to consider if we really do want to completely remove it, as it seems to have a longer history and we could potentially have both tables if there's value in both.   Murph 9000  (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! I've added links and changed the names into Wikipedia style, most notably by removing the pre- and post-nominal honours. I hadn't thought about retaining the previous table. I'll ask about that at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, as I know almost nothing about the subject, being from the other side of the country and all. Graham 87 08:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Why my article is marked for delation
I am trying to have an article created for a network management tool to help expand the already large list of options found here:

It is marked for speedy deletion even though the page is very similar to the articles that are all linked to that chart. I don't understand why Entuity is marked for deletion, but the following were approved when they provide less information or reason as to why the articles should exist.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Destructo84 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Nominating all those other articles for deletion just because yours has been nominated for deletion is not how Wikipedia works, and is not the way to act in good faith. I've removed all the speedy deletion tags, as they were done in bad faith.
 * For something to have a Wikpedia article, it needs to demonstrate evidence of significant, independent coverage in reliable sources, and alos be written in a neutral point of view. The existence of other articles is not a valid reason for the article you wrote to exist. Joseph2302 17:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Political soapbox
It is my intention to add a new term / political Idea / lexicon / definition to the world. Or at least re-ignite an old one.

I welcome your feed back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NathanFS (talk • contribs) 17:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * NathanFS, unfortunately for this proposal, Wikipedia is not a place to post original research or unique ideas. Unless this has been covered in mainstream reliable sources, it does not belong here. Timothy Joseph Wood  17:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion.  Murph 9000  (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Please check the article you wrote on the emperor list of Ethiopia.
i was very offended when you wrote Zewditu as the daughter of emperor minilik. while she was his fearless wife and had contributed a lot to the country on her time. i live in Ethiopia and we do have very detailed knowledge of our emperors. please correct it as soon as possible. if you want you can check the museum where her and the king's costumes are exhibited. AS KING AND QUEEN NOT KING AND DAUGHTER!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanbaharu (talk • contribs) 17:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Our articles Zewditu and Menelik II, as well as List of Emperors of Ethiopia all describe her as Menelik's daughter, and the online references I can check appear to agree. If you can point us to a reliable source that says otherwise, please do so, preferably on the talk page rather than here, and someone will incorporate it.  By the way, The only one of Menelik's wives to be notable would appear to have been Taytu Betul.  Rojomoke (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Every single source I found with Google also say she was his daughter and not wife. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Personal correspondence in talk pages
The text at Talk:Public limited company is completely off-topic. It appears to include bank account numbers and other personal information and it might be part of a phishing exploit. Should it be expunged from the page history by an administrator, or deleted by me, or left as it is? Verbcatcher (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It was an obvious variation of the advance-fee scam (aka 419 scam) to me, so I summarily redacted it. Thanks for reporting it.  The admins may choose to delete it in the page history.   Murph 9000  (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge Civil service and Civil servant across languages.
About half of the wikis use the title Civil service, the other half choose the word Civil servant or government employer. (Dutch:nl:Ambtenaar, Norwegian:no:Embedsmann, Japanese:jp:公務員 ), and as such the titles across the world are not language linked as one, but split into two. One way to solve this is to move the English title to Civil servant, but I ask for better solutions here. Golopotw (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 'Civil service' is not the same as 'civil servant'. Ruslik_ Zero 19:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But Civil servant is now redirected to Civil service, and the two articles if separated is likely to overlap a lot. Golopotw (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately,, Wikidata, which handles the links, will only allow one article per Wikipedia to be linked to an item, so where similar articles in different Wikipedias have different scope, they can't be linked. This is a widespread problem, to which there is currently no answer. --ColinFine (talk) 11:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleting 'Draft' history
This is Swarren16 again. Thanks for your help back on 9-16-16. As you suggested, I started a sandbox draft the same day and there was no residual history from the draft article you deleted for me. I have been working offline, then updated my sandbox with a final draft of the article this morning, and suddenly the old draft history (all 500+ edits) reappeared in my sandbox. My understanding from you was that this history would be deleted when you deleted the page - and, per Wikipedia content policy, it should be! Can you help with this? Thanks. SW (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That article's history only contains 4 edits from you and only going back to September.  Crow  Caw  20:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Reviews in main space
I'm aware that we have a process for review of draft articles whether created in draft space or in a user sub page, but I wasn't aware that we had a requirement for articles created in mainspace.

I'm fielding a request at OTRS from the creator of Bruyère Continuing Care, and I don't know what advice to give.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * They are perhaps thinking of New pages patrol or Page Curation? --David Biddulph (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Only process I'm aware of is NPP. This article is in the New page patrol queue, among 15k others. Is the author asking when it will be reviewed? Crow  Caw  19:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's hard to comment without knowing what the user said. If an article is created in mainspace via Articles for creation then it gets preloaded text with a url like [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Template%3AUnreviewed-preload&editintro=Template%3AUnreviewed-editintro&summary=&nosummary=&prefix=&minor=&title=Example+title&create=Create+a+new+article+directly]. When it's saved (and the user doesn't remove the preloaded subst) it gets New unreviewed article which adds the page to the hidden Category:Unreviewed new articles from October 2016, or Category:Unreviewed new articles from September 2016 in the case of Bruyère Continuing Care. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That article is blatantly promotional, and cites no independent sources. Should it be proposed for deletion now, or would this somehow confuse the "awaiting review" process? Maproom (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It has now been deleted so it may be a moot point but the article had a template indicating that it did not been reviewed. I've never seen such a template in mainspace. It wasn't added by an editor it seem to of been added at creation. The editor was asking what they should do and I didn't know how to answer them.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing that link. I still don't know how to respond if someone asks me what they are supposed to do. Are articles in that cat if they have not gone through NPP? If so, is the response that they should simply wait for NPP to catch up?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The author should just wait for somebody else to review it. They shouldn't care how that person comes. WP:NPP is a MediaWiki feature for all new articles. Category:Unreviewed new articles and the monthly subcategories are (as far as I know) only added to pages created via Articles for creation. It's added by a template the author automatically adds when a certain AfC link is used to create the page. A reviewer may come via NPP or the category, or just stumble on the article in another way. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Grey Gardens conflict of interest?
Since not many editors discuss at length about certain topics raised regarding issues within the article for Grey Gardens, and because this is not a question specifically directed toward the subject itself but one that is general in my asking about protocol and procedure; what is (if any) the conflict of interest for a contributing editor who is a direct heir or relative of the subject(s), in this case: Edith "Big Edie" Ewing Bouvier Beale, Edith "Little Edie" Bouvier Beale and has registered the "brand name" (GREY GARDENS®) and who has linked Wiki pages as promotion for their own personal website in certain sections that (I feel) do not warrant inclusions. Such as: References in other works, which is normally reserved for record albums, television shows, etc. Would anyone like to weigh in on this: conflict of interest, related close to the subject, promotional links, etc? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It certainly has the appearance of a significant COI across all of the articles I have listed above. I've not analysed the content of their edits properly, so currently no opinion from me on that side of it.  It's just very clear than they are a WP:SPA with a likely COI.  I have provided a generous amount of standard COI information on their talk page (significant edit history with multiple issues, so multiple templates to ensure that they have all the relevant information).   Murph 9000  (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have tagged the article talk pages with, so that it's properly recorded. I'm not tagging the articles themselves with , as that really needs a deeper look into the editing.  If you see signs that the content of the changes does have COI issues needing resolved, you can certainly tag the articles (or sections of them) with it as needed.   Murph 9000  (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:CORPNAME would appear to apply too. DuncanHill (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I have linked to this discussion from the COI noticeboard. DuncanHill (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have informed the editor concerned about this discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have informed the Usernames for Administrator Attention board]] about this discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Murph 9000 . I check the Help Desk daily to learn from your contributions. DuncanHill, your protocol is most helpful! In full disclosure, this entire matter was brought to my attention on the page Edith "Big Edie" Ewing Bouvier Beale, where I placed a heading tag and removed (what I thought to be) a self-promotional business link: Grey Gardens brand offers the authentic "Litte Edie Brooch" and a collection of jewelry, fabrics, home decor, and more. Grey Gardens is the official brand and is a registered trademark. Then, just recently, I saw a new listing with much more complex, involved verbiage and attributes to the Grey Gardens page. Which made me wonder: if an editor knew the ins-and-outs of how to link a business website (directly inline) and display a registered trademark emblem on a Wiki page, it couldn't be all unintentional or by happenstance. Maineartists (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Greygardensbrand has been blocked for violation of the username policy and for advertising. Well spotted Maineartists. DuncanHill (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)