Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 June 23

= June 23 =

Racism in Wikipedia
Why is the definition of "White Pride" written as a racist statement against white people?? The article is disgusting and insulting towards white people. Yet the article of "Black pride" is praising and progressive. Please, stop the racism towards white people. It is a very offensive article. Thank you for your time and understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:32A0:CE50:4C78:C57C:D60A:FCB2 (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope you're quite young. Take history classes.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Read this. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 03:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See Neutral point of view. The prevailing view in reliable sources is against white pride and the article reflects that. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The article I wrote was deleted
Hi there! I've written an article about a web design platform for freelancers DesignContest and three months later it was deleted. The article wasn't promotional and I didn't even get a chance to improve it so that it wouldn't be deleted. Please, let me know why I wasn't informed about this article deleting and why it was deleted in general. Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natantiuk (talk • contribs) 14:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * There are four chief processes under which articles in the mainspace are deleted:


 * 1. Speedy deletion
 * 2. Proposed deletion (prod)
 * 3. Proposed deletion of articles on living persons (sticky prod); and
 * 4. Articles for deletion (AfD).

To learn about typical reasons articles are deleted, see Why was the page I created deleted? To find out why the particular article you posted was deleted, go to the deletion log and type into the search field marked "Title" the exact name of the article, mindful of the original capitalization, spelling and spacing. The deletion log entry will show when the article was deleted, by which administrator, and typically contain a deletion summary listing the reason for deletion. If you wish to contest this deletion, please contact the administrator first on his or her talk page and, depending on the circumstances, politely explain why you think the article should be restored, or why a copy should be provided to you so you can address the reason for deletion before reposting the article. If after that the article remains deleted and you still wish to contest it, you have the option of listing the article at Deletion review, but articles are normally only restored if the deletion was clearly improper. The article, DesignContest, was deleted for "unambiguous advertising" (G11), see here. I'll also leave another message at your talk page.  Seagull123  Φ  17:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear why you think that, for example the unsourced claim The main idea of this platform is to provide a simple, sophisticated and yet affordable design is factual and not just promotion. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

About American v. Rest-Of-The-World spelling – more specifically about z v. s
As you can no doubt guess by the title, I'm wondering about spelling of words. I noticed that, here on Wikipedia, there doesn't seem to be a consensus for whether to use American or Rest-Of-The-World spelling, for example: some articles only use American spelling, (e.g. "optimization"), while others only use Rest-Of-The-World-Spelling (e.g. "optimisation"), while others use a mix (e.g. "mathematical optimization, also spelled mathematical optimisation"), or swap between the two types like they can't make up their mind (e.g. "A relatively small part of the world thinks optimization is, great, but I, in fact, think optimisation means, the world").

I know Wikipedia was founded in America, so I understand it would have made sense to use that spelling, but now, with Wikipedia being read and used in so many countries, I'm unsure if that is still the best decision. Please advise me (and maybe others) why American spelling is still used and why or why not it should be kept, in place of Rest-Of-The-World spelling.


 * The answer to your question is at MOS:ENGVAR, which is part of Wikipedia's Manual of Style guidelines. You're welcome. Ltwin (talk)


 * Please see WP:ENGVAR for information on use of different varieties of English. Some articles contain a 'hidden' template concerning the strain of English to be used which you will see on clicking the edit button. Articles in respect of UK subjects will use UK English and American will use US English. For other items the article will likely follow the variation used by the creator and there should be consistency throughout the page. Please sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And it's not really the rest of the world so much as the rest of the Anglosphere. I don't think it's accurate to say Americans spell it "summarize" and the rest of the world spells it "summarise" since the French spell it "résumer" and the Germans spell it "zusammenfassen" and so forth. Anglosphere indicates that the English-speaking countries are America, the UK, Canada, Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand. The population of America is 330,000,000 while combined UK-Canada-Australia-Ireland-New Zealand population is 137,000,000, which is less than half that. I would add part of South Africa and also Jamaica and Belize, and there are diplomatic and expatriate enclaves all over of native English speakers, but these don't really change the equation (and besides a lot of people in Canada speak French). And we do want to accommodate ESL readers (particularly in India but also elsewhere), but this is a secondary mission for use.


 * So all in all if we did want to standardize spelling (I wouldn't, it seems to work OK now), I guess American spelling would be the obvious standard. Still want to? Herostratus (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the answers, references and help; y'all (used in an effort to accommodate American spelling and the new way I'll be spelling, for some things (though I realize (did it again, also an unrelated, shameless use of triple nested parenthesis) it's strongly associated with Southern American English)) made great points, especially you, . Thank you all. LeachPistol (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well butter my buns and call me a biscuit, . Boy howdy, but it sure as shooting ain't no thing but a chicken wing to help out a snizzo doll like yourself. Y'all take care now and keep it real. Herostratus (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Image Use
Danny Wells - IMAGE here: This one is new to me. As far as I can understand from the description: simply due to that fact that the subject is now deceased, all images are now fair use -- regardless of copyright -- because a person cannot capture one of their own now and upload it on Commons as owner? Since when did death exempt or usurp copyright or ownership or other people's work? The licensing justification: "Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" makes no sense since -- how do we know? we have no idea who actually owns photos of Danny Wells that could be uploaded as fair use through individual ownership without copyright. This seems assumptive. Also, I'm not quite sure what this: "added image of him alive" means? If he's dead ... what other image would there be? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it is not public domain and free of copyright. However, if the subject is dead, then using the image could potentially be allowed under WP:NFCC, if all the other criteria are met also.  RudolfRed (talk)