Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2019 December 30

= December 30 =

Scottish wikipeida full of typos
https://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page it the English Wikipedia in the scottish dialect but its full of typos can a admin please fix the Scottish Wikipedia typos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.78.70 (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a separate project from this one, you will have to address any issues or concerns with it there. 331dot (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's in the Scots language, so what you may think are typos probably aren't. DuncanHill (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There's even a link on the front page to Wikipedia:Spellin an grammar that addresses it. —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 10:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Scottish wikipeida full of typos Just couldn't resist. --CiaPan (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I could rewrite pages using strange spelling to represent the Yorkshire dialect, but Yorkshire is not a (sub-)language because it doesn't have a parliament (yet).  Dbfirs  14:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Accurately described subject as an E-7, added reaction of his men to his leadership.
I was informed by a user named Everedux that adding the correct pay grade of the subject Navy retiree (E-7) and the subject's comments on the men he led, along with an observation that this was indicative of his leadership abilities constituted "vandalism."

I am married to a man who spent 30 years in the US Navy, 14 of those as an E-9, and 12 of those as a Command Master Chief/Chief of the Boat. I fail to understand why a college student would find accurately listing Mr. Gallagher's pay grade and his comments on the men he led to be "vandalism" unless he is attempting to conceal aspects of the subject's life that he feels do not paint the picture he desires.

I am a monetary contributor to Wikipedia because I have believed in its usefulness and in methods by which I understood it was edited. I am concerned that the user who sent me the "level 2 warning" is claiming the power to silence military retirees and their families in the editing of Wikipedia to state truthful information and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.

I perceived the "level 2 warning" to be a threat. If that is correct, I will not feel comfortable using Wikipedia in my work (I do always check it, but it is often my first go-to source for basic information) as I would regard it as internally contaminated by the bias of editors such as Everedux.

Am I correct?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peeweezers (talk • contribs) 02:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Your first attempt would likely have been reverted regardless, because it broke the format of the infobox.
 * Your opinion that Eddie Gallagher (Navy SEAL) is omg the best E-7 evar is, well, not the kind of tone that we like to use here; show don't tell. His opinion that his accusers are cowards may be relevant, though; please provide a source for the quotation. —Tamfang (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Idea...
You guys ever think about putting out actual donations bins? I’m sure people would give at least spare change if it’s convenient. Also there is the problem of people like myself who don’t use credit cards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:3760:E920:70E2:3B09:D9D4:609E (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Us guys" who read and respond here on this Help Desk are here to help improve Wikipedia, by making edits and advising others on how to make edits. The guys you want to address are the Wikimedia Foundation, who keep the whole project running by running the servers, hiring legal support, etc., and raising the money to pay for it. Maproom (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Creating a new celebrity page
Hello,

is there a form to request a celebrity page to be created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeagreaves (talk • contribs) 04:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see Requested articles. Wakari07 (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please note that Wikipedia does not have "celebrity pages". Wikipedia has articles about people that meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person, summarizing what independent reliable sources say about them. This can include "celebrities" but it is possible to be a celebrity and not merit a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I would like my submission to be read by a different reviewer, due to current reviewer's bias
Hi there,

My Wikipedia submission (Autistics for Autistics, A4A) is very good, lots of different sources, factual and balanced. It was wrongly rejected by someone who perhaps has older-fashioned views about autism and disability self-advocacy groups. I honestly can't think of any other reason why they would reject it.

This group is very important in Canada right now and needs an entry and I wrote a good one.

Please have another reviewer look it over.

Thank you very much.

- Barry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barryc25 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've looked all of the sources cited, in light of our policies on notability and reliable sourcing.
 * A lot of the sources (such as this or this) don't mention Autistics for Autistics (A4A) at all. As such, they're completely useless as sources.  If a source does not mention A4A, then the source is not about A4A and does not belong in the article.
 * Affiliated sources, like A4A Ontario's website, Facebook page, or even listings by related groups are not independent. You need unaffiliated, independent, professionally-published reliable sources to establish notability.  Articles written by members of A4A are not independent, either.  The same goes for interviews (which are primary sources).
 * Sources that are not specifically about A4A but only mention them in passing, such as this one, do not demonstrate notability. You need independent reliable sources that are specifically and primarily about A4A.
 * Wikipedia articles are never valid sources. We're user-generated and so not a reliable source.  Even if a specific article was as good as a reliable source, there's the problem of circular sourcing that would require us to disallow Wikipedia articles as sources.  If you meant for those to be links instead of references, put the article title in square brackets, like this.
 * All of the above is what meant by "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources" and "Many of the sources are not independent, in that they are too closely affiliate with the subject or are published by the subject."
 * You can find clear instructions on how to write an article that won't be rejected by opening this link. If you follow them exactly, there should be no issues whatsoever.
 * Finally, WP:Assume good faith is a foundational site principle. The problem is not the reviewer, nor even you, it's the draft, as noted above.  What I wrote above is in light of the guide in that bold link, which I wrote a long time ago, so you can rest assured that the draft fails to meet standards we've had for a long time and that it's not just some user's feelings about a topic. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

How submit my new member article on Wikipedia?
I am a retired entertainment film industry (Director of Photography) and would like to get some guidance on how to get a written background article and summery of my career referenced on Wikipedia? Do I need a professional experienced editor to accomplish the help I may need? Please advice Best regards EricGoehano (talk) 09:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Eric
 * If anyone refers to themselves as a "professional" editor, or asks for money, IT IS A SCAM.
 * This is a volunteer-driven project. If anyone asks for money, they are violating our site's terms of use.  They never produce articles that meet our notability standards and they have no reason to give you your money back after we delete that page.
 * Beyond that, we're not a social media site. We generally discourage people from starting or editing pages about themselves, too.
 * If, however, you completely follow these instructions on how to write articles that won't be deleted, you could start an article that other people could expand. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia
Hi I was interested in getting guidance on how to publish on Wikipedia a written reference about my career. I do have many references to what is written is correct and can be easily verified. I registered myself on Wikipedia as GOEHANO, was that a mistake? How can I have one of your representatives proof read, that was written about me, (not by myself) is in the correct form and could be published? Please advice, Best EricGoehano (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)eric
 * I'm not sure what you mean by 'publish on Wikipedia a written reference'. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that has articles about subjects shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability; in this case, the definition of a notable person. Typically, articles are written by independent editors unassociated with the subject who took note of the subject and chose to write about it on their own.  Autobiographical articles are strongly discouraged(though not forbidden) per our autobiography policy(click to review).  This is partially because people naturally write favorably about themselves and it is usually difficult for someone to adhere to a neutral point of view. I haven't seen someone successfully write about themselves in my years here, though it is technically possible.  If you still wish to attempt such an enterprise, and truly feel you meet the notability criteria(there are also more specific criteria for certain fields, like actor, politician, athlete, etc.) you may use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by an independent editor before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * But please bear in mind,, that in an article about you, Wikipedia is essentially uninterested in anything you have said, written, or done, except as commented on publicly by somebody wholly unconnected with you. There may be a few references to sources connected with you (such as your website, your publications, or interviews with you) to support uncontroversial factual information; but the bulk of the article must be based on published sources in which you and your associates had no hand whatever. That is more or less what the notability criteria amount to. --ColinFine (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you are in the film biz, I want to mention a common pitfall, which is using IMDB as one of those required sources. IMDB is no longer considered a reliable source here since their switch to being editable by anyone, with seemingly no effective editorial control (it's repeatedly been shown to be inaccurate). The AFI database is apparently still good, though. —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 02:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

deactivate account
My 10 year old son has created a Wikipedia account (in violation of your terms of service), and we would like it removed. He has not authored or edited any pages. How can we achieve this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartcarplays (talk • contribs) 12:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Accounts cannot be 'deactivated' or deleted, only abandoned. If you have access to your son's password you could change it without his knowledge to bar him from the account.(though nothing would prevent him from creating a new account elsewhere) I could be wrong but I don't believe there is anything in the Terms of Use prohibiting youths from creating an account- though there may be laws in your jurisdiction that affect this.  Many youths have accounts here. 331dot (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You may be able to obtain a courtesy vanishing. 331dot (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You are the best person to judge whether this is an appropriate option for your son, but just a suggestion: why not encourage your son to try The Wikipedia Adventure and to become an editor here? We have mature ten-year-olds who make constructive edits.  If you know the account name, then you can look at his edits to make sure that he is not doing anything inappropriate.   Db<i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  13:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * You probably want to look at, and maybe direct him to, Advice for younger editors too, . --ColinFine (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Since he does not need to log in to read Wikipedia or even to edit Wikipedia, it's unclear what you as a parent are trying to accomplish. If you (or anyone else) knows his user name, you can see his entire editing history. Make him aware of this so he will know you will ckeck to make sure he is not getting warned about disruptive editing or other youthful silliness and that he is not putting personal information anywhere on our site. If he edits without logging in instead, you have much less visibility into his activities.-Arch dude (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just confirming the above, creating and using an account here is secure than editing while not logged in because any edits made while not logged in are shown in history along with their IP address (see the history of this page at Special:History/Wikipedia:Help desk for some examples); if a user is logged in when they edit, the edits are marked with their username and the IP address is only available to a small number of administrators with NDAs, need to know, and strict privacy controls. As mentioned above, it's also easier for you as a parent to monitor what they write when the edits are associated with a single username instead of IP addresses that may change (especially often on phones). —[  Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 03:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. Nobody can see what pages are being (and not edited) here; such information should generally only be visible in your own browser history. —[  Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 03:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Michael French page
Hi, I am trying to edit the above page as much of the information held on the page is inaccurate. I have been sent a message to say that I will be blocked and I'm not sure why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk • contribs) 14:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * See user’s edit history. Rationale for warnings clearly explained. 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:A2 (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You tried to replace a sourced article with a completely unsourced text. If the information in the article is incorrect, you need to do more than just correct it- you need to add independent reliable sources to support the content you want to add. Wikipedia summarizes what such sources state. You may wish to discuss your concerns on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the edits have been consistently promotional in tone and have constituted edit warring. The user has also indicated that they’re writing on the subject’s behalf. 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:A2 (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

More Swag Please
Promotional merchandise

I have donated to Wikipedia probably five or six times over the years. I even bought a Wikipedia T-shirt in order to support Wikipedia. Which is why I think you should make more merchandise. I hate to say it, but people like to get stuff in return for their donations. Just think of PBS and all the gifts they hand out to their donors. it’s sort of a badge of pride. People like to show off what causes they care about. Hence why am writing you. More swag please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWikiJayJay (talk • contribs)
 * Thank you for your suggestion. Unfortunately, we here at the help desk are volunteers and have no control over merchandise or donations, or any link between the two.  Here is where you can find merchandise.  ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 15:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Donations are handled by the Wikimedia Foundation that operates the computers Wikipedia is on; you should address any comments about fundraising to them. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

defamatory article
Hello,

There is an Article about Zouave, where people put a contribution that are completely wrong and defamatory to the berber people in north Africa, and sparking a big controversy on social media.

This article was apparently put there to specify treason by the indigenous people, when in reality it is completely the opposite. This article is dangerous as it was written under some type of seperatist to justify certain action against the indigenous people of Algeria (berbers). Please review the article and get back to me on this. The article can remain there, but the berber, or Kabylie need to be removed completely from it. Again this is a defamatory article, and very controversial that can lead to terrible consequences for the indigenous people, and with no historical basis of Kabyle or berber people involved with the French Army,

Zouave

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shassani79 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You are deleting sourced information and switching it out with unsourced information (see Don't hijack references). You either need to demonstrate that the cited source does not include the information, or you need to add much stronger reliable sources instead. You can discuss your concern on Talk:Zouave, but I'd recommend keeping the discussion calm and neutral since it usually has better results than using charged language ("defamatory / dangerous / written by seperatists"). Don't forget to point to reliable sources demonstrating your point. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Michael French page
Dear Wikipedia Help Desk, I'm trying to edit the Michael French wikipedia page as some of the information on there is factually incorrect. I have been in contact with several "adminitrators" but I'm still not clear on why the page keeps reverting to the previous incorrect version. I do not work for any business affiliated to Michael French, neither am I connected to him. Please could you advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk • contribs) 18:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all stop edit warring on the page. You are removing all the citations from the page, which leaves the page in a worse condition. Consider suggesting changes on the article's talk page. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * In you told us that you are editing on behalf of the subject of the page. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Template to add x number of days to a date
I'm trying to set up a list of Up Helly Aa festivals, and want to include the date that each one occurs. Most of the festivals occur on the nth day of a particular month, for example Northmavine Up Helly Aa occurs on the third Friday of February. This is fine, as I can achieve this using Template:DatesWD. However, the Nesting and Girlsta Up Helly Aa occurs 10 days after the Lerwick Up Helly Aa, which is on the last Tuesday of January - a bit contrived, I know, but that's what it is.

Is there a template that allows me to enter a date, specify a number of days I'd like to add on, and it will output a new date? For example, I enter (in some format) 28 January 2020 and then specify 10 days to add on, and it would output 7 February 2020? If there's a template that does this I should be able to figure out the rest. Griceylipper (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Template:Infobox holiday can be used for this, for example the infobox on First day of summer (Iceland) inputs "first Thursday after 18 April" and calculates the dates for the next few years. The calculations are stored in Template:Infobox holiday/date where you can add more special cases, or you can request an addition on the main template's talk page. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will request an edit on this template. Griceylipper (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

someone keeps reverting my changes
I am updating a personal page for a person and viewmont viking keeps reverting to the past one, which doesn't reflect the person's actual activities and up to date information. What can I do???

I am trying to reflect David Edwards actual words here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxaviere (talk • contribs) 21:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Your edits are highly promotional and not encyclopedic. First read our guidelines for editors with a conflict of interest, then go to the article's talk page and suggest edits using request edit, citing reliable sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Apart from the conflict of interest question which has been raised elsewhere, the problem is that you removed sourced text and replaced it by text which had no references (though it had misplaced external links). --David Biddulph (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for your responses. That being said some of the links existing are no longer valid and should be removed, including some affiliations, etc... when reverting to the original text it's not accurate. I understand about removing links and making it more neutral if felt as promotional, but the information is currently wrong and needs to be edited, and whom better than by the person themselves, who should know best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxaviere (talk • contribs) 06:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * 100% wrong, as previously explained, such a person has a clear conflict of interest so should NOT be editing the page at all, not should anyone edit the page "on their behalf". - Arjayay (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Monsey Hanukkah stabbing
Hello, I would like to upload this image from the New York state government to illustrate this article. Is the image free? If so, would you be able to help me with the upload? When I click on it to save it on my computer, the image moves in and out. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a free image. It is labeled (C) All Rights Reserved.  RudolfRed (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * That Flickr page says "(c) All rights reserved". If you believe that there is evidence that it is free of copyright, you need to tell us (and Commons, because that is where it would be uploaded) where that evidence is. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I was just checking. I know that U.S. federal government sources often have copyrights but are free for use on Wikimedia Commons. I was just wondering if the same is true for U.S. state government sources. Yoninah (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have never heard of a situation where "U.S. federal government sources often have copyrights but are free for use on Wikimedia Commons". I have heard of situations where a federal government site might host the material from another source that is copyrighted, but that material is not eligible for use on Wikimedia Commons. Most state government documents are fully copyrighted (one major exception is legislation). S Philbrick  (Talk)  01:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * With the exception of the US federal government. almost all governments including US state governments retain the copyright on work by their employees, so we cannot freely use them. The US federal government has ownership of the rights to work by US federal employees, but these works are immediately placed into the public domain, so we can freely use them. -Arch dude (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. Thank you all for the explanation. Yoninah (talk) 11:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Commons:Flickr files, which explains the meanings of the various license symbols used on Flickr (every image has one, below the image on the right) and whether they can be uploaded to Commons, may be useful in future. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

possible malicious redirection from childfocus.be
At least I hope it's not my PC, but here I've commented out the "http:" URL from Child Focus because it redirects to the suspicious newly registered domain nonamebiaso48.live: See my talk post and whois info -84user (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I see no evidence of it being redirected to that other domain. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

That's the problem, they dynamically change their hosts and targets. Some more digging tells me it's the malicious 2019 Annual Visitor Survey Pop-up Scam so I'm removing it where it appears in other places in wikipedia. Once a site shows itself to be insecure makes me doubly cautious. Potentially quite nasty. See https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_Focus&type=revision&diff=55260920&oldid=55260918 and https://support.google.com/chrome/thread/14704979?hl=en. This also means that other malware domains were and will be using this scam (because they quickly change both the host and the redirected domains on discovery). -84user (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC) EDIT to add, for what it's worth I've sent a request to report a security issue with the registrant of the site in question via https://www.dnsbelgium.be/en/whois/contact-registrant/childfocus.be/confirm?uuid=. -84user (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I also get the scam site. Most of this organization's domains have been usurped. Seems to be fairly common on articles of defunct businesses. I thought we had a bot that removed links to usurped sites. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:URLREQ is where to report external links that need to be fixed. At the moment, www.childfocus.be seems to point to a valid (though it uses TLS 1.0) site for Child Focus with a 2019 copyright date, at 81.246.113.142. The DNS SOA record at ns1.register.be has a serial number that says it was changed 2019-09-05 (i.e. not recently). The IP address is not pointed to by any other DNS record. If this was being redirected, I don't see how, unless the site itself was hacked. Is it actually a "defunct business"? —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 04:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)