Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2019 February 8

= February 8 =

Complaint
I need to make a complaint about another Wikipedia user. I could not find an appropriate form in the Contact Page or anywhere else listed on the main page. Where do I go?118.209.164.30 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is the policy on that: Dispute resolution. It starts with talking to the other editor at their talkpage or a relevant article-talkpage, and goes on from there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * From Editing restrictions:


 * "The user known by the aliases Wickwack, Ratbone, Keit, Floda, who edits from a dynamic IP address, is indefinitely banned from contributing to discussions at Wikipedia:Reference desk and Wikipedia talk:Reference desk and all subpages thereof. They are banned regardless of whichever alias they use, or even if they stop using aliases altogether, whether it be one of the above, or another, enforceable by reverting their contributions to the above discussion pages. The ban may be appealed after 6 months."


 * You were topic banned from the reference desk for good reasons. See Administrators' noticeboard/Archive249. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This is disappointing. Firstly, I am not Wickwack, Ratbone, Keit, or Floda.   I have never posted nor edited anything with those names.   Secondly, I have no control over my IP address.  It is set by my internet service provider (incidentally, the link provided above identifies Wickwack et al's ISP as Telstra.  My ISP is not Telstra), who changes it on a weekly basis.  There is absolutely nothing I can do about that.  I cannot initiate a change in my IP address, nor can I stop my ISP from changing it.   This would apply to vast numbers of people, so it appears that Wikipedia persons do not understand how the internet works.  I did post a question on the Reference Desk several months ago, and was I think attacked by the same troll who had a go yesterday.  At the end of the day, though, this isn't worth a lot of effort pursuing.  I'll find out what I need to know some other way. 118.209.164.30 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 10:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * If indeed you are not a banned user, the right place to complain is by responding on your own talk page to the warning you were given: User talk:118.209.164.30. If you are still unsatisfied after that, the plavce to complain is WP:ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Kosher to hire help to put my original content on Wikipedia?
Hi. I often have original content I'd like to add to Wikipedia, but I am not able to retain the information about how to add to Wikipedia nor the rules governing added content. Is it kosher for me to pay someone to put my own content where I'd like it to go?AWCzarnik (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, . It is permitted, but I would advise strongly against it: you will probably be wasting your money. Anybody who takes on such a contract will be required (mandatorily) to declare their status as a paid editor, and can expect to have their work reviewed very tightly. If they represent to you that they can make an article look the way you want it to look, then they are either ignorant or lying: all articles belong to the Wikipedia community, not to any individual or organisation, and it is a consensus of the community that decides what should and shouldn't be in the article.
 * Next, assuming you're thinking of somebody creating a new article, be aware that articles are accepted only on subjects which meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability: broadly, that several people with no connection to the subject have already chosen to publish material about the subject in some depth. The article should be almost entirely based on what those independent sources say. Wikipedia has little interest in what any subject says about themselves (or their relatives, company, band, product, charity, church, or anything else).
 * Finally, most people who consider paying somebody to put information on Wikipedia have the intention of promoting something, which is not allowed. Alternatively, looking at your user page, you may be wanting to put other kinds of information which are not appropriate to an encyclopaedia, such as original research, or teaching materials: please have a look at WP:what Wikipedia is not.
 * I'm sorry this is so negative, but unless the information you want added is genuinely advantageous to Wikipedia, you will be wasting not only your own money, but the time of the volunteers who have to review it. --ColinFine (talk) 11:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

So the take home lesson is that history is written by the victors... of learning the technicalities of Wikipedia. It's a little unsettling. But thank you for taking the time to provide a well-reasoned explanation.AWCzarnik (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, history is written by established sources and published independently. You may have your information published but this is not the place for that. Put a manuscript together and find a publisher or start a blog. Britmax (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * NOPE, if you mean 'start a blog which will become a source for Wikipedia'. Blogs are WP:PRIMARY sources, as such they're considered not WP:RELIABLE enough for Wikipedia. Unless you meant 'start a blog and publish your thoughts, inventions, art works etc. there, not at Wikipedia' – then it's okay. --CiaPan (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, established publisher might be acceptable as a source, blog, no. Britmax (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's another suggestion, . If you're satisfied that the information you want to add is suitable, then you might be able to find an appropriate WikiProject. If you can find one, and it's active, then try posting on its talk page, and you might find an editor or two who are interested in working with you - for free! --ColinFine (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Colin. I will research this option. -AWCzarnik (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you wish to contribute to an existing article but are frustrated by the "rules", then make suggestions on the article's talk page in a new section and ask another editor evaluate and make the actual edits. You will still need to cite your sources, but you can just slap your references in in any form a long it's enough to allow the other editor to find them. Add request edit to attract an editor's attention to your new section -Arch dude (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Arch duke. This is also a constructive and very helpful suggestion that I will try out.  And just for the record, I am only frustrated by 'the rules' because my memory has gotten very poor and when I learn something new it's out of my head within a week.  That is my new normal, and is a source of constant frustration.- AWCzarnik (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Help me with my article
Hi. I published article and got notices of advert and other also. Hence I removed the sentences which were / seemed promotional. I requested editors to review and guide me but still no reply. Please guide. Here it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akancha_Srivastava_Foundation Shwetamits (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I went through the article and have done my best to make the language neutral. All the best to your Wiki journey. Csgir (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Csgir. I learnt a lot. Really appreciate your very prompt help. Shwetamits (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Posting personal knowledge ?
Can you help ? I'm a new user of Wikipedia.

I've noticed a page about a former associate (now deceased) that I know is incorrect. This is based on my personal knowledge, I was there at the time and what is posted is wrong. The incorrect statement was based on an interview with the subject before his death, and was published in a newspaper that has been cited as the source. There is no published work to support what I know is true. Can I merely add some words raising doubt, but without any citation ?

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pteerr (talk • contribs) 10:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but Wikipedia cannot accept personal knowledge as a reliable source, as it is difficult to verify and is not independent. That is also because (while I believe you) we don't know for certain that you are who you say you are.  Anyone can claim to have personal knowledge about anything here. I'm not sure which article you are referencing, but are you certain there is not likely to be a published source about it? 331dot (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks 331dot. I can't see a way of properly replying to your post, this doesn't seem to be right but there is no 'help' to teach me how to do it differently. Anyway, regarding the 'personal knowledge' issue, it seems that anyone can get any story posted as fact merely by telling it to a journalist and persuading them to publish it, then citing the article. Anyone who knows better is then unable to correct the story as there may not be a contradicting published account. In my case, could I merely add 'further citation required' after the story, this would alert readers that it is questionable ? Thanks. --Pteerr (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You've responded correctly. It isn't a matter of merely telling a journalist something who then publishes it; that would be a simple interview which is a primary source and not an independent reliable source.  A journalist would, on their own, need to choose to write about something in depth in order for it to merit inclusion in a Wikipedia article. You could attempt to make a case on the article talk page as to why the information is incorrect and should be removed, but it will be difficult to get consensus to do that without some sort of source. 331dot (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * - if, as Pteerr says, the incorrect information comes from a published interview, would that interview count as "a primary source and not an independent reliable source"? If so, the information could be removed as not having a reliable source, or a maintenance tag could be added, such as with an explanation on the Talk page. Is this a correct approach? - Epinoia (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I want to create my company page
Please help me creating my companies page. looking forward for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nostalgica80s (talk • contribs) 11:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a common misunderstanding about the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not have "company pages" and is not social media for companies to tell the world about themselves.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that has articles about companies that are shown with independent reliable sources with significant coverage to be notable as defined by Wikipedia.  For companies, that is defined at WP:ORG(please review).  Not every company merits an article here, even within the same field.  Wikipedia has no interest in what a company wants to say about itself, only in what independent sources state. You have what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest; please read that page. As such, you should not be the one to write about your company.  If it truly meets the notability guidelines, an independent editor will eventually take note of your company and write about it.  Also note that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Acknowledged (talk)  appreciated your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nostalgica80s (talk • contribs) 13:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Ralph Allen Canadian Artist Page
Hi folks, I am still quite new, and I am trying to publish a page for a Canadian Artist, Ralph Allen. I think I have basics ready to go. How do I get it published? If anyone can have a look at it in my sandbox, and provide feedback, that would be great.

Brian Coughtrey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Coughtrey (talk • contribs) 14:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, . When you think your draft is ready for review, you can submit it by pasting {{subst:submit}} (with the double curly brackets) at the top. But in my view, this is not worth doing yet. The problem is that none of your references is independent of Allen: they are all either institutions that he is connected with, or (in the case of the Kingston Whig Standard} based on an interview. Wikipedia is basically uninterested in what a subject says about themselves, or what their associates say about them. What matters is what independent commentators have chosen to publish about them (in reliable places). I suspect that Allen is notable (in Wikipedia's special sense); but in my view, your draft does not yet establish that. --ColinFine (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Note See Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2019 January 9. Also links and advice at OP's talk page. Eagleash (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

When you create redirect pages, what is the effect of capitalization?
When you create redirect pages, is capitalization of various words relevant or irrelevant? For example: hypothetically, let's say that I wanted to create a bunch of redirect pages for the actor Tom Cruise. Could I create the following redirects? (These are the four various "combinations" of upper-case and lower-case letters for the two words, "Tom" and "Cruise".)


 * Tom Cruise (upper-case T and upper-case C)
 * tom cruise (lower-case t and lower-case c)
 * Tom cruise (upper-case T and lower-case c)
 * tom Cruise (lower-case t and upper-case C)

Or is the capitalization (or lack thereof) completely irrelevant? Is an upper-case letter treated the exact same as is a lower-case letter? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * We enforce a convention that the initial letter of the article name must be capitalized, and the software internally always uppercases wen it follows a link. Thus, Tom Cruise and tom Cruise link to ts same place (not a redirect), and you cannot create an article orredirect named "tom Cruise", and Tom cruise, is, however a legal article name and as been created as a redirect for some reason, and tom cruise links to that redirect. -Arch dude (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Tom cruise can be created and already exists but there is no good reason for such redirects today. The search box automatically goes to a page name which only differs by capitalization so "Tom cruise" or "TOM cruise" works there without a redirect (it didn't in 2005 when the redirect was made). Wikilinks require the right capitalization after the first character but redirects like Tom cruise can just encourage editors to use this bad capitaliztion in articles. A red link like TOM cruise tells them there is something wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

A page move was "Snow Closed"
A page move was "snow closed", a move that I object to. What do I need to do? The "discussion" (if you can call it that) is here: Talk:2019 Sebring, Florida shooting. It was opened and closed within an hour (a day or two ago). And I just saw it now. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at it, i'd have probably supported the move too. What is your reasoning for having the comma after Florida? There is technically nothing stopping you opening a new move request to revert it, but I am not of the opinion that there would be consensus. Still, you have nothing to lose if you can present a convincing case. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * My reasoning was listed on that Talk Page, in an "above" section (with the heading "Title"). Here: Talk:2019 Sebring, Florida shooting.  This exact issue arose in the past.  And we reached consensus.  I will find (and post here) the links with the consensus.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Here is the link I was referring to: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 209.  Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * And here is the other link: Talk:Schoharie limousine crash. Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Another editor suggested a rename to 2019 Sebring shooting which may well get consensus too; if you agree, you could suggest this as a page move, or just do it. In saying that, if it's a page with high traffic, it may be best passing it through move requests. In my view, the comma after Florida read awkwardly, but helpdesk isn't really the place to discuss. Bungle (talk • contribs) 23:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * see talk page in question.   SITH   (talk)   13:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Indic script usage
Hello, is using indic script in navbox allowed ? Wiki KuthiVaiyans (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally no; see WP:INDICSCRIPT for details. – Teratix ₵ 02:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)