Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2020 November 19

= November 19 =

Close captions aren't appearing on a page despite adding content to it's time text page
I recently attempted to add lyrics for the audio sample on the Big Bang Baby page, despite adding lyrics to the page it redirected me to, the page still says no text track is available. I wasn't sure if it was a sample page (basically a page similar to a sandbox), so I tried creating a new page that follows the correct naming format, but I am unable to move it.

XNanoWarriorx (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

https://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/ - Please delete this page/link
Dear Wikipedia Editor/ Help Desk,

I am hoping you will be able to kindly assist and help.

This link was created as a result from a wikipedia entry back around 2007-9 and is still coming up in Google with incorrect information.

Can you please source the link and delete the content please and page link entirely.

The link that needs deletion is : https://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/

thank you for any help available.

§ Margiejprice (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , we don't have any control over a site outside of the Wikimedia project, and as far as I can tell there was a discussion about the article's deletion back in 2011. You'd have to get in contact with enacademic. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:Mirrors and forks as to our overall policy on sites like this. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Takes a strong man to deny... 01:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

. Appreciate your help and swift reponse guys thank you   Margiejprice (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Or to elaborate a little on what writes: You,, are talking about a page on "enacademic.com". That website regurgitates material that is, or has been, on Wikipedia (and much else); however, it's completely out of the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization that runs Wikipedia. Incidentally, you're talking about a "link" when you probably mean a "page"; if you did ask Google to "delete a Wikipedia link to" that page, or similar, then that would explain why Google sent you here. -- Hoary (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Whois suggests that "enacademic.com" is Russian. I'm not an expert in interpreting Whois information; perhaps somebody more knowledgable can infer more than I can. -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * They are using "Privacy protection service - whoisproxy.ru" -- which means that they can be anywhere.


 * Margiejprice can write a letter to:


 * enacademic.com C/O whoisproxy.ru
 * PO box 99
 * Moscow RU 123308


 * This is unlikely to work, but it is cheap to try.


 * Margiejprice can also send four separate emails to:
 * enacademic.com@whoisproxy.ru
 * webmaster@enacademic.com
 * abuse@enacademic.com
 * postmaster@enacademic.com
 * This is also unlikely to work, but costs nothing to try.


 * I advise Margiejprice to get help wording the letter and the email. If it is anything like her initial post here then even if she reaches enacademic.com they are unlikely to undersand the request -- especially if English is not their primary language. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * According to https://www.accessify.com/e/enacademic.com# the following domains share IP adresses with enacademic.com


 * enacademic.com
 * omniglot.com
 * askdavetaylor.com
 * thewindowsclub.com
 * soapcentral.com
 * I suspect that they are unrelated. No similarities that I can see.


 * According to https://www.ip-adress.com/website/enacademic.com they are using an Amazon server in Germany (amazon sells hosting services, so this is nout unusual.)


 * Margiejprice can try sending a letter to the address in Germany listed on the above site.
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * In 2012, before the site started using the privacy service, the listed owner was "Mark A Adamenko".
 * According to https://domainbigdata.com/gmail.com/mj/X3-SYhEMVyV-mbKM1SmU5w his contact info (still published in the public WHOIS of fourteen domains, so no privacy issues posting it here) is:


 * Mark A Adamenko
 * Zemlyanoy val, 14/16, 77
 * Moscow RU Russian Federation
 * mark.adamenko@gmail.com


 * --Guy Macon (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you everyone and Guy also. We would appreciate some help if you think we need to make my request with certain terminology when contacting them. Otherwise we appreciate all the help. Trying to find a contact address to request page deletion has proved very troublesome. Margiejprice (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC) MargieJ

I would word it like this:


 * Hi! I am [your real name]. Your page at https/www.example.com [make sure you get the right URL. Check it three times.] has wrong information about [name of person the page is about]. The editors at Wikipedia told me to ask you to update it or delete it. Tthanks! --[your name and email address].

The reason that I emphasize getting the right URL is because you wrote the following above:

"The link that needs deletion is : https://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/"

No it isn't. you posted the wrong URL. they can't fix the problem if you do that.

Also, send actual letters, not just emails. Most people ignore emails but actual letters get attention. And hand letter the address on the envelope so it looks less like junk mail. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_joke
Is it common practice to use racial slurs on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.176.39 (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored. If the use of racial slurs is necessary to understand the article, they will most likely be used for academic reasons. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  03:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Deleting paragraphs of an article because of poor placement?
Link to what I'm referring to.

Hi, I was recently involved in a bit of a disagreement with another editor as to how poorly placed but well-researched content should be treated. I was (and still am) of the opinion that a courtesy comment on the talk page after the deletion or in most cases moving the content yourself into an appropriate section should be the action that you should take. I'm just wondering if my argument lines with Wikipedia's policies, as I see both points but (maybe due to bias as I'm the one with the opposing opinion) I still believe that deletion without notification or discussion goes against the spirit of Wikipedia? Please note I'm not trying to direct attacks to or harass the editor by posting this, I'm just wondering whether the case I made is valid? I would have posted this in disputes but since I also agree that the placement was bad, I didn't think it fitted there. Regards,  Hun ter  02:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (revised comment) This is the edit that started this. [] Basically an IP editor removed a chunk of text without leaving an edit summary and you reverted it. I would have done the same. It was unexplained removal of text, which is frowned upon, especially by IP editors.  I would then ask him to add an edit summary. If they persist without discussion, the IP address can be blocked. Hope this answers your question. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  08:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot!  Hun ter  11:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

WP: List of Controversial Issues
How do articles get added and removed from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_controversial_issues? Thanks. Rohan608 (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Unlike Category:Wikipedia controversial topics, which is autogenerated by adding the "Wikipedia controversial topics" category to the bottom of an article, the list entries are added and deleted manually. It may appear to be redundant, but just using the category tag in an article won't properly sort these articles by topic. The page watchers keep things from getting out of hand. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  08:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

ThanksRohan608 (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

BLP under musical groups/bands members section
Is including table consisting of Stage Name, Birth Name (Romanized and other language related if applicable), Date of Birth, Nationality, Position/Roles column inside musical groups/bands members section violating BLP? There is additional last column for the inline citation to ensure Verifiability. I can't find any guidelines on that topic hence I need clarification as other Wikipedian say it is violating BLP and including such information is consider off-balance. The article in question that i'm talking is located here, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aespa_(group)&oldid=989457393, it is no longer the latest version because as mentioned above others keep saying it violated this and that.

Adding on the reason for not having these information created as individual members article is because there's lack of content currently to expand beyond the lead section and infobox.

Paper9oll | Talk:(Paper9oll) 04:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

article
hello my name is flower.i published an article under the title Yugyeom today. but im confused as i couldnt see it.is it accepted? how long will it takes for you to publish it? why cant i have the access to my own article? at the top on the left side, theres a box to either project page and talk or user page and tallk. how can i access to article? i dont get it. i need explanation. once again.

I PUBLISHED AN ARTICLE UNDER THE TITLE YUGYEOM. CONNECTED TOA BOY BAND NAME GOT7. HOW LONG WILL IT TAKES FOR MY ARTICLE TO BE PUBLISH/ ITS JUST A BIOGRAPHY.NO HATE OR INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT AT ALL. PLEASE RESPOND. I NEED ANSWERS.

THANK YOU, FLOWER.


 * The reason on why you're not seeing the article is simply because you didn't remove the Redirect tag at the top, however I have reverted your edit because the article doesn't meet SINGER and BLP requirements. Even if I didn't revert your edit, someone else will do so, simply because it doesn't meet the mentioned requirements. Paper9oll | Talk:(Paper9oll) 09:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you edited a redirect and saved it before before your content was ready to publish. The redirect page has red warning text about this.  An article about Yugyeom will need better sources.  If you look at the other Got7 members, you'll see their articles have better sources.  I think you should spend more time improving the article draft in your sandbox. You can open your sandbox by clicking on the sandbox link on the upper right of your screen next to your user name. When you think the draft is ready, come back here and let us know and we can review and help you publish it if it is ready.  TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  09:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I moved your user draft from your main user page to User:Flowergirldandelion/sandbox.
 * I moved your user draft from your main user page to User:Flowergirldandelion/sandbox.

Can anyone help correct my entries below to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_and_Criminal_Evidence_Act_1984
Can anyone help correct my entries below to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_and_Criminal_Evidence_Act_1984

In the case of Christopher James Miller v Director of Public Prosecutions (2018) Mr.Miller’s conviction for drug driving was revoked because West Midland Police had breached Code C of PACE by not providing him with an appropriate adult despite him telling officers that he had Asperger and being aware from his previous interactions that he had Aspergers.

IPC C Investigation 2012/011560 - A breach of Code C of PACE occurred in 2012 when a vulnerable 11 year old girl Child H with a neurological disability similar to autism who was denied an appropriate adult by Sussex Police after she was arrested on 4 separate occasions for minor offences between February and March 2012. Sussex Police referred the complaint to IPCC and accepted the IPCC recommendations, [:https://policeconduct.gov.uk/recommendations/recommendation-sussex-police-february-2016] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.209.191 (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The change made: Special:Diff/989517324.
 * The result: Special:PermanentLink/989517324. --CiaPan (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The result: Special:PermanentLink/989517324. --CiaPan (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Translation tool - how to get rid of it?
I went to Special:ContentTranslation to see what it was, and now I've got an annoying drop-down when I point to "contributions" at the top of any page. How do I get rid of it please?
 * It's OK - preferences -> beta features. DuncanHill (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Need Help Finishing proper Wiki format fpr page
Hi guys, I created a page but I do not have publishhing power. I was able to fill out a lot of information at it *looks* like Wikipedia format, but I need an editor to finalize the small details and publish.

-Joshua
 * It appears that while the draft hasn't been officially approved or declined, a reviewer has noted some issues with it that should be addressed, particularly Maier's notability as an actor. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  15:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

All the review needs to do is read The New York Times.
 * Removing legitimate review comments with edit summaries susch as "Irrelevant trolling again" and then the following bizarre statement "Called the issuing office in St. Lucia and information confirmed. Any change after should be evidence specifically against the firsthand evidence. Two spokespeople confirmed the significant detail" is not helping your case. Information about the honour may belong in a different article about the award itself but not in this one. Please review WP:NACTOR and demonstrate how this person passes those guidelines. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Already confirmed, thank you! I don't need any more advice.
 * Presumably your 'confirmed' comment refers to the information about the award which does not belong and it seems you have now removed. The second quote in my post above was of your edit summary when again removing the review comment. The ES was at best misleading and bore no relation to the actual edit. You have asked for advice and help and now you are not taking heed. And you have removed the comment a further time. If you continue disrupting the review process you may lose editing privileges. *Again* . Eagleash (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

HELP!!!
I am trying to adjust an incorrect & derogatory post that was creating by someone I do not know I make the edits & 2 minutes later it reverts to the page I disagree with. This is personal & professional information about Sarajane Hoare, how is this possible???? How can I make changes or have the whole entry deleted?

Thank you!

Sarajane Hoare SAUSFRUK (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason why people have been reverting your edits is that you're removing content that is reliably sourced from secondary sources. Also, while editing an article about yourself is not prohibited, it is strongly discouraged, as your edits have made it sound promotional, which Wikipedia does not do. If you wish to propose changes, please do so on the article's talk page with edit requests. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  15:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, I am not a computer illiterate person but have NEVER seen anything so complicated ... Not even sure you'll receive this reply! How can I have the page deleted? The information is incorrect & derogatory, would rather have nothin than false info! How is this actually even legal in this day & age? i am not an administrator but no longer wish to appear on Wikipedia at all in this case. Please advise, thank you!
 * Get the page deleted? You can't, if it is well-sourced in publicly available, secondary sources. This is what Wikipedia is for: to gather and present a common knowledge. This is legal these days. If you disagree with the article's contents, find WP:RELIABLE sources that show something contrary to the article. Then add lacking or more precise information with references to those sources (or better, propose appropriate edit at the article's talk page). --CiaPan (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * See also FAQ/Article_subjects and other questions in that FAQ]] Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

How to update "Official site"
Hi. The page Dev-C++ has a long history. The "old" official site http://www.bloodshed.net had been supplanted by orwelldevcpp.blogspot.com, but this year has been taken over by a new fork that is actively maintained at https://www.embarcadero.com/free-tools/dev-cpp. These are listed in the info box. But how to update "Official site" in the EL? Thanks for your help. peterl (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Official website is one of the templates that draws its information from Wikidata: pick "Wikidata Item" from the sidebar of the article, and you can edit it there. But in my opinion, worrying about this is like cleaning the windows of a house that is about to fall down. Unless enough independent published sources are added, the article does not establish that the subject is notable, and it is likely to get deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Diets and vegan activism
I'm interested in making an article about the carnivore diet, yet all I see here is pointing to the fact that even if I write one it will be removed because of vegan activism on wikipedia.

For example, I just edited a carnivore disambiguation page to remove the word "fad" from "... a fad diet..." which immediately got unmade by a username that is a vegan activist. The word fad is a qualitative descriptor and as such has no place on an objective site.The editor called it nonconstructive to remove biased wording.

I see a lot of vegan activism here, not only for the amount of different articles about the vegan diet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan_nutrition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian_cuisine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan_studies

and so on and on.

Also a lot of diets that are not in line of vegan propagandist here get called fad diets(which is funny since veganism by their own definition is a fad diet that didn't exist before 19th century, no society was even vegan in human history), edits are added with questionable sources to discredit them and a lot of other things.

So, should I start writing or is it pointless?


 * Just to clarify, were these edits made as User: 93.140.41.35 ? Regards  Velella  Velella Talk 18:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. They were test edits on that ip to see what would happen. --JustANameInUse (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, which is not compatible with advocacy and propaganda; please see the essay on "righting great wrongs" before you go any further. "Neutral point of view" means that we reflect the point of view of reliable sources as closely as we can, rather than making articles reflect our own points of view. Your edit was reverted because the text you changed linked to the carnivore diet, which is described by reliable sources as a fad diet. Note that the diet described in the linked article is a diet of eating only meat, not the typical human diet without specific exclusions, so in fact your edit was not correct. Also, we have a policy of assuming good faith which means that everyone is required to assume that all edits are done with good intentions, and another policy which forbids personal attacks; calling other editors "vegan activists" goes against both of those policies. If you have specific suggestions for improving any articles on veganism or any other diets, or any articles at all, you can be bold and make the edits yourself, or propose edits to discuss with other editors on the articles' talk pages (for example by writing a note at Talk:Veganism). Thanks for your question. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what I mean. You already assumed I was biased because I called out editors who even on their pages say they are vegan. Why are they even following changes to carnivore disambiguation page? Your point is that if you can find a source that describes something as a fad diet then it is. What if I find a source that says otherwise? Who chooses? The disambiguation page has no sources listed for the fad qualifier. Or does the most common agreed upon bias trump objective writing? --JustANameInUse (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We assume you're biased because, like a lot of people who post on this page, you think there is a conspiracy against your viewpoint. Usually it's anti-Indian or pro-Indian or anti-Trump or pro-Trump, you just chose a different topic. There isn't any anti-meat campaign on Wikipeida. Follow the tenets of Wikipedia and you'll be just fine. Having a page on Veganism does not prove that there is a vegan conspiracy afoot. If you want to make a neutral and well-sourced page about the carnivore diet, do it. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  19:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, you are assuming a lot about me. Who talked about conspiracy or anything? I just tried an edit to see if I would get a response from a vegan, and look, a vegan did. I also noticed that the last carnivore diet page was removed and the responses redirected to Monotrophic diet, which by definition it is. As is veganism, but you don't see it mentioned. I'll edit it now to see how long it stands. That is why I asked this question. I'm neither a carnivore proponent nor interested in diet wars. Lately I've been reading a lot about nutrition to learn and I find it interesting that a lot of dietary information is not available on wikipedia.JustANameInUse (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And the edit has been reversed withing 5 minutes as unsourced. What were you saying? JustANameInUse (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And the editor, who is vegan, who reversed it is here slandering me. And I'm paranoid? JustANameInUse (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There are six sources provided in the article if you click through the link to carnivore diet. They are:
 * McLaughlin, Terence. (1979). If You Like It, Don't Eat It: Dietary Fads and Fancies. New York: Universe Books. p. 62. ISBN 0-87663-332-7
 * Number five is not available online and number three is behind a paywall, but of the others, one describes it specifically as a fad, one includes it in a cautionary list of fad diets, and the other two don't use the word "fad" but are similarly cautious reviews of a diet that's trendy on social media and warned against by anyone who's ever studied nutrition. That, generally, is how we decide: we review available reliable sources (reliable meaning independent of the subject being discussed, among other conditions) and present information as they do, considering the due weight of possibly contradictory opinions, as closely as we can. When it's not obvious how a thing should be described then we discuss it with other editors and come to a consensus. But consensus can change, and if you have high-quality reliable sources which say the carnivore diet is not a fad diet, then you can bring that new information to the article's talk page and start a new discussion. It doesn't necessarily mean anything will change or change in the way you want it to, but that's how we do it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So, how would I find a reliable source that claims that it isn't? Reliable sources generally don't concern themselves with something like that. Let say I delete that qualifier and link something like the British Medical Journal where such qualifiers aren't mentioned, would that be a good edit? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2256728/ JustANameInUse (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * JustANameInUse, you assume without evidence that Vegans will interfere with a page on the Carnivore diet. Is it OK for me to assume without evidence that you will interfere with pages on veganism? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Without evidence? A vegan editor follows carnivore disambiguation page and reversed the edit within a small timeframe? And you call me out that I will interfere on vegan articles that I didn't even touch? Are you serious? JustANameInUse (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Number five is not available online and number three is behind a paywall, but of the others, one describes it specifically as a fad, one includes it in a cautionary list of fad diets, and the other two don't use the word "fad" but are similarly cautious reviews of a diet that's trendy on social media and warned against by anyone who's ever studied nutrition. That, generally, is how we decide: we review available reliable sources (reliable meaning independent of the subject being discussed, among other conditions) and present information as they do, considering the due weight of possibly contradictory opinions, as closely as we can. When it's not obvious how a thing should be described then we discuss it with other editors and come to a consensus. But consensus can change, and if you have high-quality reliable sources which say the carnivore diet is not a fad diet, then you can bring that new information to the article's talk page and start a new discussion. It doesn't necessarily mean anything will change or change in the way you want it to, but that's how we do it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So, how would I find a reliable source that claims that it isn't? Reliable sources generally don't concern themselves with something like that. Let say I delete that qualifier and link something like the British Medical Journal where such qualifiers aren't mentioned, would that be a good edit? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2256728/ JustANameInUse (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * JustANameInUse, you assume without evidence that Vegans will interfere with a page on the Carnivore diet. Is it OK for me to assume without evidence that you will interfere with pages on veganism? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Without evidence? A vegan editor follows carnivore disambiguation page and reversed the edit within a small timeframe? And you call me out that I will interfere on vegan articles that I didn't even touch? Are you serious? JustANameInUse (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Without evidence? A vegan editor follows carnivore disambiguation page and reversed the edit within a small timeframe? And you call me out that I will interfere on vegan articles that I didn't even touch? Are you serious? JustANameInUse (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Please note this is unlikely to be a new user. JustANameInUse is very likely to be a sock-puppet of the banned Zalgo or associated with him. If you check the monotrophic diet article he has been blocked on many accounts previously in regard to his obsession the carnivore diet. Previous socks of Zalgo obsessed with the carnivore diet and criticising veganism include skyisdeep, BecomeFree etc. A trademark of this sock is he doesn't like his userpage red. Amongst the earliest edits on JustANameInUse were to create it. The monotrophic diet article is low traffic, every few months Zalgo turns up on a new sock to edit it. It's no surprise that he is now editing that article . Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And here comes the slander from the vegan who took over the page. I don't even know who Zalgo is. What does it matter it is a low traffic article? It linked me to it from the carnivore disambiguation page. If you look over my ip you will see I'm from Croatia. Have you no decency? JustANameInUse (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There has been a lot of sock-puppetry in regard to the carnivore diet, monotrophic diet etc this year on Wikipedia. I find it unlikely you are a brand new user. Even if you are a new user unfortunately you have gone about this the wrong way and your edits are disruptive. You are now removing the fact the carnivore diet is a fad diet on specific articles. This is disruption because the content is well sourced. We do not need a vegan vs carnivore diet battle mentality on Wikipedia but that is what you are trying to create. The medical community and dietitians do not take the carnivore diet seriously. We have multiple reliable sources dismissing it as anti-science and quackery. By arguing against consensus you are going against WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your post here just confirms your vegan bias. First you slander me to be another user, then call my edits biased when they are just a removal of a quantifier that has no place in a objective writing and now you call the carnivore diet anti-science and quackery. And you call yourself unbiased and fair? Are you kidding me? JustANameInUse (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. So far you have called every editor on here you dislike a "vegan". You have a battleground mentality. There are no vegan editors here in this discussion. Your edits are disruptive, as were the edits on your alleged IP . Wikipedia is not the place to promote your pet fad diet. There is no vegan agenda here. We reflect what mainstream nutritional sources say. Maybe read the fad diet article and get a better understanding of what a fad diet is. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Editors I disliked? What are you talking about? Your own user page has a vegan award, quote: "Thank you for your contributions to the visibility of vegan and vegetarian historical developments on Wikipedia!" Also mentioned were animal rights and ecology. No vegan agenda on your part? Sell that to someone else. Those were test edits to see what would happen. I'm not here to promote anything. What are you so against this? JustANameInUse (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You keep calling users "biased" vegans which is the same thing Zalgo did. We don't need to be talking about who is vegan on here but just so you know you do not need to be a vegan to receive an award. I am not a vegan but have improved articles in that area, that's why I created the WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism so users can neutrally edit this area and make edits from a neutral point-of-view, we reach a consensus and help each other edit different articles, its called cooperation. So far the project has been a success. From what I am seeing here you are not making constructive edits on this website and you have only been here a day and stirred up trouble with your battleground mentality. If you want to re-create the carnivore diet article then write up a draft and get a consensus view from other editors. Unfortunately Zalgo sock-puppeted on the carnivore diet article so it is a controversial area to edit. You going different admins boards complaining about vegan bias is not helping your case. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't care who Zalgo is. Yes, we need to talk about it because it is a bias, one you clearly can't step from. I can't verify you are or are not vegan, just look at your history which suggest you are. I asked about writing a constructive article and got attacked and slandered by you. Now you try to accuse me of starting something? I have no battleground mentality. Me going to an admin should be seen as being serious about writing an unbiased article since it involves a considerable investment of time and I don't want that investment to be in vain because of someone like you. JustANameInUse (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a bit too much drama for a help desk. Please discuss at the administrator's noticeboard discussion. TimTempleton <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  23:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Taylor & Francis academic journals
On the page Category:Taylor & Francis academic journals when I click on "A" I get B through J and when I click on "B" I get C through J. "C" gives me D through J, and "D" gives me E through L.

"0-9" gives me A but the "previous page " link works and brings me to Écoscience for some reason.

"W" gets me X and "X" gets me "There are no pages or files in this category".

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This should resolve itself in a few days. A software change is being installed behind the scenes - see here and here for discussion. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

bias
I would donate to you guys but it seems you are biased so I don't — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.69.183.43 (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There are millions of articles here and thousands of volunteers with different biases, but somehow it works. If you have issues with any of the millions of articles, you are welcome to open a discussion on the article's talk page to see if you can convince others that you are right. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Add to a page or make a similar one
Hello, I and many othes have lots of photographs of Cornish mines and engine houses. There is a Wiki page already - Mining in Cornwall and Devon.

The above is a general run around about mining in the Southwest.

I want a page (maybe called Cornish Mines), where people can upload pictures, articles etc. on each individual mine in Cornwall. Can I set up a new page and link it into the one above, or a totally new page?

Thank you for your help Tracy Elliott


 * Hello, . Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which contains articles which are summaries of what reliable sources say about notable topics: a gallery of pictures would not be appropriate, unless it was attached to an article, say about Cornish tin mines. However, assuming that you and your friends hold the copyright to them, or that they are old enough to be in the public domain, then you are very welcome to upload them to Wikimedia Commons, where they would be a resource that can be used in any Wikimedia project; for example in articles about the towns where the mines were. Many Wikipedia articles have a template such as Commons or Commons category, which draws readers' attention to the existence of relevant materials in Commons. --ColinFine (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know what their policies are, but maybe Wikipedia's sister project Wikivoyage would be more appropriate? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  22:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * you can also create a new article fro any mine that is itself notable by our definition (i.e., at least several separate feature articles in independent reliable sources). See WP:N. -Arch dude (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I am Councilman Jay H. Banks' Chief of Staff and I am submitting his official biography.
The Councilman has asked that I edit his official page
 * I have moved this to Draft:Jay H. Banks, but of course it has no chance of being accepted as an article, not only because it is so poorly written and promotional, but because there is no evidence anywhere in the puff piece that councilman Banks is notable enough to merit an article in a global encyclopedia. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  22:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's policy on paid editors. You should not directly edit the page directly, and instead suggest edits on the article's talk page through edit requests. You should also disclose your affiliation with the subject on your user page. You may use paid to do so. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  22:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The draft is a copy-paste and I will tag it as such. We do not accept content lifted wholesale from another site. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Takes a strong man to deny... 00:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that there is no such thing as an "official page" on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia which is free to edit by anyone. No one has any sort of "official" claim to any article. Most prominently, this includes the subjects of the article. Just because Councilman Jay H. Banks is the subject of the article doesn't mean he has any sort of ownership or authority over the article. On the contrary, the councilman, you, and anyone else closely related to him should avoid editing the article at all. J I P  &#124; Talk 02:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Update: The draft has been deleted by Ponyo. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  04:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Ive been asked for a donation but I cant even acess my account!
Hi. I would donate and did before but no point when I cant access my account. Anybody help? Thank you. Pat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8085:B13F:4C00:B943:14B3:5352:FEC4 (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for considering donating to help spread the world's knowledge. If the password recovery feature doesn't work, you're better off just starting a new account. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  23:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Donations are completely voluntary and entirely unrelated to accounts. You can donate to Wikipedia without ever having used Wikipedia at all, but that's up to you. If you do not want to donate to Wikipedia, then you are free to just not to. J I P  &#124; Talk 01:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Can't find a wikilink on a page
According to this there is a link on List of urban districts formed in England and Wales 1894–95 to the redirect page Urban District. I want to correct it to point to Urban district (Great Britain and Ireland) but I'm buggered if I can find it. Can anyone help? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Cowpen UD?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well spotted! Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)