Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2021 December 27

= December 27 =

How to move a page with a suspended admin?
Hi there,

A page title has a spelling error and as per your documentation to correct the spelling error one has to move the page. I don't have admin privilege for this page and there is no move option for me. Unfortunately, the admin and creator of the page has been suspended. So in this situation what does one do to make the change?

The page in question is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuku_Sebsebe

The spelling error is: The last name should Sebsibe instead of Sebsebe

The person described on this page is the legendary singer Kuku Sebsibe from Ethiopia.

Thanks in advance for your assistance and looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Regards,

Hailu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhailu14 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Kuku Sebsibe already exists, and it redirects to Kuku Sebsebe.  The article has one reference in which her name is spelled as both "Sebsebe" and "Sebsibie", and the archived official website uses "Sebsebe".  I suggest you add more reliable sources to the article showing the proper spelling of her name, and then post a request to move the article on Talk:Kuku Sebsebe.  Hope this helps, and happy editing!  GoingBatty (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, to be clear, there is no such thing as an administrator for a particular Wikipedia page, nor does the creator of an article have any authority over it. As User:GoingBatty indicates above, we should get better confirmation of the spelling of this singer's name before we decide to move it. However, if we get a consensus to establish that her name really is spelled "Sebsibe", I would be willing to help you move the article if necessary (as, I'm sure, would many other editors). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also note that Discogs states "Kuku Sebsebe (surname also spelled Sebsibe)" - I added a link to the article. GoingBatty (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * : Thank you guys for the prompt reply and your help. Her official name is Kuku Sebsibe, but past publications and imposters have used the alias name Kuku Sebsebe. She has asked me to clean up this mess and I am starting with Wikipedia as it is the first thing that comes up when you search for her. If there is a way, I can provide you with a copy of her passport that shows her official name. We are in the process of building her new website too: http://www.kukusebsibe.com/.

Again thank you for your assistance.

Hailu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhailu14 (talk • contribs)
 * Do not give copies of identity documents to anyone, to protect the person involved. Since you say you have an association with this person, you must read about conflict of interest and possibly paid editing. I will post this information on your user talk page as well. 331dot (talk) 08:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * , what it says on her passport is not relevant. Wikipedia, as an enyclopaedia, summarises what reliable published sources say. According to our policy COMMONNAME, if the bulk of the sources call her Sebsebe then that is what the Wikipedia article should be called (though of course it should also give her legal name if that is publicly known). However, it sounds from the above as if the sources are divided, in which case there may be a case for moving the article, and you are welcome to suggest this on the article's talk page. But you will need to give published sources: you will be more likely to succeed by saying "these are the sources which support 'Sebsibe'", than by saying ""Sebsibe is her legal name", or "She wants it moved". (Note that the article does not belong to Sebsibe, and she does not control its contents: see WP:OWN). --ColinFine (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Looking at this Discogs page it appears that this singer uses Kuku Sebsebe on her album covers; see https://www.discogs.com/master/2415811-Kuku-Sebsebe-Tinish-Geze-Sitegn or https://www.discogs.com/master/2404345-Kuku-Sebsebe-Tzita for examples. I don't rule out the possibility that she might have changed the spelling of her name as other singers have done such as Janie Fricke (who used to go by "Janie Frickie") or Dionne Warwick (who changed her name to "Dionne Warwicke" for a while). But for a recording artist, my inclination is to follow the spelling used on their album covers to determine their primary name. That may not necessarily coincide with their legal name; Barbra Streisand's birth certificate says "Barbara Streisand", but she dropped one of the a′s from her first name before starting her recording career. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Even more fun is that AllMusic has two pages - one for each spelling. I've added links to the article.  GoingBatty (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * If you email in (see Contact us/Readers) your identity will be verified (not through documents but other, less intrusive means) and they will probably drop a talk page note verifying your claims, since right now it's impossible to know you're actually a representative of the individual in question. That said, if indeed you are, then I think the page should be moved. This is a low profile person and having a wrong name for them can be harmful for the person in question. They're too low profile for there to be a real WP:COMMONNAME, so the subject's preference should be sufficient. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for the informative input, I have learned a lot. Kuku said she did not give it much attention, in the past, since her name spelling was correct in Amharic. But now that she is gaining notoriety all over the world, she wants her correctly spelled name to be her trademark. I will concentrate on getting it fixed on other sites and social media. Hopefully, once that is done someone will make the correction on Wikipedia. Again thank you all. Happy Holidays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhailu14 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I've moved the article for you. Cheers, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhailu14 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Films, movie contribute
how can i add film on List of Tamil films of 2021

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Tamil_films_of_2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AhmdAsjad (talk • contribs) 08:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello @AhmdAsjad! Looking at the edithistory of the article, you did add a film there. A little later, an unregistered editor removed it, for unstated reasons. @Neutral Fan (or anyone else), do you have an opinion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

philosophy
Why isn't Jesus listed as a philosopher ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7BB4:B500:31DD:4A1D:EF6A:A4D3 (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Which is the first name on List of philosophers of religion? --David Biddulph (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Warranted edits?
Quick question: when does massive re-write edits become warranted rather than appearing to be individual workspace for an editor's personal writing style? An American in Paris Edits #1, An American in Paris Edits #2, An American in Paris Edits #3. Maineartists (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Maineartists, edits should improve the article rather than just replacing one editor's preferences with another's. There is guidance on copy editing at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to, which follows the guidelines in the Manual of Style (MoS).
 * If you diasagree with an editor's edits you can discuss them on the article's or the editor's talkpage.You can also follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. TSventon (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you, TSventon. I thought as much, but didn't know exactly how to support it with WP policy. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Maineartists, whether an edit improves a sentence will often be a matter of opinion. My first sentence is based on experience, but similar to Manual of Style. The Guild of Copy Editors page I linked gives making an article clear, correct, concise, comprehensible, and consistent as examples of improvements. TSventon (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I think I'm going to need more eyes at this article An American in Paris Edit History. I'm not getting through to this one editor: An American In Paris Talk #Edits. Any suggestions? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Firstly assume good faith WP:AGF, most editors do edit to improve articles. I think this editor has on balance improved the section although I would disagree with some details. Try to ask neutral questions, rather than implying the other editor is doing something wrong. I know that can be more easily said than done.
 * Secondly focus on content, WP:FOC in Dispute resolution. At this stage could you focus on the three or so changes you are most concerned about and leave the rest? Criticising an editor for occasional typos is probably not productive (I unsuccessfully try to avoid typos myself). Combining small corrections into larger edits is reasonable as 88 small edits would clutter the edit history. TSventon (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, combining small corrections into larger edits is reasonable; but these are not "corrections". The original edit summary reason was "trimmed length". The original word count for the section was approximately 650. Currently, it stands at 645. Hardly, trimmed. Most "corrections" were merely word substitutions: "evening" for "night", "painter" for "artist", "painting" for "pieces", or re-worded sentence structure that was not in need of change. These were not corrections but merely personal writing style preferences that were made on the spur of the moment in edit mode. Second, I had been focusing on the first 3 mass edits until the editor continued to make "corrections". Third, I was not simply pointing out occasional typos, but proving that their method of editing was not in keeping with their reasoning. For example, their very first set of "corrections" not only had grammatically incorrect sentence structure, but poorly written content that confused the reader further: "He quickly finds out the "party" is actually a one-on-one date, and tells Milo he has no interest in being a paid escort" was changed to "When Jerry arrives at Milo's for dinner, he discovers he is the only guest. He tells tells her has no interest in being a paid escort". Last, in keeping with "removing unnecessary details", this still remains: "Later, Adam humorously daydreams he is performing Gershwin's Concerto in F for Piano and Orchestra in a concert hall. As the scene progresses, Adam is also revealed to be the conductor, other members of the orchestra, and even an enthusiastic audience member applauding himself at the end." If the editor was truly on a mission to trim and remove, this should have been scrubbed. But I claim the editor was simply re-writing an already long-standing plot summary that showed no reason for such extensive editing but to simply serve as a work space for personal writing style. Maineartists (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Maineartists, perhaps I should have said "improvements" rather than "corrections". I don't think the other editor is breaching Editing policy, which even has a section called "Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required". TSventon (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * They were not "improvements" either. Neither you, nor the editor has provided any supporting evidence to back this initial claim. Overall, I'm not quite sure why you are so devoted to defend this particular editor and their current changes; considering the summary is now poorly written with run-on sentences, vague and assuming description, incorrect definitions, etc. It seems that you are more focused on WP policy separate from what was really taking place here. I never said the editor breached anything; nor did I say perfection was required. Once conversation and dialogue stops being equal in response and productive in relevance, there is no longer a reason to continue. I wish I could say this was a helpful exchange. Maineartists (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I Cannot access my account either by password or phone number. It seems my account no longer is active. Do I need to create a new account?
I Cannot access my account either by password or phone number. It seems my account no longer is active. Do I need to create a new account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:7A45:900:5DDC:77A5:9B39:84EB (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What was the account's username? Also I am pretty sure you can't link a telephone number to Wikkimedia accounts (linking an email adress does work, however). Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Help
Sara Nuru is too disrupted. Please can you fix the typo to the lede. The Supermind (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I've undone the edit that broke the formatting and added unsourced information. Isabelle 🔔 16:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Location articles qualify for Prod?
There seem to be a lot of articles about geographic locations or structures - cities, parks, bridges, rivers, lakes, etc. - that have an article with no references or other indications or claim of notability. Just that they exist, which is not disputed. Do these articles inherently qualify for Prod (Be Bold)? RemotelyInterested (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no simple answer to this, : have a look at WP:NGEO. --ColinFine (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have read the guidelines. I am looking for opinions, precedence, and examples. RemotelyInterested (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , it may help to look at the ongoing deletion discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography and the older ones at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography/archive. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Opposition to gay marriage?
I signed up just so I could ask this question. I saw on a user's home page where they said "This user opposes the legalization of gay marriage, but does not necessarily oppose LGBT rights in general". I don't understand how such discriminatory language can be allowed on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irene Croat (talk • contribs) 22:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC) Would I be free to express an opposition to inter-racial marriage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irene Croat (talk • contribs) 22:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Users are free to express their social or political views on their user pages, as long as those expressions are consistent with policy. Wikipedia has editors with a wide variety of political and social views. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to answer every hypothetical question you can come up with other than to say that there are limits, such as WP:NONAZIS. Additionally, if your only purpose in being here is to create a user page to express any political or social view, you would likely be blocked as not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is an unfortunate fact of this project that so much time has been spent arguing about what one can and cannot say in userboxes or on their userpage that a lot of folks are just tired of it. Like, it isn't worth the trouble. I don't personally see the point of advertising one's personal sociopolitical beliefs in an encyclopedia, but for the most part it is tolerated. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Gay marriage is the law in this country and has been for years. Opposition to gay marriage means that the person is opposed to allowing someone to exercise their legal right because they are gay. That is by definition anti-LGBT+ discrimination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irene Croat (talk • contribs) 22:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a global website, gay marriage is not legal everywhere, nor is even LGBTQ rights in general.(I believe there are a small number of places where homosexual activity is technically punishable by death, if not enforced) If you are interested in contributing to this project to write an encyclopedia, you will need to work with people who may have differing views on various topics. Like Beeblebrox above, I don't see a benefit to expressing my political or social views on my user page, but people are permitted to do so as long as they are within guidelines/policies.  331dot (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The user's home page says they are American! They are opposed to something that is the law in America! Where are the "guidelines/policies", because I can not believe that this is accepatble? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irene Croat (talk • contribs) 22:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Irene Croat Are you saying that it is unacceptable in America to believe that a law is wrong?  Would that include all the old Jim Crow laws?  The laws that used to exist against miscegenation?  Wikipedia policy aside, when it is verboten to say that a law in the United States is wrong and should be changed, we have ceased to be the United States of America.  Sadly, I see things moving that way; this is the right way and the fact that the law says so is proof of that--so no further discussion is allowed. Uporządnicki (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * AzseicsoK, I am only interested in talking about what is or isn't acceptable on Wikipedia, which is a private website. Before I started this conversation, I would have been sure that it would not be acceptable for someone on Wikipedia to say that they believe the 15th Amendment should be repealed. Or, to word it like that nameless user did on their home page - "This user opposes the enfranchisement of African Americans, but does not necessarily oppose civil rights in general". That second clause is just window-dressing and has no bearing on the first part. The important thing is that the user is advocating the removal of legal rights from a particular identifiable group. That is something that would get you kicked off most websites. AzseicsoK, should someone be allowed to express that hateful viewpoint on Wikipedia? Irene Croat (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A lot of opinions will get a lot of people thrown out of a lot of places--including employment. And that should scare anybody far more than what you're worried about--that some people have those opinions.  We're entering a Rein of Terror.  A kind of Stalinist or Third Reich state where you'd better join the right groups if you even want to make a decent living.  Is it any wonder that Ronald Reagan said that if fascism comes to America, it will come from the left?  And by the way, I would remind you that at times and places in the USA, one had a legal right to "own" people of African heritage to do all your toiling for you.  Happily, some people had the courage to work towards taking away that "right." Uporządnicki (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * For a list of policies and guidelines, try reading List of policies and guidelines. One which you need to read is Signatures.  --David Biddulph (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hang on, wasn't 'America' (by which I assume you mean that minority of the American continents which is called 'USA') started by people who opposed something that was law in their country? --Verbarson talkedits 22:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You haven't named the user(and I would suggest that you not do so) so I had no way to know that. I'm curious why you are so invested in this user's user page when you say you created this account specifically to start this discussion. If you have little to no intention of contributing to this project to write an encyclopedia, I don't see why you should be concerned with this user's user page. You are hardly the first person to bring such an issue up, but as Beeblebrox notes, you will likely find that very few other editors are interested in arguing about what individuals can say on their own user pages. In my years here I have seen such expressions run the gamut from nationalistic expressions that could offend people from rival nations to views like which you bring up here. Feel free to review the user page policy but if you have no intention of contributing to the encyclopedia, I don't think there is much point in discussing anything. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you contribute money or edits, because I have done both! The user's name is (redacted). If they are comfortable putting anti-LGBT+ statements on their home page why shouldn't I mention their name? Irene Croat (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are going to talk about this person, I suggest that you start a discussion at WP:ANI and properly notify that person as required. I would strongly advise you against doing so because I don't think that you will get the result that you want and risk being blocked as not here. 331dot (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * People are allowed to be anti-LGBT as long as they treat all users with dignity and respect and(likely) also keep their political or social views to their user page. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

You advise to do one thing and then advise me NOT to do it? How does that make sense? I came here to ask about an anti-LGBT+ statement openly on someone's home page. I was sure that this would not be acceptable on Wikipedia. Now you are telling me that it is fine to be anti-LGBT+ so long as they "keep their political or social views to their user page". And I can't mention the name of the person who proudly discriminates against LGBT+? What is going on here? This can't be right! Irene Croat (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC) That page says you can't have "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities". This statement is about denying a legal right to a specific group. If that isn't an attack, what is? Irene Croat (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I said that from the beginning, nothing has changed. I said that you should not mention this person's name here, this is because this is not a form to debate users' behavior, but to seek assistance. If you wish to discuss your grievance with this user, you should do so at WP:ANI, where you are then formally required to notify them of the existence of such a discussion so that they can defend themselves if they so choose.  That's not what this page is for.  I advise you against pursuing this further, again, because you won't get the result that you want.  I would suggest that you drop this matter.  A simple sentence is not a polemical statement. 331dot (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

"A simple sentence is not a polemical statement"? It depends entirely on what the sentence says. Here's a definition for you: "a written or spoken statement that strongly criticizes or defends a particular idea, opinion, or person". I understand that you want me to drop this. That was clear from the start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irene Croat (talk • contribs) 23:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Your posts are about Template:User LGBT3 which was kept (under a former name) at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sundostund/Userbox/LGBT3. If a userbox is kept in a deletion discussion then it is allowed to display the userbox. There is no point reporting one of the eight users who display it. By the way, the supportive User:UBX/samesexmarriage is displayed by 627 users, and there are many other supportive userboxes in Category:Marriage user templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * However, now that you're here, you could help improve the 6 million Wikipedia articles, which are much more important than a few user pages. You could join WikiProject LGBT studies and work with other editors to improve Wikipedia's coverage of LGBT topics, or anything else you're interested in.  To learn how to edit, you could view Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure.  Hope you decide to stay!  GoingBatty (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And you can display User:UBX/samesexmarriage or even User:Littlebum2002/Racial MArriage on your user page. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

GoingBatty, how welcome do you think i feel here when other user's home pages say that they want to deprive me of my legal rights because I am gay? I have corrected several typos on Wikipedia. I have donated money to Wikipedia. I would not have done either of those things if I knew that "People are allowed to be anti-LGBT as long as they ... keep their political or social views to their user page". I am appalled that this type of overt bigotry is tolerated. I call this kind of thing out when I see it and I have no respect for people like 331dot who try to silence someone trying to do the right thing. 04:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irene Croat (talk • contribs)
 * Unfortunately, neither you nor I can make the world perfect. However, we can each do little things every day in our own ways to make the world a little bit better than we found it.  On Wikipedia, I've found that the overwhelming majority of editors don't judge people on who they love (or their race or gender or age) but on the quality of their contributions and how they treat other people.  I've also found Wikipedia to be a great place to learn about a great many things and become a more well-rounded person, which wouldn't happen without volunteers.  You have the choice to leave Wikipedia because 8 users display a point of view you don't agree with, or improve articles to help educate the world.  If you choose the latter, there will be hundreds of editors who will welcome you with open arms.  GoingBatty (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * User pages get almost no page views compared to articles, they aren't included in Wikipedia searches by default, and they have noindex by default so they don't appear in external search engines like Google. The English Wikipedia is generally considered LGBT-friendly, both in content and editors. If you want to see what an LGBT-hostile encyclopedia looks like then see https://conservapedia.com/Homosexuality. Wikipedia is not affiliated with Conservapedia. We have a neutral point of view policy but if you write about homosexuality without opposing it then you are usually supporting it in practice. As mentioned, there are far more users openly expressing support than opposition to same-sex marriage. Bias complaints from Americans are usually from conservatives, not liberals. The nationality of editors and the law in their own country is not considered important. If an editor from a country at Capital punishment for homosexuality expressed support for their law then I guess you would be more appalled. I support same-sex marriage but don't expect everybody at a site with 42 million user accounts to agree with my views. As far as anti-gay statements go, I find it relatively mild to say "This user opposes the legalization of gay marriage, but does not necessarily oppose LGBT rights in general". Some stronger statements would be disallowed. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Jerry Rhome
Your stats and draft information is wrong…how can edit this misinformation …Jerry Rhome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.17.221.155 (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please offer your proposed changes, sourced to independent reliable sources, on the article talk page, Talk:Jerry Rhome. 331dot (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi there! On the Jerry Rhome article, I fixed the infobox link to the NFL stats, and confirmed that the stats in the infobox match both his NFL and PFR pages.  If you choose to post to Talk:Jerry Rhome, be sure to specify exactly what is wrong.  If you would like to learn how to edit, you could start with Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure.  Thanks!    GoingBatty (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)