Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2021 February 8

= February 8 =

Best place to escalate an issue
Lately I'm seeing widespread violations of MOS:PRECOLLAPSE, particularly on COVID pandemic articles. This seems to have started around January 8 of this year -- a month ago tomorrow. The behavior of community members is baffling in this instance: though there was evidently a strong enough consensus to put MOS:PRECOLLAPSE into the accessibility guidelines, there seems to be immense apathy regarding actually adhering to it. It is beyond my own capabilities to run around fixing up all of the affected articles, especially since some of them are not editable by me and the violations are all in sections of complicated markup I'm not very familiar with.

Where is the best place to get attention to this issue from someone with the ability and/or authority to put their foot down regarding adherence to MOS:PRECOLLAPSE?

I should note I've gotten either a big yawn or active pushback so far in all of the following places: the talk page of one affected article; Wikiproject:Accessibility; and the policy village pump. The active pushback is especially baffling, as it suggests that some editors are actively and intentionally undermining MOS:PRECOLLAPSE, behavior that would seem to go directly against policy. On one occasion when I marshalled evidence to substantiate one of my claims someone actually tried to simply delete that evidence and pretend it had never been posted, which I considered to be a remarkably immature reaction. Someone also apparently flagged me in some way because I started to get prompted with a CAPTCHA after each edit. This points to active efforts to silence people who raise a fuss about MOS:PRECOLLAPSE.

The MOS:PRECOLLAPSE section exists for a reason. It should not simply be ignored, and the various shoot-the-messenger type reactions I've seen when I've pointed it out also seem inappropriate here. I have the feeling there may be some kind of site politics involved, based on the irrational behavior and weeks-long saga that grew from what should have been a very quick five-minutes-and-done semi-protected edit request on one single article talk page back in mid-January.

So: Where should I go next with this? Where are the defenders and enforcers of MOS:PRECOLLAPSE likely to be hanging out around here? 70.52.144.5 (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The MOS is a guideline, not a hard-and-fast rule, so there is nothing to defend or enforce. The note at the top of the MOS page says "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."  Thus, you should raise the issue on the article's talk page.  If others do not agree with you, then there is no consensus to change what is already in the article.  RudolfRed (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You didn't mention any example or name the talk page with an edit request. Special:Contributions/70.52.144.5 shows other edits but only since 30 January. I scanned through all 14 kB your current IP address has posted about this issue and as far as I can tell, you never identified any occurrence of the problem. You did say it seems to have started around January 8. A January 8 post at T242855 says "Drop ability to attempt server-side rendering with Graphoid". This means that many or all graphs made with mw:Extension:Graph require JavaScript in your browser. Your unidentified edit request was probably about a graph which stopped displaying for you due to this change made outside Wikipedia by the developers. Changing it to display for you would probably require that the entire graph is completely remade with another method. mw:Extension:Graph says: "When using client side rendering, it is possible to use Wikimedia Commons to provide a static fallback image to  users. This is a temporary solution until a new service is put in place to provide server side rendering to replace the soon to be decomissioned Graphoid service." phab:T249419 discusses what to do. Maybe the graphs will start displaying again at some time for users without JavaScript. If we stop using mw:Extension:Graph now and rewrite or delete numerous graphs then we risk wasting a lot of effort and make content worse for the huge majority of users who do have JavaScript. Your CAPTCHA statement sounds a little paranoid. I don't think anyone has the ability to do that. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The mainspace issue sparking this appears to be the graphs in COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, with the originating post being Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario. 70.52.178.195 is blocked from editing Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility for 1 month, essentially for not dropping the stick and WP:IDHT on this issue. All indications are that this thread is [more] forum shopping.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not all of the graphs on COVID, or other, pages are affected. Since some of them aren't, the method used to produce them should be used for all of the broken ones, in order to maintain compliance with MOS:PRECOLLAPSE. The question is, how to make that happen? Someone with a higher level of access AND a higher level of technical expertise with wikipedia markup would need to make the changes in question. The self-appointed curators of the articles in question, who made and in many cases regularly update those graphs, are surely eminently qualified to perform the conversion, but apparently just can't be bothered to do so, despite the fact that their not doing so violates MOS:PRECOLLAPSE. This is the apathy I mentioned previously. And "Fuhghettaboutit" represents an example of the pushback I mentioned previously, whereby some users actively try to prevent the MOS:PRECOLLAPSE issue receiving attention. One of their tactics is stalking pro-MOS:PRECOLLAPSE users to accuse them anywhere the issue gets raised of "forum shopping" or similarly.
 * As for "The MOS is a guideline, not a hard-and-fast rule", the subset in MOS:ACCESS, which includes MOS:PRECOLLAPSE, should probably be treated more seriously than the rest of the Manual of Style. As things stand, important information on many of the COVID articles is unreadable to about 7% of the Wikipedia user base, with no justification and indeed against a guideline agreed upon previously by popular consensus. It is a moral imperative that this be fixed, and since I am for multiple concurrent reasons incapable to do that myself someone else will have to do it. If that means escalating this all the way to getting it attention from the Foundation itself so they can actually hire and pay someone to fix this, then so be it, but it MUST be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.144.5 (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I still have not received an answer. Where should I go to escalate this issue so that it gets the attention that it deserves? Viewing Wikipedia is not supposed to require Javascript, full stop. How do I get things put right, so that it once again doesn't? I am wearying of this maze. Getting a serious bug fixed in a product that billions of people use should not be this hard! It should just need the right person's attention brought to the matter, surely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.144.5 (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

CERTIFIED COPY
Good Afternoon, I have done executive MBA in Fall semester 2005 and my roll number was 32363 (Usman Rathore). I need my Certified copy of certificate to show to my work place. Can you please provide me with one.

Regards Usman Rathore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.122.9 (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia, so we can't help you with this, unfortunately. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Why Rachel Roxxx page deleted?
I find Rachel Roxxx is informative and not vandalized. But now it is removed, why so? Rizosome (talk) 04:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not notable, per the discussion at Articles_for_deletion/Rachel_Roxxx_(3rd_nomination) RudolfRed (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

David Andrew Polkinghorne
How can I delete an entry for the above person that the information is not correct about him so want to completely delete all info on him — Preceding unsigned comment added by SusanKean64 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Kindly remove the information for above person as it is the incorrect profile photo as well as part of the information, he was born on 20.04.1964 and it has born in Durban in 1966 etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by SusanKean64 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , if the info about David Polkinghorne (cricketer) seems totally wrong, do you perhaps have an unrelated David Andrew Polkinghorne in mind? If no, this is the right Polkinghorne but what's said in the article is mistaken, the best place to bring this up is probably Talk:David Polkinghorne (cricketer); if you get no response, then also bring up the matter at WP:BLPN. And yes, it is possible to have an article deleted; however, this needs a solid reason. If you just want to change the date of birth, then where is the published evidence for this date of birth? -- Hoary (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The conflicting 1966 claim has been removed from David Polkinghorne (cricketer) but the article has no photo.
 * Symbol move vote.svg Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. The same feedback facility is also provided on Bing and some other search engines. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Are my comments in this discussion considered a WP:WALLOFTEXT?
Seen here: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_5. Appreciate the feedback.--Prisencolin (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @Prisencolin, I don't think WP:WALLOFTEXT applies, but you have replied to all the delete votes, which is discouraged by WP:BLUDGEON. Both are essays so they don't have the force of a policy or guideline. TSventon (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I’ve been warned about WP:BLUDGEON before... but my question then is how do you even address an argument which contains erroneous information/assumptions? So far there are only four other participants, besides the nom I have replied to the three !votes.—Prisencolin (talk) 11:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Here are three consecutive sentences of what you write: I can't even parse the the first sentence, but it seems to be trying to be a question. The third too is a question. Minimize questions, appeal to policy, copyedit what you write before clicking "Publish changes", and when in doubt, don't write. -- Hoary (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @Hoary:I was replying to an equally confusing statement by another editor who said “For the record I think Category:Hong Kong people of Chinese descent is too common to be worth categorizing by,” I believe what he means is that A) Chinese in Hong Kong consist of an extremely large proportion of the population therefore B) this Category is not WP:DEFINING because there is a high degree of overlap between the category and the parent category.—Prisencolin (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @Prisencolin in addition to the above, WP:BLUDGEON suggests "Wait a few days and perhaps add one comment at the bottom of the discussion that may address any or all of the concerns expressed by others." TSventon (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

How do I become an admin?
. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seansrobloxvideosandmore2 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You spend years developing a good edit history with thousands of edits, showing that you understand Wikipedia guidelines, have a good temperament, and have a need for the administrator toolset, which will show the community that you merit being given the toolset in a community discussion. Administrators have no more authority than any other editor, they just have extra tools that would be irresponsible for everyone to have.  You can do 95% of things here without having the administrator tools. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I second that advice. "admin" is not the same function as in other online groups, and that fact is often misunderstood. S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So once you have done all the things mentioned, how do you become and admin? Is it s Skull_and_Bones thing? The drop in RfA is wel known,  but to succeed do you have to lobby ? Requests_for_adminship Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Non professional footballers
I would like to create the page of a football player, who has never played in professional football. This is not possible according to WP:FOOTY. Can I create a page in the form of a Draft and then move into the mainspace when the player makes his debut in professional football? Dr Salvus (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , that sounds WP:TOOSOON. The essay recommends creating a draft in draftspace, but depending on how often you're checking in (i.e., editing at least once every six months), you may also want to consider starting it in one of your user subpages. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I wish I had the "honor" of creating the page. So is it advisable to use in the draftspace? I believe this player will make his professional debut shortly Dr Salvus (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's perfectly fine to start it in draftspace. I only suggested userspace if you were going to edit it extremely infrequently (due to draftspace procedural deletion for inactivity). — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I personally think that "honor" is a little misplaced but I am very aware that credit for creating an article is something important to some editors. One thing you might do is track down the wiki project associated with the sport, open up a conversation on the wikiprojects talk page explaining a plan to create an article in preparation for this individual's debut, point them to your music page invite them to help, and that might forestall some other editor noticing their debut and beating you to the punch. No guarantees, but it would be a little rude if you made it clear you are working on a draft and only waiting for the debut to move it to article space.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Matt Disero
Hello I have a good Friend Matt Disero.

He is a Magician, whom is well known, but not super famous. He had a Wikipedia Page that he monitored himself and helped to link to other small magicians. I would love to help him return to monitoring his Wikipage.

Can this be done?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.37.168 (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have removed your Email from this post. Please do not share your email in publicitely readable places. Regarding your question, Matt Disero doesn't appear to have ever existed. Perhaps it was a different spelling or on a different project? Here on the english Wikipedia, I am afraid, we cannot perform such a request, see WP:OWN and WP:COI. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!!

the name was once under this Matthew DiSero

https://web.archive.org/web/20150608105731/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_DiSero

here is a wayback link to it

and an imgur post of a screen shot form the old page

https://imgur.com/a/7Ro4ags

thank you! it would be great to get his page back up, Russell Peters and Him used to tour together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.37.168 (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has articles, not pages. Matthew DiSero was deleted in 2017 as the result of an expired unchallenged Proposed Deletion.  You would need to show with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that Mr. DiSero meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person.  That he associates with other notable people is insufficient as notability is not inherited by association. 331dot (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If we're going to be pedantic, let's at least be correct. Wikipedia very much does have pages, and articles are one type of page. Take a look at your Watchlist, which has a filter for "Page creations" and "Page edits". There's nothing at all wrong with using the term "page".&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It isn't a matter of pedantry. It's a mindset. Many new users come here to create a new page without knowing that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with articles. The mindset associated with the broader meaning of page often results in a different attitude and editing style than what is actually desired when we are trying to write articles. As you quite correctly note, Wikipedia has many types of pages, but this is a project to build an encyclopedia of articles. 331dot (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * By the way, it's "who is well known", not "whom is well known". J I P  &#124; Talk 22:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Daniels College of Business page edits
I have tried to make changes to the Daniels College of Business page, but they were immediately reversed by another editor. I am a student worker for DCB and I know that there are factual inaccuracies on the page that should be corrected. I'm not sure why the edits are not going through. I have made sure that there is not bias in my edits. Please help me make these necessary edits to the page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awalker2020 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As you are a worker for the College, you are required by the Wikipedia Terms of Use to formally declare that status, please review the paid editing policy for more information about the declaration and how to make it. You should also review conflict of interest and how to make formal edit requests as you should avoid making direct edits about your college. According to the edit history, there were various stylistic issues with your edits.  Once you have made the required declaration, you may make an edit request on the article talk page, Talk:Daniels College of Business, detailing changes you feel are needed.  Those changes should preferably be sourced to independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Dealing with an Unproductive Moderator
Since Wikipedia has no staff to communicate with when dealing with issues, I guess this is where I have to go to. For the last two years I've contributed many photos to Wikipedia. I've done this with the intention of adding relevant information to pages to improve the Wikipedia experience.

Yesterday, I added a photo of a river otter to the Puget Sound page, and was given this message by Magnolia677, "Please stop adding low-quality photos. I see I already asked you two years ago. Please take a moment to read MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Thank you. Magnolia677"

I had already read the page about image relevance. Magnolia667 was referring to the photo I added to the Puget Sound page, which I can agree wasn't a high quality photo, so I won't add photos like that in the future. However, I saw that my high quality photos recently added to pages had all been deleted. I figured Magnolia667 had been taking them off of all the pages and I was correct. I tried to put the photos back on the pages a while later, and got this message from Magnolia667 on my talk page,

"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Washington (state). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards. If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please stop edit warring and discuss the addition of your personal photo album on the talk page. Magnolia677"

I talked to Magnolia677 about this on their talk page. I explained how I understand they thought one of my images was low quality and got rid of it, but asked them why they were taking away all my other photos. This was the response I got,

"Just because you visited a place, and took some pictures there, does not mean every one of your photos can be added to a Wikipedia article. I urge you to read MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. For example, adding a photo of a river to an article about a different river, is probably going to be reverted. Adding a close up picture of a water tower to an article about a US state is probably going to be reverted. Adding a photo of a canyon to an article where there is already a picture of the same canyon, and that picture is better than yours, is probably going to be reverted. Adding a photo of some place in darkness is probably going to be revered. Adding a picture of a fish in a stream to an article about a waterfall is probably going to be revered. Adding a picture of bird in a tree to an article about a river is probably going to be reverted. This is just from memory. Please stop adding your personal photo album to Wikipedia!"

I then explained how these photos were relevant to the pages. The photo of a Coho salmon in Multnomah Creek was relevant for the Multnomah Falls page because the salmon was spotted just below the waterfall in Lower Multnomah Creek. The photo of bald eagles I put on the Snake River page was taken directly above the Snake River, and I added the photo to the section of the Wikipedia page that is about the birds that inhabit the Snake River. Magnolia667 clearly went on an emotionally-driven rant and continued deleting my photos from Wikipedia pages.

If I'm to continue contributing to Wikipedia, I do not want the user Magnolia677 to have the privilege to delete photos I contribute to Wikipedia. For two years I've contributed to Wikipedia, and the most of a thank you I get is Manolia677 threatening to ban me from Wikipedia. Magnolia677 insulted the photos I've added to pages, saying they are "low-quality photos" and that other photos on the pages I contribute to are better than mine. I can no longer contribute to Wikipedia if Magnolia677 continues to hunt down any photo I contribute only to delete it, and threaten to ban me from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmouser (talk • contribs) 19:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Administrator behavior is better addressed at the administrator's noticeboard- including if you are asking for an interaction ban. Be advised of WP:BOOMERANG, though. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * These don't appear to be admin actions, just normal editor actions. Any editor can add or remove images from an article, or issue talk page warnings, and conflict should be resolved by discussion (getting more editors involved in the conversation if it becomes intractable between just the participants). An admin has an "editor cap" on when they edit a page normally and this has nothing to do with their technical capabilities. To which end, the noticeboard you've been pointed to above and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents can be used as a forum to discuss anyone with an "editor cap" on whose behavior is supposedly in need of curtailing. But neither forum will look kindly on someone who has been doing the same thing over and over again without sufficient discussion, and neither is used to decide whether or not an image should be included (the place for that is at talk pages, like Talk:Washington (state)). — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (Struck as Magnolia677 is not an admin.) — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * This is now at WP:AN. I'd suggest anyone with a comment post there, rather than here, to avoid splitting the discussion up further. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Philosophy of WP
Sunday evening, where I am. Who, or what, is an "ordinary reader"? What is our intended audience? Can we hope to serve all comers? Where do we leave it to the genuine, full-time, expert professionals? (Yes, in the refs.) How much would we expect an "average reader" to know? Are we writing for an audience ranging from those who know almost nothing, to those experts who know considerable amounts about any particular subject? Would we hope to leave the experts confident that any particular article is "not too bad, considering?" And the newcomers confident that they have learned at least something? This discussion might be better redirected somewhere else. MinorProphet (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * create a user sub-page for yourself, copy this posting into it, and capture your thoughts there. If you eventually decide it is useful for a wider audience, turn it into a Wikipedia essay. First, read WP:NOT. -Arch dude (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for your swift reply. Perhaps WP:IS ought to be the opposite of WP:NOT, but it isn't. Otoh, WP:About will keep me going for a while, though. Also, it's actually Monday evening, must have missed 24 hrs somewhere... Cheers, >MinorProphet (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you ask three different Wikipedians you'll get four different answers. There is and isn't a deadline (and also is one but differently so), we're writing to laypeople but it's also not our place to provide education to non-experts, truth is both the only thing that counts and irrelevant over verifiability, and our articles both should and shouldn't be as complete as possible, as detailed as possible and as concise as possible. We have a very long "not" but no "is" because if there are four major competing ideas over a topic then three-quarters of people will agree what we're not (and that's consensus), but no-one can agree on what we are. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As suggested by the dude, I have created Philosophy of WP as a sub-page. Please feel free to contribute. If that's OK, I might copy people's thoughts there as your starter for 10. You may have touched on the essential psychosis which informs WP. We know what we aren't, but what are we? Why aren't there authoritative sub-editors in charge of various groups of articles, who can bring together the obvious discrepancies in individual articles, and create a satisfying and internally consistent reflection of "what is known"? I know, it's like herding cats. MinorProphet (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You can copy/adapt any of my text that you like. As for the lack of authority, despite the fact that we are not an anarchy, my opinion is that we are an anarchy, in the political theory sense which refers to the rejection of hierarchy wherever reasonably possible (wherever "unjust" or "coercive"). I don't think authoritative sub-editors would actually address the cause of any of our issues, which relate to editor motivation, recruitment and retention. I think sufficiently many good volunteers can address discrepancies in a decentralized fashion more feasibly than someone or some group assigned the responsibility of doing so. The Essjay controversy was an early pragmatic reason to eschew assigning authority to editors, given that almost all of us are anonymous. — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I agree. Sadly, it is now painfully obvious that there aren't, and never will be again, "sufficiently many good volunteers": the likely ones were hounded out many years ago by trolls, imbeciles who couldn't cope with the idea that their pet ideas were wrong, patriotic fuckwits and vindictive assholes who got to be admins, and other assorted twats who remain behind the screens of various committees, privileges of this and that, able to delete WP history at will as if it never happened, etc. YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE. MinorProphet (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say that WP is neither anarchy nor its opposite, certainly not a democracy. I would go for a certain leaning towards despotism, perhaps, or even a gathering of petty warlords in the snow, unable to agree on anything except that they don't like each other. MinorProphet (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * With regard to some of your questions, you might find this old reference-desk thread interesting. Deor (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks very much for the link. One of the first posts in the thread defines the problem: "Such articles attract PhD's, who are only accustomed to writing for other PhD's in their field, and are incapable of communicating effectively with the common man." In general, not only many PhDs but many other knowledgeable people suffer from this problem. Explaining anything in a clear and easily-understandable manner is a specific and rare talent. A well-written, informative book is a pearl of great price. Looking back at all my teachers and instructors in all the subjects and disciplines I have studied during my life, only about 10 or 15 per cent of them were actually any good at all, and only 2 or 3 out of say, a hundred were excellent. The same is true of WP. Most people aren't good at communicating information clearly and effectively. Many people are incapable of receiving and understanding same. Many important articles are literally cobbled together by hundreds of editors with no-one even vaguely "in control": and as so long as this state of affairs continues, WP (much as I love it) will continue to be a second-rate encyclopedia albeit with the widest possible coverage. MinorProphet (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * General question: Is there a clear definition or statement by Wikipedians about our intended audience? MinorProphet (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

updating company profile to show new ownership..
Hi I'd like find out how to update some of the very basic information to the South Jersey Industries wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Jersey_Industries

This is not an attempt to manipulate or self-promote but there are some glaring omissions such as the fact SJI owns two of New Jersey's largest gas utilities and only one is mentioned (South Jersey Gas is mentioned, but Elizabethtown Gas is not mentioned which became part of SJI in 2018)

There is mention on the Wikipedia page of the former owner Southern Company about the sale, so easily verifiable things like this should be an easy fix.

(from Southern Company page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Company_Gas ) Elizabethtown Gas Elizabethtown Gas was founded in 1855 and is headquartered in Union, New Jersey. It delivers service to more than 277,000 residential, business and industrial natural gas customers in New Jersey, making it he state's smallest energy provider.[11] The utility serves Union, Middlesex, Sussex, Warren, Hunterdon, Morris and Mercer counties. In 2004, Elizabethtown Gas was purchased by AGL Resources. Additional services include:

Maintaining the gas pipeline infrastructure Responding to and repairing leaks Elizabethtown Gas was sold to South Jersey Industries in July 2018.

We'd like a Wikipedia editor to take a look and make updates. Information can be found at www.sjindustries.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.24.126.110 (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * On the article's talk page, describe what changes you are asking for along with edit request and an unconnected editor will look at it. There is a large request backlog currently, so it may take some time for it to be acted on. RudolfRed (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Template for found sources
I know I've seen somewhere before a template for talk pages that lets you list additional sources you've found that could provide additional info for the article, but I cannot for the life of me find it by searching today. Any help is appreciated.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Try . GoingBatty (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's the one. Thanks!&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)