Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2021 June 2

= June 2 =

how to resolve citation issues in the page?
I've been trying to update a company page and I've updated the links and citations to the best of my knowledge. However, the citation error message is still on and it doesn't say how I can resolve it. Please let me know how I can identify and resolve these issues? Also, How can I verify my account to be able to add company logo?

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


 * You need to get into your DeLorean, speed up to 88 mph and travel to 2 December 2021. Then the reference errors will go away. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Or are you talking about the messages at the top? Those can be removed manually, but if you have a connection to the company (as it seems), you shouldn't be the one to do that. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

✅ Updated the access date to remove the error message. A publication date of 2 December 2021, was also removed as it's only June 2021. Cmr08 (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Mary, Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood
Ref number 25  has  red  ink  and  refers  to a  "mark up". Please fix. Thanks for your  help. 175.32.24.11 (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The error is self-explanatory. The publisher field can contain only plain text. The error is tracked in Category:CS1 errors: markup which has only one member, this article. So I am fairly certain someone will come along and fix it soon. There is no need to report this here at the Help Desk. MB 03:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Albuquerque NM
Why can’t I listen to the series radio station on my tablet I have to buy a special radio and now I am trying to get into my iPad and I cannot do it why is that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.242.229 (talk)
 * This is not a general help desk or question asking forum; questions here should be about using Wikipedia only. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Tricky question
Hello dear wikipedians, I have sort of a tricky question if anybody minds answering. If a broadly tbanned user on eng-wiki can’t participate in a deletion discussion of a controversial article, which falls directly under their tban and might be deleted, and instead they create multiple interwiki articles, linking the eng-wiki article in them and what seems like spreading and “saving” the controversial article in other lang-wikis while a discussion for deletion is going on in the initial version of the article (english), can it be seen as engaging with the eng-wiki article cause of linking it in different interwikis, and subsequently, a violation of their tban? I also have reasons to suspect bad faith, as the user didn’t know those languages according to their page, yet they’ve created those translations in bulk while the En version is considered for deletion, and linked the En version in them. Would appreciate the replies, many thanks. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Eh, it's the type of thing that probably would not actually violate the TBAN (if all edits are on other projects) while simultaneously something to bring up if they ever appealed the TBAN, if that makes sense. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The TBAN only applies on en.wiki, so can't be enforced for edits on other language Wikipedias. As for linking to English language articles, most of that is done automatically by Wikidata links (or other users on Wikidata). Without seeing specific examples, it doesn't seem like a violation of the TBAN. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Question about vandalism
I have two questions about vandalism. Is it vandalism to change a correct information by inserting a wrong one? How many acts of vandalism must there be to request protection of the page? Dr Salvus 12:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's deliberately inserting wrong information then yeah, it's vandalism. The "deliberate" part is important: there's an expectation to assume good faith, so if it's not obviously deliberate (e.g., if it's plausible that the editor just misinterpreted a source) then it shouldn't be treated as vandalism. See WP:VANDAL for the full details. As far as I know, there isn't any specified number of vandal edits that qualifies a page to be protected, it's discretionary on the part of the protecting admin (WP:RFP is where to request it). —Nizolan (talk · c.) 12:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , the relevant bit of WP:VANDALISM is The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. Per AGF it's got to be very clear that they're not just misguided, or wrong. If it's a single account causing problems and you weren't able to resolve the issue through discussion and warnings, then you'd normally request something like a page-ban. Protection is if you've got multiple accounts causing problems in a fairly short period of time. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Status on Article Review: David Phipps
Hello, In February, my organization wrote an article on David Phipps (exact title may be: David Phipps, David J. Phipps, or David James Phipps), a British-born Canadian pioneer in the field of Knowledge Mobilization. I believe the article was submitted for review. I wanted to know if I could receive an update on this article at your earliest convenience. Many thanks! 166.48.18.210 (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was unable to locate anything like that in the existing pages. Is it still known which user name or IP adress(es) were used back then? Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The only thing I see, is a 2008 comment by someone using the name Davidphipps at Talk:Knowledge mobilization. Their three contributions are at Special:Contributions/Davidphipps. Mathglot (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

What's strange about this diff?
Hi - while patrolling recent changes, I came across this diff. The article history tells me that 8 bytes were added; six words are highlighted as having been removed, and the same six words are highlighted as having been added - but I can't see any actual differences. Are these different unicode characters or something? What am I missing? The user has made lots of similar changes; I've asked them what they're doing but no response so far; at the moment, I'm trying to work out if the changes are beneficial, neutral or harmful in order to work out what, if anything, needs to be done. Thanks in advance, Girth Summit  (blether)  12:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Cyrillic characters that look like Latin characters. The edits should be reverted.  I would be surprised if you get a response.
 * https://r12a.github.io/uniview/ is a handy tool. Copy the changed text (the new text) from the diff and paste it into the text box at right and then click the big down-arrow.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I copied both into Notepad++. By default, they look identical, but when I change the encoding to ANSI, the marked words have extra non-ANSI characters:
 * I copied both into Notepad++. By default, they look identical, but when I change the encoding to ANSI, the marked words have extra non-ANSI characters:


 *  FÐµbruÐ°rÑƒ 8, 2000) wÐ°s Ð° mÐ¾rning DJ on WGN-720AM radio in Chicago. Ðis shÐ¾w was 


 * I suspect someone using a Unicode-capable editor has been fiddling about, possibly innocently, and is inserting non-standard characters that look identical to the original. However, since it will obviously affect finding and editing the text, and any onward use of the text, it ought to be reverted and the user asked to stop.--Verbarson (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I've reverted all the character swaps and gently asked the user not to make any more. firefly  ( t · c ) 14:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks all - that is a very handy tool, much appreciated . I will add some additional words of guidance to Firefly's note. Girth Summit  (blether)  14:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Dead URLs
Hi, I ran into a dead citation link on Jarryd James (EP). Alternative Addiction URL isn't working for me (not even the main site). What do I do in that situation? I also couldn't find the WP help file for this particular issue. Could someone please point me in the right direction? Thank you. :) Abillionradios (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You can use services such as archive.today, Wayback Machine, WebCite, Perma.cc, and WebRecorder.io to find archived copies of Web pages and add them to citations using the archive-url and archive-date parameters. Kleinpecan (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That link was actually a dead 505 link when it was originally added. I'm trying The Wayback Machine to see if I can find what it was, but it's a bit difficult without the page title that I'm looking for. - X201 (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Making Major Edits
Hi! If I would like to majorly restructure a page / make major edits, do I need to request special permission or can I edit directly on the page once I have signed up? The kind of edits I am looking to make are removing subheadings, adding/removing information, etc (as the database that the page is about is no longer available). This is the page I am interested in working on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HumGen#Guidelines

Many thanks.

Khilaryc (talk)
 * Are you related to the subject of that article at all? I see that a substantial amount of content was removed from it recently, on the grounds that it wasn't encyclopedic. You should be aware of the conflict of interest guidance, and with the paid editing policy, which forms part of the terms of use of this website. Thanks Girth Summit  (blether)  14:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, yes I am employed by the organization the database is from.(however, I was not the one who previously created / edited the page).
 * As someone employed by the organization, you are considered to have a conflict of interest, and if your employer has asked or instructed you to edit the page, you are also a paid editor and must make the mandatory disclosures described here. The best advice for paid editors is not to directly edit the article.  Instead, make edit requests on the article's talk page in a simple, "Change X to Y. (source)" format.  For an edit as major as what you seem to be describing, it might be a good idea to draft the revised article in your User:Khilaryc/sandbox. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 16:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just noting that one does not have to be specifically paid or specifically asked to edit Wikipedia; if editing Wikipedia conceivably falls within your job duties, you are a paid editor. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Infobox football country season
When I put a football country season infobox for Abkhazia and make 2020, when it gives me the option to go back to 2019 and to 2021, it gives a red link to "2021/2019 in football" instead of "2021/2019 in Abkhazian football" therefore, if I make an article on 2021 or 2019, the 2020 won't link to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwiqdoh (talk • contribs) 14:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Does anyone see this question anymore? Mwiqdoh (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Separate issue
You shouldn't be creating articles in other user space locations like you have done with User:2021 Neighbours' Games and User:Badminton at the 2021 Neighbours' Games and User:Badminton at the Mwiqdoh/sandbox/private.info. Create new user pages underneath your own user name e.g User:Mwiqdoh/Badminton at the 2021 Neighbours' Games. Can an admin move these and tidy up the redirects please. Thanks - X201 (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay thanks for the heads up. Mwiqdoh (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I tidied up the redirects. Sorry about that. I'm very new so I need some teaching. Mwiqdoh (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

when will wikipedia no longer be edited by anyone
hi my teacher say wikipedia is not a reliable source because anyone can edit it so I want to know when will no one except the owners can edit wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewthedog (talk • contribs) 15:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Never. That is not Wikipedia's purpose.  RudolfRed (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that will never happen. While its true that the Wikimedia Foundation sometimes edits Wikipedia, they only do so in very limited causes, when something is so deeply off it requires immediate intervention. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Your teacher is right, as far as it goes. Which doesn't mean WP can't be useful for students and teachers. Listen to this guy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you find one not on YouTube I am not allowed to use YouTube right now
 * Check out Researching_with_Wikipedia, this has some information on the strengths and weaknesses of an encyclopedia anyone can edit. In general, you should find the sources that are cited in the article, and use those instead of the Wikipedia article in your research.  RudolfRed (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Can users create a page that talk about themselves?
Like, if a person acted in his first movie, he did well, and he doesn't have a Wikipedia page. Can he create one about himself? '''I'm no actor. Just using as an example of what i'm saying.''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natieyamylostrealacc (talk • contribs) 18:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is technically possible, but very strongly discouraged. See WP:AUTOBIO RudolfRed (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

donald trump
who wrote the article about Donald j trump sounds like a anti trumper to me trump gave up dealing in his company why he was president he did not even accept a penny for being president well i take that back he accepted 1 dollar a year. Because a president is required to be compensated for his work. they say he benefited from his own companies. well duhh even if he dose not run the companies why he is president of course he is going to benefit from them they are his companies even though his kids ran them for him the bio did not mention his peace in the middle east deals or new Canada trade deal. this is a very bias bio of president trump and it dose not even mention how all these governors of the 5 battle ground states. broke the states election laws because legislation is the only one able to alter a election or the fact that he kept millions of illegals from being counted in our census bringing to end over inflated congressional sets being giving because they was allowing illegal's in the census count for said states. can wait to see joe biden i can see it now ohh he was the greatest thing since sliced bread he allowed millions to flow threw the border finally ending the oppressors keeping none citizens out of the country and from voting and let not even talk about how great hunter biden he gladly accepted money from china even had a seat on a corrupt company. let not even talk about how biden funnels money he was paid through his donation funds to avoid offering employees health care that work at his company this is a very bias company and i would not rely on anything you read on it obama fined people for not being able to afford insurance and sent pallets of cash to over seas company that went to terrorist countries. he was the worst president in history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.161.232.157 (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Many editors contributed to the article Donald Trump. If you have suggestions on improving the article, start a discussion on the article's talk page.  Any information will need to be cited to published reliable sources.  RudolfRed (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * At the risk of going outside the scope of this forum ... As an intelligent and literate two-times Trump voter (who does not regret it a bit), I read this (as much as I can follow it), and wonder if it was in fact written by a knee-jerk anti-Trumper in an effort to make Trump supporters look like a bunch of ignoramuses who can't complete a coherent sentence or thought. Uporządnicki (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This rant looks like a BLP violation to me. I don't think it is a false flag op. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh great. Now Trump supporters are concocting conspiracy theories about each others' conspiracy theories. (The rotation of my head spinning is to the right.) Clarityfiend (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Article was Deleted
Hi this is StarsYep1, I created a page this morning and the article was deleted due to using it as a web host. I've realized my mistake; however, may I have the draft back to change the content within without restarting the entire article again? Additionally, is there a way where you can look at my old article and tell me what section was not met to wiki's regulations, so I won't make the same mistake.

Thank you, Selena Chen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starsyep1 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The draft was a blatant advertisement. Wikipedia is not a place for organizations to tell the world about themselves. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. Please read Your first article and learn more about article creation at Articles for Creation.
 * Please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures you may need to make. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Cultural marxism wikepedia page
How may i put this politely? This page is simply, don't want to say wrong but it's inaccurate. by that i mean inaccurate from the start. "Cultural Marxism is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which claims Western Marxism as the basis of continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert Western culture.[1][2][3] The conspiracists claim that an elite of Marxist theorists and Frankfurt School intellectuals are subverting Western society with a culture war that undermines the Christian values of traditionalist conservatism and promotes the cultural liberal values of the 1960s counterculture and multiculturalism, progressive politics and political correctness, misrepresented as identity politics created by critical theory." The theory is not antisemitic, in fact neither race nor religion (most christians are right of centre but not related too much) play a proper roll in agreement of the idea. Also it is not a conspiracy theory. the most you can say is just a theory but it is not conspiratory. The idea is that people on the left wing applied Karl Marx's theories to cultures rather than economies. Sadly i cannot edit it so i ask if you can please find a way to scale down how left of centre it is. genuinely leaving it at theory (though i prefer idea) rather than "conspiracy." I'm sure you can understand my point just like so from reading this request and from the wikepedia point is. Thankyou very much, 15yr old moderate conservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:D09A:B901:E8CF:DFAD:FF8:3DD9 (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. This kind of comment belongs on the Talk page of the article, which you can find here: Talk:Cultural marxism. You're welcome to add your comment there. Please note, that Wikipedia depends on what published, independent, secondary sources have to say about a topic, not what individual editors may think about it.  When adding your comment to the Talk page, please keep in mind that you should be addressing how to improve the article, based on writings you have seen, and are able to cite.  Your own opinions have no weight there, so please base your arguments on the sources.  Thanks, and once again, welcome! Mathglot (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Relevant non–conspiracy theory content about people applying Marx's theories to culture rather than economics is in any case available at Western Marxism, which is linked in the first sentence. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 22:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

2021-22 NBA season article
Can you fix the two references i made please thank you. 70.179.216.206 (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)