Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2021 March 15

= March 15 =

proposed deletion template re-added after it was removed -- contrary to template guidance
Hi, I'm watching a page that had a proposed for deletion template added. The template was removed and then re-added by another user. The guidance on the template says that "If this template is removed, do not replace it." If the template is, in fact, replaced, how should one proceed? Thank you. Miaminsurance (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please link page you refer to. I can guess from your contributions that it's Mario Murgado. I have removed the template again and explained why in the edit summary. Replacing the template was the only edit of an account created two minutes earlier. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy reply and action. Miaminsurance (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

delete Watchlist?
Could someone please delete my watchlist? At 21k pages, it's become useless -- haven't used it for years -- and it's too big for me to edit it myself (it times out when I try). Thanks, — kwami (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi kwami. Only developers have access to your watchlist. Administrators can't even view it, much less delete it. If you go to Special:Preferences there is a link for but there you can also click on, which should allows you to edit it without timing out. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! That took care of it. — kwami (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You probably know this but Special:Preferences has options to automatically watch pages you do something with. I'm at 8k and recently disabled "Add pages and files I edit to my watchlist". PrimeHunter (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but yes, I got to 21k without that option! A bit ridiculous. — kwami (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Copyright and rights to use image from vw group news room website clarification needed
Could you advise if Wikipedia is considered as one of the below as seen on the VW group Newsroom website when attempting to download an image I would like to know if an image that is downloadable can be used to be published on a Wikipedia page? Does Wikipedia Pages qualify for the below categories for the rights of use

Rights of use The text, image, audio and video documents made available by the Volkswagen Newsroom are intended for personal information purposes only, may only be used for editorial purposes in the social web, or, in the case of journalists, influencers and media company employees, may be used as a source for their own editorial reporting. Text, image, audio and video documents are not intended for commercial use and may not be passed on to third parties. In addition, the Terms of Use for the Volkswagen Newsroom shall apply when using www.volkswagen-newsroom.com. - - - - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorikeet Birds (talk • contribs) 05:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The license that you quote makes it impossible to relicense under CC-BY-SA (which would be required on Commons). "Personal information only" kills any commercial use and (probably?) derivative works. See commons:Commons:Licensing for the details.
 * What you may be able to do is upload the image locally (to en-Wikipedia, not Commons) if it meets all the non-free content criteria. This means no car photograph, for instance (a similar photograph could be taken in the street and released under a free license, which means a copyrighted photo does not satisfy WP:NFCC #1). Tigraan Click here to contact me 09:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

People removing my additions please lock them in place
Hi there,

I am adding to:

Number of the beast as "Chillibull" and my details are being removed. I have provided credible evidence and supporting citations in order for this to be public, however; someone is removing them. Please apply the changes "Chillibull" made, thank you.

Source:

Jesus Christ and Revelation 1:18 The Chip is Holy Spirit Infused
Calculate the number of the Beast "666"

Adding up Letters of the Alphabet (example C=3)

The Second Beast is a HUMAN "222")

The "222" of His Name "The Second Beast" who is a devout Christian means "Angel Number 222 encourages you to take a balanced, harmonious and peaceful stance in all areas of your life."

666 - 222 = 444

"444" which is the World's Population and the Angels tell us this number means "444 is a message that you have nothing to fear in regards to your life, work and Divine life purpose"

Jesus Christ conquers "666" in Revelation 1:18

" I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death."

The "Mark of the Beast" or "Chip" in the right hand or forehead is safe to take because all humans have the Holy Spirit now until the end of time.

Isaiah 54:17

"No weapon formed against you shall prosper, And every tongue which rises against you in judgment You shall condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, And their righteousness is from Me,” Says the Lord."


 * }


 * This is all original research and the removal is correct. If you want to keep this you need to find reliable third party sources that support your opinion.  You don't have that, all you have is the sources from where you are getting your own opinions from.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Additional - you may want to pay attention to your talk page where you've been warned about repeatedly inserting the information. Possibly without realising it, but you're heading towards a block if you're not careful.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Editor quoting fake news articles as sources
I have an issue. There is an editor that is quoting fake news articles as a reference source. What is the wikipedia rule, that deals with this. Can you provide the link. It is a page about a living person. The person said something in an interview. There is a video link. The thing he said is very clear, and unambiguous. Like saying the sky is blue. Now some media outlets, twisted his words and publish fake news articles saying "he is saying the sky is green".

And a wikipedia editor, adds this "he is saying the sky is green" to his wiki bio page, quoting this fake news articles. And the wikipedia editor comes clean as "look media outlets are saying this, here are the references".

So how to deal with this, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankSupra (talk • contribs) 10:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The cirumstances are important. Which article and alleged statement is it about? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The specific article is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasil_Garvanliev

This is the video statement https://www.facebook.com/MZMakedonija/videos/1102958080190449

He is saying: "Strumica [a city] is very close to the Bulgarian border, so I am on that side of the country" - Meaning I am from that part, region of the country, close to the border.

Some news media have twisted this statement, as if he is saying "Bulgaria and Macedonia are the same country" [popular idea among the greater expansionist bulgaria nationalists]

And a wikipedia editor keeps adding here this quote "according to him, there is a country that is divided into two parts, and he was born on the "other side" - quoting the fake news articles. While he has stated nothing even remotely like that.

FrankSupra (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have removed it with a detailed edit summary. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Problem with picture
Dear helpers,

I tried to fix a problem with a picture here: Olaf_II_of_Norway

The image is not displayed in the article (at least not in my browser). I thought, maybe the file name was mistyped and copied it from Commons. On preview, the file showed as hoped, so I saved the edit. Only to find, that the is still there in the article ...

Would appreciate your help. Thanks. --Schwäbin (talk) 10:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I find the same problem - visible in preview but not after saving - very odd. Mikenorton (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There was an error in the syntax of the map image in the previous section. This confused the software. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've actually removed the link from the caption which was the credit to the museum (see MOS:CREDITS) - I thought that this had avoided the problem, though I didn't realise somebody else had fixed it. I also added alt text to the caption. --ColinFine (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! I had counted brackets, but checking on the previous image did not cross my mind. Cool! --Schwäbin (talk) 11:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If a section edit preview doesn't match the saved page then the cause is usually in a previous section. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Invisible link to an article
In the link list to article Neteller, the first article supposedly linking there is Apple Inc.. But in this articlle, I do not find a link to Neteller, neither in an infobox or other template. So where is this link? --KnightMove (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Template:Payment service providers is where is is. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --KnightMove (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

✅

Question re proposed deletion of Draft:Ignite India
I’m not banned user one please help one of editor want to delete my draft Ignite India and delete my account please help I’m requesting everyone to help me .Omsaipower2021 (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI - editor was blocked as part of a sock puppet group, and the draft was rejected. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  19:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Nas King's Disease UPDATE
Hello,

We'd like to update the album credits for Nas's King's Disease as well as adjust the positioning of the 'GRAMMY' mention to the top. Happy to share additional details.

Thanks!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Disease — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.140.64 (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello. First of all, I would ask you who is included in "we".  If by "We" you mean Nas' publicity team, please carefully read and follow the instructions for paid editors.  Second of all, edit requests should be made on the talk page of the affected article.  Assuming you are a paid editor, you can make such requests by typing "request edit" (with the brackets), and then following it by explaining the changes you want made in a "change X to Y" format, and citing your sources.  If you take that route, be patient as the edit request queue is severely backlogged.
 * Regarding the mention of the album's Grammy win, I would say it is currently at the top, as it is currently in the article's lead section. Assuming you are Nas's publicity team, you probably want it mentioned more prominently, such as the second sentence. However, the lead is currently structured chronologically, discussing first the album's release, then the reaction of critics, and then the Grammy win.  Moving the Grammy win before the album's release doesn't make sense given the article's current structure. However, as I said before, the proper place for a discussion such as this one is Talk:King's Disease. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 18:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Archiving of Photography workshop
It's no big deal but I've just noticed that the archiving of the Photography workshop, which is supposed to be filed by calendar month, is messed up. So far there's nothing filed under Mar 2021. I found what I was looking for erroneously filed at Feb 2021, where only the first entry was properly filed. It's a similar story for Jan 2021, where only the first 4 are filed correctly. If anyone here knows how to fix it please do, although it's not a pressing issue. Looking at the code this may be a wider problem with ClueBot III. I've left a note on the ClueBot III talk page pointing here. nagualdesign 18:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

how can I contact a contributor
I would like to contact the photographer from this page- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_Samaritan_Window,_Chartres_Cathedral

How can I find him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.86.15 (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you click on the photograph you are interested in, then click on "More Details" you will be taken to its page on Commons. That page will give you more information about the photograph, along with a link to the user talk page of the person who uploaded it (this person may or may not be the photographer - in the case of most of the images on that page, it appears to be).  Cliking on the link to their user talk page takes you to a page where you can leave messages for them.  In the case of most images on that page it would be Commons:User talk:JBThomas4.  I will say, JBThomas4 does not appear to have edited in some time.  Their last edit was here on the English Wikipedia in 2016, so they may not see your message right away (or ever).  It looks like they were a student editing Wikipedia as part of a class project, so they may not return.  Sometimes people will have e-mail enabled, but it looks like JBThomas4 does not.  You may not be able to contact JBThomas4, but it's worth leaving a message on their talk page just in case. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 18:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * If the reason for contacting the photographer is to ask for permission to use the photo somewhere, note that you do not need permission. See Commons:Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. --ColinFine (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Paul Khavari Page
Recently a page was created and denied for "Paul Khavari", I need to help with citation so that the page can be approved. I searched the page and found it the 1st time, but now I cannot find it anylonger. Can you help? Should I create a completely new one?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikip1015 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The draft article (not just "page") is at Draft:Paul Khavari, . --ColinFine (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . It still exists at Draft:Paul Khavari. The references are not formatted correctly. They should be inline references, which are explained at Referencing for beginners. Familiarize yourself with Notability (academics). Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

My Experience
My introductory experience in attempting to participate in Wikipedia collaborations is that it is rather punitive where contributions are unwelcome. When I brought something up on a discussion page, it warranted no discussion. But when I made a change to that piece of information of concern in the actual article, it was immediately reverted with a sort of insolence, even though I had provided a widely used and confidently neutral data set to contest what was there. I just don't get it. I feel like this must be a very closed community. Lazarus1255 (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I'm very sorry to hear that you have had a rather unpleasant experience as an editor. Leaving a concern on a talk page is good but, for many articles, talk pages are scarcely viewed and your concern may not be responded to for a long time, unfortunately. You did only wait 3 days... Anyways, I see your concern on Talk:San Salvador and the edit you made, which was initially reverted. The editor claimed it was unconstructive, but I don't actually see why it was considered unconstructive. This may have just been an error. I see you also tried to address the editor who made this reversion, but they are very unlikely to check for a reply as they likely do this hundreds of times. If you want to address someone directly, you can type  to automatically give them a notification to check for a reply. I think Wikipedia is a great place once you get to know it and, I'll admit, we editors are sometimes quick to wrongly assume new editor's intentions. Don't be discouraged. I'll be happy to help you if you have any more concerns. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 21:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, thank you. I appreciate it. Well, maybe I'll just stick to Wikivoyage: it seems to be more my cup of tea, and I haven't gone through the trouble to read all the Wikipedia provisos yet. Thanks for the kind reply. Lazarus1255 (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

How can I request support for improve a page?
How can I request support for improve a page? Dr<b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#27B382">Salvus</b> (<b style="font-size:80%;color:#a9a9a9">talk</b>) 22:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That depends. What kind of support are you looking for?  You could try asking on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 22:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * On date 10 March 2021 I request help for improve the List of Coppa Italia finals. But nobody has ansewered me. See WT:FOOTY<b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Dr</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#27B382">Salvus</b> (<b style="font-size:80%;color:#a9a9a9">talk</b>) 22:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You can try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Italy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

How to report abuse?
It seems to me that the article on Rob Wittman is blatantly biased and political in 2 of the paragraphs that were added. It seems to reflect badly on the whole concept of Wikipedia being fact-based and politically neutral.

I could change the paragraphs directly, or get into some heated back and forth on the comments section related to the article, but those who have the most will power plus time on their hands usually make that a very protracted process, which in the end no one wins.

This has more to do with Wikipedia policies than it does with the politics of the situation per se, but any attempt on my part to express that view is likely to be hit with a very partisan response.

Isn't there some way to initiate a review of the suitability of the content rather than getting into a tug of war over the politics?

Specifically, there is reference to Election Fraud in the general election of 2020 as being the "Big Lie", and there is the claim that there is "no evidence" to support the concept that there was election fraud and that China was involved.

Whether or not a person believes that there WAS election fraud is somewhat beside the point. I do not think that the claim that there was "no evidence" is beyond dispute, which would challenge whether calling it the "Big Lie" is factual enough to meet the standards of objectivity that Wikipedia strives for.

PoqVaUSA (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia echoes what reliable sources say. Reliable sources say that there was no election fraud. This is the answer everyone will give you. versacespace  talk to me  23:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be INCREDIBLY careful if you decide you wish to pursue this. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Takes a strong man to deny... 23:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Let's make that not "incredibly" but "extraordinarily" careful, because you'd better believe it. You say: "I do not think that the claim that there was 'no evidence' is beyond dispute": All that concerns us here is evidence, summaries of evidence, or declarations that there was no evidence, that may have have appeared in reliable sources. Before citing a source, see what, if anything, is said about it in this list of sources of widely varying reliability. If you'd like to cite reliable sources to make a change, or of course if you'd like to say that existing references have been misused (that they don't say what they're represented as saying), then you're free to say this on Talk:Rob Wittman (as long as you continue to exercise the aforementioned extraordinary care, of course). Now, it's imaginable that a reasonable proposal on a talk page will be unreasonably shouted down. Tackle that problem if you ever face it; first, make your reasoned proposal on that talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Question about finding articles
Is there a place I can view articles that are absolutely plagued with issues? versacespace talk to me  23:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes - WP:General sanctions. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Takes a strong man to deny... 23:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Jéské Couriano has (reasonably enough) interpreted this to mean "articles that have some people throw tantrums and feud over". They're closely watched. You might have in mind something quite different: junky articles that tend to be little watched. Just use Google to look for some peacock phrase; as an example, I've found to be a surefire way of finding biographical articles plagued with what one can charitably describe as misplaced awe (but sometimes looks like paid-for sycophancy) and that very often have more serious issues as well. -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would you use Google for this, though? Wikipedia has its own search engine. Kleinpecan (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can get Wikipedia's own search engine to do a search such as this,, please tell me about the technique that you used. -- Hoary (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * . Kleinpecan (talk) 12:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest WikiProject Cleanup Listings. Pick a topic and you'll see the articles with oldest/most problems. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice search string, . As said, that lot should keep  busy for months (and, incidentally explains why I try to steer clear of WP:BLP). Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)