Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2022 April 3

= April 3 =

Writing an article for a 92 year old
My mother, 92, asked me to post about books she has written about cancer to memorialize her work. I got tagged as COI, but she is not able to add the content (lack of computer knowledge), so can I act on her behalf to add an article about her books?Pottsy108amy (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . Please take a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:Notability (people) (particularly this part), Wikipedia:Notability (books) and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for more detailed information. Basically, whether a Wikipedia article about your mother or her books can be created by anyone is going to depend on if she or the books considered to be notable per Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Please note that Wikipedia defines "notability" in a very specific way and this is somewhat explained in the pages I linked to above. If you still have questions after reading through those pages, feel free to seek assistance here or at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, and someone will try and answer them for you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

CAPTCHA
I am saying that CAPTCHA is a little inappropriate because if someone spells it wrong, everyone cares. I am very upset with CAPTCHA and I hope it doesn't affect peoples editing again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.95.167 (talk) 09:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Does Wikipedia ever use CAPTCHAs before editing or signing up for an account? I've never come across this.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ianmacm, the WP admins have occasionally turned on CAPTCHA verification for all IP users (or maybe for all non-autoconfirmed users) during times of intense vandalism. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I meant to put this reply below; it's out if place, sorry. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * AFAIK Wikipedia uses CAPTCHA in two places: 1) when non-autoconfirmed editors try to add a new external link (including reverts) and 2) on the signup page, to prevent automated systems from creating many accounts. 173.66.95.167, if the CAPTCHA's are problematic for you, I'd say you create an acccount (which also has other adventages) or request one, if CAPTCHA's are completely unsolvable for you, and then work your way towards autoconfirmed status (which requires being registere for 4 days and having made at least 10 edits). Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Reliable Source
Hi Everyone. I'm trying to locate a reliable source that will allow me to introduce content into the article Henny Penny. It can be found here: Season 6, Episode 26 of the Golden Girls. The last episode of the season. As you can see, it clearly states a reference to "In Popular Culture", but I'm having difficulty finding reliable sources, since WP won't allow cross referencing or IMDB: [|IMDB]. I did find these, but they are not considered reliable either: [|Henny Penny], [|Fine Feathered Friends]. My question is: in the section [| Popular References] on the Henny Penny WP page, every content line is sourced by YouTube clips referencing lyrics. If my sources are deemed "unreliable". Why couldn't I simply source a YouTube clip from the Golden Girls showing the scene where they put on the play? Thanks! Maineartists (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC) My apologies. For some reason the "Fine Feather Friends" link is coming up "Page Not Found". It can be found here: [Golden Girls Fashion] and clicking on Season 6. Thank you.
 * I don't edit a lot of TV related articles but I do know that when writing a plot summary of a book, film, or TV show, no source is needed as the plot can be confirmed by watching/reading the subject itself. Seems to me that as long as you can cite the specific episode nothing else is needed. 331dot (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I seem to remember that plot summaries do not require inline citations; so I'm not quite sure if that applies to this particular content inclusion. Most "Popular Reference" now require each line to be sourced. I thought as well simply stating the Season and Episode was enough, but I guess not. Hoping others will have ideas. BTW, I really like your work at WP. Maineartists (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that WP:POPCULTURE says Cultural references about a subject (for example how it is presented in a movie, song, television show, etc.) should not be included simply because they exist. Rather, all such references should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary or tertiary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article. This source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source about the cultural item which merely mentions the subject. ColinFine (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. I know this, . I'm not sure that applies to my content. You'll need to actually look at the section. The listed references are songs lyrics that merely mention "Henny Penny" with YouTube clips. From what you have supplied, the entire section should be scrubbed. At least the Episode of Golden Girls completely devotes an entire story line to the Fairytale. I think this constitutes allowance for entry. I'm quite sure the reference "Fine Feather Friends" complies with your requirement. If not, a simple Google search of the episode would also comply with your demand. Could you please find one that suits what you believe WP would allow rather than citing WP policy? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to argue off topic whether or not this is content for entry in a "Popular Culture" section. I would like to know why WP allows content to be added here: Golden Girls Season 6: Henny Penny Episode 26 without a source, but will not allow the entry to be placed in the section at |Henny Penny In Popular Reference? I did place a source that was secondary: Golden Girls Fashion: Season 6 "Henny Penny" that describes in detail the episode. But it was also reverted. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Still need assistance on this. Thanks. Maineartists (talk)

Editing the TOP of a long wikipedia page from a mobile phone without editing the whole entire thing
Is there a way to edit ONLY THE TOP of a long wikipedia page from a mobile phone without editing the whole entire thing? Editing the entire page of a long article from a mobile phone will crash my browser. Thanks, and please ping me when you reply. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Jax 0677: If the preference to allow editing the lead section (Gadgets -> Appearance) doesn't work in mobile, you could either switch to desktop mode (superior unless you have a small phone; I never use mobile mode on my phone) or try to edit a different section, then edit the URL to "action=edit&section=0". —Kusma (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Mobile mode will never load a full page to edit in source mode in my experience. I'd suggest this is being done in desktop mode, where the above is the best solution. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

My edit got deleted.
Hello I have owned 3 horses of the breed Dølahest for many years and have bred a foal. The information on the Wikipedia page about the breed is incorrect in many ways and I edited it to be factually correct. However my edit was deleted because I didn't source my information and reference it. Because I am a primary source as an owner and breeder. Also everything I wrote can be found on the website nhest.no which is the Norwegian horse registration authority for all breeds in Norway and on links from there to the breed specific pages. I do not know how to reference facts that I know from experience to be true and the website is in Norwegian which not many people can read. The English information in book is wrong and keeps being repeated over and over because incorrect printed sources are used as references from the past to make new horse books. I can find links to each Norwegian document on the breed standard etc but now my edit has been removed do I need to write it all over again or what? I'm thinking the best thing is to hand write it and completely delete and start again. I tried to keep a lot of the original work to save time and just correct the wrong information. What to do ? Its very weird looking to write on the edit page which is probably one reason nobody has done it before and with everyone having to do it in their second language I guess nobody has bothered previously. Kind Regards Sara Lowe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.157.8 (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * This edit was reverted because it introduced original research. Most people here probably aren't experts on Dølehest horses, but introducing changes like this would require a reliable source, as the reverting editor pointed out in the edit summary.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 15:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, re the website is in Norwegian which not many people can read: note that WP:NONENGLISH sources are okay, as long as they are still a reliable source. Umimmak (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming they are related to the Dalahäst. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * You may retrieve your edits by using the "view history" button. Once you have done that, use the Norwegian site as your reference. If necessary, rewrite your contribution to make sure that it contains only information from your reference and nothing from your personal knowledge that is not in the reference. Also make sure that your contribution is not written so as to give the impression that it is from your personal knowledge. And THANKS! we need your expertise, because an expert can generally do a better job at interpreting a reference to produce an encyclopedic article. -Arch dude (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * All info on WP must be verifiable by all readers.  This is why your own knowledge is not "acceptable" without a published source, as odd as that might seem. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: 73.127.147.187 probbably meant to link to Verifiability (our policy, and not a mainspace dabpage) Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: 73.127.147.187 is not quite correct. All information must be verifiable. That a particular reader cannot verify something that is reliably sourced is neither here nor there. Mjroots (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

monetary policy
Dear Sir/Madam,

After I read definition about money circulation among the public in or outside the country, I didn’t find that should be written about an option how money is circulated please CONCENTRATE ….& however this authority is given to central banks to circulate printed money amongst the nation by paying subsidies maybe.

cheers, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.100.14 (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

picture
hi wikipedia i was looking at the Bombardier CR4000 page and the trams have a new interior now, I took a pic of it but it has people in it, does the picture need to be updated or no? 77.96.211.179 (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * It would probably be better without people in it. This would make a better illustration of the interior, and some people might complain about the privacy angle if it had recognisable people in it.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay thank you I will try get a picture without people soon 77.96.211.179 (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * While we should be sensitive to this issue regardless of the law, the actual rules about images of private people in public areas varies by country. You should check the laws for the country where you take the picture before you decide how rigorous you need to be. -Arch dude (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * There is a lot more detail about this on Wikimedia Commons, Photographs of identifiable people.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

How to undo a bot-initiated archiving of a DRN?
Because of a lull in exchanges, a bot archived a DRN that was in progress and had not reached a resolution or been closed by the moderator. The moderator has been away for three days or so and another editor suggested the DRN can be "un-archived". I'm willing to wait for the moderator's return but would prefer to reinstate the DRN now so that I can add comments. Any and all advice would be appreciated. Thanks. Ping @Randy Kryn, @Casualdejekyll Allreet (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't been away, really. Just found nothing to comment on.. casualdejekyll  22:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Good to hear. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Allreet, User:Randy Kryn, User:Casualdejekyll - There is a hidden magic Do Not Archive Before date in a DRN case. If there is no discussion for 48 hours AND the date has been passed, a bot archives the discussion.  I have copied the dispute out of the archive back to the noticeboard, and have extended the Do Not Archive date.  But my question for the moderator is:  Is this case still in progress?  If so, what are the next steps for the editors?  The bot was expecting some activity from someone, and the editors seem to have been expecting some activity from someone.  User:Casualdejekyll - What do you want to do now?  You are the moderator.  Robert McClenon (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we're moving towards RfC per North8000. I'm honestly really not sure how to proceed in any other way than that. casualdejekyll  15:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Gibberish emails from a Wikipedia user?
A user has created an account, done no edits and mailed me from within Wikipedia a large email that looks fairly closer to complete Gibberish. How should that be handled?Naraht (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * which user? 🙂 ~TNT (talk • she/her) 21:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I recommend that you do not reply to the email. Simply ignore it. Cullen328 (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say just delete the email and if the user does that again, add him to the box in Special:Preferences, "Prohibit these users from emailing me:" Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Whatever you do, don't reply to it. I'd just delete and move on. If it's harassment or any legal issues, it would need to get forwarded onto the WMF. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the same email I just received. The sender is trying to get people to email them back, which is the last thing we should do since it gives them our email address. Cmr08 (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * User is . Happy to share contents, but not sure worth it.Naraht (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, they're a LTA, I've blocked/locked the account ~TNT (talk • she/her) 23:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanx.

Draft decline vs reject
When a draft is submitted but not moved into mainspace, I have seen two things that may be at the top:
 * 1) A "Draft declined on ... by ..." message on the top with a button to submit it again.
 * 2) A "Draft rejected" with a red STOP sign on the right and no submit button.

What are the differences between these two? I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 22:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Declined means that the reviewer thinks that an article is possible, if it is suitably improved. Rejected means that the reviewer does not believe that the article can be made acceptable, usually because they have determined that the subject does not meet the criteria for WP:notability. See WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Acceptance criteria. ColinFine (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)