Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2022 January 31

= January 31 =

Editing
According to Wikipedia's founding principles: Wikipedia is an online free content encyclopedia project helping to create a world in which everyone can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. The project is supported by the Wikimedia Foundation and based on a model of freely editable content. The name "Wikipedia" is a blending of the words wiki (a technology for creating collaborative websites, from the Hawaiian word wiki, meaning "quick") and encyclopedia. Wikipedia's articles provide links designed to guide the user to related pages with additional information. I, as one of the users, found an error. Checked it several times in reliable sources. Corrected, since Wikipedia is a free field where knowledge is shared. But, as it turned out, true and verified information is not needed. I returned the truth several times again, but they threatened to block me for the truth! In the end, what is the priority for the principles of Wikipedia truth or politically motivated editors? I need to deal with this situation. When Wikipedia was created, I believed in it and donated money to its existence when it was hanging by a thread. Now that Wikipedia has grown and also pays editors, although we did all this for free, because we believed in the need for such a project, Wikipedia spits on the truth! "Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous volunteers. Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles, except in limited cases where editing is restricted to prevent further disruption or vandalism." Anyone can edit! except in limited cases where editing is restricted to prevent further disruption or vandalism." - Why was this added? In order not to write all sorts of nonsense and lies! But they use this to leave a lie and slander a real person!

So I ask you to consider and correct the injustice against Mr. Agalarov (link is attached) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aras_Agalarov. He is not on the sanctions list. This can be verified with the only reliable source: the US Department of the Treasury. They have a link https://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov/ This Sanctions List Search application ("Sanctions List Search") is designed to facilitate the use of the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons list ("SDN List") and other sanctions lists administered by OFAC, including the Foreign Sanctions Evaders List, the Sectoral Sanctions Identifications List, the List of Foreign Financial Institutions Subject to Correspondent Account or Payable-Through Account Sanctions, the Non-SDN Palestinian Legislative Council List, the Non-SDN Menu-Based Sanctions List, and the Non-SDN Communist Chinese Military Companies List. Given the number of lists that now reside in the Sanctions List Search tool, it is strongly recommended that users pay close attention to the program codes associated with each returned record. These program codes indicate how a true hit on a returned value should be treated. The Sanctions List Search tool uses approximate string matching to identify possible matches between word or character strings as entered into Sanctions List Search, and any name or name component as it appears on the SDN List and/or the various other sanctions lists. To aid users of the tool, Sanctions List Search contains a feature entitled "Minimum Name Score" that functions on a sliding scale, allowing for a user to set a threshold (i.e., a fuzziness rating) for the closeness of any potential match returned as a result of a user's search. This feature enables Sanctions List Search to detect certain misspellings or other incorrectly entered text, and will return near, or proximate, matches, based on the confidence rating set by the user via the slider-bar. OFAC does not provide recommendations with regard to the appropriateness of any specific confidence rating. Sanctions List Search is one tool offered to assist users in utilizing the SDN List and/or the various other sanctions lists; use of Sanctions List Search is not a substitute for undertaking appropriate due diligence. The use of Sanctions List Search does not limit any criminal or civil liability for any act undertaken as a result of, or in reliance on, such use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.30.195.150 (talk) 06:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have removed it with a better edit summary explaining why the source given in the article (which does name him) doesn't support the claim. I see no reason to suspect any malice from other editors. It looks like they simply misunderstood the meaning of being named in the source. Further discussion should happen at Talk:Aras Agalarov and not here. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * IP number, you say: I know that it has grown; but it pays editors? This is news to me. Please tell me more. -- Hoary (talk) 13:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Can't wait for my upcoming payout. Been waiting four years ;P. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been waiting 16 years, dammit! Back in my day we had to edit and revert! Over dialup! While loading cat pictures in another browser! While siblings were playing XBox games online! —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 20:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Mistake
I wrote about myself and I found its a mistaken, now I'm wondering if I can delete my Account/page or if I can change my username. Please help. — Preceding undated comment added 08:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * You can read on how to change your username here. Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  09:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Bots editing an already approved page
I can see what must be bots constantly editing a page within minutes of me editing the text (my. text is approved by wikipedia). The bots or suspected accounts are switching back to the old text within minutes. Is there any solution to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.140.134 (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello IP! What page are you talking about? You haven't made any other edits besides this one (Excluding one from 2013). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 11:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I wonder if this is a copyright issue, Wikipedia does not "approve" edits in general and bots only revert problematic content. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * A bot will usually provide an edit summary. That should give you an idea of why it took the action. (You also say "my. text is approved by wikipedia".  What do you mean by that?) Feline Hymnic (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The solution almost certainly lies in you engaging with the human editors who are probably reverting your edits because they don't think they are constructive. If you look at the history of the article in question you will see who is reverting you, and any edit summaries they have left, which will probably explain why they have reverted. Please read WP:BRD for what is going on and how to proceed. Like other repliers, I don't know what you mean by "my text is approved by wikipedia": there is no such concept as far as I am aware. Telling us which article you are talking about will enable somebody here to look at the issue. Please also note that repeatedly applying an edit without engaging with the editors who revert is called edit warring, and is regarded as disruptive. --ColinFine (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Approval my Sandbox version of Geilo Schools
I have finished editing the Geilo Schools and waiting for approval.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arneskjeltorp/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeiloSchool1971 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * You haven't yet submitted it for review, but there is no point in submitting it in its current state. It has many misplaced external links, but no references.  You'll find advice at WP:Your first article.  What is your connection with User:Arneskjeltorp, whose sandbox you have edited?  --David Biddulph (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I did go in and do some cleanup (external to internal and external to those on other wikipedias are now ill templates (Interlanguage links). But that doesn't mean it is ready. More references would be good.Naraht (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * you may need to change your username as it appears to represent an organisation, see Username policy. TSventon (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , I would ask whether has a WP:COI related to the Geilo Schools. User:Arneskjeltorp was formerly User:Geilo School. TSventon (talk) 11:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

HSBC 7's rugby stats
I am looking for stats regarding the above, but cannot the stats on Wikipedia, for what I am looking for. When I search for it, I get a message that it "does not exist".

The stats I am looking for, is a records of the most consecutive wins by a team, in HSBC 7's matches. In my search for a place where I can request these statistics, I ended up on this page. I am therefore putting it to you here.

Thank you

D van Rooyen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.252.64.208 (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello. All the information we have about that tournament is at World Rugby Sevens Series. If the information you are looking for isn't there, it probably isn't in Wikipedia. |You could ask at the most appropriate section of the reference desk (probably Entertainment, I guess), and it may be that somebody there can point you at the information. --ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Can CSD templates for articles be applied to drafts as well?
Multiple times in the past I have seen draft articles where users create pages about themselves - usually just a single line with their name, age, and location. I have repeatedly put CSD A7 on pages such as these, and they have been deleted. I recently did the same thing as always, but had my edit reverted, with the reverter saying A7 is for articles only. Looking at WP:CSD, this does appear to be generally true, with nothing saying that this could be used on drafts. What should be done about this? Should what is said on the page be changed, or is there something else that should be done to remove autobiography drafts. Thanks, ― Levi_OPTalk 19:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The A7 criteria is under the "articles" category, which reads . The concept of notability does not apply to drafts, A7 is not a valid speedy deletion criteria for pages in the draft namespace, and any A7 tags you placed there should have been declined. It is also worth noting that there is no ban whatsoever on writing your own autobiography, it is only strongly discouraged, and that writing such pages in draft space is the best way to go about creating them. In my opinion speedy deletion patrolling in draft space generally does more harm than good, draft space is self cleaning via G13, and sending a newbies first edits for deletion is rather WP:BITEY, even if they are utter rubbish. Unless a page is something like an attack page, a copyvio or would meet one of the criteria for oversight it's probably best to leave them alone. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In response to your section title question, only some CSD templates can apply to drafts (for example, CSD G5 can apply to a draft if the user who created it is blocked as a sock and there haven't been any substantial contributions by other users). However per what the IP said above, A7 doesn't apply to drafts because notability, while it does still technically apply to drafts in regards that if the topic isn't notable the draft won't be accepted, does not apply to the ability for the draft to exist. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I should have phrased that better. What I meant was that the concept of notability does not apply when determining if a draft should be deleted. If you come across a "John doe is a Minecraft youtuber" type page in draft space the best thing to do is leave it alone, it's not a public part of the encyclopaedia, there aren't any speedy deletion criteria that would apply, an MFD discussion would just be a waste of time and the page is completely harmless. The general "G" type criteria apply everywhere, but none of them really apply to the tagged page. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The thing is, these accounts usually are created, make a draft page about themselves with no claim of notability, and then never edit again. If I can't remove them immediately, I think I'll just start a page of these so that I can wait the 6 months and remove them as inactive drafts. ― Levi_OPTalk 13:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that be a waste of your time, ? Anything in draft space that's untouched for 6 months should be removed by a bot under WP:G13. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that there was a bot that went through and removed 6 month old drafts. I've reported ones in the past that no bot had done anything for and didn't know this was a thing. If this is the case, I guess that clears up my concerns. Thanks, ― Levi_OP<sup style="color:#000;padding:1q;border:black 1q solid;border-radius:6q 6q 6q 0;padding-top:0">Talk 14:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Levi OP: Something to be cognizant about is that draftspace doesn't get indexed by search engines, so a draft won't show up as a direct result. Even if the original editor links to them directly, they're usually dissuaded by the  prefix. As others have noted, drafts get deleted after six months of inactivity, so there's no need for you to take any action. — Tenryuu 🐲  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Only the general CSD criteria (the ones that are G then a number) would apply to draftspace. The rest all refer to a specific space, A7 or any other criteria starting with A only apply to article space. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)