Help desk
< March 8	<< Feb | March | Apr >>	March 10 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

March 9[edit]

Founder of kuka lehar SRI SATGURU RAM SINGH JI. Not sen sahib or bhagat jawahar mal. Please edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:2184:E5C7:0:0:9A0D:8CBD (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please make your request more specific? Are you suggesting a change to an exiting article? Are you requesting a new article be created? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Namdhari article is a mess and needs help from someone who is literate in English and in the relevant south Asian language or languages. As written, I cannot decide who the article says the founder is. -Arch dude (talk) 07:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm trying to surround text with colour and a border. The problem is, if the text wraps, the border surrounds it as a box but the colour doesn't, which looks bad. I'm using {{font colour}} to achieve the background colour for the text. Is there some other template I can use which will occupy the entire inner space of the border rather than stopping at the text? Here's the problem on my page: User:DesertPipeline#Wall_and/or_hall_of_fame. If anyone can help, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DesertPipeline, would {{divbox}} work? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tenryuu: Thanks, that works. I can't get the same look as the previous method, but actually I think it looks good like this. DesertPipeline (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've stumbled upon an article about a crank. Since he's not a particularly well-known crank, I don't see the point of having an article about him. Complications are that he's working in a field that I have no official qualifications in and that he's a Wikipedia editor. What to do? Note that I'm not a deletionist or anything, but an article about a crank is always a potential misinformation risk and if it's an obscure one you run the extra risk of most of the editors of the article being people who are influenced by him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 12:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Without details of the article it's not really possible to comment. If he passes the notability criteria then Wikipedia welcomes an article about him, however 'cranky' his work may appear. Having said that, the appropriate place to raise concerns is at the article's talk page. If it seems that any discusion there is being overwhelmed by editors with some sort of agenda or POV, there are processes for tackling that also. Eagleash (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

>Without details of the article it's not really possible to comment.

Why not? Isn't there a general sort of approach to this sort of thing? I deliberately didn't mention any names because I wanted some impartial advice. The article's talk page seems to be mostly inhabited by crickets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP, please "sign" your comments (by hitting "~" four times in a row). Actually I agree with you about imprecision in a quest for impartiality, but people here are accustomed to being told. Eagleash, this must be James Fulton (researcher). I agree that crankiness is no barrier to article creation/retention; but this article is very thin, and it's not at all obvious that the biographee merits an article. The IP has written on Talk:James Fulton (researcher). Perhaps consider taking this to AfD (though I haven't looked in a search engine). -- Hoary (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: Well-spotted! Having now had the chance to look at the page, it appears to have been around since 2008 – without sourcing(!) even though it has been edited by some very experienced contributors. As such it could be subjected to a BLP-prod, which it now has been courtesy of Shantavira (who beat me to it!). As for why not; well yes, there's a general approach in that notable subjects are in; non-notable ones are not, unsourced ones need references or deleting. But 'there's an article, I don't like it' doesn't help much when seeking advice, because there can be so many variables. Eagleash (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are two additional reasons that general questions without specific article references are problematic here on the help desk. First, most such questions (but not this one) are looking for validation for a specific answer, and the "questioner" does not want the opposing viewpoint to be exposed. The second reason is WP:IAR: sometimes, the generic answer is the wrong answer. -Arch dude (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one could provide an answer with a disclaimer such as "Other things being equal, ..." or "Unless there are other factors, ...", or plain "Normally, ...". Meanwhile, anyone interested (but disinterested!) is welcome to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Fulton (researcher). I'd like to thank the IP for bringing our attention to this article. -- Hoary (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: And the third reason: If you do not link to the article in question, then the poor overworked help desk volunteers end up doing extra work to try to research your question, as in this case where Hoary worked to find the article even though the IP declined to name it. -Arch dude (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is my edit grammar is good in this section? Rizosome (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rizosome, the grammar for the section seemed satisfactory. I cleaned up a few things, but other than that, it was just fine. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 15:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rizosome: I made some edits as well. Since abbreviations are established in the first paragraph, those abbreviations can be used for the rest of the article. I also added some wikilinks, the most important of which is for the Navratna status, since I had no idea what that meant. GoingBatty (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to discuss the current content being displayed on the page for 'Tannaker Buhicrosan' as I have 'certified' information that contradicts what has been published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Budden (talk • contribs) 14:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Budden: You can start a discussion on the article's talk page, but any information must come from reliable, published sources. RudolfRed (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And note, Paul Budden, that your book Paper Butterflies appears to be a self-published source, and thus should not be cited. If you have research which has been reliably published, it may be cited, but you should not do so yourself, as that is regarded as a conflict of interest - use an edit request in that case. --ColinFine (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to just list the original sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Budden (talk • contribs) 09:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like that this page were a FL. I was advised to enter data on the spectators of the finals. Much information is impossible to find. What can I do? Dr Salvus (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Salvus: You can start a discussion on the article's talk page to gain visibility. You could also ask for assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; Myself muhammad waqar, I want to edit and contribute in the content of Wikipedia and want can put my external link into my edited link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.117.77 (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing isn't right. You can't just spam a link to your website in the article as you have been doing. That is why your edits were removed. Wikipedia is not a place for you to advertise your blog. See WP:PROMO for more information on that. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 16:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sock puppet of Mahammad Waqar‎, also using the newly created Ahmed113355‎ account, plus several IP addresses. The user keeps spamming, cheating and lying, and should be blocked indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mahammad Waqar.—J. M. (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmed113355: If you continue to WP:LINKSPAM you run the risk of getting your URL blacklisted. If that happens, then nobody will be able to use any of your pages as references even if they would be useful. -Arch dude (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the user keeps spamming even after receiving the clear warnings here. This may safely remove any remnants of WP:AGF for this user. Could an admin please block both accounts indefinitely, plus the IP addresses (and any other accounts and addresses the user may be using, possibly an IP range, too), and possibly make a statement on the SPI page? The problem with SPI these days (and many other areas in many Wikimedia projects, and not only Wikipedia) is that it is desperately understaffed, often to the point of being abandoned, and many requests at WP:SPI, WP:ANI, WP:AIV and elsewhere never get any response at all.—J. M. (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think blacklisting his URLs will be easier than playing Whac-A-Mole with his sockpuppets. -Arch dude (talk) 05:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisting is definitely a good idea, I agree it should be done. Still, both accounts definitely have to be blocked, for several reasons. The most obvious reason is that Wikipedia rules clearly say that spamming, cheating and sock puppetry is a form of vandalism that deserves an indefinite block. But it is also very important to block at least sock masters on Wikipedia for future reference, should anyone need to explain why they revert their edits (the spammer may come back and work around the blacklist, or spam with links to a different site etc.), why they don't violate the 3RR by reverting their edits (reverting an edit made by a blocked user is not a 3RR violation) etc., why yet another sock puppet should be blocked from editing etc. The most unfortunate and unfair fact about chronic cheaters and spammers on Wikipedia is that good, experienced editors who are dealing with vandalism and spam (critically important, but thankless job) are at a constant disadvantage and often need something tangible to refer to when they have to explain their actions. And a blocked sock master is exactly what they need in these cases.—J. M. (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely block all known sockpuppets. The blacklisting may cause this person to quit creating new sockpuppets, as they would not help him add his linkspam. -Arch dude (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're right. I'm all for the blacklisting. But someone actually has to do it at last. There is unanimous support for blocking the user here and on the SPI page, this case is as clear as it can be. And not an admin in sight who would at least say something. The biggest problem is that this has been the rule rather than the exception in recent months. When you look at the table in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, the situation is pretty grim. Many hopeless cases that never get any reply. And other parts of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects look even bleaker. Many urgent and rightful requests at many places are completely ignored. I have been editing Wikipedia for 15 years and the stark decrease in administrative activity in the last year or two is alarming. It really makes Wikipedia look like an abandoned project increasingly often. If this trend continues, I wonder whether Wikipedia actually has a future.—J. M. (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And indeed, the user is now trying to circumvent any potential blacklist by spamming with a link to his website under a different URL (basically, the same page under a different URL), using another IP address: [1]. So no, blacklisting is not the primary solution here. Blocking the users and blocking the whole IP range is the proper solution, along with protecting the page. Any admin reading this or the SPI page? Anyone? Could this case be any clearer? Is there anyone who could finally help?—J. M. (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I hired a group to create a wiki page for my past business history. That history was 25-years selling to top stores. Most articles were before online magazines. They now say that I need notability from 15-20 articles on Top-Tier websites, and their PR dept can help with that. I also am published as a poet and children's author. As we started the process, I was told there was plenty to work with. When I look at others with a Wiki page in my generation, they have links to PDF magazine stories of their business. I'm not sure what to do. When I told them I was not interested in the payment plan for 15-20 articles, they dropped me. Is this normal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkingInText (talk • contribs) 22:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ThinkingInText: No one should be creating wiki articles for money because it's unnecessary. If you are notable by Wikipedia's standards, an article may be made about you. This is a scam, and you should report it to paid-en-wp@wikimedia.org. Do not spend anymore money. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back, but there are wiki businesses online. I don't know how else to get a page. You mention "an article may be made about you" Who does that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkingInText (talk • contribs)

Volunteers here on Wikipedia, not PR people. Nobody legitimately representing Wikipedia will ever ask you for money, and there's no charge for anything here. Undisclosed paid editing is a violation of Wikimedia's terms of use, so if they can't send you examples of their work, where they declared they were being paid for it, they are either lying or are violating site policies. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ThinkingInText: Most of our six million articles are written by volunteers who choose what to write about. If you or your business satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people) or Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) then a volunteer editor may write an article some day with no action from you. Businesses who claim to write articles for payment are often dishonest, making false claims and promises. Some of them aren't actual businesses but just somebody trying to get money for nothing. If they do write an article then it may be crap and be deleted quickly. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do you start to get an article? Contact a volunteer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkingInText (talk • contribs)

@ThinkingInText: If you just want to tell the world about your business, you should use social media or other alternatives intended for that purpose and with less stringent requirements. Wikipedia is not interested in what a business wants to say about itself, only in what others say about it. If your business meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable business, someone will eventually take note of your business and write about it. Please note that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily a good thing, see WP:PROUD. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I had never started this conversation. I don't want to tell the world about my business, you jerk. I don't want to use social media...you are condescending. I don't need a lecture from someone who has no idea what the reference is about. I'm asking a legitimate question. I created something that was valuable and collectible. I have given university commencement addresses. The work I created was published in magazines and newspapers, probably when you were in a booster seat. I hired a group because this is foreign to me. So don't you dare give me your attitude. I don't need it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkingInText (talk • contribs)

Hello, ThinkingInText. It appears that you are under the common, but utterly mistaken, impression the a Wikipedia article is in some way for the benefit of its subject. It is not: a Wikipedia article is for the benefit of Wikipedia and its readers. Many subjects do derive some benefit from an article, to be sure, but some definitely do not: doing so is no part of Wikipedia's purpose. If at some point we have an article about you, whoever writes it, it will not belong to you, it will not be controlled by you, it will not necessarily say what you want it to say, and it should be almost entirely based on what people unconnected with you have published about you, good or bad. See an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. --ColinFine (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. I was just asking if what i experienced was normal. I use Wiki for some research I do. I am aware of the style of the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkingInText (talk • contribs) Hi Colin, Thank you for showing up on this thread. I saw you on the tea house section. I am now aware that I shouldn't have hired a group, but I have no idea where to start. I have been told by people finding my past product, that I should have a Wiki page. That's how this all started. AThere's nothing to sell. It is history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkingInText (talk • contribs)

@ThinkingInText: Please note that personal attacks are not permitted. I was trying to help. I don't know what I said to set you off, but I'm sorry. Wikipedia does not have pages, it has articles. This is a subtle but important distinction. 331dot (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, apology accepted. As an example of what I don't know, I use the word "pages" not the appropriate word "article". — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkingInText (talk • contribs)

ThinkingInText, as 331dot already said, personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia and if you continue in this manner, you may get blocked from editing. Please listen to the advice, what others are telling you is definitely true (and they have nothing to apologize for), and these people are much more experienced on Wikipedia than you are. There is nothing wrong with their attitude, but I can surely see a striking lack of humility in your posts. I would also like to add that editors should refrain from writing about themselves on Wikipedia or even suggest that someone writes about them, per the Conflict of interest guideline, paid editors have to disclose their conflict of interest, and even they should refrain from writing or editing the articles directly. Generally, you should really read the What Wikipedia is not guideline. You really do not seem to understand its purpose and the way Wikipedia works.—J. M. (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article requests can be added to Wikipedia:Requested articles but nothing may ever come from it. There are a lot of requests and few volunteers looking at them unsystematically. Most volunteers prefer to find topics on their own and not examine often poor requests. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkingInText, I think that posting to Wikipedia:Requested articles is almost always a waste of time. There's little that you can do. I'd like to say that people and companies who merit articles will eventually get them, but this would be untrue. The subject must be "notable" according to Wikipedia's slightly odd criteria for this (whereby plenty of individual episodes of long-running TV programs are "notable", but only a tiny percentage of museum curators are), and it must interest at least one volunteer who has time and energy on their hands. Thus it is that Tim Hilton, writer of one of my favourite books, doesn't have an article, that Gustav Emil Ern, manufacturer of my favourite kitchen knife, does not, etc etc. And it's very likely that they never will have articles. Now, what's fascinating is your mention of an outfit that hopes to sell a "plan for 15-20 articles". Do please tell us more. Did you find them, or did they find you? How much do they charge? Do they specify examples of their past work? Et cetera. -- Hoary (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone please tell me if it's okay to do this? I've asked about it here before, but I keep getting differing answers; here is what the MoS says about it. I also asked about it on the talk page for WikiProject Categories, but deleted it after going about twelve hours without a response.--Thylacine24 (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, it should only be in the subcategory. If someone is disagreeing with you on this you should ask them why. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: Could you please tell me if you mean that I should contact the people in question about this? I will, if you think I should. Also, the MoS seems to tolerate the opposite of your view. Could you please explain that? Thanks for replying, because I'm a tad stressed over this at the moment and I also just made some edits in line with what you describe.--Thylacine24 (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take, for example this article that I wrote: Hidden Lake (Alaska). It is in Category:Lakes of Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska, which means it is defacto also in Category:Lakes of Alaska by borough, and in turn also, in ascending order, Category:Lakes of Alaska, Category:Lakes of the United States by state, Category:Lakes of the United States, Category:Lakes by country, Category:Lakes, and finally Category:Bodies of water. It is already an implicit member of all of those simply by being added to the original subcategory, so there's no need to add it directly to any of them. I am assuming that the reason you are bringing this here is because someone has challenged or reverted you removing redundant categories, that's why I suggested asking whoever that might be why they object. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: Okay, I'll consider doing that. Could you please tell me what you think of the MoS's take on this?--Thylacine24 (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the main distinction the MOS makes is diffusing-vs-non-diffusing subcategories, so it may, in some cases be appropriate for an item to be in two subcategories of the same main category if both reference some separate defining characteristic. That's how I read it anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: Not sure I understand that, but I'll take your word for it. So I guess fiction/media doesn't always apply, though? Please feel free to look at my edit history and see what you think works and what doesn't, because I'm honestly kind of lost on this without a consensus response. (If you don't want to, then I understand.)--Thylacine24 (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]