Wikipedia:Help desk

Wikipedia open wikipedia design.

The Wikipedia help desk is a place where you can ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia.
  • For other types of questions, see Help:Contents and Are you in the right place?. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
  • Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
  • We are all volunteers, so sometimes replies can take some time. Please be patient. Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
  • If you need real-time help, you can join our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
  • If you are a new editor, you might prefer to ask your question at the Teahouse, an area specifically for new users to get help with editing, article creation and general Wikipedia use, in a friendly environment.

December 12[edit]

List of Works in a biographical article - complete or selected items?[edit]

I hope this is a quick question: I'm sure I have seen it documented somewhere but I just can't find it now. In an article about a scientist, it is common to include a list of their works (books, etc.). In some cases this can get quite large, leading to the question - should we aim to make that list as complete as possible, or just selected works so the list is a more manageable (and readable) size? Pointers to a guideline would be appreciated.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be a part of any guideline, so it's just up to you. Since scientists tend to be rather prolific, their articles more often include "Selected papers". – Thjarkur (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I found it! "Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists. The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship are encouraged..." Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists_of_works Gronk Oz (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@Gronk Oz: This would seem to cross over into the ideas behind WP:RAWDATA at some point, though. A recent example, Julia Chan, comes to mind. Her publications page at UT lists almost 200 papers, which would be ridiculous to duplicate accurately, let alone maintain. I'll note that there's apparently also been some movement towards reducing filmographies of actors to just selections as well, which I think is a great idea, again for maintainability. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that, AlanM1. If it is cut down to a selected list, are there guidelines for what the selection criteria should be? Without that, it risks becoming biased personal opinion, or original research. Gronk Oz (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I changed the Raymond Green to Draymond Green on the 2019 FIBA roster[edit]

Hello, I changed the Raymond Green to Draymond Green on the 2019 FIBA roster page and it got changed back. You guys are wrong. I am right. Don't change it back. I am trying to help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4480:28F0:44A4:31DE:6D2F:5B7A (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, anonymous editor, and thanks for your contribution. It helps other editors to know which edits are genuine if you provide a reliable source that supports your proposed change. As it was, you did not provide an edit summary describing what you changed or why, so it seems that Creffett perhaps thought it was an error.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Gronk Oz is correct - with no explanation for the name change, it looked like vandalism and so I reverted it. creffett (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Where is the WP Wishlist?[edit]

How do I submit a wishlist item for WP editing functionality? I thought I had seen a Wishlist link on this page a while back but now I can't find it--NB I'm using a really primitive mobile browser (Kindle).

Is this page actually the place?? In case it is, here is my wishlist suggestion:

Add a button to edit just the "lede" of an article. Mature articles often need just a minor change to the lead; editing the whole article can be laborious,especially on a mobile, there's danger of accidental change while scrolling, & it makes the history appear ponderous.

Case in point: I had a minor edit to make to the third para of article Melanoma. It would have been so convenient to just edit the "lede" (I hate that neologism but I do see the nede for it). Instead , I had to edit the whole article, which meant scrolling down through a quite lengthy article to get to the para I was editing--twice, since I always preview my changes [well almost always--ed.]. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

There is already a setting which you can change to give you an "edit" link for the lede of every article. I can't find it under "Preferences" – "Editing", but it exists somewhere. Maproom (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
It's at Preferences > Gadgets > Appearance. I've no idea whether that would work on a Kindle, though. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It's meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2019, the next one will be next October. Alternatively, many problems can be solved by asking the people over at Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests to create a script for you. You can go to Preferences → Gadgets → Appearance → Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page which will do what you want. Relevant discussion about "ledes"Thjarkur (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Dagobert Runes[edit]

Article text

About this Item: Verlag Darmstädter Blätter :, 1981. 8 Octav, Broschiert. erste Auflage :. 332 Seiten : Dagobert David Runes (January 6, 1902 September 24, 1982) was a philosopher and author. Born in Zastavna, Bukovina, Austro-Hungary (now in Ukraine), he emigrated to the United States in 1926. He had received a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Vienna in 1924. In the U.S. he became editor of The Modern Thinker and later Current Digest. From 1931 to 1934 he was Director of the Institute for Advanced Education in New York City. He had an encyclopedic level fluency in Latin and Biblical Hebrew; he fluently spoke and wrote in Austrian German, German, Yiddish, French, Hebrew, Russian, Polish, Czechoslovakian, and English. In 1941 he founded the Philosophical Library, a spiritual organization and publishing house. Runes was a colleague and friend to Albert Einstein. Runes published an English translation of Marx's On the Jewish Question under the title A World without Jews. Though this has often been considered the first translation of the work, a Soviet anti-zionist, propaganda version had existed a few years earlier, which was likely unknown to Runes. As the title of Rune's book sounded antisemitic, it had extremely limited circulation in the English-speaking world. Runes wrote an introduction to the translation that was clearly antagonistic to extreme Marxism, and 'its materialism,' as he would later often put it, yet he did not entirely negate Marxism. He also edited several works presenting the ideas and history of philosophy to a general audience, especially his Dictionary of Philosophy. He spoke and wrote unpublished letters about his extensive research into the censorship by the Vatican and other Christian organizations of Jewish history, which as he studied he realized was far more prolific than almost anyone realized.Early versions of the Nicene Creed, for example, instituted laws such as "You shall apply all negative to that pernicious race [Jews], and all positive will be applied to the poor of the Roman Christians"; and Justinian I banned any Jewish language, which is rarely noted. The extensive antisemitism in the Theodosian Code was later censored in some works. Jews were barred from many fields which did not fit into the stereotypes portrayed in annual Good Friday passion plays, such as being tax collectors or money traders. (Another minor example was that in medieval Sweden, Jews were only allowed to trade used clothes, so that their social status would remain beneath the Christians). He also listed holidays where young energetic parishioners were directed to strike the first elderly Jews they saw upon leaving the Church, specifically in the nose, where blood would be readily observed. Runes' love for the Latin language greatly facilitated this research. Dagobert Runes moved to the United States with his wife Mary Gronich-Runes. They remarried in NYC in 1929 and remained married until Mary's death. They had two children, Regeen and Richard. His mother was murdered in an anti-Semitic riot following the Holocaust; almost his entire family and their circle of friends were killed in the Holocaust (quelle:wikipedia) : gerne senden wir Ihnen weitere Fotos und Informationen : der Gesamteindruck dieses Buches ist GEBRAUCHT : SEHR GUT - 387139064x Bitte beachten Sie, dass es sich um gebrauchte Bücher handelt. Bei den Preisen haben wir den Zustand des Buches berücksichtigt. Sprache: Deutsch Gewicht in Gramm: 400. Seller Inventory # 6859 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:ED0:6DFA:300:8130:EB83:D99A:70B7 (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello IP, you can go to Articles for creation and submit this as a draft, but it needs citations to reliable sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

British or English?[edit]

I'm sure this is discussed somewhere in the MOS, but I haven't been able to track it down. Is there a particular year/era where descriptions in Wikipedia should switch from 'English' to 'British' ('British politician' instead of 'English politician')? Queen Anne appears to be the first monarch to be title 'of Great Britain', but other descriptions seem to be all over the place. Any guidance would be appreciated (I'm trying not to ruffle feathers due to ignorance). Leschnei (talk) 13:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Hmm... Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom is loosely-related (summary: in BLPs, follow the subject's self-characterization of British/Scottish/whatever if expressed clearly). Absent a clear guideline, I would think the best would be to follow contemporary sources in describing events, governments etc. as "British" or "English". I would also guess you are less likely to ruffle feathers in substituting English for British (or the other way round) than Scottish for British... TigraanClick here to contact me 14:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@Tigraan: that link is very helpful, thanks. In general, I go with whatever designation is in the article, Charles Dickens is English and Benjamin Disraeli is British, but I have seen editors make changes from one to the other and it made me wonder. Leschnei (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
guideline commentary
It's a shame but not that surpising that the descriptions are "all over the place". A lot of people are just confused over this. Actually, James VI and I was the first monarch "of Great Britain" even though the two kingdoms were still separate then. But it is not really a matter of dates -- there isn't a time when you should switch from English to British. England has had a fairly constant meaning for (roughly) a thousand years, and over a similar time period Great Britain has always had the same geographical meaning of the whole island containing England, Scotland and Wales.
I agree that self-identification is best for BLPs, the question is mainly how to treat historical personages and topics. Sometimes the context will help, for example if they were an office holder did their remit cover Britain (or the UK), or just England or another constituent nation? The other thing to say is that there may be no single answer. Being English usually implies being British as well. But not vice versa. Just the way a Texan is an American but not always vice versa. If there was to be a style guideline on this question, where would be the right place on wikipedia to start a discussion about developing such a policy?
By the way, I speak as someone who is British but not English! FrankP (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@FrankP:Worthwhile discussions of guidlines, like this one, belong on the talk pages of the guideline, not on the help desk where the go away after a few days. -Arch dude (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
This topic has always frustrated, due to many resisting using British in post-1707 British bio articles (in GB), 1801-1922 Ireland bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, ok, understood. I actually asked in my comment where is the correct place to have such a discussion. Is it at Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom? FrankP (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Yup. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The Wikipedia guidance on this says "In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." That sounds great, and would normally solve most of these disputes except for the United Kingdom, which is a country made up of countries. Which is to say that the country of the United Kingdom is made up of the countries of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, which then begs the question "Which country do we use". The answer is it depends, and there is no universal way to handle it; generally it is a good idea to try to use concepts like self-identification where disputes arise (that is, does the person think of themselves as "Scottish" or "British"), except that many people may consider themselves both; I mean Gordon Brown is described as "British" and Peter Capaldi is described as "Scottish" and I have to say neither of those is wrong, and yet it feels like if we swapped both of those, it would feel less right. It's the kind of messy thing that we just kind of work out, and try not to fight about, and defer to not changing just to be arbitrary. --Jayron32 18:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


I would like to donate, however I prefer not to have my personal info shared.

please provide proof my personal info will NOT be shared — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

We don't handle donations or the process; please read this page for information on the various ways you can donate, which include in cryptocurrency. I don't know what the exact policy is, but I doubt the Foundation would share your personal information. 331dot (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, it depends what "personal information" is. In the strictest sense of the term, the WMF just published OP's IP address for anyone to see (because that's how page histories work for non-registered users). On the other hand, I doubt the WMF would partner with advertizers to sell names and mail addresses. TigraanClick here to contact me 13:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
We at the help desk are good, but we cannot prove a negative. Sorry. We also have nothing to do with the WMF's donations or data outside of Wikipedia. If you wish to ensure your privacy, donate anonymously via cryptocurrency or a postal money order. -Arch dude (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
See foundation:Donor privacy policy. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@IP editor: And thank you for your support! —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

User page[edit]

How to get one — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dq209 (talkcontribs) 18:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Dq209 You already have one simply by registering an account. If you click your username at the end of your post, or at the top right corner of the screen(if using a computer), it will take you there for you to create. Please see WP:USERPAGE for information on acceptable user page content. 331dot (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

What notability criteria does Network-Attached Secure Disks fall under?[edit]

Per title. Does it only fall under WP:GNG, or is there a criteria i'm missing? --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Moonythedwarf: There's no sourcing, and all three external links are just to the paper written by the researchers. There's no independent sourcing for the term, so I'd say it fails WP:GNG. After a quick reading of the paper, I'd merge and redirect to Network-attached storage. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Timtempleton, That's what I was thinking, I came here because I wanted to be absolutely certain. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Isaac kappy[edit]

Can someone please explain why isaac kappys wiki page was deleted 3 days after he died? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellahan (talkcontribs) 20:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kellahan: The reason for Isaac Kappy deletion was it did not demonstrate that the person was notable. See WP:N. RudolfRed (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
The article appears to only have consisted of "Isaac Kappy was an American actor" and nothing more (as far as I can see with my non-admin eyes), that is to say, it did not explain what he was notable for. It appears he has gotten sufficient coverage for an article, so you could start one using the Articles for creation process. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Posting a New Page[edit]

I have tried posting a new page about a prominent person. The person is deceased, his business is no longer in operation, and there is no advertising interest in posting the page. It's simply a matter of updating the encyclopedia to include someone who died before online resource took over the world. He is included in numerable publications and should be available to current and future scholars. I keep getting rude messages telling me the page is some sort of marketing scheme. My legal assistant and I have tried several iterations, which are structured exactly like other wiki pages. This morning a very rude person messaged my legal assistant and made her cry he was so mean. The poor young lady simply asked for advice on how to make the page suitable. Here is my question: A) How do I report an abusive reviewer? b) How do I speak with someone about what edits we can make so wiki will accept our page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3008:202:8400:3ADE:ADFF:FE94:B0E2 (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, could you post a link to the page in question? Note that most of the messages you get sent are just templates that contain a prewritten text about what needs to occur for the article to be accepted. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

articles that need attention[edit]

Hello. When I first signed up for wikipedia it had a bunch of pages that were recommended for fixing spelling/grammar and other errors. After logging on another day I cannot find where those are on the site. Basically wikipedia would show me an article that might need editing and if I could not find anything to edit on that article I could click "next article" to see what else might need editing. How do I get back to that? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki497 (talkcontribs) 23:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

You might be interested in SuggestBot; see also: User:SuggestBot/Requests. (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@Wiki497: See Wikipedia:GettingStarted for the feature you used, or try it on Random article. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@Wiki497: You could also use Special:RandomInCategory/All pages needing cleanup. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@Wiki497:, Let me also suggest that you visit Wikipedia:Community portal and scroll down to the "Help Out" section. It has nine groups of links to articles that need improvement. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

December 13[edit]


I already sent some funds through PayPal and Wikipedia keeps asking for more? If I have different emails will I get different requests for donations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:440:8401:54F0:7D23:6321:9863:EA4A (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. Thank you for making a contrbution. Absolutely nothing in Wikipediahas any knowledge of who has contributed or how much: that is entirely within the Wikimedia Foundation, which is separate. Your position is the same as somebody who made a donation to a collector in the street yesterday and sees the collector still there today.
If you create an account (which is free) then you will have the ability to turn off the messages when you are logged in; but while you are using Wikipedia anonymously, there is no way to do that. --ColinFine (talk) 09:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Odd Name Change[edit]

I was looking at the Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom page it states that "Mohamed" directed the movie. You may want to have a look.

Fixed – thanks for pointing this out. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 03:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

New Profile[edit]

  • Hi, I start by asking a question that "Is it not important to update a reference (Forbes profile) ? ". I have seen that in Mukesh Ambani's Wikipedia article his Forbes profile is updated as per December 2019. I had also provided a link of Shamsheer Vayalil's updated Forbes profile as per December 2019 on Talk:Shamsheer Vayalil heading is "Updation of net worth".Please! anyone help in updating his Forbes profile and if not I will do it myself and if any mistake happens then please don't blame me.

Thanks. ( (talk) 11:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC))

Hi, anonymous reader! Please see WP:NORUSH and WP:NOTNEWS. This is an encyclopedia, not a news service. Imagine it gets printed some day, or mirrored on some other website (which actually happens all the time). Then the figures will get frozen, and you can't help for it. So instead of fruitless chasing variable 'net worth' please focus on presenting important (wide and long-lasting) impact of the person in the world. That will add a persistent value to our common project.
BTW, please also see WP:NOTSOCIAL – Wikipedia is not a social media, we don't host any profiles for people, we rather develop articles about them. --CiaPan (talk) 12:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Editing wiki pages in countries where wikipedia is banned[edit]

Hi there,

I work in Turkey, where I have to access wikipedia via a proxy because the site is blocked. I use wikipedia every day and during the course of my research I often want to make factual edits but cannot because wikipedia blocks edits from proxied addresses.

Is there a way around this, so that I can contribute to the accuracy of wikipedia from within a censoring country?

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghenghys (talkcontribs) 13:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

You could apply for an IP block exemption, which is in some cases granted for a short time to newer users. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Ghenghys (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Thank you for your quick answer: I have just now sent the request that you suggested.

Request to remove semi-protected[edit]

By choice, I edit from an IP address, which changes regularly, but I'm a fairly experienced editor. I want to edit a page, Dubstep, that is semi-protected. Obviously, I can add a request at the talk page, but I don't think the page, despite being a GA, needs protection.

From the edit history I can only see one attempt at vandalism, detected by a bot, here on 1 May 2013 by User:ClueBotNG. Can you please remind me how to request that semi-protection be removed from this page? We don't usually protect pages "pessimistically". (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello anon, looking at the protection log the article on dubstep appears to have been semi-protected on the regular since 2010 before permanent protection was implemented in 2012. This seems to have been effective in stopping the flow of vandalism which is probably why it remains today. The protecting admin ItsZippy has been desysoped for inactivity, so if you want the protection removed either ask another admin or post at requests for removing protection. – Teratix 13:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

linkspam question[edit]

I am seeing a lot of link spam for the following domains:


Is there an easy way to determining how much spamming they are doing before I ask about a filter? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be an easy way to find spam that has already been reverted (only way I can think of would be to grep a recent revision database dump). Of your list, only is still in any articles. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I removed the carid linkspam and requested an edit filter here: [1] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: I added those links to User:COIBot/Poke. In a few hours all the report links should changes from red to blue. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Eligiblity of Username[edit]

My username is eligilble for Wikipedia editing? WeTalkWiki 14:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

WeTalkWiki, the username policy is at Wikipedia:Username policy.
Your username isn't misleading, disruptive, offensive, or promotional, so I don't see why it would be a problem. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
If I'm reading it wrong, and you want to edit your username, you'll need to follow the steps at Wikipedia:Changing username, although you may want to just register a new account and disregard the old one. This is valid, as long as you're not using it to avoid scrutiny. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm wondering if by username they mean account. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


I didn't clear what you meant?

WeTalkWiki 15:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

WeTalkWiki we are also not clear what you meant by your question. What are you asking? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@WeTalkWiki: the "we" in your user name implies that it is being used by more than one person. This is against the rules, and that means you should change your user name or simply abandon it and create a new account. See WP:USERNAME. -Arch dude (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Arch dude:

The "we" in my user name is nosism - I am the only person who knows the password.

So I didn't violate any rules unless you have lack of knowledge about wikipedia articles.

WeTalkWiki 19:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@WeTalkWiki: I am not familiar with all of the contents of all of the 6 million Wikipedia articles. Sorry, if you think volunteers here at the help desk should have this level of knowledge, you will be disappointed. I was unfamiliar with the collective term "nosism" for the three uses (imperial, editorial, authorial) of "we" listed in that article, although I am quite familiar with all three usages. All four possible usages of "we" in your username are prohibited. The usual collective "we" because it implies group usage, the imperial "we" because it implies you are editing in an official capacity as head of state or high church office, and the editorial and authorial "we" because they imply you have special standing beyond that of other Wikipedia editors. In any event your intent does not matter. What matters is that other editors get the wrong impression whichever of these four meanings they impute to the "we" in your user name. -Arch dude (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


This article is biased, misinformed, and hurtful to a growing profession. I tried to make a change this morning, and it automatically went back to the original text. I read the 'Talk' section and many people have had similar thoughts and comments. This makes me lose trust in the validity of Wikipedia. Please review the facts and fix this, or help me understand how I can fix this. There is good information now on accredited websites like WebMD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

You removed soruced content from the page when you reverted it. Also, WebMD is not consired a reliable source. So the page will stay in its current state. If you can find reliabe soruces, then you can add the content.LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 15:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Note also,, that whether or not a a profession is "growing" is not, alone, a criterion determining Wikipedia's tone of coverage of that profession. That is determined solely by the tone of coverage found in reliable, published sources.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleting my biography[edit]

I respectfully request that my bio Mike Kelly (Gridiron Football) be removed.

Please either execute this request from your end or easily explain to me the procedure I need to process.

I would like this done immediately.

Thank you,

Mike Kelly — Preceding unsigned comment added by GridIronFootball (talkcontribs) 16:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be in response to this content about an arrest on the article Mike Kelly (gridiron football), which User:Hirolovesswords added recently. I think you might be too notable for us to delete the article, but I personally think we should not mention arrests on the articles of semi-notable people where the charges are dropped. You can request a second opinion on this at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I've removed the contentious sentence. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Þjarkur. It is clearly WP:UNDUE for charges that resulted in no conviction to be mentioned unless the charges or the case was in itself notable. ——SN54129 18:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Mike Kelly's arrest was a major news story, covered both in Winnipeg and nationally in Canada [] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. One sentence about it is not WP:UNDUE - Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Note that this issue has been discussed before at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive257#Mike Kelly (gridiron_football). Jweiss11 (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Also worth considering the treatment of a similar incident on another bio article for a football coach: Michael Haywood. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Have to say that I disagree with the removal, as it is pertinent to what he merits an article for(football). One sentence is not undue. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@331dot: I added some sourcing and clarified the incident. Please take a look at it stands now. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
It seems okay to me. I wonder if we should just note the arrest and not state what the arrest was for. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Madubani Art Page[edit]

Dear Sir We Are From Mithila For Your kind information thies page contant absolutlly wrong because in the name madhubani art is wrong madhubani art is not any art in india this art origin naame in mithila painting /mithila art so please veryfy thies content then publish .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

You can discuss changes on Talk:Madhubani art. Note that we need to reflect reliable sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
...which, in this case, includes an Indian government website, articles in The Hindu, books, etc., all calling it "Madhubani". —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Watchlist tag filters[edit]

Sup Helpdeskers. D'you happen to know whether it's possible to invert the selcted tags? I.e. so that the watchlist excludes them rather than includes them? ——SN54129 18:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Main Page[edit]

Suppose the Main Page was vandalized by an admin. Since it is the most viewed page, would the normal procedures for vandalism (revert, warn, report, block) happen or something more? Interstellarity (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Interstellarity I hope you are speaking hypothetically, but if an admin engages in vandalism, it should be reported just as any other instance of vandalism, as admins do not 'outrank' non-admins, we just have extra buttons. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@331dot: Yes, this is hypothetically. If I were an admin, I would never do that. Would the admin just get blocked like any other user? Interstellarity (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes. There has been cases of admin accounts being hacked or otherwise controlled by someone else that needed to be blocked and have the admin powers removed at least temporarily. If it were the admin themselves, there would likely be a discussion about their future status. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@331dot: That's clear to me. I was just curious about what would happen if it it really happened which hopefully won't happen anytime soon. Interstellarity (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I would hope/think that seeing evidence of an admin "going round the bend" would be handled with high priority, because of the potential trouble that can be inflicted with those "extra buttons". Sadly, it's not like it's out of the realm of possibilities any more, either. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Interstellarity, you might wish to read the pages linked from Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason/compromised. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
@OxonAlex and AlanM1: Thank you for the info. Interstellarity (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I thought I had learned not to look at things that I don't want to see. I was wrong. The tombstone-shaped tabs are a nice touch, though. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


How does one become a member of the "editorial board" of Wikipedia? I see all sorts of people reverting stuff and offering to block others. How do you attain this position of trust?Gustapus (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Gustapus. There is no "editorial board". You have edited this page, so you are a Wikipedia editor. Anybody may revert an edit if they think doing so will improve the encyclopaedia: the process that that forms part of is WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss.
Anybody may nominate a page for deletion, or tag an article for various shortcomings, or report another editor for disruptive editing; but doing so before you understand the relevant policies is inadvisable. Drastic actions like deleting pages and blocking users can only be done by admins, and in most cases, only after a public discussion.
In principle anybody may become an admin, but the process involves a public discussion, and generally people will not be appointed admins unless they have a long history of constructive editing, and a reason to want admin powers. (I have been an editor for fourteen years, and have made 16 thousand edits, but have never seen any reason to apply for adminship). See RFA for more on this. --ColinFine (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@Gustapus: as ColinFine says, You are a member of the "editorial board". We all are. We each make editorial decisions every time we edit. If another editor disagrees, they revert the edit, and that is supposed to cause the first editor to initiate a discussion, usually on the affected article's talk page, to reach a consensus, possibly with some escalation (WP:DISPUTE). Once a consensus is reached, the resulting action (e.g., blocking) may require an administrator in some cases, but the admin is supposed to implement the consensus, not dictate it. Like Colin, I have no desire to become an administrator. It's tedious. -Arch dude (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Colin Fine and Arch dude for your input - much obliged!Gustapus (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

December 14[edit]

Kenneth Fetterman[edit]

proposed article content

'Kenneth Fetterman was a victim of scam artist- Kenneth Walton to sell very expensive counterfeit art art on eBay.It was later learned that Christie's, Sotheby's and Bonhams, as well as many other auction houses, continue to bid for their clients undisclosed reserves and do not disclose all of their reserves. Fetterman and Walton tried the same tactic to sell with undisclosed reserves on eBay, which was legal at the time, but Fetterman was put in prison for it. This was after Walton forged a painting, without Fetterman's knowledge. Walton then made a deal with the government to avoid prison time. Walton has a previous history of forging Army Id's and even signed a fake name of a Russian general on a military document to create chaos. [1]

Kenneth Walton, who had, in May 2000, sold a fake painting that was at the time the highest price ever paid for a painting in an online auction. It was supposedly the undiscovered work of the late Northern California artist Richard Diebenkorn. However, the fraud was discovered, and after Walton was investigated, it was uncovered that Walton, Scott Beach, and Fetterman were involved in what the government called shill bidding ring and that Walton had faked many paintings. After feeling the injustice about what was haoppening, Fetterman wrote a 450 page paper about human rights,before he was finally caught indicted by a federal grand jury for selling art in auctions on eBay, without revealing his reserves- the same practice that continues today by Sotheby's, Bonhams, Christie's and many other auction houses. At the time, this practice was legal on eBay, Yet,in May 2004, Fetterman was sentenced to nearly four years in federal prison.[2]


  1. ^ Scheide, R.V., "Prisoner of love", Sacramento News and Review, URL retrieved 2006-12-13.
  2. ^ Melley, Brian, "California eBay scam artist sent to federal prison", USA Today, 2004-05-27, URL retrieved 2006-12-13.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Please create and submit a draft article. See WP:YFA. The help desk is not for proposed content, but if you have questions about the process, come back ere with them. -Arch dude (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Les Sablons[edit]


Whoever is reading this, please create the page Les Sablons as a redirection to Les Sablons (Paris Métro). Many thanks!

2A02:A44D:9F2F:1:2048:C6F:65FA:2DF8 (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, please make your request at WP:AFC/R. If 'Les Sablons' has other uses in reality, it may not be appropriate to create such a redirect to the metro stop. If you enter 'Les Sablons' in the search box the entry for the stop is the only item that comes up in the 'dropdown'. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that the article should be moved to Les Sablons. Since there are no other articles of that name, the disambiguation is not required (WP:PRECISION). However, moving the article would be troublesome. Most of the articles in {{Paris Métro line 1 navbox}} use this - in fact, most of them use the template {{pms}} which explicitly inserts "(Paris Métro)" into the link - but most of them actually do require this for disambigation, unlike les Sablons. --ColinFine (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for help[edit]

Hi. I published my page earlier today. I am a professional actor, who works out of Massachusetts. How can I add my name to the list(s) of male actors from Massachusetts and related groups here? Thank you.

Brian donovon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian donovon (talkcontribs) 18:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Brian donovon: Welcome. You created your Wikipedia ediror's user page. See WP:USERPAGE. It's supposed to be (mostly) about how you contribute to Wikipedia. You did not create a Wikipedia article. We do not add pople to lists like that unless there is a Wikipedia article. You should not attempt to write an article about yourself (See WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY) even if you are notable enough to warrant an article. Unless you meet our notability standards, you will not have an article on Wikipedia no matter who writes it. If you do meet our notability standards, then we do want an article about you. -Arch dude (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Community portal vs Dashboard[edit]

What is the difference between the community portal and the dashboard and should they be merged? Interstellarity (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: From what I see, Wikipedia:Dashboard is an overview of ongoing discussions in various areas. The portal at Wikipedia:Community_portal is a collection of work that needs to be done. They are not the same thing, as one is a link to discussions and the other can be seen as a giant "to-do" list. RudolfRed (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
@RudolfRed: That's clear to me. Do you think the names of the pages are OK or are they ambiguous? Interstellarity (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Seems fine to me. You can start a discussion on one of the talk pages if you have a proposal for a rename. RudolfRed (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

December 15[edit]

Where should I put a request for expert help on languages?[edit]

I added the following request to the talk pages of both the Origin of language and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages on December 10.

Grammar for "that slowed down the Prefrontal Synthesis (PFS) critical period"[edit]

I need some help from an expert. Under the The Romulus and Remus hypothesis section, it says:

1. A genetic mutation that slowed down the Prefrontal Synthesis (PFS) critical period of at least two children that lived together

What is being slowed down? Is it "the Prefrontal Synthesis critical period" or is it "the Prefrontal Cortex critical period"? In the Critical period hypothesis article in WP, it says "Recently, it has been suggested that if a critical period [in language development] does exist, it may be due at least partially to the delayed development of the prefrontal cortex in human children." I can't find any reference to "slowing down" the Prefrontal Synthesis critical period or even what a PFS critical period is. It seems to me that the original author may have entered Synthesis when they meant to say Cortex.

Could someone explain what critical period applies to Prefrontal Synthesis and how it may be "slowed down"? Or maybe revise the indented sentence above, removing "slowed down" and substituting, say, "delayed the development of the Prefrontal Synthesis (or Cortex) critical period...". You might have to explain how the PFC affects the PFS. My guess is that the article is technically right but they just don't explain enough for us linguistic novices.

This question is also on the talk page of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

So far, no reply. Do you have a better place to put this request? --RoyGoldsmith (talk)

The WP:Reference desks are much more active than most project discussion pages; try either /Science or /Language?  2606:A000:1126:28D:784A:E6BC:34C9:EC20 (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC) ... btw, I believe that cortex is assumed when prefrontal is stated; see: Prefrontal synthesis

Live +30 day Nielsen ratings[edit]

Hi there, Nielsen is now releasing Live +30 day DVR ratings for TV shows. I often update the DVR ratings for The Conners and would like to begin adding the +30 18-49 and +30 total viewer ratings, but am unsure of how to name it on the table. For example, the Live+7 18-49 ratings are listed on Wiki pages as | dvr1 =XX, and Live_7 viewers are listed as | total1 =XX and the overall final rating with the +7 factored in as | totalv1 =XX, what would I title the +30 ratings as in order for them to show up correctly in the table?

Thanks, Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sothisissociety (talkcontribs) 01:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

2020–21 United States Network Television Schedule[edit]

Draft:2020-21 United States network television schedule (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What No Article Yet I Put 6 References and there is still no article yet. (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Your draft has been submitted for review. Please see the note at the top of the submission notice which indicates that this can take up to four months. In the meantime you should perhaps read WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Please remember to provide links when asking for help. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by contributors (read/edit).
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.