Help desk
< March 18	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 20 >

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 19

The first paragraph of Unite the Right Rally needs correction

I am confused as to how to get this corrected. The first paragraph of Unite the Right Rally is lacking in the full scope of truth and is very slanted implying unjustly that all people attending the rally were... "Protesters were members of the far-right and included self-identified members of the alt-right,[11] neo-Confederates,[12] neo-fascists,[13] white nationalists,[14] neo-Nazis,[15] Klansmen,[16] and various right-wing militias.[17] The marchers chanted racist and antisemitic slogans, carried weapons, Nazi and neo-Nazi symbols, the Valknut, Confederate battle flags, Deus Vult crosses, flags and other symbols of various past and present anti-Muslim and antisemitic groups."

Well a rally is defined as: "a mass meeting of people making a political protest or showing support for a cause." Source: https://www.bing.com/search?q=rally%20definition&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&ghc=1&pq=rally%20definition&sc=8-16&sk=&cvid=59D10D67E53C4E24A53E720538A745E7

To read the first paragraph of Wikipedia's "Unite the Right Rally" one is given the impression that the character of the marchers represented the character of all in attendance at the rally. The rally was not just the marchers, the rally by definition is everybody in attendance or all who were attracted to the rally. There were thousands of people and I would even say most of the people in attendance were there solely for protecting history, their heritage and the historical monuments. These were not there for racism, antisemitism or any other non-humanitarian or un-American purpose and they were the majority. Trump was correct when he said there were a lot of good people on both sides. We need to be careful to be accurate on this issue. These remarks by Trump have been used by the left to call him racist and this false narrative has been pushed by the liberal media and the opponent political party ever since. False information which is being fed to the citizens of the US for political purposes. This article needs to be cleaned up. It is full of false narratives, and contributes to the misinformation propaganda of the left. I hope someone can please help me correct this unjust portrayal of ordinary southern American citizens as racist, white supremacists, neo-nazis and all the other negative character which Wikipedia has assigned to us. Wayne L. Hester — Preceding unsigned comment added by WLHESTER (talk • contribs) 00:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to discuss this at the article Talk page with fellow editors. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 00:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WLHESTER Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a subject. Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias; any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. Weight is given to points of view based on their coverage in independent sources. If you believe in protecting the heritage and monuments to people who supported enslaving other human beings based on what they look like, that is your business, but Wikipedia isn't here to promote any particular point of view. We summarize what the sources state and provide those sources so readers can review them and judge them for themselves. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne's respone to this… I understand where you are coming from BUT my argument is parallel to what you have said. The Wikipedia article IS an opinion and not factual. The article assumes that every monument supporter at the rally was racist just like you also assumed every Confederate soldier fought for slavery where in truth less than 20% of Conf soldiers had slaves and were fighting to defend their states. Remember that slavery occurred in ALL US states, but lingered in the South for agrarian reasons and had the South been allowed to end slavery on its own terms as did the North, slavery would have died on the vine in the South without war especially with the advent of the industrial revolution and machinery to replace human labor. I am not supporting slavery in my comment, it was terrible but it was originally nationwide. Impatience and activism as well as penalties of tariff facilitated war. The people of the South were good people then and now. These monuments which were built by both sides after the war were a move toward finalizing peace and purposed the reunification of the divided US. Even Confederate soldiers were given veteran status by the US Congress. The destruction or removal of monuments which were meant to honor brave men serves only to deny truth in history and destroy a peaceful heritage. We were descended from these men which so many activists have falsely define as lovers of slavery. It is unfortunate that racists rally around the flag and see the monuments as part of their racist cause but they are a minority among those innocent southerners who are not racist and want to keep history honest. Wayne L. Hester — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:B340:5D13:DF35:63B7:D02F (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in before your post. My intention is not to get into a debate about these issues- but if you feel the article needs any changes, you should discuss them on the article talk page and offer any independent reliable sources to support your proposed changes. 331dot (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhnam Gill wikipedia

Sukhnam singh famous for painting and singing. he is full with talent.he is very kind.his age is 17 years old

Extended content

Sukhnam singh Gill

Born Sukhnam singh gill

23 November 2003(age 17) punjab , India

Alma mater bhai dan singh Occupation Singer Painter lyric Years active 2003–present Works

personal painting Net worth ₹ 10000 (2020) Spouse(s) badhni kalan

Children 0 Awards no amy Honours local reward

Signature sukhnam Gill [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukhnam Singh Gill (talk • contribs) 02:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sukhnam Singh Gill: If you want to create a new article, read WP:AUTO and WP:YFA. Autobiographies strongly discouraged. RudolfRed (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

about publishing my draft

hi, I have a question about publishing my article. I made article titled Ok Sang Lim, but it has draft in front of the name, and I want to publish the article. How can I do that? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seirimyoon (talk • contribs) 08:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seirimyoon New users cannot directly create articles- you found the Draft space in which you can create a draft, but it is not yet formally part of the encyclopedia. You must submit it for a review- I will shortly add the appropriate information so you can do so. However, if you were to submit it right now, it would likely be rejected, as you have no independent reliable sources to support the content of the article. Wikipedia should only summarize what reliable sources independent of the subject say about it. You seem to only cite the artist's website. 331dot (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit timeframe

To whom it may concern,

I have edited a Wikipedia page and I would like to know how long it will take until my edits are published?

best regards, James — Preceding unsigned comment added by User19032020 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With very few exceptions, once a page is edited it becomes publicly viewable immediately. However, as mentioned on your talk page, a bot reverted your edit, reverting the page to its state prior to your edits. The bot has left a more detailed explanation on your talk page, at User talk:User19032020#March 2020 ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 13:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

external links towards MALWARE

Hi,

I was checking the second link, in Notes, of the page https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Hydraulics

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Hydraulics#cite_note-2

"hidraulica Archivos – Zona Ingenieria". Zonaingenieria.com.

The link redirects and ends up downloading automatically on the computer an HTML webpage with the name "This computer is BLOCKED".

The page in the browser display among other things, in french, (I am in France), "Your computer has been infected". Also pseudo official Windows corporation logo.

Thanks.

PS : I didn't know where to report this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.23.254.179 (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to veryfiy this. when I my browser that it should show me the source code of the website, it displayed an empty site errror (i.e. the web server admin did not publish anything yet). I have tagged the link as dead. 15:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Posting promblem

How to post pictures or videos in wikipedia.plz show me I have realy tried but I cant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebbecca Ann (talk • contribs) 13:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ive posted a welcome message related to images on this users talkpage. Maybe this helps. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Garry O'Connor (writer)

Hello.

Re https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Garry_O%27Connor_(writer)

I am the writer of the article about Garry O'Connor, although I would qualify that statement in that I have only posted to Wikipedia the text that Garry O'Connor himself supplied me with. He is bewildered that Wikipedia has raised so many objections to his entry. What Wikipedia is asking for by way of editing the article seems very demanding. Is there a Wikipedia editor willing to undertake the work of editing the article so that it conforms to Wikipedia standards? I have talked to Garry O'Connor and he is in agreement that this can happen. Thank you. Jack d'Argus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack d'Argus (talk • contribs) 14:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The thing to realise, Jack d'Argus, is that, because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and rejects promotion of any kind, it has basically no interest in what the subject of an article says about themselves. It is only interested in what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen, unprompted by the subject, to publish (in reliable places) about the subject. An article should be almost 100% based on such souces. Also, the fact that you have been in contact with O'Connor suggests that you may have a conflict of interest in writing about him. --ColinFine (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^{I have taken the liberty of inserting the closing "]]" missing from your second link, Colin. Hope you don't mind. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.39 (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)}[reply]

Thank you, ColinFine. As I say, article is open to editing. Are you offering? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack d'Argus (talk • contribs) 15:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where are skins defined?

Hi. I was just thinking that I would like to modify the CSS used with Vector to have a dark mode for Wikipedia in my browser. In order to do this, I would like to take a look at the CSS file(s) used to display this skin. Where can I find the CSS file that is loaded if a user has a certain skin as their setting? Thanks! DemonDays64 (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]

@DemonDays64: https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-skins-Vector/tree/master/resources/skins.vector.styles * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: thanks! So those files are in the .less format. Do you (or someone else who reads this) know if there is a way that I could have my own .less files load on Wikipedia? This would be nice because how the organization works it uses a lot of variables and I believe I could change them to make the file to modify how it looks more usable (see https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-skins-Vector/blob/c85c0700a908da751d9454e006f2f43b56346fa0/variables.less for where the variables are). Thanks again! DemonDays64 (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]

@DemonDays64: That's phab:T56864, so not possible yet to my knowledge. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

oh that's too bad. Thanks! DemonDays64 (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Skin. Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets has "Use a black background with green text". Special:Gadgets shows it uses MediaWiki:Gadget-Blackskin.css. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DemonDays64: There are also dark Wikipedia themes available here (for example), which you can use as an inspiration (you don’t need to install the browser addon, you can just put the code in your vector.css). Cheers ⌘ _hugarheimur 15:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref too many keys

I am trying to add the following reference to the page on punk rock:

Tsitsos, William. 1999. "Rules of Rebellion: Slamdancing, Moshing, and the American Alternative Scene" JSTOR. 18(3):397-414. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.54.12 (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The "name" parameter in the <ref> is simply a label to refer to the reference by elsewhere on the page. The content of the reference needs to go between the <ref> and the </ref> - there's content already there in Harvard notation, using the template Template:Harvnb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I'm afraid I don't know anything about using Harvard citations, but CITESHORT should explain it. --ColinFine (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting talk comment

I made a comment on the talk page of a pretty obscure computer game Rack 'Em. It also came in a bundle, but i couldn't find a reliable source for that. This edit was reverted (rather than discussed). Please advise me. Is it in line with WP policies to just delete someone's comment on a talk page (repeatedly)? Doesn't feel very kind to me... By the way, if my comment on the talk page was out of line, please help me understand why it was. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 19:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PizzaMan: Hello, I would think that your original comment was deleted because it was discussing the subject of the article rather than how to improve the Wikipedia page. I'm not 100% certain about that as there was no ES left (the first time) and the reverting editor was using 'Twinkle' which I gather can quickly identify unhelpful edits but is not always renowned for its accuracy! Courtesy ping for Binksternet who may wish to comment here. FWIW your most recent comment with a source is better. Hopefully someone with an interest in the page will take up the discussion. Eagleash (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But by that measure loads of messages are candidates for summary revert. There is nothing wrong with someone raising a point on a talk page without initially having the references to back it up. - X201 (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True, I agree that TP comments are often rather 'general' and I don't think it should have been undone; rather, as Pizza suggests, replied to. Eagleash (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to me that WP:TPO allows this kind of summary removal; certainly it doesn't allow repeated removal. --ColinFine (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with Twinkle, but isn't there something about not reverting edits which are not vandalism without leaving an explanation? Eagleash (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does the abbreviation TPO(C) stand for? I still don't understand what i've done wrong. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 09:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PizzaMan: TPO (and variations) is an abbreviation for "Talk Page guidelines (Others' Comments)", which is the guideline linked above. Bear in mind that there's often a lot of general chat on talk pages which is not intended to relate to the associated article, but it is generally acceptable to make suggestions (or observations) for articles with an implicit solicitation for sources or other improvements. Reverting an edit without a meaningful edit summary is rarely helpful. Removing an edit with the suggestion that you are refusing to discuss sources, or that you are not here to improve the encyclopedia is fairly outrageous. Sometimes things happen which shouldn't have happened. If it keeps happening after you've made your point then that's an indication of a problem. My general advice, if you understand this and the edit remains in place, would be to move on. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. After a few reverts, the comment is restored. I'll move on and keep on trying to add. I hope that, especially on the more obscure pages i stumble across, the bar isn't set too high when i suggest something.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 15:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagleash: Twinkle doesn't do automated analysis, AFAIK. I'm guessing there's some personal history here. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, i don't remember ever interacting with Binksternet. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 09:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This reversion of PizzaMan by veteran Wikimedia designer Jorm came up in my watchlist. PizzaMan's talk page entry looked like trolling to me, as it probably did to Jorm. I went to PizzaMan's contribution list to see if there were any similar trolling comments on talk pages, and I found two recent ones. One of them had extensive replies, so I didn't delete it, but the other one had no replies, which is why I deleted it. If PizzaMan is willing to discuss sources then I'm fine with leaving it in place. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on 1. a person who's company (at the center of her notability) went bankrupt over half a year ago on a very active page, which wasn't even mentioned, 2. a famous star saying in an interview that she was seen by no-one for a year after her fans started hating on her and 3. an obscure computer game that could be bought as a bundle. All three of these seem very much worth mentioning on their respective pages. The reason i didn't suggest sources on 1. is that previously, any sources i proposed there, no matter how reliable they seemed to me, were dismissed by, what felt to me like people pushing a feminist agenda. The fact that her bankruptcy isn't mentioned more than half a year after it occured on such an active page does make you wonder, doesn't it. I didn't want to get into discussions with the same people again, so i just wanted to open a discussion on it on the talk page for more involved people to pick up. 2. i know nothing about her, i felt it best left up to people more active on that page to mention why she fell in a black hole for a year. 3. I couldn't find any sources reliable enough. Your comment portrays me as some kind of troll and really doesn't do justice to my edit career of 13 years of contributing to Wikipedia. It certainly doesn't encourage me to add another 13 years to that tbh. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 21:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You explicitly declared that I'm not even going to bother suggesting sources for your claims; that renders anything you have to say inactionable, because all Wikipedia content must be based upon reliable sources. If you have no interest in providing sources for your claims, you're not contributing, you're trolling. And trolling has no place here. Either put up or shut up. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]