Help desk
< September 23	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 25 >

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.

September 24

Ref: Deebz270 (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC) 21/03/18

In logging in, to edit an unrelated segment to the above reference, I noted my notifications and in particular the discussion that followed my criticism of the first sentence within the Climate Change article. My criticism was, that the first sentence was misleading. Climate Change and Global Warming are two totally different phrases, both scientifically and literally.

One person agreed with my criticism. One other agreed in principle, but stated that this was not what Wikipedia was about. The third comment essentially asked me to furnish NEW evidence, in attempt to 'change their minds'...

Who are 'they' that deem I must furnish proof? It is OBVIOUS to anyone with any academic ability that my criticism is perfectly sound. I stand by that criticism and note that it has not been changed. However, how in all this confusing rigmarole of wiki editing, does one even offer a counter to those comments, where there seems no facility to reply?

This is one reason why I personally find wikipedia so 'flippant' in many respects. I tend to view wiki as an online encylopedia, where accuracy is axiomatic. If I am wrong in that assumption, then maybe I should just view wiki as a coffee table magazine.

The remarks of one of the contributing comments, was that MSM view climate change and global warming as the same thing and thus so should wikipedia. Which was exactly the thrust of my argument to the contrary. If wikipedia is to be taken seriously as an online encyclopedia or at least a source for accurate educational text, then this sentence should be changed to reflect that.

I reiterate, Climate Change/shift is the resultant phenomenon of Global Warming, itself driven by either natural or anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Confusion, especially amongst the climate change denying public is evident in many social media comments and main stream media. Where people mistake the two phrases, often disparagingly stating that once they called it global warming, now they call it climate change. In scientific terms, this has never been the case.

I have, in the past donated to wikipedia. I refrain from doing so now, simply because I see inaccuracies, that my 'peers' appear blind to and refuse to correct. So much for this platform being for the masses, where anyone can edit or correct any content within its data references.

I wish to counter these comments on my criticism of that article, but as I said above, I see no facility to do so.

Kind (but frustrated) regards

Deebz270 (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deebz270: we have a robust and well-documented method for reaching consensus. It starts with assuming good faith and attempting to reach consensus, initially by discussing things on the article's talk page, sometimes as part of the bold-revert-discuss cycle. Only if you cannot reach consensus on the talk page, move on to the next steps of dispute resolution. This help desk is the place to ask about this process as you did, but not the place to continue the discussion, because discussions here disappear quickly due to high volume. -Arch dude (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deebz270: your criticism was taken seriously, but the discussion seemed to peter out without resulting in a change. There is no "they" at Wikipedia; editors are just volunteers like you and me. I've made a small change to the wording in the article Global warming. If this sticks, does it adequately address your concerns? If I get reverted then we will start a new discussion on the talk page. That's how Wikipedia works. Dbfirs 07:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... later ... I see that my edit was reverted. Do you agree with the NASA viewpoint? Dbfirs 16:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deebz270: The learning curve can be steep, but if you want your changes to stick, do take time to learn the WP:RULES. That is, we never believe editors, we only believe WP:SOURCES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The prior discussion is here. Full disclosure, I am an involved editor. If Deebz270 posts to the talk page, I will respond. Fact of the matter is this - wikipedia editors in about 2002 or 2003 decided to treat Climate change as generic climate change. By generic I mean it might be cooling, drying, warming, wetting... it might be now, or in the future, or in the distant past. Climate change, in general. And those same 2003 editors decided to treat the human-caused contemporary topic under the article title Global warming. This decision has been often revisited as the talk page archives for both articles will attest. To be clear, I do not like this decision and I have been one of those agitating for a change. Nonetheless, I also understand WP:CONSENSUS and so far my arguments have not been persuasive. The first sentence of Global warming has also been a focus of debate, as has the first paragraph (which we debated in >200KB of text in 2014). The user needs to read dispute resolution and forum shop. @Deebz270:... please if you make reference to any discussion involving any other editor, always alert the other editor and provide a WP:DIFF or equivalent link pointing to the discussion. If you post to article talk, I'll talk with you in an up front way. But please remember that we exist to edit under the five Ps. If you are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS your time with us will be short. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

deleting victoria school of management page

how to delete victoria school of management page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.209.143.30 (talk) 07:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Deletion policy. The fact that some people associated with the subject might find some of the sourced content inconvenient does not constitute grounds for deletion. Please read what you have been told about conflict of interest. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opera della Luna entry

Your Wikipedia entry for Opera della Luna declares it was last updated in April 2018, however the entry contains no new information since 2009. Please could our profile be updated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.11.94 (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It was last updated on 2 April 2018 as we can see here. As for the new information, the editors here won't add it unless that information will have sources. Remember, it is not a profile for promotional purposes. It is merely an article. Please read about conflict of interest. Thanks, Knightrises10 (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you have no conflict of interest, please update the article, with references, yourself. If you have a conflict of interest or if you are uncomfortable editing the article yourself, please make edit suggestions, with references, on the on the article's talk page. -Arch dude (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should all articles about different feeds for the same TV channel be merged? (Latin America + Brazil)

There are separate articles for Disney Channel (Latin America) and Disney Channel (Brazil), even though both are operated by The Walt Disney Company Latin America, air mostly the same shows, and the episodes for the shows that they share always premiere on the same day on all feeds (Brazil, Mexico, Center and South).

The article for Cartoon Network (Latin America) covers the multiple Spanish, Portuguese and English feeds for the channel. The number of shows aired differs even between the Spanish-language feeds (Mexico, North, Chile/Peru/Ecuador/Bolivia, Southern Cone), as only the Chile feed has 31 Minutos and only the North feed has Mr. Trance.

Should articles like Disney Channel (Latin America) and Disney Channel (Brazil) be merged? Or should they stay separated by language? Hegsareta (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NEED HELP WITH LOCKING A WIKIPEDIA PAGE

HI, A PAGE I EDITED WITH AUTHORIZATION FROM THE OWNER HAS BEEN VANDALIZED BY AN UNKNOWN PERSON. PLEASE I NEED HELP LOCKING IT AND RESTRICTING FUTURE VANDALISM. BELOW IS THE URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Gana

AIPU ADOBA Aipu360 (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need help unlocking your CapsLock key. And Wikipedia is not a PR channel; please pay some other website to host your authorized biography. 126.170.2.192 (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And which part of what has already been written on your talk page don't you understand? 126.170.2.192 (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Aipu360. The editor explained why he deleted parts of the article. You can raise the issue at the article's talk page and discuss it with him. Personally, I think that the edit (if you're talking about the one made by Whpq) is valid and it made the article more readable and, indeed, less like a resume. If you want to include important details from the deleted content, you might want to write it in prose and cite references, accordingly. Thanks. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And one final thing. Jerry Gana does not own the article. It is Wikipedia's article, not his. He has no control over it except for sugesting edits and pointing out mistakes, which should be done on the article's talk page. - X201 (talk) 09:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aipu360: Jerry Gana does not own the page. It is an article about Jerry Gana, and it is created and managed solely by Wikipedia editors, based on our policies: see WP:BLP. If you are associated with the subject, you should avoid directly editing the article to adhere to our policy about conflict of interest: see WP:COI. If you are employed by him or are otherwise compensated in any way for your efforts to edit, you must declare this according to our site terms of service: see WP:PAID. -Arch dude (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]