Help desk
< October 23	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 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.

October 24

What is the procedure for removing a UPE Tag and redirect?

Hello. A user (Ear-Phone) created a new article about a guitarist by the name of Rocky Kramer. I apparently saw it right after that user made the article public. I read it and thought it was a good article, but needed some additional work, which I am willing to do. However, within moments another user (TruthGuardians) marked the article as spam, which was changed by AnomieBOT and then moved the page to draft and redirected Rocky Kramer to Draft:Rocky Kramer. TruthGuardians did not post anything on the talk page explaining why he or she believed the editor might have been paid. Ear-Phone posted a message on the talk pages for both the article and TruthGuardian, who has not responded. I posted a message asking whether any evidence exists to support TruthGuardians' actions. I don't know who Ear-Phone is and I have nothing to do with him or her or the Rocky Kramer, other than liking his music. I would like to know how to remove the UPE tag and redirect without violating any WP rules. I also don't know who TruthGuardians is or why he or she put the tag there in the first place or how to correct it. Can someone tell me how to revert these actions properly, so I can help improve the article? --Warriorboy85 (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is about Draft:Rocky Kramer. Warriorboy85, you can help to improve the draft as it is (I have just made a minor change to it myself.) Maproom (talk) 06:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Maproom! I will help as well. I added a request edit template hoping to get the article restored and the UPE template removed. Do you have any insight as to how to get that to happen? Good edit by the way! --Warriorboy85 (talk) 07:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Warriorboy85: if the possible paid editor either makes the required "paid" declaration or explicitly denies being compensated in any way for contributions to the article, then you or any other editor can remove the UPE tag. Be sure to describe your reason in the edit summary and possibly on the article's talk page as well. The only other legitimate way to remove the tag would be to remove all remaining traces of the original contributions and start over. If you are forced to do that, then explain why on the talk page. In an excess of caution, you should probably make the same explicit declaration of a lack of COI on your own user page or user talk page that you made here, just to remove all doubt.-Arch dude (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arch dude: Thank you very much for letting me know how to properly remove the UPE template, which I have now done. The user who put the template there also put it in draft mode. See Draft:Rocky Kramer and redirected the original article to the Draft article. Can you possibly tell me how to correct that? Thanks again. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 02:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Warriorboy85: At this point I think your best move is simply to submit it for review, as silly as that sounds. just place {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page to get a "submit" button, and then click that submit button. put a brief description of the history of this mess on the talk page. The reviewer will take care of the redirect situation. (A help page denizen with more knowledge of the review process may step in here with better advice.) -Arch dude (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arch dude: Well, thank you once again. I previewed the "submit" button, but noticed it says it may take three (3) months before anyone can review it. That may be the only answer, but I would like to see if there's another way to take it active again in order to avoid a long wait. The redirect seems to be gone now, so perhaps it can be restored using another method. I too hope a help page denizen can offer a more expedient way to restore the article to active life. I do thank you very much for your very helpful advice on this strange situation. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 06:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arch dude:Actually, I tried just moving it back and that worked! Again, thank you to everyone for the help! --Warriorboy85 (talk) 06:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gender differences in the human brain

In gender the important brain is different. The ROIs that are significant at the 0.05 level in the gender variable was examined. For women, the left parahippocampal gyrus, right parahippocampal gyrus, right hippocampus, and left hippocampus were significant at 0.05 level. These areas were more significant for women with AD, and the most important area for women was the right hippocampus. For men, the right parahippocampal gyrus, right hippocampus, right superior temporal gyrus, and left superior temporal gyrus were significant at 0.05 level. This means that these areas in men are more important for AD and the most important area in men is the right parahippocampal gyrus. The importance of significant areas at 0.05 levels has been compared across the whole population, both in men and women (1).

1. Rezaei M, Zereshki E, Shahsavari S, Salehi MG, Sharini H. Prediction of Alzheimer’s Disease Using Machine Learning Classifiers. Disease and Diagnosis. 2020 Sep 30;9(3):116-20. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehsan989 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ehsan989: Sir, this is the Help Desk. Did you have a question to ask about using or editing Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ehsan989:If this is intended as a proposed addition or change to an article, then please make this proposal in a new section on the talk page of the article. Add the magical incantation {{request edit}} to summon an editor to actual review your proposal and make the change. -Arch dude (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who can close an RfC early?

This relates to this edit:[1]

If an RfC has been open for 6 days (in other words, the usual 30 day "expiration" is not a factor) Can an editor who have taken a position and !voted on the RfC evaluate the consensus, write up a closing summary, and snow close the RfC? Ir would any closer have to be uninvolved? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: Looks like you already have the relevant guidance from Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs. If there is agreement among participants to close the RFC, then point #2 allows anyone to close it. Point #4 about an uninvolved editor is a different option. Also, there really isn't an "early" closing. The 30 days is based on when the bot will take action and you should not wait for that to happen. The actual guidance is "An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration; " RudolfRed (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we don't have an answer that both parties accept. Levivich says that WP:RFCCLOSE allows him to snow close an RfC where he has voted. I read the exact same page and concluded the exact opposite. Both of us are editors who have been around a while and try to do the right thing. One of us is wrong. (Note that I agreed with Levivich's vote and with a snow close -- my only objection is to a snow close by an involved editor.)

It turns out that while we were talking about this another editor closed it at 13 !votes for "no to all" and three !votes for "yes" to at least on of the questions. So my question about this one RfC is moot, but unless one of us are convinced we are wrong, this conflict is likely to reemerge the next time Levivich tries to snow close an RfC that he !voted on.

Let's look at each clause. Quoting from the "There are several ways in which RfCs end:" section:

"[1] The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC should normally be the person who removes the {{rfc}} template."

Levivich did start the RfC but he wants to snow close it, not withdraw it. A successful withdraw means "no decision", not "no to all". I doubt that the three editors who disagreed would approve, but of course nobody asked them. (Levivich. please clarify; are you claiming that an involved editor can snow close an RfC or just that an involved editor who initiated the RfC can snow close an RfC?)

"[2] The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time, and one of them can remove the {{rfc}} template."

Nobody has polled all of the RfD participants asking if they agree to closing after 6 days or to Levivich as a closer, so this does not apply. Again nobody asked the three editors who disagree.

"[3] The dispute may be moved to another dispute resolution forum."

Not moved, does not apply.

"[4] Any uninvolved editor can post a formal closing summary of the discussion. The editor removes the {{rfc}} tag at the same time."

Levivich is not an uninvolved editor, so this clearly does not apply.

"[5] The discussion may just stop, and no one cares to restore the {{rfc}} tag after the bot removes it."

This is about Levivich wanting to snow close it after 6 days, not about doing nothing and waiting for the bot to remove the tag after the usual 30 days, so this clearly does not apply.

So, is my reasoning above correct? As I said, we are both experienced good-faith editors who are having a polite disagreement about what is and is not allowed under WP:RFCCLOSE.

Levivich, do you have a counterargument? It may very be that my reasing is flawed. Please convince me. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of RFCCLOSE is that it permits any participant, including the initiator, to end an RFC and implement the result (including but not limited to a WP:SNOW close, with or without a closing statement), as long as the RfC participants agree, and it encourages participants (#2), rather than uninvolved editors (#4), to end RFCs whenever possible. Le v!v ich 02:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think @Guy Macon:'s analysis was perfect. @Levivich:, the problem is the agreement of RFC participants was missed - and even if we would be lazy and would not demand a confirmation from all the yes voters - at least the from opposers consent should have been gathered. I have to also add after your question whether anyone object closing was raised, per Wikietiquette at least two days should have been waited, since some editors does not live their lives in this platform 0-24, but given the number of participants and the weight/history of the issue, even minimum one week (I even faced with everything now, without the ability to even express an opinion). Btw, as an uninvolved user closed it finally, the responsibility goes to him @Pincrete:.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Here is where I asked participants if they agreed. I took no further action. I'm not sure why you refer to a "problem". There is no problem. I didn't close it without agreement; I didn't close it at all. Another, uninvolved editor closed it, and an uninvolved editor doesn't need the participants' agreement to close it. I sought participants' agreement for a #2 close under RFCCLOSE, but a #4 close happened instead. Either way, there's no problem. Le v!v ich 05:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Levivich did anything wrong. This isn't about that. It is about a good faith disagreement concerning policy. Levivich and I are both trying to do the right thing.

Is asking "does anyone object" and waiting three days really the same as getting everyone to agree? I would argue that some people !vote on an RfC and then move on without watching as other people comment. I know that I often do. Should we at the very least send out talkpage notices?

Does the usual three day wait after asking "does anyone object" even apply to a snow close? There are a bunch of snow closes where the closer didn't even ask "does anyone object", much less wait three days.

What about Wikipedia:Snowball clause#A cautionary note? It says "...because discussions are not votes; it is important to be reasonably sure that there is little or no chance of accidentally excluding significant input or perspectives, or changing the weight of different views, if closed early"

This of course a basic rule of RfCs; the closer is supposed to evaluate the responses and may very well rule against the majority if the closer thinks the minority had a good, policy-based argument and the majority didn't. So do we really want to trust a proponent who took a strong position when posting the first !vote to be impartial in evaluating those who disagree with them? I would not trust my own judgement in that situation. I think it likely that even if the involved closer tries to be fair they could have an unconscious bias. And of course our policy isn't just for reasonable good faith editors like Levivich. What if a troll posts an RfC and then closes it early?

To me, closing your own RfC is a bit a a "fox guarding the henhouse" or "don't ask a realtor whether this is a good time to buy a house" situation --Guy Macon (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon:, I did not say @Levivich: did about that wrong (I just told him the problem is his question was ignored), I said the responsibility goes to the closer, since if he reads an editor asked about closing, he should have waited for a reasonable time for inputs. It is not evident if it was a Snowclose or not, even if it could be, since the above interpretations more of us concluded possible outcomes without referring to that, and snowball close is not a policy, so indeed the closer could take into account the question the other user raised about closing. Your last sentences I don't understand in connection what you are telling, since an uninvolved editor acted in the end, and evaluating possible answers is not necessarily dependant on any editors stance, just a comparison/evaluation of answers of users, in other words, if anyone would bias it, it could be noticed and undone.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

The role of Hon. B. E. Dwira in the CPP (CONVENTION PEOPLE'S PARTY).

Misplaced biography of B. E. Dwira

The role of Hon. B. E. Dwira in the CPP (CONVENTION PEOPLE'S PARTY). Hon. B. E. Dwira (Benjamin Emmanuel Dwira) was the Ashanti Regional Chairman of the CPP, even before the demarcation of the Brong-Ahafo region in April 1959. It was during his regional chairmanship and leadership in Ashanti, that the civil unrest broke out between the CPP and the break away group that largely formed the NLM (National Liberation Movement), as "ya te yeho" or "ma te meho" (literally, "we have broken away" or "we have segregated/seperated ourselves" or "I have segregated/separated myself". This led to more brutal, dastard, brazen attacks from the NLM as opposition so-called, against the CPP, particularly in Ahanti Region. Many CPP activists as "Action Troopers", were killed by the NLM functionaries. Hon. B. E. Dwira, personally laid to rest at least 47 out of the 49 CPP "Action Troopers" killed by the NLM functionaries.

There were more widespread killings perpetrated and committed by the NLM functionaries against the the CPP party members at various locations in Ashanti region, some of which Hon. B. E. Dwira could not get to the bereaved family to help lay the dead to rest. Hon. B. E. Dwira's house was bombed or dynamited by the NLM functionaries, and his publishing company that published and printed the "Ashanti Sentinel"; a newspaper that he founded to promote the CPP and Prime Minister Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah's ideologies, programmes, policies, and projects for Ghana (then Gold Coast) and Africa was bombed and burnt to the ground by the NLM functionaries.

So much harm and hurt and mayhem did the NLM cause the CPP in Ashanti region that most of the CPP members fled Ashanti region to other towns, villages and cities, in other parts of the country where they were known as "refugees". It was at the height of these political disturbances, disputations, disruptions, destructions and killings perpetrated by the NLM against the CPP members that the 1956 general elections was held to determine which party should lead the country into independence.

Hon. B. E. Dwira, organised the CPP "refugees" on the eve of the election day to come in buses and vans and trains to Ashanti Region and vote and after go back into hiding if they feared for their lives. The CPP won 8 out of the 21 seats in the elections thereby denying the NLM of the 2/3 (two-thirds) majority in Ashanti region that they had hoped to win; a condition set by the British government to determine the popularity and favourite party to lead the country into independence. On the national level the CPP won 71 majority out of the 104 seats inclusive of the 8 seats in Ashanti region.

The CPP was given the mandate to lead the country into independence which happened the following year on 6 March 1957. The Prime Minister of Ghana, Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, was full of gratitude and praise to Hon. B. E. Dwira for the brave leadership and chairmanship that he exhibited and demonstrated to help the CPP win the general elections thereby paving the way for Ghana's independence. A photograph of Kwame Nkrumah congratulating and thanking Hon. B. E. Dwira for the no mean feat was taken at the house of Parliament in Accra after the election results were declared.

A ballad was also composed in honour of B. E. Dwira dubbed "OKOKODUROFO DWIRA" (BRAVE DWIRA), which was played on air at the Ghana Broadcasting Corporation, during every independence day celebrations and occasion. Hon. B. E. Dwira, was appointed the first Mayor of Kumasi (then called Chairman of Kumasi City Council) soon after independence in 1957. There are many other positions that Hon. B. E. Dwira held both at home in Ghana and abroad under the CPP led government and political administration.

He died on 28 March 1985 having contributed so much to his dearly beloved country, Ghana. He was born on Sunday, 19 September 1909, a day after Kwame Nkrumah was also born, on Saturday, 18 September 1909. Note: Nkrumah's birthday of 18th September 1909 changed to 21 September 1909, as a result of a mistake in a later registration, which he came to accept himself, since for him it didn't make much difference to his life. More of Hon. B. E. Dwira's role in the CPP government and administration, and his general/personal life story will be supplied/published later on this website. Thank you. Courtesy:SETH_KB_DWIRA, SHAKESPEARE DRIVE, LONDON, UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.4.169 (talk) 10:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interlanguage link won't work

In a page I am creating in my sandbox (to be posted when complete) I am trying to create a wikilink to the French Wikipedia page for Aïcha Koné.

I tried two normal ways to do this, and neither one works, possibly because of the accents etc. They are:

fr:Aïcha Koné and Aïcha Koné [fr]

For now I used this, but it is jury-rigged workaround Aïcha Koné (fr)

How can I make the Interlanguage link work? Thanks.

NOTE: You can only see the characters in the two ways that I tried if you hit "edit" on my note.

FOLLOW-UP: the first one DOES work, I mis-typed it. Sorry.

Sullidav (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For me all three work right now. Can you please specify what does not work in your case exactly? ote that the second approach, with {{ill}} is prefered in articles. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Second one with {{ill}} does not work - try its link, it goes to English Wikipedia and says "page not found". But I can use the non-preferred other ones as a workaround. Sullidav (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re-pinging: any more on why the second link (the one pasted below) does not work, especially if it is the "prefer[r]ed" way to do this? Do I need to replace the accented characters with codes or something? Thanks.

Aïcha Koné [fr] Sullidav (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merlin, Ontario:

Hello:

The otherwise excellent article on my hometown, Merlin, Ontario states it was one of the last segregated schools in Canada until that school was closed in 1965. The reference for that statement are some ancient regulations on establishment of separate and coloured schools. I can find no reference in that document to Merlin. At no time in its history from the mid 1800's did Merlin ever have a segregated school and does not now. I attended public school and high school in Merlin from 1944 until 1958. There was no segregation. In fact the Merlin High School, and later Merlin District High School had numerous black students. I can send you class photos to attest to that. In addition several of the teachers were black. Please remove the reference to Merlin having segregated schools because it is not true,

thanks:

Jack Peltier Calgary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.156.115 (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to direct this comment to the talk page of that article, Talk:Merlin, Ontario. 331dot (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing this. We cannot take your word for this (we call that "original research"), but we do not need to, because the assertion is not supported by the cited source. This means that you are free to edit the article to remove the assertion. However, you should first put a new section on the article's talk page to prevent an overzealous patroller from reverting your edit, and put an edit summary on your edit saying "not in cited source--see talk". -Arch dude (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

pdf file used as reference

I have created the article Parlatoria blanchardi and have used a pdf file produced by "The Food and Environment Research Agency" as a source, #2 in the article. However, the citation template doesn't like the url I have used, stating "Check |url= value". Any help would be appreciated. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

http:///C:/Users/llwyn/AppData/Local/Temp/13223_12Appendix11ParlatoriablanchardiDatasheet.pdf is a url for a file on someone's local hard drive. |url= wants a url that is somewhere on the internet.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth, that answers the technical question, where the PDF is is not the point. Has it been reliably published? If so then cite it using a template such as {{cite journal}}. If it's available on the Internet, then a URL is an aid to readers, but not an essential part of the citation. If it has not been published, then you may not cite it, as that would be original research. --ColinFine (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes it has been published, and I found it as the fourth result when searching for "Parlatoria blanchardi" with Google. It's a datasheet published by The Food and Environment Research Agency in the UK, but when I clicked on this result, my computer asked how I wanted to open it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth, I assume you're referring to this .pdf? It doesn't seem Adobe Reader on my Chrome can open it so it automatically downloaded itself on my computer. In cases like these you can right-click the link while on the Google page and select "Copy link address" from the context menu that appears. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have done that and it seems to have worked after I removed the blacklisted first half. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, where the PDF is is actually the point, but not all of it. A PDF only residing on someone's own private desktop hard drive is physically inaccessible from the Internet so it can hardly be used as a source. But I agree, a PDF needs to be reliably published anyway so it can be used as a source. So it needs to be both accessible and reliable. JIP | Talk 22:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Malcolm Kendrick

Why has Dr Malcolm Kendrick been removed from Wikipedia? I have donated yearly to Wikipedia and am severely upset about his removal. Rick Ohlendorf UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.248.129 (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Malcolm Kendrick was deleted following this discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, donations don't determine content. RudolfRed (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The donations go mostly to keep up the physical servers where the Wikipedia content is stored. None of the editors who do all the work in Wikipedia ever see a single cent of the donations. Nor should they - if they did, decisions to donate or not would be a way to influence Wikipedia content. JIP | Talk 22:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Old Egyptian navy

Hi I have a website for handmade models especially for old Egyptian ships, so using Wikipedia as a reference for informations and also copying paragraphs to my site would be very helpful My question is do I have the right to use your information or not. Regard Reda Soliman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.20.83 (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you may use the content on your website, if you provide attribution. See WP:REUSE for details. RudolfRed (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]