Help desk
< September 2	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 4 >

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 3

Articles about legal self-representation

I was trying to look up the topic of representing oneself in court and found two articles, one devoted to the legal situation in the USA, the other devoted to the UK. What can be done to give coverage to other countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.? Muzilon (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Muzilon: Our articles are written by volunteers who are interested in the subject, such as yourself. Please see WP:YFA on how to proceed. -Arch dude (talk)

I'm afraid I'm in no position to write such an article myself, so I've added it to the Requested Articles page. Muzilon (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Capital punishment in Ethiopia

Please moved the Draft:Capital punishment in Ethiopia to Capital punishment in Ethiopia. Technically unable to move due to redirect. The Supermind (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Supermind, you can use Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. TSventon (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: I guess that can be happened there! I do not prefer request moves because the draft, posted yesterday, is still there with unknown reason. I've added additional citations as admin recommend me in notice and that's disappointing why things changed to controversial then. The Supermind (talk) 05:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Supermind And Teahouse hosts... Was this draft submitted to AfC? Should it be? 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I want review of any single administrator rather than pending for review for months. The Supermind (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Supermind , pending review is the optimal fate for drafts tagged for problems. It gives the creator time to improve the draft prior to a second review.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the current article is not fit for mainspace yet. It has many English mistakes, but more importantly it is not neutral.

For instance: Ethiopia retains the death penalty and has not ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCR). Ethiopia fails to uphold obligation under ICCR and has failed to limited death penalty. - surely a country cannot break a treaty that they have not ratified? (The references for the second sentence are human rights organizations, who are not neutral observers as to whether Ethiopia has or not satisfied its treaty obligations.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 08:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan, @The Supermind You are right, Tigraan, about the language. For example, "The most known capital punishment was occurred in 2007" is not good English. And, as you said, many other examples. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: Yeah, you're right I've removed the POV pushing such as the most known. However, I've cited most contents about the ICCR in [1]. If there is controversy about Ethiopia's ratification and obligation of the treaty, go ahead and review the source. The Supermind (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Davis Ba

on your page on Jessica Davis Ba, I wish you'd add that she is a graduate of Georgetown Day School. 216.15.53.253 (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reliable source with that information, please offer it on the article talk page, Talk:Jessica Davis Ba. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request to update Title page name for proper identification

Good day, I had attempted to add the middle initial "J" to the title page for Judge Michael Scionti. His middle initial is stated in the body of the wikipedia page, however, in order to properly identify him in a web search, it is important to have his middle initial referenced in the title page. This will help readers to decipher between Judge Michael Scionti and the numerous other Michael Scionti's that populate in a search. Due to this issue, there are numerous photos of other people sharing the same common name "Michael Scionti" and we plan to upload a photo to his page in the near future as well. Could someone please assist with this edit or direct me on what steps to make, because it appears that my edits from last night were reverted back. This name information is verifiable with a presently cited source on his Wikipedia page and additionally on the florida Judicial Directory website- Michael J. Scionti (fljud13.org) Thank you kindlyEleaseNat (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EleaseNat Search results are not our main concern here. Articles are titled based on what the topic is called in independent reliable sources, see WP:COMMONNAME. For example, it is Bill Clinton, not William Jefferson Clinton(which is a redirect). We don't necessarily use official or legal names. That said, if using his middle initial is common, please visit Requested Moves. 331dot (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I appreciate the information.EleaseNat (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EleaseNat: You mentioned "we plan to upload a photo to his page". Who is "we"? GoingBatty (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that as well... EleaseNat it is against Wikipedia policy - though I cannot find it at the moment, maybe some other help-deskers know the link? - to have a group account, multiple people cannot share a single account. If more than one person is using your account everyone needs to get their own single account. Shearonink (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is described at WP:NOSHARING. CodeTalker (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EleaseNat Make sure that the photo has the appropriate copyright status. Most photos that you can download from the 'net are not free of copyright. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation-type thing

Greetings, keepers of the eternal flame!

I came across a problem with a {{cite journal}} in a ref, discussed at Talk:John Cyril Porte#Cite journal error. Assuming that the document in question has been published for WP's purposes, and meets other requirements as discussed in the thread, what might be the best template to cite this type of unique, one-off typescript? Cheers, MinorProphet (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does {{cite report}} work?

It seems to me that though it may be published, it cannot be regarded as reliably published, and should be treated as a WP:SPS. ColinFine (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that the Chilton archive at Imperial War Museums really holds the typescript (this search result suggests that it does), consider:

{{cite archive |last=Chilton |first=Edward |author-link=Edward Chilton |item=John Cyril Porte (1884–1919) Naval Officer, Pilot and aircraft designer extraordinary |type=Typescript |item-id=Documents.6892 |collection=Private Papers of Air Marshal Sir Edward Chilton KBE CB FRIN |collection-url=https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1030006743 |institution=Imperial War Museums}}

Chilton, Edward. "John Cyril Porte (1884–1919) Naval Officer, Pilot and aircraft designer extraordinary" [Typescript]. Private Papers of Air Marshal Sir Edward Chilton KBE CB FRIN, ID: Documents.6892. Imperial War Museums.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your swift and comprehensive replies. I don't have time tonight, but tomoz I shall investigate whether Chilton might qualify as an SME. I imagine a case might be made for including him, even as as a {{bsn}}. If so - and so I hope - the {{cite archive}} looks ideal. Thanks both for your help, MinorProphet (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake on the Jim Morrison article

There must be a mistake there, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Bonhommerichard.jpg that cant be Jim Morrison in 1964 if in 1966 The Doors released their first album unless Jim turned from kid to adult within 2 years. Maybe the writer intended 1954? 2.199.195.125 (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the biography of Jim Morrison's father George Stephen Morrison, he took command of the Bonhomme Richard in 1963. That photo is taken from a weird angle, but it could be a 20 year old. Cullen328 (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also the 1963 mugshot of Jim Morrison. He looks somewhat baby-faced there. [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the side view of that mug shot is very similar to the photo with his father. Cullen328 (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Access to Wikipedia by old iMac equipment (seems to be blocked) and there possibly is a remedy that Wikipedia can do

I cannot figure out a bypass on my old iMac, but is it possible that the website can be updated with a fix? 74.50.237.235 (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia runs on MediaWiki software. You may wish to ask this question at the MediaWiki Support Desk. It might help to tell them what version of Safari (or other browser) you are using. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 20:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is almost certainly being caused by a SSL certificate issue, relating to the age of your iMac. As for what you can do, if your iMac is PowerPC based (iMac G3, iMac G4, or iMac G5), you could attempt to use TenFourFox, however as that browser has been unsupported since March 2021 it is likely that if it does work now, it will stop working in the near future. There is a fork of TenFourFox called InterWebPPC that appears to still be getting updates, but I do not know if it is safe to use or reliable.

If your iMac is Intel based, then your choices are limited based on whatever the latest version of macOS your machine can run. If your machine can run macOS version 10.12 or newer, it should still be supported by the latest version of Firefox and Google Chrome. If your machine can only run macOS versions 10.9-10.11, then unfortunately you're probably out of luck, as most browser manufacturers have stopped supporting those releases. You could try to use Firefox 78.15.0esr, however as it hasn't been updated since October 2021, if Wikipedia does work it may stop working in the near future. With macOS versions prior to 10.12 you may also have certificate issues, as older root certificates expire and cannot easily be replaced. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of problem you get when you use unsupported versions of software. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting? Citations? Am I allowed to cycle after an edit and discussion if the reverter tells me I can't edit again?

Hello, I am working on the Independent Animation page. I was hoping to seperate the animators from studios, because as someone active in the world of independent animation the focus is more about individuals. I tried to insert the commonly held definition of it but was told my sources were not good enough (though I will point out some sources that was reverted back were very broken or appeared fake). So while I research better resources I thought I would simply format it so that individuals were seperate from studios. Instead I was reverted and told it was "damaging" to the page? Can someone explain to me what I did wrong this time? The individual I have been discussing with seems to have a very low opinion of me. MrsBaker1 (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am now being told to use the talk page before any of my edits can be approved. Is this normal? No one beside myself has used it since 2014. MrsBaker1 (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MrsBaker. According to the Manual of Style, sentence case should be used in section headings. If other editors disagree with your contributions, you should discuss the issues on the article's talk page. This is standard procedure. The date of the last post there is not relevant. Cullen328 (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cullen328, thank you for your response. I am happy to go by sentence casing. I tried to discuss the issue with the other editor. I was told my citations where not enough bc it was opinion, but my formatting was wrong bc of the other person's opinion. Now I can't edit a new version to try a better revision without the talk page? but the other editor can keep reverting/editing? I would be happy to try to negotiate with the other person but they are unwilling to talk and sent me to the "talk" page where no one has discussed anything (beside myself) for 8 years. It seems like a tactic to get me to not have any way forward instead of a willingness to compromise? Is that a wrong interpretation? MrsBaker1 (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is normal. Please see WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the resource. The person who made the revert is not willing to talk, and isn't allowing me a chance to cycle again but instead asking me to talk to other people. Is it normal to not get a second chance at a specific edit after hearing someone's concern to try and compromise before moving to the talk page. The resource you gave suggests I should be able to edit again:

Cycle. To avoid bogging down in discussion, when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can try this even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion, but be sure you don't engage in any kind of edit warring.

Please correct me if I am wrong here. MrsBaker1 (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also I want to say that referencing the edit to other folks outside of the reverter without addressing the initial reason for the editor's concern (the justification being I deleted a lot of kbs due to an image I accidently deleted) is a bit hard to do when that issue is not one I'm trying to improve the page for. MrsBaker1 (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am asking am I allowed to cycle to try and reach a better compromise? Or bc the reverter told me he wasn't going to talk to me again I am not? There were other edits I was trying to address that I didn't get to. Is it all under the umbrella or do they count individually? MrsBaker1 (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should note I have only made 1 edit specifically about this issue, and 1 other Large edit including the issue. Is 2 edits the max cycles? MrsBaker1 (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MrsBaker, it is important to be accurate and precise here. MrOllie did not say that he would not discuss the issue. He said that he did not want to discuss it on his user talk page, adding correctly that the article talk page is the proper place to discuss article content. MrOllie has been a highly experienced and productive editor since 2008. Cullen328 (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if we are being precise MrOllie directed me to ask others before I could try another cycle, not himself. Should I get a chance at one more cycle after a discussion or is a reverter allowed to say "you get no more cycles until others reply" after 1-2 attempts (which is lower than the 3 daily)? MrsBaker1 (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you again for your reply. Can you answer my question about cycles? And if MrOllie can refuse my ability to edit one more time before I use the talk page? MrsBaker1 (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MrsBaker, by "cycle", I assume that you are referring to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You were reverted and you were advised to discuss on the article talk page. You have not done so. Why are you so resistant to article talk page discussion, when several editors have advised you that this is the best next step? MrOllie cannot "refuse" to let you do anything, but you need to accept the consequences of your actions. Cullen328 (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cullen, yes I was referring to the resource given to me during this help desk conversation. Should I not refer to resources in the topic? I apologize if that was out of place. You say I didn't talk, but I believe I did. The reason the reverter did the revert was because of a loss of KB. That was the reason they gave when I asked. I wasn't able to address the actual reason given for the edit:

You damaged the article by stripping out much of the formatting, I would guess by improperly cutting and pasting. The article size decreased by more than two kilobytes in your edit. Your new sections also did not agree with Wikipedia's Manual of Style MrOllie (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Then I was told I wasn't allowed to even try at another edit to address the given reason for the edit after I tried to engage in a good faith conversation and asked 2 questions in a single response:

"I don't think you should, chronological is better. If you feel differently use the article talk page and see if anyone else agrees with you. "

....

The image of bakshi was removed. My error. If I return the image and reformat will you leave it up? And we can ask people if they want it back and let them see how it looks? MrsBaker1 (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:::::No. Use the article talk page. Don't post here again, please. MrOllie (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)''

So can I cycle again? Or can I not? Can I address the justification in another attempt or am I prohibited from editing again? I am far from a perfect person so I won't pretend to be one, but this response doesn't seem like a good faith attempt that before I could address his initial justification I was sent to a page not used in 8 years and told I could make no further edits until people use it who haven't in 8 years respond. Does that mean I can't edit other things in the article in the mean time that I didn't address in this last round? It is very grey and confusing. Even before when I tried to address a definition of the term the article is about that is sourced in a book I provided with quotes from people in the wiki article I was told my citation wasn't good enough. And it was reverted to a version that had a description that included citations that were broken or seemed fake. This is something separate I have been working on but I am unsure if I can attempt this too when I am finished researching sources? I also wanted to add more people who are important to this topic, can I do that? MrsBaker1 (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsBaker1 As you have been told several times, you need to discuss this on the article talk page. Not here. The link is Talk:Independent_animation. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsBaker1, welcome to editing Wikipedia. As an encyclopedia we do not work out content disputes on the live article. The talk page of the article is the place and keeps a permanent record. Just because there have been no issues raised for 8 years does not change that. Your main change to the article was a major reorganization. The other editor thinks that the current chronological order is better. You made a change and that was fine. Now go to the talk page and record there an explanation of why you believe your version is better. That opens the discussion. If the two of you continue to disagree there are several ways to involve more people. You can ask for a third opinion at Wikipedia:Third opinion and if that doesn't help you can go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests. All of this becomes part of the record at the article talk page. There is more information about how we deal with content disputes, which happen all the time, at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is very helpful. Am I allowed to try other changes other than the chronological issue? MrsBaker1 (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, User:MrsBaker1, you may still edit the article constructively. If you are careful, it shouldn't arouse anyone's ire.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsBaker1 Don't avoid the article talk page just because it hasn't been needed recently. That just means there has been no need for discussion among editors regarding the article, recently. If you start a discussion there, then there will be a recent discussion on that page. It's not hidden away or anything... Cheers. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help talk:Searching

There are people looking for this sort of help at Help talk:Searching. Some sort of redirection might be in order. HLHJ (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HLHJ I made the notice instructions more explicit and pinged a few queries from last year. The talk page needs to exist still, in offset that someone wants to actually discuss how to improve documentation though. Thanks for pinging! I'll keep a closer eye on it, and recommend you do as well! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Shushugah! I was actually looking to discuss updating that doc for an upcoming change when I found the page, so the offchance isn't too unlikely.

HLHJ (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do you report odd, subjective stuff intruded into articles?

For example if you read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_mafia you'll see that someone who edited this said "you can tell by the look on his face" that he is guilty, and there's a whole section with a huge sort of headline that's been dumped in toward the middle and it's all very peculiar and talks about "failing commmunist ideals" but it's not using quote marks or sources...well, just read it. I'm sure most of the info about the Bulgarian mafia is accurate but there's stuff that really doesn't belong in a wikipedia article. 2601:1C2:4002:9520:10A1:82C2:786D:4F4A (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can just edit it and then explain why. Also if you don't sign in the general populace will see your IP address just so you know. MrsBaker1 (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Editing or WP:BRD MrsBaker1 (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsBaker1 you don't need to paste the entire link, you can also link it as Help:Editing or WP:BRD. See Help:Linking ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies! Changed it. It was right below my questions, and figured they were running into the newness issue I was facing (though much less than me, haha) so I shared the resources I was given. MrsBaker1 (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]