Help desk
< February 10	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 12 >

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.

February 11

Har Mar Superstar Page Edits

Please consult User talk:HDClear

There's a lot of weird stuff happening on the Har Mar Superstar Wikipedia page. There's a "Sexual Assault Allegations" section that seems driven by vigilantes more than actual verifiable truth. There have never been any police reports, charges or convictions. Just anonymous sources and gossip.

The section starts out with 3 women and then 7 more ... NO ... The 7 apparently includes the 3. Please reflect that in the entry.

Why is a failed restraining order against 2 relentless vigilante-motived men who have tried to make life difficult for this artist even part of his Wikipedia page? And then one of them (Jason Koffman) doesn't want to be named, so the other (Christopher Robin Zimmerman) posts a redacted version on his Google Drive and someone lists that as a source? Why is any of that relevant at all? HDClear (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is any of this part of someone's Wikipedia page? Failure to get a restraining order is part of one's Wikipedia story?

On February 7, 2024, Judge Kerry Meyer along with District Court referee Franklin Reed dismissed a harassment restraining order case (Minnesota Fourth District Court 27-CV-23-4428) Tillmann filed against Jason Koffman and Christopher Robin Zimmerman. Tillmann alleged the respondents had engaged in repeated harassment in an effort to prevent him from booking shows at music venues. The respondents call themselves "activists against sexual misconduct in the music industry". Tillmann has reportedly experienced significant financial losses, including a reduction in bookings following the respondents' discussions of his alleged behavior on social media, public outcry, and public pushback from venues, such as Modist Brewing. Meyer dismissed the case because the facts did not meet the standard for harassment under Minnesota Statute § 609.748. but acknowledged that the instance of Koffman's calling a restaurant to inform them of Tillmann's presence did cross the line, leading "to an impact upon Mr. Tillmann-Hauser's private, non-professional life". HDClear (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HDClear, hello! I agree that much of the section contains original research, as it is referenced to primary sources. This includes any court documents and social media posts. For now, if an agreement cannot be reached, I can suggest taking it to WP:Third opinion. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 01:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some per WP:BLPPRIMARY. There may be more BLP-violations in there, and WP:PROPORTION should be considered. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! "Relentless vigilante-motived" CRZ here, whatever that means. I saw my name!

It's interesting that HDClear would choose to out the other name, which I DID redact, as I didn't feel it was information I had the right to share...but clearly this other account has no qualms about doxxing others. How did THEY know his name since that is the sort of knowledge that only somebody at the hearing could possess - or perhaps... somebody's brother?

In fact, a lot of the recent activity on the Har Mar Superstar page by this user - and a lot of the dismissive language of those who do not share his opinion - looks A LOT like the Wikipedia playbook of good old Kingcutie who eventually admitted he was Patrick Tillmann, brother of the subject on his way to receiving an indefinite block from editing due to WP:COI amongst other violations.

Even MORE interesting, at the evidentiary hearing for the restraining orders he didn't get, Sean Tillmann-Hauser himself admitted that it was his brother who originally created his Wikipedia entry in the first place, which could lead a casual observer to wonder if this page should even exist at all.

Most of this is irrelevant, of course. Patrick may be shocked to learn that I actually agree with him - I don't think the fact that Har Mar Superstar couldn't secure a restraining order against me due to a complete absence of evidence is really anything that needs to be on his or any Wikipedia page.

At the same time, HDClear - whether it's Patrick, or Sean, or whoever else close to Sean who had access to the unpublished name of the other respondent - probably shouldn't have been the one to make this request, due to an obviously displayed conflict of interest, however unintentional the display.

Despite allegations to the contrary, I have NEVER involved myself in editing this page and don't intend to start now - it's not worth my time and putting my long-standing (17+ years) account here in any jeopardy with even the appearance of impropriety - but I did feel like I couldn't let this go without adding my perspective just in case anyone reads the note above later. SeeOurZed (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the definition

Is Acela an high speed rail?

2601:204:EA7F:220:E159:45BB:B700:8EB5 (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Acela. -Arch dude (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with an episode table

.82.20.30.106 has been quite helpful, and have been adding each episode of this series to the page Jamie's School Dinners. However, instead of using an episode table and have instead given each episode its own heading (likely because they did not know about episode tables). Could someone please teach me how to use an episode table, so I can implement it? Data Devourer (talk) 06:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Data Devourer: General advice, not really specific to episode tables: create a sandbox at User:Data Devourer/Eposode table. Find an article that includes an episode table and examine its source code (use the "edit" button). Copy the source code of the episode table, and paste it into your new sandbox. You should now be able to see that table in the sandbox. Now, make small changes and look at the results after each change to see the effects. Finally, begin changing that table into the table you are trying to create, again making small incremental changes. The reason for the small changes is that table syntax can be finicky. and a single little mistake can have strange large effects that are hard to understand. When this happens, undo you last change and try again. After you are done, copy your table into your target article. -Arch dude (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I completely forgot about the sandbox Data Devourer (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hang on, where do I find my sandbox?? Data Devourer (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NVM Data Devourer (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia page on First Whig Junto 1694 - 1699 contains an error.

t was led by six prominent members: Montagu, Somers, Wharton, Romney, Orford, and Shrewsbury. Supporting these peers were two unofficial whips in the House of Lords: the Earls of Sunderland and Portland. Only one of these held at the time an office, albeit less senior, as Lord Chamberlain. The Whig Party held a majority in the House of Commons after the election in 1695, although not all Whig MPs were unswervingly loyal to the Junto.

Portland : if you click on the person, you see the (second) son of Bentinck !! 1682 - 1726

The person who should be the Bentinck in this article is the father : William Bentinck, 1st Earl of Portland 1649 - 1709

It is confusing since Wikipedia names them both as First Earl of Portland.

My name is Frank Eijkelenboom and I studied History at the University of Groningen ( Netherlands ) 1982 - 1989. At the moment I am writing a book on Koning - Stadhouder Willem III / King Stadholder William III 1650 - 1702 Frank Eijkelenboom (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Eijkelenboom, you are free to improve the article First Whig Junto. The article is largely unreferenced and therefore shoddy; your referencing of your additions and corrections (and indeed of material that's already in the article and is not mistaken) would be most welcome. -- Hoary (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hoary for your reply. I will try to make a few small changes in the article. It is mainly the link to Bentinck. Frank Eijkelenboom (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latin or Latin-script: one choice only

Look like I have discussed it before, but I don't like inconsistency in an encyclopedia. In B, itself from the old Latin scripts. A does too. Why not A written as Latin-script alphabet, but Latin alphabet? However, B isn't so, still Latin-script alphabet in the lead. Hope you or someone will figure it out and fix the inconsistency as soon as possible. All the encyclopedias, including online encyclopedias must strive on transparency, consistency, seamlessness and polish. 2001:EE0:4BE2:EEF0:71D2:A29:A5C4:100E (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2024_January_30#Another_inconsistency_in_B, particularly its end. Why bring up the matter here and now? -- Hoary (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simply, I don't like inconsistency on a good fact-checking encyclopedia, though not reliable. 2001:EE0:4BE2:EEF0:71D2:A29:A5C4:100E (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're attempting to discuss the matter at Talk:B#Consistent_proposal_to_unleash_new_format. Few people seem much interested. (Perhaps most people have other priorities.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of file

Dear Sir/Madam. My name is Colm Ó Snodaigh and for many years I have had a wikipedia page which I set up and edited myself. I play music with the Irish group Kíla (we have 20 albums released) and I am also a writer (having had a number of books published). I am in the public eye and my wikipedia page has been used by many journalists as a source for information prior to carrying out interviews with me.

Anyway my page has been deleted (or cited for deletion by 'Girth Summit) and I would like it to be reinstated as all the information is from me personally and is true. Much of the information is personal but that information is important for journalists as it gives a rounded picture of me even if the sporting 'exploits' that I mention are minor in nature.

I will gladly talk to someone about the content but I have to admit that I'm quite upset that this was all removed. I'm not famous like David Beckham or David Gilmour but my own position in the world I have inhabited and continue to inhabit are important to me and as I said to journalists wishing to get a handle on me as a subject. The tone I used at times was admittedly self-deprecating but why not? The Junior C Dublin hurling championship is hardly a tournament of note on its own but it is an important part of the fabric of me as a person and as I said I am in the public eye and make my living from being in the public eye.

I would be glad to chat to anyone about this.

Many thanks

Colm Ó Snodaigh 78.19.188.26 (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colm Ó Snodaigh

The deletion discussion gives the reasons editors had for supporting the article's deletion. Bazza (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our FAQ for arricle subjects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Want to add an image to an article, is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0, how to proceed?

Hello,

I would like to add an image to the Insignia (Xbox) article. Image here: [1]

According to the https://insignia.live/connect page it says "All screenshots and text (including the alt-text, and FAQ section) in this guide are licenced under CC BY-SA 4.0. Please give credit to "Insignia Team", and optionally link to this page." The above image is the last one on the page.

Where do I go from here? It has been a long time since I added any images to an article.

Thanks,

Urbanracer34 (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Urbanracer34 Images themselves are first uploaded to our sister project Wikimedia Commons. Use the upload wizard and fill in the details including the URL where you found it and the license (the one you quote is fine for Commons). The see Help:Pictures for how to incorporate the image into an article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Urbanracer34 (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following up here to make sure I am on the right track. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Help_desk#Want_to_add_an_image_to_an_article%2C_is_licensed_under_CC_BY-SA_4.0%2C_how_to_proceed%3F Urbanracer34 (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping in to clarify here. The Insignia team appears to have added the CC BY-SA 4.0 notice after the image was previously uploaded and deleted as a copyright violation from Commons. The reupload is also a copyright violation, as I informed the prior uploader: These are screenshots of the Xbox console's UI, for which the copyright belongs to Microsoft. Insignia cannot license Microsoft's copyrights under CC BY SA 4.0. -- ferret (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about hyperlinks and the IPC and Trivia sections

Hello. On some articles, there are years hyperlinked or even the “Calendar year” article hyperlinked. Who does this and why do they do it? Also, why do many editors also add IPC and Trivia sections? Were they done by IPs or just editors with an account? —2.103.231.248 (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roughly 100,000 editors are active in any given 30-day period. We have no way to evaluate their motivations. If you wish to see who added something to an article, you can look at the articles history page. -Arch dude (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But why do some users put a year hyperlinked or the Calendar year article hyperlinked in some articles? Also you need to explain why users add IPC or Trivia sections. Explain why. —2.103.231.248 (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As stated earlier above, we have no way to evaluate their motivations. Whether sections were added by IPs or editors with an account depends on the article and can be viewed in the article history. For IPC and Trivia sections, see the essay WP:IPC and the guidelines MOS:TRIVIA and MOS:IPC. ayakanaa ( t · c ) 19:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We must presume that each editor is trying to improve Wikipedia, and that each edit is the result of that editor's editorial judgement. If a second editor disagrees with that judgement, then that second editor can choose to revert the edits, and then discuss the situation on the article's talk page to reach a consensus. -Arch dude (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linking calendar years may mean that they don’t know our guidelines. Doug Weller talk 20:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. A second editor can and should make the change and refer to the guideline in the edit comment. -Arch dude (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are calendar years typically hyperlinked by IPs or users? Yes or no? 2.103.231.248 (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. See WP:YEARLINK. ayakanaa ( t · c ) 21:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 2.103.231.248 (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about the link to the article Calendar year in some articles as well? 2.103.231.248 (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that not linking dates has only been the policy since 2008: before that it was recommended. There may be articles which have links from before then, and I'm sure there must be articles which were edited after that date by editors who were not aware of the new policy. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive D6#Again calling for date linking to be deprecated ColinFine (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But who added the IPC page in Milwaukee? This may be a great example. But the WP:IPC doesn’t provide information on who typically adds the IPC or Trivia section in an article! 2.103.231.248 (talk) 08:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes also some articles put in the article “Decade”. 2.103.231.248 (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people add this “Decade” and “Calendar year” hyperlinks in some articles? Once again, why do people add IPC, year, and date links and Trivia sections? Is it because they seen it in a movie or TV show they watched? Or any other reasons? (I said “Once again” because you have to give me more reasons. Is it edited by IPs or editors with an account?) (P.S. on the article on Wizz Air, I removed the link to the article Decade, and on the SAS article I removed the link to 1946. On a Montana airport article, I removed the link Calendar year. On Weekly newspaper, I removed the links to Christmas Day and Christmas Eve and the date link to December 25th.) From the Link Remover—2.103.231.248 (talk) 08:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your demanding tone ("yes or no", "you have to", "you need to") is not going to get you much further. You've been given an explanation about why some links may be present in article. If you want to see who added a specific link in an article, then you can check the article's history yourself. And learn the word "please". Bazza (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I may use the word “please” in the future. 2.103.231.248 (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On some articles the history is so long I can’t even find who put the link! Example: New York City 2.103.231.248 (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you are expecting somebody else to put in the effort required to satisfy your demand? Bazza (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed! 2.103.231.248 (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well for the final question, some articles have the 20th century article hyperlinked. 2.103.231.248 (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Example: the Christmas music article. 2.103.231.248 (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. No one has answered to my question yet. 2.103.231.248 (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD-Links in Templates

I have a question about templates, let me use :Template:Police Investigative Stops as an example. This template contains, among others, links to the articles Terry stop and Pretextual stop. But – the latter Article title is a mere Redirect to Terry stop. When I read the article Abdullah Hammoud, as a person who has only been to the USA (in Fort Worth, Texas) once for three days in his entire 63 years, tonight I stumbled in section Abdullah Hammoud#Tenure_2 across the term Pretextual stop. I didn't know this term until then, therefore I touched the link, and landed on Terry stop, without any hint that I had followed a redirect, but at the top right the afore mentioned template was vying for attention, with Terry stop in bold black letters, and once again Pretextual stop in promising blue. So I assumed an error might have happened and touched this link one more time. Önce again I landed on Terry stop, but this time with a hint on top: (Redirected from Pretextual stop).

So, I have some questions:

Why didn't I get the RD-from ...-information after hovering from Dearborn's mayor to Terry Stop, but was informed after hovering from Terry stop via template's Pretextual stop-link once again to Terry stop?
Why does Terry Stop appear bold and black in the template in question and has no link function if the template is integrated into the Terry Stop page, but not Pretextual Stop, even though that is nothing other than a redirect to Terry Stop? Wouldn't it be better if both words appeared in bold and black and unlinked in the template in this case?
Or the other way around: Why does the template, when it is integrated into the Terry Stop page, contain the Pretextual Stop element at all, which at this point only offers a useless, annoying loop?
Or in such cases, isn't it at least possible to link the RD-target to the section of text in which the redirection term is discussed in more detail in the target article, i.e. in the specific example Terry stop#Pretextual stops? -- Carrot account (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why it's there (it was already a redirect when the template was created in 2018), but it seems that there is no point in having "Pretextual stop" in the template at all. I suggest you either boldly remove it, or propose its removal at Template Talk:Police Investigative Stops. (That's a redlink because the TT page has never been created, by the way, not because there's something wrong with the link).

As for why it's still a link in Terry stop, and not black: I wouldn't expect the display code to follow the links and look for redirects: that seems potentially very expensive for little gain. ColinFine (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretextual stop redirected to a different target when that template was made. I have edited it to now redirect to that specific section in terry stop, but feel free to also remove it from the template. LittlePuppers (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrot account There is a neat way to make redirect links show as green rather than blue. Simply put .mw-redirect {color: green;} into the wp:css page you can create at User:Carrot account/common.css. There is also an option to make WP:DAB links appear in orange, which is one of the radio-buttons at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets under "appearance". Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]