Help desk
< May 17	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 19 >

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.

May 18

special interest making edits

I have added my patent information to a section regarding secure passive optical network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_optical_network, no different as you have Thomas Edison as the inventor of the light bulb. It was even cited the US Patent number and a link to such patent (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9490929?oq=christopher badinelli) Unfortunately you have a industry bot Zac67 who is removing content in so called good faith but allowing marketing material for industry companies promoting this technology. It is clear that (he/him/she/her/them) is not acting in good faith but as an industry operative. This clearly diminishes the view of wikipedia as a source for un bias content and information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbadinelli (talk • contribs) 15:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbadinelli: If you are indeed the patent owner, you shouldn't be editing the article directly as you have a conflict of interest (which should be disclosed), and I support Zac67's actions. Please discuss this on the article's talk page and don't edit war. As it stands right now this looks like self-promotion. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zac67 has been a Wikipedia editor for nearly 17 years and has made significant contributions to information technology articles. Zac67 has never been blocked. Accusing them of not acting in good faith but as an industry operative without evidence is a violation of Wikipedia's behavioral guideline Assume good faith. I have page blocked Cbadinelli from editing Passive optical network, although they can make well-referenced Edit requests on the article talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly think it matter that he has been editing for 17 years, post publicly what company he works for in his profile. Cbadinelli (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where Zac67 posted where he works on his user page. The most I see are userboxes that describe what he does. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where precisely does Zac67 disclose their employer on Wikipedia? Provide a link. Cullen328 (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read that as Cbadinelli's (intrusive and unreasonable) demand that Zac67 out himself. --ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should be important to your readers and content providers be aware of any conflict of interest. It's fine to bean expert, but in the context of whimsically removing content as "good faith" deserves explanation. Or only some inventors being removed as "self promotion" even with collaborating documentation and others not puts into question and the legitimacy and accuracy of the content of wikipedia. So i don't find it to be unreasonable if say the person editing works for one of the Companies that are also listed in this content "It is marketed to the US military by companies such as Telos Corporation.and the 4 others cited as "marketing". Cbadinelli (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it's any consolation, the article could benefit from a cleanup. Some stuff does come off as promotional and the citations seem more primary than reliably secondary, but adding your own content doesn't help the issue. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cbadinelli

I don't have to disclose anything here, apart from WP:COI. I'm not working anywhere near of what you are alleging, nor do I have any affiliation in that direction. I'm fine with disclosing any such information to WP admins if need be, but see no reason doing so openly. Please take a step back, sleep on it for a night, study the linked policies and guidelines, and try to find reason. If you add substantial, reasonable, notable and sourced edit requests to the talk page I'll do my best integrating them, at my discretion. --Zac67 (talk)

YT Link in External Link section

In Château Rouge I found a YT Link in the external links section of this article. I've been told that Wikipedia articles can't use YT links as references, but are YT links allowed to be in the External links section? Toad40 (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be copyrighted material per WP:YOUTUBE, and the video probably isn't. It should also be interesting and informative enough to meet WP:EL, and it probably is. So it seems OK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Toad40, it's not quite that simple, for example CNN:s YT channel is as reliable as CNN elswhere. YT can be WP:ABOUTSELF, like Twitter and FB, it depends. See WP:RSPYT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the material on YouTube is infringing copyright, and may not be linked to. Much else on YouTube is not reliably published, and should not be linked to. But there is not a blanket ban. See WP:YOUTUBE. ColinFine (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like the rest of the internet. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above, it's not as simple as "YouTube links are allowed" or "YouTube links are not allowed". YouTube is a platform, not a source. It does not make content, it is a platform where content creators post their content. The appropriateness of any one YouTube video needs to be assessed on its own, per WP:RS, WP:ELYES, and other Wikipedia policies. The simplest way to think of it is this: If the YouTube video is posted by an account that would indicate that it's appropriate for Wikipedia, then it's appropriate for Wikipedia. If it's posted by an account run by some rando that no one knows about, then that's not appropriate. Don't link copyvios, don't link unreliable bullshit, but if a reliable source is publishing on YouTube, you can link that YouTube video. --Jayron 32 17:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For example, I used a YT video as a source in Barack Obama. But of course YT wasn't the source, Associated Press was the source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. YouTube has become the default place for all sources to publish video material, and many hundreds of reliable sources (news sources, scientific organizations, etc. etc.) all use it as such. YouTube videos published by those sources on their own official YT accounts are probably valid. Also would be WP:ABOUTSELF-type citations to the confirmed accounts of the subjects of articles. --Jayron 32 18:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query on when to use a primary source

The Global Accessibility Awareness Day article states that the idea for the event was sparked by a blog post, and this is backed up by the official website. Currently there isn't a source that references that statement, but I was wondering if it would be appropriate to site the post mentioned in this case, even though using primary sources isn't usually done. Neither the blog or the post in question is written by me.

Also, when I tried to do this earlier, it triggered an edit filter, which is fair enough since it's a wordpress.com blog, so I assume I could just ignore that?

I'm asking here instead of the article talk page as it's not exactly the most active. KaraLG84 (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KaraLG84 Since the blog is on the GAAD website at this URL, that looks to me like a perfectly good secondary source for the blog in a cite web style of citation, which won't trigger an edit filter. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull: Thanks. I'll use that then. KaraLG84 (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull: someone else has added the blog post as a citation. Not sure if to leave it as is or use the GAAD about page as you suggested. I don't want to inadvertently start an edit war. KaraLG84 (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And we should probably move this to the talk page. KaraLG84 (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be controversial to use both the blog post and the GAAD citation in the article, since they are complementary and both relevant. Just make the change and only discuss on that TP if someone objects. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull: done. KaraLG84 (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Israel in the Eurovision

In the 'Commentators and spokespersons' section, the period of 1985-2017 should have the 'No commentator' once, and centered, but I don't know how to edit it without ruining the table. Can someone please assist me? KobiNew (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KobiNew

Done by changing the 1985 rowspan value (12 rows 1 row 20 rows = 33) and removing the redundancy from the other rows. GoingBatty (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I report Editor Abuses

If the OP continues with this silliness, they may be blocked site-wide. Otherwise, this thread seems to have reached its usefulness limit. Ping me if this continues. --Jayron 32 11:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am reporting Editors Alabama and Blaze Wolf

They removed posts on opposing views of black holes.

Pointing out things like use of blurry photos when Hubble and James Web telescope is available and black hole fanatics picking out blurry photos and claiming it as proof.

I have Special Contributor status. They seem to be fanatical about black holes and threatened vandalism for pointed these flaws out.

73.118.175.67 (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC) Tae Hyun Song (Special Contributor)[reply]

I'm not familiar with what "Special Contributor" is or what it confers upon you. I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this post, you should read WP:FRINGE. If you continue pushing the idea that black holes are fake, you will be blocked for vandalism. That's not abuse, that's us having standards (which include summarizing professionally-published mainstream sources) and not letting you break them. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only proof a black hole is a blurry photo. That's not proof. Pointing this out is not vandalism. Nobody responded to how to report editors or moderators for abuse. 73.118.175.67 (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an online encyclopaedia. Content is based on published reliable sources, not on the uninformed opinions of random nobodies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blurry photo is not reliable source. You clearly don't don't know difference, anyway. 73.118.175.67 (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The procedures you are looking for are described in this guideline: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Rmhermen (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DNFTT. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have pageblocked the IP from Black hole and its talk page, and warned the IP that they will be blocked sitewide if their disruptive editing continues elsewhere. Cullen328 (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I offer proof the moderators and editors are abusing their authority. They called it "disruptive editing" when I edited nothing. I made post about they need a better photo in the Talk section (Improve Article) and then proceeded to block my IP address, because I don't follow their black hole religion. That's not science, that's censorship.

You can verify this by checking that I only stated they needed better photo. All they have is a blurry photo. Hubble telescope has been around for decades. Every time they get a clear photo, it turns out to be not to be a black hole. Watch when they never produce a clear photo.

There is no clear photo because there isn't one. They picked out a blurred image (which in their mind looks like a black hole) from stock photo.

73.118.175.67 (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC) Tae Hyun Song[reply]

If the conspiracymongering does not stop, I'll drag you to Enforcement myself. You have been formally alerted to WP:ARBPS sanctions. Any admin may now, at their discretion, opt to take harsher measures than merely pageblocking you. We have no tolerance for fringe bullshit or anti-intellectualism masquerading as robust review. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 07:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know if ARBPS really applies - AFAIK there aren’t a whole bunch of black-hole-deniers out there, so the black hole page is not really "related to pseudoscience and fringe science". Of course, if the IP really believes that "blurry photo = no real proof", they should be blocked not only from black hole, but also from atom, quark and everything else below the diffraction limit of visible light. At that point, it becomes a standard WP:NOTHERE block, rather than arbitration enforcement. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 08:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:NOTHERE block is almost inevitable, given that the IP posted at the administrators' noticeboard in this OID (quickly reverted by -Alabama- as "unconstructive") before they posted here. That posting also challenged at least two other well-established concepts. Incidentally, the User talk:Tae Hyun Song is informative. Mike Turnbull (talk) 08:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Entry for Sir William Allen, Lord Mayor of London

I have written an entry for Sir William Allen, one of the few lord mayors who doesn't have a wiki entry. It is labled draft, but I would like to publish it and cannot figure out how to do it.

Janice Hill Janicehill225 (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Janicehill225: Your references are malformed. It's <ref>(details for source being cited)</ref>. The sourcing in general is lacking, as well. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 22:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Janicehill225. I have added a header to your draft, which will allow you to submit it for review once it is ready. Unfortunately, it is nowhere near ready. The main problem is that there are almost no references. Where did you get the information you have put in the draft? You should be citing your sources. It is also not properly formatted, but that is a minor problem that can be addressed at any time. If you haven't already read your first article, I strongly recommend that you do so. ColinFine (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Janicehill225: Just looking at your article, it appears to come from some older compendium of biographies (not the original DNB, I see). Those are usually excellent sources. Please provide the name of this source. If that source's copyright has lapsed, you are free to actually copy entire sentences and paragraphs from it, but you must attribute the source, not just reference it. "Attribute" means your citation must include the phrase "some text copied from..." or some such. If your source is still in copyright, you are not permitted to copy directly from it: you must instead convey the information in your own words. -Arch dude (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Arch Dude, Thank you for replying. This is very helpful. Computers don't talk to me much and I didn't know what to do. For someone like my, I'd say that wiki doesn't have the most user-friendly interface. Sir William Allen is my 13 X great grandfather. I have been painstakingly researching him for several months. I can certainly add references for every fact. It's not from a compendium. I wrote it myself. I don't trust compendiums to be completely accurate anyway. What style do you want? MLA, APA, Chicago? Janicehill225 (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Janicehill225: the Wikipedia reference formats are similar to but not identical to those paper-based standards. If you want to try, please read Help:Referencing for beginners and experiment with it. If this is too intimidating, just stick the references in any format on the article's talk page (Draft talk:Sir William Allen (c.1520-1586): Lord Mayor of London, 1571) and I can tidy them up. We also have some other cleanup to do: see the talk page. Arch dude (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do those things. Thank you for your help. 2601:486:101:2C50:8AF:E495:38DA:574C (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]