m Signing comment by 2601:743:4100:17A0:B879:3FB9:E430:8265 - "→Not sure where to post this: new section" |
|||
Line 659: | Line 659: | ||
I think this could easily be implemented through disqus." <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2601:743:4100:17A0:B879:3FB9:E430:8265|2601:743:4100:17A0:B879:3FB9:E430:8265]] ([[User talk:2601:743:4100:17A0:B879:3FB9:E430:8265#top|talk]]) 02:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
I think this could easily be implemented through disqus." <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2601:743:4100:17A0:B879:3FB9:E430:8265|2601:743:4100:17A0:B879:3FB9:E430:8265]] ([[User talk:2601:743:4100:17A0:B879:3FB9:E430:8265#top|talk]]) 02:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== Problematic Prolific Uninformed and Contentious Editor == |
|||
In my decade + of editing Wikipedia I am having my most frustrating experience ever. Just recently an editor who is knowledgeable about editing Wikipedia and who edits prolifically has decided to become interested in editing a few summary pages involving one of my main areas of expertise (ancient philosophy). This editor has never edited any detail page on the subject. I have over 1,000 such edits. I've also had a book published in the field. This editor has picked up two breezy introductory books to the subject and, due to their lack of understanding of the subject matter and the thinness of the sources they're relying on, are misinterpreting and misunderstanding what they're reading while citing these two sources over and over. Usually if one points out to another editor that they have made a factual error, they become more careful and circumspect in their editing, especially if more than one error has been identified. That's not the case here. We're well into double digits now of factual errors. The editor in question is repeatedly reverting my annotated corrections (annotated either on the edit itself or on the Talk page) based, of course, on their conviction they understand the material better than I do, based on consulting two thin introductory texts. While several experts in individual philosophies regularly edit those individual philosophies, few of these editors are involved on the summary pages which historically have had thin content, mostly just linking to key pages about the subject because these are complex topics that are difficult to summarize. So, I'm finding myself alone in trying to deal with the introduction of erroneous claims based on misunderstandings of the cited sources. The editor in question appears to have far more time available to devote to Wikipedia than I do, yet I keep getting sucked in because so much erroneous content is being added and my edits are constantly being reverted (all carefully within the rules - the editor is an experienced editor). |
|||
Any advice on how to persuade this editor they are in over their heads on this subject, and that they should refocus their prodigious editing efforts on topics they better understand?[[User:Teishin|Teishin]] ([[User talk:Teishin|talk]]) 03:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:49, 18 November 2020
- For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
- Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
- Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
- For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
- New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners.
November 14
A Pro-Israel group is harrassing users expressing different viewpoints
Hi,
I found this group here who is advocating attacking users whose edits they deem unacceptable:
https://theisraelgroup.org/wikipedias-war-against-israel/
It is also seen here:
This group creates an unsafe environment where people express opinions they deem unacceptable. This violates Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality and I ask that Wikipedia looks into this to see if this group is trying to intimidate people with opposing viewpoints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:2001:4300:EC7F:8230:DEA7:227F (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well, this happens outside of Wikipedia and Wikipedia admins have no power there. Not actionable. Everybody and their dog can watch what Wikipedians write and publish comments about that. I'm in the proper position to tell you this, since I have been called
rat
andtraitor
of my country,Antichristian
andpro-porn activist
(while at least some people insisted that I wrote ads for born-again Christians and that I would be an anti-porn activist). Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Seconds message
I got a message saying 10s. I made my account only 1 second ago. What is this stuff? Leanne Sepulveda (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Leanne Sepulveda It's not clear what exactly you are referring to. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Afd question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jose Ospina
Hi, looking at this Afd. An editor has stated she is notable, i.e. meets WP:AUTHOR as the Ospinas book is heavily cited. I've never came across that before in a AFD discussion. Would it be normal to say the person is notable, if their book was heavily cited? scope_creepTalk 08:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Scope creep WP:AUTHOR does mention "widely cited" and you can search for "widely cited" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Search current and archived AfD discussions by topic for examples of kept and deleted articles about "widely cited" authors. Some evidence that he is "widely cited" is needed, then it can be challenged or accepted. TSventon (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks @TSventon:. I'll keep it in mind. scope_creepTalk 12:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
language option
from all the european languages,beside missing a lot of them,you missed the oldest language,that happens to be the first latin language,called ROMANIAN. you have listed dialects,even the kurd language,though there is no country named kurdistan.you should feel ashamed about this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.40.162 (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Romanian language? Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hello. I am guessing that you found the list of links to other-language versions of a particular article, yes? Romanian doesn't appear on that list because nobody has yet created an article on the subject in the Romanian language. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and editors work on what they choose to work on. If you want Romanian to appear on that particular list, write the corresponding article in the Romanian Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
false locked information
how can locked pages be removed or corrected? I have come across many things that are incorrect especially those related to so called explorers. In actual fact most of them are terrorists and not hero's or anything as they murdered, stole, raped and much more. Allowing people or the governments to bullshit to make them look go just makes it all biased.
No matter what NO explorer or whatever you want to call them should be allowed to be portrayed as good as they are not. Same with all wars since once a military person leaves their country for another for anything but a holiday is considered to be terrorism.
at school we are taught not to bully, not to steal and so on but this is exactly what the explorers and war mongers did, they are evil no matter what as is how they should be portrayed since it's the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:TruthOfTheWorlds (talk • contribs) 12:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- If you see such an article (on your computer, though perhaps not on your phone), it should have a link saying "Talk". Click on that, and you'll arrive at the article's talk page. Argue there that the "explorer" stole or raped. Link to your sources. Or argue there that the article is biased. -- Hoary (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, TruthOfTheWorlds. Wikipedia reports what the Reliable sources say: it does not (and must not) make judgments of its own, however worthy these might be: see righting great wrongs. In some cases, there may be recent scholarship that should be referred to, and articles have their focus changed: you can help by pointing to the new studies. In other cases, even through it might be desirable to alter the articles, there are not yet any reliable sources to base such a change on. --ColinFine (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- @TruthOfTheWorlds: Editing with the purpose of supporting a particular point view is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, which tries hard to remain objective. Your rhetoric and your user name seem to show that you do not intend to remain objective. You will have more success if you find specific statements in articles that are not supported by a reliable source, or add statements that are supported by a reliable source. We do support Wikipedia:countering systematic bias, but that is mostly about adding articles about neglected subjects. -Arch dude (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Edit Summary search tool
Can anyone remind me if we have a tool able to search the edit summaries of any page for specific text strings, irrespective of who posted there.
The specific use I have in mind is to report on the use of the word "head" in any edit summary by anyone at The Teahouse over the last year. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hey Nick. (The way you worded your question leads me to believe you're well aware of the edit summary search tool for a specific user's contributions.) Unfortunately, I have looked for this type of more versatile edit summary search tool in the past and failed. Looking again today, I found this: T60698, which makes me think it truly does not exist. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Fuhghettaboutit: thanks very much. I've been going mad thinking I had seem something like it in the past, and being unable to find any such tool. I wouldn't even need to worry if they hadn't reduce the max search limit to just 500 edits. In the wonderful days when we could display up to 5,000 edits at a time, it would have been a simple matter to Ctrl-F for the term you needed to find. That was a really, really retrograde step the technical people made to reduce the search result limit, when there could have been a very easy work-around to prevent automated scripts from overloading our systems. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Nick: you still can change the URL of the edit history to 5,000, i.e., go to the teahouse, click history, change to 500 results, then add a 0 to the URL where the 500 appears in it; voila (then open "older 5000" in a new tab on the resulting page, then again on the next...) and then use your find function on however many tabs you have open.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Fuhghettaboutit:
That used to be true, but if you try it you'll find you only get 500. I think this is phab:T234450.-- John of Reading (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)- No, I tried it before posting above; it works perfectly... and I just went back as I still had the tab opened and did a quick count, to make sure it wasn't just saying "5000" when it was really displaying 500; it really does work.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
@John of Reading: P.S. that Phab page says "Request of limit of 50000(!) (which MW moderated down to 5000)" (emphasis added).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)- @Fuhghettaboutit: Apologies; I must have mistyped my test. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Fuhghettaboutit and John of Reading: Brilliant! I wasn't aware that that functionality had been restored. I used to use it all the time for routine admin tasks, and have missed it so much. Perhaps I overlook an announcement somewhere. It will make life so much easier again, knowing it's back. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Great! (There's a lot of unannounced fiddling. This time it was a good thing.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Fuhghettaboutit and John of Reading: Brilliant! I wasn't aware that that functionality had been restored. I used to use it all the time for routine admin tasks, and have missed it so much. Perhaps I overlook an announcement somewhere. It will make life so much easier again, knowing it's back. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Fuhghettaboutit: Apologies; I must have mistyped my test. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- No, I tried it before posting above; it works perfectly... and I just went back as I still had the tab opened and did a quick count, to make sure it wasn't just saying "5000" when it was really displaying 500; it really does work.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Fuhghettaboutit:
- Nick: you still can change the URL of the edit history to 5,000, i.e., go to the teahouse, click history, change to 500 results, then add a 0 to the URL where the 500 appears in it; voila (then open "older 5000" in a new tab on the resulting page, then again on the next...) and then use your find function on however many tabs you have open.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Fuhghettaboutit: thanks very much. I've been going mad thinking I had seem something like it in the past, and being unable to find any such tool. I wouldn't even need to worry if they hadn't reduce the max search limit to just 500 edits. In the wonderful days when we could display up to 5,000 edits at a time, it would have been a simple matter to Ctrl-F for the term you needed to find. That was a really, really retrograde step the technical people made to reduce the search result limit, when there could have been a very easy work-around to prevent automated scripts from overloading our systems. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Art
How do I create a small page about my art and poetry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClarkSheila (talk • contribs) 16:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, ClarkSheila. I'm afraid that the answer is almost certainly, "You don't". Wikipedia is not a place to promote or advertise something - commercial or not, worthy or not. Wikipedia is not interested in what anybody says or wants to say about themselves or their own activities or affiliations: it is only interested in what other, unconnected people have published about them. If several people who have no connection with you have been interested enough to write about your art and poetry, and been published in reliable sources, then you may meet the criteria for notability. and there could be an article about you; it not, then no article about you will be accepted, however it is written. If you do meet these criteria, then, as I say, an article about you will be possible. It will not be your article, you will not control its content, it could end up containing content you don't want, and you are strongly discouraged (though not forbidden) from writing it yourself. Please see an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, autobiography, and Alternative outlets. --ColinFine (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Payments to Wikipedia
Dear Sir or Madam Please would it be possible for Wikipedia to be funded by Google who are a vast organisation making vast profits ? With thanks . Yours sincerely D Cronin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.202.127 (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, the Wikimedia Foundation's 2018-2019 Annual report's section about donors can be found at https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2019-annual-report/donors/
- You will see that several prominent corporations (including Google) are among the major funders. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Note that some of the more significant donations come from the principals of companies or their own charitable foundations instead of the companies themselves (e.g. major contributor Brin Wojcicki Foundation is Sergey Brin (Google co-founder) and ex-wife Anne Wojcicki). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Note also that Google and many other big companies match employee contributions to non-profit organizations. When this occurs, the non-profit must follow the proper accounting and tax rules for reporting, and this may or may not cause the company portion of the contribution to be attributed to the company and not the employee. So, 1000 Google employees contributing $100 each will trigger $100,000 in donations from Google, and this will probably be reported by WMF as a $100,000 donation from Google if they have a 1-for-1 match policy. Some companies have higher matches. I have seen a 10-for-1 match in one recent case. -Arch dude (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
writing my own bio/page
Hello, first time ever on the Wikipedia community. I'm a musician and composer and I'd like to know if it might be acceptable me to contribute by creating my own page. I see different positions about possible COI around the net and I want to make sure before I start working on that. Many thanks, Luca — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unguitar (talk • contribs) 19:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- The best advice can be found at WP:AUTOBIO. Short version: Don't. If you meet our inclusion criteria, then odds are someone else will write about you. CrowCaw 19:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Unguitar You have a common misconception of Wikipedia in that it is not a place like social media where people have "pages" about themselves; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that has articles, written by independent editors. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. In order for you to be successful in writing about yourself, you would need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent reliable sources say about you; most people cannot do that. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the info. I've made my research about the topic and this is the reason because I'm asking. I fully understand the meaning and function of Wikipedia and don't confuse it with social media or an advertisement platform. I've seen that on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest there are guidelines about COI where it is stated that you should disclose your relation with the subject as in a case like mine. I was just wondering, given that any contribution will be reviewed, can't I write about myself, declare it and wait for the content to be verified as it would be if someone else wrote about me? I really don't want to be intrusive, I surely value Wikipedia for what it is, as an old internet user should do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unguitar (talk • contribs) 20:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Unguitar If you truly feel that you meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable musician, you can certainly use Articles for creation to attempt to create an article about yourself, as it is not forbidden, only discouraged- but in my many years here, I have never seen someone succeed at doing so. It is very hard for people to edit about themselves dispassionately and only based on what independent reliable sources say about them in depth. (that does not include press releases, brief mentions, or routine coverage)
- Also understand that a Wikipedia article about you is not necessarily a good thing. There are good reasons to not want one. You cannot lock it to the text you might prefer, or prevent others from editing it. Any information about you, good or bad, can be in an article about you as long as it appears in an independent reliable source. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Many many thanks for such a precise and detailed answer! All is very clear now. Thank you for your time & all the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unguitar (talk • contribs) 20:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
How to link to Wikipedia from Wikivoyage?
I am trying to link to an article in Wikipedia from a Wikivoyage page. My reading of Help:Interwiki_linking#Prefix_codes_for_linking_to_Wikimedia_sister_projects is that [[wikipedia:Interstate_35_in_Texas]] should work, but it does not produce anything. I tried using prefix en: instead but it produces a red link. What am I doing wrong? RudolfRed (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- @RudolfRed: You need to prefix the link with a leading colon. [[:wikipedia:Interstate 35 in Texas]]. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Pppery: That works. Thank you! RudolfRed (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- As an aside, the code you had did do something, it would add the article to the list of languages on the left hand side of the page. This is handled by wikidata, so it doesn't need to be done. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Pppery: That works. Thank you! RudolfRed (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
car
i have a 2013 Hyundai electra. How would I get service connected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.11.72.160 (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is the help desk for how to use Wikipedia. We can't help with your car. You can try asking at WP:RDM or calling a service shop for advice. RudolfRed (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Abuse of administration privilege
On the page Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom There is a warning box that states that the the English of the entry is poor. This is patently untrue. The entry is very clear and informative. #I can only assume that the comment is politically motivated and this gravely concerns me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:144D:4600:ACB4:A026:62B9:4E76 (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, IP user. That tag was added (by an anonymous user who was probably not an admin) a year and a half ago, and there has been substantial editing since then. If you believe that the tag is no longer applicable, it contains a link explaining how and when to remove it. --ColinFine (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- For comparison, you can see the article when that message was added (04:14, 26 April 2019): Old revision of Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom --107.15.157.44 (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- I have skim-read the article and the template may refer to the final section Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom#Political representation, which is separately tagged for rewriting. The rest of the article looks fine. I think we should assume good faith in this case. TSventon (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- The editor(s) who added those tags may have believed that the writing is unfit for Wikipedia, as the project is intended to inform, not persuade (WP:TONE). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
November 15
Is it possible to make global replacement changes?
Some years ago I edited a number of articles about the American Civil Rights Movement. Many of the citations and references I entered at that time were to the Civil Rights Movement Veterans website (https://www.crmvet.org). That website has now changed its name to "Civil Rights Movement Archive," though the URL remains unchanged. It will be very tedious and time-consuming for me to track down all my citations to manually change "Veterans" to "Archive." Is there anyway to do that globally across all of Wikipedia? Or, if not across all of Wikipedia, at least globally on each individual page?
Brucehartford (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Brucehartford: If there are a lot of such links, you can make a request at WP:BOTREQ to see if a bot can do it. Otherwise, WP:AWB might be able to make the task less of a chore. RudolfRed (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Am I allowed to move Draft:EmailSanta.com into article space?
Draft:EmailSanta.com I did not write that article draft, but I think it is ready for the article space. Am I allowed to move it there and remove the AfC box? (I know I am able to, because I am extended confirmed.) Thanks! Félix An (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Félix An: You may, if you think it is ready. I looked at the article history and see you have been reverted a few times on your recent edits to this draft. Instead of moving the draft, I recommend starting a discussion on the draft's talk page so you and the other editors can get consensus on how to improve it. RudolfRed (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Some creep calling themselves Fuzheado reverted my edit. I don't have time for this, please sort this out.
I added this documentarian's own box to her own page, and updated the website link with an archived version since it expired. I'm not going to edit war with this bot. Thank you. I was just fixing a page I was reading. --184.20.10.253 (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Reverted edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexandra_Pelosi&type=revision&diff=988762731&oldid=986571847
Message, quoted below: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:184.20.10.253&oldid=988767823
Hello, I'm Fuzheado. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Alexandra Pelosi—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 03:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
- Hi, the diff link you provided was invalid, so I replaced it with a current revision link of your talk page. There is no diff link for your talk page, for reasons stated here. Colathewikian (talk) 07:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- The probbably best solution would be to ask Fuzheado. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- FWIW, the official website is actually linked at her wikidata entry, which is probably a better location to archive the site. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- @184.20.10.253: Apologies, as I had seen the Nancy->Alexandra diff as vandalism because of how it was displayed in the interface, but the string of three edits you made were good edits. I have restored the changes and thanks for changing it in Wikidata. I'd recommend you register for an account and edit more, as doing edits under a registered username is more conducive to patrolling for valid vs. invalid edits. Good luck. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
List of films
Hello all, I have a question about the list of films, I was checking these: List of Argentine films of 1993, List of Romanian films of 1993, List of Dutch films of the 2000s and List of American films of 2020 and noticed that it's not very consistent with each other. Some lists only cover one year, others a whole decade. And the presentation and options in the table vary too. What's the guidelines for these lists? I thought films that aren't on Wikipedia shouldn't be added in these lists? Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, Aquatic Ambiance. Consistency over many articles is something which is often lacking in Wikipedia, because of the nature of the project: everybody is a volunteer and works on what they choose. Only if somebody, or some group of people, puts effort into consistency will it happen. The most likely place to find people who are working for consistency in an area is at an appropriate WikiProject, here WikiProject Film. --ColinFine (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- (ec) Aquatic Ambiance, good question. If you don't get any good answers here, you could try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. It's possible that some of these lists don't get a lot of attention, and occasional editors just add what they think they should, while for example List of American films of 2020 has a lot of pageviews [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Aquatic Ambiance, Wikipedia has some guidance on your questions
- WP:TOOBIG says that articles which are "> 60 kB Probably should be divided". The length of a list of US films released in one year is too great to be merged into a decade, while the Dutch lists can be merged into a decade. (The Argentine, Romanian and Dutch articles are linked to lists in es, ro and nl wikis, which may also be a reason for choosing between year and decade lists.)
- WP:LISTN says "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." TSventon (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Aquatic Ambiance, Wikipedia has some guidance on your questions
- Thank you ColinFine, Gråbergs Gråa Sång and TSventon. I guess there's a lot more to this than I thought! I've become a bit more knowledgeable. Thanks! Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Special:BookSources search message code
Hello, where is the Special:BookSources search results message code? I'm admnistrator on It wiki. I wish to change it in my wiki. Thanks a lot. Regards--Pierpao (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Mark juncaj
I wrote a small bio on myself and was wondering how I did? I checked football player Tom Brady’s for some type of background in hopes to learn how to write mine.
Also, I enjoy writing very much! How can I join Wikipedia as a board member or where can I start as an editor or some type of starting role?
Having trouble
Understanding administrative response.
Will my page Mark Juncaj be published in Wikipedia?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Albo2121 (talk • contribs)
- Thanks for your interest, Mark! All Wikipedia articles are written by volunteers like you. You are welcome to create an account and start editing right away. However, due to the conflict of interest, writing an autobiography (one about yourself) is strongly discouraged. Best of luck! Félix An (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Albo2121 - there are no sources and no indication that the subject is notabile. Please see WP:GNG Courtesy link: user:Albo2121 (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this:
~~~~
. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 16:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC) - Draft has been deleted. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 16:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Four tides signing
Timtempleton sis gjon Juncaj page workout? Where are those located on your keypad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albo2121 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Uppercase just left of the 1/! key. - Samf4u (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Albo2121: That's true of US keyboards and some others; for other keyboard layouts see the chart at Tilde#Keyboards. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Another option is to use the Edit toolbar at the top of the edit box, the icon looks like ; or use the "wiki markup insert" tool beneath the text input in the edit box. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Albo2121: That's true of US keyboards and some others; for other keyboard layouts see the chart at Tilde#Keyboards. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
You guys keep deleting my drafts what am I doing wrong please?
I’m Mark my friend
Actor Justin Smith
I just finished reading article on Justin Smith, who starred with Elle Fanning, in "All the Bright Places." In your background on him you state "he came out queer."
I must say that in today's world, using 'queer' is a most objectionable word. It still denotes a bad connotation regarding a person's life choice, which in this case should use either the word 'gay' or homosexual. Please update Mr. Smith's background profile; and even if he did say 'queer', I am most certain in today's world, he would not use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.31.37 (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Courtesy link: Justice_Smith. That statement has sources backing it up, so it seems that the person self-identifies as Queer, which is up to them and is not necessarily perjorative now. Wikipedia reports what comes from reliable sources. RudolfRed (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Neither of the articles we have on actors named Justin Smith use the word "queer" in it. The American one hasn't been edited since 2019 (which is a shame because the article desperately needs sources) and the Australian one hasn't been edited for a month. You're thinking Justice Smith, and that claim is cited to two sources. In addition, "queer" is an umbrella term for LGBTQ+ identity. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 18:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm going to also point out that Wikipedia is not censored. If the sources mention him referring to himself as such, it can be included into the article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Gjon juncaj
Was gjon Juncaj page written ok? How long does it take to show up on Wikipedia and search engines?
Thank you! Btw am using iPhone 12
- Never. We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident, and userpages are NOINDEXed. You seem to have mistaken Wikipedia for social media or a who's-who. We are an encyclopaedia, and especially for articles about living people sources are a requirement. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 18:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I did not hear back if gjons page was published and when it will appear on search engine as gjon juncaj — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albo2121 (talk • contribs) 15 November 2020 19:39 (UTC)
- @Albo2121: Please see the response above. The page will not be published. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a form of social media where indviduals can write about themselves. Multiple links have been left at your talk page; please study them carefully before attempting any further edits. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Albo2121: In addition, your user page exists for you to tell the community a little about yourself and how you intend to contribute to the project. It should not contain anything resembling artiocle-like content. If you want to create a draft article, go via WP:WIZ or WP:AFC and create a draft which can be submitted for review. Note that autobiographies are discouraged and may not be a good idea. Properly sourced articles about notable topics written by persons without a connection to the topic are welcomed. Eagleash (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
This wasn’t a page about me. It’s my cousin. He didn’t even ask for it but he is an American hero and I wrote it short and unbiased. Tell me what I did wrong because when I look at other peoples pages, I simply mimicked what they had.
I’m trying to take part anyway I can. I thought I wrote from an unbiased place though he’s my cousin. I just said who he is and what he does.
Instead of ripping me can u please help me. There are millions of people part of Wikipedia and I just want to be part of it.
Thank u
- @Albo2121: Try reading what's been said above instead of accusing us of ripping you. Nobody is going to approve a draft about a living person that has no sources what-so-ever. We don't have articles based on the moral fortitude of the subject; it might surprise you to learn we have articles on Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, John Wayne Gacy, and Stephenie Meyer. We have articles based on how much a subject and their deeds has been discussed in news and scholarly sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 21:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, Albo2121. Several people have tried to explain what you are doing wrong. I will put it a bit differently. Wikipedia is not interested in what you know, or what I know, or what any random person on the internet knows. Ever. It is only interested in information which has been published by somebody with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking. Trying to create an article without finding such sources first is like building a house without bothering about foundations, or even checking if the house is on rock or sand. Furthermore, writing an article as the first or nearly the first thing you do in editing Wikipedia is like going to one French lesson and then trying to do a podcast in French. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anybody can edit, but that doesn't mean that it is easy to edit. You will add far far far more value to Wikipedia by choosing some of our six million existing articles that need improvement and working on them than by trying to create a new article when you haven't learnt the skills or how Wikipedia works. Please see YFA. --ColinFine (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank u your information was helpful. The facts on this are on the internet with story after story about both.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Albo2121 (talk • contribs)
Article trouble
Hi, one of the article is continously being spammed by someone. How to avoid this?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunter1471 (talk • contribs)
- I added a header to this question. Same question at Tea House and I posted a reply there. RudolfRed (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
November 16
Wikipedia thanks feature
Wikipedia has this nice thanks feature which allows editors to send thanks to each other without actually making a Wikipedia edit. I have both sent thanks and received them. However, once I get a notice about receiving thanks and viewing it, the notice vanishes. I have no way of keeping a record of whom I have thanked or who has thanked me. Is this by design, or is there some way to do this? JIP | Talk 01:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hello JIP. Please read Help:Notifications/Thanks, which explains the function, including the Thanks log. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- @JIP: from and to. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks (pun intended), I see how the log works now. JIP | Talk 01:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- BTW, does anyone know how to form the "internal link" version of the "to" log (i.e.
[[Special:Log/thanks/what?]]
)? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)- @AlanM1: not possible yet. Wikipedia currently has no way of linking to an internal page with ? in them, with the exceptions at Special:Redirect. This is unfortunally none of them. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Victor Schmidt mobil: Note there are some of the Special: pages that do support being called as internal wikilinks, including the "from" case I gave above, in which Special:Log/thanks/JIP is the equivalent of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=thanks&user=JIP . There doesn't seem to be a way, though, of adding the
page
parm to get the equivalent of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=thanks&page=User:JIP . Other examples of these are Special:Permalink/988975233, Special:Diff/988974179/988975233, Special:PageHistory/Wikipedia:Help desk, etc. I don't think the parms supported by these are documented, except maybe in the code itself. Can someone point me to the code forSpecial:Log
? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC) - It looks like there is some documentation on the Special pages listed at mw:Help:Special pages and maybe others that aren't in that list, like mw:Help:Log. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 10:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- I must have been unconcentrated, this particular shortcut (Linking with the to param) is afaik impossible without using full urls. 11:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Victor Schmidt mobil: Note there are some of the Special: pages that do support being called as internal wikilinks, including the "from" case I gave above, in which Special:Log/thanks/JIP is the equivalent of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=thanks&user=JIP . There doesn't seem to be a way, though, of adding the
- @AlanM1: not possible yet. Wikipedia currently has no way of linking to an internal page with ? in them, with the exceptions at Special:Redirect. This is unfortunally none of them. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Merle Robbins
Can someone fix Merle Robbins? Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Done. Someone had vandalised it. I also removed irrelevant text at the bottom of the article. JIP | Talk 01:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
How To Edit A Logo On Page Infobox
Good day,
I hope this mail finds you well.
I work in the Bank Windhoek Marketing and Corporate Communications Department and would like to update the logo on our page to our latest logo, however don't know how to upload and change it in the infobox, could you please assist by providing guidance on how to do this?
The page I am referring to is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Windhoek
Warm regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by BWMCCS (talk • contribs) 05:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Looks like this has already been done. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 07:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Providing an English (or any other) language version of an article that I already wrote on German Wikipedia
Hello, I'm trying to provide an English version of an article I wrote in German, without wanting to replace the German one... I also plan to provide a Polish version.
The article concerned is about Jan Jaroslawski
Thanks for help — Preceding unsigned comment added by R. Montheureux (talk • contribs) 07:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- If there’s good sourcing demonstrating notability, you’re welcome to try to start the article. Please also read WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this:
~~~~
. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 07:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC) - @R. Montheureux: To explain a little more in-depth as to what Timtempleton is talking about, English Wikipedia's standards are not the same as German Wikipedia (e.g., reference policy). Just be aware that creating an article about Jaroslawski here isn't as easy as a direct copypaste and translation. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- R. Montheureux, Translation is also relevant. --ColinFine (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
False information
Dear Wikipedia There is an article published known as delhi riots 2020 which shows false information about the recent riots happening , which can cause communal pressure so please remove the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:10:204A:803:A8B7:1A98:DA8C (talk) 09:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Any subject that is notable by Wikipedia's definition can and should have an article. "Communal pressure" is not a consideration. Delhi riots 2020 meets our criteria (WP:N) so we will not delete it. If the article contains any asssertion that is not supported by a cited reliable source, then that assertion should be removed. If an assertion is supported by a reliable source, it will not be removed, but if you have a different source that contradicts the assertion, then the fact taht the assertion is disputed should be added to the article. You should discuss this at Talk:Delhi riots 2020. -Arch dude (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- The page appears to be at 2020 Delhi riots and the related talk page, at Talk:2020 Delhi riots. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 10:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities
- Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities
The history of this page shows me making an edit on the page re-instating a large amount of text which had properly been deleted or archived. I didnt make this edit,or at least didn't intend to although I did intend to make an edit. Can anybody say what happened? I have been having problems with my internet connection this morning. Is this connected with the edit? My apologies to the people who have altered it back and to any body else whose edits have been lost. I use the visual editor on a PC.Spinney Hill (talk) 11:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Spinney Hill: My guess is that you either started editing the page several hours earlier, before Scsbot archived November 8 at Special:Diff/988937476 at 2020-11-16T03:09:12Z, and then eventually saved it at Special:Diff/988981288 at 2020-11-16T10:43:48Z, missing the ec warning. Or you might have been looking at the older rev of the article and edited it, missing the warnings about that. Or maybe you were editing the page before Scsbot, tried to save, and the save got hung up for several hours, finally posting at 10:43Z. The 03:09Z edit sumary does not include the "reverted" tag, so it probably wasn't an accidental "undo". Your edit summary was blank (unusually), so maybe it was some other kind of mis-click(s). I'd say keep an eye on your contribs for a while to see if it happens again. Otherwise, "stuff happens". —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I think it was editing an old version Spinney Hill (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
New article
Hi, my draft for a new biography page was rejected due to "trivial or non-independent" sources, though it already included independent media. Wikipedia already has pages in French and German on the subject. I have since added the New York Times, Washington Post and Deutsche Welle as sources. Do you think this will make it strong enough for reconsideration? The person concerned did pay me to draft the page some time ago and I included this declaration with the subsmission. Best wishes, KRL219 (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- KRL219 That other language versions of Wikipedia have articles on this topic(which I assume is Draft:Jean-Baptiste de Franssu) does not necessarily mean there can be one here too, as each version of Wikipedia is its own project with its own editors and policies. Here, an article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject. That does not include press release or routine announcements. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
changes to wikipedia Abakuá page for Haitian religion
Hello, I am a scholar of Haitian Vodou and recently made an edit on a wikipedia page for Abakuá to correct something that was listed incorrectly about Haitian religion. I just received this message: "Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions--specifically this edit to Ababkuá--because it did not appear constructive."
Why was my change reverted? And how do I make this edit as a scholar of Haitian Vodou who made an edit about a Haitian Vodou reference? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/146.115.92.231
- Hello, IP user. There were two problems with your edit. First, it did not cite a published source; secondly, it broke a link, to Haitian Vodou Culture Language. That article, in fact, gives "Langay" and "Langaj" as alternatives, but there isn't currently an article called Langaj. It is possible that there should be a redirect from Langaj, or that that article should be moved to have Langaj as its title (though the two references both seem to give the longer phrase). But in any case, if an edit of yours is reverted, the thing to do is to open a discussion on the article's talk page: that is how the collaboration works on Wikipedia. Please see BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Draft Article Review
Hi! i had an article that apparently didn't have enough citations moved to the draftspace. I have since worked on it and added more references. However, this time I have not had any contact regarding it, and it has been a month. I also saw that someone edited the draft 10 days ago. Was just looking to speak to someone about it and see where I might be going wrong. Thanks!
Draft: Morressier— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geonomes.germany (talk • contribs)
- Has bee reviewed today morning. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- You say it "didn't have enough citations". I think that's a misunderstanding. The problem was, and is, that the citations aren't good enough. Four good citations is enough. Adding more citations of even lower quality than those you have already doesn't help; indeed, it is likely to deter reviewers from considering your draft. Maproom (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
consulting help posting page
I've drafted a page, but can I get consulting help in posting it?
I received a message suggesting I post a page on myself since I appear on the list of US Supreme Court law clerks. I drafted the following page in the Sandbox but when I preview it it all runs together. It has now disappeared from the Sandbox. My newly created account and the page under it are under the name R George Crawford, or George Crawford. I would like to get consulting help posting it.
Here's the page:
Draft content
|
---|
Draft for Wikipedia George Crawford has worked in government as a law clerk to Justice Byron White and on the White House Staff; in academia as a Consulting Professor at Stanford Law School, President of the Harvard Law Review, and writing books and articles; in law practice as a partner at JonesDay; in finance in connection with several investment management businesses; and as a producer and director of documentary films and related publications, in conjunction with George's wife Holly, an artist and art critic who taught at UCLA and runs AC Institute, a nonprofit. Selected publications: Derivatives for Decision Makers: Strategic Management Issues, George Crawford and Bidyut Sen (John Wiley 1996) A Fiduciary Duty to Use Derivatives? George Crawford, Stanford Journal of Law Business & Finance, Spring 1995; reprinted in Smithson, Managing Financial Risk 637 (McGraw-Hill 1998) Investing Under Inflation Risk, George Crawford, Jim Kyung-Soo Liew, and Andrew Marks: The Journal of Portfolio Management, Spring 2013 Spot Commodities as Inflation Protection, George Crawford, Jim Kyung-Soo Liew, and Andrew Marks: The Journal of Wealth Management, Winter 2013 Selected documentaries dealing with states of mind: coproductions with French Connection Films; bilingual - The Healing Within - Living & Breathing - The Quest for the Perfect Athlete associate producer: Bedlam, an intimate journey into America's mental health crisis (Sundance) |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by RGeorgeCrawford (talk • contribs)
- @RGeorgeCrawford: I am afraid that you have selected to do one of the absolute hardest tasks as a new user: creating an article about yourself. While not forbidden, autobiographys are strongely discouraged. Please be advised that a Wikipedia article is not nessesarely desireable. You can try to follow this guide when trying to create your article.
- Template:RGeorgeCrawford Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Correction in statistics
Under the head List of India Test Captains the following anomaly is observed
Against Sourav Ganguly- for year 2003-04 Pakistan series the following is mentioned Played- 3 Won-2 Lost-1
However he did not play in 2 tests and played only 1 (the last )test. So the figures must be corrected as Played-1 Won-0 Lost-1
In the first 2 test, Rahul Dravid captained India and both tests were won by India The above has been correctly mentioned against Rahul DRavid
Sundaresan Suresh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durgapur Suresh Iyer (talk • contribs)
- Article in question seems to be List of India national cricket captains#Test match captains. Indian cricket team in Pakistan in 2003–04 does say that Ganguly captained one Test match, and Rahul Dravid captained the other two. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Missing subject
Hello
Please will you organise an entry for https://www.clamxav.com/about-us/
It is NOT the same as Clamav
2A00:23C7:E204:D200:D83D:3E24:B67F:C827 (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, IP user. Nobody "organises an entry": Wikipedia is created by volunteers - like you and me - who choose to contribute to the encyclopaedia. If you want us to have an article about Clamxav, really you have two choices: either write it yourself, or persuade somebody to write it. (There is a third option, which I really wouldn't advise: there are scam artists out their who will offer their services writing articles about people for money. Whatever they may say, they cannot guarantee that an article will be accepted, or that it will be acceptable to the subject).
- Neither is easy. Writing it yourself is the most effective, but this is the hardest task there is for a new editor. I suggest that you 1) create an account; 2) take The Wikipedia Adventure to learn how to edit.3) Spend a few months adding value to Wikipedia by improving some of our six million articles. 4) When you think you are ready to try it, read your first article and create a draft.
- Do remember that a Wikipedia article is not for the benefit of the subject, does not belong to the subject, and will not necessarily say what the subject wants it to say. See PROUD. --ColinFine (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Welcome for experts
I'm not having much success finding a guide page or template (I don't remember which) that welcomes and advises new subject expert editors. I'm pretty sure it exists but it's hiding from me. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Dodger67, I'm not sure it "welcomes", but Wikipedia:Expert editors exists. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Gråbergs Gråa Sång it was "hiding in plain sight" - the links listed at WP:Expert_editors#Advice for new expert editors. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Dodger67: Ot perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/List of reviewers by subject is what you are after? Eagleash (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks but that's not it. I'm trying to advise a newbie editor who happens to be an expert (has a Ph.D.) in a particular subject. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
261st Multifunctional Medical Battalion
Good morning, I have been tasked to update our information on our page could please assist me with it
V/R
Maharaj, Andy SFC, USA— Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.239.218.36 (talk)
- First, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you are required to make. The link you posted went to a nonexistent article, is it under another title? If it is, you may make a formal edit request on the article talk page, detailing changes you feel are needed. If possible, information should be sourced to independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Hello Andy, and Welcome to Wikipedia. First of all, before editing any further, please review WP:PAID. Second, it's not "your" page, but Wikipedia's page about 261st Multifunctional Medical Battalion. Since the article does not currently exist, it would need to be created from scratch. There is a guide available at Help:Your first article. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia Account
Good Day,
I am a business owner and a 2 or more years ago i requested my team activate a wikipedia account for me in my name. Today we started to set up an account forgetting that one was set up and we cant as tiger name has been used. what do we do and how can you assist please on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.58.242.184 (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- You can create a new name for yourself, but remember that accounts cannot be shared. You can't create an account for your company or your team, it must be for one person only. RudolfRed (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Please see WP:COI, re conflicts of interest. We highly recommend you do not create an article about your own company. Second, Wikipedia is not a business directory. Articles are not "accounts". You do not own or control any article, even if it is about you or your company. Assuming you comply with WP:PAID and make the article WP:Neutral, an article can be created with a disambiguation modifier - for example, see Tiger_(disambiguation)#Businesses and organisations. Your have to assure that your company is notable under our guidelines. You will need to cite to reliable sources to prove that it is notable. Just proving that a company exists is insufficient. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 18:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Protected Content
Courtesy link: Diana, Princess of Wales
Hi
A few of us have noticed some content on the page for Diana, Princess of Wales.
The following statement implies bias by the choice of phrasing:
"Five years into the marriage, the couple's incompatibility and age difference of almost 13 years became visible and damaging.[56] Charles resumed his relationship with his former girlfriend Camilla Parker Bowles, and Diana later began an affair with Major James Hewitt, the family's former riding instructor."
Charles' affair is referred to simply as a relationship. Diana's affair is not. This implies a negative bias towards Diana's character but Charles has been represented differently. Please amend this to reflect the statements fact equal to both parties.
Many thanks
- Please discuss this on the article's talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Discussion started by me. Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales#Separation versus affair - starting discussion for other editor (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this:
~~~~
. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
AfD
Courtesy link: Talk:Cathedral High School (New Ulm, Minnesota)
Hi, I'm new to the AfD process, I've mainly been working on vandalism in the Recent changes section and adding information to articles.
I recently proposed an AfD, but I've run into some problems.
- The Wikipedia AfD page says that a section for discussion of the AfD is automatically made and a link posted at the top of the notice. I used Twinkle to generate my AfD and I couldn't see a discussion link.
- I believe that my arguments for the AfD were right, but an unregistered (IP) user reverted my AfD notice edit without engaging in a discussion. They just replied with 2 arguments that I would like to question further but I don't believe that their Talk page would be appropriate.
- AfDs cannot be made on a page again after the notice has been deleted as per policy. As the user has reverted my notice without even engaging in a discussion, would this mean that I can't nominate the AfD again even if I would like to hear from others? WP:CLOSEAFD states that the discussion should normally be allowed to run for 7 full days, and this has not been the case.
- WP:CLOSEAFD states that usually admins/trusted editors/the nominator should close an AfD. This directly goes against the AfD notice which states "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason"
Cheers Hunter 20:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Just warned the IP user for removing AFD notices from articles without engaging in the discussion Pahunkat (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think you are getting WP:CSD and/or WP:PROD and WP:AFD confused. CSD notices can be removed by anyone except the creator. PRODs can be removed by anyone. AFDs cannot be removed by anyone (unless the discussion is closed). A PROD is just a proposed deletion of non-controversial material. A CSD is a speedy admin deletion of pages which fall within defined categories. An AfD is a community discussion around whether an article should be deleted. Can you please indicate which page you are speaking of? ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 20:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) If you're talking about your edits at Cathedral High School (New Ulm, Minnesota), you actually didn't start an AFD, but a completely different deletion procedure known as proposed deletion. This is the level of deletion between speedy deletion (completely uncontroversial) and WP:AFD (needs discussion to delete). Anyone can contest a PROD, but you can still list it for AFD. You should follow the directions at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion to list it for AFD. bibliomaniac15 20:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
My bad, it's a PROD. If you want to make an AFD discussion I think it's the XFD tab on Twinkle. Pahunkat (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! Seems like I'd accidentally pressed the option above. I'll be adding an AfD template now.Hunter 23:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia Holidays
How do I participate in the community project?MargeIn (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to help! Go to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Holidays. There is a note at the top there. To get started, post a note on the talk page, check out the todo list, and add your name to the participant list. Happy editing! RudolfRed (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
November 17
Ivis Williams
A local Labour Party councillor in the Royal Borough of Greenwich since May 2018.
- @Dawneta: Did you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this:
~~~~
. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Extreme bias and inaccurate information on MeWe article
Discuss at Talk:MeWe
|
---|
This article calls "Stop the Steal" a group of conspiracy theorists. This is inaccurate The election is contested, with very credible allegations of fraud currently being litigated in several states "Stop the Steal" is a broad-based movement of concerned citizens who want election laws and state and federal court orders respected, including one issued by the U.S. Supreme Court. Also, this article used the terms "alt=right" and "far right" to refer to conservatives, Republicans, and anyone concerned about massive reports of voting irregularities. It calls information shared by conservatives "misinformation." These are pejorative terms grounded in bias, rather than fact. Please flag this article as defamatory and an attempt to silence legal efforts to defend the rule of law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:A4C0:4E2:5B08:3E1C:74D7 (talk)
|
Heads up for spurious death announcements
I'm posting this here as it will be quickly seen: if there are other/more appropriate desks etc. for it, please feel free to copy or transfer it as appropriate.
This is a BBC report of a recent, accidental premature publication of ~100 pre-prepared obituaries of various well-known people, by Radio France International.
I imagine this may cause a spate of well-intentioned but erroneous attempts to edit the relevant articles. Perhaps someone might like to prepare a template or other stock reply and/or edit summary for use when reverting such edits. I'm sorry not to be able to put in more effort on this myself, but it's beyond my previous Wiki-experience, and I'm currently preoccupied by unfortunate family circumstances in Real Life. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.26.5 (talk) 08:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Want the assistance of a Wikipedia Editor
Hi, Please I am looking forward to have any contact to a qualified wiki editor for creating a page for my company . for contacting me : sara tarek ,Brand manager (redacted)
41.41.3.131 (talk) 10:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a place with "pages" about companies. Wikipedia has articles about companies that meet our criteria; a company must be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. You should also review conflict of interest and paid editing. If you wish to allow other users to email you, you should create an account and add an email address to it, not post it publicly in this forum. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Hello, Sara. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. This is a volunteer project, and all editors are people who choose to work on it, and choose what they will work on. Promotion of any kind is forbidden: if at some point we have an article about your company, you will not own it, you will not control it, it will not be for your benefit,you will be strongly discouraged from editing it directly, and it will not necessarily say what you want it to say: see An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.
- If your company meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then we could have an article about it. This article will not be based at all on anything that your company says or wants to say, but only on what people who have no connection with your company, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of your company, have chosen to publish in reliable sources.
- If after this admonishment you consider going ahead, please read conflict of interest, paid editing, and your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi! A user suggested that this title should be changed to "F is for Family", which just lowercases the capital I. They were trying to explain some points, but they were getting pretty aggressive and wasn't taken too seriously. Here are the sides:
The I should be capitalized according to MoS. Is is a prefix, and should not be capitalized because that's just how it is on Wikipedia.according to MoS. Is is a prefix, and should not be capitalized because that's just how it is on Wikipedia.
The I shouldn't be capitalized because that's how the show stylizes the name according to the logo, and should represent that.
What accordance should we follow? I have no part in this discussion, and it won't benefit me in any way, I'm just figuring it out so I can report it to the user. Le Panini Talk 11:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Le Panini: The I should be capitalized per MOS:CT. Every verb is capitalized including "Is". —teb728 t c 11:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Firstly, that's the opposite of what MOS:CT says; secondly, the article is illustrated with the title card showing that the show doesn't capitalise the I either. Straight-out no-brainer. ‑ Iridescent 13:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Iridescent, No, it says there that "Always capitalized: Every verb, including forms of to be (Be, Am, Is, Are, Being, Was, Were, Been)". They want to abide this rule because the show's title card displays it as otherwise. Le Panini Talk 14:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- OH I MIXED THEM UP I FIXED IT so sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Le Panini (talk • contribs) 14:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Firstly, that's the opposite of what MOS:CT says; secondly, the article is illustrated with the title card showing that the show doesn't capitalise the I either. Straight-out no-brainer. ‑ Iridescent 13:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
recover user name
We have had a change over of personnel and would like to edit or pages, but no one remaining at the office has the username or password. Can you help me out with finding the user name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.87.126.98 (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well, no. Please see Wikipedia:Username_policy#Shared_accounts. You cannot share accounts on this website. Furthermore, see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. You are strongly discouraged from editing from the point of view of an organization, especially if you are editing articles related to that organization. So, I suggest, if you wish to edit as an individual in a neutral voice and not in topics related to your organization, that you create a new account. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 15:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Who is "we"? Wikipedia accounts are single-person only. You will need a new account anyway. Please create one account for each individual in you office, and make sure that all accounts comply with WP:PAID and WP:COI. The username policy is at WP:USERNAME. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hello. It sounds as if you have a common misconception that Wikipedia's article about your company is in some way yours to maintain or update. It is not. You are welcome to suggest changes on the article's talk page using the edit request mechanism, but that should be the limit of your involvement in it. --ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia article about your company is in no way connected with your company. Anyone in the world is able to and allowed to edit it. Your company, as the subject, does not enjoy any privilege over the article. In fact, because of conflict of interest reason, the employees of your company are specifically strongly discouraged from editing the article. JIP | Talk 17:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- I do not think you can 'recover' a username. Your IP address has a history of edits, four of them were done in two articles related to nudity: Special:Contributions/74.87.126.98. A history of edits in those two articles doesn't seem to contain any other systematic edits, related to your society. Are you SURE your former employee was using a named account in Wikipedia...?
- Anyway, even if any account existed, it was either private or organization-related.
- If it was a private, personal account (say, JakeSmith or Naturist or something) you may not recover it, because it belongs to a specific person. Possibly to someone still active at Wikipedia, just not on your society's behalf.
- OTOH, if it was shared (like, say, NaturistSociety or NatSocStaff) then it was against Wikipedia policies and should be blocked. As a result, you may try to 'usurp' it but you will not be able to use it.
- So, the only option is to create a new account. But this is NOT a GOOD option, as it would be likely breaking the policies of WP:COI and WP:PAID, if not WP:SHARE. Additionally, such accounts usually are likely to edit against WP:WWIN, esp. WP:PROMO and WP:NOTDIR, which ends in a block. --CiaPan (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- CiaPan: I don't think that last is helpful advice. They have a legitimate interest in the article about their company, and as long as they follow the principles various people have given them, and do not attempt to edit the article directly, they should be fine. --ColinFine (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- @ColinFine: It's not an advice; it's an option, and – as I emphasised – not a good one. I have no idea why you call it an advice when I say something is not a good choice. Their best option is to refrain from touching articles connected to them and make edit requests at relevant talk pages instead. This can be done either with a named account or from an IP address. But whichever they choose, with the attitude presented they are likely to slip into editing (actually, they did already: Special:Diff/989209191), hence the warning at the end of my entry above. --CiaPan (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- CiaPan: I don't think that last is helpful advice. They have a legitimate interest in the article about their company, and as long as they follow the principles various people have given them, and do not attempt to edit the article directly, they should be fine. --ColinFine (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Errors in Simultaneous Interpretation article
The historical note in this page refers to "Gordon Finley." It seems that the reference should be to Alan Gordon-Finlay, who has his own Wiki entry. Also, he is referred to as an emplyee of IMB. That probably was meant to be IBM, although the Gordon-Finlay Wiki never says that he was employed by IBM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19B:4401:31D0:CF5:5CFF:6091:A575 (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, and have updated the article accordingly. In future, you can also ask at the article's talkpage, which for this article is Talk: Simultaneous interpretation. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Feedback on draft of article
I have recently started work on an article in my userspace about GCSE English as it was pointed out GCSE Science existed but none of the other core subjects existed. The draft can be found here. I am not asking for a full review as it isn't ready yet but just for a rough idea if I'm doing things correctly as this is my first article. Thanks Eyebeller (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, Eyebeller. I don't see any independent sources. If you start writing an article without independent sources, you're quite likely to have to rework it from scratch when you find some. --ColinFine (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Vandalism help request
I have noticed some vandalism at Transient Lingual Papillitis Transient lingual papillitis.
Namely, this politicized and absurd statement was added in a recent edit. "Another known cause for lie bumps is if you voted for Joe Biden in the 2020 us election.
Would an editor please assist me with fixing it? Thank you,
Terry
2600:1702:1030:E220:D8C1:260A:2719:2172 (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- In the future, please take comments like this to the article talk page, in this case: Talk:Transient lingual papillitis. However, the vandalism has been removed. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 18:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- The page is also not protected, so for simple vandalism like that you can go into the article's history and undo the change yourself. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I am familiar with uploading front and back of press photos at Wikimedia Commons, where the software allows me to list the alternate image on each file page under "other versions=". However, when uploading a fair-use image on Wikipedia, I do not see such an option. While uploading File:Marguerite Littman.jpg and giving it a fair-use license, I also uploaded the back of the photo here: File:Press photo of Marguerite Littman (back).jpg. Now I am getting a bot message on my talk page telling me that if I don't add the latter image to an article, the file will be deleted in 7 days. Do I have to worry about that? The back of the photo only corroborates the image details that I listed under File:Marguerite Littman.jpg. Or is there another way that I could combine the two images into one file that won't be deleted? Thank you for your help. Yoninah (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Category with wrong alphabetical entry.
I am having an issue with an article (Aime Hansen). I recently added some categories to the article and a defaultsort. The subject is properly alphabetized in the categories I added (20th-century Estonian poets and 21st-century Estonian poets). However, another category I added (University of Tartu alumni) shows her entry correctly in the H column, but last; not properly alphabetized. Rather confusing. Any ideas? Thank you ExRat (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- @ExRat: This should resolve itself in a few days. A software change is being installed behind the scenes - see here and here for discussion. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
New page created
Good evening,
I created a new page on Wikipedia and would like to submit it to an editor for approval and publication. Could you kindly help?
User:Thecastle2020/sandbox/Lebohang Kganye
Many thanks,
Julie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecastle2020 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- I have added the appropriate information to allow you to submit your draft for review. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia Community
Is it possible to look for other wikipedians and if it is how? Also, I don't know how to add my self to the participants list for Wikipedia holidays.MargeIn (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MargeIn (talk • contribs) 22:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- @MargeIn: What do you mean by "look for other Wikipedians"? To add yourself to the list you can click on the "edit source" link and add your name to the list. I might also suggest you try out The Wikipedia Adventure to get a hands-on interactive introduction to using Wikipedia. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this:
~~~~
. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. What I meant about looking for other Wikipedians is connecting to them personally and discussing topics or contents with them, is this possible?MargeIn (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- MargeIn, Wikipedia focuses more on the content than the editors, so there's no directory to speak of. The closest things would be WikiProject groups and conversations would usually be carried out on someone's talk page. Just keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a social network and that striving to improve content is paramount. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
OK, thank you.MargeIn (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't have a talkpage
Hi colleagues, I'm a user from the Italian Wikipedia! I still don't have a personal talkpage here on Wiki.en, it could be a problem if someone wants to talk with me. Thank you! Cicognac (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Cicognac, if someone tries to start a conversation on your talk page, it will be made. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Delete page
Avi Nardia has a page about him that is constantly being edited with false information about him, he would like the page regarding him taken down immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinShinobi (talk • contribs) 00:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- JustinShinobi Unfortunately, the wishes of the subject are not relevant as to whether or not an article about them exists, because Wikipedia summarizes what publicly available independent reliable sources state. See WP:OWN for more information. If there is incorrect information in the article about him, and you have independent reliable sources to support those claims, please offer them on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- The other option, is if you wish to argue that Mr. Nardia does not meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable person, you can initiate an Articles for Deletion discussion. 331dot (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- It should be noted that this editor has already been blocked as WP:NOTHERE. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Adding a Watchlist filter
Hi.
I want to exclude Bot edits from my Watchlist. I open the Watchlist and click "Show" next to "Active filters" then " ≡ Filter changes (use menu or search for filter name)" and I get list of available filters, with those in effect checked. I check "Human (not bot)" and click outside the filter list. Sure enough, "Human (not bot)" appears under "Active filters". But then if I close the Watchlist tab in my browser, reopen it, and click "Show" again, "Human (not bot)" has disappeared and bot edits are reported. How do I make this filter permanent?
Peter Brown (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Peter M. Brown, after selecting that filter, did you click on the bookmark icon that has the tooltip "Save current filter settings" directly to the right of all the active filters? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. The tooltip doesn't appear when one doesn't know enough to hover over it. It would be nice if it were labeled somehow.
- Peter Brown (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Not sure where to post this
I have a suggestion that involves the devs of wikipedia themselves. I'm not sure where to post this where they can read and consider adding it to their site.
"I propose a new idea, and though I'm sure long time users of wikipedia will be divided, I think it is in line with the times.
What I suggest is simple: The option to comment on any wikipedia page. This will not only allow editors to gain feedback but also supplement any existing knowledge. There may be information within a given community that could only be had by this setup. Let's say x article has a cult following. There is a very elementary page about it but none of the users are willing to edit it for themselves. Their commentary would allow a contributor to update the page with new information. etc.
I think this could easily be implemented through disqus." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:743:4100:17A0:B879:3FB9:E430:8265 (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Problematic Prolific Uninformed and Contentious Editor
In my decade + of editing Wikipedia I am having my most frustrating experience ever. Just recently an editor who is knowledgeable about editing Wikipedia and who edits prolifically has decided to become interested in editing a few summary pages involving one of my main areas of expertise (ancient philosophy). This editor has never edited any detail page on the subject. I have over 1,000 such edits. I've also had a book published in the field. This editor has picked up two breezy introductory books to the subject and, due to their lack of understanding of the subject matter and the thinness of the sources they're relying on, are misinterpreting and misunderstanding what they're reading while citing these two sources over and over. Usually if one points out to another editor that they have made a factual error, they become more careful and circumspect in their editing, especially if more than one error has been identified. That's not the case here. We're well into double digits now of factual errors. The editor in question is repeatedly reverting my annotated corrections (annotated either on the edit itself or on the Talk page) based, of course, on their conviction they understand the material better than I do, based on consulting two thin introductory texts. While several experts in individual philosophies regularly edit those individual philosophies, few of these editors are involved on the summary pages which historically have had thin content, mostly just linking to key pages about the subject because these are complex topics that are difficult to summarize. So, I'm finding myself alone in trying to deal with the introduction of erroneous claims based on misunderstandings of the cited sources. The editor in question appears to have far more time available to devote to Wikipedia than I do, yet I keep getting sucked in because so much erroneous content is being added and my edits are constantly being reverted (all carefully within the rules - the editor is an experienced editor).
Any advice on how to persuade this editor they are in over their heads on this subject, and that they should refocus their prodigious editing efforts on topics they better understand?Teishin (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)