Help desk
< March 22	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 24 >

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.

March 23

New article submitted but it hasn't been posted - how long does it take?

I submitted a new article on March 12 on a notable award-winning scientist, Legrand van Uitert, with many verifiable links. I got an immediate response from an editor saying the subject was not notable and sources were not verifiable that seemed to be a canned response from an editor who hadn't looked at the entry. I sent a response immediately outlining all the verifiable sources and notability and have heard nothing almost two weeks later. I couldn't find any FAQs with information on what happens after one tries to create a new article - it seems like a black hole at this point. Please help.Icosan6 (talk) 04:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Icosan6, I'm sorry, but your article is practically unreadable. I strongly suggest you look at a Wikipedia biography of a scientist and try to make it look similar. Practice in a WP:Sandbox if you like. It is very, very hard to read that draft and make sense of it--I suppose the claim is he's notable because he co-filed the patent for some laser? You really need reliable sources to verify that claim, not a PDF from some organization. That goes for all the information here: please see WP:RS on what a reliable source is. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the convenience of anyone interested, the OP doubly mis-capitalized the title currently on the article (which itself may or may not be correct): it's at LeGrand Van Uitert (note the "G" and "V"). The recipients list in the Howard N. Potts Medal article redlinks him as 'LeGrand G. Van Uitert', and the IRI Achievement Award lists him as 'LeGrand Van Uitert' unlinked. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.80.28 (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please help improve the article, IP... Drmies (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Icosan6: After 5 days, your new user account can be used to create articles directly in the encyclopedia, without going through Wikipedia:Articles for creation, unless the article is about you (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest). What article do you plan to create next? The Transhumanist 10:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:The Transhumanist, I think recent edits to the article have shown that maybe this may not be the best idea. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you get a list of the currently most active editors

I'd like to create a list of the 100 most active editors over the past 24 hours, or the past 7 days.

How can I do that?

Preferably, I'd like the method to be automated, not manual.

I look forward to your replies. The Transhumanist 10:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Transhumanist: Wikipedia:Request a query, perhaps? -- John of Reading (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Transhumanist: There used to be Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits, but it has not been used for several years and it is nominated for deletion (third time). It covered a month, rather than 1 or 7 days. --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just in the nick of time. Thanks! The Transhumanist 14:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing / Vandalizing

Hi,

I was cleaning the tabloid and gossip paper sources of one of our clients (Axl Smith) for Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axl_Smith

It wasnt long till all the sources arrived back and now i'm getting message from 'Serol' about vandalizing your great website... Who actually makes the decicion that what is wrong and what is right? Who is correct and who is vandalizing?

All I am trying to do is clear wrong information, but It seems like I am considered to be a vandal. I have straight access to the source (Axl Smith) and the situation.

Thank you for your time and looking forward to hearing your answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsmithcastle (talk • contribs) 13:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you work for Axl Smith, you should not edit the article. You have a conflict of interest. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Axl Smith is not the source of the article, he is the subject of the article. Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing includes professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. You could raise the question at WP:RSN as to whether or not Ilta-Sanomat is a reliable source. You still should not edit the article itself. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsmithcastle,

Please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in anything which a subject (whether a company, a person, a band, a charity, or anything else) says or wants to say about itself. That includes the subject's own publications, and also anything published by an independent source but based on an interview or press release from the subject. An article should be largely based on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable places. In any case, every single fact or claim in an article should be derived from a published reliable source. Please see WP:V for more information.. --ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle for deletion

I have just enabled Twinkle and used it to propose a deletion of the Campus of Northwestern University article. The one time that I proposed a deletion without Twinkle, there were a bunch of notifications that were needed, on project pages and such. Does Twinkle take care of all three steps in the process for proposing a deletion, or just the first one? Thanks, Leschnei (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Leschnei: For a PROD, all you should do is notify the creator of the article and Twinkle does that for you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks much. Leschnei (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you linked to the Articles for Deletion (AFD) process which is different from a PROD. Twinkle also carries out all the steps for a AFD nomination. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC) @Leschnei: Muffed ping. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Ah yes, thanks for pointing out. My contributions page says that I did a PROD, which is wanted, so all is good. Leschnei (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unethical activity: Dissimulated back-link to a commercial vendor.

Good Morning,

I would like to report that this page content has a commercial backlink attached to the image referring to a vendor website, you may also view it in the section: Weblinks at the bottom page. How was this approved? Here is the page link:

https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imsouane&veaction=edit&section=6 Thank you, Redouane — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redouane12 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redouane12. This is the English-language Wikipedia. We have no say on what happens on the German-language Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redouane12, please direct your enquiry to the German WP Help page. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs

ìhelp the children in pasting thair own phorograph in the frame provided above ask them to colour bengali — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.11.7.54 (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Metallica

Is Wikipedia on drugs at all, I've been on metallicas page and one minute hard wired to self destruct has sold 3 million worldwide then it changes to 2.2 million, then its 2.5 million then its 3.5 million and now its 2.2 million, make up your mind which is it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5A2D:4A00:CC5A:A065:1294:6C31 (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

…Investigating…L3X1 (distant write) 16:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging DannyMusicEditor L3X1 (distant write) 16:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft article langishing in submission process

I've had an article, Draft:The Bold Fisherman waiting for approval since 17th February. It's similar to other articles I've written than have gone through without trouble, and there aren't any messages I can see to indicate why it hasn't been approved. Is there somewhere else I should be looking for suggestions for improvement? What am I missing? Thanks! Joe Fogey (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Fogey: One problem with this article, and one of your previous ones, is the link to the gif's on the Bodlean Library. They block hot linking to their images, so it then appears as a dead link to the automatic reference checking tools and bots. Try linking to the actual page that the image appears on. - X201 (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've fixed that and some other naked links. Don't the bots tell you when something is wrong? Joe Fogey (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The automatic tools like WP:REFLINKS warn you that it will tag it as a dead link. Some bots just tag it as a dead link straight off. Not sure how many bots will leave it untagged. - X201 (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Fogey: Apart from the links discussion above, the backlog of articles awaiting approval is a factor. As I write this comment, the New pages feed shows "16879 total unreviewed pages", with "1229 pages reviewed this week". Your article and many others await the attention of reviewers. Eddie Blick (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you. It has now been approved, so something has worked. Joe Fogey (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edited a page intro and the references list is not automatically updating/renumbering

Hoping for some guidance here. I've edited the intro of an existing page and the references section is not updating accordingly. I tried to go in and edit the reference list directly. The first 5 citations are still appearing despite being removed from the intro and then the numbering starts at 6 and was auto-numbered through the document. Is there a solution to fixing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemurr27 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lemurr27 The reflist is automatic, I know of no way to edit it by hand. Did you add/delete or rearrange references, and the reflist isn't updating? What page is this? Thanks. L3X1 (distant write) 17:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemurr27: The first 5 references in Mercury Insurance Group are being called from the infobox. The infobox is before the intro to the article, so they will continue to be first. I fixed an error in one of them. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If this relates to Mercury Insurance Group, the first five refs are contained in the infobox. At first sight, the references section appears correct (although some refs need 'tweaking'). Eagleash (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The references within the i/bx have now been combined by another editor so the Nos. have now changed once more. Eagleash (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ONUnicorn - I guess I didn't realize that these were linked to the reference box. Thanks so much for the clarification. I really appreciated it :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemurr27 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lapin

Joseph Harris Lapin (discoverer of DPT vaccine & author of text book on whooping cough) should be included.

1900 - 1978 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.205.159 (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can request an article about him on this page. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he seems to be notable. Ruslik_Zero 19:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My uploaded Commons images are only visible in their categories when I am logged in

I have recently uploaded six images to Commons:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dolphin%27s_Delight.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ExtravagaNZa.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fernlandia.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_White.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Crux_of_the_Matter.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Triple_Cross.png

Each of these images has been tagged with the Commons Categories 'Proposed national flags of New Zealand' and 'Proposed flags of New Zealand'.

When I am logged in, and I visit the Commons pages for 'Proposed national flags of New Zealand' and for 'Proposed flags of New Zealand' at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposed_national_flags_of_New_Zealand and at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposed_flags_of_New_Zealand, my images appear, but when I visit the pages after I have logged out, my images do not appear, unless I once again log in.

I touched base with an Administrator about this problem, but I was referred to the Help Desk. Can you resolve this issue for me, or can you explain how I may resolve it myself?

Kind regards,

NZ_Flag_Maven

NZ Flag Maven (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the case no one here can help, I beleve the help desk they were referring you to was Commons:Help desk, not Wikipedia:Help desk. TimothyJosephWood 20:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NZ Flag Maven: The images were also missing for me while logged out. They appeared after I purged the category pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rebekah Mercer

Rebekah Mercer is not a Philanthropist but a political donor. Please remove the "philanthropist" from her name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebekah_Mercer_(philanthropist) Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B198:7A40:6082:4301:8597:FE73 (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per talk page discussion )which I agree makes sense) I'm moving it to Rebekah Mercer (donor). She is much more hi-vis than Rebekah Mercer (actress). L3X1 (distant write) 21:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mario kart 8 deluxe.

Is this going to be the main Mario kart game for the switch? the reason I ask that is this: since you guys haven't made a page on it yet, it made me think that the game's a spinoff and that it's not the main Mario kart game for the Nintendo Switch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:374A:8F70:450B:826:8EF5:F3A1 (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. I know nothing about Nintendo games, and cannot answer your main question. But what I can say is that if an article does not exist that is nearly always for one of two reasons: either 1) the subject is not notable (i.e. there has not been enough material published about it in independent reliable sources to provide a basis for an article); or 2) nobody has chosen to write an article (i.e. none of the thousands of volunteer editors who work on Wikipedia has decided to write it). --ColinFine (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to try your question here: Mario Kart 8 Talk Page or at: Entertainment Desk. If this fails to offer results, maybe taking it to a gaming forum online. Good luck! Maineartists (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thousandth edit

I just got a notification that I just made my thousandth edit. How can I see what edit that was? Benjamin (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can view your contributions, but they aren't numbered, though. I'm guessing it's this one to Transgender.L3X1 (distant write) 22:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I made that edit after I got the notification. Is there no way to see which was my thousandth? Benjamin (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are different ways to count edits (see Wikipedia:Edit count#What is an edit count?). I don't know the feature which notified you or how it counts but Special:CentralAuth/Benjaminikuta currently says you have 1004 edits so I guess it counts in the same way. Counting backwards from 1004 in Special:Contributions/Benjaminikuta gives the edit L3X1 suggested. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notices automatically informs of you of your 1st, 10th, 100th, 500th, and thousandth edit. As I have only 5500, I don't know if you will be notified at milestones like 10K, 50K , 100K etc L3X1 (distant write) 01:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found it mentioned at mw:Help:Notifications/Notifications types#Milestone which lists powers of ten up to 1,000,000. Maybe you can still see the edit on the notification icon or at Special:Notifications. The Transgender edit was the first in six hours so I guess that was it. I haven't passed any milestones since Wikipedia:Notifications was introduced in 2013. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just got a notification for 100,000 so can confirm that such a notification occurs.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]