Help desk
< December 8	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 10 >

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.

December 9

Donation

Just a quick question why do you guys keep pinging me for a donation when I gave a donation just a week ago for $20 do I have to see the banners that ask for money every time or are you not able to recognize and IP address thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:347:4100:ADE0:F0C8:E220:BA90:946B (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(1) None of us volunteers who do all the work on Wikipedia has any control whatever over the banners, they are set up by Wikipedia's host the Wikimedia Foundation whose website is at https://wikimediafoundation.org/, if you want to complain about it to them.

(2) It would be pointless to even try to recognize IP addresses in order to not show previous donators the banners, because:

(a) Many IP addresses, such as those of computers in libraries, schools and workplaces, have more (sometimes many more) than one user, so 'delisting' that IP after a donation would prevent many users from ever seeing the banners;

(b) Many IP address users (like myself) have dynamic IP addresses which their ISPs change at varying frequencies, reassigning them between their customers as convenient, so 'delisting' such an IP would

(i) prevent later assignees from seeing the banners at all, and

(ii) would not prevent a donator from seeing the banners after their IP changes.

(c) Banners can be permanently switched off by anyone with a User account, which is trivial to set up and doesn't commit one to anything, so one could do so for that purpose alone;

(d) Most people like myself who do see the banners aren't annoyed by them and don't find the single click needed to close them particularly onerous;

(e) Since using Wikipedia is completely free of charge, unlike many comparable websites, having to see a banner occasionally (Oh noes!!1!) can be thought of as a teeny tiny usage fee.

Hope that gives you some food for thought. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.209.178 (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thanks for your donation – it is definitely appreciated! In case it was missed, a quick and easy solution (for most people) is to register an account (click that link for info). There are several benefits in addition to not having to see the banners, including customization of many preferences to improve your user experience. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move article/Change display title

I am updating the Resilience (engineering and construction) article to include a broader range of ideas about resilience. I would like to change the title to Resilience in the Built Environment but have not been able to. How can I know the reasoning for that?

Ghaliaamm (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ghaliaamm

To change the title of a page use the move function. However, this is only available to autoconfirmed users, users with an account at least 4 days old, who have made at least 10 edits. In any case, that is a sufficiently major change that I urge you to discuss it on the article talk page first (Talk:Resilience (engineering and construction). You will find detailed procedures to follow at Requested moves. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: OP moved page, but to incorrect capitalisation. I am loathe to move it to the correct caps immediately, because, as noted above, it is not an entirely uncontroversial move and seems to have taken place without discussion. Courtesy ping Ghaliaamm. Eagleash (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a merge tag to the article Resilience in the built environment, started a merge discussion on its talk page and informed OP. Also noting the existence of an article Urban resilience. Hope this helps. Wakari07 (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you people have got to be out of your minds

everytime I search for stats ('x' vs. 'y') I get charts that don't match up. 'x' has one type of chart, and 'y' has a complete other. Sometimes the info I'm looking for may be in 'x' but missing in 'y' (on the same page). If you'd like, I can send you examples as I run into them again. Then, your info is not as correct as you might think; and 70% is not a good grade. If you think I'm gonna pay for 70% of any product that professes to be a pedia, you're nuts. I tell all my students that if they site Wikipedia in their reports, instead of the correct sites, they will get no better than a 70%. Truth on the internet is hard enough to find without you all selling 70% as an ok truth. That, my friends, is a lie. 70% of anything is a lie, a conjecture, a theory, a guess. And now, students are being sent into the work force feeling that the truth is something to be trifled with. No, I will not support your misleading website. I am ashamed of you. BTW- 70% of this text is misspelled, or otherwise misorganized. I suggest you just go ahead and accept it. I really do have a lot more to say, but this will suffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.242.191 (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Wikipedia help desk. Do you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? -Arch dude (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have specific examples of the issue? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how to capitalize, or how to spell the word "cite"? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If your students cite Wikipedia as a source, you should fail them entirely. Wikipedia itself explicitly states that it is not a Reliable source and should not be cited as such. Instead, it should be used as a guide to the Reliable sources that it cites to support facts in articles: your students (and everybody else) should be consulting those cited sources directly if they want to give citations.

"Truths" are constantly changing as science and other disciplines advance: Wikipedia aims for "Verifiability, not Truth".

Neither you nor anyone else are required to pay anything at all to use Wikipedia. If you don't want to respond to occasional polite requests for donations, ignore them as nearly everybody else does most of the time, in the wider world as well as on Wikipedia. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.209.178 (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

shock and awe

Hello,

As a follow up to my earlier question this morning, who wrote the bible? Who leaves a relationship and who stays, does the one who leaves the relationship the one you don't want? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.106.50 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Wikipedia help desk. Do you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? -Arch dude (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since it should occupy you for some time, here's a link to Part 1 of a fairly detailed attempt to address your first question above. Your other questions are too undefined or ill-formed to be answerable. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.209.178 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Racist content on Wikipedia!

Hi,

My friend is a teacher and got one of her students to Google for information about the continents, which resulted in them finding the sentence "Africa is the continent of the brown people and it would be really nice if they stayed there".

This text doesn't appear to be on the page itself but as you can see on the following screenshot it's clearly in the Google cache: https://ibb.co/kmQyv9x

Needless to say this is unacceptable and needs to be addressed ASAP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdsKB (talk • contribs) 13:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That bit of vandalism has already been removed. He iro 13:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

…and didn’t last for more than three minutes here. However, Wikipedia doesn’t actually have any influence on what Google does (and Google seems to be surprisingly bad at this kind of thing). Cheers ⌘ _hugarheimur 14:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The use of .m. in the following URL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy

What does .m. mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HowardMorland (talk • contribs)

Mobile - its a link to the mobile website. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 16:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

And is one reason why it's very much better to use wikilinks than URLs in discussion pages like this one: that will open the version appropriate to the device in use. --ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

("Security_warning") Wikipedia scared?

Would Wikipedia's drivers stay off the road just because 30% of the cars no longer can obtain safety support for their brakes?

What is the message behind what I saw yesterday:

Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/sec-warning

Your Browser's Connection Security is Outdated.

Wikipedia is making the site more secure. You are using an old web browser that will not be able to connect to Wikipedia in the future. Please update your device or contact your IT administrator.

I'm using Internet Explorer 11, the highest-numbered release.

I'm using Windows 7 Professional, for which Support from Microsoft ends Jan. 13, 2020,

... and with it IE 11 on Win7. Aside from Windows 8 (NINE was the German "Nein" = No), Windows 10 will not have a Windows 11 successor - 10 will be followed by 12.

(reminds of "Why is nine afraid of seven - because "seven ate nine") Even Microsoft Security Essentials will continue to support Win7.. for a while, so why is Wikipedia scared of non-malevolent users of Win7/IE11, and how safe is it for other wiki people to use, if they're on a highway with 30% non-inoculation? Isn't it time, if Wiki has some clout, to publicize that the 30% running Win7/IE11 are still welcome, and let Microsoft/Dell (from whom I've been buying) know that Apple will be happy to eat their lunch, if they close 30% of the dining room. P.S. Tailorable software often facilitates presenting another version identifier, just as, long ago, versions of DOS higher than 4 permitted returning a value of 4 to not "break" older software. Those of whom the author of the above sec-warning seem afraid can surely spoof as an acceptable version ID. P.P.S. If this desk can't help, is there another? Pi314m (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi314m:For technical issues, see WP:VPT. This is the Wikipedia help desk. Do you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? -Arch dude (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They include some further details here, basically they want you to switch from IE11 to Edge or Firefox. IE11 users are 3% of global internet traffic. While you can spoof version IDs, you can't spoof a cryptographic protocol (required to connect at all). Turning off the ability of people on older browsers to even connect just three weeks from now seems unnecessary (but I see how Wikipedia hopes to be a force that ensures more people get general browser security). I haven't seen this discussed at the village pumps yet. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: the message says your browser uses TLS 1.0 or 1.1, which is Bad. Follow these instructions to activate 1.2, which is Good. Come back to WP:VPT if it does not fix the problem.

Longer answer: I am afraid the ship of backwards-compatibility has sailed when Wikipedia became HTTPS-only back in 2015. Here's a not-too-technical article for the background, but essentially, leaving users with the choice to connect with two protocols, one secure and one insecure, allows censor-happy governments to force the insecure version. Leaving only the choice of the secure version forces that government to choose between breaking or allowing the whole site (no selective censorship possible).

Here it is about TLS version rather than HTTPS itself, but the same applies. TLS 1.0 and 1.1 are broken versions of HTTPS, and simply allowing access by these (broken) versions causes trouble - here's a more technical article about how the "protocol dance" can be abused by attackers to downgrade even a TLS 1.2-capable connection to the older (insecure) versions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Pi314m and Þjarkur:. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What?!

So I literally just write the founder of my school, and you guys give me a warning. I noticed that some things on my School's page could have been more detailed and then I write my founder. Then you give me a warning when I reload the page to see the edit. This feels really stupid when I was absolutely sure it was my school's page and I was adding info that could have been helpful to someone who might be interested in that school. My friends have had similar things happen where they were just adding important facts, that they knew wee absolutely true, and were given warnings. Like what?! I feel like there is some sort of automatic thing that happens whenever you make an edit. So stop. Because some people have important things to say, so not cool guys. This is very unreasonable, and I expect something to be done about it so the next time I edit something, that doesn't happen. You should be acting more professional like you are. Really. This sucks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1BC0:1F60:5CA3:5012:E258:951E (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Content needs to be sourced, so we can verify its accuracy. Especially on articles about schools, which tend to attract bad edits. How do we, and the viewers, know that those people founded the school, and aren't just some students putting their names in articles as a joke. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:V, which is arguably our most important policy. The key quotation is that the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material

If our content isn't verifiable, we would have no way of knowing if it was all made up. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hello, IP user. Thank you for wanting to improve Wikipedia. The problem with your edit to Long-View Micro School is that it was unsourced. Wikipedia is nearly worthless if unsourced information has been added, because a reader has no way of checking whether the information is correct; so we don't allow unsourced information to be added. If your friends similarly added unsourced information, that will be why it was removed.

It is unfortunate that Optakeover didn't explain this when they reverted your edit, or even when they posted a warning on your User talk page. My guess is that they thought it was vandalism: people often add names to articles about schools just for a laugh. If you look at the history of Long-View Micro School you will see many examples of petty vandalism, including some where people's names were added inappropriately.

My suggestion is, yes please, continue to help us improve Wikipedia. But find a published source for all information that you add, and cite it (See Referencing for beginners). And if somebody still removed your edit, engage with them, according to our BRD activity: that is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. --ColinFine (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. What?! isn't quite informative header for your question. When I browse through the page, or even worse: when I browse through archives of the page, which span many years full of different questions, how shall I guess that the What?! names this particular issue???
2. The claim facts, that they knew wee absolutely true is insufficient in Wikipedia. Maybe you know of facts which are true - but it's the reader, who needs to know the facts are true. Anyone can add any information - or misinformation! - to Wikipedia. And the only way to tell them apart is referencing to reliable, published sources. What you or I know does not count. --CiaPan (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biography class rating system?

Hi Wikipedians,

I found a biography today on a person I know a fair amount about. It seemed like it had a fair amount of opinion but most problematic it had no sourcing in the text (ie NO references). However it is classed as "B-rated" which seems to me from reading the rating criteria is way too high.

How do we flag this up for editors or the biography team?? Thanks. --gobears87 (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

what is the article in question? You can just be WP:BOLD and change the rating on the talk page, if you think it is of a different quality. Whilst articles are sorted into Wikiprojects, any user can edit these (up to a point) if they are of a different class. Articles with a large amount of unsourced information probably wouldn't meet the B class criteria. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is this James_C._Rose and I was stunned to find that a MUCH better article for someone similar, which is properly sourced, is actually still rated "start" class - it's a shocking comparison and reversal of what the ratings "should" be. This is the comparison article: Beatrix_Farrand I would be curious to know what a regular editor thinks of these two (& their classifications). Thanks. --gobears87 (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, there's no automatic system that can regularly go through all of our nearly 6 million ever-changing articles and rate them consistently and accurately: Artificial Intelligence simply isn't that good yet (which may be a good thing, see Technological singularity). Most ratings are done on an ad hoc basis by (probably too few) volunteers (since everyone who works on Wikipedia's contents is an unpaid volunteer, like yourself), whose rating standards will inevitably vary even if (as sometimes may be the case) they aren't trying to hype an article that they have a personal interest in.

Also, there are no presiding editors to whom things can be 'flagged up' (although you could try placing the 'Help me' template on an article's Talk page with an explanation of the problem and hope that someone will respond) – you are just as much an editor of Wikipedia as I or any of the other 100,000 or more different people who edit Wikipedia every month. The nearest thing to a 'biography team' is probably Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, which you are welcome to investigate and join. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.209.178 (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Lee Vilenski. An article that cites no sources at all does not deserve a "B" rating. Thank you for downrating it. Maproom (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles were rated in 2007, when standards were a bit different. Sources in the James C. Rose article are cited in a "Bibliography" section, but not inline. The problem with that referencing style is that unlike with in-line references, it fails to specify which information came from which source. That said, it was considered acceptable in 2007. Meanwhile, the Beatrix Farrand article has changed much more since 2007 than the James C. Rose article did. This is what it looked like when it received the start-class rating. Although the article has improved substantially since then, it has never been re-evaluated. That's one of the main problems with the article grading system. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reset sandbox

I have been making edits to my sandbox and I think the page has somehow gotten corrupted. Is it possible to have my sandbox cleared and reset?Dtetta (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at User:Dtetta/sandbox and click on history. This is where you can revert the sandbox to any version you previously had... Or, you can simply select all and delete the lot, and have a blank version (old revisions will still persist. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the sole author empties it, won't it be auto-deleted? —Tamfang (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How does the Patient UK link work in Template:Medical resources?

I asked this in Template_talk:Medical_resources, but I am wondering if I might get a faster answer here. I see that a few articles (e.g. Hypervitaminosis and Ehlers–Danlos syndromes) that an external link to Patients UK in the Medical resources template (appearing at the bottom near external links) but that the Patients UK attribute in that template is not populated. Can someone tell me how this works? Is there another attribute that's populating two pieces of the template? If I want to link to an article on Patients UK is there a way to do it just with the Patients UK attribute (I can't find any examples of this case). - Scarpy (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata. It's in the template documentation.

Bother, I hate it when I click the wrong button...

in the template, this:

[https://patient.info/doctor/{{wdib|ps=1|qid={{{QID|}}}|P1461|{{{PatientUK|}}}}} {{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]

|QUI= comes from the article's wikidata item; if |PatientUK= has a value, that value is returned by {{wdib}}. So:

{{wdib|ps=1|qid=Q423927|P1461|{{{PatientUK|}}}}} – |qid= from Hypervitaminosis

Hypervitaminosis

Concatenate:

https://patient.info/doctor/{{wdib|ps=1|qid=Q423927|P1461|{{{PatientUK|}}}}}:

https://patient.info/doctor/Hypervitaminosis

Or just make a link ...

—Trappist the monk (talk) ~~22:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)~~ 23:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk: thank you! - Scarpy (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made a donation

But the message that comes up that it was the price of my Tuesday coffee lol Not in Australia mate Lucky to get one for under 5 bucks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:CC3:484A:2D94:E027:F608:2AA0 (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We at the help desk don't control the fundraising at all. Questions, comments, suggestions, etc should go to donate @ wikimedia.org. RudolfRed (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use of & in author list.

Why doesn't |author=Michael J. Denis & Kelli Weaver-Miner cause the article to show up in this list:Category:CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list? Does something need to be changed? User-duck (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One discussion in one place. Answered at Category talk:CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list § Use of &.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]