Help desk
< November 14	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 16 >

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.

November 15

Unable to check references due to paywall

Some references hit a paywall. Do Wikipedia editors get any special access to the articles behind paywalls?

Please ping me when replying.

—Srid^🍁 01:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sridc: You can ask at WP:RX for an editor with access to check on it for you. RudolfRed (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sridc there is WP:Free English newspaper sources and WP:Library. Also check your local library system, many offer free access to major publications and databases. Schazjmd (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Start page.

Quick question (because I couldn't find it anywhere else, or in my preferences.) How do I set my start page? dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 01:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dibbydib: What do you mean by start page? If you mean the page your browser starts on when you open it then it depends on the browser and is unrelated to Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Thank you :D dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 01:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask browser questions at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing but name the browser. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sabotaged WIki Page

On the page Telecommunications engineering someone has written 'microwaving kids is fun' on the first picture on the right, please fix someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.177.143.72 (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Constant edit conflicts

So it seems, every time I make an edit, even if the last edit was months ago, that when I click "Submit", I get the edit conflict screen. I've disabled any of the functions in Beta and Preferences that might have caused it, and I still get it. Anyone know why? And for that matter, it seems the wiki software will immediately revert the edit in my name so I'll in in the history "PrussianOwl +380", and in the next line "PrussianOwl -380". Thanks, PrussianOwl (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PrussianOwl: That sounds like a very odd problem. I suggest you raise this question at WP:VPT where technical issues are looked at. RudolfRed (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RudolfRed: Thanks, I'll try there!

I've been getting the same thing on and off lately. Edit conflicts with yourself. It pops an edit conflict, with the only difference being your own comment, but if you open the page in a new tab, you actually already made the change, even if you do nothing in response to the "edit conflict". GMG ^talk

Misdirected Notes in Yellow on pages

Howdy! Sir or Mam, Occasionally I get a Yellow Notice saying that an edit "I" made has been adjusted or corrected. Since I registered my Name on Wikipedia I never have Edited a page. The Day I Registered was because I wanted to correct a page about Morse Code but the page was locked and couldn't be edited. The notices I get don't have my Name they have a IP Address.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:76.240.198.248

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.240.198.248&diff=cur

are two pages I looked at today but as far as I recall I haven't looked at the page(s) the notices mention.

Thanks for any help You can tell me about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:76.240.198.248
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.240.198.248&diff=cur

I haven't logged on - and I don't see any place to put my Email Address at.

Hope this info helps Wikipedia.

P.S. I have no idea what will happen if I press the Publish changes button but it looks like the only way to send this message to You All is to click it. Please correct anything that I cause to happen by clicking that button. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.198.248 (talk) 02:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 76.240.198.248. It looks as if you share your IP address with other anonymous editors, and Wikipedia has no way to tell which edits are yours and which are made by others. You can safely ignore any messages about edits that you have not made, since they are intended for someone else who uses the same IP address. It is easy to avoid this problem by creating an account so that you get only messages intended for you. Dbfirs 07:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Leyers Wiki https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Leyers

FallenM (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)It seems a waste of time to try and edit this page when Arthur McGill will decide what is and is not acceptable content. The problem with Arthur's judgment is that he allows non-primary, non-secondary reliable sources - or zero sources - to be used in prior edits to the page.[reply]

I've posted on the Discussion page twice since early October without response.

It matters because the page includes some nonsense that is defamatory in nature about Leyers, and a university report was issued in August that demonstrates how any material gleaned from the abominable fraud-hoax book "Beneath A Scarlet Sky" - or any person associated with that hoax should not be used directly or indirectly. For instance, the entry uses material from and cites an 'essay' published under the name of Mike Lella on a web site over which some "super fan" has (had) some control and influence. This "essay" written with input from Mike Lella if not by him was published in partial exchange for a "photo op" with the "hero"/protagonist in the novel of "biographical and historical fiction" - a factual disclosure that has meaning and not just "something a mean lawyer insisted on so that the hoax could be published". :)

I've remarked to Arthur that it is reckless and (also) defamatory to allow to stand remarks that are "sourced" from the fraud that is this book. The fraud is on the cusp of being exposed. One major component was the report on Hans Leyers issued by Prof. Gentile of the Jewish Studies dept. at the University of Cologne, which makes quite clear that the author of "Beneath [Contempt]" elected to miscast Leyers ~August 2009.

The 'essay'/article by Mike Lella - son of "hero" - is intended to further promote the hoax. Mike isn't even terribly concerned about the fact that the 'essay' and his other stories and remarks even contradict even what is in the book.

I thought Wiki had strict standards with regard to source material, conflict of interest, and verification? Is that only true depending on the who or what of the Wiki entry?

At any rate, some movement on the Discussion page would be welcome. Sources cited on some items on that page (I included a rough draft of some edits for review by someone who isn't inept).

Thanks!!

Regards,

Mary F.FallenM (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FallenM: hello and Welcome to the English Wikipedia. Since every Wikipedia is a different project with it's own rules, we unfortunately can't help you here. You might want to ask over here in the German language Wikipedia. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

input that belongs on the German Wikipedia, not here

My English is not so good, just a Basic-School English, and therefore I answer from now on exclusively in German in order to avoid misunderstandings. Furthermore kindly note that in this special case I refer primarily to German-language sources (press, reports, etc.).

In addition, I would appreciate it if the discussions on this topic were to be carried out in the future in a factual and scientific tone, without any unobjective commentary such as "reckless" and "silly" in connection with Wikipedia articles. This is in deed not acceptable and can be taken as a personal attack!

Now my statement regarding the Causa Leyers:

Ich bin von Fallen M. mehrfach von ihrem Anliegen in Kenntnis gesetzt worden, den Artikel in ihrem Sinne und aus ihrer Sicht zu verändern. Ich schrieb dazu zuletzt am 1. Januar 2019, dass ich eine öffentliche Stellungnahme der Gemeinde Geilenkirchen abwarte und daraus eventuelle Schlüsse für eine Korrektur des Artikels ziehen werde.

Mittlerweile liegt ein deutschsprachiges Gutachten von Dr. Carlo Gentile von der Universität Köln vom 23. August 2019 vor, der sich im Auftrag der Gemeinde mit der Causa Leyers beschäftigt. Gemäß Abschnitt „Zusammenfassung“ (Seite 22/23) war Leyers zwar an speziell zitierten Kriegsverbrechen wahrscheinlich weder „mittelbar noch unmittelbar beteiligt“:

An Kriegsverbrechen wie Massenerschießungen, Vergeltungsaktionen oder “Dörfervernichtungsaktionen”, wie sie allenthalben in dem vom Deutschen Reich besetzten Europa zwischen 1939 und 1945 vorkamen, war er, nach allen bisher verfügbaren Quellen, mit an Sicherheit grenzender Wahrscheinlichkeit weder mittelbar noch unmittelbar beteiligt. Diese Feststellung betrifft gleichermaßen seine Zeit als Truppenkommandeur im Polen- und Frankreichfeldzug wie die Zeit ab 1943 in Italien.

doch im Weiteren wird dort ausgesagt, dass Leyers im Zitat genau spezifizierte Zwangsarbeit, Deportation und Ausbeutung speziell in Mittel-und Süditalien zur Last gelegt werden können:

Anders sieht das Bild allerdings bei der Betrachtung der Verbrechen aus, die mit Albert Speer und seinem Ministerium in Verbindung gebracht werden, insbesondere Zwangsarbeit, Deportationen und materielle Ausbeutung. Aus dem hier Dargelegten ist deutlich geworden, dass Leyers im besetzten Italien diesbezüglich eine ambivalente Politik verfolgte. Die bevorzugte Behandlung von Teilen der norditalienischen Arbeiterschaft verfolgte den Zweck, die Massenproduktion von Rüstungsgütern und Waffen für das “Dritte Reich” zu optimieren. Andere Kategorien von Arbeitern, wie es am Beispiel der Genueser Arbeitslosen deutlich wird, gab er frei für die Verschleppung zur Zwangsarbeit in Deutschland. In der ersten Phase seiner Tätigkeit in Italien war seine Stelle maßgeblich an der Demontage der Industrie Mittel- und Süditaliens sowie an der Verschleppung der italienischen Arbeiterschaft beteiligt. In den vorliegenden Ausführungen wird deutlich, dass Leyers Engagement im Zweiten Weltkrieg weit über das Maß der “reinen Pflichterfüllung” hinausging und er wesentlichen Anteil an der Perfektionierung der Ausbeutungsstrukturen im besetzten Italien hatte, wodurch er aus eigener Initiative dazu beitrug, den Krieg zu verlängern.

Dr. Carlo Gentile zweifelt ferner an, dass sein Verhalten im zweiten Weltkrieg durch Benennung einer Straße nach ihm zu würdigen sei:

Leyers gehörte nach den vorliegenden Erkenntnissen zwar nicht in die Kategorie der Hauptkriegsverbrecher, dennoch war er als Technokrat für Gewaltmaßnahmen im Krieg verantwortlich. Aus historischer Sicht ist stark zu bezweifeln, ob sein Verhalten im Zweiten Weltkrieg mit der Würdigung seiner Person insgesamt durch die Benennung einer Straße nach seinem Namen zu vereinbaren ist.

Lediglich über die Rolle Pino Lellas als Leyers Fahrer gibt das Gutachten keine abschließende Stellungnahme. Hier beschränkt sich Gentile lediglich auf die Inhalte des Buches von Sullivan ohne deren Wahrheitsgehalt zu bewerten. Auch eine Einbeziehung der Familie von Pino Lella fehlt in dem Gutachten, aus dem hätte hervorgehen können, welche Rolle dieser Fahrer wirklich gespielt hat. Denn auch das (im Artikeltext) verlinkte Interview mit seinem Sohn Michael („My fathers Role…“) ist reine Binnenansicht. Somit ist nach wie vor nicht bewiesen, ob die Rolle Pino Lellas den Tatsachen entspricht oder ob diese aus dramaturgischen Gründen verändert wurde.

Folglich sehe ich also momentan – noch – keinen Grund, den Artikel zu verändern (außer dem Beifügen des aktuellen Gutachtens als neue Quelle mit einem kurzen Kommentar dazu), da die im Artikel aufgeführte Kurzvita über Leyers den Aussagen im Gutachten nicht widerspricht. Es sei denn, die Gemeinde Geilenkirchen kommt später (nach Auswertung des Gutachtens) zu einem anderen Entschluss (Der Weisweiler Wohltäter verliert wahrscheinlich seinen Weg - Aachener Zeitung vom 15. September 2019) und/oder die Aussagen von Michael Lella werden explizit mit seriösen externen Quellen in Frage gestellt. Mich auf die Aussagen von Fallen M. zu beschränken, die den gesamten Vorgang offensichtlich aus einer subjektiven Binnenansicht sieht, und folglich eine Änderung in ihrem ganz persönlichen Sinne vorzunehmen, erscheint mir nicht wikipediakonform. Im Übrigen verfolge ich ebenso Fallon Ms. zahlreiche und sehr persönlich gehaltene sehr emotionale Stellungnahmen auf Axel.history (https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=1370325#p2226378 seit 2009), wobei es sich um einen Blog handelt, der für Wikipedia keine relevante, bzw. zitierfähige Quelle ist. --ArthurMcGill (talk) 08:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else on this discussion page, --ArthurMcGill (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* *

Herr McGill,

Für falsche und erfundene Informationen in dem Artikel über Leyers ist die Verwendung des Wortes "rücksichtslos" absolut angemessen. Was "albern" angeht, gut, ersetzen Sie es durch "betrügerisch" oder "historische Fälschung". Die Täter der Falschmeldung haben sich an der Diffamierung von Leyers beteiligt. In Deutschland ist dies verboten, ohne Rücksicht darauf, ob der Gegenstand der Verleumdung verstorben ist - stimmt das oder nicht?

Ich finde es alarmierend, wenn jemand nur Informationen auswählt, die er bevorzugt, weil dies eine schlechte Entscheidung unterstützt, nicht-primäre und nicht-sekundäre unzuverlässige, kahle Behauptungen zuzulassen, die für einen biografischen Eintrag nicht überprüfbar sind (weil es sich um Fiktionen handelt). (Dies schließt Mike Lellas persönlichen Werbe-Aufsatz über seinen Vater ein.) Sie haben sich dafür entschieden, die relevantesten Informationen in der Gentile-Bewertung zu überspringen. Dies beinhaltet Informationen darüber, was stattgefunden hat. Ebenfalls weggelassen wurden die Auszüge, die deutlich machen, dass Sullivan beschlossen hat, Leyers in die Rolle des "Bösewichts" des Buches einzubeziehen, als er wusste, dass Leyers nicht die Person ist, die in den Geschichten des erfundenen "Helden" vorkommt (dies ist laut Sullivans eigenen Beiträgen über die Achsengeschichte im April 2006 und August 2009). Sullivan verwarf Fischer eindeutig als ungeeignet für den Zweck, das weitgehend Fiktive so zu konstruieren, dass sein Roman ein Erfolg werden würde.

Ich halte es für eine faire Einschätzung, dass Sie sich als "Herausgeber" / Herausgeber dieser Seite entfernen sollten. de.wikipedia sollte einen Freiwilligen einsetzen, der keine Fehlinformationen aus nicht überprüften Informationsquellen zulässt… und Informationen, die fast ausschließlich aus erfundenen Fiktionen bestehen. An dieser Stelle ist es mir egal, auf welcher Grundlage die Tendenz besteht, Fehlinformationen zu verwenden, die aus einem Roman über „biografische und historische Fiktion“ und Material des Sohnes des erfundenen „Helden“ stammen, der ein persönliches Interesse daran hat sicherzustellen dass niemand die Märchen über seinen Vater untergräbt. Dieser Schwindel ist weitaus komplizierter als die Diffamierung von Leyers. Es gibt nur sehr wenige Menschen in dem Buch, die Sullivan nicht in einer Rolle besetzt hat, die sie nicht gespielt haben. Leyers und der "Held". Es gibt nur sehr wenige Ereignisse in dem Buch, bei denen Sullivan beschlossen hat, sich nicht auf historische Fälschungen einzulassen, und das schließt die Abschnitte Vorwort und Nachwirkungen ein.

Relevante Auszüge aus den Seiten 20-21 der Gentile-Bewertung wie es sich auf "Unter blutrotem Himmel" bezieht:

“Man muss selbstverständlich an einen historischen Roman ganz andere Maßstäbe anlegen als an eine wissenschaftliche historische Darstellung. Es ist aber an dieser Stelle durchaus angebracht, auf eine Reihe von offensichtlichen Verzerrungen historischer Tatsachen hinzuweisen. Mark Sullivans Homepage charakterisiert General Leyers als “Adolf Hitler’s left hand in Italy” und als “one of the Third Reich’s most mysterious and powerful commanders” , wobei unklar bleibt, was mit der Metapher “Hitler’s left hand” gemeint sein soll. Diese Behauptung Sullivans steht im Widerspruch zu den historischen Tatsachen, denn, wie deutlich geworden ist, war Leyers Stellung im besetzten Italien zwar bedeutend und einflussreich, jedoch in der Hierarchie der deutschen Dienststellen in Italien eher dezentral zu verorten. Ein verzerrtes Bild gibt auch die zweite Aussage, das Leyers “powerful” gewesen sei. Dies war er aus historischer Sicht zumindest nicht in dem Maße, wie es der Roman suggeriert. Formell war er lediglich Generalmajor und Hauptabteilungsleiter in der Militärverwaltung. Er kooperierte mit Botschafter Rahn und dem Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD, Harster, verhandelte selbstbewusst mit Generalarbeitsführer Kretschmann und italienischen Stellen. Doch ein solches Auftreten gegenüber Mussolini, wie von Sullivan beschrieben, ist völlig unglaubwürdig. Er war sicherlich nicht ebenso “powerful” wie der Oberbefehlshaber Südwest Generalfeldmarschall Kesselring, Botschafter Rahn, der Höchster SS- und Polizeiführer SS-Obergruppenführer Karl Wolff, um nur die wichtigsten zu nennen. Der Ausdruck “mysterious” trifft in Anbetracht der Masse an Quellen über die Arbeit seiner Dienststelle in Italien ebenso wenig zu. Seine Tätigkeit und die Politik, die er als Generalbevollmächtigten für Rüstung und Kriegsproduktion in Italien verfolgte, sind in Grundzügen ausreichend erforscht. Wenn es keine biographische Darstellung seiner militärischen Laufbahn gibt, mag der Grund hierfür in dem Umstand zu finden sein, dass diese noch nie relevant genug erschien, um betrachtet zu werden.

Als grobe Verzerrung kann auch die Darstellung der Zustände auf den Baustellen der Organisation Todt bezeichnet werden. Viele Italiener wurden deportiert und unter schrecklichen Umständen als “Sklavenarbeiter” in Konzentrationslagern, wie Mauthausen, und unterirdischen Fabriken, wie in Kahla und Nordhausen in Thüringen, ausgenutzt und missbraucht. Mit Ausnahme des Frontgebiets, wo tatsächlich an vielen Stellen Willkür herrschte, sind so krasse Zustände wie von Sullivan beschrieben, in den italienischen Lagern und Baustellen der Organisation Todt nicht bekannt. Die Behandlung der Arbeiter durch die deutschen Organe in Italien war in der Regel nicht schlecht und insbesondere eine Beschäftigung bei der Organisation Todt, die, anders als im Buch suggeriert, nicht General Leyers unterstand, sondern einem Ingenieur namens Fischer, brachte sogar gewisse Vorteile für die Arbeiter, wie angemessene und zeit- weise sogar sehr gute Löhne, Verpflegung und Arbeitskleidung.

“Mysterious” kann sich daher nur auf seinem privaten Lebensbereich beziehen, der durch das Fehlen eines Nachlasses in den einschlägigen Archiven tatsächlich nicht historisch erforscht werden kann. Hinweise auf die Vorwürfe der Korruption, auf seine Geliebte bzw. auf die angebliche Ermordung von Zeugen seiner Untaten sind auf jeden Fall bisher nicht zu finden gewesen.

Eine der Schlüsselszenen des Buchs befindet sich im Kapitel 21. Dort wird suggeriert, General Leyers habe auf vier “Ostarbeiter”, die Zeugen eines Goldtransfers gewesen sein sollen, geschossen und diese möglicherweise getötet. Diese angebliche Tat soll im Raum Monza am 31 Oktober 1944 stattgefunden haben. Trotz einer intensiven Suche in der aktuellen Datenbank des “Atlante delle stragi nazi-fasciste in Italia” (online seit April 2016), in dem wahrscheinlich alle Tötungshandlungen durch deutsche und faschistische Truppen verzeichnet sind, ist eine solche Tat nicht dokumentiert. Ebenso wenig nachzuweisen ist der Vorwurf, Leyers habe Gold zum Zweck der persönlichen Bereicherung beiseite geschafft. Die im Vorfeld des Gutachtens herangezogenen Quellen enthalten keinen Hinweis für diese Tat.”

ENGLISH:

Mr. McGill, for false and fictitious information in the article on Leyers, the use of the word "reckless" is absolutely appropriate. As for "silly", fine, replace it with "fraudulent" or "historical falsification". I am unconcerned with whether or not someone considers this choice of words a "personal attack". The perpetrators of the hoax have engaged in defamation of Leyers. In Germany, this is forbidden without regard for whether the object of the defamation is deceased - is this true or not true?

I find it alarming when someone will pick only information he prefers because it supports a poor decision to allow non-primary and non-secondary unreliable, bald claims that are not verifiable (because they are fictions) on a biographical entry. (This includes Mike Lella’s personal promotional ‘essay’ about his father.) You elected to skip the most relevant information in the Gentile assessment. This includes information on what took place. Also omitted were the excerpts that make it clear Sullivan decided to place Leyers in the role of the book’s “villain” when he knew that Leyers was not the person featured in the tales of the invented “hero” (this is according to Sullivan’s own posts on Axis History in April 2006 and August 2009). Sullivan clearly discarded Fischer as unsuitable for the purposes of constructing what is largely fiction so that his novel would be a success.

I believe it is a fair assessment that you should remove yourself as an “editor”/publisher of this page; de.wikipedia should assign a volunteer who will not allow misinformation from unverified sources of information … and information that almost entirely consists of contrived fictions. At this point, I don’t care what is the basis for the bias in favor of using misinformation obtained from a novel of “biographical and historical fiction” and material from the son of the invented “hero” who has a personal interest to ensure that no one undermines the fairytales about his father. This hoax is far more complicated than the defamation of Leyers. There are very few people in the book that Sullivan failed to cast in a role they did not play, incl. Leyers and the “hero”. There are very few events in the book where Sullivan elected not to engage in historical falsification, and that includes the Preface and Aftermath sections.

Relevant excerpts from pages 20-21 of the Gentile assessment as it relates to “Beneath A Scarlet Sky”:

[provided in English for those who request it]

FallenM (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FallenM: The helpers here at the English-language Wikipedia cannot help you with disputes on the german Wikipedia. -Arch dude (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Shokin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Shokin

This page will be important in the context of the current impeachment proceedings in the US and will certainly be leveraged for the purposes of information operations. As such I suggest edits recieve a higher level of scrutiny than normal. Apologies if this is the incorrect forum in which to send up a signal flare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1505:40C9:556B:56D8:AF3C:73AC (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP editor. I have added that article to my watchlist. A quick review of the edits in recent months does not show any significant problems. If you notice a burst of vandalism, please file a report at the Requests for page protection noticeboard. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Roberts

Under the old Poster for Mr. Roberts the information states the move was 123 minutes. This is totally erroneous. I don't know how many minutes it was exactly, but I just watched it tonight on TCM, thinking oh they have the old uncut version because they 123 minutes listed and they have no commercials. This at 123 minutes was the most cut version I have seen yet. The nurses never discovered that the men could see them take showers from the boat with binoculars, there was no letter writing contest, so many other scenes shortened. So the information under the poster is wrong, and a great movie like that deserves accuracy, and a new generation of movie watchers should know it has been edited and edited. I couldn't find where to add that under the Mr.Roberts or Mister Roberts article so if you could let me know or add it yourself I would appreciate it. Thank you04:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmarielloyd (talk • contribs)

IMDb says 123, TCM and the American Film Institute[1] say 120-121, 123 or 126, and Variety[2] goes with 120, so I will note the lack of agreement in the article. However, I'm not seeing anything like the great discrepancy you are claiming. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the proper place to ask questions like this is either the talk page of the article or the entertainment reference desk. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tool for cleaning up after a page move?

List of Major League Baseball players to hit for the cycle should read List of Major League Baseball players who hit for the cycle, but I don't want to deal with all the articles that link to it. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to find a page that is in two specific categories

Hi, I'd like to know a way to find pages of people born in the 1800s and died in the 2000s, for no other reason than interest. Is there a way to find a list of these pages, e.g. pages in both Category: 1899 births and Category: 2001 deaths? Or is there a different/easier way of doing this? Nixinova T / C 07:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nixinova: Yes, the PetScan tool can do this. here is your sample query. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our search box can also do the simple 1899/2001 example: incategory:"1899 births" incategory:"2001 deaths". Petscan has more advanced features like subcategories. There you can for example search Category:1890s births and Category:2000s deaths with Depth = 1. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Nixinova T / C 18:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using Dispute Resolution and possible mistake

I hope this is the right place to post this kind of question. I recently requested assistance in resolving a dispute with another editor (User:Dalhoa) due to an dispute that we were unable to resolve. I informed them (both in the relevant page's Talk page and on their own Talk page, but did not post the DRN (Dispute Resolution Notice) template on their page until after I had made the request because I had not noticed the template or the instructions regarding it until then (once I noticed, I posted it on their Talk page). Is my failure to post the notice before making the request likely to cause me to be sanctioned in some way, or perhaps to impede the progress of the request? And if not how long do such requests normally take to be answered. Here is the link to my noticeboard post: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Horn_of_Africa#Jebel_Irhoud_in_Morocco_obsession Any help is appreciated. Thank you.Skllagyook (talk) 08:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC) Also, if the dispute were able to be resolved and I wanted to cancel the request, would that be possible? And if so, how would I go about cancelling it? Skllagyook (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Skllagyook: Our processes are intended to achieve results. They are not ends in themselves. No, you should not be "sanctioned", whatever that means, unless a consensus develops that you are "wikilawyering". You should be focusing on the desired result, which is to make the article better by resolving the dispute, arriving at a consensus, and making the article better. If you fear that you may have offended the other editor by your lateness with the template, then apologize and explain in a comment under the template. If you feel the situation has been resolved and there is no longer a dispute, add another note to that effect. Remain courteous and WP:AGF, even (or especially) if the other party is not being courteous and civil. You are a member of a community whose goal is to build a better encyclopedia. -Arch dude (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arch dude: Where would I add the note/where should I post it (that is, if there is no longer a dispute)? Thank you Skllagyook (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Skllagyook: I'm not sure. Please ask at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard. The editors who like to handle disputes are will see it there and those are the folks who need to know that the dispute is resolved. -Arch dude (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arch dude: Thank you. I may ask there. Skllagyook (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Skllagyook - Do you want to close the DRN thread as withdrawn? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arch dude: I did want to close it. I had compromised (agreeing to their preferred edit) and hoped that the dispute was over. But the other editor has now begum to dispute about another issue, and I do not feel that it is appropriate to simply relent again (as I did on the previous issue). They seem to be unwilling to listen and have resumed their incivility and hostility, while mischaracterizing (or misinterpreting) my positions, and the situation continues to get worse. I have now filed a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I hope that was not an inappropriate place to do so. Skllagyook (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Locations - contemporary or modern

In a case where someone was born in an area that, at the time was one country, and is now a different country, how should their birth location be listed?

If it was an actual article subject we'd probably put both, but family links, which one should be opted for? Nosebagbear (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you're saying what country they were born in, you should say what country they were born in, not what it became later. For example, Ernest von Koerber says "Ernest von Koerber was born in Trento, Tyrol, Austrian Empire". You could add "(now in Italy)"; but anyone who cares can find that out by clicking the Trento link. Maproom (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nosebagbear, My preferred way of saying it in-text is something along the lines of Stalin was born in Gori, in the Russian Empire, in what is now Georgia, or in what is present day Georgia. But in the infobox, or for other listing purposes, you should just put the country at the time of their birth. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter-by-chapter book summary

Does Wikipedia discourage writing chapter-by-chapter book summaries? For example, see How_I_Shed_My_Skin#Chapters

(Please ping me when responding)

—Srid^🍁 17:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sridc, Yes, that is overly detailed. Such summaries should be shortened to a general plot summary of readable length. Seeing as that article already has a summary, the chapter summaries can be simply removed. The article in question could also benefit from a "Reception" section discussing reviews of the book. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citing multiple sentences that follow each other.

Greetings,

If I have multiple sentences following each other on my wikipedia page do I have to cite each sentence individually or can I just add the citation at the end of the last sentence that pertains to that specific citation?E.h.elhag (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E.h.elhag, You can generally just cite at the end of the paragraph/set of sentences if it is all from the same source. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@E.h.elhag: as CaptainEek said, end-of-paragraph is usually the best. However, if another editor comes along and puts a {{fact}} tag on a sentence (or even worse, within a sentence), then its best to put your reference in again at that spot. use the "named reference" syntax to cite your single reference from multiple places. -Arch dude (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New article Question

I've been publishing an article but none got back to me. Can you please let me know if it's ok and when it will be published? or if I need to edit anything? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squaduser (talk • contribs) 19:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This question is the first edit from your account. Could you give us a link to the article, or to the account from which you made the edit? I see that you asked a similar question on the Italian Wikipedia, but again that was the only edit so far from your itwiki account. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Squaduser: Hello, the post above is the only edit from the account used according, to your contributions. Did you use another account or edit whilst not not logged-in. In any event, please provide a link to the page in question. (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.) Thank you, Eagleash (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your answer. this is the link to the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Erik_Stark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squaduser (talk • contribs) 19:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your answer. this is the link to the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Erik_Stark Squaduser (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your answer. this is the link to the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Erik_Stark Squaduser (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Squaduser: I took a quick look and made some improvements to the grammar, syntax and style. The refs are too bare and should be filled out. The lede is too long - some info should go at least personal life and career sections. Other than that, I'm not as familiar with notability guidelines for articles about speedboat racers - the most relevant (despite not being about boat racing) seems to be this for racing athletes Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Motorsports, but others can chime in. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been making the amendments suggested. Do you think it will be published now?Squaduser (talk) 10:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't upload image

I can not upload an image into an article. I am told the content can not be determined suitable for wiki. The image is mine and a screen shot of an electronic block diagram related to the artical I am trying to create. Its needed to help understanding of the text and to show the text is not an advertisement but is tutorial in nature.

Something went wrong

We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezbsg (talk • contribs) 21:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ezbsg: Suitability: Please read WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not for tutorials. Use Wikibooks instead. Images: Wikipedia (and Wikibooks) adhere to copyright law. If you own the copyright, you can upload it. If not, then not (with a few exceptions). In general you do not own the copyright to the contents of a screen shot. You have clear ownership of a photo you take yourself, but not if it includes an image of someone else's copyrighted material. -Arch dude (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ezbsg: If you use a graphics program such as Visio or Acrobat to create a block diagram, you can upload the graphic, but you can't take a screen shot of a running program that includes any custom screen elements such as the program menu. Even more of an issue, your draft article doesn't have enough sources, and you might want to read WP:EL about avoiding in-line external links. Also, you're better off trying to add any missing info about the microchip registration database to Microchip implant (animal). (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) 23:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arch dude: :@Timtempleton: Thanks for the help. I own the copyright to the screen shots because I took a screen shot of my Visio block diagram. I will try an upload the Visio its self for this article. Its not easy as I expected getting a Wiki article right. Ezbsg (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC) Ezbsg[reply]

@Ezbsg: Instead of using the screen shot, try exporting from Visio into .svg format and uploading that. You will probably need to experiment. A screen shot is a bitmapped image and will not scale well. SVG is a vector format, like the internal Visio format, but is an open standard and is rendered properly when scaled. If I were forced to start with a Visio file, I would export as SVG and then import to Inkscape to verify that the file is usable and to further manipulate it if needed. You can also export to SVG and then directly look at the SVG file with your web browser to verify. -Arch dude (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]