Help desk
< June 22	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 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.

June 23

New Wiki Page Proposal

Hello - I'm new to this, but I have an idea that I think might be good for a wiki page. There are at least 5 new organizations of republicans against Donald Trump. I think a page about these organizations would be helpful because it would have the all in one place, so people who are curious can find them more easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.83.28.121 (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do have the Never Trump movement article. 331dot (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also Republican Voters Against Trump —valereee (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doc

Doc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adetolabanjo (talk • contribs) 00:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adetolabanjo: What's up, doc? Did you have a question about Wikipedia? GoingBatty (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

http://yalereviewofbooks.com/ considered a reputable source?

Curious if anyone can tell me whether or not http://yalereviewofbooks.com/ would be a reputable source to use on Wikipedia? (and why/why not if possible)

Thanks a ton! Brian — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianLeeMarsh (talk • contribs) 03:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BrianLeeMarsh: The site has no "about" page that I could find. Who are those people? Until we have some idea of who is responsible for the site, we have no basis to evaluate reliability and must assume that the site is unreliable. -Arch dude (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Modern times at The Forward, back to the past

I've reported before regarding Wikimedia Foundation Errors. This is for a simple edit to The Forward at the section named Modern times.

There was a note on Commons back in May stating that a server is being restarted (or something like that) from UTC 05:00 to 05:30 ... this problem was supposed to go away. It didn't.

The Wikimedia Foundation Errors say:

Our servers are currently under maintenance or experiencing a technical problem. Please try again in a few minutes.

See the error message at the bottom of this page for more information.

If you report this error to the Wikimedia System Administrators, please include the details below.

Request from x.x.x.x via cp1081 frontend, Varnish XID 633091102
Error: 503, Backend fetch failed at Tue, 23 Jun 2020 06:13:56 GMT
Request from x.x.x.x via cp1081 frontend, Varnish XID 632763878
Error: 503, Backend fetch failed at Tue, 23 Jun 2020 06:17:46 GMT
Request from x.x.x.x via cp1081 frontend, Varnish XID 633027715
Error: 503, Backend fetch failed at Tue, 23 Jun 2020 06:19:32 GMT
Request from x.x.x.x via cp1081 frontend, Varnish XID 640750332
Error: 503, Backend fetch failed at Tue, 23 Jun 2020 06:22:14 GMT
Request from x.x.x.x via cp1081 frontend, Varnish XID 633780604
Error: 503, Backend fetch failed at Tue, 23 Jun 2020 06:24:31 GMT

This doesn't make for a "friendly" edit situation. The section I'm editing is a bit larger than what I edited earlier today, but not by that much. Maybe it's time of day, phase of the moon? (New moon)

I put the edit on hold. Pi314m (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pi314m. There is no point in bringing this up at the Help Desk: this is a place for assistance in editing Wikipedia. Most people here have nothing at all to do with the technical aspects (either software or hardware). WP:VPT would be a better place. --ColinFine (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Hansler

I am Jonathan Hansler and I need urgently to edit my page which was made without my knowledge as it contsins dates which are harmful to my career as a performers career is about playing range and longevity. This could seriously have cost me work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonhans (talk • contribs) 08:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonhans Your permission is not required in order for there to be a Wikipedia article about you, because Wikipedia summarizes what appears in independent reliable sources. However, if information about you is not found in independent sources, it should not be in the article about you. I see on your user talk page that some information has already been removed from the article for this reason. If other information needs to be removed that has no source, please describe what needs to be changed on the article talk page. Wikipedia has a strict policy about how people who are alive are written about, located at WP:BLP.

As a guard against someone impersonating you, please confirm your identity with Wikipedia by sending an email to info-en@wikimedia.org. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moral response regarding canvassing

If I rececive a ping asking for my input on a particular subject - but that ping is subsequently decided to have been inappropriate canvassing - what is the moral and Wiki-acceptable response expected from me - or indeed any editor pinged?

I'm not asking for commentary about the canvassing itself, whether it was intended or accidental, that's not the issue. It can be assumed that the OP probably thought the subject would be one that interested or had some relevance to me - so even if it's a page I've never edited, I may be able to contribute positively to the article.

Basically - what is the expected response from an editor who is canvassed about a topic that they probably are interested in, and probably would want to work on? Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have on occasion seen a comment like "I was canvassed here, but my opinion is..." which I thought was ok. Context can be very different. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaheel Riens:, in my experience it varies on whether the editor acted in GF (they just thought I'd be interested in it) or because they knew I held a certain opinion, so even without any colloboration, they could be confident I'd come to the same opinion as they. In the former I'd follow Grabergs' advice. In the latter I'd, despite strong temptations to stay, would endeavour to just drop it (otherwise you end up with a disrupted result, even if everyone who was pinged is acting in good faith). Nosebagbear (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this example it does seem fairly clear that it was canvassing in that only certain editors were pinged. I think I'll avoid the topic - it's only tangential to my normal editing. Thanks for the input. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i got a prablom

This article has mistakes in children names are completely wrong and the source they provided doesnt exist(link) takes you to empty web page i add a edit to fix this issue with sources and if necessary we are willing to provide official documents birth certificates, im contacting you on the behalf of kamal adham family.

this is the link arabic : https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/كمال_أدهم

mind you the wikipedia page in english is correct and i dont understand how the english version is correct and the arabic one is not,

this is the link english :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_Adham — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagassi (talk • contribs) 08:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nagassi Each language version of Wikipedia is its own project, with their own editors and policies. You will have to address any issue on the Arabic Wikipedia there, using whatever process they have to do so. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usefullness

Hello all. I have made a good deal of edits to Wikipedia and Wiktionary throughout various lang versions and uploaded a lot of pics and maps to Wikimedia Commons. Is there any way I can get some kind of objective feedback or assessment of the usefulness of my various edits to the readers? Is there any kind of assessment that can be done? Thanks. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Geographyinitiative: There used to be an editor review process, where you could request that kind of assessment. That page explains what happened to it and lists some alternatives, although I'm not sure any of them are quite what you're looking for.

In general; I see you registered in 2009 and made quite a few edits towards the end of that year, then were pretty inactive until 2017, and have been very active ever since. You've created a few articles and are responsible for most of the content in Uyghur American Association. You seem to have a good grasp of sourcing. You are polite on talk pages, even about sensitive political topics, such as Talk:African_Americans#Obama_again. I have not done a through review of all 23,808 of your edits, but what I have looked at it looks like you are doing a good job. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get some exercise/exams of class 7

C.R.E Math Kiswahili Social studies English Science Insha Compstion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.79.105.252 (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a general help desk, but a place to ask about using Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to categorize inactive football clubs?

I see there are only two categories for Brazilian football clubs - activer or defunct. There is, however, a considerable amount of lower division clubs that folded temporarily due to financial problems but may, one day, return to playing.

Should I create a new category for those Inactive clubs, or should they be put into the Defunct clubs tag, as they are currently not playing in any pro tournament? Horcoff (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Horcoff: There’s no rush to mark them defunct if they’re not. I would just leave them as they are until more definitive news appears. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My contribute to combustion

Stop messaging me, this happened months ago, I really don't care about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superjack344 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Superjack344: The contents of your talk page remain in place so long as you leave the messages here. You weren't just now given a message about your months-old edits to Combustion, you were given a new message about a completely different edit you made today, and you saw a months-old message that you had not removed.

It's not our fault you don't understand how talk pages work. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it kind of is (in part) the community's fault that new users find talk pages confusing. It's also (in part) the WMF's fault. I don't think Superjack344's confusion about talk pages necessitates such a rude response. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request to remove the content of Rageela Rasul from wikipedia

Dear Sir,

Request to remove the content of Rangeel Rasul, as already its booked was banned due to religious Hatred of Muslim.

We have confidence that Wikipedia will support us to avoid create disputes between two religion by considering humanity on top.

Its our humble request to remove mentioned content completely from Wikipedia.

Await for your comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.136.180 (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Wikipedia is not censored. We have articles about Mein Kampf, about Atlas Shrugged, about Das Kapital, about Everyone Poops -- something to offend everyone. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Presumably relates to Rangila Rasul.

It is very unlikely that the content will be removed. Wikipedia reports on subjects that have been found notable. If the book has been banned as your post might imply, this will not detract from its standing.

Note, Wikipedia has articles on many topics that some groups may dislike it is their notability (or 'importance') that decides whether an article exists. There are several aspects of history that might cause offence etc. articles are retained. (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) 13:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our goal is to have an article on every notable subject. We consider a subject to be notable (WP:N) if it as been reported upon in multiple independent reliable sources. Sometimes, banning a book can raise from obscurity to notability, as may be the case here. More recently, banning appears to have massively increased the sales of The Satanic Verses. -Arch dude (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't login

Hello. I have account on Wikipedia but I can't login. Forgot password and I don't think I have access to email address. Any way I can get access without having to make new account? 2600:1011:B142:A65C:1CCC:7872:6033:736D (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B142:A65C:1CCC:7872:6033:736D (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not have access to the email associated with your account or did not provide an email address, it is not possible to recover your password. If you do not remember your password, you will need to create a new account and identify it as a successor to your old account(I am JohnDoe2, I previously used JohnDoe1 but forgot the password") 331dot (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:JohnDoe1 looks on in surprise. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tap to display image

I am using an iPad with ios 9.3. When retrieving any wikipage with images and formulas it does not display the image but instead says: tap to display image. I can not seem to get rid of this. Tried different browsers like chrome and safari but the problem remains. Google does not recognize the problem. Hope someone can help me out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:983:925:1:D846:6B89:51BD:17BF (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the issue on both the Wikipedia desktop site and the mobile site? For example, do you have the problem on both https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem (desktop site) and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem (mobile site)? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A similar issue was raised earlier this month and the suggestion then was to try asking at WP:VPT (see Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2020_June_7#"Tap_to_display_image"_why?). TSventon (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spam tracking URLs

I plan on suggesting a standard method of creating spam tracking URLs. My question is "where is the best place to make my suggestion?" I am thinking maybe Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

TLDR details showing what I am talking about:

I recently discovered that some editors insert bogus URLs like https://s.spammersite.com, https://spam.spammersite.com, or https://spamtracking.spammersite.com on spammer's talk pages so that the user's talk page will show up in spam link searches.

I am going to suggest that we standardize on https://spam!tracking.spammersite.com for the following reasons:

s.spammersite.com just looks like the spammer made a typo.
All of the examples above could conceivably be exploited by a clever spammer; wait until there is a s.spammersite.com link on Wikipedia, then make it so that it is a valid URL to the spam site.

Note: I already do the "accept any valid subdomain" trick on my web page; http://s.guymacon.com/ http://spam.guymacon.com/ http://spamtracker.guymacon.com/ and http://randomwordIjustmadeup.guymacon.com all go to my web page. http://spam!tracking.guymacon.com/ does not.

No valid URL contains a "!" in the subdomain (see[1] and [2]) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: I'm not clear on what you are suggesting when you say standardize spam links. Shouldn't spam links be added to WP:BLACKLIST? Why would we keep links to spammersite at all? RudolfRed (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps reading this discussion will explain:[3][4][5], [6][7][8][9] -Guy Macon (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is to have a way of tracking which IPs/editors have added spam links. If you see an IP adding www.example.com to some articles and you decide it is spam, you should revert the additions and put a warning on the user's talk. It's handy to include a link to spam.example.com in the warning. The idea is that the link possibly will not display anything useful, and certainly should give anyone thinking of clicking the link a reason to not click it, but it will show up in Special:LinkSearch if later it is useful to find who added links to example.com in the past. One problem is that "spam" is possibly a bit unpleasant if the user is just misguided and thought they were doing the world a favor, so maybe "s" is kinder. Anything would do, but "s" is too enigmatic for people who see the link later. Johnuniq (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It had not occurred to me that spam.example.com might be objectionable. But now that you mention it, often the person who owns the site has nothing to do with the person who spams it on Wikipedia. I still think the tracking URL should have a ! in the subdomain so it can't ever be a valid URL, so how about link!tracker.example.com? Guaranteed invalid, obvious purpose, doesn't imply anything dad about the site.

BTW I am still wondering; if I make a proposal along these lines, where would the best place to post it be? Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard? Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism? (I wouldn't be proposing any actual policy or guideline, just a "you might want to consider doing it this way" suggestion.) --Guy Macon (talk) 05:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partisan editors

Hi everyone, I am not very experienced on the site and have recently started making edits on articles about topics of my interest, however I could not help but notice that on the bio of a politically controversial author, there are two specific editors always making edits to add negative or critical comments about the author and even going as far as to revert edits from other users that contain positive highlights. I believe it is very likely that these two editors are being paid to constantly monitor the article and hence have a conflict of interest, nevertheless they seem to be high-level, experienced users and I am not sure how could I report them -or anything of the like-, being that I am still an amateur. Thank you for all your help! Salaiken (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Salaiken. I presume this is about Douglas Murray (author)? (I never understand why people think it is helpful not to name the article they are talking about. It just means we have to do a bit of detective work to find it). You are having a content dispute with other editors, which is a normal part of editing Wikipedia. The thing to do now is to start a discussion with them on the article's talk page. If they don't respond, or you cannot reach consensus, dispute resolution tells you the next steps to follow. Please remember to assume good faith. --ColinFine (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible prank edit of an entry

I came upon what might be a prank edit of a profile of Ronald Ebens, a killer of a man. Two sections were edited to contain sexual accusations and editorial notes by an anonymous editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:C800:4D80:B86D:90A9:9B2D:CF7D (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Ebens had indeed been vandalised, I fixed it. Thanks for the notice. In the future, you can be WP:BOLD and fix the vandalism yourself. JIP | Talk 22:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-line legend for chart graph?

Source: Eurostat, série migr_asyappctza

The chart on the right is from the article European migrant crisis. Notice how all the country names appear under "EU28 Asylum", and under "applicants by origin, in 2016" is just empty space. This looks like it wastes space and forces any text to the left of the chart into a narrower space. Is there any way to break the legend up into multiple lines? JIP | Talk 23:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JIP: Have you considered using Module:Chart instead? One of the pie chart examples has the legend in two columns. GoingBatty (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JIP: alternatively, you can remove the "legend" title and add and "above" line in the Side box:

EU28 Asylum applicants by origin, in 2016

Source: Eurostat, série migr_asyappctza

-Arch dude (talk) 04:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spreading word of a RfC on a Dispute Notice board to other connected WikiProjects

Is it OK to spread the word of an RfC set up by somebody else on the Biographies of Living People or Reliable Sources etc to WikiProjects connected to the subject? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And how much neutral info can we give ...e.g. the original options and additional ones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodney (talk • contribs) 00:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bodney: The Feedback Request Service RfC alerting system seems to be working again, so those subscribed should get the alert. Here are some general suggestions for publicizing that you could try. Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]