Help desk
< December 1	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 3 >

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 2

IP user's cannot use Thank feature?

I understand that WP:THANK cannot be used to thank an IP user for their edits. While logged out earlier today, I saw that the "thank" link does not show up at all in the page history. Are IP editors prevented from giving thanks? Help:Notifications/Thanks only says You can only thank other registered users I don't see anything there that says IP users can't send thanks. Is this behavior intentional or something I should report to WP:VPT as a problem? RudolfRed (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other registered users makes me think that it's working as intended. --Onorem (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It also says, "To thank other users or see the thanks you have received, you must be a registered user and be logged in." - So, yep. --Onorem (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missed that part. Thanks! RudolfRed (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting errors while avoiding COI

If the subject of a biographical article also happens to be a Wikipedia editor, how can that person address factual errors in said article? Thank you. Sylvan1971 (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mention it on the talk page with disclosure, and point to reliable sources that are not close to you, because those are what Wikipedia writes based off of, not anecdote or scuttlebutt. Remsense留 01:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sylvan1971:However, since the article is about a living person (you), you or anyone else may delete anything that is not cited to a reliable source: see WP:BLP. You may not directly add new information or "correct" existing information, because as you say you have a COI. request such changes on the article's talk page and add {{edit COI}}. -Arch dude (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted content

My draft is all gone Nahla17 (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nahla17: I don't see any other contributions on your account and I don't see any messages on your talk page. What was the exact name (or URL) of your draft? GoingBatty (talk) 03:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I take it from contributions at c:File:Personal pair.jpg that this is in reference to Draft:Derby Shoe, for which no log entries exist. Nahla17, there are a couple things that could have happened here: if you had the editing interface open for a very long time without publishing an edit (usually 24 hours or more), the editor software will lose its cache and be unable to publish your changes. If you were doing too many other things with your browser or your device in general, your browser may have unloaded the tab with the editing interface open, losing your progress (I've had some pretty complicated and time-consuming edits lost because I tabbed into my messages app to reply to a friend about something).

The editing software built into Wikipedia does not automatically save input. If you're planning on making big, time-consuming edits, it's good practice to draft them offline in a separate app that will autosave your work, and copypaste that into the editor, or get into the habit of tapping "Publish" every so often. Folly Mox (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A second bit of advice would be to edit the existing article Derby shoe rather than writing a new article on the same subject. Folly Mox (talk) 09:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To add to Folly Mox's comprehensive reply, I found that it is possible to "salvage" draft changes if the editor software has lost its cache (the "No stashed content found for [hex code string]" error). I did this by opening a new browser tab, navigating to the Wikipedia page I was editing, activating the editor again, and copying all my edits from the first editor window to the new one. This can be time-consuming, but I found that clicking the "Review your changes" button in the "Publish changes..." window in the first editor window helps to find all the edits made.

Note that the editor you open in a new tab needs to be the same type (Visual Editor or source code editor) that you were using before the cache was lost. TROPtastic (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tashima Shrine

Can someone fix the error in reference no. 5 of this article? Thankyou.zoglophie^•talk• 08:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Janhrach (talk) 10:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading image formerly used for illustrating a FA

DISCUSSION MOVED

A discussion was opened at WT:TFA#A misleading image formerly in a FA. New comments should be put there to avoid fragmentation of the discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have filed a deletion request at Commons on File:Australiformis Distribution.png. The image is still used on some internal Wikipedia pages relating to its usage as an illustration to a FA. Could somebody look into this? Janhrach (talk) 10:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a rather ridiculous map. The one "keep" "!vote" at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Australiformis Distribution.png makes no sense to me. Yes, it still appears in three pages of en:Wikipedia. (None of the three is an article.) But what is this "looking into" that you're asking for? -- Hoary (talk) 11:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Janhrach you could ask at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article whether the file should be removed from their pages. A link to Talk:Australiformis#Incorrect distribution map would provide context. TSventon (talk) 12:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will. This is what I meant by "looking into this", Hoary. I had no idea where should I bring this up. Thanks for the suggestion. Janhrach (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How can I object to my profile being removed?

This recent action was part of a personal attack that was motivated by "shorting stocks". Is there a recourse?

Thanks,

John Nosta JohnNosta (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...that was 11 years ago? ltb d l (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a social media site, we don't have profiles here. There's a thing call user page, where any registered user can create and edit for themselves; and there's articles about particular person, which seem to be what you are referring to. The article about you was removed in this AfD discussion, and since the discussion has already closed you can't contribute to it anymore. If you disagree with the deletion outcome, you can bring it up at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Please do not recreate the page unless you can address the concerns brought up in the discussion. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heart of Illinois Down Syndrome Association

Is the Heart of Illinois Down Syndrome Association notable. MagicalPrince863 (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, there do not seem to be enough in-depth coverage of the organization from reliable and independent sources. Books and news articles only have passing mentions of the organization, and other things such as the organization's own website, social media presence and profiles in databases do not establish notability. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A QUESTION REGARDING INFORMATION UPDATE:

RE: Mark Smith, novelist. 1935-2022. Hello, I am the widow of Mark Smith and would like to expand and update his description. The source of the details is the writer himself, compiled before his death. Is it possible to just use this text to replace the one that now appears? ˜˜˜˜ Kathy cone smith (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not. Wikipedia relies upon information already published by reliable sources such as books and magazines. An autobiography, most especially one that was never published by a source which does factchecking, is no substitute. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AUTO for why this isn't a good idea for a Wikipedia article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kathy cone smith: Please do publish this biography somewhere. You have many choices. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not one of them. We do not have a paid editorial staff or other means to independently verify your statements, or even to verify that you are who you say you are. Our entire content creation model must therefore be centered on the use of published reliable sources. -Arch dude (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy Link: Mark Smith (novelist).

Kathy cone smith, belated condolences for your loss. Our existing article about your late husband could certainly benefit from expansion, but Wikipedia is strict about including only facts that have already been published in Reliable sources, and citing the facts to those sources. Unfortunately this excludes unpublished information known to a subject's family/friends/associates, and even to the subject themself where alive. Wikipedia is quite strict about this, to protect subjects' interests: see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which also applies to recently dead persons.

Your best course would be to find what facts, not yet in the article, do appear in published sources, and list those on the article's Talk page along with the fullest possible bibliographic details of the source pieces, and internet links where they are available (although offline printed sources are perfectly acceptable – libraries can access almost anything ever printed).

If you can do that, then disinterested editors can assess the material and add it if appropriate. It would be preferred if you didn't add it to the article yourself because you have an obvious Conflict of interest and because editing articles according to Wikipedia's procedures is harder than it looks for those unpracticed in it. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.32 (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Donations?

Hello,

Trust this note finds all well there,

Regarding "donations" to this site: It has been my practice to contribute here, however, serious questions with doubts as to credibility have come to light. Certain language usage creating an awareness which seems political in nature, rendering an intended slant to details being sought. This is not appropriate as (a so called information source of any reliablity) for just the facts.

Additionally, and very significantly, why might donations be needed for a misinformation arm of government agencies be warranted, Please?

Thanks, God Bless🙏🏻🕊🤔 2603:6080:4F04:C00:CCD6:3B1B:9053:F93D (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Donations have nothing to do with content. If you have donation questions, please email donate@wikimedia.org. If you have suggestions to improve an article, start a discussion on that article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is run by the private non-profit Wikimedia Foundation and doesn't have ads or sell user information. Nearly all editors are volunteers from around the World but there are computer costs and a paid staff doing different things like making the software and maintaining servers. The English Wikipedia has around six million articles written and edited by thousands of volunteers. There are hundreds of other language versions with their own articles and editors. The Wikimedia Foundation which receives donations is also running several other Wikimedia Projects. There are tens of millions of total pages. Everybody can find something they don't like. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite possible, likely even, that some Wikipedia content is improperly influenced by agencies of various goverments. But I don't see how donations are relevant to this. Us volunteers (and for that matter paid government agents and other abusers of our policies) don't see any of the money that is donated. Maproom (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced Wikipedia editors place great emphasis on specificity. In a project so vast, we cannot act on vague, non-specific complaints. Cullen328 (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Blocked" message on mobile web only, not on mobile app or desktop

I'm logged into my account on my PC and on my phone (on home wifi) via mobile web and the iOS app. On mobile web only, when I try to edit a page, I get an error:

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Block will expire in 3 years
Reason
There are multiple blocks against your account and/or IP address

I know I'm not blocked because I have made edits on my phone using the mobile app, and I've made edits using my PC, all on the same network. Is this a technical fault with the mobile site? Thanks! White 720 (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

False alarm! Per H:B, I noticed that my phone had Private Relay enabled, although the Wikipedia mobile app seems unaffected by it. Turning Private Relay off removed the "blocked" message. Sorry about the confusion. White 720 (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also noticed this problem when trying to edit on Safari. I’ve turned off Private Relay and it now allows me to edit. TrottieTrue (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing situation

User:Le Loy and User talk:Le Loy appear to refer to two different editors. Unsure what's gone on here, but clearly something needs to be done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Le Loy redirected their userpage to User:Ле Лой. I assume it's the same person who has a Latinized username for enwiki. However, they appear to switch between editing from the two accounts, which may be problematic. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ле Лой created User:Le Loy [1] but it's confusing to redirect the user page of an active account to another account. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have 2 accounts, one has over 100,000 edits and lots of flags on it in RuWiki, so I kinda switched to the other one which is pretty new, just 10,000 edits there and no flags. I try to use Le Loy exclusively but I assume occasional edits from Ле Лой are fine as per WP:SECURESOCK? "Contributing to the same page with clearly linked, legitimate, alternative accounts (e.g. editing the same page with your main and public computer account or editing a page using your main account that your bot account edited) is not forbidden."

I am a CheckUser in RuWiki so I am aware of the issues sockpuppetry presents :-) Le Loy (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An unlinked "I’m Le Loy" on User:Ле Лой seems insufficient to me when both accounts make edits. I recommend you either state it clearly with links like User:PrimeHunter or a userbox at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/Related accounts. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this resolves the confusion. Le Loy (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Le Loy: Thanks. The shortcut is WP:SECURESOCK but we usually only say "sock" when other accounts are used deceptively or for disallowed reasons. Otherwise we just say alternative account. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it's a joke. Le Loy (talk) 00:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]