Help desk
< March 18	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

March 19

Can't Add my Article

My Username is Drjeffreythompson, and I'm receiving the following error from trying to make a post about myself as an article on your website,

A tag has been placed on your user page, User:Drjeffreythompson/sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be advertising which only promotes or publicises someone or something. Promotional editing of any kind is not permitted, whether it be promotion of a person, company, product, group, service, belief, or anything else. This is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages — user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources or advertising space. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC) Drjeffreythompson (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see from your talk page that you've been warned, repeatedly, against creating promotional material and advertising. I suspect if you carry on, you'll be restricted or even blocked. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. doktorb _words^deeds 01:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Thompson, if an article about you were to appear in Wikipedia, you (and anyone associated with you), would have no control over what it contains, and anything appearing in Reliable sources could be added to it and kept in it, even if detrimental: if you are the Founder/Director of the Center for Neuroacoustic Research, I suspect that there might be a good deal of the latter, since your area of work is probably regarded as Fringe by many. Please read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.39.117 (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drjeffreythompson, please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY to learn why what you are attempting to do is a very bad idea. The vast majority of attempts to write an autobiography on Wikipedia fail, with wasted time and frustration all around. Self promotion of any kind is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia and yet you are engaging in that prohibited behavior. Your phrase His passion for integrating the arts with healing is self-promotional BS that has absolutely no place in a neutrally written encyclopedia. Vast swathes of your deleted draft were entirely unreferenced, violating several Wikipedia policies. To be frank, your deleted draft shows quite clearly that you have zero understanding of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines or social norms. It is as if you decided to learn to play the piano without any experience, and tried to perform a concerto without taking a single lesson. How well do you think that would go? Cullen328 (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Middleton

Ref numbers 2 and 4 in this article are the same - please can you do a "double up" edit. Thank you 101.115.139.136 (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Tollens (talk) 05:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did something very similar on Woodpecker recently, lol TypoEater (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an article at a redirect

Let's say, hypothetically, I wished to create an article for an album at a title currently redirected to the artist. Should I:

Create a draft and use {{db-move}} when it's ready
Create a draft and copy the contents to the redirect (this would be OK for attribution purposes if no one else worked on the draft)
Draft under the #REDIRECT wikitext such that it remains a redirect, than "break" the redirect when ready

Mach61 05:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mach61: Assuming the redirect's edit history is fairly trivial, I would suggest that your first option there is the best one, simply because it would most effectively preserve the page history of your article. If it has a more extensive history, your second option starts potentially looking better (so others can see the redirect's history). Realistically, either of the first two options is just fine, especially considering that if the deleting administrator in option A decides the redirect's history is really important they'll keep it anyways. Option C is probably not ideal. Tollens (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most viewed pages in category

Hi all - I'm sure there's a way to do this, but I'm blanking right now. How can I find a list of pages in a category and its subcategories sorted by pageviews? LittlePuppers (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LittlePuppers: I believe https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/massviews will do what you're looking for – if the category is really big it will take a while though. Tollens (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that is the page. Thanks, Tollens! LittlePuppers (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicommons

Hi there i wanted to ask how can i resolve this problem of Account ban on Wikicommons. I used to use wikicommons with vpn because Wikicommons is for some reason is banned in our country and is not accessible without vpn. I uploaded two Pictures on that account and worked fine. Now i just today clicked on upload it gave me a ban which i was not expecting. How can i even undo the ban and upload pictures on wikicommons without vpn.... Rahim231 (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably better raised at Commons:Village pump. The problem is that VPN and proxy server IP addresses are blocked to prevent abuse. Depending on the error message that you are receiving, it may be possible for an admin to allow you to log in with a blocked IP address.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for causing out trouble here I'm learning slowly about wiki. I have logged my account on moblie and its working fine. But there is still one problem why the site is accessible to Mobile but not laptop ?. Thankyou for your attention here. @ColinFine @Ianmacm. Rahim231 (talk) 06:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any evidence that account Rahim231 has ever been blocked or banned on Commons or anywhere else.

So you should be able to post on C:COM:Village pump being specific about the problem you are having (what you tried to do, what you expected, what you saw). ColinFine (talk) 11:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried out opening wikicommons on mobile and it opened without any Vpn, why is this so that on Desktop it isnt opening normally ? Rahim231 (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Im not mistaken, there are instructions on what to do on the block notification displayed. Let us know. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 07:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rahim231: If the mobile uses mobile data and the laptop uses wi-fi, they may have different IP addresses, which would account for why one works and the other does not. You can use https://browserleaks.com/ip or a similar website to see what your IP address is.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually both of them use the same Wi-fi. I checked out with the link provided, On laptop it only shows Public ip but does not show local ip where as on mobile it does show both local and Public ip.. Rahim231 (talk) 08:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a page

The company I work for has a page Interfaith Center for Sustainable Development

There is still a message that appears from 2021 although we lengthened the lead section: This article's lead section may be too short to adequately summarize the key points. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. (March 2021)

Please advise what to do to remove it. Thank you EcoJew (talk) 09:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the tag, as you said the lead is now an acceptable length. However, there are a couple of alarm bells ringing: "The company I work for", you must read WP:PAID and WP:COI before editing the article further. "we lengthened", there's nothing wrong with collaboration as long as you have your own personal accounts, please don't be tempted to share. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steppe Route - Page history - Authorships statistics : is this real ?

I am writing to you regarding the authorship statistics of "Steppe Route", an article that I initiated in 2017. As of the definition : Authorship attribution is measured by character count, excluding spaces

I am puzzled to see on the page history that the main authorship statistics (first big pie) shows that Diannaa made 21,266 edits when I contributed only 1692 caracters. However, I wrote most of the article and do not understand where this weird edit number comes from.

At the minimum this is very misleading, or flawed ( hard to believe ?), and at worse this looks like a manipulation to hijack authorship from other people work.

I just hope that changing commas or dots a thousand times (or other tricks) on existing articles does not help crediting you as the main author. Wouldn't it be a dishonest game to play for anyone willing to inflate one real and subtantial contribution to this encyclopedia ?

Thank you for enlighting me. Olcoispeau (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Olcoispeau: It looks like this is just because she removed copyrighted content from the page and (appropriately) redacted the versions of the article containing that content. The first revision that is publicly available is then from one of her edits – the computer program which generates the authorship chart is unable to determine who contributed any particular content before the first publicly available revision so it has no option but to attribute all content between the two (incorrectly) to the user who made the last revision in that span of time. She did not 'change commas or dots a thousand times' (and doing so would not alter an editor's position in the authorship chart), and I am absolutely 100% certain that she did not do this to hijack the authorship chart. There isn't really anything that can be done about this, unfortunately. Anyone who wishes to view the correct statistics can easily view the page history here on Wikipedia and see that you have contributed the vast majority of the article over more than a hundred edits while Diannaa's contributions only deleted material, so I would not be too concerned about this. Tollens (talk) 09:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is obviously a substantial "fairness" and "misrepresentation" problem here.

These days, responsible brands do not allow reference misleading statistics to be displayed without comments.

This pie is the first visible authorship "reference" pie defined as "measured by character count, excluding spaces". Another evidence is that its size is bigger than the two other pies.

The magnitude of difference in the characters count 21 266 / 1 692 shows that such imbalance is obviously problematic and misleading since it grossly distorts reality.

Everything can be fixed these days especially when it relates to fair and honest representation and practices.

One may also argue that it provides an easy incentive for quasi permanent wiki editors who know the AZ of the Wiki system to "redact" a maximum of sentences with a slight resemblance with existing material, and consequently accumulate overinflated credit for their work. Olcoispeau (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olcoispeau, if you look at Diannaa's edit history, you'll see that much of her work is removing copyright violations. I agree that the authorship statistics could be calculated better, but I've no idea how that might be achieved. Maproom (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olcoispeau, you say: I just hope that changing commas or dots a thousand times (or other tricks) on existing articles does not help crediting you as the main author. Wouldn't it be a dishonest game to play for anyone willing to inflate one real and subtantial contribution to this encyclopedia ? I suspect that only a small percentage of Wikipedia editors are sufficiently childish or petty-minded to want to do this. These days, responsible brands do not allow reference misleading statistics to be displayed without comments. I hadn't thought of an encyclopedia as a brand; but whether it is or isn't a brand, if you are dissatisfied with the formulae involved or the displays you are of course free to propose improvements. -- Hoary (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an economic life and a worldwide recognition under a well known name, this is what (in simple terms) I call a major brand name.

I am therefore saying that there is a substantial "fairness" and "misrepresentation" problem on the authorship page due to the problem previously exposed - which is a fact.

When there is a problem which is indeed a source of disactifaction, there is a solution. When there is no desire to correct a problem or complicate the problem, there are more questions.

I am therefore proposing :

- to amend the authorship definition which is misleading

- to debate on the positionning and size of this pie which does not reflect the real authorship in terms of substance

The coding of this page is beyond my capacities but I am sure some people in the wiki community understand exactly what I am talking about and how this can be remedied. Olcoispeau (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something here? "Authorship", "authorship attribution" and "main author" sound like you think you WP:OWN that article. That's contrary to Wikipedia's purpose. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say something like that? please stick to the facts and to my previous messages and only that, that would be more helpful. Olcoispeau (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The data in the "Authorship" section is not reliable in this instance because revision deletion was performed on many of the early edits because of copyright violations that you yourself added, right from the creation of the article. If you look at the "Top editors" section you will find some accurate data on how many edits each editor performed and how much content they added to the page. If you want to offer suggestions on the tool, scroll to the bottom of the page and click on "Feedback" or "Report an issue".

I see you also suggest that I may have redacted these edits as a way to pad my own stats. I can assure you that I have neither the time nor the interest to be doing that, and to do so would be an abuse of admin tools, and thus not something I would ever consider doing. — Diannaa (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Olcoispeau genuine question - does this matter? Articles change all the time, it is rare for any original text to remain for very long, see Ship of Theseus. As every article is a collaborative effort, you may be thinking about this the wrong way? There is no ownership of articles or content. Your edits can be deleted and changed at will. I suggest you are overthinking the authorship statistics too much. Qcne (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter? you are asking a good question.

Then does anything matter, this is a real question.

This is not the world we are currently living in. Facts are facts, distoring the reality is wrong, especially when it is to the benefit of those encouraging this distorsion. Olcoispeau (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Olcoispeau: Accuracy of authorship statistics is not a Wikipedia goal: They are a minor exercise in arithmetic. I have been editing WP for 18 years, and I was unaware for them. I suspect that the readership has zero interest in them. Accurate attribution is a policy, and the article history shows your contributions. Removal of copyright violations is not just a core policy, it's also the law. If you feel like you are being penalized as a side effect of violating copyright, then I think that is a good result. -Arch dude (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Accuracy of authorship statistics is not a Wikipedia goal": this is good to know ... so misrepresentation and fairness are not a concern either.

Copyright violations : I know the law, do anything I can to respect it, and we can talk about it at length especially on how this is interpreted by "editors". I do not feel penalized or anything, but obviously the margin for debating about what is now a deeply entrenched "system" is limited.

And as you are refering to the law and violations (that was not my initial point), misrepresentations are not tolerated in the for profit or non for profit world. Olcoispeau (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "misrepresentation" because accurately "representing" this particular metric is not even being attempted. Literally no-one (besides yourself) cares about it.

There is no "unfairness" because no-one is (or should be) judging anyone by this unimportant arithmetic by-product.

I fail to see how discussing this matter in any way advances the goal of creating and improving a global encyclopedia. If you are not here to do that . . . . {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.39.117 (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is public information available to all with a specific definition attached to authorship to explain what this pie means. So this is very precise.

Therefore, this is not neutral especially since it provides artifically overinflated credit to people who did not contribute real substance (based on initial word count) - but possibly needed editing (don't take me wrong).

You denial of "misrepresention" and "unfair information" is a problem, since you deny an evident fact based situation. In the real world, scorecards, reports and other statistical templates need to be improved all the time. Denying what is at least an obvious technical problem is worrysome and calls for many more questions. Olcoispeau (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of this "measure of authorship" until today. I find that, for the two articles I'm proudest of having created, I wrote 27% of one and 83% of the other. I'm now prouder of the 27% article - other editors have found it interesting enough to contribute to. Maproom (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Olcoispeau: For the record, the "Page statistics" link in the page history and the linked tool is not part of MediaWiki. The link was added to MediaWiki:Histlegend by editors at the English Wikipedia. The tool is not perfect but few things are, and it's better to have it than not. Diannaa followed standard practice when content was revision deleted but if it really matters to you then maybe she would consider to also revision delete her own visible edit at [1]. This was not possible at the time but it's possible now when it's not the current revision. The next edit happens to be by you so if Diannaa's edit is revision deleted then the page statistics tool may credit you for all content at the time (including a little by other users). But I don't know if and when the tool will adjust in case the revision is deleted. It's possible it uses cached information. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding that edit to correct the stats is not listed as a citerion under the revision deletion policy, so I will not be doing that. — Diannaa (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Would you object as author of the revision if I did it and called it "RD6. Non-contentious housekeeping" at Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Criteria for redaction, and linked this discussion? It's not mentioned at RD6 but it says "including" and gives an inexhaustive list of possible reasons. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I agree with doing it, but I won't raise any objection if you do. — Diannaa (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We try to help posters here. @Olcoispeau: There was no delay. You are now listed as author of 84.9%. We don't normally do this so I hope you appreciate it. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Olcoispeau: I presume you refer to the page at https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Steppe_Route ? If you look at the URL, you will see that that page is not a part of Wikipedia, but is hosted on xtools (it's also tagged with an "external link" icon on the article's history page). It is documented at mw:XTools/Page_History, and you can leave comments or complaints on the corresponding talk page there.

More generally, please familiarise yourself with our guideline on assuming good faith. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to read your reactions and contributions. @Diannaa it's nothing personnal, thank you for your work which is appreciated.

I am trying to explain that there is certainly room for improving this scorecard and statistical page, since a more balanced and accurate representation of everybody's contribution would be better for all. Stats are not neutral, so it's important for a community to take care of these housekeeping details to protect harmony and ensure a good representation of everybody's fair contribution.

Now I'll stop here - thank you all

Olcoispeau (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of death of non-notable people

Should we mention the cause of death of non-notable people in Wikipedia articles when they and their deaths are not the topic of the article? E.g. family members who died from illness, suicide or accidents? Polygnotus (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus: It depends on the context (for example, in an article on Fred, saying "Fred's wife died of leukaemia" is relevant, if Fred is known, even partly, for his subsequent fundraising for leukaemia research). We need to know which article and which person before we can give you a more specific answer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, thank you! Polygnotus (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My edit kept being removed

Hi there is page on wiki on list of Indian chefs on updating with a name of globally recognized chef on the list - Mr Alex from Wiki team keep deleting the name ? Why is that being done - is this list only for people who pay for PR companies to be on wikipedia ?? It’s a free portal and there is every right person to added on the list if he or she belongs on the list - Chef Sanjay thakur is an global figure and person - Alex from your team is he subject matter expert to know the list of Indian Chefs . Jay198711 (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list is only for those who have a Wikipedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:WTAF. ColinFine (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Thakur does not meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia so I wouldn't recommend writing an article about him. Polygnotus (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you some kind of CEO of wikipedia to decide that or you own the platform ? Jay198711 (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am, as far as I know, not the CEO of Wikipedia, nor its owner. I have used Google to determine that Sanjay Thakur does not meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. For more information, see Wikipedia:Notability. Polygnotus (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very careful with how you word things, as that could be taken to be some sort of legal threat, which usually ends in the one who issues them being blocked. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jay198711, you might find my essay User:ColinFine/What Wikipedia doesn't care about illuminating. ColinFine (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay198711: Please also read WP:AGF. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox usage

Dear all,
I have a general question about infoboxes, specifically about the Template:Infobox officeholder. As many other infoboxes it contains a lot of variables to fill in, and it offers to add custom variables. This may lead to very long infoboxes, especially when folded out. Since my hobbyhorse is Trinidad and Tobago here's two examples: Kamla Persad-Bissessar and Basdeo Panday. My knowledge of en:WP habits is limited, but in de:WP it's common practice that infoboxes should summarize the core information of the article, those aspects the lemma is most notable for. How does en:WP handle that? Should every function of a person (e.g. member of parliament, when the person was a prime minister later on) and every kind of personal information (e.g. non-notable kids) be listed in the infobox, or are there limitations? I may have handled that incorrectly in the past, so I'd be grateful for explanations on how detailed infoboxes should be filled.
Thanks and kind regards, Grueslayer 21:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Help:Infobox. Only the most important details that are also present in the article should be mentioned. Non-notable kids should never be mentioned by name. I tried cleaning it up a bit. Polygnotus (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Middleton family

Please return the "Further Reading' section at the bottom of this page - I accidently removed it. Sorry. I cannot return it on my device. Srbernadette (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Tollens (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing a file

Hello, I need a little help. There's this file here which is fine when you click to see it fully, but somehow appear all bugged when on a page. Anyone know why, and how to fix it? Aréat (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments, not a helpful answer. When I click on the image to see the full-sized version at Commons, it is, I thnk, rendered correctly. But it's hard to uderstand. Most of the candidates are represented by dots in various shades of grey; and the lines don't pass through the dots. But when I look at the image when it's included in a page, it's mis-rendered: the dots in the key are misplaced.

It's hard to see what's wrong by looking at the source code, as it has no linefeeds, just one line many thousands of characters long. But I suspect it uses an unsuitable font~~: see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:SVG#Fonts_.2F_text~~. Maproom (talk) 08:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. The SVG is currently declared to be using "Source Sans Pro", which at least my browser doesn't recognize. Additionally, the WC3 validator detected some 500 errors, which may or may not break rendering the png files (from the looks of things most is W-ARIA stuff, although there are a few other things in there) Maproom your Commons link leads to a nonexistant section for me, did you mean c:Help:SVG#Font_substitution_and_fallback_fonts? Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Thank you for providing a correct link. Maproom (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: have you tried c:Commons:Commons SVG Checker? It currently gives errors about "Attribute stroke-dasharray" and warnings about fonts. MKFI (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]