Help desk
< September 12	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 14 >

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.

September 13[edit]

Paul Drewitt author page[edit]

Hi There,

I am an author with four published novels and would like a wiki author page. Do you have any volunteers who are willing to write this up?

Paul Drewitt — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Paul.drewitt (talk • contribs)

‎Paul.drewitt Wikipedia does not have mere "pages", it has articles. If you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about you, someone will eventually take note of your career and choose on their own to write about you. Be advised that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable; there are good reasons to not want one.

You can make a request at Requested Articles, but the backlog there is severe and your request may not be acted on for some time, if ever. Instead of trying to force the issue, I would just proceed with your career and allow others to take note of you independently. 331dot (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul.drewitt: to add to this excellent explanation with an understanding of why it is not likely for you to be able to force the matter, my personal backlog of articles I'm actively interested in writing or updating would take me literally years to complete even if I could work 24/7 (by which time I'd have a new list five times the length). I imagine this is similar for many experienced volunteers. As such, I'm not likely to spend the maybe six hours it takes me on average to create an article on behalf of somebody looking to promote themselves, unless I've independently developed an enthusiasm for their writing. — Bilorv (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Special pages[edit]

Hello! Why are some special pages restricted, like Special:TranscodeStatistics are limited to users who are Autoconfirmed users, Administrators, and Confirmed users? Vitaium (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vitaium: I know that some special pages are restricted because they could be used maliciously for targeted subtle vandalism, or sophisticated vandalism. I cannot tell you why that particular page is restricted, because I don't understand its contents, but even if I could tell you why, WP:BEANS would suggest it's better for me not to share that information. — Bilorv (talk) 11:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually inclined to think that special pages probably default to that level, and are changed downwards if needed - even as an admin, the page is read-only Nosebagbear (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What links to Commons?[edit]

Accepted
Am I missing something? Is there an easier way to find out where a Commons item is used on en:Wikipedia, other than calling up the What Links Here page and pasting in the File:random.jpg link? Call me lazy, but perhaps I've got used to all the convenient shortcuts hiding in Wikipedia.--Verbarson (talk) 12:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Verbarson: File:random.jpg redirects to an image which isn't used in the English Wikipedia. Please include a real example in posts so we can se what you talk about. If a file is used then both the Commons file page and the English Wikipedia file page should have a list of uses at the bottom. You can also click "What links here" in the left pane of the English Wikipedia file page. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, more carefully this time. (random.jpg was intended a a filler, not an actual example.)

The file File:Weymouth_boat_train_1_(374393697).jpg is used in GWR 5700 Class, but if I go to that file's page on Commons, and click "What links here", it only lists the links on Commons. I have to copy the text "File:Weymouth_boat_train_1_(374393697).jpg", come back to en.Wikipedia, call up "What links here" for any page, paste the "File:..." into the search box, and then it tells me that it is linked from GWR 5700 Class, and nowhere else, in en.Wikipedia. All I was asking for was a shortcut? Because as far as I am concerned, the most significant thing about Common's images is how they are used in en.Wikipedia. (Other people may have different priorities.)--Verbarson (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Verbarson: commons:File:Weymouth boat train 1 (374393697).jpg#filelinks shows "Usage on en.wikipedia.org". It's on the file page itself so there is no shortcut but your End key probably jumps to it. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Below is code for commons:Special:MyPage/common.js to add "enwiki links" after "What links here" on Commons file pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

$( document ).ready( function() {
  if ( mw.config.get( 'wgNamespaceNumber' ) === 6 ) {
    mw.util.addPortletLink(
      'p-tb',
      mw.util.getUrl( 'w:Special:WhatLinksHere/' ) + mw.config.get('wgPageName'),
      'enwiki links',
      't-enwikilinks',
      'What links here at the English Wikipedia',
      null,
      '#t-recentchangeslinked'
    );
  }
});

Well, isn't that fantastic! I don't think I ever looked down further than the file history. Thanks for the code, but if it's already on the page that's good enough for me.--Verbarson (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template message on Kate Zambreno's page[edit]

Hi,

My name is Philo Cohen, I am writer Kate Zambreno's assistant. I was in charge of creating and editing Kate's Wikipedia page a few months ago and just noticed that there is a template message warning readers about the contributor's proximity to the subject when reading the article. How could I fix this? All information is correct, referenced, and verified. Let me know.

Thanks a lot.

Have a good day, Philo Cohen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philomenecohen (talk • contribs) — Philomenecohen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Philomenecohen There is nothing that you can do; that message only means that the article (not a mere "page") needs to be looked at by an independent editor.

If you are this person's assistant, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COI Edit Request[edit]

Hello,

I submitted a COI Edit Request for Thomas Homer-Dixon's biography page and edits have since been made. However, the request was marked as "Partly done" and some citation issues were marked in the article.

I can help find/fix the problematic citations. Should I just respond on the talk page with these citations? Or should I submit another COI Edit Request? I also have a few other change requests to make that weren't included in the initial Edit Request.

I am unsure what the appropriate (and most efficient) course of action is. Advice on the matter would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your assistance. SeaGrass91 (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Respond in the same thread, properly indented with the supplementary information needed to improve the references. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Bio[edit]

I see the following on the top of my bio site:

This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. (July 2021)

I do not believe this is correct, and I also believe that you should either confirm this accusation or remove it within a specified period of time. I have reviewed the changes made by a colleague, and there is nothing I can see inaccurate or amiss.

If you have a constructive recommendation for future updates, let me know.

I am a Wikipedia donor, so this matters to me.

Jamey Marth— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.211.114 (talk)

As an editor, I thank you for donating, but we editors have nothing whatsoever to do with donations, and donating or not donating has no impact on content. Donations are collected by the Wikimedia Foundation that operates the computers Wikipedia is on; they are not involved in day to day operations.

The paid editing tag is there so an independent editor can examine the article(not a "bio site") about you. If a colleague created it, that could still be considered paid editing; one does not need to be specifically paid for edits. Any paid relationship triggers the disclosure requirements. If no one was directly or indirectly compensated for creating the article, feel free to bring that up on the article talk page. It may still be a conflict of interest even if unpaid. 331dot (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any future suggestions for changes should be made on the article talk page, Talk:Jamey Marth, in the form of an edit request. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but just to point out that the person who wrote the article, User:Argiennes, has been kicked off the Wikipedia for making scores of accounts so as to pretend to be a different people. Their editing pattern is weird, usually between zero and three article edits, all small. Mostly OK but I see at least one addition of inappropriate link to a commercial site. His creation, in detail, of the Jamey Marth article is utterly and completely out of pattern to all his other edits. It's odd. Here's a guy deliberately screwing with us and egregiously and purposely violating our terms of service and making extra work for our volunteer administrators. Then out of nowhere they suddenly create a whole extensive and well-made article with a bunch of references properly done... it's just... I'm scratching my head to figure out a reason why out of the blue a hardened troll would randomly take an interest in Jamey Marth and jump completely of their well-established editing pattern and create a big article. I'd have to say that some connection with the subject is a reasonable suspicion. True or not, its reasonable.

And then, there's an editor 70.191.88.191 who came in made a number of edits to the article, and no other edits ever, and seems to know a good bit about the subject. This doesn't prove anything. But its a data point.

There's no way to know if there's a connection or if there is if its financial. Maybe they are just a former student. Maybe the guy just randomly came across the name Jamey Marth, decided he looked interesting, and decided to put aside being a troll for a moment and research him and write an article.

No way to know for sure. That is why the message says "may have been". It's suspicious, and bears special watching, by both us and the reader, is all we're saying. After all we do get a lot of paid creation of biographies. Herostratus (talk) 04:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and on the article talk page I also see that there was extensive editing of the article by an agent of a big spam sockfarm. That also is suspicious. Herostratus (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

However, per WP:BLP, I've replaced the possible-paid-editing template with a possible-conflict-of-interest template. It has similar effect without sounding so accusatory. On that basis I think the subject has legit complaint, per BLP. Herostratus (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mnmh even as we speak there continues to be suspicious activity on the article. It might be that the best solution would be just to delete the article altogether? Then problem solved. The subject is notable enough, so we can't do that here, but I think if you go to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects you can request that the article be deleted. Whether they would or not I don't know. Herostratus (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updating a footnote link[edit]

How do I update a footnote link that no longer goes to the correct site information? The organization's website was updated and pages moved around. I just need to update the link that the footnote goes to. The page is "Customer Data Platform" and it's the first footnote that needs to be updated and should go to this link: https://www.cdpinstitute.org/learning-center/what-is-a-cdp/ Cwolicki (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You edit the link as you'd edit anything else. Edit the page Customer data platform (not just its "References" section). Look for the old, invalid link, and replace it with the new, valid link. -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwolicki: You should also change the |title= field to be "What is a CDP?" and |access-date= to the date you read the web page. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]