Help desk
< January 21	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 23 >

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.

January 22

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

Hi,

I wanted to amend the article as Cyberith is not telling the whole story of their kickstarter campaign. I'm one of the backers of their product. On the article they claim that:

"According to unconfirmed rumors, the company has been sued by one of its Kickstarter backers.[citation needed] These rumors suggest that the claim of the backer has been rejected by the court."

They were indeed sued. However the case was lost as a backer could not claim that the company has ever to deliver the product.

I wanted to change the text about the campain to the following statement which I think is not biased in any direction but telling the truth what happened:

The company has been sued by one of its Kickstarter backers.^{[citation needed]}. In contrast to the original promise in the advertisement campaign on kickstarter the company never fulfilled their promises. None of the backers received the product nor did they get their funding money back (see kickstarter.com cyberith campaign comments section of backers.

However it seems that the source "kickstarter" has been banned from the links. Can you please unban this link and allow me to change to content on their wikipedia page to amend the information?

Reagards,

Wolfgang — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.124.142.201 (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To provide suggestions about the Cyberith Virtualizer, please do so on the associated talk page: Talk:Cyberith_Virtualizer. Please disclose that you are "one of the backers of their product" and provide reliable sources. Thanks! (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.) GoingBatty (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And note that the article is not (or should not be) written by Cyberith, or based on what they say, except insofar as that has been reported on by independent reliable sources. Equally, as you have a COI, the article should not contain your words; but if independent reliable sources have said things that you think should be in the article, you are very welcome to post an edit request on the article's talk page, specifying exactly what changes you think should be made to the article, and citing the indepedent reliable source that supports your suggested changes. If you tag it with the {{Edit request}} template (as explained in link earlier in this paragraph), an uninvolved editor will look at your suggestion and take such action on it as is consistent with Wikipedia's policies. --ColinFine (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Mishap

Dear Wikipedia,

I would like to apologize for accidently editing a page about Tottori Japan.

This happened when I accidently clicked the edit button and mistakenly took out one of the letters.

Thankfully EN-jungwon has warned me on a Wikipedia Mail and so I am writing this.

I once again apologize for the mishap.

Sincerely Yours, Anonymous ( Sorry I want to keep my name personal ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.121.57.188 (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise for it, especially as the mistake was minor and you attempted to correct it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 03:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NZSA ( New Zealand Space Agency Limited ) Cease and Desist

Block evading long-term troll. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Cease and Desist, I will make this very clear so you all understand this letter to you! My company which is registered is the New Zealand Space Agency Limited it is also registered as NZSA Limited which is an abbreviation for The New Zealand Space Agency, NZSA is my trade marked company name, I do hope this is clear to you all at Wikipedia my company requests that an individual or organization ie Wikipedia stop a specified action and refrain from doing it in the future, with a threat of legal action if the recipient fails to comply. Cease and Desist from using my company name and trademark and remove all articals of the New Zealand Space Agency that have been posted by the New Zealand Government Agency known as MBIE as they have not been given any permission from me what so ever to use my company name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.89.81.4 (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You will want to read WP:NLT as this is a clear case of it. MarnetteD|Talk 04:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am from New Zealand and I know you are not the New Zealand Space Agency. 122.61.73.44 (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be part of a wider nonsense campaign, see e.g. [1] Nil Einne (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threat reported at WP:ANI -Arch dude (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion by NZSA. WP:DENY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alts

Is it okay to edit anonymously most of the time and use an account to edit semiprotected articles and do other stuff that can only be done by accounts? Thanks. 122.61.73.44 (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. A couple downsides are your IP address is visible and it's trickier to check up on edits you made (or other editors to follow up), but if you don't mind then go for it. Fredlesaltique (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Why would you want to do that? Using your logged-in account is more secure and anonymous than revealing your IP address. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will echo Alan's question. As a related point, I would not mind if we discouraged the use of the term "anonymous editing" when referring to someone who is editing while not logged. As Alan points out, not being logged in is less anonymous than being login with a pseudonym. I'm not sure everyone realizes this is why I am emphasizing it. The technical answer to your question is yes you can do that but it is a puzzlement as to why you would want to. It creates a number of headaches and provides no benefits that I can think of. Is there something I'm missing? S Philbrick (Talk) 14:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reference defined in template

Need some technical help, not sure where to put this. I need to update a reference to a more recent version in the article on Bells Independent School District. The reference is defined in the info box template. If I look on the page normally it reads out:

2. a,b,c "Search for Public School Districts – District Detail for Bells ISD". National Center for Education Statistics. Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved 20 July 2012.

But the source code has only these two versions of that reference:

{ { N C E S D i s t r i c t I D | 4 8 0 9 7 8 0 | d i s t r i c t _ n a m e = B e l l s I S D | a c c e s s _ d a t e = 2 0 J u l y 2 0 1 2 } }

and later

< r e f n a m e = n c e s _ d i s t / >

Why is the reference not defined in the source code as it normally would be? How do I update it?

Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fredlesaltique: The reference is created by a template ({{NCES District ID}}) and should generally not be changed. What do you want to change? (BTW, you can use nowiki tags: <nowiki>insert wikicode here</nowiki> to do what you did using the spaces above.) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AlanM1: If that's the case, then my guess is the template doesn't need to be changed per se, it needs to be updated to the newest NCES data from 2019. The NCES reference is used for other stats on the page like faculty numbers, which are obviously out of date.

Now, I could manually update the other figures and just create a new 2019 NCES reference. But, if I can just update the old 2012 one that'd be best. I've never worked with templates before and I have no clue how to fix it.

Thanks for the nowiki thing by the way. - Fredlesaltique (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AlanM1: never mind I figured it out. It's a template to create a citation where you just put in the name, ID, and date you accessed the data. For supposedly making things easier this was quite confusing.... Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fredlesaltique: Right – all it does is create the cite. The stats (like |teachers=67.29 (2009-10)) are still in the article and can just be edited there (to |teachers=70.23 (2018–19)) and you can update the |access_date=20 July 2012 parameter to the {{NCES District ID}} template with the current date. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HELP!

Hi,

I used my real name as my user name and am facing backlash now. I would like to change it to a different name and be removed from the edit log of the pages I have edited.

Please help me. I am under a lot of stress.

See Special:GlobalRenameRequest. Renaming your account will automatically attribute all edits you've made to the new name. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 07:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day

I find that I am adding facts to wikipedia and then these facts are deleted. The facts are about a living person.

Can you provide me with a reason why they are deleted. Is it against the policy of wikipedia to write anything negative about anyone, regardless of the facts ?

Let's say, for example, Joe Biden enjoys a lot of whiskey, and it is a known fact with pictures of Joe drinking whiskey, am I not allowed to post it because Joe is officially a teetotaller ?

I don't understand. May you please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.95.176.195 (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any 'facts' in a biographical article particularly about a living person, need to be supported with references to a reliable, independent source. If this enquiry is about Born a Crime, your edits were reverted as they were not sourced. Eagleash (talk) 07:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Musical bio

how do i start a wiki profile about an upcoming musical artist — Preceding unsigned comment added by NILOSKIItti (talk • contribs) 07:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NILOSKIItti: The guide to article creation (not 'profile' - Wikipedia is not a form of social media) can be found here. Wikipedia requires in-depth coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources with inline citations per WP:REFB. Please also review the notability guidelines at WP:NMUSIC. The use of the term 'upcoming' might indicate that the artist in question is not yet suitable for a Wikipedia article. If however, after reading the guidelines you still wish to proceed, some additional helpful information can be found here. Proceed via WP:AfC or WP:WIZ to create a draft item which can then be submitted for review. (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) 07:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, please do not write about yourself or any person to whom you have any sort of connection. Eagleash (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do articles on "upcoming" artists; for us to consider having an article they must have already arrived. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 07:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may also find it salutary to read PROUD, NILOSKIItti. --ColinFine (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

prolific writers page

There used to be a prolific writers page and I feel this filled a need in terms of this page. It no longer exists is it possible that I or you could restart the page using the last edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.167.216 (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prolific writers. Since I'm not an admin I cannot see what was on the page, but there's pretty clear consensus that a list like this should not exist. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am an admin but I read the arguments at the AFD which sounded compelling to me, so I didn't see a need to look at the deleted article. There may be some value in having a list of prolific articles but there are a few hurdles you would need to address. What is the value of such a list? How do you define prolific in a non-arbitrary way? Do self published works count? S Philbrick (Talk) 14:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Organization of Securities Commission (IOCSO) articles in Spanish and English (wrong information and outdated data)

Dear Wikipedia team,

After requesting some changes in the article related to IOSCO since 2018, we request again the revision of this information. IOSCO members used the talk page to get in contact with you and received a response telling us to follow the main steps published under ARTICLES in your website. While we at IOSCO understand your conflict-of-interest policy and will adhere to it, we are very concerned by the content of your Wikipedia page regarding our organization. Here is a run-down of the most important inaccuracies and outdated information found on the page:

extended edit request

1) Wikipedia says: Its mandate is to:

Develop, implement, and promote high standards of regulation to enhance investor protection and reduce systemic risk
Share information with exchanges and assist them with technical and operational issues
Establish standards toward monitoring global investment transactions across borders and markets.

Where on earth does this come from? It is sourced to a 2017 Economist report on sustainability that only mentions the first point, which is largely correct. But the other two points are erroneous (the part on IOSCO and sustainability in the report is way out of date, too. See: https://www.iosco.org/news/pdf/IOSCONEWS589.pdf). You need only look at the first page of any IOSCO Annual Report to see that the mandate is:

to cooperate in developing, implementing and promoting adherence to internationally recognized and consistent standards of regulation, oversight and enforcement to protect investors, maintain fair, efficient and transparent markets and to mitigate systemic risks;
to enhance investor protection and promote investor confidence in the integrity of securities markets, through strengthened information exchange and cooperation in enforcement against misconduct and in the supervision of markets and market intermediaries; and
to exchange information at both global and regional levels on their respective experiences to assist the development of markets, strengthen market infrastructure and implement appropriate regulation.

2) Under purpose Wikipedia says: Forum for national securities regulators, which is correct. But more importantly, IOSCO is The global standard setter for securities markets regulation.

3) Arabic is also an official IOSCO language

4) What does the following mean and where does it come from? In 1998 IOSCO started work on a number of important policies that led to broader set of guidelines.

5) Wikipedia says: Associate members: other securities and/or futures regulators in cases where there's more than one per jurisdiction. For example, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the North American Securities Administrators Association in the United States are associate members of IOSCO given that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is the ordinary member from the United States. Associate members have no vote and are not eligible for the Executive Committee; they are, however, members of the Presidents' Committee. The CFTC –in addition to the US SEC-- has been a full-fledged ordinary IOSCO member for about seven years now; the NASAA is no longer a member. The most recent membership criteria can be found here https://www.iosco.org/annual_reports/2019/15_GeneralInformation/01.html

6) Ranjit Ajit Singh, Chair of the Securities Commission Malaysia, is no longer the chair of the Growth and Emerging Markets Committee. Nor is he Vice Chair of IOSCO. There are now three Vice Chairs, not two.

7) With the exception of the European committee chair, none of the regional chairs that you mention are still in office. https://www.iosco.org/about/?subsection=display_committee&cmtid=11 The Spanish version of the Wikipedia page also provides different names for the chairs of the regional committees, all of which are wrong as the information provided is more than ten years old. The Spanish version of the page is even more out of date than the English, which should be remedied quickly, as the headquarters of IOSCO are located in Madrid, Spain.

8) The Technical and Executive Committees were abolished in 2012. IOSCO created a Board of 34 members to replace them, which is mentioned on the Wikipedia page under leadership. The Wikipedia source here is a report from 1996! That was 25 years ago! The English version no longer refers to the Executive Committee but the Spanish version not only refers to both committees, it also names the chairs, most of whom served many years ago and are long forgotten. El Comité Ejecutivo está presidido por la Sra. Jane Diplock, presidenta de la Comisión de Valores de Nueva Zelanda. El Comité Técnico está presidido por la Sra. Kathleen L. Casey, un comisionado de la Comisión de la Bolsa de Valores [that is an incorrect reference to the SEC] de los EE. UU. El actual presidente del Comité de Mercados Emergentes es el Sr. Guillermo Larraín (Presidente de la Superintendencia de Valores y Seguros, Chile)

9) Wikipedia says: One of its most important relationships is with the Joint Forum. The Joint Forum no longer exists. As a standard setting body, IOSCO works closely with the Financial Stability Board, which the G20 created in 2009 to address the global financial crisis. You can find more information about IOSCO´s work with the FSB and other international organizations in the 2019 IOSCO Annual Report (some of the info there about the FSB relates to 2020). https://www.iosco.org/annual_reports/2019/06_InterAgencyWork/05.html

10) Wikipedia says: The IOSCO MOUs are considered the primary instruments to facilitate cross border cooperation, reduce global systemic risk, protect investors, and ensure fair and efficient securities markets.

There is only one important IOSCO MMoU- the Multilateral Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Consultation and Cooperation and the Exchange of Information (MMoU) which you refer to higher up on the page. The links you provide for the so-called MoUs also point to the MMoU. The other MoUs, are bilateral arrangements between national securities commissions. You say correctly: In 2002 IOSCO adopted a multilateral memorandum of understanding (IOSCO MMoU) designed to facilitate cross-border enforcement and exchange of information among the international community of securities regulators.

To get a feel for how important this MMoU is see Also interesting to note is that the IOSCO Enhanced MMoU was introduced in 2017 to expand the range of enforcement powers that signatories may use to safeguard the integrity and stability of markets, protect investors, and deter misconduct. It addresses many of the developments that have risen in recent years as a result of new technologies or the growing role of market-based finance in international markets. No mention is made of the EMMoU in Wikipedia (I understand that that is your call).

Also interesting is that footnote number 3 on the Wikipedia page is repeatedly cited as a reference. Although the note says that the information was retrieved in January 2019, the link provided takes you to the latest edition of the section “who we are” on the IOSCO webpage. Comparing the two versions highlights just how out of date much of the information on your page is.

We are sending you our comments in this format because we made all the appropriate changes to our Wikipedia page two years ago through the official channels and they were almost all rejected. We ask that you pass these suggestions for factual changes to the relevant editor for consideration. We have provided links to our official documents so that Wikipedia can contrast its information with what we have sent you above. We also suggest that you only include the names of the Chair and Secretary General in your description of IOSCO, otherwise your page risks becoming obsolete very quickly, as other leadership changes occur quite frequently.

Thank you very much for your kind consideration. IOSCO Secretariat — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.cabo-iosco (talk * contribs) 09:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A.cabo-iosco Specific editors are not assigned to specific articles, as this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, and choose what they wish to work on or monitor. However, you may make a formal edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page, Talk:International Organization of Securities Commissions, detailing changes you feel are needed along with published reliable sources to support them, preferably independent sources. As Wikipedia primarily summarizes what independent reliable sources state, it is not intended as a source for up to the minute current information about organizations, but to provide a historical overview by summarizing what independent reliable sources state about an organization. That said, we all want the article to be as accurate as possible, so please make an edit request.

You will also need to make the formal paid editing declaration. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add to what 331dot said above, the different language Wikipedias are completely separate projects. Any problems with the article on the Spanish Wikipedia will need to be dealt with there. You might find that they have different standards and policies to the English Wikipedia. Best wishes, Turner Street (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information about Noemí de Miguel

It was a surprise for me to see that someone has created a Wikipedia entry about me and it includes incorrect information about my birth place, university, career...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noem%C3%AD_de_Miguel https://g.co/kgs/5eoVRa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.209.155 (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit the article talk page, Talk:Noemí de Miguel, to make an edit request(click for instructions), detailing changes you feel are needed, along with published reliable sources to support them(we cannot just take your word for it, we need something for verification purposes). 331dot (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete page for Campbell X as the subject's request

I am one of the editors of Campbell X, which was created as part of the Wikipedia:Edit-a-thon/SHE_MUST_BE_WIKI:_Feminist_Film_Wiki-a-thon that my collective, Club des Femmes, hosted. The subject of the page has reached out to me to request that it be deleted; I have made the pro-tem edits that he requested in the interim: changing his pronouns and deleting works associated with his deadname.

I cannot use a deletion request as it makes the filmmaker's concerns unnecessarily public, adding further distress. Please could you delete the page. I have sent the help desk link to Campbell as well so he can request deletion.

While the Wikipedia policy on gender identity and against deadnaming is welcome, further consideration is needed concerning living subjects who no longer associate with or consider themselves authors of work made under their deadname and associated with their assigned gender. A speedy deletion policy should be available based on a request by the living subject or on their behalf. Transition can be a very difficult and painful time, and public reminders of a past and painful identity/work intensifies that.

Please can you delete the page.

So Mayer (my Wikipedia name is *also* a deadname, do not use in any correspondence) Sophiemayer (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sophiemayer I'm only using your existing username to notify you of this reply; you may change your username at Special:GlobalRenameRequest. We can't delete an article without some sort of request or evidence it falls under other deletion processes. A subject does not usually get to decide if an article exists about them or not, as Wikipedia articles summarize what publicly available independent reliable sources state. However, if the subject wishes to argue that they are not notable, they may request deletion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This policy on non-deletion needs to be reviewed in light of the particular situation of transitioning: as is clear from your policy on gender identity, Wikipedia is aware that "publicly available" can be harmful and incorrect for trans people. I have passed the deletion request on to the subject, but restate my case as above, and as one of the contributing editors to the page Sophiemayer (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Random addition of Template:Articledeleted by a different user, unrelated to this discussion (diff)

There are four chief processes under which articles in the mainspace are deleted:

1. Speedy deletion
2. Proposed deletion (prod)
3. Proposed deletion of articles on living persons (sticky prod); and
4. Articles for deletion (AfD).

To learn about typical reasons articles are deleted, see Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted? To find out why the particular article you posted was deleted, go to the deletion log and type into the search field marked "Title" the exact name of the article, mindful of the original capitalization, spelling and spacing. The deletion log entry will show when the article was deleted, by which administrator, and typically contain a deletion summary listing the reason for deletion. If you wish to contest this deletion, please contact the administrator first on their talk page and, depending on the circumstances, politely explain why you think the article should be restored, or why a copy should be provided to you so you can address the reason for deletion before reposting the article. If after that the article remains deleted and you still wish to contest it, you have the option of listing the article at Wikipedia:Deletion review, but articles are normally only restored if the deletion was clearly improper.

I will like to delete my wikipedia page— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmdehan (talk • contribs) 12:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sophiemayer A different user created the article so you have to start an Articles for Deletion discussion and argue that the subject is not notable. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, I'm not keen on the removal of references to then erroneously appear to allow a WP:BLPPROD tag. Best, Darren-M talk 12:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sophiemayer You can't remove the sources and then say there are no sources to get it deleted. Also note that Wikipedia summarizes publicly available information; we can't just excise information that the subject would prefer not be in the article if it exists out in the public, regardless of its contents. As I said, if you wish to argue that the subject does not meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable person or notable filmmaker in an articles for deletion discussion, you may do so. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sophiemayer, please note that the subject of the article requesting its deletion is not a valid reason for deletion. The subject of an article has no control over it. JIP | Talk 17:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent

Urgent: Someone tried redirecting my article to hide so can't edit or view. #TakuyaMurata has no rights to redirect with no permission. Please make my article and Draft protected from editing or writing by other users. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkmal.Hamouda (talk • contribs) 13:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may request page protection at WP:RFPP, but pages are not protected merely to prevent others from editing them. When you click "Publish changes" what you wrote no longer belongs to you exclusively, but to Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Direct differentiation and integration of logarithms is certainly not acceptable as an article in its current state. But TakuyaMurata's blanking of it was not constructive, and I have restored its content. Maproom (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kkmal.Hamouda: Please learn the Wikipedia:Ownership of content policy and don't make request like this any more.
If you consider other editor's activity as vandalism, there are ways to explain it end possibly stop it, but the way you chose is not the correct one.--CiaPan (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the draft for deletion; see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Direct differentiation and integration of logarithms. -- Taku (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can't edit wiki

There is a lock icon on the edit button, blocking people from editing some of your false articles. According to your own rules people are supposedly able to edit these in order to prevent misinformation. Obviously that was a lie. Explanation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.226.203 (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific articles are you inquiring about? Our protection policy lays out the circumstances wherein an article may be protected (or locked) from editing, usually temporarily. Generally speaking, articles are protected if they meet the requirements laid out in the protection policy. If you have changes you wish to make to a protected article, and such changes are supported by reliable sources, you can make an edit request. The edit request should look something like this:

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change "John is married to Linda" to "John was married to Linda from 1990 to 2021." Source: Daily Planet, "John and Linda Divorce", Kent, Clark, 1/22/2021."

~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Wikipedia reports on what has been written about WP:NOTABLE topics in published reliable sources. If you have concerns about the content of any article you may raise them on the talk page of the article concerned. You can use Template:Request edit to suggest changes (see that page for instructions). You will need to provide a reliable source for any changes you suggest. Pages are typically locked from editing due to persistent disruptive editing. (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) 14:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP user, we can't do a thing about this unless you tell us what article this is about. JIP | Talk 16:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do not lock based on content. We lock an article that has been subject to disruptive editing. If the disruption is an "edit war", the locking admin does not pick a side, the admin just locks the article until a consensus can be achieved. Edits that add unsourced assertions will be reverted, again without reference to the content of the assertion. When an article has been locked, you can still make an edit request, and that edit request will be honored if it adds an assertion that is referenced to a reliable source. -Arch dude (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xtools – Page History

Regarding the data given by that gadget (as rendered e. g. for this lemma), I have ~~three~~ two questions:

Why exactly does the data given for "Authorship" (accordingly "measured by character count, excluding spaces") and "Top 10 by added text" differ?
At "Top 10 by added text", how come the data in the chart does not correspond to that within the ensuing table, when selecting ordering by added text (final column) in the latter?

#At the bottom of the first section "General statistics", you see three circle charts. The third chart shows the proportions of edits made by the "top 10 %" and the "bottom 90 %" of editors, respectively (whatever the sense of this visualization may be, since you always have the same ratio: 10 % and 90 % …). Now, if you look at the corresponding chart over here, for instance, and compare it very carefully with the one at the page linked above, you will find that the 10 %-sector shown in the latter is slightly larger than that of the former – albeit the size of both circles as well as the visualized relation (10 % vs. 90 %) are the same! How can that be?--Hildeoc (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hildeoc

Authorship refers to the current revision of the article. So, if there is 10,000 characters in the current article, and you put in 5,000 of them, the authorship against your name would be 50%. The "top 10 by added text" is for all edits. So, if there was two edits on a page, and the first was written by someone who added 1,000 characters, and the second edit by a different user replaced half of those. They would both have 50% authorship, but the first editor would have 1,000 added text, and the second user 500 characters added text.
So the table uses "Added text is any positive addition that wasn't reverted with the next edit". Which the pie chart does not do.
I'm not sure on this last one, which other item are we looking at? I'd suggest it's because denoting what 10% of editors is might be quite difficult. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Thank you so much! ~~The only thing I'm afraid I didn't quite get is your comment on no. 3. Could you maybe elaborate on that a little more?~~--Hildeoc (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hildeoc - I can't expand as I don't understand the question. Could you be more specific on which bits you are looking at? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Okay, I'll try again. I'm talking about the third (= last) circle chart in the first section of [2] and [3]: Why is the 10-percent portion of the latter page's chart slightly larger than the one of the former page – if you look very closely (compare the respective position of the closing delimitation line of that circle section) –, although the size of both circle charts and the relevant portions (10 %) are the same?--Hildeoc (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry, I got it now! I didn't read them right ... Thanks once more for your quick & profound support! All the best--Hildeoc (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: PS: Are you sure about #2 – i. e. that the fact that the table differs so much from the chart really goes back merely to the chart not accounting for edits that were subsequently reverted?--Hildeoc (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Search history for signed-in members

Is it possible to review my search history. For instance, I can look up the reference again if I remember it, but what if I don't remember where I looked, as the reference I need is buried in the record, and isn't directly relevant to the search (i.c., biographical entries where something is referenced in the record that has nothing to do w/ the subject). Also, is it possible to do a string search within a record for a specific word? Sorry! One question rolls after another like stones :) Specific example is that I wanted to reference Gödel's discovery of a flaw in the US Constitution. See below. Reference within https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del is pasted:

"On December 5, 1947, Einstein and Morgenstern accompanied Gödel to his U.S. citizenship exam, where they acted as witnesses. Gödel had confided in them that he had discovered an inconsistency in the U.S. Constitution that could allow the U.S. to become a dictatorship. Einstein and Morgenstern were concerned that their friend's unpredictable behavior might jeopardize his application. The judge turned out to be Phillip Forman, who knew Einstein and had administered the oath at Einstein's own citizenship hearing. Everything went smoothly until Forman happened to ask Gödel if he thought a dictatorship like the Nazi regime could happen in the U.S. Gödel then started to explain his discovery to Forman. Forman understood what was going on, cut Gödel off, and moved the hearing on to other questions and a routine conclusion.[23][24] " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlodgec (talk • contribs) 15:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not on Wikipedia's end. This would be something your browser would handle. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 18:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User Hxcg

User Hxcg has been using links the wrong way on multiple pages. Please look into it before it gets out of hand. I've already fixed most pages. He also did this on Independent Music Companies Association. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft 2021 in baseball

Can you fix the error i made please. 68.102.42.216 (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What error are you referring to at Draft:2021_in_baseball? RudolfRed (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wikibidia

Irrelevant comment that doesn't ask a question about using Wikipedia
WE ARE GOING TO NEW VALE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.114.223.50 (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a webpage for an user

Good evening,

I’m a Wikipedia user and I wanted to create a Wikipedia page for me could you help me in creating a webpage visible for anyone when they search in the internet the name of the user (subject of the webpage).

Thank you, Best regards, Nicolò Maccatrozzo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicomaccatrozzo (talk • contribs) 19:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 19:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, Nicomaccatrozzo, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not social media or a site for promotion. Please see What Wikipedia is not. --ColinFine (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I am a very active wikiHow user, but I am confused on how to use Wikipedia. How do I patrol recent changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artsy Koala (talk • contribs) 20:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Artsy Koala: Welcome to Wikipedia. Check out Wikipedia:Recent_changes_patrol, it will show you how it works. RudolfRed (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I read the article about recent changes but I don’t know where to go to do the recent changes. Help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artsy Koala (talk • contribs) 20:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Artsy Koala. Assuming you're viewing this on a browser, it's in the side bar. With the default skin that I use, it's the third engry in the Contribute section. --ColinFine (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Artsy Koala: You might also be looking for Special:RecentChanges RudolfRed (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query about categorisation

I have now successfully managed to set up a new userpage. I have tried to put myself in the category "Exopedian Wikipedians", but just got red letters. Does any one know what I am doing wrong? I shall be very grateful if Wikipedia has a tutorial on adding to categories. Rollo August (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rollo August I have fixed it for you with this edit. The first problem is that you were linking to "Categories: Exopedian Wikipedians" instead of "Category". The second problem is that there is no Category:Exopedian Wikipedians, it's Category:Exopedianist Wikipedians. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting question

If a film/album/TV show called "(stylized as)" were to be released, would its lede on Wikipedia start with "Stylized As (stylized as (stylized as))"? Findanegg (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No - See also So Random! —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 20:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

to prove the project

Hello I am in the process of to open an account for my profile wikipedia I have an important question for you, so if I want to add a new project to my profile page, I know how to do it, then you check it and publish it, Problem: If you try to prove the new projects which I have added, you will have a lot of difficulty, because they are not in English language, but I can prove it to you (with Google) both in the original language and in English. Question to you: I wonder if there is a section-Link or a place on the wikipedia profile page to prove these projects? Thank you Majak — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.210.103 (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is present at the Teahouse as well, where it's being/has been answered. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 21:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.146.43 (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to WP:TEA § to prove the project

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2021 January 22

Contents