Help desk
< November 11	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 13 >

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.

November 12

Question regarding a discussion to ban a user

I am planning to start a discussion whether to ban an already-indefinitely-blocked Wikipedian. Are such in absentia discussions fair or appropriate? Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Hi NotReallySoroka. Unless there's a really compelling reason to formally seek such a thing (you don't need to go into any details here), there's a chance your action might be seen as overkill per bullet point #3 of WP:CBAN since such editors are already considered "banned" per se. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to list two categories at Categories for discussion

I want to list Category:Wei Jin Southern and Northern Dynasties and Category:Characters of the Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties at Categories for discussion. How would I do that? (wikicode example, please) Mucube (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mucube. You will find guidance on how to start a CFD at WP:CFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reference in another language

Lets say I am writing an article in English but all my citations are in Arabic. Will my article be accepted ? Vincent-vst (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@vincent-vst: as long as the sources are reliable, yes. lettherebedarklight〔晚安おやすみ〕ping me when replying 04:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And meets the WP:GNG requirements. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NONENG for guidelines about using non-English sources. CodeTalker (talk) 05:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am a professional musicologist. Why are my contributions "reverted"?

Last year I went through the Wikipedia articles of some of the compositions on which I have published, and added links to the respective chapters under "Literature", Somebody signing as "Graham87" has since "reverted", which seems to mean deleted, all these contributions. Why? He could easily have checked the veracity in each and every case. I only noticed this astonishing interference just now. How do you expect any volunteer to continue to contribute to your encyclopedia? I also notice that somebody (Gerda ..., I am afraid I did not take note of the last name) has almost simultaneously thanked me for my contributions. How does that come together? For your information: I have been contributing to Wikipedia - mostly adding literature no from my own pen when I found something worth recommending - for many years before 2021. However, I do not normally watch whether anybody contests them since the regard published material that I would expect your moderators to check themselves. Seeing 31 contributions "reverted", I will probably not take the time to add more. Dnilgisnhurb (talk) 10:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dnilgisnhurb Wikipedia is not a place to just add books to a list- this is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a topic. You added books to articles but did not pull out any information from them that the book cites. I might suggest that you read WP:EXPERT for tips on contributing. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dnilgisnhurb To take one example. You added three books as "sources" into the Claude Debussy article but did not actually cite any information from them. In this you showed a conflict of interest, as you were told at the time on your Talk Page. Such addition may have served your purposes by advertising your books but it does not serve the purposes of our readers and such links can be considered WP:SPAM. Incidentally, our article on Siglind Bruhn would not be accepted if submitted today since it does not meet the requirements listed at WP:BLP, as it lacks the reliable sources required so that readers can verify the information presented, using inline citations. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dnilgisnhurb. Although inline citations are preferred when it comes to citing sources because it helps to clearly establish text-source integrity and proper context, general references can be used as well under certain conditions. It's also possible to add relevant sources as a WP:FURTHERREADING section. In each case, though, the sources are going to need to be considered reliable per WP:RS. In addition, it's not impossible for someone to cite their own work as explained in WP:SELFCITE, but care needs to be taken because it can often be seen as a form of self-promotion or spamming. So, if you're going to cite yourself or otherwise add links to your own books to articles, you probably should first propose doing so on the article's talk page per WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement. This will give others a chance to assess the value of the work as a source and discuss whether it should be added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Turnbull Speaking of the article on Siglind Bruhn, this Dnilgishurb has made several edits to it. That UserName suggests that the User IS Siglid Bruhn. If that's so, she's editing the article about her. And it does read more like a CV than it does like a reasonably adequate Wikipedia article. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all that was obvious to me, hence my comment. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Which SHOULD have been obvious to me! Uporządnicki (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting image to appear in page preview

Hi, I am trying to get the image to appear in the page preview for the article Walk (Foo Fighters song) for logged out readers, when hovering over the link to the article in another article. The image is in the info box but having followed all the guidance on this there does not seem to be a reason why the image does not appear in the page preview for logged out reader. The only reason I can find why this does not work is a possible explanation here: [1], if it does not comply with the scored algorithm. Would be great to get this resolved. Thanks. QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@QuintusPetillius I think it is because this WP:NONFREE image is only 204 pixels wide. The documentation at mediawiki implies this would make it disfavoured for display. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try uploading a slightly larger version. QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It worked, thanks :) QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship question

I just got a notification to this alternate account that said:

 Alpha3031‬ is your new mentor
 Reason: Hajoon0102 retired from mentorship.

I do not recall ever interacting with either user, much less agreeing to be mentored, but on the other hand I have been on Wikipedia since 2006 and may have forgotten something that happened years ago.

Or is it possible that somehow a Wikipedia user can be assigned a mentor without agreeing to this?

Is there a central place to check to see if you have a mentor assigned to you?

Interactions between Guy Macon and Hajoon0102: [2]
Interactions between Guy Macon Alternate Account and Hajoon0102: [3]
Interactions between Guy Macon and Alpha3031: [4]
Interactions between Guy Macon Alternate Account and Alpha3031: [5]

Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon Alternate Account: I couldn't find anything about this. In which way did you get the notification, e.g. email, a red alert or blue notice icon, or a talk page somewhere? Did you quote it exactly? Did it include a link? PrimeHunter (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I am aware that automatically assigns mentors to people would be the Special:HomePage feature intoduced like a few months ago, however, afaik it was only enabled for new accounts. 07:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

It was the normal bell Alert badge[6] at the top of every page. The exact wording is:

 11 November
 Alpha3031‬ is your new mentor
 Reason: Hajoon0102 retired from mentorship.
 2 days ago | Learn more about your new mentor | Say hi to your new mentor!

Those last two link to Alpha3031's userpage and talk page.

There is also this icon next to the notice: [7]

The "GrowthExperiments" in the URL of the icon may be a clue.

Wikipedia:GrowthExperiments soft redirects to mw:Growth.

I found mw:Help:Growth/Tools/How to claim a mentee to be especially interesting. It claims that "This feature is only available on a short list of wikis" that don't seem to include enwiki.

Interesting that there seems to be nothing on that page about asking the newbie if they want a mentor. I certainly wasn't asked. I also could not find where one can look at who the mentors are and who they are mentoring.

At [8] (Public logs for user affected by an action) I see

 06:07, 11 November 2022 Hajoon0102 talk contribs set Alpha3031 as the mentor of Guy Macon Alternate Account (previous mentor Hajoon0102) (Hajoon0102 retired from mentorship.)

I just checked, and I have all advanced, development, and beta features turned off on this account.

Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why you got notified, but the best documentation of the way the mentorship feature works is Wikipedia:Growth Team features/Mentor list, which also includes a list of mentors. In my understanding (which could be wrong), no one other than the mentors and mentees themselves can see who is mentoring whom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Hajoon0102 and Alpha3031:

@Hajoon0102:

@Alpha3031:

Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly correct @Pppery as this showed in my watchlist: GrowthExperiments log 01:08 Hajoon0102 talk contribs block set Kaleeb18 as the mentor of ChrisJohnson112211 (previous mentor Hajoon0102) ‎(Hajoon0102 retired from mentorship.) presumably since I watch listed Chris Johnson's Talk. Log points here. Star Mississippi 02:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that means no one other than the mentors and mentees themselves can see who is mentoring whom, then I meant in the general case. The process of quitting mentorship generates logspam which reveals it publicly. For the record, the process Hajoon0102 did to trigger this is to visit Special:QuitMentorship, asking for all of their mentees to be randomly reassigned (they did not know to whom, and the new mentors have had no involvement in the process). The only mystery here is why Guy Macon's alternate account was assigned a mentor in the first place, since I thought (presumably incorrectly) that that only happened when one visited Special:Homepage. Neither Hajoon0102 nor Alpha3031 is likely to be able to answer that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Apologies for misunderstanding your point @Pppery. Logspam. I will have to steal that. Star Mississippi 02:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe as of the last settings, though technically every new account is currently assigned a mentor, only 10% of new accounts get a mentorship module on their homepage and show up in their mentor's dashboard, so many accounts have a mentor and can't tell unless they're reassigned. The account was created before any mentorship settings were implemented, though, and I know I have an account or two in my dashboard that are older than the GTF, so not sure how that works. Perfect4th (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "every new account is currently assigned a mentor", why do I suspect that the number of new accounts is far larger than the number of people who have volunteered to do the mentoring? I would love to see an estimate of how many of each there are. Perhaps Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features/Archive 5 is the answer?

How does "mentoring" an account that the mentor never actually interacts with benefit the Encyclopedia? The above makes it sound like you can ask your mentor a question, but I was never told that I had a mentor until they quit and another was assigned.

Another mystery: neither User:Alpha3031‬ or User:Hajoon0102 is listed at Special:ManageMentors.

The main discussion for this appears to be at Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features/Mentor list. I posted a notification there. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, all users’ mentors are automatically assigned. It's just that you didn't know. And, I knowledge go Special:Preferences - User profile and disable 'Display newcomer homepage', you can contribute without mentor. -Hajoon0102 💬 12:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpha3031 is number 25 on that list so they are listed as an active mentor. --ARose Wolf 15:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a feature request may be in order, "Don't send mentorship change notices to users not enrolled in mentorship" perhaps? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My entry - Jack Pizzey broadcaster

A box has appeared at the top of my entry saying an editor is thinking of deleting it, He/she said my doc series Sweat of the Sun Tears of the Moon (aka in the US on the PBS South Amarican Journey) is ok but maybe I'm not. Like saying Beethoven's symphonies are OK but not him. I researched, wrote, narrated and presented my nine dosumentary series etc and sometimes directed them too

Then the box added people saying either KEEP it or DELETE. Those have gone now. But I don't understand wiki's explanation of how to actually close the box

The Wiki editor's main doubts appeared to be about lack of citations. But:-

My Wiki entry's EXTERNAL LINKS section gives one to IMDB (the International Media Data Base) and says it's dead. But it isn't. It leads to a list of quite a few of my films including an 8-minute show reel.

In the REFERENCES section could you add these links to newspaper reviews. In the main text I cite bits from some of them but without links.

1. Add the full-length rave earlier in the same top-selling mag: https://people.com/archive/picks-and-pans-review-south-american-journey-vol-28-no-1/

2. A mention of SSTM in the Sydney Morning Herald in the obit of an exec at the ABC: https://www.smh.com.au/national/innovative-broadcaster-broke-new-ground-at-sbs-and-abc-20220419-p5aede.htm Jack pizzey (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jack pizzey. The article about you was nominated for deletion, but the decision was to keep the article. Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Pizzey (broadcaster). You can suggest improvements to the article at Talk: Jack Pizzey (broadcaster). Cullen328 (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cullen 328 I take your point about citing a work but not necessarily its creator. But I believe the listing of films I've made and newspaper review that prove they were broadcast by the BBC, the PBS etc are what anyone who goes to the site will want to see. OK?

Am I now safe from deletion? Jack pizzey (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. A creator may be less notable than their work, especially what may broadly be termed "non-fiction" (whether text or otherwise); there may be an article here about a work, but not about its creator.

2. The IMDb is not what we consider a reliable source, because a lot of its content is user-generated or (worse yet) input directly by the subject of the listing. Heck, I've got a tiny listing there myself, and I know for a fact that most of what's in there, while true, was put in by me. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this has been mentioned, but an article about yourself is not necessarily a good idea. Remember that that is an article, not a page, and that anyone may edit it, as it does not belong to you. Happy editting! Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikipedia Article

I am contacting to find or request contributors or editors who would be able to help create and contribute to a new Wikipedia article for a Google Verified artist. Thank you! Savannahnow (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Savannahnow Just noting that whether they are Google verified or not is irrelevant; what matters is if they receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable artist or a notable musician(if that's what you mean). 331dot (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they have reliable sources and is notable. How does this process begin? Savannahnow (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Savannahnow First, if you represent this person, please see WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. You can request an article be written at Requested Articles, but the backlog is severe to the point of uselessness. Instead of trying to force the issue it is preferable to organically allow an article to be created by editors who take note of the coverage in independent sources and choose to write about them. However, if you truly feel this person meets the criteria and you have appropriate sources(not interviews, press releases, or announcements) you can create and submit a draft at Articles for creation. It's usually inadvisable to do this without some experience editing, but you can read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Truth

Do not reply to posts intentionally written to be inflammatory. They're not talking to us, but rather at us. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 02:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

When I went to a Wikipedia webpage, I was shown a request to support Wikipedia’s independence. I probably would support Wikipedia but the big issue as I have reported before is that you censor the truth/provide biased information regarding health issues. One example is concerning electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). What you state as fact concerning EHS shows your bias and lack of true scientific open mindedness. See following links.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282036121_Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity_-_an_increasing_challenge_to_the_medical_profession https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Electromagnetic-field-induced-biological-effects-in-Kaszuba-Zwoi%C5%84ska-Gremba/f963de48231e88025ef6550356530107c37b3359?p2df https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26368042/ https://mdsafetech.org/science/es-science/ http://www.emfwise.com/ehs.php https://www.emfsa.co.za/ehs/what-is-electrohypersensitivity/

https://www.emfanalysis.com/ehs/

http://emfsafetynetwork.org/safety-precautions/electrical-sensitivity/ https://es-ireland.com/2016/01/07/a-paper-on-electromagnetic-hypersensitivity-by-dr-erica-mallery-blythe/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%22Electromagnetic+Fields%2Fadverse+effects%22%5BMAJR%5D https://ehtrust.org/peterborough-ontario-canada-issues-information-on-accommodation-measures-for-electromagnetic-hypersensitivity/ https://en.geovital.com/electrohypersensitivity-ehs-recognised-as-disability/ https://www.electrosensitivesociety.com/

There are many more links I could include concerning the negative health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) but I wanted to stay with those articles associated with EHS, if possible. How do I know EHS is real? I am definitely negatively affected when in the presence of wireless devices---even if I am not initially aware that I am in a high EMF area. I have been diagnosed by a medical doctor as having EHS. A friend of mind has told me he is negatively affected by Wi-Fis. It is REAL and those who have conflicts of interests like Wikipedia and industry try to cover up the reality, just like the tobacco companies did with scientific studies showing smoking negative health effects. Wealth is put before health. Studies about EMFs that are paid or influenced by industry tend to show no negative health effects but studies not paid or influenced by industry tend to show defiant negative health effects. Another issue concerning studies is what frequency, power, and modulation of the signals are used to expose animals or people. A pure sine wave causes less negative health effects. I do happen to have a degree in biomedical electronics, and have taken additional courses regarding EMFs (I have been certified as a EMF Consultant) so I do have some understanding of this subject.

There is much dishonesty is science. Wikipedia needs to report the truth, even though it is inconvenient or not what people want to hear!

Sincerely,

Wayne Carpenter WCarp (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WCarp Wikipedia does not claim to be the truth, as truth is in the eye of the beholder. Please see WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia only claims that the information presented can be verified, nothing more. Medical information has stricter sourcing requirements, see WP:MEDRS. 331dot (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2022 November 12

Contents