Help desk
< July 1	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 3 >

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

July 2[edit]

Tools for searching edit summaries[edit]

Are there any useful tools for searching edit summaries, either by a particular user or in general? Mostly I am curious because it would be useful in finding block-evasions by users that have a tendency towards distinctive edit summaries in some form. --Aquillion (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion: You can use the find feature in your browser, if you are looking for specific text on the edit history page, but people trying to evade blocks may not leave summaries. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That only works if they have few enough edits to fit on one page; I was hoping for some sort of external edit-counter tool that can search all their edit summaries. Evasions are often caught due to distinctive edit summaries, but it happens when one or both accounts have thousands of edits, giving enough to pour through to establish a pattern (and giving them time to feel safe on their evasion account, so they fall back into familiar patterns.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is toolforge:sigma/summary.py, but that is also limited to 500 revisions. If you don't get a good answer here, try also asking at WP:VP/T. – Rummskartoffel 09:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add (or show me how to add) psyarxiv to the list of open access versions of documents?[edit]

We all want open science. We don't want cited articles to be behind a paywall. Can we make it so that cited articles can have their preprints listed so readers can more easily check the citations?

The easiest fix to this would be to expand the other arxiv and open access options (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:CS1_errors#Check_%7Cbiorxiv=_value) to allow citations to OSF and/or psyarxiv DOIs: 10.31234/osf.io/kynez

For example, I want to cite doi: 10.3102/0034654321990713 which is paywalled but want to link to 10.31234/osf.io/kynez which is open access.

Can someone copy the acceptable tag for arxiv or biorxiv to allow for 10.31234 as the stem? Or send me the guide for how to do this?

This is a general forum for relatively simple editing issues, For more technical questions, please visit Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). (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.). TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Until we get 'round to figuring out how to do a generic {{cite preprint}} (that one is not generic) you can write:

{{cite document |last= |first= |title= |date= |work=PsyArXiv |doi=10.31234/....}}

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to have Page Previews instead of Navigation popups when logged in[edit]

Ya know Page Previews? It's the default when you hover over a wikilink when you're not logged in. I want Page Preview when I'm logged in, but I can't figure it out in settings.

I've used Navigation popup, but it's not the same- I really want Page Preview. If I disable Navigation popup, Page Preview does not occur when I'm logged in. please help! skak E L 10:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid question: do you have Page Previews checked at Preferences → Appearance → Reading preferences? – Rummskartoffel 11:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I Converse/Write to other Contributors?[edit]

Hi... Firstly thank you for what you all do here at Wikipedia! :-)

I have read the Talk Page for:Gravitational time dilation.

How: do I converse with the Author/Authors. I can not Identify who wrote what. I need help sorting that out. Once I know who wrote what, is there an, Out of the Public Eye, Forum/Chat? at Wikipedia?

Thanks Much,

What Year Is It?On Our Sun— Preceding unsigned comment added by What Year Is It?On Our Sun (talk • contribs)

What Year Is It?On Our Sun You are welcome to edit that talk page, just as you edited this page, and offer your comments. If you wish to address a specific editor, you can attract their attention by posting on their own user talk page, or by pinging them (putting {{u|User name here}} in your comments, as I did here). If you need to find specific editors to offer comments to, you can examine the edit history of the article in question. Ideally, discussion about Wikipedia should take place here on Wikipedia unless it involves sensitive personal information. There are live chat forums, but I know little about those(but others do and will comment here). 331dot (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@What Year Is It?On Our Sun: If you're looking for live chat venues for Wikipedia, there's the IRC and a Discord server. However, most editors stay on Wikipedia talk pages to discuss building the encyclopedia so that everything stays in one place. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@What Year Is It?On Our Sun:Wikipedia is a crowdsourced encyclopedia. Our entire philosophy is to arrive at consensus openly. Therefore, we have no mechanisms for private communications among contributors "out of the public eye" for encyclopedic content. -Arch dude (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who deleted the article of "HDClone"?[edit]

Hello,

on May, 20th the user Mottezen proposed the deletion of the English article "HDClone" with the following remark:

"Non-notable product of a non-notable company. Relies exclusively on primary sources for all the important content. Links to articles about tips and reviews on this software are noted in the reception rection, though nothing really significant. The "literature" is a list of all the books in which the subject is namedropped." Mottezen (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Deletion discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/HDClone

--> I want that deletion of the article I wrote to be revered as it seems completely arbitrary. Therefore I'd like to know the user name of admin, who did this.

First this user restricted his complaint about primary resources to the important content, neither specifying the, in his opinion important content, nor how that's relevant for the importance of the software or the entire article. Second this user states, that links to articles about tips and reviews are nothing really significant, not specifying what would be "really" significant, trying devalue all online sources at once. However magazines like Chip and Computerbild are well known in the origin country of HDClone, with their own Wikipeda article (also in English), thus shouldn't be dismissed as irrelevant sources on a mere feeling. Third all literature mentions are devalued with setting the word literature in quotes (maybe expecting a high value hard cover book) and mere namedropping (admittedly also included), ignoring that "Langkah Cerdas Mengamankan dan Menyelamatkan Data pada Hard Disk" from Madcoms included a short chapter about the usage of HDClone version 3.7 from page 138 on.

The users firefly, TheChronium, TheDreamBoat agree and copy Mottezen's opinion, though don't elaborate on that. Their verdict seems to be based solely on the possibility, that they don't know, or maybe don't like this software.

Based on such argumentation most articles in this list can be deleted as well, with the exact same way of reasoning, except that it won't even be necessary to down-talk the literature mentions, since they don't exist in most cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_disk_cloning_software

This also goes articles of older cloning software, such as Arconis, Ghost or even the open Clonezilla.

The "HDClone" article I wrote may be in need of a clean-up, focusing on link and reference quality instead of quantity. But it certainly proved to be more relevant than those previous three mentions (and as others on that list as well). And as the only software using a completely different operating system (Symobi), it even provides a unique feature, that sets itself apart from all the other entries on that list (again, even from the open Clonezilla).

Personally I feel quite offended by the arbitrary and pretty much baseless deletion of an article, on which I spent days for the creation and hours for the translation. To me it seems like a there are people within the Wikipedia, who don't know what they should do all day and pick on work of others at random (certainly not all, but some of them). Regardless of the outcome I will overthink my future support of and on Wikipedia (both often anonymously), as it may already be on its unstoppable way of loosing all control, leaving it to those who can afford it. I have other hobbies and other, more deserving welfare projects going in my life on am not in need to continuously battle arbitrary acting pedants.

Why do I feel that way? Because my article was deleted, while other equally bad or worse ones remain untouched. My verdict on the quality of those articles is based on Wikipedia standards and not my opinion of the software which those other articles are about.

If there is an initiative going on, with goal of deleting article like mine, and I'm just one of it's first victims, then I would love to know about that. Also, please add such information to the deletion request. Otherwise I want the unfounded deletion of the article "HDClone" which I wrote to be reverted. And for this I'd like to know the user name of admin, who did this.

Best regards, Jo2root — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo2root (talk • contribs) 16:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take it personally. If the article did not comply with WP:N then it was correctly deleted. The way to fix this is to find sources that show notability. You can go to WP:DRV if you disagree with the AfD results. RudolfRed (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There are six million articles here. No doubt some could be deleted if someone wanted to nominate them. RudolfRed (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the admins who deleted it (twice now) here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

how do i start a new page[edit]

will be writing a page for robert j. andrews, iconographer.

how do i start a new page. he is a living person and one of the top iconographers in the world.

i would not find a page of instructions on how todo it.

thanks, ````

Please, see Help:Your_first_article. Ruslik_Zero 19:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He does seem to be notable enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before you begin, you might want to make sure you gather some WP:Reliable sources on the subject. Good-quality news articles are a common example of reliable sources. Make sure you don't write promotionally about the person or make the article sound like an advertisement. Thanks! Félix An (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More protection on a page[edit]

I'm curious as to why our article on Dr. Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine is move-protected. AFAICT, the article had never been moved or unmoved previously, so there's no need to protect it, but mostly I'm just curious about how it ended up that way. If I'm reading the history correctly, the protection got applied with this edit by User:NawlinWiki (courtesy ping, but this is ancient history). Lowercase signmabot applied the template and then User:Tbhotch removed some of the protections (?) here, leaving only the page move protection. I think the protection was only supposed to last two weeks, but somehow stayed on for nearly a decade.
There's no reason for it to be protected at all, but that's just a side issue. Is there any way to find other articles where ancient protections are still stuck long past their need? Matt Deres (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Matt Deres: Removing or adding a protection template won't change the protection settings an admin assignes. This is a common misconception. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tbhotch: Thanks for the clarification. I think I misread the protections; NawlinWiki did full protection for two weeks, but decided to give it permanent move protection. That wasn't clear when I was reading the diffs. Matt Deres (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was most likely added by mistake. You can directly request Nawlin to drop it. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 15:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For disambiguation, create a new stub or a link to a not yet existent entry?[edit]

Seeing a list of books by the mathematician Edward E. Moise, I wondered if he had a sideline as a social critic (like Serge Lang.) I went to Wikipedia to check. I had to look a little further. It turns out that here are at least two well published academics with the name Edwin E. Moise, a prominent deceased mathematician and a military historian of the Vietnam war, currently teaching at Clemson University. The mathematician has a full Wikipedia entry which notes, inter alia, that he was "among the few members of the senior faculty at Harvard University who strongly and publicly opposed the Vietnam War." The historian is perhaps notable enough to merit an entry, or perhaps not, but does not have one.

I am a long time but extremely sporadic editor and this is the kind a tweak I thought might help someone else.

What I did: add a sentence after the line in question in the entry for the mathematician. Were there an entry for the historian, I would just add a disambiguation link.

QUESTION 1: If I was sufficiently motivated, would it be appropriate to create an "academic biography stub", minimally populate it with a 1 line bio and selected publications? After all, I have no intention of doing more and it is merely to be able to disambiguate.

Question 2: Should I just create a disambiguation with a link to a not yet existent entry? Well, actually, I just did that too, but maybe I should delete one or the other.

Advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gentlemath (talk • contribs) 21:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Edwin E. Moise (not Edward). Deor (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think in this case you have to either go with the stub (and you'll need one ref at least, as all biographies of living persons have to be ref'd), or just remove him from the hatnote and hope not to many readers will be left high and dry (a redlink in a hatnote is no good). Stubs are fine, stubs are welcome. Redlinks in hatnotes aren't allowed, though. If no stub is made, he has to be removed from the hatnote.

Normally, I would recommend going to the page the page Edwin Moise and edit it to stop being a redirect to Edwin E. Moise and instead make it a disambiguation page that says:

Edwin Moise may refer to:

Edwin E. Moise (1918–1998), American mathematician and education reformer
Edwin Warren Moïse (1810–1868), American politician and Confederate judge
Edwin Moise, American military historian at Clemson University

The problem is, this is pushing it. The bluelink needs to go to something more closely related to the person that can provide the reader with something about the person. "Joe Smith is musician with The Nazz" is the usual, my suggestion is closer to "Joe Smith is a musician who plays the guitar", and that's not OK I don't think.

If there was an article Clemson University Department of History you could link to that. But there isn't. If you can find some specialized entity he's closely associated with, such as say American Society of Vietnam War Historians that'd be OK too. But unlikely.

But even if you DO make the stub, only make the Edwin Moise redirect into a disambig page if if you think (educated guess) that a fair percentage of people are looking for each of the three. If you think that say 80 percent are looking for the mathemetician, no, you can't do this, leave Edwin Moise in place as a redirect, and just leave the stub in the Edwin E. Moise hatnote. Herostratus (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non 30/500 editor enforcing ECP rules[edit]

Fellow Wikipedians,

Please accept my apologies if this has been covered elsewhere, I haven't had any luck in finding an answer to this question in the various guides or in previous questions.

If an edit is made that directly pertains to the Israel-Palestine conflict by someone who hasn't met the 30/500 threshold, can another non-30/500 editor undo this edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.jacobson (talk • contribs) 22:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael.jacobson: I think the relevant page is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles and if I am reading (5) right it is ok for non 500/30 editor to do a revert to enforce the 500/30 rule. If in doubt, post on the article's talk page for another editor do to the revert. RudolfRed (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I'm seeing that might be interpreted this way is Reverts made to enforce the 500/30 Rule are exempt from the provisions of this motion under point C, which I think is a bit flimsy, and I'm unsure if this interpretation was intended when the sanctions were written. I doubt you'd get in much trouble over something like this, though; if someone thinks it's inappropriate they'll probably just ask you to stop. – Rummskartoffel 10:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]