Help desk
< May 8	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 10 >

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.

May 9[edit]

Retrieving a book that i uploaded[edit]

I am trying to retrieve my biography that i started uploading as a book long time ago. How can i find it and upload files to complete the work. Fbaqir (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no record of you uploading anything to Wikipedia. Why would such a document have been uploaded to this encyclopedia? --Orange Mike | Talk 03:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

where to put programs[edit]

Sometimes I write programs to make it easier to edit a page. For example, I have a program to make a Wikitable from an iaea.org table. It would seem useful to put them close to the page that they were used on in case I, or someone else, wanted to use them later. Is there a convention on where such should go? Gah4 (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gah4: Hi there! You could add a post on the article's talk page describing how you made the table. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the question yesterday, it is a small program, so that is probably fine. The ones for table generation from iaea.org are bigger, though. Maybe a subpage of the talk page would work. Gah4 (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback[edit]

Thanks a lot Wikipedia for introducing the Toggle View button. Great Job! 194.56.49.82 (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but it's likely that the people who made the change do not read this page, as this is for help with editing, not programming the software. I'm not sure where the best place is to pass those thanks to: some of the implementors probably read WP:VPT. ColinFine (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

how to get rid of the new layout[edit]

hello, how do I go back to the old wikipedia layout, the new one does not look good and is not comfortable to use. regards 46.17.162.105 (talk) 08:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way is to create an account and choose the old layout in your account preferences. As I understand it there are some workarounds for non-account users that are a tiny bit more complicated, that I hope someone tells you about as I don't know what they are. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Vector 2022#Without an account. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also Wikipedia:Skin#Skin selection bookmarklet. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HR[edit]

I want a job description of Human Resource Executive HR PressFit (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a general Help Desk for the internet, sorry. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking this, here, maybe you're not qualified for the job... --Jayron 32 11:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HR PressFit Maybe you just need to read Human resources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors on Lakho Phulani[edit]

Reference help requested. kindly fix the referencing errors. Thanks, JogiAsad (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability disagreement[edit]

A couple of weeks ago, I created an article for Michael Felts, who was the most notable deaf gay activist during the AIDS crisis. Seven days ago, an editor tagged it with a notability template. I reached out to this editor for advice, and following their tips I improved the article. I replied to them again and asked for more feedback, but did not receive any. Today, the article was moved to draft space by the same editor.

I would like to find out if someone else can review the article. My primary concern is that the marginalized nature of the subject, archival silences mean the record is not as strong as it could be. Considering that he was a deaf gay man living with AIDS, there are actually *many* sources demonstrating his notability. Over 20 years after his death he was selected as an "AIDS Hero" by the oldest LGBTQ newspaper in the US, the Washington Blade.

Michael Felts WAS notable. His work was essential to the deaf community in the late 1980s and early 1990s. What records there are of him demonstrate this importance. I would appreciate it if someone other than the initial editor could review this. Thank you.

Etoile ✩ (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't see a problem with the article as it was written. It has several independent sources, while none individually has a huge amount of text about the person, in total they amount to what I think is enough information to pass the standards at WP:GNG. But I've only been working actively at Wikipedia for 17 years, so I may not have enough experience here to tell what a notable subject is. --Jayron 32 11:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing for Draft:Michael Felts could be a bit better, but it is a serious attempt at writing an article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a solid article, it's not promotional, I don't see the imminent need to keep it out of the main space, really. If I were reviewing the draft, I'd pass it on as-is. --Jayron 32 12:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback, it is greatly appreciated. What should I do in this situation? Etoile ✩ (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on feedback from here and on the draft page itself, I have submitted it for review. Thanks! Etoile ✩ (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to have page on myself updated (academic and industry)[edit]

I hope this message finds you well. Years ago, a page on me was created, but when I found it, I realized it contained several errors. It was also too long. The page is Damiano_Brigo. For context, and apologies for making this so long, I am a well known name in the quantitative finance area (industry) and in stochastic analysis / probability/ statistics applied to signal processing and finance (academia), I have worked in the board of several financial institutions, I have been the most cited author in risk magazine for ten years, my articles have been referenced by mainstream press (the Banker, Il Mondo), my filtering/signal processing articles have an increasing number of citations (as a secondary source the Swedish Defence Agency wrote a report on them, for example) and there are many other points that came up later and are not on the page currently. A while back, as soon as I discovered the page, I reduced the page substantially in size and corrected several errors myself, it's in the page history. Later on, I updated it further, but then a conflict of interest was raised with a flag. I explained the situation to the editors, and the flag was removed because I was simply doing minimal edits to correct out of date information. Since then, quite a few things have changed and the page would have to be updated again, perhaps more substantially, but I realize I cannot edit a page on myself easily, as this raises a lot of conflicts of interest. What can I do? I wouldn't want a flag saying the page was maintained by me or any "conflict of interest" flag, I only want it to have accurate information. Is there anything I can do, like working with an editor, providing verifiable information, primary and secondary sources and asking them to update it, perhaps discussing what is worth adding and what not? I apologize if this question has an obvious answer, I looked around a few Wikipedia articles on conflict of interest and notability but I am not sure how to proceed. The only hint I found was that I could pay a contributor to write the page for me, but then a flag would appear to specify that it is a kind of sponsored page, which I don't feel appropriate. Thanks in advance for any suggestions. Damiano Brigo DamianoBrigo2 (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DamianoBrigo2 You are welcome to make formal edit requests(click for instructions) on the article talk page(Talk:Damiano Brigo) detailing changes you feel are needed. If marked as an edit request, other editors will see it and evaluate it. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this, 331dot. DamianoBrigo2 (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed out an article. How to do this?[edit]

ok so i reuploaded an article, and "acronymed" it. 199.216.94.240 (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions don't appear to make a lot of sense. Is English not your first language? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

report inappropriate content[edit]

I just opened an external link on the English page about the artist Pablo Palazuelo and it redirects to a horrible pornography page. How can one report and remove this? We need to be able to protect children from seeing this. 2A01:CB1C:E8:600:EDD0:4302:B1D:A78A (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored for any reason- and you are speaking to an external link. Note that not every image of nudity is "pornographic". If you want to discuss whether such an external link is appropriate in terms of value to the encyclopedia, please use the article talk page, Talk:Pablo Palazuelo. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The website had been ursurped by spammers. Genericusername57 has fixed it with an archive link. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there might have been a problem. Someone just edited one of the links, with the notation that the old site had been "usurped by spammers." Uporządnicki (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The old link on Pablo Palazuelo was [1] where I only see some innocent text and no images. The bottom of https://elpais.com/diario/1999/12/11/cultura/944866803_850215.html has illustrated links to recent stories. One of them is currently [2] for me. There is a photo I suppose could be called pornographic by some. We are not going to remove a link to a valid source just because the page may sometimes happen to include an image with partial nudity. The rest of the links are currently completely harmless for me but one of them has targeted ads and may be very different for others. Please always be specific when you report something. Otherwise you are wasting other people's time. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried clicking on the ArteSeleccion link several times; most of the time, as you said, it produces an innocuous parked-domain page; but twice it has given me a "Please wait while we check your browser" popup, then redirected to a spam site. gnu 57 20:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Translation but cross-namespace redirect[edit]

Hello,

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I had some questions from translating articles and whether or not they're appropriate. Yesterday I did a translation of an article from the Russian Wikipedia into here, but that article was moved to a draft because it wasn't suitable to stay in the mainspace (I needed more sources even though everything that was in the article was largely brought over from the Russian Wiki). However, I saw the draft was deleted because it was a "cross-name redirect from the mainspace" (as described by @Liz). So my question is how to translate articles without them being deleted for this reason or if it just isn't possible. Any help/explanation would be appreciated. Thanks. Losipov (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Losipov, do you mean Draft:Konfuz? It has not been deleted. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft wasn't deleted. It's still at Draft:Konfuz. What was deleted was the redirect. As far as it being moved to draft, the English Wikipedia probably has stricter sourcing requirements than the Russian one. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ONUnicorn thank you and the other user for the replies. So it wouldn't be a problem to do the translations the same way as I did Konfuz (apart from making sure the sources are ok)? I should probably mention that this was my first translation, so I knew it wouldn't be completely perfect. Thanks again! Losipov (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, making sure the article has sufficient sources is key. Other than that, you did nothing wrong. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dies Shalie Lipp[edit]

Hello. Why do you cancel my edits [3] Jtayl132? СтасС (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible, don't Notable person?--СтасС (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that she isn't included on Wikipedia as a notable person, I don't think the article is suitable. Jayson Taylor (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply! I see.--СтасС (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article Submission[edit]

After looking through a bit of the questions and answers listed, and reviewing the "Notability" page, I could not find a clear resolve for this circumstance or understanding of Wikipedia's position on it. Lets say for instance I am a small business owner (including musician or artists) that seek to display a Wikipedia page that discusses the history, purpose and mission of work. Also, allowing it to serve as once authoritative source to be used that people could go to to receive information and appropriate linking of social accounts or other relevant information.

It seems from what I read that this would not be allowed by WIkipedia, in part confirmed by the statements relating to the Akon example on the Notability page. The further discussion also seems to convey that other then a personal judgment by WIkepedia Editors and such as to what determines "Notability" there is no criteria established as to notability from a local, national or global perspective. It seems to me that there are a vast amount of listings that would not have meet criteria to be included in print version - long before the days of the internet.

I do not believe this to be an intent of the criteria in place, but rather an attempt to ensure that articles and information of the projects site does warrant and provide credibility in the information being expressed to it's readers. AN important need as the demands of reliable information become more and more in demand as web use goes, and further supports the stated mission of Wikipedia. It also seems that while the benchmarks of "naotability" may be met for inclusion it only means that those entities may be listed in an article of write up regardless of its fact - meaning more that often the backstories or other information presented about them are just that, made up stories by them or their team as works of fiction; which then seems to be considered more of a "character" page associated with an artist or group then rather a legitimacy of the person responsible for the creation and stylishness of the same (an issue that I am certain will only grow as AI and Avatars become more prominent in online use)

So the question at hand, although the comments spark several for discussion, is if there is a "Wiki" project for these type of listings or displays or is there an option in Wikipedia itself?

LuvPOGL (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:Notability standards are definitely more than a "personal judgment"; they are established guidelines that the entire wiki goes by.

I apologize that I am not entirely sure of what you're saying; I assume English isn't your first language. What do you mean by this: "there is no criteria established as to notability from a local, national or global perspective." ?

If I understand correctly, I think it may be helpful for you to also review the standards of WP:OR, WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and WP:VERIFY. We don't allow edits that are "made up stories by them or their team as works of fiction", but if a reliable source states something relevant, that can be included. — Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 19:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly are, they may be adopted standards by a group of people on the internet working with Wikipedia, but the criteria itself seems subjective. For instance the example referring to the artist Akon in the example on the Notability page states directly that in 2001 Akon would not have met the "notability" criteria of Wikipedia, but by 2004 he would have. Taking that a step farther, in 2001 at a global scale were there no other notable people named "Akon" on the globe? And in further response to your questions that were not even close to the topic or point of discussion in my question, am I to believe that 1: Akon is his real name? Or just a made up name for a character? Some artists highlight it as a "stage" or character name and others don't. As well as background biographies seems to often only use unreliable media (which are in step with Hollywood itself most times) as reference instead of confirmed sources of record to give credibility to their background. In fact its in part the privacy and other concerns taken into account that many of those, as I mentioned earlier, would have not made it into traditional books of Encyclopedias.

As such, if Wikipedia is going to claim that its intended goal is to bring the world knowledge into one source, shouldn't there be in fact a better and more thorough editing process? I believe Wikipedia itself can not ignore the fact that schools and a vast majority of students look to it as an authoritative voice, much like Encyclopedias of printed days, that being said I believe the rest of my post noted ideas of thought and discussion for people involved with the project to offer real discussion in resolve, not attack someone about the language they speak.

Now, I admit, that I am fairly slower than most in the English language and not as smart as people like yourself and so I'm sorry if there is confusion as to the point of purpose or question I asked in the last line of the the post; but please make no mistake that English is my first and only language with which I have to speak and write. LuvPOGL (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LuvPOGL It is subjective on purpose as there are always execeptions. Akon became notable when he released Trouble (Akon album). Notability can change over time as someone gets more and more achievements.

Your purpose to edit Wikipedia seems to be to promote your own business. This is fairly common, but it is often in vain. One important rule is to maintain a neutral point of view, which is hard to do when you have a conflict of interest. Read WP:YFA for a somewhat simplified tutorial of how to create a new article. If it meets our high standards, your draft will be accepted and will become a Wikipedia article. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, I am able to understand better now.

It is true that there is some subjectivity involved in the notability standards; this is why there is a community review process when someone thinks an article or fact is not notable.

And in further response to your questions that were not even close to the topic or point of discussion in my question,

Your attitude there is not needed.

am I to believe that 1: Akon is his real name? Or just a made up name for a character? Some artists highlight it as a "stage" or character name and others don't.

Whether it is his real name is not important; what matters is the name under which he is most notable, though real names are always included in such articles as often as possible.

As such, if Wikipedia is going to claim that its intended goal is to bring the world knowledge into one source, shouldn't there be in fact a better and more thorough editing process?

Wikipedia will never be perfect, though we as a community try to do the best job we can. Although it is true that students frequently use WP as a go-to source of information, schools or teachers that ban its use as a primary source are right to do so. Students that wish to use Wikipedia as a resource should instead use the sources we link to as primary, as long as they are indeed reliable. — Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 20:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ai[edit]

How does machine learning differ from traditional programming, and what are some practical applications of machine learning in the field of artificial intelligence? Alexromeo111 (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page is intended for questions about using Wikipedia - consider asking at the reference desk instead. Tollens (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexromeo111:The help desk volunteers will not do your homework for you. You can use ChatGPT for that. -Arch dude (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page submission[edit]

Hello I submitted a page for Richard Sandfield (ventriloquist). Can you please review the bio and publish it.

Thank you Willie1937 (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Willie1937, you have attempted to write an article on your user page, which is not the correct place for it. You have cited no sources and therefore have not demonstrated that the subject is notable. I recommend carefully reading Help:Your first article. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Streamlining watchlist checks[edit]

Most days I inspect 6 or 10 new lines on my watchlist. This entails loading the article then clicking on View history, usually without reading the article. Is there any way to go straight to the history? Doug butler (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are several watchlist preferences but I see a "hist" or "history" link with all of them. I rarely use it but click "diff" or "prev" in the watchlist to see the edit right away. Are you referring to something other than viewing Special:Watchlist in a browser? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How long have I been doing this without looking at the far left of the line? Thanks PH. Doug butler (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]