Help desk
< January 25	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 27 >

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 26

Siege of Martyropolis

The Siege of Martyropolis (502) article needs to be deleted, in my opinion. I tried to add the template, but it says "The template requires Substitution." I cannot resolve this, or figure out how to properly add the template and get the article recommended. Can someone help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvertide goldwaves (talk • contribs) 04:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Silvertide goldwaves: Looks as if you've added the 'PROD' (proposed deletion) template correctly subsequent to posting here. If the prod is removed (and most editors can do so at their 'discretion') it should not be re-added but an alternative would be to follow the instructons at WP:AFD. (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) 06:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Silvertide goldwaves, enable WP:TWINKLE first, then it's as easy as adding a cite. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does this minor edit look right to you guys?

Was reading Just Enough Operating System and saw a See Also link about some software where the name was changed. Also development on that software was discontinued.

It should be fine how I wrote it, right? That line of the See Also list reads "Container Linux (discontinued)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by NomadicVoxel (talk • contribs) 02:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit looks fine, and the detailed summary helps a lot. I'm ambivalent about the 'minor' tag. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 10:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, forgot ping @NomadicVoxel. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 10:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blazing Samurai

Hello. My name is ZX2006XZ. I have been editing an article about this film titled Blazing Samurai. Apparently, I have tried to keep the original poster in, while others decided not to. Since the file is close to deletion, is there a way for it to be exported to Wikimedia Commons? Thanks in advance.

File:BlazingSamuraiPromotionalPoster.png

ZX2006XZ (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Commons doesn't accept 'fair use' content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, what can I do to make sure the file isn't deleted? ZX2006XZ (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing much, unless you can gain consensus to use it in the article. Discuss this on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can try to discuss it at the article talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request not completed

I have added this request, but not yet completed. I am waiting since july 2020. The subsequent requests was completed. Why my request is ignored? I have added in the wrong page? --2001:B07:6442:8903:6455:65B4:A049:9D16 (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears your request was fulfilled at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop/Archive/Jan 2022#Ennio Morricone signature. GoingBatty (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to edit or remove my edit summary

Good day,

I have made contributions to the Narrative Designer page, which to my frustration keeps being wiped clean and edited by an unknown user named Fracone. This user keeps inserting the promotion of a particular person to this page without adequate proof that support their claim. I therefore wrongly assumed that these two persons are the same people.

In my latest edit I frustratingly added this description to my edit: "Restored original article. [person] (Fracone) edited the article again to refer to himself." - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narrative_designer&action=history

(Name removed with [person] to protect the actual individual.)

Since I cannot prove my claim that said person is the same as the user I feel that I may violate privacy policies or that my edit is subject to slander. Though I stand by the content of my edit, I do not wish to wrongly accuse, insult or publicly blame any individual for the actions of another.

I again apologize for my rash behaviour and request that this description is removed from public view for the safety of all involved.

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudolf Buirma (talk • contribs) 16:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rudolf Buirma: I would say the best way is to just make a dummy edit and explain that in the summary. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 17:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rudolf Buirma:, thanks for taking the initiative on this. You cannot change the edit summary, but an admin can change it for you. If you are worried that information in an edit summary might lead to outing someone, then you are right to ask here about this. Please go to Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests and pick an administrator there and email them. You can send an email by clicking on one of the names on that page, then looking over at the left sidebar, and clicking 'Email this user'. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft not being published since last year

can you help publishing darft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fakhar-i-Abbas this draft is as it is since last one year and you can see there is alot of demand of this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrFiA (talk • contribs) 15:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DrFiA, you have not resubmitted it for review. In September 2020 you moved it to main space (which was permitted, but unwise, as you were effectively asserting that the article is of sufficient quality to be in the encyclopaedia, after having been told that four previous versions were not. Another editor subsequently moved it back to draft space), removed the Speedy Delete (which was also permitted) and removed the four previous declined submission requests (which was unwise: these are important information for subsequent reviewers). I have restored the submission notices, which include the "Resubmit" button. If you believe that you have addressed the reasons for the declines please resubmit it. Note that Wikipedia is not at all interested in whether "there is a lot of demand of this page". --ColinFine (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DrFiA: In addition to the response above, I will urge you to be cautious with writing this draft, as you share the same initials as the subject, which suggests that you are writing about yourself. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can someone "see there is alot of demand of this page"? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a lot, but here's how you can see it. Mathglot (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mathglot. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just starting out.

Hello,

Where is the best place on Wikipedia to learn the basics for writing a contribution that falls within all the guidelines and rules for creation, submission, and know removal votes? I want to contribute correctly. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by LorenzoJ22 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LorenzoJ22 The new user tutorial is a good place to start. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile

How do I create pages easily on mobile?— Preceding unsigned comment added by AssumeGoodWraith (talk • contribs)

AssumeGoodWraith It is possible, but the app and mobile versions are more set up for reading than editing. When I am away from my computer I use the desktop version on my phone. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AssumeGoodWraith. Like 331dot, I recommend using the fully functional desktop site on mobile devices. I have written many articles on my phone. You may be interested in my essay, User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing. Cullen328 (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Webpages

How do you use references with webpages? TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAlienMan2002: You may want to look at Wikipedia:REFBEG for more information on citing webpages. If you use the visual editor, the cite function can automate most of the citation generation for you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAlienMan2002: You can use {{Cite web}}. Look at WP:REFB for more info on referencing. RudolfRed (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RudolfRed: and @Tenryuu: Alright thanks. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a page on a notable figure

How do I start a wikipedia page about a notable figure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiltonHilton76 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MiltonHilton76: Hi there! Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, especially if you've never edited Wikipedia before. To learn how to edit, you could view Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure. I suggest spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather multiple independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject, and determine whether the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article, and be prepared for a process that may include months of waiting, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created. Hope this helps, and happy 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.) GoingBatty (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tool which compares two pages and their editors in common

I seem to remember encountering a tool which compares two pages and lists all the editors in common (editors that edited both pages). Yet, I cannot for the life of me find it now. Am I just imagining there's such a tool or have my searching skills failed me? Melmann 21:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Melmann. There are several tools listed at Wikipedia:Editor Interaction Analyzer that may be useful to you. Cullen328 (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Thank you. That's not quite what I'm after, but it's the tool(s) I had encountered before, I was just misremembering how they worked. Appreciate your help. Melmann 08:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is something available online, but I needed a tool like that too, so I wrote a small python (editors.py) script that scrapes the history of a page and prints all the user names. Then, from the commandline, I run a command like

comm <(editors.py article1 | sort | uniq) <(editors.py article2 | sort | uniq)

to print three columns: who edited article1, article2 or both. Feel free to email me if you need details. Vexations (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Errors in Citations of My "Shakespeare" Research = Deletion of All Mentions of My Research

I made a few edits to the "List of Shakespeare authorship candidates" page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Shakespeare_authorship_candidates. On December 18, 2021, a previous Wikipedia editor, Wham2001, had added this citation: "Percy, William, poet and playwright; proposed by Anna Faktorovich.[57]" And this citation: "https://anaphoraliterary.com/attribution/ British Renaissance Re-Attribution and Modernization Series" by Anna Faktorovich. Anaphora Literary Press. The format of Wham2001's citation was incorrect, as Wham2001 failed to add a bibliographic entry, like the one I added in my edit earlier today: Faktorovich, Anna (2021). Re-Attribution of the British Renaissance Corpus. Anaphora Literary Press. ISBN 979-8-49958-765-2. Wham2001 also failed to include separate candidate listings for the other 3 authors I attributed with "Shakespeare's" texts in my study that have not been previously mentioned by any other researchers: Josuah Sylvester, Gabriel Harvey and William Byrd. In my edit, I corrected the bibliographic error firstly (I am a subject-expert in this as I was granted a Bibliographic Fellowship with the Modern Languages Association, where I helped to edit the MLA Bibliography, so bibliographic errors bother me). I also added the other candidate listings with precise and accurate citations of who they are and what they wrote. Wham2001 had already cited my study, so I was not adding any new self-promotions, but merely correcting Wham2001's misunderstanding of my findings. But later today, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, first undid all of the edits I had made claiming a researcher cannot edit mistakes connected with their own research. When I complained about this undoing, Sång deleted all mentions of not only my name, but the credits to all authors I listed as candidates, including Percy, who Wham2001 had previously included. My edits were essential bibliographic corrections to comply with Wikipedia citation style. It is erroneous to credit only Percy and not the other four authors I attribute with different "Shakespeare" texts in Volumes 1-2 of my Series, Re-Attribution of the British Renaissance Corpus. I am a "subject-expert" in this field, as I have previously published two scholarly books with McFarland (Rebellion as Genre and Formulas of Popular Fiction). I would very much like to understand the rules of editing on Wikipedia, so I can make other changes that my research has corrected in the errors with the current British Renaissance attributions; but it seems that Sång's intention is to censor my research, and not to make sure accurate information is communicated. The data regarding who I credit as authors of specific texts (including the corrections I am making to this "Shakespeare" authorship page) is available for free to the public here: https://github.com/faktorovich/Attribution. It cannot be impossible for a researcher and subject-expert to make edits on Wikipedia regarding the subjects one is an expert in; the rules you cite are vague as they do not forbid the mention of all self-published books, nor do they forbid all self-citation; I followed the rules as they are written. The goal is editing the relevant pages with truthful and accurate information, isn't it? So why would any Wikipedia editor choose to delete accurate bibliographic edits? The retaliatory deletion of all mentions of me and my research in return for my complaints of unfair failure to accept an accurate edit is also extremely malicious and clearly cannot be compliant with Wikipedia's intended rules. So far the first response I received in the talk-page on this subject is that my findings are not yet famous enough to be mentioned because I have not been discussed in the "Guardian"; this is an absurd reason for the exclusion, since Wham2001 found out about my research, perhaps from the 651 comments about it on LibraryThing: https://www.librarything.com/topic/337240 Faktorovich (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr. FOllowing BRD, please open a discussion on the article's talk page, and ping the editors involved. Remember that Wikipedia works by consensus, and if you have differences with other volunteer editors you need to engage them in dialogue, which a wall of text tends not to do. --ColinFine (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Faktorovich: Hi there! The goal of editing should be to summarize/paraphrase information found in multiple independent reliable sources. When an editor uses their own self-published source, they sometimes have a different goal. WP:SELFPUB is a section of Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:SELFCITE is a section of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - both of which are very important. (Obviously I don't know you and won't pretend to know your goals.) Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I'm glad you're discussing this issue on the article talk page. You may find it helpful to switch tactics and focus on suggesting specific content changes on the talk page, and invite Wham2001 to join the conversation as well. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: This seems to be the exact opposite of what happened -- a completely different person added the citation. All she did was change a formatting error, so I do not understand how she was using her "own self-published source" for anything. Sure, a couple of inlines to the source were added, but it was already in the article and it was already being used to back up content present there. jp×g 06:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she changed the citation from one self-published source to another one in one list entry, and she also added several new entries to the list, all of them sourced to the same book. Both the original addition by an uninvolved editor (who probably didn't realise that the Anaphora source was a SPS) and Faktorovich's first edit to change the reference and add new entries were clearly good-faith edits that simply did not meet the sourcing criteria for that list article. The important thing here is to clarify to her why self-published books should not be used as sources, especially in an area where there is already lot of reliably published scholarship, and especially in an area so fraught with controversy that there are discretionary sanctions in effect. --bonadea contributions talk 10:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have engaged in a discussion on the article's talk page, and have gotten the editors involved. I have added overwhelming citations/ proof of the content's accuracy and my credentials as a subject-expert. I don't know if any quantity of evidence is capable of convincing these editors to see reason. This is why I have also posted this problem here to open the discussion to Wikipedia's broader community. "Dialogue" does not improve if either side says shorter bits of text, but rather should only improve when anybody has a "wall of text" in support of their position. If there is no equivalently-sized "wall" of textual evidence for the opposing position; then, the bigger and more accurate wall wins; if the contest is fair and rational. My goal is to communicate truthful attributions for the British Renaissance; just because I am the researcher who has arrived at these truths cannot mean that I cannot edit citations that incorrectly interpret my assertions. There is no room for me to include a wall of citations to support my findings on this "Shakespeare candidates" page; I have included the precise number of citations as all of the other candidate entries, but mine are being censored. I would be delighted to invite Wham2001 and all others involved to the conversation, I assumed that mentioning Wham2001's name achieved this. Assuming the editors will not make any further replies to me on the "Candidates" page, I hope somebody on this page will actually look up this discussion and my points above and will actually respond to the concerns I am raising here to invite all editors across Wikipedia to comment on this question of accuracy and fairness that is important to all editors. Faktorovich (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the mention – I have replied on the article talk page. Best, Wham2010 (talk) 09:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Faktorovich: Mentioning a person's username in plain text - e.g. just typing Wham2001 - does not notify the user of conversation. Using {{ping}} will do so, as I have done here to notify you of my reply. Using {{U}} as we did above also works, but formats the output in a different way. See Help:Notifications for more information. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]