Help desk
< July 30	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	August 1 >

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 31[edit]

Hye jeong[edit]

She is currently in kpop . She is a japanese. Why do you guys written false information on her. She born in japan. Everyone in kpop not born in korea. Research properly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.200.223.165 (talk) 05:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of the person, but I'm guessing that you are referring to our article Shin Hye-jeong. If you have WP:Reliable sources to support your claim, the please give them here or on the talk page of the article, or edit the article yourself, but be sure to include the reference to support your claim. I can't read Korean, but the current reference doesn't seem to support the claim that she was born in Korea. If it doesn't then you are welcome to remove the information about place of birth, but if you add Japan then you must also add a reference. Dbfirs 05:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Using Google Translate, I see that the place of birth isn't mentioned at all. So, I'll be removing the place of birth as well as the reference as it doesn't back up any portion of that sentence. †dismas†|^(talk) 18:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I thought the reference wasn't a useful one, but I wasn't sure. The OP now needs to find a reference to support his (or her) claim that the place of birth was Japan. Dbfirs 21:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Dbfirs 21:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless edits[edit]

I'm looking for the page that deprecates making changes to articles that have no effect on the rendered page, such as adding or removing spaces where they make no difference to the appearance of the page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bots and semi-automatic edits are subject to WP:COSMETICBOT, if that's what you were thinking of. - X201 (talk) 08:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks X201, so it's only actually deprecated if a bot does such edits, but a human editor is welcome to go on a spree of adding spaces like this; "Category:Category title" > "Category: Category title"? It looks like an effort to inflate edit count while actually doing nothing meaningful. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, humans do not have carte blanche. As WP:MEATBOT says disruptive editing is disruptive editing regardless of how the edit is made. I think you may be at the point where you need an admin or two to cast their eyes over it. you could raise it at WP:ANI but you'd have to also alert the user that is making the edits. Alternatively ask the user directly on their talk page. Ask them if they have consensus for the edits or if there's been a discussion that you haven't seen. - X201 (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC) -[reply]

Thanks X201, I am an admin, but it's not a part of the rules and conventions I'm very familiar with. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the following claim accurate?[edit]

I am considering making a claim that involves a calculation, and as we all know, whenever you do that there is a good chance that you have made a trivial math error that you cannot see and which makes you look like a fool. Or sometimes, just for variety, I use the wrong source.

So could someone please check my numbers and assumptions in the following claim?

There is an attitude around Wikipedia of putting up with minor annoyances and glitches rather than making the software excellent.

As of Wednesday, 01 May 2024, 07:24 (UTC), The English Wikipedia has 47,334,503 registered users, 123,503 active editors, and 859 administrators. Together we have made 1,216,914,952 edits, created 60,567,525 pages of all kinds and created 6,818,952 articles.

If we made a tiny improvement to our software that reduced the time to create a page (the total time, including every edit ever made to that page, every talk page comment, and all the time spent by multiple users checking the page for errors over its lifetime) by a single second, that would be the equivalent of a single person working 40 hours a week for six and a half years.

As of the 2016-2017 fiscal year we had $91.3 million USD in revenue, $69.1 million USD in expenses, and $113.3 million USD in assets.[1] So we could easily afford to hire a few top-notch software developers to make obvious improvements to our software.

Given the above numbers, in my considered opinion we should not put up with minor annoyances in our software. We should hire someone to fix them.

I would really appreciate any comments about whether my numbers -- and my argument -- hold water. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 08:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who would actually benefit from the value of this saving? Your notional saved second, divided over all of the people actually involved, would make a difference far too small to be noticed by any one of them, and since virtually all of them are volunteers, all of these saved seconds would not result in significant saved costs for Wikipedia.

Note that I'm not arguing against your idea, I'm testing your argument as requested [:]¬). There may be good answers to, or a solid refutation of, my quibble. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.102.16 (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that much of our software is open source and is written by volunteers. Is this not correct? You are free to volunteer to help fix the software or act as a formal tester and submit formal bug reports. This is essentially the same model we use to improve Wikipedia content. -Arch dude (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which software, and what "obvious improvements"? the current 70,000 or so active editors probably employ hundreds of different methods or processes to improve Wikipedia. What is "obvious" to some will be irrelevant to others. Software improvement does not start by "hiring a programmer." It starts with requirements analysis, requirements specification, and systems analysis, and continues with formal specification of an improvement: Much of this work uses different skills than actual programming. Requirements analysis should start with comments from the users: this means you. Formal requirements specification is generally done as an English-language document: this also means you. -Arch dude (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

correction of article (Sotiris Ninis)[edit]

Please correct the following article on the following points:

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

The footballer is no longer under contract for Maccabi Petah Tikva. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maccabi_Petah_Tikva_F.C.) The footballer is not currently a member of the Greek national team. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece_national_football_team ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.20.70 (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. If you have a reliable published source for the information, you are welcome to edit the article to correct it, citing the source. If you haven't, or you don't feel confident editing it, the place to bring it up is at the Talk page of the article, rather than here. --ColinFine (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

compact language list[edit]

Is it possible to remove languages from my compact language list?

Dekkel (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Universal_Language_Selector/Compact_Language_Links#How_can_I_select_which_languages_are_shown_to_me? Lourdes 16:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question about speedy deletion: copyright issue[edit]

Hi,

I on behalf of National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) was trying to create a page for our organization but it was deleted by an administrator because of copyright issue. I directly used some passages from NADP governance handbook at nadp.slh.wisc.edu/lib/brochures/nadpGovernanceHandbook.pdf because it is our own work. I am wondering if I still have to rephrase everything in my own word and give reference to ourselves?

Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by cyanmx (talk • contribs)

Hello cyanmx,

If you want to use material from another source on Wikipedia beyond a short quotation, it must be available under a compatible license with Wikipedia. You would also need to attribute the source. Also note that there might be issues with tone and neutrality if the material comes from the subject (Wikipedia prefers secondary sources). You will also must read and follow our policies about conflicts of interest and possibly paid editing before you continue. Thank you, and feel free to let me know if you have any further questions. LittlePuppers (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You must either re-write it, removing all "creative" (i.e. copyrightable) elements of the original, or the current copyright holder may release the original under CC-BY-SA or a licence that is compatible with it. The hard way to do this is by sending an email, etc. The easy way to do this is to update your web site to add a CC-BY-SA license for the material. For any non-trivial copying, you must attribute the source (i.e, state that material was copied, see WP:PLAGIARISM), not just cite the source. -Arch dude (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
cyanmx, I may have made a mistake. If NDAP is a U.S. Government organization, and the web site in in the ".gov" domain, then the web pages are already in the public domain. In this case, the deletion was in error, but your submittal must still attribute the source. Usually, your attributions is nothing more than pre-pending "some material copied from a public-domain source:" to your citation. -Arch dude (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Arch dude I don't know if you made a mistake because the guidance regarding US government publications is confusing as to whether or not it is considered public domain. Per WP:COPYRIGHT, basically the work of US government employees is in the public domain but if US government publications contain copyrighted work by others then it doesn't seem to be in the public domain. To me—except regarding laws, legal rulings and court opinions per WP:PD—that sounds like all US government publications should be considered as having copyright, thus the copyright notice of the editor. Thinker78 (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eulalie Spence[edit]

I am a relative of the subject and I have her photo albums. I would like to upload her professional headshot and perhaps other photos from that were most likely taken for school yearbooks. How can I do this without being rejected? Alison — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niamorah (talk • contribs) 20:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to find out who owns the copyright. This is probably the person who took the photos, unless they were paid to take them. Dbfirs 21:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]