Help desk
< April 23	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 25 >

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.

April 24[edit]

Lock a wiki page.[edit]

Can a Wikipedia profile be locked so only the person can make changes himself? There is an ugly battle going on with a wrestler and ~~some jerk~~ somebody doesn’t like what the wrestler said. The wrestler, Danhausen, is funny. He has lots of jokes in interviews. He created his wiki profile the way he wanted it. ~~Some jerk~~ Somebody went in and changed it. Making it sound mean and stuff. They don’t get the inside jokes…or don’t like it. It’s just Not cool. Can Danhausen lock his page so no one can edit it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wndr Twin Powers (talk • contribs) 03:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is about Danhausen (wrestler). It's not a "profile", it's an encyclopedia article. The subject of the article should not be editing it himself, as he has a conflict of interest. If he persists, the article may be locked to prevent him from editing it. Maproom (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wndr Twin Powers Articles are not protected ("locked") so that only the subject may edit them- in fact, the opposite is more likely to happen if the subject is disruptive, as Maproom notes. 331dot (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the article does not belong to the subject, see WP:OWN. It is about the subject. 331dot (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah… ok. So there what about a conflict? There is a “fact” that keeps going back and forth and getting pretty heated. The fact is his height and weight. There is 1 person posting with a reference BUT there is another reference that is different. Actually several references that point to the different one. It’s back and forth and fighting continue off site. If there are multiple internet references that are different, then what can be actually be saved? Wndr Twin Powers (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. It’s actually a “fact” that keeps going back and forth and getting pretty heated. The fact is his height and weight. There is 1 person posting with a reference BUT there is another reference that is different. Actually several references that point to the different one. The editing of this article will go on for days and days. The back and forth and fighting continue off site. If there are multiple internet references that are different, then what can be actually be saved? And since it’s getting heated, can’t you all just go ahead and lock it now? Stop the editing nightmare. Thank you Wndr Twin Powers (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wndr Twin Powers: This is what the talk page for the article (Talk:Danhausen (wrestler)) is for. I went and reverted your changes for something that is blatantly untrue and unverified by a reliable source, especially since the article is a biography of a living person. The article isn't going to be protected because you want it to be. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If Danhausen wrote his own article, that's something we heavily frown upon due to the obvious conflict of interest involved, especially in an area that is under a sanctions regime. If I were him I would stay a country mile away from anything involving himself or pro wrestling en generale on Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 09:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you…makes sense. I assumed otherwise, …which obviously I should never assume Wndr Twin Powers (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone saying they are 7foot tall doesn't mean that they are. It's clearly a joke. We aren't here to have inside jokes. We are an encyclopaedia. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wndr Twin Powers, please don't refer to an editor who has made changes as a "jerk". 73.127.147.187 (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t find the jerk part. Do you mind finding it for me and delete? I appreciate it. Wndr Twin Powers (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found it! How can I fix this? Thank you Wndr Twin Powers (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wndr Twin Powers: You can go edit your comment and strike it out using <del> tags (deleting it outright is frowned upon). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Since you asked for help, Wndr Twin Powers, I made the change for you. Bishonen | tålk 08:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate it Wndr Twin Powers (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reborn (Kavinsky album) moved to mainspace without going through normal drafting process?[edit]

Hello - I have a concern that a page was moved into mainspace without going through the normal drafting process. Is this a valid way of creating articles on Wikipedia, and editing them? I imagine it is not. I was working on a draft Draft:Reborn (Kavinsky album) when I saw Reborn (Kavinsky album) appear all of a sudden on the mainspace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radlrb (talk • contribs) 05:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is acceptable for an autoconfirmed editor to move a draft to mainspace themselves, or even to create an article from scratch in mainspace. If they do so, they are taking responsibility for ensuring that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria on notability and other matters: if it does not, it is liable to be draftified or deleted. For an inexperienced editor, I would very strongly advise against this practice, as it usually leads to frustration and disappoinmtnet; but for an editor experienced enough to understand the issues, it is fine. ColinFine (talk) 10:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thank you. Radlrb (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I nominated this draft for deletion, however I am having trouble creating its MfD subpage. Could you please help me, I followed the instructions on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, however some steps seem to not fall through. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radlrb (talk • contribs) 12:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Radlrb: If you wish to delete a draft you have created and there are no substantial edits by others you can request a 'speedy' deletion by either blanking the page (using the edit summary to clarify) or by adding {{Db-g7}} to the top of the markup. This will produce a pink deletion notice, usually effective within a few hours (or sooner). If you enable 'Twinkle' via preferences, this can handle deletion proposals for you. (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) 12:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you. I did not create this draft, however. Does it make a difference? Radlrb (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you should not use G7 but go via MfD. Eagleash (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So my original point stands, I am having trouble creating its MfD subpage. It's deletion talk page is not being created after I followed step 1. Radlrb (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, Radlrb, the AFC process is entirely optional for autoconfirmed editors without a conflict of interest. It is not "normal". It is optional, although some people seem to think that it is required. I have written over 100 Wikipedia articles, none has ever been deleted, and I have never once used the AFC process for my own drafts. I list all those articles on my user page. I edit my drafts until they are policy compliant, and then move them straight into the encyclopedia. In theory, AFC is a good idea, but in practice, it is overly slow and in my opinion, has an overly high error rate. That means accepting drafts that should have been rejected and rejecting drafts that should have been accepted. It does keep a lot of garbage out of the encyclopedia, though, so I will give it credit for that. Cullen328 (talk) 02:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

article for "Machon Shlomo"[edit]

Hello. "Machon Shlomo" used to have its own article. Now I see that it links to a subsection of "Machon Yaakov": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machon_Yaakov#Machon_Shlomo. I presume that the owners deleted the original article so as to merge it into the latter article. But wouldn't this have deleted the original article's history?

What I'm trying to determine is when the original Machon Shlomo article (which had more detail) was deleted. But how do I do this? If it's deleted, there's no historical Wiki archive & index to pull up. Is there perhaps a Wiki history as well for crosslinks that would show when "Machon Shlomo" began linking to a subsection of "Machon Yaakov"? If so, how do I access it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipediaReaderSince2002 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WikipediaReaderSince2002: If you're wondering when the article was deleted, you can go to Machon Shlomo (which isn't a redirect) and a pink edit notice should appear with a deletion log. Looking at it from my side, it looks like it was deleted twice in 2016 for an expired PROD and being a test page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@WikipediaReaderSince2002: On Wikipedia, nothing that is deleted is truely gone for good, it's always at least theoretically possible to restore it, although the exact way depends on the deletion process being used, and there are a couple things which aren't restored. From what I can see, Machon Shlomo was deleted in 2016, once through the proposed deletion process and once as a test page. The former article could be restored following a request at WP:RFU, however it might possibly be in a bad shape given the reason why it was deleted (which I cannot verify as I am not an administrator and therefore cannot access deleted revisions). There is a redirect from Machon Shlomo - The Heiden Institute, however, that one never was something else than a redirect. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier version was deleted as "No assertion of notability, no independent sources at all provided. I couldn't turn up any reliable source coverage. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:CORP, and doesn't qualify under WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as it's not independently accredited and does not appear to confer degrees." I have to agree with the nominator as to that description. The second version was just a test edit. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

highlight color of selected links…[edit]

hello, wikipedia is wonderful, ty all for it :)

my question and maybe suggestion for improvement: i select a link (blue-colored text) to explore a topic further. when i return from the link to continue my reading, the color of the link i had selected changes to a very dark almost-black color, making it difficult to find the location of where i had linked-out from in the page of black text.

my question: is there a way that i can modify the color of the returned-to link to be a more obvious color so as to make the link more easily findable upon return? if not, could wikipedia be modified to change the color of the visited link to a more notable color such as red, or some color more identifiable in a sea of black text?

i often find myself drilling-down many levels of discovery while exploring a topic. upon returning up through each level, i find it difficult to find the previous link in the body of text to allow continued reading.

being a retired software engineer with much UI-coding experience, modifying default function to make the previous link more identifiable would seem to be a relatively easy fix. providing the user the abilit to select a post-traversal link color would be a nice, but obviously a more complex modification.

ty for your time. be well and stay safe… markLike2moto (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, but I believe this is done via your browser. You can edit this via HTML (and I suppose on Wikipedia via user:Like2moto/common.js, but I wouldn't know what to change. In Chrome, for example, there is an option in the accessibility options. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add something like this to your common.css or skin.css:

a:visited {color: #800080;}														/* brighten visited links */

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And for external links:

a:visited.external {color: #800080 !important;}

ignore the code editor warning about use of !important.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]