Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2020 November 14

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.

November 14

A Pro-Israel group is harrassing users expressing different viewpoints

"I only came here to fix punctuation on the global warming article!"

Hi,

I found this group here who is advocating attacking users whose edits they deem unacceptable:

https://theisraelgroup.org/wikipedias-war-against-israel/

It is also seen here:

https://www.jewishpress.com/news/media/the-israel-group-launches-battle-to-expose-anti-israel-wikipedia-editors/2019/11/21/

This group creates an unsafe environment where people express opinions they deem unacceptable. This violates Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality and I ask that Wikipedia looks into this to see if this group is trying to intimidate people with opposing viewpoints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:2001:4300:EC7F:8230:DEA7:227F (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, this happens outside of Wikipedia and Wikipedia admins have no power there. Not actionable. Everybody and their dog can watch what Wikipedians write and publish comments about that. I'm in the proper position to tell you this, since I have been called rat and traitor of my country, Antichristian and pro-porn activist (while at least some people insisted that I wrote ads for born-again Christians and that I would be an anti-porn activist). Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no control over what other websites say or do on the internet. If they do things here on Wikipedia, that's actionable. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Fascinating website, though. Achar Sva (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Seconds message

I got a message saying 10s. I made my account only 1 second ago. What is this stuff? Leanne Sepulveda (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Leanne Sepulveda It's not clear what exactly you are referring to. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Afd question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jose Ospina

Hi, looking at this Afd. An editor has stated she is notable, i.e. meets WP:AUTHOR as the Ospinas book is heavily cited. I've never came across that before in a AFD discussion. Would it be normal to say the person is notable, if their book was heavily cited? scope_creep^Talk 08:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Scope creep WP:AUTHOR does mention "widely cited" and you can search for "widely cited" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Search current and archived AfD discussions by topic for examples of kept and deleted articles about "widely cited" authors. Some evidence that he is "widely cited" is needed, then it can be challenged or accepted. TSventon (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @TSventon:. I'll keep it in mind. scope_creep^Talk 12:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

language option

from all the european languages,beside missing a lot of them,you missed the oldest language,that happens to be the first latin language,called ROMANIAN. you have listed dialects,even the kurd language,though there is no country named kurdistan.you should feel ashamed about this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.40.162 (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Romanian language? Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I am guessing that you found the list of links to other-language versions of a particular article, yes? Romanian doesn't appear on that list because nobody has yet created an article on the subject in the Romanian language. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and editors work on what they choose to work on. If you want Romanian to appear on that particular list, write the corresponding article in the Romanian Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

false locked information

how can locked pages be removed or corrected? I have come across many things that are incorrect especially those related to so called explorers. In actual fact most of them are terrorists and not hero's or anything as they murdered, stole, raped and much more. Allowing people or the governments to bullshit to make them look go just makes it all biased.

No matter what NO explorer or whatever you want to call them should be allowed to be portrayed as good as they are not. Same with all wars since once a military person leaves their country for another for anything but a holiday is considered to be terrorism.

at school we are taught not to bully, not to steal and so on but this is exactly what the explorers and war mongers did, they are evil no matter what as is how they should be portrayed since it's the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:TruthOfTheWorlds (talk • contribs) 12:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

If you see such an article (on your computer, though perhaps not on your phone), it should have a link saying "Talk". Click on that, and you'll arrive at the article's talk page. Argue there that the "explorer" stole or raped. Link to your sources. Or argue there that the article is biased. -- Hoary (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, TruthOfTheWorlds. Wikipedia reports what the Reliable sources say: it does not (and must not) make judgments of its own, however worthy these might be: see righting great wrongs. In some cases, there may be recent scholarship that should be referred to, and articles have their focus changed: you can help by pointing to the new studies. In other cases, even through it might be desirable to alter the articles, there are not yet any reliable sources to base such a change on. --ColinFine (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@TruthOfTheWorlds: Editing with the purpose of supporting a particular point view is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, which tries hard to remain objective. Your rhetoric and your user name seem to show that you do not intend to remain objective. You will have more success if you find specific statements in articles that are not supported by a reliable source, or add statements that are supported by a reliable source. We do support Wikipedia:countering systematic bias, but that is mostly about adding articles about neglected subjects. -Arch dude (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit Summary search tool

Can anyone remind me if we have a tool able to search the edit summaries of any page for specific text strings, irrespective of who posted there.

The specific use I have in mind is to report on the use of the word "head" in any edit summary by anyone at The Teahouse over the last year. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey Nick. (The way you worded your question leads me to believe you're well aware of the edit summary search tool for a specific user's contributions.) Unfortunately, I have looked for this type of more versatile edit summary search tool in the past and failed. Looking again today, I found this: T60698, which makes me think it truly does not exist. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: thanks very much. I've been going mad thinking I had seem something like it in the past, and being unable to find any such tool. I wouldn't even need to worry if they hadn't reduce the max search limit to just 500 edits. In the wonderful days when we could display up to 5,000 edits at a time, it would have been a simple matter to Ctrl-F for the term you needed to find. That was a really, really retrograde step the technical people made to reduce the search result limit, when there could have been a very easy work-around to prevent automated scripts from overloading our systems. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Nick: you still can change the URL of the edit history to 5,000, i.e., go to the teahouse, click history, change to 500 results, then add a 0 to the URL where the 500 appears in it; voila (then open "older 5000" in a new tab on the resulting page, then again on the next...) and then use your find function on however many tabs you have open.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: That used to be true, but if you try it you'll find you only get 500. I think this is phab:T234450. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

No, I tried it before posting above; it works perfectly... and I just went back as I still had the tab opened and did a quick count, to make sure it wasn't just saying "5000" when it was really displaying 500; it really does work.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
@John of Reading: P.S. that Phab page says "Request of limit of 50000(!) (which MW moderated down to 5000)" (emphasis added).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Apologies; I must have mistyped my test. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit and John of Reading: Brilliant! I wasn't aware that that functionality had been restored. I used to use it all the time for routine admin tasks, and have missed it so much. Perhaps I overlook an announcement somewhere. It will make life so much easier again, knowing it's back. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Great! (There's a lot of unannounced fiddling. This time it was a good thing.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Art

How do I create a small page about my art and poetry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClarkSheila (talk • contribs) 16:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, ClarkSheila. I'm afraid that the answer is almost certainly, "You don't". Wikipedia is not a place to promote or advertise something - commercial or not, worthy or not. Wikipedia is not interested in what anybody says or wants to say about themselves or their own activities or affiliations: it is only interested in what other, unconnected people have published about them. If several people who have no connection with you have been interested enough to write about your art and poetry, and been published in reliable sources, then you may meet the criteria for notability. and there could be an article about you; it not, then no article about you will be accepted, however it is written. If you do meet these criteria, then, as I say, an article about you will be possible. It will not be your article, you will not control its content, it could end up containing content you don't want, and you are strongly discouraged (though not forbidden) from writing it yourself. Please see an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, autobiography, and Alternative outlets. --ColinFine (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Payments to Wikipedia

Dear Sir or Madam Please would it be possible for Wikipedia to be funded by Google who are a vast organisation making vast profits ? With thanks . Yours sincerely D Cronin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.202.127 (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the Wikimedia Foundation's 2018-2019 Annual report's section about donors can be found at https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2019-annual-report/donors/

You will see that several prominent corporations (including Google) are among the major funders. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note that some of the more significant donations come from the principals of companies or their own charitable foundations instead of the companies themselves (e.g. major contributor Brin Wojcicki Foundation is Sergey Brin (Google co-founder) and ex-wife Anne Wojcicki). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note also that Google and many other big companies match employee contributions to non-profit organizations. When this occurs, the non-profit must follow the proper accounting and tax rules for reporting, and this may or may not cause the company portion of the contribution to be attributed to the company and not the employee. So, 1000 Google employees contributing $100 each will trigger $100,000 in donations from Google, and this will probably be reported by WMF as a $100,000 donation from Google if they have a 1-for-1 match policy. Some companies have higher matches. I have seen a 10-for-1 match in one recent case. -Arch dude (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

writing my own bio/page

Hello, first time ever on the Wikipedia community. I'm a musician and composer and I'd like to know if it might be acceptable me to contribute by creating my own page. I see different positions about possible COI around the net and I want to make sure before I start working on that. Many thanks, Luca — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unguitar (talk • contribs) 19:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• The best advice can be found at WP:AUTOBIO. Short version: Don't. If you meet our inclusion criteria, then odds are someone else will write about you. Crow^Caw 19:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Unguitar You have a common misconception of Wikipedia in that it is not a place like social media where people have "pages" about themselves; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that has articles, written by independent editors. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. In order for you to be successful in writing about yourself, you would need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent reliable sources say about you; most people cannot do that. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. I've made my research about the topic and this is the reason because I'm asking. I fully understand the meaning and function of Wikipedia and don't confuse it with social media or an advertisement platform. I've seen that on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest there are guidelines about COI where it is stated that you should disclose your relation with the subject as in a case like mine. I was just wondering, given that any contribution will be reviewed, can't I write about myself, declare it and wait for the content to be verified as it would be if someone else wrote about me? I really don't want to be intrusive, I surely value Wikipedia for what it is, as an old internet user should do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unguitar (talk • contribs) 20:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Unguitar If you truly feel that you meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable musician, you can certainly use Articles for creation to attempt to create an article about yourself, as it is not forbidden, only discouraged- but in my many years here, I have never seen someone succeed at doing so. It is very hard for people to edit about themselves dispassionately and only based on what independent reliable sources say about them in depth. (that does not include press releases, brief mentions, or routine coverage)

Also understand that a Wikipedia article about you is not necessarily a good thing. There are good reasons to not want one. You cannot lock it to the text you might prefer, or prevent others from editing it. Any information about you, good or bad, can be in an article about you as long as it appears in an independent reliable source. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Many many thanks for such a precise and detailed answer! All is very clear now. Thank you for your time & all the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unguitar (talk • contribs) 20:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

How to link to Wikipedia from Wikivoyage?

I am trying to link to an article in Wikipedia from a Wikivoyage page. My reading of Help:Interwiki_linking#Prefix_codes_for_linking_to_Wikimedia_sister_projects is that [[wikipedia:Interstate_35_in_Texas]] should work, but it does not produce anything. I tried using prefix en: instead but it produces a red link. What am I doing wrong? RudolfRed (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: You need to prefix the link with a leading colon. [[:wikipedia:Interstate 35 in Texas]]. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Pppery: That works. Thank you! RudolfRed (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

As an aside, the code you had did do something, it would add the article to the list of languages on the left hand side of the page. This is handled by wikidata, so it doesn't need to be done. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

car

i have a 2013 Hyundai electra. How would I get service connected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.11.72.160 (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

This is the help desk for how to use Wikipedia. We can't help with your car. You can try asking at WP:RDM or calling a service shop for advice. RudolfRed (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Abuse of administration privilege

On the page Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom There is a warning box that states that the the English of the entry is poor. This is patently untrue. The entry is very clear and informative. #I can only assume that the comment is politically motivated and this gravely concerns me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:144D:4600:ACB4:A026:62B9:4E76 (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. That tag was added (by an anonymous user who was probably not an admin) a year and a half ago, and there has been substantial editing since then. If you believe that the tag is no longer applicable, it contains a link explaining how and when to remove it. --ColinFine (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

For comparison, you can see the article when that message was added (04:14, 26 April 2019): Old revision of Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom --107.15.157.44 (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Please consider renaming this thread since a) it does not involve an admin and b) there has been no abuse of proviledge (sic) MarnetteD|Talk 22:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I have skim-read the article and the template may refer to the final section Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom#Political representation, which is separately tagged for rewriting. The rest of the article looks fine. I think we should assume good faith in this case. TSventon (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The editor(s) who added those tags may have believed that the writing is unfit for Wikipedia, as the project is intended to inform, not persuade (WP:TONE). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)