Help desk
< August 7	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 9 >

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.

August 8

Questions

how to see some one message James Orma (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Messages are usually posted talk pages, although email is also an option in some cases. Can you be more specific about what you are looking for?

@James Orma: redo bad ping RudolfRed (talk) 01:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harris

How much does Kamala Harris weigh 2600:1700:42C4:3140:554D:2F8A:B719:36EF (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help desk is for questions on using Wikipedia. Try the reference desk at WP:RDM RudolfRed (talk) 01:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

most test pepper question

Ar 2405:201:683A:D80D:D4DD:3D6C:BD1E:58A2 (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please use WP:SANDBOX for test edits RudolfRed (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information

Hello, the height of my son is incorrect on wiki, he is a footballer and it says he is 6'1 when he is actually 6'5 this is having a detrimental affect on his career as he appears smaller than he actually is - how can this be changed ? Thanks 155.190.60.28 (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor: Please see this advice for article subjects. Wikipedia is based on summarizing what reliable sources say, so one way forward is to have such a source publish the correct information. For some details, publication on a person's website, or that of his club would suffice: see WP:ABOUTSELF. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile another editor has reverted your edit to Ben Hockenhull, as we do not want information in articles that contradicts the cited source. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image displaying weird

Does anyone know what is going on with the image at Dillon Mitchell? When I go to the file page, it doesn't even look like that. Thanks, ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original uploader did a poor cropping. It needs to be reverted and re-cropped. See File:2023, 17, Dillon Mitchell.jpg on Commons. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the uploader made a good cropping but MediaWiki still shows the old version at some resolutions, strecthed to the height-width ratio of the new version. That sometimes happens and is hard to fix. Compare these:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/2023%2C_17%2C_Dillon_Mitchell.jpg/90px-2023%2C_17%2C_Dillon_Mitchell.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/2023%2C_17%2C_Dillon_Mitchell.jpg/91px-2023%2C_17%2C_Dillon_Mitchell.jpg

The only difference is supposed to be scaling the same image to width 91 px instead of 90 px, but I currently see the old uncropped version at 90px and the new tall cropped version at 91px. commons:File:2023, 17, Dillon Mitchell.jpg#filehistory shows the old 90 px image but stretched to the height-width ratio of the new 91px image. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone else looking at this, I went ahead and uploaded a new version (File:2023, 17, Dillon Mitchell (cropped).jpg). If you try to put the old version (File:2023, 17, Dillon Mitchell.jpg) in the infobox it still looks weird. Thanks, ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks weird at the default infobox size 220px where the old file version is strecthed to the new height-width ratio. It looks normal with image_size = 221px. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree chart and things

I have been previously instructed to utilise services such as Miraheze in order to put random things on rather than creating a user sandbox subpage. However, Miraheze does not allow access to the Wikipedia version of MediaWiki, which is the main reason I wanted to make a subpage. I had intentions of creating Wikipedia-style tree-charts or tree-lists for my fictional stories, as they have aesthetic appeal. Is there a place where I can do this? Blocky44 (talk · contributions · sandbox) 16:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer for sure, @Blocky44, but my guess is that you are trying to use templates (and possibly modules) that are specific to Wikipedia. If that is so, I doubt if you'll find another Mediawiki installation which will have them. It is possible that you can copy these across to another Mediawiki instance, unless they use underlying facilities that are turned on in Wikipedia and not in that other Mediawiki server (I don't know how likely that is). If that is the case, I suspect the only thing you are going to be able to do is to set up your own Mediawiki server. ColinFine (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Is your plan to take a screenshot and publish it somewhere else together with your story? You could preview code here and only save it elsewhere like on your own computer. Or you could try to copy the used templates to Miraheze. I don't know their rules but if you preview a page here then you can see a list of used templates at "Templates used in this preview" at the bottom of the window. You can also use Special:ExpandTemplates to see the code produced after all templates are called. This code can be copied to other MediaWiki installations without the used templates. See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content if you copy from Wikipedia. The rendering of some things rely on more than the code, e.g. an installed extension, or styling in MediaWiki:Common.css. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter I would be placing this code onto a page, such as my sandbox, along with fictional story details around it, like you see in this article. My story has various important families and also I have several governmental structure things that are best represented with tree-list.

I could do the thing with expand template but that makes the code incredibly complicated, and I hate when code is complicated. Blocky44 (talk · contributions · sandbox) 17:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blocky44: Maybe you could take a screenshot of a preview here and upload it as an image at Miraheze, while keeping a copy of the used code on your own computer if you want to modify it later. As you have apparently been told before, wikipedia.org is not the place to publish your story. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing from your fictional story should be placed anywhere in Wikipedia, from sandboxes to your user page, because Wikipedia is not your internet provider. Orange Mike | Talk 13:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I fix a page?

Hello Everyone, I'm a longtime user and limited contributor - tho I've created this account solely to manage the page for "Autarky" and that was over a year ago. I revisited the page yesterday and was quite disheartened by the content found there.

I feel very strongly that autarky is a dangerous political/economic ideology that must be accurately defined and the historical information extensive to best allow individuals to arrive at their own understanding of the concept. It is an idea that MUST be believed BEFORE someone can believe Fascist ideology - a stepping stone idea if you will.

I was 12 credits of general away from degrees in Poli Sci, History, and Public Administration - not once was autarky defined in a positive manner by anyone I'm aware of in my discipline. I had a unique experience at University - the Poli Sci Head was literally the elected Secretary of the Statewide GOP, his second was a decorated US Army Officer and veteran of the Iraq War and the youngest Doc in the department was a bleeding heart liberal fresh out of Grad school - balanced out my otherwise very conservative education.

Autarky being bad was in no way contentious to any of the aforementioned faculty that literally taught me otherwise.

Plus, this is common sense. Nowhere on earth is everything found. That is fact. No single country can provide itself all that it needs, all of the time, that is just silly. The idea that a country can exist as island to itself has a current example - North Korea

This is a dangerous idea masquerading as a silly definition - but one that sounds real appealing the Far-Right Nationalists that are coming to power all over the world, which does not surprise me at all considering who utilized it in the past (the Nazis). The page specifically identifies it as being a Leftist idea - which demonstrates the sheer manipulation of the content considering the most far-right society that has ever existed, Nazi Germany, widely propagated an economic policy of autarky albeit with limited trade - as was necessary...

To my questions now - I apologize.

How can I mark the page contentious or debated - something of the like?

And how can I make edits that require consensus to be changed or how can the page be made so that edits require approval? Can I suggest a completed edit - I'm not trying to force my views or anything like that, I will have substantial documentation. Thats a lot of work just to have everything reverted tho.

How can I be involved in that process?

I really appreciate the assistance and I apologize for my stumbling around this site. I appreciate the work everyone does here very much.

- Jakksen/Notarky Notarky (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Autarky

@Notarky: The place to discuss changes to an article are at that article's talk page. You just recently posted there, so be patient and give other editors a chance to reply. This is how you can get consensus on any changes you want to propose. RudolfRed (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jakksen. Please read OWN and WP:BRD. Your statement that you "managed" the article autarky is simply false: no editor has the right or the privilege to "manage" any Wikipedia article.

You clearly have a strong belief that the article should say some things and not others. Others may have equally strong beliefs that differ from yours. Wikipedia is collaborative, and works by consensus. If you want it a certain way, it is up to you to argue the case on the article's talk page, and try to reach consensus. If you cannot do so, dispute resolution tells you ways to proceed.

You say that it is a "dangerous" philosophy. You may be right: I don't know. But Wikipedia is not censored. ColinFine (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... this is censored rn - that has already happened, and I sus more places than just here.

I don't kno how to explain this w/o you taking some sort of personal offense - despite you already clarifying that have no skin in this game, other than a concern over censorship that I have also.

I do not care at all about offending you or convincing you of anything. Despite people's beliefs that their political opinions render all politics opinion - that is actually not the case at all. People are fundamentally predictable, we are all essentially the same, hopes dreams goals - all very similar stuff from person to person. We are creatures of habit and routine - far, far more than we realize.

So much so that people created a SCIENCE OF POLITICS - perhaps look up the word science. Most of Poli Sci at an advanced level is Statistics - Math, lots and lots of math, very graphable stuff. Stuff that dictates how governments make decisions - the small potatoes.

There is a definition of autarky - just like there is a definition of photosynthesis - I'm not the one that has to prove my position, I'm the one with science at my back - here is a link to content I deem credible.

This is the second time I've used this article - it solely talks about the economic aspects of autarky, the vast majority of which is missing from the wiki - how can the encyclopedic page be missing content about the economic policies of an economic ideology? Does that make sense? Common sense, does that make it?

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/autarky.asp

Even if the page currently says the nonsense, it doesn't make that true or real or science. Exactly like if I go change photosynthesis to something about birds - that doesn't make that so. My insistence that it is about birds doesn't mean all the people that do understand that it has nothing to do with birds, would owe me an explanation, that would be ridiculous. Just like this is ridiculous of you to challenge me while admitting you don't know.

This is also history - which has already happened and tho is always open to a level of interpretation from our time and space, and that is unavoidable to an extent, this is outright lies about history. Lies of omission and just blatant in your face lies.

The page RIGHT NOW says autarky is a LEFTIST policy - autarky is opposed to all trade between countries, that is what it is all about. Leftist politics are globalist and based on the tenants of free trade - the more interconnected countries are the better. I changed that twice and yet its back. Nazi Germany, the most far-right nation state in human history, adopted and propagated this economic policy - its as right of center as it gets.

What is a lie if that isn't one?

I don't how I'm the one that owes an explanation when a simple search outside this site, to anywhere you deem credible with information about autarky, will call to question the content here. You need know nothing - they say different things - both can't be true.

Is this what you want to be defending?

I'm not trying to be an ass. I've just wrote a bunch of factual statements, nothing above this line is open to interpretation. I'm not citing anything bc I'm just ranting - you can verify everything I've said, or just wait awhile, I'm going to ask actual Economists and Historians to draft this entire article. They will want to 100%

Thanks for reaching out. I hope you have a great day.

- Notarky Notarky (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Notarky Tenets, not tenants of free trade. And you have just written; you have not just wrote. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following post has been moved to here from the following thread by ColinFine (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Colin

Is there anywhere that I could suggest content be reviewed? It seems like I'm just going to tick everybody off - that is not at all what I want to do. I think if I go looking, I'm going to find a lot of intentionally misleading content on pages related to fascism.

I don't know how to not be contentious - I'm saying something is wrong and asking it be fixed. I don't believe Wikians are why it is wrong. I frequently visit the French wikipedia pages bc they normally have a lot more content than the English equivalent. The French page for the same topic, tho not a very good article, states clearly that autarky is a myth - that is all I want in English.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarcie

If there is no place for pages to be collectively reviewed and discussed - there ought to be. Like the Editor of a Newspaper but as a designated person for a topic, or sitewide positions, or a decision making body with authority to say "this is correct" and have it be that way. If that does not exist I think creating that should be a very high priority.

I value this resource immensely because I trust the people I watched create the millions of pages here - I've read tens and tens of thousands of them and the vast majority are as professional and factual as any encyclopedia has ever been. I think that credibility needs to be safeguarded and sooner than later.

I'm just throwing this at you bc I've now seen your name a few times and I'm only a few hours into all this. You can completely ignore me, I wont take it personal.

Thanks regardless and have a great day! Notarky (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Notarky. First of all, there is absolutely no decision making body with authority to say "this is correct". That would be counter to everything that Wikipedia is based on. Wikipedia is governed by consensus. There is an arbitration committee, but its job is about enforcing community decisions, generally about editor behaviour, not about resolving disputes about content.

The place where you might possibly start a discussion beyond a single article is on the talk page of WP:WikiProject Politics. But I suggest reading that project page I have linked to first, and also search the talk page for whether this has already been discussed (I have no idea whether or not it has). ColinFine (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being listed on Wikipedia

How does a person get added on Wikipedia 104.35.92.137 (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By qualifying. Please read WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add to Tim's answer: meeting the criteria for notability is the minimum requirement, without which an article is impossible.

If the person does meet those criteria, there is nothing automatic about creating an article about them. Somebody would have to write the article: somebody who understands the core principles of Wikipedia such as verifiability, reliable sources and neutral point of view; preferably somebody who has no connection with the person, and certainly not the person themselves.

Another thing that a person should understand who is eager to be the subject of an article on Wikipedia, is that if such an article is created, it will not belong to them, will not be controlled by them, will not necessarily say what they want it to say, and will not be for their benefit, except incidentally. Promotion of any kind is forbidden on Wikipedia. See an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. ColinFine (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A post moved to the previous thread, #How do I fix a page? by ColinFine (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notarky, please explain what that has to do with the original topic about a person getting added on Wikipedia? Uporządnicki (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]