Jump to content

Wikipedia:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.185.10.9 (talk) at 00:29, 12 July 2018 (→‎Can I disable flyovers?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    ↑ To top of page
    Shortcuts
    Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)
    Ask a question

    July 8

    Change edit to be under username

    Is it possible to change an edit I made to show my username instead of ip? I was logged in, opened the edit page in a new tab and was logged out without noticing and would like my attribution to be under my name. Vortena (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The third point under WP:LOGGEDOUT would be relevant to you. But in my view, unless it's terribly important to link that edit to this fresh account of yours, which itself has just one edit, forget it and let's not bother the checkusers. Write back if you need more help. Lourdes 06:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Which pronoun to use?

    Looking through new articles, I came across Margaret Carr. The opening paragraph really jars me, because it talks about her using the pronoun "they". I have been looking for a guideline to cover whether it is best to use "she" or "they", but I can't find one. And I don't want to change it just based on my own preference. Can anybody point me to something that gives some guidance about which pronoun is appropriate? --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I've just changed it. No obvious reason for the plural with a singular subject, and as far as I can see none of the problems we sometimes have with transgender people. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Carr is listed under "Waikato Women Professors" on the university's site ([1]), so I see no good reason not to use 'she' in the article. TeraTIX 13:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    G'day Gronk, there is a useful little article at Singular they. Two editors' views are at https://www.copyediting.com/singular-they-them-their-and/#.W0IZVS-ZPmE and http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-the2.htm Cheers, DAHall (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I just found another article (Lynda Johnston) with similar pronoun usage created by the same editor (User:Stuartyeates) – maybe he could explain his reasoning behind the usage here? TeraTIX 14:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. I avoid unnecessarily gendered language both as a point of principal and as a part of my work under the umbrella of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias (I'm currently writing articles on every female professor in the country). Stuartyeates (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Stuartyeates are you sure that this is policy? My understanding is that we reflect normal practice, rather than innovate, so for example we will use Kiev for the capital of Ukraine rather than Kyiv until the latter becomes prevalent in standard English. I see no evidence that the use of singular "they" for women is normal English practice. Also, if you wish to make it gender-neutral, wouldn't M. Carr instead of Margaret be more effective than an ungrammatical tweak? That's also against policy though. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The new articles I'm writing use the {{Use New Zealand English}} template indicating that they're written in New Zealand English (see MOS:TIES), because the subjects are Kiwis (the policy gives creators pejorative on this in the case of ambiguity). Singular they is widely used and understood in New Zealand English, we're reasonably progressive in such things. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems to me there is a difference between a generic statement, and one about an individual. For example, the first source given by DAHall above is based on the example "A person...who eats only what they can get for nothing." That looks fine to me, largely because the person in question is as the dictionary says a "person of unknown or unspecified sex". But not when it is used for a specific individual such as Margaret Carr. Perhaps this in indeed a New Zealand / Australian difference in language; is it normal in NZ to use the plural when talking about a particular person? --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not a plural, it's a singular they, as pointed out above. And yes it is normal to use it in situations such as this. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Gronk Oz I think the guidance you are looking for is MOS:GENDERID. Thinker78 (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That guideline refers to cases where the gender might be questioned, which is clearly not the case here. I'm all for the singular they in ambiguous cases, but here it distracts the reader and creates the impression that there is ambiguity when there's actually none. Thus, we should not use the singular they here because (MOS:GNL) it cannot be used with clarity nor precision, and because it is in a single-gender context (we are talking about one person whose gender is known). TeraTIX 00:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not relying on MOS:GENDERID. I'm relying on MOS:TIES. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stuartyeates: Can you point me to somewhere that says NZ English uses the singular they in unambiguous cases like this? TeraTIX 10:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Publish

    I want to publish a new story about a person not yet published in wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Oiboo Morintat (talk • contribs) 14:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please read "your first article" (WP:YFA). It is critically important that you establish the notability of the subject, as Wikipedia defines the term, not as you define the term. See WP:NOTABLE. If the subject is not notable, your article will not be accepted, no matter how well-constructed the article is. If you are associated with the subject, please read WP:COI, but you can still write the article.-Arch dude (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    List of American sculptors exhibited at the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition

    I am working on this chart, but for some reason the Reference section wants to appear before the chart. I know this is some minor formatting issue but I can't figure it out. If you can fix it or provide some direction (or both) that would be great. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Carptrash: Fixed it. Usually when a table drops to the bottom like that, it's because the end-of-table marker is missing or malformed. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @John of Reading: Thank you John, I figured it was something like that but could not figure it out. Carptrash (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Creating a margin around an object or table

    Dear experts,

    In order to make an existing article more accessible to a general reader (it was created by detail hounds who would react badly if I edited it, and it would be a very difficult edit anyway) I want to insert a panel that summarises the immense amount of detail. It's like this:


    (Subject) at a glance
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetaur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

    I would like to have a small amount of space (say 2em) to the right of the panel. Could I please have advice on how to do that? Cheers, Dougal. DAHall (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Something like this?
    (Subject) at a glance
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetaur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetaur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetaur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

    -- AxG / ✉  18:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, AxG! Just what I needed. Many thanks for sharing your knowledge! PS: What took you so long? -- 7 minutes!!! ;–) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DAHall (talk • contribs) 18:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I profusely apologise for being so slow, next time it'll take 6 minutes! ;) -- AxG / ✉  18:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DAHall:I'm not sure this is a good idea. The Lede is supposed to perform this function: see WP:LEDE. You are basically attempting to create an entirely new way to do this that is not consistent with the look and feel of our other 5.6 million articles. I recommend you attempt to convince the other editors that the current lede is not consistent with our existing guideline, if that is in fact the case. -Arch dude (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    @Arch dude: Thanks for your comment. I've just read back to my question and realise that I overlooked mentioning that it related not to an article but to text under a level 3 heading. I'm not intending to disrupt the look and feel of the lead section of the article (i.e., the section before the table of contents and the first heading described in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, which is what WP:LEDE redirects to). The lead section is not involved.
    In the related Lead paragraph article covering another type of lead – the journalistic one – a sub-category is discussed under the heading Other introductions. It is the "introductory or summary line or brief paragraph, located immediately above or below the headline, and typographically distinct from the body of the article". There is a caution that in journalism, the lead paragraph should not be confused with this and other other terms.
    Mindful that as stated in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, "the average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes" (footnoted as 4 minutes and 15 seconds currently) and that "the lead is the first thing most people will read on arriving at an article", the "At a glance" device will be proposed as a high-level overview of the writing underneath the level 3 heading. The extent would be either one or two sentences – shorter than the greeked text in the sample. Desirably I should instead re-write the writing, but it is highly detailed to a degree that is only of relevance to readers already intensely interested in the subject. I do not have that level of interest or in fact knowledge. So the content of the "At a glance" device is intended to summarise the immense amount of detail to make the article more accessible to a general reader, who most likely not bother to delve further in their 4 minutes and 15 seconds.  :-) DAHall (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still a bit concerned that this is a new structural element that is perhaps not consistent with the rest of Wikipedia (but remember, I'm just one guy with one opinion). Other articles, especially in scientific fields, handle this either my adding an overview subsection, adding a separate "for dummies" article and linking to it, or splitting the horrible detail mess out into a separate article and replacing it with an overview and a link. Without looking at your article, I have no idea if any of these are appropriate. -Arch dude (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comment ideas. I'm by no means wedded to the concept -- it's only one of several ideas at present -- and whatever way(s) ahead I come to favour will be flagged for discussion with other contributors. SCHolar44 (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved

    Which citation parameters to use

    ... on Wōdejebato. There are a bunch of duplicate template arguments in the citation section but I can't tell which ones to remove and which ones to keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please clarify your question. Do you think the article has too many citations, or does some particular citation have excess parameters within the citation template. If the latter, then which citation? -Arch dude (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Like this one:
    {{Citation|last=Whatley|first=R.|date=December 1995|page=90|url=http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/144_SR/VOLUME/CHAPTERS/sr144_04.pdf|series=Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, 144 Scientific Results|publisher=Ocean Drilling Program|doi=10.2973/odp.proc.sr.144.072.1995|access-date=2018-07-07|last2=Boomer|first2=I.|chapter=Upper Oligocene to Pleistocene Ostracoda from Guyots in the Western Pacific: Holes 871A, 872C, and 873B|title=Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, 144 Scientific Results|series=Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program|volume=144}}
    which is a mess. This source appears to be a series, though it doesn't need to say that twice. I think that I would write it this way:
    {{Citation |last=Whatley |first=R. |last2=Boomer |first2=I. |date=1995 |editor=Haggerty, J.A. |editor2=Premoli Silva, I. |editor3=Rack, F. |editor4=McNutt, M.K |page=90 |url=http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/144_SR/VOLUME/CHAPTERS/sr144_04.pdf |title=Northwest Pacific Atolls and Guyots: Sites 871–880 and Site 801 |series=Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program Scientific Results |location=College Station, TX |publisher=Ocean Drilling Program |doi=10.2973/odp.proc.sr.144.072.1995 |chapter=Upper Oligocene to Pleistocene Ostracoda from Guyots in the Western Pacific: Holes 871A, 872C, and 873B |volume=144}}
    Whatley, R.; Boomer, I. (1995), "Upper Oligocene to Pleistocene Ostracoda from Guyots in the Western Pacific: Holes 871A, 872C, and 873B", in Haggerty, J.A.; Premoli Silva, I.; Rack, F.; McNutt, M.K (eds.), Northwest Pacific Atolls and Guyots: Sites 871–880 and Site 801 (PDF), Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program Scientific Results, vol. 144, College Station, TX: Ocean Drilling Program, p. 90, doi:10.2973/odp.proc.sr.144.072.1995
    Further, because this base source (the Proceedings) is repeated multiple times, this article is a good candidate for {{harvc}}.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you should back up one level to analyse this. A template is intended primarily as a way to produce a readable unambiguous citation in a standard form. Decide what you want the result to look like, and then use the parameters that result in that form. As for harvc, If you as an editor feel that the articles will be improved by using it, then do so. -Arch dude (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • One element that is definitely redundant is the URL, when a DOI or similar "index" is present the url is not needed. URLs can and do change over time, the DOI not. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the first issue were the "duplicate argument" issues that Wikid77 kindly resolved. The second one is that currently many citations to the Ocean Drilling Program have a superfluous title parameter but trying to remove it causes a "title parameter missing" error. To me it sounds conunterintuitive that one would need a chapter name, a series name but also a title name but maybe I am missing something... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a problem with Editor Wikid77's edit; |volume=144, an important part of the citation's metadata was deleted. Sure, it appears in |title= but is no longer available as volume metadata citation scraping tools like Zotero.
    In cs1|2 templates, |title= is never superfluous; it is required. According to this link, |title= for volume 144 is: Northwest Pacific Atolls and Guyots: Sites 871–880 and Site 801 so then |series= should be: |series=Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program Scientific Results. I have tweaked my citation above accordingly.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I think I got it now. As for URLs I generally prefer to keep them separate from DOIs since I often use ResearchGate links or the like for access, but feel free to change them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Unsourced content

    Is there a specific duration of time that has to be waited out before a block of text followed by the 'Citation neeeded' template can be removed for being unsourced? Bookwormboy2 (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's not a matter of time, Bookwormboy2: it's whether anybody's made a reasonable effort to locate a source. --ColinFine (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's also polite to make a reasonable effort to notify the editor who introduced the information in the first place. e.g., by a comment on the artuicle's talk page with a {{ping}} to that editor. If the editor has not been active in awhile, you might want to give it some extra time. If the editor has a habit of not editing in the summer (school summer break) then, depending on the urgency, you might want to wait until the edit becomes active again, but this is a judgement call, since the editor can always put the information back in (with references) later. You should use a much quicker process for negative information about living people: take it out immediately per WP:BLP. Another editor should not reinstate it unless it is sourced. -Arch dude (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bookwormboy2 WP:VERIFY states, "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced". So you can remove immediately anything that is not sourced, but if you are willing and can it would be good if you find a source yourself instead of deleting the content outright. Thinker78 (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    July 9

    Hacked Page

    The Democratic Underground Wikipedia page. has been hacked by someone who hates the DU site as opposed to adding correct information. This could possibly be addressed by the DU admins in a legal setting if it is not corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B125:74FF:8C79:118E:CB4E:C03F (talk) 03:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Where do I post a request for a correction to a .png file from the Commons?

    I'd like to change "Britannic influence" to "British influence" in File:Map_Iran_1900-en.png but I'm not sure how to do it. Can someone here do it? If not, is there anywhere I can post a request for it to be done? Thanks. Basemetal 06:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

    Download the file from commons, make your edits, re-upload with the same title (there's a link "upload a new version of this file" on the Commons page), clear the cache. You'll see that there have been several versions already Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Basemetal post a request to WP:Graphics Lab/Map workshop -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Basemetal 12:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved

    Is there a policy or guideline for this?

    Is there a policy or guideline address the situation where the article says that something "recently" happened? The word "recently" seems wrong to me because in X amount of time, it won't be "recent". In other words, wording should be timeless. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    MOS:RELTIME, MOS:CURRENT, WP:ASOF. Nanonic (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
    Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Shahid Afridi: reference to Javed Afridi as his cousin

    Dear Sit/Madam,

    I am trying to have Javed Afridi rmeoved as the cousin of Shahid Afridi. This is factually incorrect-they simply share the same surname. I have been asked by Shahid Afridi, whom I represent, to have this removed. I am the UK Director for his charitable Foundation, Shahid Afridi Foundation.

    I have posted on numerous occasions to have this rmeoved and was told the source they have used is a Dawn News article, but having read that article there is still no reference to them being related. Please can I have the reference removed?

    Many thanks,

    Saima Khan UK Director Shahid Afridi FoundationSaimaxkhan (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no idea who Javed Afridi and Shahid Afridi are, but I checked both sources cited in the article and I don't see any reference to Javed Afridi being a cousin, so I removed it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There was previously reference made in both sources, so I can only assume that it has been removed subsequently to being used as a source. Koncorde (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    External wiki copyvio?

    I am curious if content copy-pasted from another wiki (in this case the Marvel Database) would count as copyvio. Currently have the article PROD'd (Fisk Towers) but if I can CSD for copyvio then I will do that.--Etzedek24 (Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?) 13:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Etzedek24 does the Marvel Database have a compatible copyleft license or not? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Dodger67 Yeah, it's CC BY-SA. Etzedek24 (Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?) 13:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Etzedek24: In that case, we could probably include it, although we'd need to attribute (which the article currently does not). There are also concerns about the lack of citations and whether an outside source has the correct tone (especially NPOV and in-universe, for a fan wiki) and meets our policies. LittlePuppers (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dodger67: I think I'm going to leave the PROD up, or if that fails AfD it. I tried to look for ways to expand the article while patrolling stuff for [{WP:COMICS]] but it's just too insignificant to remain up, methinks. Thanks for your help. Etzedek24 (Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?) 14:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Technically, unless the material was added to Wikipedia by its original author, it's a copyvio unless its attributed, because any use that violates its copyright license is a violation, and the CC-BY-SA license requires attribution. You should cure a CC-BY-SA violation by attribution instead of blanking. As a theoretically separate issue, it is against Wikipedia policy to copy without attribution (WP:PLAGIARISM) even when no copyvio occurs and this is also cured by attribution. Of course policy requires that the source be cited in any event, whether or not it's a direct copy. -Arch dude (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I deal with this issue almost every day, because these items will pop up at Copypatrol. On occasion, I will look to see what the licensing is, but that's mostly due to curiosity and I'm less apt to do that for the following reason: whether or not it is a copyright violation, it is almost certainly an unreliable source. In theory, a wiki could have editorial control of their content that would qualify it as a reliable source, but that sort of control is in conflict with the whole point of a wiki. If there are such examples I suspect they are quite rare. For that reason, when I encounter text matching another wiki, I tend to revert it as not having an acceptable reference.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Just because you can cure a CC-BY-SA copyvio by attribution, does not magically make the result worthy of retention. But when you blow it away, you should give the correct reason, i.e., unreliable source, not copyvio. -Arch dude (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Single out the State of MI

    The State of MI in the U.S. should not be singled out on the right side summary bar for this page, unless such "difference making" province/state in every other elections and primaries will also be standardized to similar analysis on summary side bar, e.g. Without California (CA), in the last U.S. election.

    My family have fully supported Wikipedia before and have donated hundreds of dollars. Please do your best to ensure neutral content, or we will be placing our end year money in another non-profit end year. Analysis such as removing a whole State of people's votes to make a political point can be left in a sub-section of the page.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008

    Popular vote Without MI: 17,535,458 With MI: 17,535,458[1][a] Without MI: 17,493,836 With MI: 17,822,145[1][a] Percentage Without MI: 48.1% With MI: 47.4%[1] Without MI: 48.0% With MI: 48.1%[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.143.45.126 (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you look at the source cited?
    Also, if you're the sort that thinks that the prissy little threat of "I'll just take my money elsewhere" is anything but a spoiled tantrum, I'm not seeing why we should care about your opinion on anything. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I urge a more neutral response. I think we could find many other sites and organizations where explaining that you are a financial supporter may result in prompt and solicitous responses. As long time editors, we know that we attempt to edit as neutrally as possible — not according to the wishes of financial supporters. While I can understand a bit of bristling at the implied expectation that we would act like most other places, I think there is a better way of making this point.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As an aside, I spent a lot of time fielding queries at OTRS. It is exceedingly common for someone writing to us asking that some change be made, that they will include a reference to their financial support of this place. It is my position (and I hope that of all other agents) that we will address the request exactly the same as if it hadn't included that comment. I contemplated coming up with a canned response to explain our position, but I haven't found the right wording, so I typically just ignore it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Michigan (MI) is singled out in the infobox of Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2008 because of Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2008#Disputed primaries. Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan Democratic primary, 2008 so he got 0 popular votes while Clinton got 328,309. Florida was also disputed but Obama and Clinton were both on the ballot in Florida Democratic primary, 2008. I'm not aware of any California dispute in the latest election. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Question regarding redirect pages.

    Hey. I tried to make some redirect pages of some toll roads in Indonesia by making variations with dash, hyphens, spaces, and capitalization. Before I go further, I want to ask. Is it allowed? I know it may be unnecessary, but I just want to know if it's allowed. Hans5958 Talk 15:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Redirects are encouraged as long as they are reasonably plausible and not otherwise disruptive, eg A50 road has redirects from A50 road (England) and A50 road (Great Britain) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see. Thanks for the response. Hans5958 Talk 03:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Group AfD

    How do I perform a group AfD? The AfD page is unclear on how, exactly to do it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Etzedek24 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you read Template:Afd_footer_(multiple). Ruslik_Zero 17:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Padding around a wikitable

    Hello people,

    Similar to a question I asked that was kindly answered by AxG, I would like to put a specified margin/padding (probably 2 em) external to a wikitable to stop body text displaying immediately next to the table's edges.

    I started with this as a simple wikitable:

    Details
    Main barrel Horizontal
    Mass 1,060 lb (480 kg)
    Diam. 2 ft 9+5⁄8 in (0.85 m)


    and then specified float left, width and font size via a "style" line as below. However, the visible cell borders and grey background disappeared. Nor was I able to find a style to put a margin between the table and the body text, although the absence of background may make it appear so here:

    Details
    Main barrel Horizontal
    Mass 1,060 lb (480 kg)
    Diam. 10 ft 9+5⁄8 in (3.29 m)

    I'd appreciate a solution; I have researched the problem as I don't like to ask but it's eluding me. DAHall (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I tweaked your second example.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Great! Thank you!
    What would I need to do to have the table hard up by the left margin?DAHall (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Tweaked again.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks, Trappist! Isn't it so easy when you know how? But although I try to make my own way, I'm not at my fastest in this (for me) arcane niche -- which is why I appreciate having access, not for the first time, to your expertise.  :-D

    Best wishes, DAHall (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved

    2018-19 MAAC Basketball standings template

    Can you fix the template on the 2018-19 MAAC Basketball standings template please. 169.55.19.144 (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Please be more specific, and include a link. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have moved Template:2018–19 MAAC League men's basketball standings to Template:2018–19 MAAC men's basketball standings so the name macthes other seasons in Category:Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference men's basketball standings templates, and the "V T E" links go to the right page. Is that what you wanted? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    edit

    Please assist. I'm attempting to delete photo on the page carrying my name, as I did not approve the photo, and replace it with a better one. I thought I'd managed the delete but now I have a message that someone 'reverted' the edit because it wasn't constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanna kuhn (talk • contribs) 21:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Deanna kuhn: You deleted a whole lot more than the photo, you deleted the entire infobox. You can make edit request on the articles talk page, Talk:Deanna Kuhn. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • We try to be sensitive to your desires as the subject of an article (see WP:BLP), and we will aggressively remove any material that is not referenced to a reliable source. However, we do not need your approval to use a photo that was taken by someone else. The rights to a photograph belong to the photographer, not to the subject of the photograph. If you care to provide a photograph of under a compatible open license (specifically CC-BY-SA) and if an editor believes it is a better photograph, then that editor may choose to replace the existing photograph. You should not edit an article about yourself: see WP:COI. Please do not get discouraged by all our apparently peculiar processes. They are all here for a reason and have evolved over the 17+ years of the development of Wikipedia.-Arch dude (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deanna kuhn: I see you uploaded commons:File:Dk17.png. It is unfortunately blurry compared to commons:File:Deanna Kuhn.jpg. Do you own the rights to a better photo? Please choose a more informative file name which includes Deanna Kuhn. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Nominating a user's sandbox for speedy deletion (self promotion)

    While going through recent changes on Wikipedia, I saw a sandbox that seems to solely be for self-promotion. In this case, am I allowed to nominate the sandbox for speedy deletion, and if so, which template do I place on the sandbox? Thanks, Rosalina2427 (talk to me) 23:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    If it's blatantly promotional, then {{db-g11}} applies regardless of namespace and location. Adam9007 (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Link provided here; just want to make sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tornaritis/sandbox Rosalina2427 (talk to me) 23:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I should probably have said that {{Db-spamuser}} is a more precise template for self-promotion in userspace. Adam9007 (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    July 10

    Request help with wikilink to a non-English article

    I would like to link the article Manterruption, which is in German, to the article Interruption (speech). However, an editor reverted my edit and said that the article must be in German to be wikilinked to Manterruption that is in German. Can someone suggest a workaround? Thanks!AnaSoc (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @AnaSoc: You refer to [2] which is not allowed by the German Wikipedia. Wikipedia languages make their own policies. The English Wikipedia has Help:Interlanguage links#Inline links and {{Interlanguage link}} which allows linking to other languages although the tempalte is used in less than 1% of our articles. The German Wikipedia has deleted a similar template. A Google translation of the German de:Hilfe:Internationalisierung#Im Text sichtbare Interwiki-Links says: "For the article namespace applies: Internal links in the body of a Wikipedia article may refer only to articles in the same Wikipedia. For example, if you want to reference a person's article in a German-language article that has an article only in English Wikipedia, then you must not link directly to the English-language article." PrimeHunter (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Book Creator Book Contents Disappeared

    The contents of the book creator collection of articles I had assembled completely vanished. Is there any way to recover these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OxymoronKing (talk • contribs) 03:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    OxymoronKing Hi, Is this you are looking for? CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    CASSIOPEIA Yes, that seems to be some of it, albeit a much shorted list. Thank you for your help OxymoronKing
    OxymoronKing Hi, maybe you didnt save your last edit for such some are not there. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello

    I have been adding content to some pages, often in the Awards and Decorations sections, sometimes which did not even exist for the particular subject until I created it. I have run into a lot of trouble lately by adding links to current Wiki pages, thinking that was allowable, but have been having some of the added content deleted as one or two editors consider a particular award "trivial". I am very confused as to why an award or decoration that has it's own standalone wiki page is now not allowed to be mentioned or a link to it provided because apparently it is a "trivial" award. This happened to me again yesterday when more of my added content was deleted as they were all "trivial" awards. The ones I added links to yesterday were different to the ones that were deleted prior, but I don't know what is considered trivial or not? I've asked for a specific list of wiki pages that I am not allowed to add links to, so I don't get into trouble again, yet this has not been provided to me. All I get is more deletions and aggressive messages. How am I to know what is permissible and what is not if there is no firm list of things that some editors consider trivial? More importantly, why is a wiki page not allowed to be linked in another article? If these endless but unspecified awards and decorations are trivial and not permissible, what is the point of having a wiki page for them? What is wrong with guiding someone to an existing wiki page if they are interested in that specific award or decoration that an individual possessed? I honestly don't know what to do and am very confused as to why some wiki articles are considered relevant but other wiki pages are considered trivial and not allowed to be linked to. I'm also confused as to why I keep getting, to be quite frank, bullied by one or two editors over my linking to these so-called trivial wiki pages. I am just asking for unambiguous guidelines as to what wiki pages are permissible to have a link provided to them and which ones aren't.

    Thanks in advance for any help here Troy von Tempest (talk) 04:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Troy von Tempest: This is what we call a content dispute. You are two steps into the bold-revert-discuss cycle: see WP:BRD. Your next step is to discuss this via a edit on the article's talk page in an attempt to reach consensus. Please assume that the other editors, like you, are attempting to improve the encyclopedia (WP:AGF) and keep the discussion as civil and positive as you can, especially if others editors fail to do so. Only if this fails should you proceed to further steps in the dispute resolution process. See WP:DISPUTE. The help desk is not part of that process. We are here to point you to the process, not participate in it. Good luck, and don't get discouraged. -Arch dude (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The first Superman

    The article States George Reeves In 1950 However Kirk Alyn Was the first Superman In 1948. And as far as curses Are concerned Died from Life causing Incidences & In a couple of cases Could have been prevented.Other illnesses The AMA Back then Did not know As much as They know now Which would help to prevent Those killer Illnesses And prevent Unnecessary Early deaths. As far as Other instances of death Where are man-made And not an act of God. Please make that Notation correction. Thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.245.3 (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit. This means you: just edit the articles to add or correct information as needed, However, we require you to cite reliable sources: see WP:RS. If you do not wish to edit an article yourself, please place the information on the article's talk page (click on the little "talk" tab at the top of the article page), just as you did here on the help desk, but be sure to add a reliable source. -Arch dude (talk) 05:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Our biography Kirk Alyn makes it clear that he was the first film serial actor to portray Superman, although Bud Collyer played Superman on the radio previously. I remember Collyer later as a TV game show host when I was a child. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)=[reply]

    How to create a disambiguation page?

    I want to create a new article about Disney song "when we're together" but another song has the same name. How can I create a disambiguation page to indicate different songs. Thank you !!!! Mitochondrions (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Mitochondrions. You'll find full information (including how to decide whether a DAB is the right answer) at WP:DAB. --ColinFine (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    "Internal error" : unable to edit a page

    I'm trying to update 2018–19_Valencia_CF_season but I get this message...

    Internal error From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Jump to navigation Jump to search [W0ScHwpAIDAAAHkq7IwAAACS] 2018-07-10 11:44:32: Fatal exception of type "Exception"

    What is this? That's the first time I've seen it. I saved the changes in my sandbox but don't understand what the issue is? Valenciano (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It works for me – succeeded to modify the page and to revert. --CiaPan (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I also succeeded to modify the page with the version from your sandbox. Please review the changes. --CiaPan (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot to ping. Here it is: @Valenciano:. --CiaPan (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Valenciano It works for me – succeeded of making a dummy edit. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Help

    i'm working on my first article Mic Diggy unfortunately they proposed it for deletion unless i provide a reliable reference relating to the article. is this not reliable ? https://www.daily-mail.co.zm/mic-diggy-signs-cd-run/ thank you Vicmullar (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Vicmullar: The newspaper is not regarded as reliable; see WP:DAILYMAIL for more information. See WP:RS for help in identifying reliable sources. Eagleash (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eagleash: i think there's a mistake somewhere, going through the thread you mentioned, i believe there are stating the Daily Mail UK. Not the one from Zambia (Africa). I stand to be corrected if anything and please see the link i sent. Vicmullar (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vicmuller: Apologies I misread the link! I wonder if anyone has any knowledge of the paper in question though? The editor that placed the 'prod' used the rational "The references provided do not talk about the subject at hand". I'm not able to look through them at this point in time but I note that at the time of 'prodding' there were 30 or so refs, a number of which menetion the subject in the URL. (Though I'm certain not all of them would be thought of as wholly reliable). I wonder if the prod was correctly placed in this instance? You are entitled to remove the prod. yourself but as I understand it, as it is a BLP prod. it does not preclude an alternative type of prod replacing it. Normally a prod once removed cannot be replaced. I'm also pinging @Icem4k: so they can join the discussion. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Zambia Daily Mail it doesn't scream "unreliable" in this context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I know Zambia Daily Mail is considered as a reliable source of information it being the national newspaper. But the article of the artists in question only has one article that talks about cd sells I dont think that then makes him notable. Just a thought. Chabota Kanguya (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Icem4k: I have now removed the prod. (following our various discussions). If you still consider notability to be a problem then perhaps AfD would be the way to propose deletion. Eagleash (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    July 11

    Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

    Ref number 75 is ok I think except the magazine's publisher should be in italics I think - but why, in the preceding sentence, is the word "June" and the year "2018" linked? please fix Thankyou 175.32.106.109 (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     Fixed Param fixed: the month and year should not be linked. Eagleash (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Archiving my CSD log

    I've never done manual archiving from scratch. AIUI automatic archiving only works on pages where sections contain datestamped signatures, so it can't be done in this case. I'd like to archive the content of User:Dodger67/CSD log by year; creating archive pages for 2014, 2015... leaving only the current year on the active page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I can do manual archiving for you. However, I think cotting the yearly logs would be better than archiving. You'll be able to access the cotted sections faster on the same page, and you wouldn't need to create too many archive pages. What do you think? Lourdes 10:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Lourdes that's a far simpler solution. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lourdes and Dodger67: Notice that this solution keeps the page size (actually, increases it a bit) as downloaded from the internet, so if the page becomes too large to load on slow connections, it might need archiving regardless. I do not think that is an issue here, but you might want to keep that in mind before applying the solution to other pages. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Definition of a Source

    I didn't find a definition of a Source in WP policies. Can you help me? The closer I got was a taxonomy of sources in primary, secondary and tertiary. But what is a source? Is a promoting site, (i.e. visitgreece.com, parisinfo.com etc) a source? Is the site of any given village a source? A lot of villages have a history section- mostly about trivialities- can that section be considered a historical source? Τζερόνυμο (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you read our guideline on identifying reliable sources? Lourdes 10:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User talk:Lourdes Certainly but I didn't find any definition of a source, even though there is a chapter "Definition of a source". One can read that "The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: The piece of work itself (the article, book).The creator of the work (the writer, journalist).The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).Any of the three can affect reliability". Definitely, it's not a definition. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've answered Τζερόνυμο's question here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC) This is an informational posting only and I am not watching this page; contact me on my user talk page if you wish to communicate with me about this.[reply]

    Sorting a table

    Hi Wikipedia editors! Perhaps someone would be knowledgeable enough to know how to sort variables in a a table not by their alphabetic order but by another value. The problem is mentioned here. Thanks! --Jetam2 (talk) 11:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jetam2: See Help:Sorting#Specifying a sort key for a cell. You could invent a number for each rank. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @PrimeHunter: Thanks! Will give it a try.--Jetam2 (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Change of headline

    How do I change the headline of an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuseumSilkeborg (talk • contribs) 11:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Which article? Would it be that you want to change the title of the article Silkeborg Museum to Museum Silkeborg? Lourdes 12:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Creating a page for a company you work with/for

    Hello,

    I have just joined Wikipedia and have a question I'd like input on

    If a user works at a company and wants to create a Wikipedia page for it (Not by any means to spam or advertise the company, instead to create an informational page about the company and services offered like with Google or Twitter), is there anything to specifically watch out for other than having a NPOV? Should you not do it at all? Should you add a template saying the page could be biased by having been created by someone close to the company? If so, what is that template and how do I use it?

    Just to emphasize I would never create an article just to promote the company, instead to allow people to do research about it on Wikipedia. I just want to know what I should watch out for to avoid being a nuisance.

    Thanks in advance for any answers, LW001 (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    While you're not prohibited from doing it, I would say avoid the pit and don't create Wikipedia pages for any company where you work. Having said that, if you really want to do it, then you should first read up on Wikipedia's paid-contribution disclosure policy and conflict of interest guideline, apart from understanding our notability guidelines for organizations. In other words, Wikipedia has articles of only those organizations that are considered notable as per our guidelines. So if you feel your organization can pass the muster, read your first article and follow the instructions. Write back if you think you need more assistance. Lourdes 12:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    LW001 the intent you give "to create an informational page about the company and services offered" is in fact exactly what is prohibited by WP:PROMO. As we are an encyclopedia, a decent article about a company concentrates on its history, not the latest offerings and activities. Imagine yourself a historian a few century in the future, long after the company no longer exists, you are researching the widget manufacturing industry. Would you be more interested in the history of the company or the number and price of widgets they made back in 2018? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Page deletion without reason

    Content discussion moved to Talk:Simran Judge

    Hi, a page I created was incorrectly redirected to another page of a tv series. The page I created was that of a person that was independent of this tv series and had her own career. Please guide me as to how I can remove this incorrect deletion. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmcritic786 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Telling us the article and the TV series would be a good place to start. - X201 (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at their contributions it would be Simran Judge. ~ GB fan 15:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was taking them at their word that it was a proper deletion - X201 (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The article hasn't been deleted. The article was redirected by @GSS: The reasons given were WP:BLP1E and WP:TOOSOON I suggest you read those first. - X201 (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) (x3) This was the page immediately prior to 'redirection'. The rationale used by the editor who did so was 'A case of WP:BLP1E and WP:TOOSOON'. The actor appears to have only one role and nothting outside of that to indicate notability at this stage. Redirection appears reasonable in the circumstances. Pinging @GSS: as the involved editor in case they may wish to comment. Eagleash (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Filmcritic786: First of all as per the history of the article it was created by Bollywoodcritic (talk · contribs) but in your comment above you said The page I created.. so can you please explain. Thank you for the ping X201 and Eagleash. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC) @GB fan: @X201: My apologies, I assumed I was logged in as per my account. The thing is, even though the individual has only done 1 show, that show does not "represent" her. She had been a model before and that was independent of this show. The show Everest has nothing to do with her modelling career for Indian commercials, Fashion weeks, etc. If that is the case, then one must also redirect the page "Lakme Fashion Week" to "everest". It wouldn't make sense, would it? Since, the two are vastly different. Adding to that, she is also a successor to a well known poet- "Rajkavi Inderjeet Singh Tulsi". It would be unfair give her the identity of a TV show when she has an identity of her own and is known for work outside of that one TV show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollywoodcritic (talk • contribs) 16:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem with keeping Simran Judge as an independent article was that it provided no evidence that its subject was notable. It had four references, to two sources, both based on interviews with the subject and so not independent. Maproom (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we please speak here rather than constantly redirecting the page? Most wikipedia articles are related to PR and interviews. If that's the case then you must go ahead and delete all actors pages. There are so many to delete if you remove the validity of an interview. She cannot speak in an interview with false information, she could be sued for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollywoodcritic (talk • contribs) 17:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, if that weren't the case, she could not be linked to her grandfather's page, someone would have stood up and claimed validity. The TV show is not her Identity, please stop redirecting her to a show that she was just "a part of". She didn't create the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollywoodcritic (talk • contribs) 17:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Bollywoodcritic:This is a content dispute. It does not belong on the help desk. We here at the help desk can tell you where and how to handle this. Where: go to the talk page for the article (now a redirect, but the talk page is still there) at Talk:Simran Judge. How: discuss this until you reach consensus. If you cannot reach consensus, then continue as recommended at WP:DISPUTE. The help desk is not part of that process, but if you have problems understanding the process, please come back here. -Arch dude (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: The page is not currently a redirect; it has been restored and is at AfD here. Eagleash (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Neerali

    Please help editing protected page ..

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neerali&action=edit&section=14 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neerali

    Sameershan (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note I've removed the copy-pasted page contents. The page the user is referring to is here. This section was also made at the teahouse. --HunterM267 talk 20:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Phishing Email Fruad Using Wikipedia

    This isn't about making changes to your content, although I would think SOMEONE at Wikipedia would want to know that an Email Fraud scam is specifically citing a Wikipedia page, AND THEY would take a look at the page being used. This is one sentence directly from the Email: "I hope this information meet you well as I know you will be curious to know why/how I selected you to receive a sum of $5,000,000.00 USD, our information below is 100% legitimate, please see the link below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation"

    Did Wikipedia donor lists get hacked? I wonder how these creeps got my email adress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:4250:EA:853E:CF1E:C7D0:171E (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I have seen other reports about scam mails linking to Wikipedia articles. They probably mailed random people and didn't know you were a donor. The other recipients didn't mention any personal connection to Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I don't see how citing a Wikipedia article about an existing organization would prove legitimacy for some email contact. Then again, scam artists aim for people who wouldn't ask that.
    If we put a big warning on there saying "if you got an email citing this, it's a phishing scam," the scam artists would just pick a different article.
    Unless your only online activity was donating to the Wikimedia Foundation (which I seriously doubt), then I don't see how this email is a sign that the donors list got hacked. Yes, they cited Wikipedia, but we're the most popular online encyclopedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing that most people don't appreciate is that the scammers intend to make their appeals look like obvious scams. It takes some time and effort to lead someone down the long path from reading an email to sending a cashier's check to Nigeria. They want to weed out those who won't send the money early in the process, leaving only the very gullible. Just asking a question is often enough to make them abandon you as a prospect and move on to more fertile ground. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I disable flyovers?

    This year (2018) has been my most painful in reading the articles (which I do a real real real real lot) - because of the FLYOVERS.

    As I roll the mouse wheel to scroll an article I am bombarded by the hyperlink flyover popups. They really ruin the experience.

    I'm willing to sacrifice 100% of the benefit (I acknowledge that there's a lesser benefit) to permanently eradicate it for myself. Can I?

    P.S. I love the site and the unfathomably massive hard work and dedication by the major players and volunteers.76.185.10.9 (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Look for a cog on the page preview when it pops up. Click the cog. Select "disable." Ian.thomson (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you but I don't know what you mean by preview. I'm talking about viewing any published wiki articles. There are no gear cogs when I view pages.76.185.10.9 (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    If this is not what you're experiencing, then it's not clear what you're describing.
    If what I'm referring to (mw:Page Previews) is not what you're describing, then I don't see what site function you could be describing as a "flyover."
    Is your security software up-to-date? Have you run a scan recently? Do you have ad-blocking software installed? If you can't answer "yes" to all three of those questions, the issue might be on your end. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Smart work including the diagram. Yes, what you call "page previews" is the obnoxious popup that I'm describing. That is why I said flyover.

    Okay, so you mean the gear cog *on the popup* which is the "page preview." YES, I do see that, and can go Disable. Solved. Good work.

    It seems to turn it off permanently for all pages, which right now makes me happy happy. Yet should I ever want to restore it, where is that? Thanks so much. 76.185.10.9 (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, I see it - "Enable previews" link at the bottom of any page. SOLVED. Way to go.76.185.10.9 (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=849876182"