Help desk
< June 13	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 15 >

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.

June 14

cloak

I requested cloak wikipedia/thegooduser (from what I can remember), my irc nick is realthegooduser, will I need to change my nick name for the cloak to work, or are we all good? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 00:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For any other editors who are as mystified as I was, this seems to be about meta:IRC/Cloaks. [[User::Thegooduser|

Thegooduser]], if I'm right, I doubt if anybody here will be able to help you. Maybe WP:VPT, or the talk page to that meta page? --ColinFine (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegooduser: No, cloak will work fine even if your IRC name is different. Part of the purpose of the cloak is to show an IRC user's Wikimedia account. Naleksuh (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naleksuh, I've set cloak for /wikipedia, what does that mean? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegooduser: It means that your cloak will show up as wikipedia/thegooduser, regardless of whether your irc name is thegooduser, realthegooduser, or anything else Naleksuh (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page erased gone!

Hello, my page that has been on Wikipedia for years has disappeared. I still see some photos and reference to the name but, there is no page left. The name was: GILDA PIANELLI an Italian filmmaker. Could someone please help me.

There was a suggestion that the article "[failed to satisfy] WP:CREATIVE due to lack of significant coverage either of her or her work in independent, reliable sources". Nobody disagreed, and so the article was deleted. As I look at the deleted article, I see that it had no sources whatever. (It did have a link to IMDB, but this isn't satisfactory.) You ask for help; what help would you like? -- Hoary (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion closed

Hello. Please advise. What options are available to me, if I disagree with an admin's -- I assume, admin's -- closure of a discussion? I don't think that one random Wikipedia editor being "convinced or not" should over-ride and trump what RS's say. Can I just "open up" yet another discussion at the same Talk Page? Just like someone else did, when they didn't like the original discussion outcome? Let me know how this "process" works. I am referring to this Talk Page, here ... Talk:Killing of Tessa Majors#Requested move 3 January 2020 ... and here ... Talk:Killing of Tessa Majors#Requested move 2 June 2020. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The latter discussion is marked "Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page." You have made subsequent comments in the same section on the talk page. Not good. You have brought the matter up on the closer's talk page. Good. Sceptre responded courteously, ending "if you disagree, you are welcome to take it to move review, although I doubt you'll get much purchase there". So there you are, move review. That's how the process works. -- Hoary (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. I don't know how to look up old archives and such. Can you show me where the other editor -- who did not agree with the first closing -- posted some type of "move review" somewhere (as I am required to do)? You know, since that's how the process "works". I have no idea of how to look up "old" archived pages that are stored wherever they are stored. And I'd like to use (see) their "move review request" as a sample/exemplar to follow, since I have never done (or even seen) one before. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Joseph, one of your userboxes says that you're a lawyer, so I'd have thought that digging for/through archives would be a doddle (and that procedural hurdles would be routine). But please pause: first examine this. -- Hoary (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, what? Being a lawyer and having knowledge of IT / computer "geek" stuff (intricate details) are two totally separate things. No? Like saying, "geez, you're a dentist. ... you should know how to do your taxes ... you don't need to ask an accountant for guidance". Or do you see a correlation? What is that correlation? Yeah, your chart is funny and cute. Only problem is, I am asking a serious question. Thanks for your, um, "help" (or, I gather, what you consider to be helpful). Which it was not. But thanks for the cute chart, any way. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request help

I requested help above. The (above) response was -- in essence -- "I have determined / concluded that you should already know how to do this type of stuff ... so I will affirmatively choose to not answer your question ... and will also make light of it and ridicule your question by adding a silly, irrelevant graphic". (Or -- you know, you could have just answered the question. No?) Can a different editor please help with my request? Which is as follows:

OK. Thanks. I don't know how to look up old archives and such. Can you show me where the other editor -- who did not agree with the first closing -- posted some type of "move review" somewhere (as I am required to do)? You know, since that's how the process "works". I have no idea of how to look up "old" archived pages that are stored wherever they are stored. And I'd like to use (see) their "move review request" as a sample/exemplar to follow, since I have never done (or even seen) one before. Thanks.

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joseph A. Spadaro - there's been at least six page moves to this article, as well as the two RMs since December (and an AfD!). There isn't such archives for the page. The response at the closer's talk (not an admin, btw) was pretty clear, you can take this to Wikipedia:Move review, which would be the best step if you think it was improperly closed. WP:IMR goes through the exact instructions on how to list such a thing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will review that page. But, perhaps my question was not clear. So, let me clarify. In the past, the discussion was closed (with a certain result). (Around January 2020 or so.) Some other editor did not like that closing result. So, they "opened up" the debate again. (Around June 2, 2020, or so.) So, in order for the closed debate to be opened up again, that editor (or some editor) had to follow the process of a "move review request" (as I was directed above). Like I am required to do. So, my question is ... where do I find these old "move review requests" in general? And, in particular, that specific one? I am sure that everything that is "typed" on Wikipedia gets stored somewhere. And, I assume, that means "archived" somewhere. I see old "archived" discussions all the time. (I don't know where to look for them and find them ... I usually click a link that someone else provided.) So, where can I look at / see / review these old ("archived") debates, move requests, etc.? I have never see one and want to use one as an exemplar. And also want to see what the editor stated to "convince" someone that the original move request was improperly closed and needed to be opened up once again. I could be wrong ... but, here's my guess. No other editor ever did that "process". But, I myself am "required to follow that process". I could be wrong. But, that's my gut feeling here. So, I am asking a simple question. Where can I see these old discussions / move requests? That were, per the above, required as part of this process. Where are they? How do we view them? If something was requested/listed ... they typed words into Wikipedia on some certain page. I am sure there are records (archives) of everything that is typed into Wikipedia (including these move requests). Why would they, in particular, be "exempt" from being collected, filed, archived, and available to view? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Spadaro, it looks like Wikipedia talk:Requested moves has archive search. Schazjmd (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it. Am I missing it? Please help. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of the archives-column on the right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I saw that. I can't seem to find this particular request (referenced above). Am I missing it? Yes, I do see the section where a reader can enter/search the archive area. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Spadaro, Talk:Killing of Tessa Majors has both the January 2020 and June 2020 move discussions. The first was "murder > death", no consensus to move; the second was "murder > killing", consensus to move. Are those what you're looking for? Schazjmd (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But, that's not what I am asking. I saw, read, and even participated in those two discussions: Talk:Killing of Tessa Majors. This is what I am asking. After the first discussion was closed (January 2020), a second was opened (June 2020). In order to open that second one -- because they disagreed with the results of the first one -- some editor had to file a "move review request". (Like I am required to do, since I disagree with the June 2020 closing results.) That is what I was looking for ... that "move review request" that was (presumably) filed and (presumably) later archived. I am not having any luck finding it, when I search the archives. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tik tok

Recently google removed 1 million negative reviews from Play Store in order to give the application a good rating in India. – 117.195.167.221 (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like help with Wikipedia, what help would you like? -- Hoary (talk) 05:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the process of listing new article on wikipedia

I published a new article about a month ago but it is neither published or gotten any approval/rejection notification. I went through the wiki wizard's process of 'create new article', and it can be seen as a draft when I reaccessed to that page. I wonder is it still on the process or did I published the article in the wrong place. Hyein629 (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that you mean Draft:The Nam June Paik Cultural Foundation. An earlier version failed, being given a notice that said Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted. You removed the reviewer comments and the notice. Please readd it. Probably nothing's going to happen to the draft until you ask for a review. I urge you not to ask for a review, since in its present state the draft would surely fail. How? Well, the first section is titled "Identity of Nam June Paik": it's quite unnecessary (as there is an article, Nam June Paik) and it's promotional. The next section is largely unsourced, is promotional, and reads like a PR release. Please work to make this less like something from the foundation's website, more like an encyclopedia article. -- Hoary (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):@Hyein629: Hello, the only edit from your account apart from this post was this edit to Draft:The Nam June Paik Cultural Foundation. As part of that edit you removed a declinature notice and with it the 'resubmit' button. Please do not remove declinature notices; (I have restored it). However it is not clear whether this is the item you are referring to? If it is not please provide a link to the draft in question. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Kitson, 1st Baron Airedale

Is the publisher correct for ref number 1 (thesis) in this article? Thanks and I hope I am not upsetting you all. 175.32.219.132 (talk) 08:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've corrected "Uinversity" to "University" and added "U.K." (as well as removing some superfluous spaces, inserting a space that I think was needed, and correcting a typo in the preceding sentence). I'm not sure if such a D.Phil. thesis is technically "published" in the usual sense, but since the PDF has been linked I suppose it is accessible to the public and therefore qualifies. Some might argue that the publisher should be given in full as "The Insitute [sic] of Advanced Architectural Studies, The University of York, U.K." rather than just "The University of York, U.K.", but I wouldn't quarrel with the shorter version.

I think it was a good decision on your part to leave out the second half of the title, since the awful Yorkshire pun might have been confusing. [For information, it was in full "The Kitsons and the Arts: a Leeding family in Sicily and the West Riding".] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.14 (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Error accessing wikipedia in portugues

File:Msc

I suprisse that you see this msg, but in case of not, the problem I refer is: when accessing your page im my language: Portuguese, I recceive a message that alerts to some phishing virus, and that initial page is not loaded. I am not expert to avoid this. Tank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:818:dcc8:c100:d0dd:9510:570d:5ffc (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there does seem to be a problem with the ptwiki main page. This help desk here is for the English language Wikipedia, but as you speak Portuguese you can raise the problem at the ptwiki help desk at pt:Wikipédia:Tire suas dúvidas, which is accessible. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wild guess: Social Media Icons accessed via http:. I cant find anything else in the content. For those who want to know: API query for the revision content. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see the expected main page in all four tested browsers. I guess you have some anti-malware software which blocks it for some reason. None of you mentioned your software but pt:Wikipédia:Café dos programadores#Vírus na Página Principal says there is an issue with Avast/AVG blocking it today. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Π

I do not like it that Pppery keeps changing the redirect of Π. It is not fair for the user. Neel.arunabh (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The place to discuss it is Talk:Π. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a page for a company

I work for a Public Relations and Marketing Firm. I have a client who is in the food business by the name of Stratas Foods. They mostly produce cooking oils and related. They see that a couple of their big competitors, like P&G, have pages for the company as well as pages for certain products. They are interested in the same.

So, I created an account to help them. As I went to start, I read the entries about "being paid to contribute" to Wikipedia. I am paid by my agency who collects a retainer from Stratas Foods for a wide variety of public relations services. So, in that way I am being paid to create content for them here. I don't want to do anything wrong. So this note is to ask what I need to do to get started writing a company entry and a few product entries according to the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. Do I just disclose myself as being paid (how) and start creating? Or is there more to it than that?

Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RalphBerry1957 (talk • contribs) 2020-06-14T21:36:16 (UTC)

Hello, RalphBerry1957. Thank you for coming here and asking, rather than just ploughing in. Unfortunately, you and your client have a (very common) misunderstanding about Wikipedia. Not one business (or anything or anybody else) "has a page" in Wikipedia: not one. Wikipedia has articles about many notable topics, including companies. If your client meets the criteria for notability (in Wikipedia's special sense), then there can be an article about it. The article will not belong to the company, they will have no control over its content, the company and its associates and agents will be strongly discouraged from editing it directly, and their role should be limited to making suggestions for edits to it.

Please note also that promotion of any kind is forbidden on Wikipedia: such an article should be almost entirely based on what people wholly unconnected with the company have chosen to publish about it (in reliable places); if there are not enough such reliable independent sources, then the company is not notable, and no article will be accepted however it is written.

If you choose to continue with this then yes, you need first to declare your status as a paid editor, then search for sources that will contribute to notability. (Remember that anything which comes from the company, such as an interview or press release, is not acceptable for this purpose). If you can find enough, you may then start the process of creating a draft, using the articles for creation mechanism. Be aware that creating a new article is one of the most difficult activities (some say the most difficult) in editing Wikipedia, and it is even harder when you have a conflict of interest. Start by studying your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RalphBerry1957 As a start, I'd say that https://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/15610-heggen-takes-the-helm-at-stratas-foods , and https://www.bakingbusiness.com/articles/48396-stratas-foods-celebrates-10-years-in-business may be useful, but they still feel a little like they were written by someone's PR department, even if it is the business site itself. I'd honestly start by looking up 50/50 joint and ADM and use the websites that care the *least* about making Stratus Food happy. :) (and again, thank you for asking)Naraht (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OKAY, I have read all of the comments and suggestions. Thanks to all. My conclusion to all of this is that as a PR person for the company, I am not the person to write an article. So, now I change my question around. How do I request that the company I am working with have an article that someone unbiased and independent might write? Stratas Foods is an important company in the food business, particularly oils for frying and shortenings for baking. They have led many product advancements and have respected brands. We just need someone who is an independent editor to take it on and write. So that is my request. Can anyone help?

@RalphBerry1957: I wish I could offer more encouragement, but from what I've seen doing a simple Google search, there does not appear to be enough media coverage to demonstrate notability, and likewise to justify an article. Without this coverage, it's very probable that even if you found a volunteer to help write the article, it would likely be challenged for notability and would be deleted. I did just add Stratas to the Associated British Foods#Subsidiaries section, so at least someone looking for Stratas Foods in the Wikipedia search box can find something about them. If additional media coverage materializes, you can request an article here, but, there's such a backlog that I wouldn't want to get your hopes up. I think the best course of action is to wait until Stratas becomes more well known, through media coverage, and an uninvolved editor takes enough interest to write an article. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

download wiki

Hello, I want to download the wiki in English, but I have not found a file from 2020, only from 2018, could you tell me where the .zim file is? thanks

Makebos (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Makebos: According to WP:DOWNLOAD#English-language Wikipedia, what you want may be at dumps.wikimedia.org. There may also be third parties who have other resources. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]