Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2019 February 12

= February 12 =

New York Bridges
Hi! I have contacted you folks many times before and have made many important corrections on some pages. I have also been to a few NY Wikipedia meetings in NYC. I have been working on a Coffee table book on New York's bridges for the last 26 years. Can I use some of the information from Wikipedia even if I use some information word for word? I do have Engineer Friends who have made corrections but I will gladly give credit to Wikipedia in my book. Will this be okay? Thank you, Dave Frieder. PS. You folks have used some of my bridge photos in a few of your Bridge information sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grillage 2 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you may reuse the text if you provide the required attribution. See WP:REUSE.  RudolfRed (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Bug in rater tool
How do I report a bug in the "rater" tool?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would try reporting it at User talk:Evad37/rater.js. --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Michael Greenhow
Ref I  and  10  are  from the  same  source  -  they  should  therefore  be  the   same   but  with  a  quote  for  number  10. Can you  help  I  can  not  do  it  at the  college  here. Thankyou in advance. Srbernadette (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it's like this because you added the same source without proper attribution to the original citation. Please read WP:REFNAME and learn to do it yourself from hereon. Thanks, Lourdes   04:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

"Add this page to your watchlist?"
I have just added a few pages to my watchlist. I have done this for years, and usually I just get a pop-up saying that the page has been added. Today, for the first time in years, in some of the cases, I have been asked "Add this page to your watchlist?" and I have to click "OK". It seems to be random - sometimes I am asked, sometimes not.

BTW, this is a pretty crazy feature. I can understand when I am asked whether I am sure that I want to do an irreversible thing like delete a file. But an article put on a watchlist erroneously can easily be removed, and demanding an additional click (plus mouse movement) in this case is just bad user interface design. I got those questions a few years ago, but it was reproducible: the question came every time I wanted to add an article.

Any idea what is going on? Why the random question-or-not? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems to article-specific. Adding William C. Conway will bring forth the question. Adding Clive Culbertson will not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * None of the two pages display any question to me, just a "Have been added"/"have been removed" message, both in Chrome 71.0 and in IE 11.523 on Win10. --CiaPan (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. I use Firefox 65.0. But now I don't get the question anymore either, with Firefox or Chrome. Weird. I reproduced it three times earlier. Forget I asked. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I figure it has something to do with JavaScript not loading. With JS turned off, if I recall correctly, you'll get it every time. Eman  235 / talk  22:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Please delete my page .I want to leave Wikipedia. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Bongane Tebo (talk • contribs)


 * Your deletion request on your user page was malformatted, but I have corrected the syntax for you. Good-bye. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Image not loading
Hi! There seems to be a problem with File:Bob_Keeshan_1995.jpg, used in Bob Keeshan. It does not load for some people. Yesterday no pictures on Wikipedia would load for me, but the bug went away on its own after a few minutes. Now it loads for me, but not for some other users. Do you see it? What is the matter here? Surtsicna (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Users who can't see it should clear their browser's cache. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Archive box
How do I fix the archive box at Talk:2018–19 United States federal government shutdown so that it links to Talk:2018–19 United States federal government shutdown/Archives/2019/January? Please ping me when you reply. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The parameter requires a full or relative page name. A relative name for a subpage can start with a slash. The link can be piped. I wrote .[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2018%E2%80%9319_United_States_federal_government_shutdown&diff=883000126&oldid=882971366] The archive template could also change to MonthlyArchive to automate the archive links for that naming format. This would work (after I updated the template to 2019 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:MonthlyArchive&diff=prev&oldid=883002676]):  . However, the article is of a type where activity will quickly die down so monthly archives (not chosen by you) was a poor idea where future archives will often have a single section. Most months will have no sections but then the bot omits creating an archive. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have changed it to use numbered archives before we end up with a bunch of tiny fragmented archives. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Unsubscribe
How do I unsubscribe this site? Not sure how it got on my fire tablet but comes up each time I use my duckduckg to get online. Would appreciate any help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.117.172.108 (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You are not subscribed to this site. The Fire browser and DucKDuckGo have algorithms that select the "most recently used" shortcuts that tey display to you. We ave no control over those algorithms. Use your search engine to look for how to modify the behaviour. -Arch dude (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Reliable source
Hi, would the Watchtower Online Library be considered a reliable source? An editor has added Adolf Hitler to the article Antichrist and cited https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102001568 - the Watchtower article says that the acts of Hitler "convinced many that he was the antichrist" without saying who the "many" were and no sources are cited. Is it safe to revert the edit for unreliable source? the Jehovah's Witnesses are an established religion and wasn't sure if this made their statement authoritative - Epinoia (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Since that article's anonymous and writes based on nothing but the Bible (which obviously doesn't speak to whether Hitler convinced people that he was the antichrist), that claim is entirely un-backed up. Your typical church-affiliated general interest periodical (as opposed to a church-affiliated journal of theology, a church-affiliated journal of church history, etc.) will often contain "side" bits that aren't reviewed and aren't intended to be reliable, and even if the periodical is reviewed for agreement with the theology of the parent church, such comments likely won't get comparable attention because that's not the primary focus.  Since this is the main mouthpiece of the WTBTS of Pennsylvania, we can assume that any theological statements (e.g. "Today there are, not one, but many antichrists who form the antichrist class") will be in accordance with JW beliefs, but presumably JWs do not necessarily believe that Hitler convinced lots of people that he was the antichrist.  Think of it this way: if someone went to the elders of his Kingdom Hall and said "I read that article in the Watchtower, but I don't think that Hitler convinced many people that he was the antichrist", would they impose on him some sort of church discipline merely for holding such a position?  Unless the Society holds that their magazine is inerrant, or somehow they've taken a position on this precise question, we can't use this article as a source for anyone except the author(s) believing that people believed that Hitler was the antichrist.  Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

publish
Hello,

I fixed the Bonetti Kozerski page to the changes that had been asked to be made. I hit "publish changes" on Jan. 22, 2019. I logged back into today to see if the wikipage for Bonetti Kozerski Architecture has finally been approved and published or not. But I still see it under drafts. When will it be up for review so we can see if it will be public?

Thank you, Bonetti Kozerski — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sillaro Valley (talk • contribs) 15:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * In when you removed the part labelled with "Do not remove this line!" you removed the resubmit button.  I have reinstated it so that you can resubmit for review. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I see that you have signed yourself as "Bonetti Kozerski" so you need to read about conflict of interest and make the mandatory declation of paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

how to change info about a living person without online publishing
How would someone update a page about a living person's marital status without online published documentation. The person in question is trying to change their reference to have this changed however in my experience not many people publish something when they get divorced so it is hard to show a reliable source. However the person is alive and would like to see this changed. Is there a way? Or do they just need to learn to live with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maderaj (talk • contribs) 18:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , You can get Physical proof, or just have said person release a small statement about it. Something like a court document or note on their blog or website. Their word is enough, but they need to write down their word so we know it is from them. WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that 's advice is correct, : all information in Wikipedia articles (without exception) must come from published sources: court documents do not usually meet that description, and nor in most cases do blogs. I think the best thing is to point the person to AUTOPROB. --ColinFine (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh? I can't find it right now but I recall there being something that said that we could cite the subject's own web site or social media account if it's a mundane fact about the person such as where they were born and if they're married. Just not potentially controversial information.  † dismas †|(talk) 22:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, WP:BLPSPS would apply here. If the subject writes on their own blog or social media that they're divorced, then I would think that it falls under the non-controversial information that this guideline mentions. † dismas †|(talk) 23:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The OP asked if an online source is needed. To that the answer is no; a published reliable source is needed, but it need not be online. —teb728 t c 01:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Sister project links
I would like to draw attention to this inquiry by Czar, since I was looking for the same thing with respect to the transclusion in that section. Additionally, I wanted to ask why exactly it says "Do not place this template in a section containing columns." here.--Hildeoc (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

How to help people get into Wikipedia
OK, let me start. I first joined Wikipedia nearly 15 years ago. Since then I've dabbled with helping Wikipedia, Wikimedia, Wikidata etc. During that time I've had more battles than successes. I started a page today and almost as soon as I finished it, the page was marked for deletion. This isn't the first time this has happened. I've had pages deleted, arguments about information which I know were correct as I know the person the article was about. I had a project linking wikidata with wikipedia and wikimedia dashed. I've have numerous changes undone as some decided that they didn't like the way I was categorizing images on Wikimedaia. I've even had Wikimedia photos deleted. And then the issues today has made me feel, why do I bother? I love wikipedia and support its aims but I seems to be taking two steps back to every step forward. I'm sure I'm not alone in this. So my question is, how can we help new people get into Wikipedia. Can we do something to encourage people and let them see that they can benefit Wikipedia. Make a contribution that is meaningful. Otherwise there will be people like me who wants to help, wants to contribute and wants to make Wikipedia/Wikimedia/Wikidata better lost to the Wiki community forever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkymasterUK (talk • contribs) 22:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is an issue,, and one that has been much talked about. I know that the Teahouse is intended as part of the answer. So, too is the AFC process and Draft: space (precisely to avoid the experience you had today). But I don't know that there is a general answer. --ColinFine (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * . Thanks for the reply. I will be looking at Teahouse and AFC. What is Draft Space and how do I get to it.
 * Regarding "arguments about information which I know were correct as I know the person the article was about". Wikipedia articles cannot be based on your personal information, the information must come from published reliable sources.  See WP:RS for more on that.  RudolfRed (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * fixing ping. RudolfRed (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well there was the issue, the other person didn't have reliable source. They knew the persons mother had been married before just assumed that the first husband was the father of the child. In fact the child was born before the mother had met the her first husband and so had another person as their father.. Managed to solve it by using Birth records.
 * Wikipedia has evolved into a much bigger and busier place, and some of our methods of collaboration have changed with also, for good or ill, with over a 100,000 active editors in any given 30-day period. It is now quite difficult to collaborate on new article in main space, so we no longer encourage that method of operation. Instead, build a new article in draft space and ask ask for a review there. In my opinion, the perceived drop in the level of civility is primarily a completely understandable subconscious reaction by some of our best high-volume editors, who are trying to maintain overall high quality in the face of a deluge of garbage. Sometimes a good but somewhat flawed contribution will be mistaken for more garbage. -Arch dude (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I do think that the level of civility has dropped in Wikipedia. People do forget that we all started somewhere and has to learn over time. So I'm glad you all replied to me and was able to have a conversation about Wikipedia rather than the robotic nature of some people.