Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2020 January 20

= January 20 =

What is the Purpose of creating a account?
Hi, Im am good at writing articles..ect. But what is this site more about for users? Another words. what do I do. Do I create articles or edit ones on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dileot (talk • contribs) 03:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Over the course of the last 19 years, more than ten million editors have collaborated to create about six million articles. more than 100,000 unique editors have been active in the last 30 days. Each of us has our own motivations. If you wish to help build the largest and most comprehensive encyclopedia in the world, then Welcome! Take on any task you wish to. You are free to edit anonymously, but by creating an account, it becomes easier to collaborate with the rest of us. -Arch dude (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are not sure where to start, you might enjoy The Wikipedia Adventure. -Arch dude (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanking editors
Hi all, When I thank an editor for their contribution to an article on its history page, why don't they stay publicly thanked? I can't remember every single time I do this, and at some point it appears that they are ready for further plaudits. The idea that I might have done it before is only mildly embarrassing, but on the other hand some people might remain unthanked for this reason. Cheers, >MinorProphet (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Help:Notifications/Thanks says: 'You can only thank someone for a given edit once. After you have thanked someone for an edit, the "thank" link is replaced by the word "thanked". The "thank" link may reappear later but using it again will not send a new thanks.'
 * It was me who added [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Notifications/Thanks&diff=913830624&oldid=913829584] the last part based on testing. Somebody added a citation needed. I haven't seen it documented elsewhere but I made a new test now on an edit [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PrimeHunter2&oldid=prev&diff=665315105] by PrimeHunter2 I also thanked in 2015. The account did not receive a new thanks notification and the thanks does not appear in the log [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=thanks&user=&page=PrimeHunter2&wpdate=&tagfilter=] (the log entry today is for another thanks). PrimeHunter (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * May be the Special:Log can help you. If you choose the 'Thanks log' from the dropdown list and enter MinorProphet in the 'Performer' field, you will get a list of all your thanks to other editors. On the other hand, if you enter User:MinorProphet in the 'Target' field, you'll get a list of thanks to you from other editors. If you fill both fields, you'll see thanks from a specified user to another specified user. Alas it doesn't show the reason for the thank - what edit was thanked for. --CiaPan (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your typically swift and helpful replies., Now I know I can show my appreciation to editors as much as I like and not be worried about being over-thankful, and I've also found someone via Special:Log who thanked me a long time ago and I never got back to them. Many thanks, :o) MinorProphet (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that every time you thank someone, it may alert them in various ways, which can be disruptive. Thanks for minor or routine edits are probably unnecessary. If there are multiple related edits by the same editor, you don't need to thank them for each one – just one is enough. —[  Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 15:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you perhaps explain further what is meant by "it may alert them in various ways, which can be disruptive."? I enjoyed reading your timely and helpful reply, which made me think some more about the subject of thanking editors. The articles I write tend to be 'minority interest', which get about 5 hits per week. I write them mostly for my own satisfaction, and I try to make them as comprehensive, well-spelled, gramatically correct and well-reffed as I can. If someone makes even a small constructive edit (eg making a WL), that usually means that they have taken the trouble to read the entire article and tried to improve it, and are therefore in some way interested in the same sort of out-of-the-way things as me: in my book that deserves a thank. I don't usually thank people for minor spelling or grammar edits, which anyway doesn't happen a lot. On the other hand, I often manage to type "the the", and one particular editor corrects this for me, for which I thank them, and have learned to watch out for this myself. I believe there is an automated tool to achieve this task, but I can never remember its name. I don't remember thanking anyone for multiple edits, although Special:Log will show me now that I know it exists. It is also possible to thank somone in an ironic way, meaning "I don't agree with your reversion of my edit of 'your' article, and it's really not worth the bother getting upset about it: your opinion is noted": but I have only done this once or twice during my whole time on WP. Anyway, I thank you for your reminders, and I shall only thank you for your welcome contribution if you thank me for this one. PS I also remember acoustic modem couplers, although I've never used one. PPS Would you recommend me for WP:TYS, or is this not the done thing? PPPS What's the oldest edit you made that is still current? Mine's from August 2011. Cheers, >MinorProphet (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Special:Preferences lets you set web and/or email notification for thanks received. The "web" notification adds to the "Notices" list in the top toolbar, which, like the email notifications, can be distracting if one were to get a lot of them. I've known editors to object to getting ping'd, too (probably those that participate in a lot of discussions). I wasn't necessarily referring to myself (it hasn't been a problem for me – I don't get thanked much ) and I didn't look at your thanks sent log –  I was just making a general comment. As far as getting thanks for minor edits, I imagine that someone who does a lot of semi-auto edits to fix things like common typos and formatting errors would probably prefer not to get thanks. —[  Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 18:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Untitled post

 * Moved to new section by MinorProphet (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC), assuming it wasn't directed at any of the participants in the above discussion...

oi you, why are you threatening to delete my account!!!! I love son and would never say anything bad about him so you better stop rn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aydnhasabigwilly (talk • contribs) 14:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, I can see you're a fan of the Tottenhams which is good, but since Wikipedia articles try to be as neutral as possible we can't say that it is the "best club in the world". We of course welcome your contributions if you can summarize what reliable sources say from a neutral point of view. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've never in my life heard anybody refer to Tottenham Hotspur F.C. as "the Tottenhams", . "Tottenham" sometimes, but usually "Spurs". --ColinFine (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It maybe goes without saying that my knowledge of football is, er, superficial – Thjarkur (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Their nickname is the Yids. Here's a great book for fans and non-fans alike to get you started. How Soccer Explains the World. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  00:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My old mate Jeff, a life-long Totty fan (©Finbarr Saunders 2020), will love this one. He actually growls at you if you call them "Spurs". PS Does this mean we are "The Wickeds"? MinorProphet (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect picture posted
On Sarah Vaughan's wiki page, a picture of Ella Fitzgerald is posted as, "The Divine One." Sarah Vaughan was often referred to as either the "Divine-One", or "Sassy." Although Ella was also divine, I believe her picture was incorrectly posted on Miss Vaughan's wiki page. Younger fans looking to bone up on their knowledge and appreciation of these two wonderful artists, who are no longer with us, might be unnecessarily confused. Would someone kindly look into this, and make the appropriate correction?

Jazz Fan, Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.255.59.168 (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Joe, there are sevral pictures at Vaughan's article. Which one(s) are you stating to be incorrect? BTW, if you are seeing the results of a Google search, Wikipedia has no control over what they display although they often do so in a way that implies that it comes from Wikipedia. Should this be the case, there is a 'feedback' link at the bottom of the panel in search results.  Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, aren't you possibly confusing some known images, like those opening the web pages: this one (Ella at Shazam and this one (Sarah at Jazziz)...? --CiaPan (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

wrong "Links to this page"
For Farrand & Votey Organ Company it shows that 9 articles are linked to my new article I created today. However, it lists the wrong "Links to this page" articles AND as ony 4 items linking to the article. Can someone more technical than myself fix this so it shows the the correct items. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about Special:WhatLinksHere/Farrand & Votey Organ Company, I don't see anything wrong. There are links from the two named founders and a couple other articles, links from your sandbox pages, others related to the DYK nom, etc.. What is your concern? —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 16:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * When I click here it doesn't show correctly. I got there by clicking on History, then Page statistics for the company.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like a bug. I've reported it at phab:T243225. Nice catch. —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 17:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * released a fix less than an hour later, and it's pending deployment. Beat that [insert giant corporate software company here]! —[  Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 18:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

How to hide wikipedia searches
My search history keeps appearing in the search box, as soon as I put the cursor there. I would like this not to happen. I'm sure it's something simple I must just be missing. Suggestions? Thank you! -A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikialmado (talk • contribs) 18:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's your browser's autocomplete and websites can no longer control whether it appears. Here are instructions for turning off your browser's autocomplete – Thjarkur (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Merge new and old account
Hello, I've had an account here for many years now and recently i have been unable to log into it, i just created a new username and would like to know if an administrator can retrieve my old account which i prefer since I've edited multiple times with that account. My username for the old account is monkelese. thanks. (Monkelese15 (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * All you can do is add a note to your new user page stating that you previously edited using the previous account. RudolfRed (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Kamiyah Mobley
There was a movie and interview on TV a few days ago about the abduction of baby Kamiyah Mobley over 20 years ago, so I came here to see if there was an article about the crime. There is, and it's titled Kamiyah Mobley. I went to the article and immediately noticed a sentence in the opening paragraph that said, "She had been raised under (and now willingly goes by) the name Alexis Manigo." I thought that part in parentheses ("and now willingly goes by") was odd and, more importantly, completely contradicts what was conveyed on the TV programs (movie and post-movie interview with Mobley herself, conducted by ABC's Robin Roberts), so I looked at the source that was attached to see if it verified that claim. It did not, so I removed the parentheses part a few minutes ago. I looked in the history of the article and saw it was added in August 2018 by someone who just stuck that odd part in to an existing sentence. I then looked at that person's talk page and see he/she has been warned repeatedly about adding content without a source. I then looked at that person's other edit in August 2018 and saw he/she had changed the name of the article from "Abduction of Kamiyah Mobley" to just "Kamiyah Mobley" and included this very unusual edit summary: "living individual. while she is famous for having been kidnapped, she is alive and so could go on to do other things later in life. No disrespect to her family or her if they happen to see this." It's the title change that prompted me to come here for help. I feel this title change was wrong and the reason makes absolutely no sense. That editor is basically saying that he/she changed the title to just her name because MAYBE one day she'll be notable on her own. But the article is solely about the abduction case. Based on all this, I have a few questions. Was this an appropriate title change? Can a person have an article about them (with the title being their name only) if their only "claim to fame" is being a kidnap victim? If not, can someone here reverse the title change and put it back as "Abduction of Kamiyah Mobley"? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Link to edit in question – Thjarkur (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You are correct: the original title followed our guidelines and the new title does not. We probably need an administrator to to do the move-back. And thanks for pointing this out.-Arch dude (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I have moved the article back to Abduction of Kamiyah Mobley. (I have no admin powers.) Maproom (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all for your help on this. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)