Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2020 November 11

= November 11 =

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.182.195.49 (talk) 05:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * IP editor, did you read the comments below? We would need more to go on before we can help you (e.g., article in question). — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  05:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Region locked external linkspam?
to sonyliv.com are region locked for me. I'm dubious about them and think they're well meaning but wrong. Can someone with regional access (India) have a look at them please. Thanks. - X201 (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sony Liv is a video on demand service - this user has been spamming links to this service. I do not think they're well meaning at all - they certainly seem like spam. User should be blocked. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  13:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Annotated link
I tried to fix a typo in an article (dupe word), but the error is in the following annotated link and could not be directly edited: How to fix? Thanks, E. aka:107.15.157.44 (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify what the error is? I don't see any page protection on the article, so you should be able to edit it directly. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have fixed this by editing the short description at the head of the Zeitgeist article. Any article containing the annotated link may need a "purge" before it will display the corrected version - see Purge for instructions on how to do this. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- I'll keep that in mind in case I come across a similar problem in the future. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The Wiki page about me is in draft mode
I am a writer and author and am cited throughout Wikiedia and the internet. There is an extensive IMDB page about me (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0032312/) as well as includsion in multiple Simpsons wiki's, as I wrote very populare episode of that that show.

I am profiled in the wiki page about the Simpsons Episode I wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer%27s_Triple_Bypass My writing partner on that episode has a wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Carrington_(voice_actor)

Not know this was not allowable, I hired a certified wikipedia contributor to create my page. Every single thing is meticulously referenced. He would not net me include anything unless it was completely verified to Wikipedia's standards.

If you visit the page that is in draft mode, you can check. Everything is verified.

The issue is -- I am not a celebrity. I don't have fan clubs of my own, (though most Simpsons fan clubs know my work). How else am I supposed to have a Wikipedia page?

I could have asked a friend to start one, or do it myself, but I wanted it done properly. Which it is -- other than the fact I paid someone. I did not know this was a disqualifier.

Regardless, my accomplishments and imprint I believe merit a page.

If everything can very verified (which it can, can you please reinstate the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.74.244.230 (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Notability, not existence, is the metric we use for inclusion. Everything being "verified" is irrelevant if you haven't been written about in newspapers, news magazines, or trade publications. Also, hiring mercenaries only serves to torque us off. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Takes a strong man to deny... 20:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The draft in question is Draft:Gary Apple. First of all, there is no such thing as a "certified wikipedia contributor". You got conned by an undisclosed paid editor who has been blocked indefinitely. The best of the references is a brief interview with you in the New York Times that focuses on your joke gadget and toy website, which isn't discussed in the draft. The other references are brief passing mentions of you in connection with that website, or in connection with plays that you wrote. None of them devote significant coverage to Gary Apple as a person. Without significant coverage in several reliable sources, I doubt that the draft will be accepted. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  20:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a couple of comments – the "certified wikipedia contributor" was not certified by Wikipedia. Most Wikipedia editors (like those who have responded above, and me) disapprove of paid editors, who do badly and for money what we do better and for free. Maproom (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, Gary Apple. I'm sorry that you've been scammed, but that is actually what has happened. Whatever the guy told you he could do, he was not in a position to do. That's not how Wikipedia works. Even if he had been able to find the references to make the article viable, it would not belong to you or to him, and you would not have had any control over the contents thereafter. In short, a Wikipedia article is not in any way for the benefit of its subject. (Of course, many subjects do get benefit from an article about them - and some get the reverse. But neither of these has anything at all to do with the purposes of Wikipedia). --ColinFine (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You may also wish to read An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.  Seagull123  Φ  17:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. Before we get bogged down in the terminology and semantics of what the OP termed, phrased, etc; and what he may or may not have been scammed into ... let's just simply look at the article for what it is: admissible or not? He could have not been forthright with his backstory and simply published the article to a main space and probably never had a single eye question it. From what I'm seeing, it does pass for General Notability. So, let's let the other stuff slide and not get sidetracked into the "how" and "why" but more notability. Simply googling some of his content credits such as "Christmas in Hell" renders enough secondary sources, and although the Bibliography section is not formatted correctly, that can easily be rectified. His television work is substantial and checks out, and the references provided are WP acceptable sources: Newsday, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, etc. I'm sure, a seasoned WP editor could fix all of this in a matter of minutes. I would suggest helping this truthful BLP rather than piling on the "know-it-all" attitude that he got duped and "that's not how WP works". I would say the article is strong enough for inclusion; but needs an experienced eye at WP to get it back on track. Maineartists (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Privacy violation-potential stalker
There's an anonymous user who altered an article about my family member that no one outside my family knows. The family member is a public figure and has very controversial opinions, with many people who disagree to the point of threats. This is at the very least damaging and at worst potentially harmful information to be made public. Privacy laws allow for anonymity through IP addresses, however I would like to argue that the potential for harm overrides this policy and I would like to identify the user if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Handelradio (talk • contribs)
 * If you identify the article in question, we can investigate and possibly protect the article against IP editing if justified by policy. There is no way that anyone on Wikipedia can help you identify the person using an IP address. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  21:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Is the information properly sourced? If so, what do you mean by "that no one outside my family knows"? -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  21:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The article in question appears to be Bill Handel and the contentious material about a marriage separation is unreferenced. I will take a close look and warn the responsible party. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  21:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If the information is not cited to a reliable source, you can and should remove it immediately: see WP:BLP. This directive overrides our guideline that you should not edit the article directly due to your WP:COI. I recommend that you continue to handle this via our processes here, which are generally quick and effective. You are free to pursue off-wiki legal action such as asking for help with the identity of the anonymous editor through a lawyer. However, if you do, you are prohibited from any further editing of Wikipedia: see WP:LEGAL. -Arch dude (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have semi-protected the article and removed the unreferenced "Personal life" section, which has been a magnet for contentious editing. Please do not add personal comments like "none of your business" to the article. That simply isn't permitted in Wikipedia articles. Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  21:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Will I be notified if the user is identified? The specifics (names) mentioned in the separation were known only to my family. It is very concerning that someone else publicly posted the situation. I would like to be kept informed if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Handelradio (talk • contribs) 05:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No website can reliably link an IP address to a person. This is not due to legal considerations, but technical ones. Hence "Wikipedia" as a whole cannot do that identification, even if we wished to. If someone can, it is the internet service provider who is managing the IP address pool; such an organization will likely not give out personal details of their customers without being compelled by legal authority (either a court order or a government request). The most Wikipedia can do in terms of identification is linking an account name to an IP address or addresses (but that is not even needed in the case of "anonymous" editors since their IP address is posted).
 * You should consult a qualified attorney if you intend to take any legal action against the IP editor who posted personal details, but my free advice is: don't. I very much doubt the allegations in the article history would be legally actionable in a US jurisdiction, and even if they were the cost of litigation would be far out of proportion of any provable reputational damages.
 * In addition to the semi-protection that was applied, the only real thing you could ask for on the Wikipedia side is to remove the article history from public view ("oversight"). I see an argument based on criterion #1 "removal of non-public personal information", though in my eyes it is fairly weak. Fill out this form if you want to request oversight. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 12:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

edit/view history
Hello. I'm hoping someone can help me navigate Wikipiedia and help me edit my page. I recently updated and made changes but my page doesn't show any revisions. If I go to "view history" it shows the changes I made but for some reason it didn't transfer over to my page. Any information or insight would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.196.226 (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What page are you editing? RudolfRed (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The page I was editing was Anatol Yusef. I can see the changes I made in "view history" but nothing was changed on the actual page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.196.226 (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I can't see any edits under that number. Do you have an account with a user name?Spinney Hill (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Photo glitches in articles
I am having problems with photos I uploaded to Wikimedia commons and Wikipedia.

I put them in their designated articles, but when you view the articles on wikipedia, the photo names are just there in red like they don't exist.

Is this a glitch or web error and is it possible you can help me?

Here are the links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Shivers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Notte_Jr.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Allan_Shivers_(1956).png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John_Notte_(1961).png

I got a response via email and was told to go here - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T267668

However I still don't understand how to fix it.

Are administrators and software editors working to fix this? BacktoSchoolForever0700 (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, : you're right, that is a bug, and the Phabricator page you were directed to is the bug report. You can see that a couple of developers were discussing it yesterday, but all that happened today was that another instance of the bug was merged into that report, and some more developers were added to the bug report as watchers. I don't think there's anything you can do but wait until they fix it. I've added a comment which may or may not be helpful. (Admins can't help, by the way). --ColinFine (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I understand. I just saw the comment on the report page. I apologize for mentioning or suggesting administrators. I presumed that they could some how fix the problem and I was wrong. My bad, no hard feelings. Thank you for your help.BacktoSchoolForever0700 (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

My work disapied
Hello, I have recently spent the last 2 hours updated the format of the Palace Entertainment page, My update including converting the Former Property section to a table format. I did this to add more context about these property's however once I completed the table and save it the page my work had complete diapered. I was wondering what I did wrong and how I can fix it so next I don't loss my work with out context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJddog5 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, . If you look at the page History, you will see that edited the article after you did, with the comment " removed extraneous text, replaced:, Untied States → United States, typo(s) fixed:  aswell → as well". They may have thought that your edits were unhelpful, or they may have accidentally removed them: I haven't investigated. Either way, the thing to do now is to open a discussion with them and any other interested editors on the article's talk page Talk:Palace Entertainment. See WP:BRD. (By the way: your edits aren't lost: they're there in the history, so if the consensus is to restore them, that can be done). --ColinFine (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

That was regarding edits from eariler I tried subbmiting the tabel after they had made that edit. Thanks for you Input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJddog5 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Lemmings
Apparently, there is a video game called Lemmings published by Sirius Software in 1980s for the Apple II: https://www.mobygames.com/game/apple2/lemmings_____

I only learned of the game's existence from a comment by User:BOZ at Talk:Lemmings (video game). I have never played it, because I have never owned (or even got a chance to use) an Apple II. So the online resources are all I know about the game.

This might still deserve an article in Wikipedia because it's the first ever video game named Lemmings, predating the far more famous game Lemmings (video game) by nine years. Should I write a Wikipedia article about it? J I P &#124; Talk 23:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you can find enough sources to show the game is notable, yes. See WP:N. The sources don't need to be online.  RudolfRed (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There are the two reviews I mentioned on the talk page, and I thought I had found more, but not yet. There are probably more sources out there in early 80s magazines that I have not located yet. BOZ (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has eight separate articles, on various Lemmings releases. See Category: Lemmings games.  Maproom (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The game by Sirius Software does not have anything to do with the Lemmings games. It's just named "Lemmings", that's all. J I P  &#124; Talk 10:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)