Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2022 October 16

= October 16 =

Access to Various Newspaper etc. Archives
A while ago, WP informed me that I have access to some sort of Global newspaper arechive (probably consisting of Gale, and others). Yes, and I tested that, it works well. But now I would require access, but have forgotten what it is called and where to find it. I would be glad if anybody could help. Thanks! Oalexander (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * welcome to the help desk! You may be thinking of The Wikipedia Library which includes access to various publishers. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You might be thinking of Newspapers.com; I've found that to be a very useful resource to get access to via the Wikipedia Library and have renewed for...maybe 4 or 5 years in a row now. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for solving my problem, and . Cheers, Oalexander (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Can I use this as a reliable source?
Hello editors, I have found myself another editor disagreeing that this source isn't considered reliable. When my claim is that, it is.

Here's the link. Do note that the publication is also notable and had a page on Wikipedia, here O Heraldo.  Rejoy2003  01:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * "Letters to the editor" aren't acceptable sources except as allowed for by WP:SPS no matter the outlet they are published in. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 01:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As an additional note, being notable under Wikipedia's criteria doesn't mean they are reliable. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 02:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm that makes sense. Also added to my query above, the subject I'm working on is a deceased person. The source I mentioned from what I find is useful is named "Adeus Fr Nevel Gracias" a small writing by Edgar Martins. I did a quick search on the writer, he's been featured in a couple publications which can be found on the internet. And possibly is an expert. Can't I still use it as a reliable source?  Rejoy2003   05:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * An expert in this case is generally going to be a biographer of that person or an expert in the specific field that made your article subject notable. You need to know they are an expert and be able to show why they are an expert.  Possibly doesn't cut it, you've created enough articles to understand this.  Ravensfire  (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, it would have been courteous for Rejoy2003 to have pinged the other editor involved in discussion.  Ravensfire  (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Isabelle Belato, @Rejoy2003 Hmmm, that's a bit confusing, Isabelle (may I call you that?).  Information from a reliable publication  is used to demonstrate that a subject is notable.  I don't think publications are described as notable. David10244 (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @David10244: My answer was to the fact the OP used the publication's notability as a sign of reliability, so I explained those two things are not directly related. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 15:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Isabelle Belato, @Rejoy2003 I agree with that; I doubt that Letters to the Editor are fact-checked.  Also, reliable publications often have "Op-Ed" or opinion pieces, which are someone's opinion, and I believe those are not reliable references even when they appear in a reliable publication.  I don't think we call publications notable; we use notable for subjects of articles.  The references in an article that are sourced to independent, reliably published sources should show the article subject's notability. David10244 (talk) 01:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @David10244, publications can be called notable when discussing whether there should be an article about the publication itself. Isabelle Belato's point is that the notability of the publication is unrelated to its reliability. For example, The Epoch Times and Daily Mail are both notable publications, and we have articles about them, but both are deprecated for use as references, and cannot be used to establish notability of some topic reported on by the publication. I have seen inexperienced editors argue incorrectly that a publication is reliable simply because there is a Wikipedia article about the publication. CodeTalker (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @CodeTalker Yes, I get that, but the publication isn't the subject of the article...  So I thought that was an edge case.  Noted, however.  I see the OP's confusion. David10244 (talk) 04:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between reliable outlets and reliable sources. As an example I normally give, an interview (an unreliable source) in the New York Times (a reliable outlet) is every bit as usable as an interview by Borat (an unreliable outlet). And as pointed out, having a Wikipedia article doesn't make an outlet reliable. We have articles on obviously unusable outlets like The Onion, MAD Magazine, and Space Ghost Coast to Coast. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 02:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well what do you have to say about my question above? I won't focus myself on what Isabelle said earlier (just playing safe)  Rejoy2003  07:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC).
 * Well, you didn't sign your post, so I don't know which comment you mean... David10244 (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Uh the thing that started this all? Then I replied to Jeske and Isabelle but didn't recieve a reply inturn, what do you think about that?  Rejoy2003  07:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rejoy2003 What do I think about the source? Since it's a Letter to the Editor, and anyone can write anything they want in a Letter to the Editor, including stuff they made up, I think the source is not usable in Wikipedia.  If you're asking what I think about not receiving a reply, I have no comment on that... David10244 (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

How to find history of a redirect
Hi! I would like to make a separate article for the collaborative fiction Million Penguins, which currently takes up much too much space in the article on Collaborative fiction. Million Penguins currently redirects to Collaborative fiction, which makes me think there has been a debate about this previously? Million Penguins is a notable work(some reliable independent sources are 1, 2, 34, 5) but there are so many other examples of collaborative fiction that it makes the article on Collaborative fiction very unbalanced to include more than a sentence about Million Penguins. Lijil (talk) 06:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Lijil, to find the history of a redirect such as Million Penguins, click on the blue link, scroll to the top of the page which will say "(Redirected from Million Penguins)" and click on that blue link. That will display an unredirected version and you can click on the history tab. You will find that the Million Penguins page was created as a redirect.
 * The section about Million Penguins was added to Collaborative fiction here and the redirected article was Wikinovel. TSventon (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that was just what I needed! Lijil (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

post to notify of a fraud
I posted on "Volt" that the "product" called "volt" was a fraud yet it got deleted. how does one notify of a fraud. Rogerinfrance (talk) 09:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * It's a reference to this edit. This is very vague and beyond the scope of the article anyway.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There are two major problems with your edit, Rogerinfrance. The first is that it had absolutely nothing to do with the article you edited, which is about the SI unit of potential, not about any product that happens to have the same name. The second is that it was unsourced. If you have a reliable published source that says that a particular product is fraudulent, and if we have an article about that product, then it is likely that the conclusions of that source should be mentioned. But the answer to "how does one notify of a fraud" is "Not through Wikipedia". See WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. ColinFine (talk) 12:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Change user display settings back to default?
Hello, I'm having a really tough time figuring this out--how do I revert my display settings, specifically skin setting back to default? I can't get it to change from Timeless back to Vector 2022, the Save button is greyed out. Krimp Varkey (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you have "Timelesss" at Special:Preferences and when you select "Vector (2022)", the "Save" button at the bottom is greyed out and unclickable? It works for me. Try this or this link. Try to change other things before saving. The changes can also be in other tabs. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Template inclusions don't "note" a link change
Two days ago, I have moved Fokker F.I (1917) to Fokker F.I, and I have adapted the links in infoboxes Template:Fokker aircraft and Template:Idflieg Dr-class designations. Still the articles containing any of those infoboxes don't seem to "note" that change, and the articles containing such an infobox still show up in the link list of that now-redirect with the brackets. Why? Refreshing cache one way or another does not seem to help. --KnightMove (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Articles are cached so changes to templates aren't immediately reflected in the articles that transclude them. When you find an article that doesn't reflect the template changes that you made, edit the article, make no changes, and save it.  That will generally force the article cache to refresh.  Or just wait; the job queue will eventually get around to the articles that need refreshing.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, an empty edit in Fokker D.VII really got it out of the link list. This is of course inefficient, which is why I will wait, thanks. --KnightMove (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In many cases the article will change before WhatLinksHere so don't be confused if the article no longer has the link but still appears in WhatLinksHere. A purge updates the article but not link tables. A null edit or any other edit updates both. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

How to create a new article without being logged in
I will no longer be logging in due to a series of events that make we want to remain anon from now on. How can I create new articles without logging in? 108.168.93.43 (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I believe you can still create drafts and submit them to AfC as anon. Sungodtemple (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * } indeed, and doing so is the only possible way. When doing so please be aware of WP:LOUTSOCK, editing while logged out in order to get around a block or topic ban is not allowed. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's more anonymous to use an account, not less. You are free to stop using an existing account and use a new one, as long as you aren't doing as Victor warns above. 331dot (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * is it not the case that checkuser will link a new account back to the original anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.168.93.43 (talk • contribs) 16 October 2022 16:05 (UTC)
 * That is certainly possible. Though checkuser tools aren't intended to be used against new accounts unless there are grounds to suspect block evasion etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but that may not be enough separation of church and state in this particular case. It appears that draft is the only way then. My experience with draft has been rather uninspiring, but I suppose c'est la vie. 108.168.93.43 (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You are far less anonymous while editing from an IP than while editing from a registered account that does not disclose personally identifying information. Cullen328 (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's right. As an IP address, anyone can see who your ISP is, and where you are located. We can also examine contribution from other IP addresses in the same range, in case your ISP reassigns another dynamic IP address to you. That stuff isn't available if you have an account. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And that anonymity disappears for anyone that has or can have someone invoke checkuser. Given the particulars of the situation, this is a concern to me. 108.168.93.43 (talk) 13:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Checkusers aren't supposed to be discussing any information they might find out when looking at accounts suspected of WP:SOCK. The most they usually say is that the accounts are technically undistinguishable (i.e. they're using the same IP address). Checkusers are subject to WP:OUTING just like everyone else. Moreover, checkusers are only supposed do their thing when they believe there's a strong policy based reason for doing so. If you create an account and edit according to relevant policies and guidelines, there should be no reason for a checkuser to be looking at your account. If, however, you create an account and your edits start becoming a concern that reminds someone of similar concerns caused by another account, then people might start digging a bit to see if there's a connection between the accounts. If you previously edited using a different account and want to now create a new account, then you can as long as you follow WP:MULTIPLE and WP:CLEANSTART as long as your previous account isn't currently blocked or banned for some reason; in other words, you can't create a new account simply to WP:EVADE. If you create a new account and want to connect it to your prior account, you can but you're not really required to do so. If, however, you start editing the same articles as before, then it's possible that others might make that connection for you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "And that anonymity disappears for anyone that has or can have someone invoke checkuser." No, that is an invalid rationale, because you never had any anonymity with checkusers to begin with. Right now, a checkuser could correlate the IP address you are using with a past account. But they don't do stuff like that unless they have cause to do so. A checkuser who goes on a fishing expedition would lose the checkuser right. The right is given only to people who can be trusted with it. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly familiar with what checkusers are supposed to do and not do. Unfortunately, this does not assuage my concern in this case. As such, it seems the simple solution is to bring my 20 year Wiki experiment to a close. I will upload my pending edits and use draft for new ones and not bother anyone further. 108.168.93.43 (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Anachronist "As an IP address, anyone can see who your ISP is, and where you are located."  My IP address used to geolocate to a city hundreds of miles away from my house.  I haven't checked lately.  As for "who your ISP is", most high-speed Internet in my state comes from one provider.  At least in my case, an IP address doesn't reveal much.  Does "Denver, Comcast" (to make something up) really give out much personal information? David10244 (talk) 04:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would know more about you from your IP address than from your username. I would at least know the state you live in, and possibly your city. A geolocation on a map might, rightly or wrongly, bias me about your political outlook or ideology (say, it geolocates to a minority community or a wealthy community). I would know whether you are editing from work (your employer likely has its own dedicated range), and I could inform your employer of your activity if I wished. I would know the subnet you're using and I could examine edits from other addresses in that subnet. If you libel me, I wouldn't have to get a court order to compel the Wikimedia Foundation to reveal anything about you, I can bypass that step and go directly to your ISP. I'll grant you that much of this is stuff that you can choose to reveal yourself on your user page, and many people do. The point I was trying to make is that I do know more about you from your IP address than from your username. It may not be much more, and it may not be a big deal to you, but it is more information nevertheless. You have more privacy with an account here than an IP address. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Anachronist Interesting.  I didn't know all of that. Although, and you mention, I don't really care if anyone knows the state I live in, and when the geolocation is hundreds of miles off, it's not even true (that's the "wrongly" part).  I think that I used to geolocate to the adjacent state.  If someone geolocates to, say, Denver, that's not a "minority community" but if someone geolocates to particular suburbs (like Compton, California or Bed-Stuy, NY) it might be different.  And of course, none ever Wikis from work, do they?  Other addresses in my subnet will be scattered across the region I live in that has 250,000 people.  But thanks for the info; I learned something from it.  Cheers. David10244 (talk) 06:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wiki from work isn't uncommon. I occasionally run across IP addresses with extensive contribution histories that belong to corporate or government ranges. For example, look at the numerous contributions from a SAS Institute IP address and also from CVS Health and from the US Department of State. I happen to be taking a short work break now, for example, and I am writing this reply to you from work, and my employer's internet policy allows reasonable personal use. However, because I am logged in, you can't tell where I'm editing from. My work IP address also geolocates to a different state, because we are all forced to use the company VPN. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A couple of other points: if you use another web site which, like Wikipedia, also publicly identifies users by IP address, then someone could easily connect those accounts; that is, determine that the same person is using both accounts, which, depending on the nature of the other web site, you may not want to happen. Also, given your IP address, someone could attempt to directly access your computer. In most cases, this attempt will be blocked by your firewall, but it seems foolish to publicly broadcast the information to allow someone to even make the attempt. CodeTalker (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

How to resubmit the same rejected content from different account? The content was rejected because of the account problem and not because of the content
Is there anyway we could resubmit the same content that got rejected because of the account that was submitted at first?

I wanted to know if I can submit the same content with my own account that is almost a month old? 122.172.205.91 (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please log into your account. Please provide a link to the draft in question and explain the account problem. Cullen328 (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the page that got deleted — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saikiran_Chandha
 * Can I resubmit it from my account? 122.172.86.153 (talk) 07:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No you cannot. You are blocked. The article was deleted by user:MER-C because you created it in violation of your block. You are not allowed to edit using any account or IP until you get unblocked. Meters (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

A site did copy my Wikipedia content
A site copied my material of Gian Piero Ventrone, see here. What do I do? Dr Salvus 20:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing. If they copied from Wikipedia, there is no issue. They should attribute that it came from here, but everything written on Wikipedia is released to be copied under CC-BY-SA.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You can use Backwards copy if you're worried about future editors thinking the Wikipedia article plagiarized from the website. Umimmak (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * You own the copyright to material that you contributed to Wikipedia. When you hit the "publish" button, you licensed your copyright to everyone under the CC-BY-SA. If they adhered to your license by attributing the material to Wikipedia, then there is no problem. If they did not attribute the material, then they have violated your copyright. Wikipedia (i.e., the employees or volunteers representing the WMF) will take no action. However, you, as the copyright holder, can take action, as described at Mirrors and forks. You start by sending a polite request that they attribute Wikipedia, and if that fails, you proceed, through several steps (do not skip steps), eventually sending a DMCA takedown notice to the ISP that the web site is connected to if all else has failed. -Arch dude (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel a little bit flattered? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Ferrari Mondial
The sources for this article appear to be scans of magazine articles hosted under someone's own web domain. Is this not a blatant violation of copyright? I don't think the material on the page itself is a copyright violation, it's attributed properly but I just think the source itself, hosting copyrighted documentation on someone's own web domain (alexchua.com), is the issue at hand. I'd like some help as to whether this is an issue or not. Thank you X-750 List of articles I have screwed over 23:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's an issue... But it is one with an easy fix. Just need to cite the magazine itself and remove the link to the copyrighted print.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Can do. Cheers X-750 List of articles I have screwed over 23:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Sammy bray jr
Why can't I start a account 75.31.41.84 (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

this was added to Wikipedia talk:Username policy and I have shifted it to here --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 23:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Nothing is stopping you unless your IP address is blocked from account creation, but typically this happens only as part of a block on editing, which wouldn't be the case here since you were able to post the question. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)