Help desk
< March 28	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 30 >

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.

March 29

Dextra Quotskuyva -- http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Dextra_Quotskuyva

Earlier this month I, and one other person, added information about the death of Dextra. For a while it remained in the article, and now it is gone. Why?

Jkinnor (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stwalkerster removed the detail because we need evidence of this claim, through reliable sources (any reliable news media would do). Thanks, Lourdes 02:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dextra's death was not reported in any media, nor was an obituary submitted. The Hopi Tribe Enrollment Office does not consider their records as public information. I am a friend of the family, and I was in the village on the day she died. Dozens of friends and family mourned her bereavement. I know Wikipedia must guard against proliferating false news, and I know you don't want Wickipedia to become just a collection of unsubstantiated stories -- but isn't it better to allow people to enter information to the best of their ability, rather than depriving everyone of information that could be considered important? Couldn't my information be flagged with a "citation needed" remark? Jkinnor (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Color coding

Hopefully someone can help me. Somehow I accidentally adjusted something, unless editing Wikipedia changed overnight. I went through my preferences and did not see anything out of the ordinary. So basically all [edit] boxes now say [edit source] and templates/infoboxes/wikilinks/signatures/etc. are color coded in the source when I edit. Hopefully someone can lead me where to change this back to how it was before. StaticVapor message me! 02:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@STATicVapor: There are several features to add colors to source code. See Wikipedia:Syntax highlighting#Syntax highlighting of wiki-code for editors. The "Edit source" links may have another cause. If you always use the source editor then you can enable "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Thank you the first thing worked. Appreciate you taking the time to reply. StaticVapor message me! 05:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nerdwallet - why Blacklist

Dr. Google found 3 Wall Street Journal citations for Nerdwallet (2011, 2015, 2016). Is there something that happened since 2016 which is the basis of the blacklisting, and if so, is it still current? Pi314m (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Extra details not needed on help desk

Extra information to help: Trying to add <ref>The words "100% U.S.-Based Customer Service" (followed by "Talk to a real person any time") are on the back of envelopes mailed by a major USA corporation. {{cite web |url=https://www.nerdwallet.com/card-details/card-name/Discover-It-18-Month-Balance-Transfer |title=Dis... |accessdate=March 29, 2019}}</ref>

results in... ***TEXT*** Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist. To save your changes now, you must go back and remove the blocked link (shown below), and then save. Note that if you used a redirection link or URL shortener (like e.g. goo.gl, t.co, youtu.be, bit.ly), you may still be able to save your changes by using the direct, non-shortened link - you generally obtain the non-shortened link by following the link, and copying the contents of the address bar of your web-browser after the page has loaded. Links containing google.com/url? are resulting from a copy/paste from the result page of a Google search - please follow the link on the result page, and copy/paste the contents of the address bar of your web-browser after the page has loaded, or click here to convert the link.

If you feel the link is needed, you can: Request that the entire website be allowed, that is, removed from the local or global spam blacklists (check both lists to see which one is affecting you). Request that just the specific page be allowed, without unblocking the whole website, by asking on the spam whitelist talk page.

Blacklisting indicates past problems with the link, so any requests should clearly demonstrate how inclusion would benefit Wikipedia. The following link has triggered a protection filter: nerdwallet.com Pi314m (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi314m: Please take a look at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist to see how to find info on a blacklisted URL and how to get it unblacklisted if appropriate. -Arch dude (talk) 07:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How should I react to a malicious site warning on a referenced source?

I was exploring the links on Password cracking, and ended up clicking the link for the first source, hoping to see what the website had in terms of tools or explanations. What I instead got was a warning that the site is blacklisted under Google Safe Browsing, and that I shouldn't go there.

The access date for the source is in August 2013, so it's completely possible that the site was legitimate, but got compromised by attackers in the past five years.

What's the best course of action in this situation? Do I leave the source alone for sake of information, or do I remove it to greatly lower the chances of anyone on Wikipedia being harmed by the link?

Wsan2 (talk) 09:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite the template to use a copy from an archive:

{{cite web |last=Montoro |first=Massimiliano |title=Brute-Force Password Cracker |url=http://www.oxid.it/ca_um/topics/brute-force_password_cracker.htm |website=Oxid.it |access-date=August 13, 2013 |year=2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130820022054/http://www.oxid.it/ca_um/topics/brute-force_password_cracker.htm |archive-date=20130820 |url-status=unfit}}

Montoro, Massimiliano (2009). "Brute-Force Password Cracker". Oxid.it. Archived from the original on 2013-08-20. Retrieved August 13, 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)

Setting |dead-url=unfit prevents the template from linking to the original url.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bolgars

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Bulgars

Hi, this is the reason for my letter.I want to report this article, because there are some lies.About ancient part of the Bulgarian history and our ethnic. I disagree that we are Turkic, Mongols or Tatars.I`m bulgarian and believe me any bulgarian (ethnic bulgarian) looks like Indo-European, not Turkish.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.183.114.242 (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this up on the talk page Talk:Bulgars. You will need reliable published sources for any change you want to make - your own agreement or disagreement is not enough. But note that the article says "Not to be confused with Bulgarians", and starts by saying "The Bulgars ... were Turkic semi-nomadic warrior tribes" (my emphasis). This article is not talking about today's Bulgarians, but an extinct Turkic people. --ColinFine (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are guilty

If only there was at least! one! reference! on the «lack of biotinidase !!!» on "visual impairment" or "visual lost" on Wikipedia pages (Barry Wolf scientific works) then it would not be now in Russia the dying boy Filimonov Philip. All of the Russian doctors have lost the time and the boy is dying now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lora Beluch (talk • contribs) 12:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lora Beluch. If there is something missing from a Wikipedia article, and that something is supported by published reliable sources, you are welcome to add it to the article, or start a discussion about it on the article's talk page. For medical subjects the criteria for reliability of sources is exceptionally high: see WP:PUBMED.

No, neither Wikipedia nor any of the thousands of volunteer editors who you have just accused, are guilty of whatever it is you are accusing us of. Wikipedia is a user-generated site, and while we are on the whole reliable, nobody (and least of all, anybody contemplating medical treatment) should rely on anything they find in Wikipedia without checking in the reliable sources that should be cited in a Wikipedia article. I get that you are upset, and I am sorry, but blaming Wikipedia is really not reasonable. --ColinFine (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lora Beluch, do you mean to say that physicians in Russia have to rely on English Wikipedia in order to do the job they presumably have trained for over many years? That is truly shocking news; so sorry about the Filimonov boy and the absence of modern medical textbooks in your country.--Quisqualis (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Android editing issues

Hi all,

I had a look through the bug reports for wikipedia, but I'm not sure if this has been discussed (I'm sure it must have done), and I'm hoping someone could help me with how editing works on Android.

When searching through recent edits on the android chrome watchlist, clicking the link to the edit in question brings up the diff (as expected). However, if you wanted to edit the article yourself, clicking the article name brings up the indivdual edit of the page, and so attempting to edit the page only allows a view source, rather than editing. The only way to solve this is to click any blue links that occour on the page before (usually only shows when someone edits a particular section of an article/talk), or to go to the previous edit, and then the latest edit, which brings up the page itself.

Is this designed to work this way? I quite often check for updates to articles on my phone, and also make small edits this way. However, it's quite a faff to do the solution listed above to sort this out.

There's also no way to revert an edit on chrome. Is this also intentional, or am I missing a simple way to do so?

Many thanks for your time Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Verify oldest ladies

Hello.

I hope I am typing this in the correct box?

The list of verified 100 oldest women (link below) seems to be missing the two ladies at the bottom.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_the_verified_oldest_people

5 Maria Kononovich[7][8] F 27 May 1904 114 years, 306 days Belarus 6 Maggie Kidd[9] F 8 December 1904 114 years, 111 days United States — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Jaffa (talk • contribs) 13:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lord Jaffa. A much better place to discuss this is the Talk page Talk:List of the verified oldest people. Or, if you've got reliable sources, you could add them to the article yourself. I'm not clear where you got these from: the text seems to have reference numbers, so there are presumably sources, but you would need to add those sources properly: see REFB. --ColinFine (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Making images display at the same height

I want to make several images in an article all display at the same height. Specifying height in pixels is deprecated. I can't use galleries or tables because they are not in the same section. Something like the upright= parameter would be ideal, but as far as I know, that only works on image widths. SpinningSpark 14:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which article/pictures were you editing on? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really relevant, I'm looking for a general solution. SpinningSpark 14:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An absolute height is specified with x before the size per Help:Pictures#Height in pixels. I don't know a simple method to give a scaled height. A hard method is to compute the scale based on the width and height of the original file. I don't think wikitext has access to that so you must look it up on the file page. You can write |thumb|upright={{#expr:f*width/height}} where f is the wanted scaling factor, or you can make the computation yourself and write the result. It fails if a file with another width to height ratio is later displayed without adjusting the values. f* can be omitted if f is 1. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer, that's pretty much what I was afraid of. SpinningSpark 11:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: Template:Multiple image#To match image heights says "The aspect ratio of each image is automatically retrieved from the File metadata". This happens in Module:Multiple image so modules can apparently access the width and height. If a module and template was written to use this then you would still need something like |upright={{scale height|f|filename}}. I don't write modules and haven't found a module which can return the height, width or ratio. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: I've made a request at Wikipedia talk:Lua/Archive 8#Module to rationalise image scales. Feel free to comment there if you think my request is flawed in any way. SpinningSpark 18:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My Wiki Bio

Hello,

I'd like to understand why the copy I submitted wasn't approved. Is there anyone on your team that could help edit so that it reads correctly? Or point out exactly what sentences or info is delaying my page creation?

Resending copy below.

Howard McLaren has been the creative director of some of the most influential hair brands of our time: From Toni & Guy to Bumble & bumble, his perspective has informed generations of hairdressers across multiple continents. He is often credited with re-establishing razor cutting as a true technique.

Early in his career, Howard began photographing everything he did—a process that informed one of the main tenets of his approach to cutting and styling. He found that it was an individual’s personal style and the function of the look that really dictated what was right.

Over the last few years, Howard took a step back from educating in order to push the boundaries of what a salon should be, making Los Angeles his home base and opening Whitehouse, a collaboration with Amanda Wall, where they explored a blend of hair, photography, film, interiors and customer experience. Both American and French Vogue took notice.

With R+Co, Howard has finally come to a place of real differentiation. Howard’s goal is to create a brand identity that will attract, inspire and push both hairdressers and consumers to want, expect and, eventually, demand more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howardmclaren (talk • contribs) 14:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howardmclaren In brief, three reasons:

Any Wikipedia article about a person needs references to reliable published sources independent of the subject. You were already told this when your draft was declined last month.
Wikipedia is not for advertising.
Don't try to write an article about yourself.

: Bhunacat10 (talk), 14:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howardmclaren, The article A) has no references, B) Is written promotionally C) Is a stub and D) appears to be and Autobiography. All of these issues cause your Bio to fail. Even if you write it perfectly, it will have a more difficult time getting accepted because of the apparent conflict of interest. You can request for someone else to write it at WP:RA. Good luck. WelpThatWorked (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Howardmclaren: All of the above is true, but there the most fundamental problem is this: the subject of an article must me notable by our definition, not yours. See WP:N. An article about a non-notable subject will be deleted, not matter how good it is in all other ways. An article at asserts notability and backs it up with references to reliable sources(WP:RS) will be retained, even if it is not well constructed. -Arch dude (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dodgy external link

Not sure if it's just me, but clicking the first external link at the end of the Eurotunnel Class 0001 article (therailwaycentre.com), that site appears to be trying to install something on my laptop.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shantavira, Nope, It's just an ad domain, basically a dead link. I removed it. WelpThatWorked (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help embedding a pdf into an article

I am trying to embed a pdf into a paragraph on my boss's article. I have inserted the file once using the media selection, and it created another page with images of the pdf. When I try to insert that page into the article, it only pops up as an image on the side to locate it. I am trying to link the pdf without an image appearing. William_Flynn_Martin http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/William_Flynn_Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymousreagan (talk • contribs) 23:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are working on an article describing your boss there are a number of issues to address:

You have a clear conflict of interest. You need to read and follow our policy on such conflicts.
You are presumably being paid in some way for this, so also please read and follow our policy on paid editing.

In general you should not edit the article directly, you should post a request on the article's talk page giving the required change and relevant citations. A disinterested editor can then verify the information and incorporate it. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymousreagan, why would you want to do this? I am struggling to think of any circumstances in which it would be appropriate to embed a PDF in a Wikipedia article. Does it fall within commons:commons:Project scope#Allowable reasons for PDF and DjVu formats? --ColinFine (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah; as far as the original query is concerned: what kind of .pdf are trying to embed? We aren't very supportive of pdfs, since our goal is to use non-proprietary formats for as much of our content as possible. Is it an image, or a text file? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonymousreagan: Your terminology is confusing. "Embed" a file means to display or use it as part of a page. "Link" means to only make a clickable link to the file. You uploaded commons:File:Salute to Bill Martin.pdf. It can be linked with [[:commons:File:Salute to Bill Martin.pdf]] or http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Salute_to_Bill_Martin.pdf. The upload claimed it was your own work. Does that mean you wrote the speech? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a scan of a press release, which is no substitute for an actual reference (aside from copyright issues). Scans of random press clippings, in this era of Photoshop, are not regarded as reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]