Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2023 January 26

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.

January 26

Popups

hi, was not sure who to contact with this. But recently each time I am reading a Wiki page I get a popup that diverts me to another website which tells me I have won an Optus phone, and other stuff. Can you please make it stop?

I have taken a gyazo screen shot of it below: https://gyazo.com/1480d6dbd7b2f709dbd19e8c92d9d513 110.174.174.122 (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

That's not from Wikipedia. Your computer has probably been infected with a virus or malware. RudolfRed (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your computer might have malware. Try performing a factory reset, etc etc. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia never runs ads, let alone popup ads, so what you are experiencing is definitely adware. I'd suggest doing as Sungodtemple suggested, but also installing an antivirus software that can detect and neutralize such PUPs in the future (as well as remove the adware you currently have). Kirbanzo ^{(talk - contribs)} 02:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Please link an example wiki page. wikipedia.org does not have ads but there are thousands of unaffiliated wikis, and many sites copy Wikipedia articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

A different way of asking PrimeHunter's question: What's the URL of the/an offending wiki page? Or anyway, what's the domain name (the address as far as the first slash, so for this page it is (or anyway it should be) either "https://en.wikipedia.org" or "https://en.m.wikipedia.org")? -- Hoary (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hidden sidebar

In the new interface, I saw the right-hand sidebar only once. Then I made the mistake of clicking "hide". How can I see it again? Thank you for your help. Vzeebjtf (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Vzeebjtf: You'll find that the Tools will have migrated to the top of the page alongside other features like Edit source or History. Click on it then click "Move to sidebar" to return it to the right. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Vzeebjtf (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Images

Hello, I need assistance regarding uploading non free images, for Smooth Radio (2014) and Smooth Chill (UK radio station). Basically, they recently had new logos launched and I want to update them in the article. I have saved two images of the logos on Google but I need to know if there is anything I need to do before I upload not to violate any copyright rules. Thanks, Blanchey (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Blanchey Have you read the guidance at WP:LOGO? That has the general process. Then I suggest you click through to the file page for one of the existing logos and you'll see how the justification for using these WP:NONFREE images is written up. You don't need to worry about the resolution of your new upload: there's a bot that will automatically lower the resolution of the upload to acceptable values and delete your original. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Michael D. Turnball Thank you for your quick response, I have done it for the first article I linked. Someone might want to check I have done it all ok. I don’t want to violate any copyright rules. Thanks, Blanchey (talk) 09:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Blanchey I'm not sure that you should have uploaded your new image by replacing the old one, rather than at a completely new file page (title). The issue is that the old logo seems to have been used on several articles including Smooth Scotland, which is odd: nonfree images are usually one-per-article. Incidentally, when pinging someone using the reply tool, the safest way to do so is to use the icon that looks like a head-and-shoulders with a plus sign. That offers the editor names that are already in the thread and avoids mis-spelling, as you did with me: note the red-link in your reply. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull yes you’re right, sorry I didn’t think of that. I tried to revert myself but it won’t let me. What do you think I should do now? I don’t want to cause any more harm. Blanchey (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully someone more expert than me about nonfree images will come along soon. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Blanchey and Michael D. Turnbull: Generally, you should avoid overwriting an existing file whenever possible, especially for freely licensed and public domain files, because overwriting means that all uses of a file will be changed to the new version of the file. In the case of non-free files, it's OK to update a file if only minor changes (e.g. straightening, minor cropping or other types of incidental clean up) are made, but any major changes or any updates that essentially create a new file should be avoided as much as possible. In addtion, unlike freely licensed and public domain files, old revisions of non-free files are eligible for speedy deletion per speedy deletion criterion F5; so, if you overwrite an existing non-free file like a logo with a new completely different version of the logo, the old revision will eventually be deleted and nobody other than administrators will be able to still see it. In some cases, this matters not because the the updating is non-contentious and the change is fairly minor. In other cases, others might disagree with the update which could possibly lead to edit warring. In some cases, there might still even be a valid non-free use for the "old" file, but this would not be possible if it has been overwritten.

As for File:Smooth Radio logo.png, the change in the station's logo seems rather minor (at least it does to me); so, updating the logo is probably OK. However, as pointed out above, the same file is being used in multiple articles which means the change also needs to be assessed in respect to these uses too. It's quite possible (at probably likely) that those other uses are invalid in terms of Wikipedia's non-free content policy, but they still need to be assessed. Perhaps the thing to do here would be to start a discussion about the change at WP:FFD and (1) whether all of the uses of the file satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and (2) whether a new version of the logo should be uploaded as a separate file or an update to the existing file. It also seems likely that this logo is too simple to eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law per c:COM:TOO United States even if the same can't be said for the UK per c:COM:TOO United Kingdom. What this means is that even if the logo is too complex to be hosted by Commons, it's probably OK to be relicensed as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} for local use on English Wikipedia instead of being licensed as non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

How to query a decision on a draft page

Hi,

I'm struggling to get an answer to my query about a draft page I submitted. I posted this twice on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk but haven't had any responses. In summary:

I have edited a page: Draft:AliceVision and I believe it now meets the criteria to be accepted onto wikipedia and the recent review lacks rationale.

The latest review of this page led to a claim that "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia", with no reasoning for this conclusion given. This contrasts with months of editing and review that gave constructive feedback, with previous reviewers being positive about the page, i.e. here

> That is looking good. I will be leaving it to someone else to approve it as I have been involved in editing it but it should be looked at shortly. Gusfriend

Feedback has been acted upon and the reasoning behind choices of literature to support the page made clear.

I have been trying to communicate with @Tagishsimon, who came to rejection decision, for two weeks now, but have had no response to my posts on their talk page, or my direct email, even though they appear to be actively editing wikipedia they haven't gotten back to me. Could you please advise how I should proceed? Pluke (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I will look at your comment; sometimes patience is required. If the original reviewer isn't responding to you, they likely have nothing to say beyond what they have. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @331dot The issue is I can't see any rationale provided for their decision other than the topic not being "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". I think the notability claim has been laid out quite clearly over the last two year's of discussion. Do let me know if you have any other questions. Pluke (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Within those two years during which you believe that "the notability claim has been laid out quite clearly", five different reviewers have decided that the notability criteria have not been met (and two other reviewers prior to that two year period). The most recent decision was rejected rather than just declined, so the reviewer is telling you that it is not sensible for you to waste any more time trying to improve the submission. You ought to find a different subject which might be notable. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pluke: You should proceed by abandoning your effort to add the article. Wikipedia operates by consensus. There is a consensus here: seven or more editors have indicated that this subject is not notable by our standards. The only way to change this consensus will be if something happens in the real world (not Wikipedia) that increases the subject's notability. See WP:AMOUNT. None of the editors who have reviewed your draft have any further obligation to engage with you: you are wasting their time and they know it. If this was a vote, you have been outvoted by seven to one. -Arch dude (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@331dot explained things very well, I'm not opposed to democracy and the process here, but I'd rather it didn't appear to be arbitrary. This isn't my draft, I'm merely picking up someone else's many months of work where I thought the system was far from clear and hadn't responded to their points in its decision making. Stating "you have been outvoted" is somewhat missing my point here. Pluke (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

What's clear is that, after two years of trying, no-one has provided evidence that the subject is notable. To understand how that word it used here, click on it: it's a link. If you still disagree, state here which three of the article's references do most to establish that the subject is notable.Maproom (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Maproom I suppose I don't have a good feel for what would comprise a reference that established the notability of a software product. I'm clear with books and newspaper articles, but that's mainly for other things, not software. Pluke (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pluke, when an editor doggedly works to have an article accepted, insisting on notability in the face of insufficient evidence, other editors may start to assume that there may be a conflict of interests. Quisqualis (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a fair point, but not entirely applicable to this case and I hope that this reasoning wasnt behind the rejection. I'm not the original editor, my contribution only started a few weeks ago, you can check out the edit log. I was trying to write this article but found one already in draft mode. Reading through the previous reasoning for putting it in draft i adjusted the article to meet the criticisms and still think I did what was being asked of it, though this doesn't necessarily equate to it being notable. I'm here in good faith, willing to learn, @331dot has done a wonderful job of explaining things. I know there are systems here and I was merely asking for a little explanation.Pluke (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pluke:Let's make this more explicit. Because of your edit history and your discussions, editors assume you have a WP:COI, and that there is a possibility that you are WP:PAID. This assumption may not be valid, but it is there. Therefore, you should explain your relationship with the subject on your user page. Whatever the relationship is, it won't be any worse than the one most editors assume you have. If you are being remunerated in any way, directly or indirectly, then you MUST declare the relationship according to the Wikipedia terms of use. Otherwise you are not allowed to use the site. Your "not entirely correct" phrase implies that there is some sort of relationship. -Arch dude (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Arch dude This is really going off-track! Apologies if I've been muddying the water with some loose language. I'm happy to declare that I have no conflict of interest at all in this. It's just a popular tool I've used and wondered why it didn't have a presence on wikipedia when lots of lesser known equivalent software does. My "not entirely applicable" is a reference to one of the previous editors of the page who declared that they worked on the software. I don't know them or or have any dealings with their open source organisation other than downloading and using their software. But having read it, I do think that their response to the notability questions posed previously deserved a hearing. That's why I came here. I'm not sure what my edit history really has to do with this, surely it's very normal for someone editing am article to query a decision about that article? Pluke (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Do not like the new format

Do not like the new format 2600:1700:36E1:3F80:806E:293B:A750:A77E (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you asking about a sudden change to Wikipedia's appearance? It is because the default skin has changed from the Vector legacy (2010) skin to the new Vector (2022) skin. If you would like to change back to the old one, you can, as a registered user, click on the in the top-right corner and choose Preferences. Once there, go to Preferences → Appearance → Skins → Vector legacy (2010).
If you would like to leave feedback, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022. IP users can follow advice at this URL.Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Write an article for Felix from Stray Kids

Two weeks ago, I signed up for Wikipedia and began to do my research to write individual articles for each member of Stray Kids. It would be efficient to type one article at a time, so I decided to write about Felix from Stray Kids first. On my sandbox profile, I have been writing a draft article for Felix. In case you are unfamiliar, 22-year-old Felix Lee is a singer and rapper from Australia who is a member of the K-pop boy band Stray Kids.

A URL to Wikipedia for his page would be expected to look like this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_(singer)

I hoped I found a reliable source for some of Felix's information. Wikipedia would not allow me to cite this source:

https://nationaltoday.com/birthday/lee-felix/

With some help, I can manage to write a page for Felix and move on to his bandmates from Stray Kids (Bang Chan, I.N, Han, Hyunjin, Lee Know, Seungmin, and Changbin). Flame, not lame (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

You had a syntax error in your attempt at the citation of that reference. I have corrected it in this edit. Another editor has provided a list of useful links in a welcome message on your user talk page. Among those you should read the Manual of Style. I won't comment on the notability of the subject, but a reviewer would do so if you eventually submit the draft for AFC review when you've sorted out the problems. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, David. You're very intelligent yourself.

I wonder how long it is going to take until Wikipedia allows me to edit publicly. I have been using Wikipedia for 2 weeks, so 'tis understandable there ain't too many things I can do yet.

I appreciate your cooperation. Flame, not lame (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Flame, and welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has always allowed you (and almost anybody else) to edit publicly - even before you created an account. But if you don't edit according to Wikipedia's policies, then your edits are likely to get undone.

If by "edit publicly" you mean "create a new article", then you're in a similar position to somebody who has just had his first violin lesson, and says "How long is it going to take before they'll let me give a public recital?" Answer: you can try it whenever you like, but if you don't learn to play first, you won't be successful.

In another day, you'll be autoconfirmed, which means that the software will allow you to create an article directly in mainspace. However, if you do so, you will almost certainly have a miserable time (think of that new violin player trying to stand up and play in a concert hall). If you're lucky, somebody will move it back to draft space (functionally equivalent to the sandbox you're currently working in). If a patroller thinks that it is not salvageable (most likely because they conclude that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability) then it will get deleted.

My advice (as to all new editors) is to put aside the idea of creating any new article for several months, and learn how Wikipedia works by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles (thousands and thousands and thousands of them desperately need it!)

In any case, make sure you read your first article before working on any new submission. ColinFine (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

You also need to read about reliable sources, which don't include wikis. David Biddulph (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

You should also be aware of WP:NBANDMEMBER - while Stray Kids is a notable band, the individual members are probably not notable enough outside of the band to warrant their own articles.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

How do i remove the TOC from the top of the article. It ALWAYS prints out no matter what edits I attempt

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.90.53.12 (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

On which page? Remove it for yourself or for everybody? When you view it in a browser or when you print on paper? PrimeHunter (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)