Help desk
< April 7	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 9 >

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.

April 8

Do bots run on the server or on the operator's computer?

When a bot script is approved, does the bot run on the Wikipedia server or the operator's computer? I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 01:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It depends.

A standard question in the bot request for approval form (WP:BRFA) is whether the bot/script is manual, semi-manual / supervised, or automatic. Automatic bots are those who keep running without operator intervention; for instance, the archiving bots run continuously, and the bot operator does not need to trigger them. Manual and supervised bots are those who only act on a specific human request; the limit between the two is mostly a question of degree of automation - something like Twinkle where you have to select a template in a dropdown menu is manual whereas something like WP:AWB which prefills a lot of changes is supervised.

Most or all manual or supervised bots run on the operator’s computer, and most or all automatic bots run on a server. Of those that run on a server, many (most?) run on WP:TOOLFORGE (= the WMF server for community scripts). Off the top of my head, the biggest bot to not run on Toolforge is SineBot, whose source code is not open (and therefore is not allowed on Toolforge).

Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is important functionality like sinebot run by a volunteer using closed software? Is it because the foundation doesn't have enough money to pay someone to make it so that the Wikipedia software does what sinebot now does and a paid developer is there to fix bugs or add features? What do they do with the money they get from donations? 76.216.220.191 (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As explained above, SineBot is closed-source. Per the Toolforge rules, all software on Toolforge should be licensed under a free software license. I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 03:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The rules are here. Per point 2, software running there must be licensed under a OSI-approved license. I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 03:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And also, Wikipedia gets a lot of traffic, so I’m guessing that donations would go to pay for the servers. I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 03:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They mostly don't. Much has been written about their spending habits (like this in-depth essay). Per the 2021-22 Annual Plan, about 23% of their budget is being spent on "Technical Infrastructure", which includes hosting costs but also all engineering and software development. jp×g 06:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I.hate.spam, help me understand. You say "As explained above, SineBot is closed-source. Per the Toolforge rules, all software on Toolforge should be licensed under a free software license." How does that prevent the Wikimedia foundation from writing software that runs on the same servers the rest of Wikipedia runs on that would add "~~~~" to the end of this comment if I forgot to do so? There are dozens of websites that sign your comments for you. It can't be that hard to do. 76.216.220.191 (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't prevent them from doing it. But, as JPxG has hinted above, the Wikimedia Foundation isn't that keen on doing anything useful. Maproom (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The new reply tool automatically puts in the signature, but does so in a TERRIBLE way. for examples, I wont manually type the tildes right now: Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 18:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citing an editorial or opinion piece in a news source

Is there a parameter for a "cite news" reference to indicate that the item is an editorial or opinion piece as opposed to an actual news article? I've looked through the template page but found nothing that seemed suitable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, unless you use the "cite journal" template; but the text in which the editorial or opinion piece is cited should make it clear that this is just that, and not a news article. --Orange Mike | Talk 09:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Orangemike then I'll just use attribution; " According to John Doe..." Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, |type=Editorial, |type=Op Ed,etc. alternately |department=Letters to the Editor. Do not use {{cite journal}} when citing a newspaper. {{cite journal}} is for academic and scholarly articles.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk Thanks! I agree cite journal would really not be suitable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to add a link to my signature?

I would like to add a link to my user contributions page. How do I link a page on my signature? - CafeGurrier66 (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2022 (GMT+1)

See Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature.

[[User:CafeGurrier66|CafeGurrier66]] ([[User talk:CafeGurrier66|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/CafeGurrier66|contributions]])

would produce CafeGurrier66 (talk · contributions). PrimeHunter (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me to publish the draft

Hey

I can't publish a draft after reading all those tutorials it seems complicated, a lot of text and no useful quick "how to do" steps

This draft please

Draft:Kramatorsk train station attack

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by JavelinOperator (talk • contribs) 11:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JavelinOperator Creating a new article is the most difficult task on Wikipedia, which is hard to boil down to a how-to list. Normally a draft should be created and submitted using Articles for creation, but since your draft is about a current event another editor may be willing to move the draft into the encyclopedia (if it hasn't already been created). 331dot (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming references en masse

When I see the source of certain articles, I have seen some references to have an absurdingly long name such as <ref name=":2532">. Is there a script for me to rename these references back to a numerical order? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I believe some tools generate numbers for reference names, but in my opinion this is a thoroughly bad idea, as it makes it hard for people updating the article to find and reference an existing source. Human-memorable names (eg the author, or a couple of words from the title) are much better. While I'd support renaming them from numbers to useful names, I would regard renumbering them as a total waste of all human and machine resources involved in the endeavour. ColinFine (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers come from Visual Editor, or from some automated scripts like WP:REFILL. If they find a duplicate reference, they give it <ref name=":0">, the next one <ref name=":1"> etc. There must be a more intelligent way to name them (like copy the publisher or the work name), as these ref names make zero sense. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Librivox "spam"

I have come across a user whose contributions consist only in adding {{librivox book}} templates in the external links of articles (usually linking an audio recording to the page about the original work). The edits look like this (an example edit I made myself). Librivox is a freely-accessible audiobook library of public domain recordings, but it still looks a bit WP:PROMO to me - surely if a paid editor from Audible (a paid-for service) did the same we would block them very quickly.

Is that acceptable? (I am intentionally not pinging the user or linking to any of their real edits, so as to not bother them if I am the only one who has a problem with that.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: I’d not heard of Librivox, but if it truly is a non-commercial project to make content more freely available, then I see a benefit to including this template. This would be similar to putting something in the external links section. In this case, I’d consider the overall benefit to our readers. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: I'm quite familiar with Librivox and they are truly non-commercial, so it's more like adding links to the Internet Archive version of a public domain book or a Gutenberg HTML version of a book in the External Links section. I think it's an overall net positive and in that way is quite different from Audible in that it's not attempting to drive eyeballs to advertisers or money towards the parent company. If you've got concerns that this person adding the links may be a paid editor and has not disclosed that relationship, it might be best to ask them on their talk page. Jessamyn (my talk page) 16:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTPROMO applies to non-commercial ventures too (AfC rejects many articles along the lines of X is a charity in [country] that aims to energize the empowerment of elderly diabetic children with leukemia), that’s why I asked. But nobody sees that as a bad thing so I will not insist.

I would be very surprised if Librivox employed undisclosed paid editors. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing a page - banned for advertising reasons

After several attempts of trying to adapt a page's content in order to be a biography, it seems that the content is still treated as an advertising page. The page I'm trying to manage is: https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawaf_Salameh Please advise how to manage this matter, it seems to be more of a technical perspective that I'm not succeeded to overcome. I intend to have a similar page built on the English version.

Thank you! Andreea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oanagresoiu (talk • contribs) 13:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the Romanian language, so it largely beyond the scope of the English language help desk. The most common reasons why articles like this are turned down are because of a lack of cites to reliable secondary sources, and writing in a promotional style.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oanagresoiu First of all, the Romanian language Wikipedia and the English language Wikipedia may have slightly different notability requirements for biographies, so just because the article is accepted in one does not mean it will be accepted in the other. Aside from that, here are some things I notice:

The article in the Romanian Wikipedia is orange tagged as reading like an advert.
- I don't know Romanian, but even just going by what Google Translate gives me I can see why. Phrases like "became the key player in X market," and external links in the article body that lead to corporate or personal websites are strong indicators of promotional writing.
You have had a draft article about this same person deleted here on the English Wikipedia for advertising before. It has also been deleted twice under WP:G13 - meaning it went 6 months without being edited.
- If you want the text of the previous versions to try to draft another article in English I can restore those for you, but be warned that it will not be easy.
- The last version of the draft here was declined by AFC for not having enough inline citations and for reading like an advertisement.
- The last draft here exhibits some of the same problems as the Romainian version. There are external links in the article body leading to his companies' websites. There are whole sections (education and private life) that cite no sources at all. The draft reads like it is trying to make him look good.
My advice would be to hang around and edit other articles for a while. Check out the Wikipedia:Task Center for articles in need of copyediting, or sources. Look for sources on articles you don't know much about. Get involved with some of our processes that recognize quality content like good articles or Did you know. Get involved with some of our processes for handling bad content like articles for deletion. Hanging around those areas will help you learn what to do and what not to do. Once you feel you are sufficiently familiar with the many confusing standards we apply to content, maybe then you can try your hand at drafting an article from scratch. 13:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC) ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 13:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Captchas every time I post with a message about adding an external link

I'm getting a message claiming that I need to solve a captcha to avoid external link spam every time I post something that includes a signature. There are no external links in my signature. There are two html tags: span and small, but no external links of any sort. This is getting pretty annoying after only 2-3 posts. Is this because I'm a new account? Happy (Slap me) 15:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I didn't have to solve a captcha to post the above. Happy (Slap me) 15:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2022_April_3#CAPTCHA. Apparently this does happen if you are not autoconfirmed. The best thing to do is to acquire enough sensible edits until you are autoconfirmed; there doesn't appear to be a way round this. Maybe the bot thinks that anything with HTML is a link.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait three more days, and you won't see the captcha again. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answers, all. They track with my expectations, so it's good to know I'll be past this in a few days. I've already got ten edits. Happy (Slap me) 01:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article history

I recently edited the article Harvey Sark, copyediting and reformatting it. I didn't create the article, but my edit is the only one displayed in the revision history. I'm worried that I've usurped the credit due to the original author. Is there a way I can fix this? Thank you. Quid Est Squid (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Quid Est Squid It looks like Draft:Harvey Sark was created by someone else, and somehow in your attempt to edit the draft, you must have accidentially copied and pasted it to mainspace at Harvey Sark. At any rate, Harvey Sark is not showing any edit history prior to your creation earlier today, and Draft:Harvey Sark looks like it could have been the origin of the reformatted article that's now in mainspace. I can merge the histories, but I'm not sure if it's ready for mainspace or if it should stay in draft. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the history from the draft back into the mainspace article. What I think happened, is that Bbb23 moved it from mainspace to draft while you were editing the version in mainspace. You hit publish and either didn't get an edit conflict notice or ignored the edit conflict notice (I'm not sure if you would get an edit conflict notice if the page was moved?). The software interpreted it as a new page creation.

I've left it in mainspace for now as it seems to be being actively edited by at least 2 people. But it needs more sources than findagrave if it's to stay in mainspace. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ONUnicorn Thanks for helping! I didn't see an edit conflict notice. I'll see if I can find some more reliable sources. Quid Est Squid (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Just wondering how to use Wikipedia.. I'd enjoy partaking of the workload.. do I make an account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.231.11.53 (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You do not have to create an account - you can do most things without logging in - but there are advantages in doing so, particularly in other editors being able to get in contact with you. Please see Help:Introduction, and you might like to try The Wikipedia Adventure. Happy editing! ColinFine (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Your edit has triggered an automated warning because it looks like you're trying to add an email address to this page."

I tried to add the following to Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 4#Wikipedia is swimming in money—why is it begging people to donate? - but with @ instead of [at].

 * Related: [https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l [at] lists.wikimedia.org/thread/DJ5FEGQDMECLWVQCFBFBLNY7LKEXMSBC/#6ZTSYTCVUDG4NCI4M4XJE73KGV2HUEN7 Form 990 clarification request (for the attention of WMF accounts staff)]

I got an error saying that I was trying to add an email address.

Is there a way to format links to lists.wikimedia.org that avoids the @ sign?

23:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:D156:608D:8499:313E (talk)

Comments, questions, and complaints about fundraising should go to donate@wikimedia.org. RudolfRed (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not get any warning about adding that email address. Maybe that filter is only for unregistered users? RudolfRed (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tried it. The result was.

 Welcome to Wikipedia!
 
   Your edit has triggered an automated warning because it looks like you're trying to add an email address to this page. Doing that, especially with a personal email address, is usually a bad idea as it can attract large amounts of spam. Though there are a few legitimate reasons to include an email address, in most cases Wikipedia will remove email addresses that are added to articles or discussion pages.
 
   If you want to communicate with a particular user via email, Wikipedia has a built-in email function you can use. If you would like to request general assistance, the fastest way is usually to post a question at the Help Desk. Wikipedia also provides a guide to asking for help — including via email — if you feel that is necessary.
 
   If you still wish to continue with your edit, you may hit "Publish changes" again below, and it will be submitted as is. However, we would encourage you to consider carefully before posting a live email address on this site.

I believe that you can test this by logging off and posting.

Also, whether or not you agree with where I wanted to post the message, it still would be desirable for unregistered editors to be able to post links to Wikimedia's official mailing lists without getting the error message. Is there a way to format links to lists.wikimedia.org that avoids the @ sign?

23:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:D156:608D:8499:313E (talk)

According to the message you quoted, to get past the filter, "[...] you may hit "Publish changes" again below, and it will be submitted as is." RudolfRed (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted the case to Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports#2600:1700:d0a0:21b0:d156:608d:8499:313e. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to format [https] links ... that avoids the @ sign? I haven't tested it, but %-encoding the '@' as '%40' may work. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 20:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]