Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2020 May 15#Bing Liu .28scientist.29

I'm curious - what does the "external links" number refer to on xtools? It's not the number of references included in an article, nor is it the number of wikilinks included in an article, as those are both given as separate numbers. --Jpcase (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

:{{Re|Jpcase}} External links (e.g. [https://example.com Example])? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

::{{ping|Jpcase}} Please include a link when you refer to something. There are 13 XTools at https://xtools.wmflabs.org/. I guess you mean Page History, linked on "Page statistics" in Wikipedia page histories. External links is about Help:Link#External links but I'm not sure precisely what is included in the count. I tried some small random examples and it didn't always match my own count. For example, I see 5 on Jardin des Plantes Sauvages du Conservatoire botanique national de Bailleul, including the coordinates at the top right. Page History says 6. Special:ExpandTemplates shows a total of 9 links with external link syntax are produced in the wikitext: The 5 I see and 4 going to //en.wikipedia.org. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

:::{{Re|PrimeHunter}} Sorry for not specifying - I'm not really familiar with XTools, so I didn't realize that would be any ambiguity when referring to it. Yes, I'm referring to the "Page statistics" that you can navigate to through any Wikipedia article's "view history" tab. Once you go to "Page statistics", under the "General statistics" heading, in the second row, there are three subheadings: Edits, Links, and Prose. The fourth number given under "Links" is for "External links". I'm familiar with the concept of external links on Wikipedia, but as you've pointed out, the number of external links counted by XTools doesn't always seem to match up with the actual number of external links that can be found in the article.

:::I'm guessing that for the article you linked, maybe the sixth external link is the one pointing to the French Wikipedia? Do interlanguage wikilinks count as external links? Even if that's the case though, I've seen the XTools external links count seemingly fail to match with the actual number of external links found in some articles that have no interlanguage wikilinks, so I'm still confused about what Xtools does and doesn't count as an external link Actually, right before publishing this comment, I figured it out.

:::The external links counted by xTools seems to include all unique urls pointing to a website other than Wikipedia...or at least, other than the English Wikipedia, if the interlanguage wikilinks are also counted. So the number of external links counted by Xtools includes all references with unique urls, regardless of whether the references are formatted in the [https://example.com Example] style mentioned above by {{U|AlanM1}} or in the {{cite web |url= style. If two separate references have the exact same url (which might happen if say, different time stamps in the same video or podcast are cited as separate references) then those references are counted as one external link. As an example, if the only external links included in an article are references, and if that article has ten references, but two of those references share the exact same url, then only nine external links will be counted for that article.

:::Of course, references aren't the only types of external links that can be found on a page. Anything included in the "External links" section of an article will be counted. Further, external links in an article could include those coordinates you mentioned or links included as part of Authority control. Thanks for helping me piece this together! :) --Jpcase (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The article is Fred Lorenzen. I made two corrections. One was published but has a red cite error message on it. I cant get the site message to disappear although the correction has been made. The second is a correction in the same section under final win. It lists the American 500 which is incorrect. It should read Daytona qualifier 1967. That information only appears when the year 1967 is highlighted, but it does not replace the existing misinformation. American 500 Martinsville. your help is appreciated. Steve SamplesSJS28 (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

:{{ping|SJS28}} I appreciate your good faith attempt to improve the Fred Lorenzen article, but your edits were technically incorrect, so I have reverted them. I suggest you post on the article's talk page - Talk:Fred Lorenzen - to discuss your suggestions with other knowledgeable editors. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I created an account with the user name Lipav123. I started to create a draft through the article wizard for the article named Anthony Radetic. I created text and an inbox. I cannot find the draft anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lipav123 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

:You may have done so, but if you did then you didn't save it. Your contributions history shows no such draft. No "Draft:Anthony Radetic" has ever existed. -- Hoary (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

RE:

{{Quote|

Hello, I'm Mr.Sarcastic. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Four Star Mary, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mr.Sarcastic (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)}}

I do not have a link to 'prove' that Four Star Mary performed a gig with James Marsters in a London bar in April 2001 (plus many other venues). I actually attended the gig + met the band!

I would like to point out that where it states "In 2008, the band made a number of appearances in the UK, finishing in Manchester.[citation needed]" - there's no source noted either, so why is that allowed to remain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.243.63 (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

:(i) Pinging {{U|Mr.Sarcastic}}. (ii) Like it or not, the burden of providing evidence for assertions that you add to an article is on you: WP:BURDEN. There are various things that I know for sure that I could add to WP articles, and one or two of them contradict myths that are repeated in one "reliable source" after another. But this knowledge of mine is given the flattering name "original research", and WP is not for my original research, or yours, even though we both know we are right: WP:NOR. (iii) It was worse than you may realize. That assertion about a number of appearances in the UK had been flagged as needing a reference since 2014. A few minutes ago, I deleted it, very belatedly. -- Hoary (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

:(edit conflict) We cannot accept your personal word for information, as that is impossible to independently verify. Information that is not sourced to a reliable source cannot be in the article. If there is other information that is unsourced, you are welcome to remove it. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, we can only act on what we know about, and rely on others to help detect inappropriate edits. As the information you speak of was tagged with a citation needed tag, it is possible someone thought it was at least possible it could be cited. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

::Pinging again {{U|Mr.Sarcastic}} for you {{u|Hoary}} :)--Pierpao (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

:{{re|Hoary}} I totally agree with you. Any piece of information must be properly sourced with reliable source. Also if they believe that the information cannot be cited at the moment then citation needed tag can be used for a short period of time and if in that given time the editor cannot provide any sources for that information then the whole unsourced information can be removed from the article. It is the sole responsibility of the editor who add the information to the article to provide sources for their claim. Thanks Mr.Sarcastic (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I had created a few articles (one of them is Nokia 5.3) in March, and today I got a message saying "The page Nokia 5.3 has been reviewed" (it was reviewed by SD0001). I couldn’t find anything about article reviewing after the article has been created, and this article was reviewed as a draft and added to Wikipedia back in March. Could someone explain what is the significance of these post-creation reviews?
RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

:{{ping|RedBulbBlueBlood9911}} See Wikipedia:New pages patrol and Wikipedia:Page Curation. It basically means a reviewer checked a new page and saw no serious problems which require action now. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

: One significance of the review process is that a new article is WP:NOINDEXed (and hence not found by Google and other such search engines) until it has been reviewed or 90 days has passed. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

:The gap between publication and review unfortunately just reflects the growing NPP backlog (which today went back over the 10,000 mark for the first time in a while...). I miss Onel5969... GirthSummit _(blether) 14:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

:: Thanks to all who responded. I tried looking for pages regarding page review, and came here after finding nothing relevant. But it turned out that my article was in my watchlist and there was a link to Page Curation (which I didn’t see till afterwards). RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia,

Khalatbari's page has an alert posted at the top drawing into question my relationship to Khalatbari and who paid me to edit his page. I posted a paid editor disclosure on his talk page on 15 April https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kayvan_Khalatbari, but the alert is still posted at the top of his page. My only relationship with Khalatbari is through this project to update his Wiki and there is no conflict of interest. I haven't even met him in person. In addition to this purely professional and Wikipedia-based relationship, so many revisions have been made to the page since I finished my work that it hardly looks like I had anything to do with it. Unless these other contributions are also in question, I see no reason for there to be any concern about the accuracy or legitimacy of Khalatabari's Wiki.

What else can I do to resolve this?

Thank you so much for your help,

HilaryConstable (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

:The template does not just relate to your edits, the article has a long history of undisclosed paid editing. Theroadislong (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

:Thank you @Theroaislong ! In order to resolve this, should I have Khalatbari have any previous paid editors post paid editor disclosures too? I need to be able to give him some guidance about how to resolve this. His intention is to have an accurate page and nothing more, so he deserves to know how to resolve this. HilaryConstable (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Can an assistant professor suddenly qualify for his own Wikpedia article solely because he was a murder victim? It looks like someone made an article about this guy a few days after the crime. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:90F1:A4A5:A9B:BF9C (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

:For Wikipedia's guideline, see Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Crime victims and perpetrators. GoingBatty (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

:: I read that. My interpretation as it applies to this particular article is no. What's yours? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:90F1:A4A5:A9B:BF9C (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

:::I agree with you. GoingBatty (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure I saw something that showed the numbers of people viewing the mobile version of Wikipedia as opposed to the desktop version. Any ideas where it is? Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

:See for example [https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org/reading/total-page-views/normal|bar|2-year|access~desktop*mobile-app*mobile-web|monthly]. See [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org] for individual pages. You can select "Platform" to the left. See Wikipedia:Pageview statistics for various page view links. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

:Thanks. It was the first link I was looking for. I see that the app views are still low that it's not much of a problem yet. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

::{{u|CambridgeBayWeather}}, Can you help satisfy my curiously? What might you be doing that you care about views via the app, but not mobile views? Your subject line and question left the impression that you were interested in mobile views (which generally exceed desktop views) but your response related only to mobile app views, not mobile views. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

:::{{u|Sphilbrick}} I don't normally use or see the mobile view. I do see the app view on my phone quite often. On the app you don't see thinks like {{tl|main}} or {{tl|Further}}. I was confusing the number of views on the mobile version with the app. And probably confusing the mobile version and the app version. Still something to consider. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I want to post a question in somebody's talk page if my question at help desk ignored. Is that safe way to ask? Ram nareshji (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

:{{ping|Ram nareshji}} It is acceptable to ask questions of another user at their talk page with the proviso that the question must be related to Wikipedia (obviously) and you should be civil and respectful. It is not good practice to ask similar questions in multiple locations and it is quite unusual for requests at this help desk to go unanswered. Those who respond here are all volunteers (the same as you) and often subject to time constraints; might need a little patience.. I cannot comment on other locations where help is offered; the teahouse etc. I note you have made several enquiries at the reference desk/computing. Eagleash (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I note you have made several enquiries at the reference desk/computing. Should I delete it? Is that wrong? Ram nareshji (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

: {{re|Ram nareshji}} No, that is not necessary. RudolfRed (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I tried to post, to Cylindrical Equal Area Projection, an added article-section.

I wrote the article-section in WordPad. To preserve the paragraphs when the document is copied & pasted into an edit-space, it's necessary to write a period (".")at the beginning of each otherwise blank inter-paragraph-space. But that didn't work when I pasted the article into the WP edit-space.

So I added html paragraph-tags, and that was working, but when I made what would have been my final publish of the edit, a pop-up announced that an automated filter had determined that my edit was unconstructive or disruptive.

Was that because of the html paragraph-tags?

...or because I'd made successive uses of the "Publish" button, while fixing the edit

...when I should have instead used "Preview" until I got it right?

My two questions:

1. What did I do that caused the automated filter to judge my edit to be unconstructive or disruptive?

2. How should I ensure that my edit has the intended paragraph spacings (blank-lines)? Should I use the paragraph html-tags,or is that discouraged, and is there a better way to have paragraph-spacings?

Michael Ossipoff71.84.140.85 (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

:Make a blank line to start a new paragraph. If you cannot do that with Wordpad then do it another way before saving. The automated filter was a "random" match of something intended to stop other things. Blank lines would have been accepted by the filter. Your original saved edit had many problems, including being unsourced and giving your name in the article. Wikipedia editors are only credited by listing their username or IP address in the page history. You can discuss the article at Talk:Cylindrical equal-area projection where an editor has stated several reasons for reverting you. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

{{Od}}

This is a paragraph.

This is a new paragraph.

This is the third paragraph. Note the blank lines in between. With regard to the reversion of your edit, visit the pages linked to by the blue-linked words starting with "WP:" in the reverting editor's response to you at Talk:Cylindrical equal-area projection#My edit has been reverted. I've also left more general information about Wikipedia and its purpose at User talk:71.84.140.85#Welcome!. I hope this helps. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)