Help desk
< January 9	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 11 >

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 10

Finding duplicate citations

Is there any kind of tool available to help find duplicate citations in an article? Perhaps by searching for identical URLs? It's a pain squinting at reflists... Popcornduff (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Popcornduff: Another editor might suggest a better tool but I was looking at User:Cumbril/Reference Organizer, one of the functions listed is "The script tries to find and eliminate duplicate references". You can look though cations tools here Help:Citation tools. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 05:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OkayKenji, thanks for this! Popcornduff (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Organizer is helpful but only works like 70% of the time. I recommend reFill, which both merges citations and fills in bare URLs, you can instsall a sidebar link to it here. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Þjarkur, thanks, installed! Popcornduff (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Ref Organiser does a lot more than find duplicates. If there is a difference (not an exact duplication), it won't merge them. I think refill just looks at urls and merges. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Popcornduff, additionally, wp:WPCleaner can find duplicate references, among other problems, in it's check Wikipedia mode ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tool for finding myself

Hii, I've been a (an?) acountless hit'n run would-be quality tinkerer here since perhaps 2013, if not before. As such, Wikipedia gives me a new "8w:xx:yy:zz" number every other semester. Is there a way to find "me" across the ages by e.g. looking for "8w:xx:yy:zz" numbers that originate from the same ISP? Because the ISP has been the same all the time. OTOH I guess that ISP connects other people besides myself. Or some other way? TiA. T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not assign you a number. Wikipedia simply uses the IP address assigned to you by TELENOR, who is your ISP. -Arch dude (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thx for the info - serves me right for studying languages and not IT. The TELENOR infobox was as far as I got with the link WHOIS, it being the dead end as it has no kind of "History" feature. The phenomenal, scil. experiential side of the problem, however, remains: TELENOR issues me a new ISP number every 4 or 6 months (....? But why ...? Well, never mind. They do.), and looking up glob.contrib. will only display activity under the present number, not any of the previous ones. Is there a way to retrace one's steps, or is my past lost forever? Btw, I'm not trying to get a free education in forensic data management here, I just wondered if something already existed on this subject, and if so, if anyone could direct me to or provide a link to whatever is written about this. OTOH, if this is a sort of non-issue "how could he even come up with such an idea" stupid question ... well, say so, but gently, please ... T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo IP! Companies randomly assign IP's for a variety of reasons: mainly cus its easier. You can pay some providers a monthly fee for them to give you static IP address. You can retrace your steps if you remember what you edited, and find those edits, then find the account and its contribs. An easy way to solve that issue is to create an account, allowing all your contribs to exist under one place; it would also hide your IP address. If you would rather not, we understand, but warn that your IP will probs keep shifting around. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it is as I suspected, then ... Thank you for your help. Now to find Remember Pills ... Have a nice decade =o) T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What CaptainEek mentions above is actually the easiest way (and probably the only way) to keep all your contributions assigned to one key (namely, to your user account). But you would have to do that at the beginning of your Wikipedia adventure. Once you made some edits as an anonymous user, the only way to find them is to trace your old IP addresses (which you do not remember) or by recalling what and when you edited. And, even if you find your old contributions, I'm afraid there is no way to re-assign those edits to your current IP address, nor to your user account (if you're going to create one). --CiaPan (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Argh .... https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+1&version=ESV .... (well, not the whole thing, obviously, just the opening.) But nevertheless, thank you for taking the time to elucidate. A merry, nay, a roaring Twenties to you to, Gender Appropriate Honorific ...! T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@85.166.161.28: Unfortunately, your ISP has a relatively large range of addresses allocated to them (at least ~256000). Even a search in one of the four "/16" blocks here since 2018-12-01 (~40 days) shows contributions from 12 different addresses. It's possible that your addresses are assigned from a smaller range based on geography, but you would need to know some of the previous addresses (or know which articles you edited and when, from which you can find the address in article history) to get an idea of what that range might be. Since you use the word "semester" above, if you're using a school's network connection, it's possible the school has a more limited range allocated to them – try asking their network admins about this (though such people have a rep for being "difficult"

). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good day good sir, and many thx to you also. Alas, my school days were in the last century of the previous millennium; here, "semester" was just shorthand for "about twice a year". Txh again for efforts to research and advise. Seems I'm entering the 2020 hindsight decade... Well, so be it. Many happy edits and other nice stuff to you! T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone cares about the rotating IP addresses thing (not that it matters a whole lot to the question), we have articles about Network address translation (whose lead is understandable, though the rest of the article is very technical) and DHCP (very technical throughout). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, I _am_ getting a free education in forensic data management ...! - if only I could demask, ahaha, these contents to my feeble understanding of technical stuff. Regrettably, not my forte. Apparently, there is no easy way to do this (my preference, truth be told), so I'm shelving this enquiry, and will go looking for Memory Training classes. Thx to all respondents for kind answers to benighted questions. Keep up the good work, and enjoy, way up into the twenty-somethings. T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Potentially) Odd account activity

The other day I revived a lot of alerts (welcome message) from Wikipedias from other languages. I have never opened Wikipedia on those languages. Then looking at my Global account information, I saw that I have 140 attached accounts. 98 of those were attached within the span of "13:47, 5 January 2020" to "13:48, 5 January 2020". Is this a bug? I don't think I visited that many Wikipedia in other languages, especially in that time frame (just concerned if my account was compromised). Thanks. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 07:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OkayKenji It is not a bug; most likely editors on those Wikis are using a bot or other means to welcome users and attempt to get more participants. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: 98 wikis, all in the same minute? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert, but I once got 10 welcome messages at once from wikis I had never been to. It must be some sort of bot. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This wouldn't be the result of a bot since they can't create your account there. You had to visit the sites while logged in to have created your account there (the bots are just writing to you since they see a new account has been made locally). The only explanations I can think of is that you either encountered a website somewhere that had 100 iframes to all these different Wikipedias, or that you downloaded a Wikipedia app that looped through different languages. Your account probably isn't compromised, but it's always a good idea to reset your password regularly anyways. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@OkayKenji:, all: this has happened to a number of people recently, and appears to be a side effect of trans-wiki import of edits into other language Wikipedias. A bit annoying but not sinister. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_162#Edits_(rather_than_the_text_of_edits)_being_imported_into_Wikipedias_of_other_languages for discussion. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elmidae, Þjarkur, AlanM1, and 331dot thank you for the info and help! OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 00:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect statistics in regards to Brexit

To whom this may concern,

Having read the article on Wikipedia regarding Brexit, I was disappointed (as a donor who contributes cash via card transaction) to see incorrect/false statistics in relation to one of the most historical political events in British history. The proportion of Leave/Remain (in the EU) statistics are way off the real, factual figure. Wikipedia states that the proportion of Leave votes is 51.9% which is a piece of grossly incorrect and false information, where the real, factual figure is 52.4% in favour of Leaving the EU. This difference in numerics isn't a small misrepresentation, this is a seismic amount of error. As a financial contributor to Wikipedia, I was disappointed and taken aback by this severely incredible error representing the biggest democratic vote in British history. Having always praised Wikipedia to others, and having depended on this fantastic website with its plethora of rich and endless wealth of information, I am now contemplating as to whether I was right in contributing to Wikipedia, and where do I stand now in terms of future contributions due to the magnitude of this simple error. I have previously sought out 'facts' via Wikipedia and I now question as to whether that information was correct or incorrect, and is Wikipedia really as a reliable source for factual and correct information as initially assumed. May I add that before contacting Wikipedia in this manner, I did attempt to correct this error and replace the false statistical figure of 51.9% to the correct and factual figure of 52.4% but for some unknown reason I was unable to do so hence my writing this in order the article on Brexit be corrected. I am contemplating withholding future contributions due to the fact that what I thought was an incredibly reliable source, has unfortunately just proven itself otherwise. Thank you for your time in taking note of this response regarding said article. Looking forward to (hopefully) having this error corrected as I am unable to do so myself. And then once again I shall absolutely return to contributing to Wikipedia in the future as I have done so in the past. Thank you once again for your time in this matter and for possibly taking into consideration my concern regarding this historical data.

Kindest Regards,

Mrs lee Crummay — Preceding unsigned comment added by DogalTheBear (talk • contribs) 09:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DogalTheBear Please address any concerns about the Brexit article to its talk page, Talk:Brexit. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for incorrect information to be added, unintentionally or otherwise. If you discuss it with other editors, a consensus can be reached.

Please also add that- while thank you for donating- your donations or lack thereof have no bearing on what occurs with day to day Wikipedia operations. If editors could influence content by donating(or withholding donations), this would cease to be a neutral encyclopedia. Donations are handled by the Foundation, which does not involve itself in day to day operations. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Electoral Commission's report on the voting is here: 16,141,241 votes for remain, 7,410,742 for leave. That's 51.8918% for leave. If you believe those figures are wrong and want to justify your figure of 52.4% in the article, you'll need to provide a source for it, and explain why that source shoud be preferred to the Electoral Commission. Maproom (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The figure of 51.9% is supported in Brexit#Referendum result by a reference from the Electoral Commission. Wikipedia is supported by published reliable sources, so in your discussion on the article talk page you would need to convince the community that you have a source which is more reliable than the Electoral Commission. The reason that you were unable to edit the article to put in your apparently incorrect figure of 52.4% is that the article was protected because of repeated disruptive editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17,410,742, that is. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Information to a company page

Hi there,

I was wondering if its possible to add information onto a companies page please?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.80.252 (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are welcome to add it yourself! Being WP:BOLD is a key part of Wikipedia. However, make sure that any addition is supported by a reliable source that you add inline (See the easy referencing guide). If you have a relationship to that company however, such as being an employee, being paid by it, etc., then you should probably not add any info directly. You should instead make a request on the talk page, noting that you have a conflict of interest. If you have been paid for you edits, you must disclose that by following the steps at WP:PAID. If you have further questions, please ask, we're happy to help. Hope you enjoy being at Wikipedia! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't change Company Title

Hello, I am trying to edit the name that appears for our title. It now reads "User:IPRSoftware" when it needs to read "iPR Software" - can you assist in how to change that?

Thanks! James — Preceding unsigned comment added by IPRSoftware (talk • contribs) 21:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IPRSoftware! To be clear, IPRSoftware is your username. If you want to keep editing, read WP:ISU, you have to change it. If you hope to start an article about IPRSoftware, start with reading WP:PAID and WP:COI carefully. In short, it probably won't work. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IPRSoftware: After you change your user name and make your WP:PAID declaration, then carefully read and study WP:NCORP before you put any effort into creating an article. Really. I mean it. Wikipedia wants an article on every subject that is notable by our definition. We do not want an article on a non-notable subject and we will delete it if you force it into Wikipedia, which wastes your time and ours. We delete more than 200 articles per day. -Arch dude (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User has violated 3RR

Hi,

The user DESK JOVI has violated WP:3RR, as can be seen their contributions: [1]. What is the right way to deal with this? Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they have been blocked: [2]. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David O. Johnson: If you see something like this again, you can report it at WP:EDITWAR RudolfRed (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Publication of Paid Contributions

Hi, Wikipedia provides extensive guidelines about COI and how to disclose paid contributions. If an editor is paid to write and publish an article, follows the guidelines for notability, neutrality, sourcing information, and structures among others, does he/she still have to publish that article through AfC given that the disclosure for payment is given on the user page and the article talk page?

Wikipedia guidelines 'suggest' that paid articles 'should' be published through AfC, but it is not a mandatory rule. What if another editor enforces this 'advice' on you, hounds you through multiple contributions, and subtly threatens to have your account blocked?

Help and guidance here would be much appreciated. Thanks! Ashley.Bell (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:AshleyBell208#Quraishi and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_8#Ibrahim_S._Quraishi. Maproom (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPP#Conflict of Interest (COI), paid editing does note that paid editors are required to use AfC. Quoting, "Paid editors are required to submit their articles through Articles for Creation." SamHolt6 (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty archiving a URL

Hi, I am trying to archive this URL. I first tried on the Wayback Machine here however it keeps redirecting back to the archived home page. I also tried on archive.md here however all the text is replaced with a black box. Is there any way to successfully archive this URL? Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 23:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spy-cicle, you can find an archive of the page at another site here. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Teblick: Sadly, that archived version shares the same problem as archive.md (shown above) the first part works however the rest of the text is hidden behind a big black box. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 13:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spy-cicle, My apologies! I should have scrolled down to check. I don't know what would cause that in multiple archiving services. Perhaps the original page contains some unusual coding. Eddie Blick (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]