September 8[edit]

John Tortorella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm bringing to your attention the slanderous description of USA hOCKEY COACH John Tortorella by someone over at either Bing or wiki. He's being falsely labeled and described as "racist" because he's taking a strong stance in the World Cup of Hockey in support of the Nation. ( USA )Racist? really? I hope you get it correctly taken care of before he brings a slander libel lawsuit in the direction of the accuser. Just a heads up. September 7th 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BCEE:A7A0:E555:B953:C816:F121 (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fifteen hours ago the article said racist for ten minutes.[1] I don't currently see it in Bing searches but it's possible Bing indexed the article at that time and has shown an excerpt with the word to some Bing users. It was added by an IP address from Venezuela. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States

The way that this article is edited is extremely biased in its favor of one race over the other, and considering the fact that these are incredibly divisive subjects in the country as well as the fact that subjects when worded this way can sway the minds of people in one direction versus the other, politically, morally, among other ways, this is dangerous. I'm asking that something be done about this because even people in the Talk section of this page are incredibly racist, someone suggested that black people supposedly rape white people exactly 100 times more than the other way around, and were being extremely heated in their wording, and this is not only incorrect but reinforcing stereotypes that are at an all time high in scrutiny in the united states. Under the "see also" section was a link to a book by a conservative author titled "White Girl Bleed A Lot," which is an incredibly racist title and also the book is clearly stated under reception to have been largely biased and warped, and should not be something that is a springboard from a supposedly unbiased article. There is no doubt in my mind that the people editing these pages have ulterior motives. I beg that something be done about this, and articles like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.33.129 (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello. This page is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For such content issues, you are encouraged to discuss them on the talk page of the relevant article. In case of content disputes, you may follow the procedure listed out at dispute resolution. And of course, if you have any future questions on how to use Wikipedia, feel free to drop in here. Thanks. Lourdes 03:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:NPOVN is the place to report articles that are biased. You could copy this post over there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[ http://www.wikipedia.or.ke/ ] appears to claim to be the Kenyan language (Kiswahili) Wikipedia ("We run Wikipedia Kenya with 1 high end server and 2 people"), but I am pretty sure that the correct URL is at [ https://sw.wikipedia.org/ ]. I don't find that URL at List of Wikimedia chapters. Is this someone pretending to be us? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: It's a WP:FORK, see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Vwxyz#Wikipedia_Kenya RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 02:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to figure out which template calls up the red edit notice that begins with "notice about sources" and concerns WP:BLP An example of it is found on the Barack Obama article after clicking manual edit. Thanks in advance. Ergo Sum 02:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ergo Sum: if you look in the URL when you go into source edit, you'll see it appends it at the end. It's Template:BLP_editintro RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 02:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RegistryKey: Thanks for pointing me in the right. The template's documentation explains quite well. Ergo Sum 03:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you get those club update and national team update messages "* Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only and correct as of 18:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC). ‡ National team caps and goals correct as of 18:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)" from the top of the article, such as Ilya Leonov, to the box, where they belong?--User:Tomcat7 (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed A set of 'curly brackets' ended the infobox before it should have, so the parameters mentioned ended up in the text. Eagleash (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And also thanks to TomCat who removed the extraneous 'medal templates' param...too quick for me! Eagleash (talk)

Thanks.--User:Tomcat7 (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Help Desk for English Wikipedia. If you have a question about using Italian Wikipedia, its Help Desk is here. Maproom (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In 1986 when Sheridan High School consolidated with a small school from Grapevine Arkansas,there was a youngman by the name of Bruce White who was the first African American youngman to put on a Yellow Jackets Uniform and step on to the field and play football for the Yellow Jackets. There were to other players later in the season, Alan Crawford and Willie Traylor. But the intial ice breaking was done by Bruce White who stepped on to the playing field in the first game against Risen High School. In Which the crowd from both sides clapped and cheered as he entered the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.144.250.237 (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... That nice and all, but do you have a question?Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is specifically in regards to my "Paranoid Android" edit that was undone due to lack of citation. However, I can find no sources (online, anyway) who mention it, but the fact itself – a voice using the same Mac voice application used in "Fitter Happier" – is evident in the work itself, heard simply by listening intently to the chorus in the first section of the song. How can I cite the song itself? The Cite AV Media template has no examples of songs, so should I use it and simply plug in the applicable information? Should I not use a template at all? I can provide the exact timestamps. I'm just not sure how else to cite what is self-evident. seasonsinthesky (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a good question, something I experienced recently with respect to movies. MOS:PLOT notes, "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary". In my opinion, that should be the criteria used for a song too. At the same time, WP:LYRICS notes: "Any interpretation of lyrics requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate lyrics yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." The suggestion here is not to cite the primary source, but a reliable secondary course. Lourdes 16:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting comparison for sure. However, I'm thinking we're in two sorts of channels regarding the works: my question, rather than lyrics vs. plot summary, is much more akin to stating that a scene in a film shows x. It is self-evident because it is shown in the film, but then someone undoes your statement as such, saying you've not cited a proper source. It doesn't matter that a secondary source hasn't specifically said x happened in the film when the thing itself shows it, at this specific timestamp in this specific cut of the work. Another, music-centric, example would be: 'drums enter for the first time at 3:40 on the album version.' You can't bloody well contest that! It's self-evident. So with one particular germ constantly dropping your addition for lack of citation, what do you do? It's a ludicrous argument to be having. The work is the citation. seasonsinthesky (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to change a page name? I'm still in draft form waiting for review and would like to change the title of the page but do not see how to in edit mode. I've read the wiki article on page name, but am not finding information on editing an existing name. Thank you.CIUS (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CIUS hello. Of course, it's quite easy to change the title of the page. There's a link on top of the Draft Page which will have the legend Move. You can click on that and provide the new title which you wish. If you mess up the move, don't fret; come right back. Lourdes 15:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves can only be done by autoconfirmed users, and CIUS is not yet autoconfirmed. To become autoconfirmed, your account must be four days old and have at least ten edits. CIUS, if you'd rather not wait to become autoconfirmed, you could reply here with the old page title and desired new title, and someone will likely perform it for you. Judging by your edits, I think I know which page you want moved, but I'd rather wait for an explicit request than make an assumption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate hello. CIUS already qualifies on the auto confirmed criteria, and as per autoconfirmed, their attempt to perform a restricted action would give them that status. (Or am I reading this wrong?). Lourdes 16:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. I didn't notice the account was older than four days. Strange that "autoconfirmed" doesn't show up for me in this list of user rights. Maybe I have some option set to hide that, or the display of "autoconfirmed" is broken. All of my rights are correctly displayed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC) edit: Oh, they haven't done anything that would trigger the autoconfirmed permission? I guess that would explain it. I was thinking about too many different things. I'm trying to revert cross-wiki vandalism on the German and French Wikipedias, and I don't know enough German to explain myself well. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that "autoconfirmed" is ever displayed among the user rights. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the "Move" option may not be visible directly at the top of the page. Depending on which skin you are using, it may be under one of the dropdown menus, either "More" or "Page". --David Biddulph (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance.CIUS (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that some images of living people contain the personality rights disclaimer, while many don't. Is this simply because the template has not been added to some images (containing living people) or is the template non-applicable to images taken in countries that have no such personality rights law? I'd have thought that personality rights restrictions could still apply even if an image doesn't contain the template, or in some cases not apply when an image contains the template (depending on the country) but would like this confirmed. I doubt it makes much difference on whether an image does/does not contain the template, given the template contains the word "may". This question relates to Wikipedia as well as its sister sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.230.86 (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Nikkimaria might have more information on this; she is quite active on the FA desk and has helped editors like me to understand image rights. Lourdes 16:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• First off, {{personality rights}} on English Wikipedia was deleted back in 2007, and to my knowledge no similar template has been created here since - en.wp follows US law for images, which does not require consent for (non-commercial) publication of an image of a person living or otherwise. Thus, the only images that could possibly include that disclaimer are those hosted on Commons, which still has the template. Commons refers both to US law and to the laws of the source country, so should have the template for images where the source country respects personality rights. Of course it is always possible that the template has been omitted (or added!) in error on a particular image. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought. What is the status on personality rights in the UK? I've rarely seen the disclaimer on images taken there, but the Commons article said that personality rights law had the status of "depends on circumstances" in the UK. What does that mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.230.86 (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is more information on the situation in the UK at commons:COM:CSCR#United Kingdom. clpo13_(talk) 23:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone claimed that the reference of Madison Brydges in Flatliners 2017 was vandalism. This is in fact incorrect. Madison Brydges is a young character in the movie named Tessa.

This information is correct for Flatiners 2017. Can this be corrected please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madison Brydges (talk • contribs) 17:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the addition of a name to the cast would need to be supported by a citation of a reliable source. IMDB doesn't count. It was probably unfair to call a good-faith edit vandalism. Rojomoke (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I hope this is an appropriate place for this observation. I took a look at the various help page directions after a search engine look-up and ended up here. For some time I have noticed bizarrely patterned results from the Wikipedia Random Article call. These results seem to reflect my online activity, frequently research which often includes Wikipedia itself; for example, if I spend all day reading internet security articles, random hits will favor security subjects (like terrorist security experts, partial keyword matches like plays on the word 'private', and so on); sporting articles, and foreign figures are a noticeable constant too. I have just checked Wikipedia's own statements regarding the 'randomness' of the Random Article function, with no real surprises: the random article call is random enough not to expect to see patterned results but for those determined by floating point values. Two possibilities occurred to me. First, that like unsecured cookie and other site tracking technologies, Wikipedia random page calls were influenced by session activity (much like ads can be); or that random page calls may be influenced by crowd behavior which might in turn reflect global user and therefore my own trending habits (a very thin likelihood). I first noticed this in 2010, with some curiosity. I continue to see it now on a very different and far more secured system. It is replicated in multiple browsers, including Chrome, Firefox, and over Tor, including https as provided. I have observed similarly recognisable results from a handful of other 'random' online generators, one of the most severe being a popular music lyrics site which included a call for random songs. My system is clean, with no known spyware. Given the time window for page calls and loading, I would have thought this would also rule out packet MITM interference. Anyone know what is going on here? 86.189.15.239 (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apophenia is the word you're looking for. Given the way MediaWiki is structured, there's no way we could know your online activity elsewhere, even if we wanted to. (Wikipedia gets hundreds of millions of visitors every day; do you appreciate how much storage we'd need to log their online activity, and how impossible it would be to keep it secret? Companies like Google, which do do this, need server farms the size of small countries to handle it.) ‑ Iridescent 18:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mention "sporting articles, and foreign figures". Wikipedia has a surprisingly large number of articles on sports events and people; and almost all of its biographies are on foreigners (unless you live in the US). Maproom (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I find that an unsatisfactory response, and of course was something I had ruled out long before considering it a serious issue. Having inspected Wikipedia's own statements regarding the Random page generator, I can see perfectly well that its operation cannot log user behaviour (or is not supposed to on a case by case basis). As for storage, session activity routinely influences ad-tracker behaviour, site pop-ups, etc., particularly on less secure systems (like net cafes): do a load of searching for, say, cheap holiday flights and the ads on your favorite trading website will reflect that; post on Reddit, and the suggested subreddits will reflect keywords in your written text given the correlation with apparent interests (to the data analytics, anyway); post on Facebook and the sidebar will suggest keyword correlations (one of my favorite 'misunderstandings' from dumb analysis is seeing gun lobby groups suggested due to my overuse of the acronym 'RPG'). In all these cases, what many users take for random correlation, or fail to consciously notice, is just the product of a simple data analysis engine tracking or inspecting online behavior. Thus, the observation of a (contended) correlation in any random page function is perfectly reasonable. At the same time, I rule out malware, as this should be unable in the time frame given to interfere via MITM (with a returned string value somewhere, which I would have thought only pertinent to Wikipedia internally anyway), or spyware or similar (which should be unable to influence what Wikipedia returns, again, for a randomizing process). This system is clean and secured, too (or should be, thus in part my concern).

I still insist there is a good correlation, at least as strong as established tracking and marketing behaviour (and very like it, noting the partial and similarly amusing word correlation, etc.). The number of pages on Wikipedia should be a noted impediment to correlation, regardless of the number of users. As for the sporting articles, perhaps they are over-represented on Wikipedia?

I will try and log my bulk activity, then note Wiki's responses, and repost them if the correlation still looks apparent. I could even record it via a desktop recorder. If there are such processes embedded in Wikipedia's operation, it would of course be of concern to many. It is of interest to me given the potential internet security issues, as Wikipedia is SSL encrypted, I am using an isolated browser with blocker plugins on a clean system with stong firewall, and my searches are conducted using search sites which boast their privacy to users. Ditto for replication in the Tor Browser. On this basis, such data should be unavailable to analytic engines (though I will recheck cookies and other settings per session).

Thanks for your help anyway. 31.55.43.201 (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well how about some logs? Let's see your logs of a couple hundred randomly-accessed pages -- that should be easily sufficient, and taking little more time to compile that it took to write this; even less than 100 pages should be sufficient to show a pattern if you're pressed for time. That ought to settle the matter. For my part I've used the random generator plenty times and I've never seen anything like this, so I'm skeptical -- but I'm willing to be convinced, by logs. If the effect exists we ought to be able to suss what you've been looking at off-Wiki from your random logs here. Herostratus (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia software is open source, no? Just look at the code for the random article generator. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

mw:Manual:Random page links to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/diffusion/MW/browse/master/includes/specials/SpecialRandompage.php but a conspiracy theorist may not believe that code is actually used. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]