Wikipedia:Help desk

Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)

• For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
• Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
• Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
• For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
• New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).

Ask a question

August 14

I can't log in!!!!

I can't log in!!!! wikipedia tells me I have two user names associated with my single account - and I can't log into either of them. Temporary passwords don't wor 2600:480A:29D1:C900:7163:25A2:DAD9:F7E3 (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

What is your Username? –– kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 04:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Citing video interviews referencing sworn testimony vs court reporting documents (WWE EDITION)

So I would like to understand what level of source I would need to provide context to a claim made by Jesse Ventura that I've laid out on this talk page Talk:Hulk Hogan#Hulk Hogan 2024 election. The claim is one made against Hulk Hogan by Jesse Ventura that references the sworn testimony of Vince McMahon. I have not been able to find a primary court report of the statement made by Vince McMahon. I understand that YouTube sources are not going to cut the muster, but CNN does not provide a full transcript of the interview, and I don't believe the other source is of enough journalistic standing to reference. I was considering contacting the court clerk to see about accessing the court report, but I'm not sure about the process for turning around and citing that, especially since it seems that it is not accessible via a public-facing site but instead a document I will need to pay to receive. Spicygarbage (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If it hasn't been published, by a reliable source, you can't use it. There's no way around it. --Orange Mike | Talk 09:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Request for Review of Resubmitted Article

Hello, I apologize for any inconvenience my previous submission may have caused. I've worked on improving the article based on the feedback and have resubmitted it. I would greatly appreciate it if you could review it again. The article is now well-sourced, and I’m eager to ensure the content meets Wikipedia's standards. Thank you for your time and support.

Koorosh Ghorbani Neginghaderii (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Neginghaderii Since your sources are in Persian and Turkish, you may have to wait a while before someone with appropriate language skills does the review. It is acceptable to politely ask the reviewer who declined the previous version to take another look (ask via their Talk Page). Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

After reviewing the draft and the references, I'm not convinced that you know the standard for inclusion. WP:GNG requires an article to ge backed up with multiple in-depth coverage from independent and reliable sources, and none of the cited sources covered the subject in-depth, instead merely talked about their ranking or role. The subject does not seem to pass WP:NATH as well. You would need to provide sources that talked about the subject in more details, preferably not any types of announcements about change in position or upcoming events as those are considered to be WP:ROUTINE. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback on the article for Koorosh Ghorbani. I appreciate the time you’ve taken to review the draft.

I understand that these might not fully meet the WP criteria, but I am eager to improve the article and would appreciate any guidance you can offer on how to strengthen it.

Would you be able to suggest specific types of sources or approaches that could help meet Wikipedia’s standards? If additional or different sources are required, I am committed to searching further or revising the content accordingly.

Thank you again for your support and advice. Neginghaderii (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

News articles, books or other publications (online or offline, doesn't have to be in English) where the subject are talked about in detail. Don't use anything written by the subject or people/organizations associated with him, including interviews. Official records in which most information came form the subject himself can not be used as well. Try to find any source can prove that he passes WP:NATH. There are a lot of athletes over the history of mankind, and Wikipedia only have limited amount of storage space, we need to make sure that the athlete you are writing about has received enough attention so we can verify the information provided about him. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Defunct taskforce

What is the process for reinstating a defunct taskforce? Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 07:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Vestrian24Bio, I remember when I first started editing 15 years ago and Wikiprojects and task forces were portrayed as a "really big thing". The more I learned about these efforts, the less impressed I was. Making something like this work again depends entirely on attracting a critical mass of editors. If several editors do not participate regularly,then the Wikiproject or even vague task force is meaningless. So, if you can motivate participation withour pestering people, that's great. The issue, in the end, is who cares other than you? Good luck. Cullen328 (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Watchlist the taskforce and respond if anyone posts there. Participation begins with you. CMD (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject#Creating_and_maintaining_a_project may have something of use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Got it; Thanks. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Rule not to add a message on top of a section on a talk page

Somewhere, there is a rule not to 'hijack' a discussion on a talk page by adding a contribution on top of the discussion and grabbing the attention this way. I don't remember where it is and did not find it anymore - anybody know it, please? --KnightMove (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Indentation#Indentation_examples #4 is the closest I can think of atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so far... but there is also another rule on another page. --KnightMove (talk) 10:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This addresses it a bit: Help:Talk_pages#Replying_to_an_existing_thread FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There's a lot of guidance at WP:TPYES and sections below that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated polemics

Does english Wikipedia has any rule dealing with unsubstantiated polemics created by users that ends up hindering the development of a topic? I know this is a common problematic of the encyclopedia, when seemingly good faith actors keep producing admissible arguments that demand an exorbitant effort by other users, sometimes winning by exhaustion. I have been dealing with a situation where I dont really think that the editor has provided any substance to his arguments, based on the principles of verifiability, and nonetheless has been allowed to flag an article as NPOV issue and keep hindering to development of the content. It seems to come very close to WP:DISRUPTIVE, but I dont know if there a appropriate place to fill a notification about it. I really wish some guidance in this aspect of the policy. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Either WP:DRN or WP:ANI, depending on whether you want to focus on resolving the dispute, or whether it has gone beyond that and it is the other editor's behaviour. In either case, read the top matter on the page carefully. ColinFine (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

How do I add another archive to my talk page?

Hello, I have archived my talk page once. But I want a different archive every time I want to archive my talk page. How do I add another archive? This is for future reference. Felicia (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If you archive manually then you can just create User talk:Felicia777/Archive 2 next time and so on. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Pop-up's Donation.

I already donate to Wikipedia. I'm using my labtop not my P.C. Can you please stop the pop-up's asking for money. When I have already donate every month. I use wikipedia a lot especially for football and other things. Thanks very much. 80.40.19.51 (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If you make an account then you can suppress fundrasing banners when you are logged in at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-centralnotice-banners. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

To expand: donations are actually made to The Wikimedia Foundation, and Wikipedia has no interconnection with the donating process that can tell it whether even an Account holder has donated, let alone whether an unknown person using a (likely dynamic) IP has done so. This is to preserve editorial independence, so that, for example, no subject of an article can 'buy' influence over the article about them.

When you posted your query your laptop then had the IP address of 80.---51: tomorrow it may have a different IP, and 80.---51 may have been assigned to someone else's device; or you may be using a different device; or someone else (who has not donated) may be using your laptop (hopefully with your permission).

If you have donated to a charity, do you get irritated if you see another advert for it on the side of a bus? The bus can't know that you've already donated. Nor can Wikipedia. Hope this clarifies. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.109.53 (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

August 15

Forget Password

I have forgotten the password for my Wikipedia account. I also do not remember which email I used to create the account, what username I set, or what phone number I used. How can I reset it or edit this information now? 103.18.20.112 (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

See H:RP. However, if you do not know the username or email, it would be difficult. Incidentally, I don't think that Wikipedia ever asks for a phone number as a password recovery method.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

IP editor. You can probably remember one or two articles you are sure you edited, and roughly when. By looking at the history tab for those articles, you may be reminded of your username and hence can follow the H:RP method. If you no longer have access to the linked email address, your only way forward is to create a new account and, if you wish, state on its userpage "previously edited as XXX". Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I checked may Wikipedia account history and i get last editor name that is Farazahmad123. So i tried again to reset the password but i couldn't. what should i do now? can you help me now to reset my password or not? 103.18.20.112 (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

IP editor. Navigate to Special:PasswordReset and enter that username. An email will be sent to the associated address. If there was no email on record for that account, or you no longer have access to the email, then you are stuck and will have to start a new account. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Farazahmad123 shows you only ever had two edits from that account, in 2021, so it would be no great loss simply to ignore them and start again. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Help

We need to paraphrase copyrighted content (along with citations and in text attribution). But we should not add original research. Just for clarification, why is paraphrasing not considered original research since paraphrasing is changing words and creating another way to express information, and no paraphrasing is perfect, so it may change in meaning, which may be interpreted as original research. I know it isn't, but I just wanted to clarify why. Anonymous1261 (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Original research is "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists." Paraphrasing from a reliable source is not considered original research because the basis of the text is in the reliable source. If the paraphrasing introduces new material that wasn't in the cited source, it is then considered original research. If you are paraphrasing copyrighted content, please make sure it fits the non-free content policy before inserting it into an article. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Anonymous1261 (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

That is in no way original research. MallardTV (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Siegel & McGehee (redirects to)

I created a new page about filmmaking duo Siegel & McGehee to replace two sub-standard stub pages about the two filmmakers as individuals. The idea was to change the two individual pages to redirects to one "duo" page, but now I realize I can't change an existing page to a redirect. Can anyone help? WikiWonka888! (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@WikiWonka888! Technically, the article on Scott Siegel could be turned into a redirect but I think that is a bad idea. The article on Siegel & McGehee is wikilinked in the WP:LEAD of his biography, which should be sufficient. After all, a fuller individual biography might include material about his early life or family that would not be relevant to his work with McGehee. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks, Mike! It's actually David Siegel (screenwriter), not Scott Siegel, who is the Siegel & McGehee co-director, and his work has been exclusively collaborative with McGehee for 30 years. I'm following the lead of other film co-directors, such as Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, or The Daniels, or the Coen Brothers, whose careers are described on a single page without individual pages. I can't figure out, technically, how to redirect from an existing page, though. Is it possible? WikiWonka888! (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible. You edit the source of the article, and replace the entire content with

#REDIRECT [[destination]]

Whether you should do this is another matter, and you should probably discuss it on the article's talk page first.

See WP:Redirect. ColinFine (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

My edit was removed for no reason

My edit was deemed 'not constructive' by a bot and it was removed, but it was a paragraph of well-researched information which added to the article. It was on the page Henny Penny - I added the Chinese story of 'the man of Qi worries about the sky', which is completely relevant in the 'related stories' section... I undid the undo but slightly worry that it's just going to get deleted again for no reason. I'm trying to contribute positively to Wikipedia, I'm not committing vandalism. Not sure why my contribution was auto-deleted. Confuro (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

You weren't reverted by a bot. You were reverted by an experienced Wikipedia contributor. If you want to contribute positively, I suggest you discuss the matter on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

If you look at the history of Henny Penny, you'll see that the second (also human) editor who reverted you, @Jimfbleak. said "good faith addition with no independent verifiable sources".

All information in a Wikipedia article, without exception, should be verifiable from a reliable published source; and while there is not a formal requirement that everything actually be cited, editors nowadays tend to insist on a citation when information is added. ColinFine (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Confuro Just to clarify a little. You say your addition was "well-researched" but Wikipedia does not allow the inclusion of original unpublished research. We want editors to include their sources, so that readers can verify that what our articles say is backed up by reliable sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Infobox template

Hello! I am trying to create an infobox for artist collectives, and have been writing it here, however when I try to test it over here it isn't working how I want it - it is meant to have headings for "membership" and "art" but for some reason is just putting everything under the "art" heading. Can anyone tell me what the issue is? Thank you very much. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 15:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

See Template:Infobox § Usage and note the enumeration of the various parameters in the example.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

And in general, the order of named parameters don't matter in template calls so any positioning of header1, header2 and header3 would give the same result. It isn't possible to make a coding of {{Infobox}} which would behave as you expected so the more cumbersome parameter numbering is necessary. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both, I completely missed that the header was numbered between the data - I appreciate the help very much!! -- NotCharizard ^🗨 08:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Request for Review of Re-Submitted Article

Hello, I received feedback regarding citations on the article I submitted a few months back. I've worked on improving the article based on the feedback and have resubmitted it. I would greatly appreciate it if you could review it again. The article is now properly sourced, and I’m hopeful the content meets Wikipedia's standards. If it does not, I would greatly appreciate any guidance on how to further meet those standards. Thank you for your time and support. BDOklahoma24 (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

BDOklahoma24 You have submitted it for review and it is pending. As noted on your draft, this could take some time, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

BDOklahoma24, please remove the inappropriate external link in the first paragraph. External links do not belong in the body of an article. Please read Wikipedia:External links for more details. Cullen328 (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and guidance. I read through the page you linked. I want to make sure you are referring to the Brewster and De Angelis external link? I will remove it now, if so. Thank you again. BDOklahoma24 (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

BDOklahoma24, that I'd correct and I see that the link has been removed. Cullen328 (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

i want to delete my account

im planning to abandon this account, goodbye

how do i delete it ZacharyFDS/Memphis1525 (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

For attribution purposes, accounts cannot be deleted. But you can request to vanish yourself by having your username be renamed to a random text. – robertsky (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

so like Deleted User 12345678 etc on discord? ZacharyFDS/Memphis1525 (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Or you can just walk away, literally just "abandon it". DMacks (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Enemy bot action

Hi,

About 13 years ago I added details of a new Fredric Brown collection to Wikipedia to match existing entries - The Proofreaders' Page and Other Uncollected Items

Some time back the page was allegedly removed because it did not "cite any sources" although for some reason I (as author) author was never notified of the deletion (which is discourteous at least).

Then yesterday I got a message to say that the cover scan of the book that I had uploaded would be deleted because it was an "orphaned non-free image".

I reinstated the page (so that the image was no longer orphaned) and attempted to add a source only to find the source has now been deleted by the same bot for reasons I don't pretend to understand.

I tried to contact the author of the bot (b_bot) but apparently he has retired from Wikipedia editing and has just left his bot running to do random damage in his absence.

Frankly I don't really care if the page is there or not - it's Wikipedia's loss, not mine - but I confess I am getting rather sick and tired of the degree to which Wikipedia attempts to prevent anybody other than an "expert" from creating or modifying content and am inclined to give up on attempting to help out.

If somebody can explain to me quite what a "non-free image" means when related to a scan I took myself and made freely available, and quite what "sources" are needed to list the contents of a collection that I have in front of me, then I'd be happy to attempt to fix whatever these imagined "problems are". Philsp (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

If I'm reading the edit history correctly, the text you added was deemed to be a copyright violation and was removed by The4lines (talk · contribs), not by a bot. There's information at Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Supplying evidence of non-infringement as to how you can contest this if you feel the claim was made in error. Also, the bot that tagged your image was created by B (talk · contribs), who last edited two days ago. In any event, as the image is currently in use, I've deleted the template on the page for the image as per the instructions included with that template, but the article itself still needs at least one source added. DonIago (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy reply. I looked at B's talk page and it said he was effectively retired and not interested in other than a small range of requests from other editors.

Thanks for deleting the template on the page, but I still don't know what sort of source is required or how to add it. The text I added was the "advertising blurb" I wrote for the book when I added it to lulu back in 2011 and which has been used (without my permission) by sites such as Google and Amazon and I have no idea how I can be violating copyright on something I wrote nor how I can prove that I wrote it.

Which brings me back to the main point. This is a book that I created and published and, as such, the ultimate source for information on the book will always be me. Demanding some other form of source is sheer nonsense, to put it politely. Philsp (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Philsp: The Proofreaders' Page and Other Uncollected Items was converted to a redirect in [1]. BLAR refers to WP:BLAR. We don't call it deletion when the page history is still visible and ordinary users can restore the former content as you did. Many articles have contributions from hundreds of users. The creator is usually not notified of conversions to a redirect. If a page is nominated for deletion where only administrators can undelete it then the creator is usually notified. You can use your watchlist to help keep track of edits to pages of interest. Articles about books should generally satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (books) by having independent sources about the book. We are not a book catalogue but an encyclopedia with articles on selected topics which are deemed notable. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Philsp, the article that you wrote about your own book is completely unreferenced which is a violation of the core content policy Verifiability, and therefore the article is in imminent danger of being deleted. When you write This is a book that I created and published and, as such, the ultimate source for information on the book will always be me, that indicates that you have a complete misunderstanding of how Wikipedia actually operates. You are actually the last person who should be editing that article, because you have an obvious conflict of interest, and that guideline says COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted. Your book is self-published on Lulu.com and self-published books are very rarely notable books. The most common way that a book becomes notable is if it has received multiple reviews by reliable sources. If you cannot provide references to significant coverage of your book in multiple reliable, independent sources, then a Wikipedia article about your book is not viable. Cullen328 (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Let'd dial this one down a bit.

The Wikipedia entry for Fred Brown contains a number of pages listing contents of his books. A random example I looked at was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeymoon_in_Hell which has NO references at all to the book, simply a reference to an adaptation of one of the stories in the book and an external link to the ISFDb entry for it. Thirteen years ago, when I added the contents of TPP, I was simply following existing practice. As I have said, I have no particular personal interest in whether it is listed or not - I was simply trying to contribute to Wikipedia - but I would love clarification on why the entry for HONEYMOON IN HELL (and 1001 other similar entries) is OK when the entry for THE PROOFREADERS' PAGE is not. The contents can be "verified" by checking in the usual place - i.e. http://www.philsp.com/homeville/FMI/ZZPERMLINK.ASP?NAME=%27A_BROWN$_FREDRIC%27 - but it's hard to see how this adds credibility to the item.

I appreciate Wikipedia is not a book "catalogue" but it is very useful as a book "index" and the contents of books are, for many of us, "notable articles". When I am researching an author I frequently turn to Wikipedia first to see if there is a bibliography there and, frequently, there is. If "you" really don't like pages listing contents of books then there are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of pages that "you" need to delete.

I am also puzzled by the comment that "The creator is usually not notified of conversions to a redirect" - why on earth not? It only takes a second and would seem the courteous thing to do. The whole notion of people writing bots to go round hacking other peoples' contributions strikes me as the height of arrogance.

Anyway, I'll say no more. The book is indexed in the most reliable place for such listings and if "Wikipedia" decides it doesn't want the information then it is your loss, not mine. I don't know what hoops I need to jump through and, frankly, have more important things to do with my time than worry about petty Wikipedia squabbles. Philsp (talk) 07:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Honeymoon in Hell is just one of 461,644 pages that have been marked as "needing additional references". You are correct in that there are tens of thousands of pages that could stand to be deleted under these criteria. The issue comes down to volume, motivation, and the fact that most of these articles never get any attention drawn to them. It is unfortunate that Wikipedia is the main place many people turn to for information that could be better stored elsewhere (Wikipedia:Alternative outlets?) but that is the point we have come to. Reconrabbit 16:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, which is much more constructive and well-mannered than some of the comments I have received. I confess I don't understand why you feel it is "unfortunate" that Wikipedia is "the main place many people turn to for information" - IMHO, that is precisely the strength and value of Wikipedia - i.e. that it "benefit(s) readers by presenting information on all branches of knowledge". I find it disconcerting that a relatively small number of people seem to sit in judgement on the contributions of millions and decide whether or not an article is "worthy" or "appropriate" - to me this goes entirely against the philosophy of Wikipedia and threatens to damage it irreparably. Philsp (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Now discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Proofreaders' Page and Other Uncollected Items. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Help with Harvnb refs

I added Harvnb refs here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Za%27ura%2C_Syria&diff=1240521081&oldid=1240515422

But when I click on them it doesn't target the source in Bibliography, not sure what I did wrong. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

You have to list all of the authors' surnames (4 authors max). Sulimani isn't the only author; don't leave Kletter out.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Supreme Deliciousness: I have just now fixed it for you.Davidbena (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Phone IP blocked

Noticed, when I accidentally hit an edit icon, that my phone, not logged in, has been blocked, with the note: "disruptive editing". I don't usually log in or edit on my phone, and I don't think I've ever edited anonymously from it. And noone has had access to it. Logged in, it seems fine -- I'm logged in on it now to post this.

How do I find out what that block is about? Thanks! Tsavage (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Probably someone who has the same IP address as you was responsible for the disruptive edits, and the entire IP address was blocked as a result. Typically there will be a warning on the talk page of the IP address, and it will include a reason for the block. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought it might be an IP range thing. Cheers! Tsavage (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

August 16

Who can add an important consensus information to an article?

So we have the consensus[2] about the important information from the academic source (Academic Studies Press). I cannot add it because I will be immediately banned. (Personal attack removed) (Personal attack removed) So who can do it? Пинча (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus for any specific edit. The only "proposed text" was reasonably objected on plagiarism grounds, so it will require further discussion and rewriting before it can be considered. I removed two personal attacks from the above comment, but am leaving this overall for now as part of an ongoing ANI discussion. DMacks (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The conversation on the talk page does not read like any consensus has been reached, if anything it starts to get personal. I recommend you go through a dispute resolution with the other party first, use WP:DRN or at least WP:RFC. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• OP is now indefinitely blocked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Problem with Mount Everst article

I tried to edit a smaller section of Timeline of Mount Everest expeditions, but somehow ended up replacing the whole article with the small section. It will not let me undo as the previous version contains blacklisted sources. Can someone help me? - Nidator ^{T / C} 06:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I've undone this slip and removed the offending link for now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Garland Case

I don’t see any information on the Garland Case in District Court of Columbia Case 1:24 cv 00479 RC with other defenders Justice John Roberts Jr; Secretary General of a United Nations and ICJ

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/52408377/CLEMENT_v_GARLAND 2601:C6:D701:8A0F:55FE:5BB3:19D9:4979 (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Across the planet many thousands of court cases happen daily. Only extremely rarely does even one of them warrant a mention in Wikipedia. You would need to establish (or at least demonstrate) notability for it. Feline Hymnic (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:Gamessport

The template includes the pictogram of a sport, but always the current one. Up until the Paris 2024 Summer Olympics, the Modern Pentathlon included Equestrian. It has since been replaced by an Obstacle Race instead. Therefore the current pictogram shows the "Obstacle Race", but for the past the Equestrian should be shown. In my point of view there must be two templates:Gamessport for Modern Pentathlon, but how can this be done? Can you help me in regard of this problem? Citius Altius Fortius (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I suspect the best solution is to parametrise the template so that the current one is the default, but the historic one can be selected. How best to do it will depend on whether this is a rare instance of a change, or whether it has happened a number of times. ColinFine (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Citius Altius Fortius: I have coded {{GamesSport}} to detect a year in the page name and use it to decide the pictogram.[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

wow - mange tak for hjælpen @PrimeHunter:! I would love to understand how you have done it! Citius Altius Fortius (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Watch List

Can I organize my watch list into categories. For example music, politics, and other categories. This would help in viewing the watch list content. Mwhessel (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as far as I am aware that is not possible. Perhaps others have tips or workarounds to accomplish what you are seeking. 331dot (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Mwhessel, you could do the following:

• Create pages such as User:Mwhessel/politics;
• From those pages, link to articles you'd like to put on your watchlist;
• Use the "Related changes" function on that page, which will give you a watchlist of the articles you linked to.

Please note that while your normal watchlist is private, these pseudo-watchlists will be publicly visible and editable. See Help:Public watchlist for more information. Rummskartoffel 16:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

User:MusikAnimal/customWatchlists might be of use (but like Rummskartoffel's idea it also makes your lists public). DMacks (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Is editing relating to/referencing open-source projects you've contributed to a COI?

On many articles about notable typefaces, digital versions of those fonts are discussed, including free and open-source versions, e.g., Palatino#Free and open-source versions and derivatives. I happen to have done work to maintain or contribute to a number of font packages (most of which are free and open-source fonts included in TeX Live), including MFB Oldstyle, Domitian, STEP (and XITS), ETbb, etc.. Is it acceptable for me to edit sections of pages about typefaces where I have worked on one of the available versions?

If it's relevant, I have no financial interest in any font package in TeX Live; all my contributions there have been purely voluntary. My intention isn't to promote any digital version I'm connected with over any other version of the typeface — just to provide or update information about digital versions in general. For example, I could add information about the various digital versions of Century Oldstyle, including commercial versions, as well as a free and open-source version included in TeX Live (which I worked on).

More generally, if you are one of the maintainers of or contributors to an open-source project, is it a COI to edit anything related to that project? (And, if so, is there a certain limit above or below which it is or isn't OK? For example, if you made a minor contribution vs. a major contribution to a codebase, or so on...).

If it's a COI, I can make an edit request, but I don't want to cause undue burden on those dealing with the backlog there.

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@D. Benjamin Miller You are obviously happy to be upfront about any potential COI and it does no harm to place on your userpage similar information to that you have just put here. WP:SELFCITE (part of WP:COI) says that it is acceptable even to cite your own work, provided it is "within reason" in the context of the rest of the article. I assume you will mainly be citing other sources, so if I were you I would be WP:BOLD. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

August 17

I can't search wiki.

2601:601:A400:AB90:AC57:F03B:4E9E:FA17 (talk) 04:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello IP address. Could you be more specific? Is there a particular article that you are trying to find? 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 05:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Try Special:Search.Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I want to create a wiki page for an inventor

I want to create a wiki page for an inventor Marawers (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

David E. Flinchbaugh, perhaps? A few minutes ago I deleted Draft:Dr. David E. Flinchbaugh. It showed an extraordinary lack of awareness of what an encyclopedia is; it was even written in the first person singular. I know of no encyclopedia that contains such material. The first thing you should do, if you eventually want to create an article here about somebody, is to acquaint yourself with Wikipedia. Read a few articles. Think about them. Then contribute to existing articles. Then start to think about creating a new article. -- Hoary (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you for the advice. I assure you this is 100% legitimate, maybe we wait for you. When I said he is a modern day Thomas Edison I wasn't lying. Marawers (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

See also WP:COI, WP:BOSS and WP:PROUD. It is very rare (in fact almost unheard of) for a Wikipedia article to be created simply because somebody wanted to have one. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

This isn't an existing article. We created it tonight. Marawers (talk) 06:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

It never got further than the draft stage, and nor is it likely to unless the subject meets the general notability guideline. Also, the rather extravagant tone of the proposed article suggests that somebody may have a conflict of interest here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate your advice. I will try and improve our article before we submit again. I am new to this, so thank you for your patience abd your guidelines, it’s great advice! 71.215.2.68 (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Marawers. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Marawers, you write "We created it tonight", etc. Why "we" and not "I"? -- Hoary (talk) 08:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Marawers, your draft was pretty much the exact opposite of what an acceptable encyclopedia article needs to look like. Did you do any reading about our policies and guidelines before wasting your time writing this poor quality content? If not, why not? Cullen328 (talk) 08:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Fix an archive

Talk:Zoe McLellan has been archived in a weird way, see July 2024 edits:[4]. Can someone who is good at archiving fix this, please? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

This is my first time achieving a talk page manually, but I believe I fixed it. Cheers. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 08:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Posting Someone's Private Information

I noticed that user CoachBriceWilliams28 has posted another user's private information on a talk page. "Although I haven't ever edited this article, I have a theory that all these ANON posts above are still this [perma-banned] user. I couldn't help but notice all [ 1 , 2 , 3, & 4 ] users were in the same region. Either this user is who I suspect, OR they have a similar trolling motif unhelpful to the page. Perhaps an admin can run a CheckUser and look for a match between the 2 to see if this COI page has a confounding variable. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)" Is this allowed? It was on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_Churches_of_Christ#COI_editing 2600:1700:4260:35D0:29CD:9764:81A0:2718 (talk) 07:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

If somebody edits Wikipedia without logging in, then their IP number is displayed. This is thus public information. WHOIS says which IP number belongs to which ISP, and perhaps also where the particular editor is located. This too is public information. The mistake within what you quote is Coachbricewilliams28's seeming belief that mere admins can run CheckUser. In reality, only a very small percentage of admins can do so (and they need a clear reason for doing so): see Wikipedia:CheckUser. The other mistake is, on seeing what one believes to be the divulging of private information, to write about the matter on a page such as this and thereby draw more attention to it. Instead, delete it and apply for "oversight". -- Hoary (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any personal information being posted. The linked IPs are all WP:SPAs on this subject and user:Coachbricewilliams28 suspects they are socks of an editor blocked for edits in this area. Note that all of these IPs, including the OP, were covered by a previous 6 month range block by user:Bbb23 on 2600:1700:4260:35D0:0:0:0:0/64 for socking by the user in question. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qewr4231. Meters (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Reported to WP:SPI. Meters (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Thumbnails not created

Dear Wikipedia,

I recently edited this article: David Snoke

However, the thumbnail of this file doesn't show: File:Sciadv.adk6960-f2.jpg

Could you please help me with this issue?

Thank you very much! Van.truongson (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)