Wikipedia:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The Wikipedia help desk is a place where you can ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia. For other types of questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
  • For other types of questions, see Help:Contents and Are you in the right place? 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.
  • We are all volunteers, so sometimes replies can take some time. Please be patient. Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
  • If you need real-time help, you can join our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
  • If you are a new editor, you might prefer to ask your question at the Teahouse, an area specifically for new users to get help with editing, article creation and general Wikipedia use, in a friendly environment.
  • Remember to sign your post by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. Alternatively, you can click on the signature icon (Wikipedia edit toolbar signature icon) on the edit toolbar.

July 3[edit]

Flag for under-representation of women[edit]

My question is prompted by the article "William Beechey". I noticed that the section about his family mentions "many children" but only five are named. All are male. It is possible they were mentioned because they are notable, and the absence of women reflects the Georgian period.

Nevertheless, I sought some way to flag this discrepancy. There is a template "globalise" to indicate a geographic bias, and there are templates related to lack of neutrality. However, I couldn't come up with a template to say "this article ignores women", putting it bluntly.

Is there a way to highlight a gender bias in content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humphrey Tribble (talkcontribs) 03:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a good question, but I don't think so. It's a vexing problem, representing women in the past when they weren't permitted to be notable, and even if they were it wasn't recorded. In the case of William Beechey, his male children have articles. His female children don't; they may very well have been smarter and better than the boys, but weren't allowed to develop it; it is what it is. It's a problem of the course and the recording of history, and my personal opinion is that that is beyond our purview to rectify, so I don't think it should be tagged, no. Herostratus (talk) 04:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer Herostratus: "There is no such flag."
Nevertheless, you have assumed that the female children are not notable because no Wikipedia articles about them are included in the William Beechey article. That assumption, in itself, highlights the underlying systemic bias: by excluding "non-notables" we are automatically marginalising women. (Please don't take offence; I'm just trying to address the prejudices we all hold.)
The article about his wife, portraitist Anne Beechey, seems to have a complete list of their children. Two female children are "ladies in red", suggesting that articles about them simply haven't been created yet. But at least all the children are named rather than giving the impression that the female children didn't exist, historically.
As a result of my concern, I have signed up for WikiProject Women's History. I will try to find out more about the Beechey's daughters. I think it would be useful to have a template similar to "globalise" so I will keep that in mind.
Humphrey Tribble (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Humphrey Tribble, You might also really enjoy the Women in Red project if you're not already signed up for it. I often suggest, in these cases, that the daughters' names just be added to the article (as long as there are reliable sources that name them) and I think having those redlinks in there makes it more likely for someone else to be bold and start writing an article. It's a worthwhile thing to think about. Jessamyn (my talk page) 20:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A page I contributed to was flagged inaccurately[edit]

Hi, I'm a fan of the band Dead Posey. I've been contributing and citing their wiki page as well as the members wiki pages and today I made some small edits on their main band page and I was falsely flagged as a "paid contributor" by PRAXIDICAE. I'm just a fan of the band that wants to help them anyway I can & I am not being paid by them. I have followed wiki guidelines and have cited all the sources. How do I go about getting this flag taken off of the top of the bands wiki page? Thank you for your time. Poewritesthings (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it like ten minutes ago. Refresh the page. PRAXIDICAE🌈 04:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Apollos Simi Pro Hockey Team[edit]

Hello, I just wanted to share some additional information after reading about the Houston Apollos Hockey team from 1979 - 1980 81 This Team traveled & played against the Historic USA Olympic February 22, 1980 Hockey Team that defeated the Russians which later became a motion feature movie. I watched a game one evening in Wichita Kansas in 1979 & was able to be seated directly next to the glass of the Houston Apollos. The Olympic Hockey team played an amazing game against a Profession Hockey Team that night. If my memory serves me right the Olympic team did barely win in the closing minutes. I think that if it were not for teams such as the Houston Apollos to prepare this Historic Hockey Team in 1979 before the Olympics. It is in my opinion the USA Olympic Hockey Team would not have accelerated to prominence they had achieved without the help of the Houston Apollos Hockey Team. I wish some investigation can be done & some additional facts be added to Wikipedia of how important this Houston Hockey Team played in History of the 1980 Olympic Hockey Team USA.

Thank you 2600:8800:7B82:6A00:8461:3694:7B43:9218 (talk) 05:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! The best place to have this discussion is on the article's talk page: Talk:Houston Apollos. Please provide any published reliable sources that confirm your statements. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


uhhh 🙄 can you gib me some help about EdItInG? Kanjishowa21-4 (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kanjishowa21-4. So far, all your edits to articles have been reverted (that is, undone by another editor) because they have not been constructive: they have not improved the text for our readers. So please proceed very slowly and be sure the information you add has a reliable source. We do expect our editors to be competent and to gain experience you should start with simple tasks, for example as listed at the task centre. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Kanjishowa21-4: Hi there! To learn how to edit, you could view Help:Introduction and try The Wikipedia Adventure. GoingBatty (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull: I stopped directing people to WP:TWA after finding it to be buggy. I started a decision tree that might help also you with general editing and Wikipedia usage scenarios. WP:TRIAGE TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Timtempleton meant that comment for you, GoingBatty, rather than me. I don't recommend TWA any longer. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asking about using multiple accounts[edit]

Can I contribute using more than one account at the same time? Dinesh | Talk 10:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dineshswamiin There are legitimate uses of alternative or additional accounts, see WP:VALIDALT. In general, if you have an alternative account, it should be clearly identified as such on its user page. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically: if you have multiple accounts, the user page for each should list all the others, and preferably give the reasons for their existence. Maproom (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Help, help, help. I forgot my Wikipedia password and I still remember my email address. How can I get my password back? (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:FAQ/Technical. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recover old account[edit]


I'd like to log in to my old Wikipedia / Wikimedia Commons account with the username [removed for privacy] – however, since I created this account back in 2009, I unfortunately forgot both email address and password associated with it. I tried to guess both, but I always get the error message "Incorrect password or confirmation code entered. Please try again.". Since this is the username I use on a lot of platforms, I'd really like to get access to it.

Could the email address be changed to my current one, so I can request a password reset?

Thanks. 2804 (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@2804: Usernames are case sensitive and the first character is automatically capitalized. There is no [removed for privacy] or [removed for privacy]. [removed for privacy] was uploaded by [removed for privacy] with capital M. [removed for privacy] only shows 34 edits. Email addresses are only reset in rare circumstances with far more edits. Usernames with significant edits cannot be usurped. [removed for privacy] does have an email address set but I don't have access to it. You don't have to enter an email address at commons:Special:PasswordReset but remember capital M and check the inbox of any old email account you have access to. Passwords never expire. If you don't remember the password and cannot receive mails at the stored address then you cannot gain access to the account or username. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add pronunciation[edit]

I want to add the pronunciation to an article about an Italian. Do I need a source to even if I'm an Italian native speaker? If so, what kind of source do I use? Dr Salvus 19:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Salvus: Yes, you need to provide a source that shows the pronunciation you want to add. See Milan and Moscow for some sourcing examples. RudolfRed (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A link to somebody who pronounces the name isn't fine? Dr Salvus 21:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be published in a reliable source. See WP:RS for guidance. RudolfRed (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say if the pronunciation would be obvious to somebody who speaks Italian, there is an argument to be made that it's common knowledge and doesn't need verification, but citing a source would still be better. Rummskartoffel 21:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 4[edit]

Redirect moves[edit]

I have been closing move requests as a non-admin for a few weeks now, but I am still unsure of how to swap names between an article and a redirect as a non-page mover. Do I send the request to WP:RMT? Or do I tag the page for moving with G6 via Twinkle? I have had pages moved by doing the latter with Template:Db-g6 (Reason:Moved per talk page consensus), though I am unsure if the CSD tagging is appropriate. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Is this not the right place to ask this question? CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions § Non-admin closure says: Editors are permitted to close the discussion and file a technical move with a link to the closed discussion. In case that doesn't answer your question and you don't get a better answer before this section is archived, you may want to try asking at WT:RM. Rummskartoffel 14:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Balance wheel[edit]

I purchased a Seth Thomas mantel clock that was loosing 2 minutes every day. I received information that to make the clock run faster take two weights out of the wheel I did that, the problem is I must have installed the balance wheel wrong inside the clock, because the wheel is not turning Is there any way I could receive some help on this. (talk) 06:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for asking questions about editing Wikipedia. We have Wikipedia:Reference desk but you'd have to WP:REGISTER to try that. Perhaps try someplace like Quora? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reference desk (for which you don't need an account) is for answering questions with referenced answers, rather than practical help with clock repairs. I suggest you return the clock to the retailer for replacement.--Shantavira|feed me 08:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shantavira, at the rd it says "Editing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled.". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, that doesn't seem to apply to the separate rd:s. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


How do I make a table in Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreddyWitDa$tacks (talkcontribs) 10:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For help on tables, try Help:Table. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First Article got deleted[edit]


I would like to restore my article so that I can make an appropriate changes to it. Since it was deleted for a WP:G11 and not for any copywrite violation and can be improved by changing the content with a neutral point of view and by deleting some external links. Are there any possible solutions? Jaz van (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jaz van You may request restoration at WP:REFUND. It would probably be restored to Draft space so you can submit it for a review before it is formally part of the encyclopedia. It will need to read less like a university brochure and more like an article that summarizes independent reliable sources. If you are associated with the college, please read WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jaz van I was in error, G11 deletions cannot be restored. 331dot (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaz van The first thing you should do is ask the deleting administrator if they are willing to restore the content so you can work on it. If they refuse then you can contest it, but for G11 speedy deletions this has to be done at WP:Deletion review rather than WP:requests for undeletion (as it is not an uncontroversial, routine action). At deletion review you would have a week long discussion where you would need to argue that G11 was incorrectly applied, and that the draft was not unambiguous promotion. The only deletion decisions that cannot be appealed are those involving copyright, slander/attack pages and those that involve content that is illegal in the United States. Honestly, it's probably easier to start a new draft if the deleting admin will not agree to restoration. (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should the awards section in infoboxes include the date?[edit]

I have noticed that some awards sections in infoboxes include the date and some do not (even though the date is known). What is the preferred style?
Example: "Nobel Peace Prize (2022)" vs "Nobel Peace Prize" Aankom (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aankom: In the infobox for World Food Programme, their award is linked to the main Nobel Prize article, and the year of the award is linked to a different article, the one for the actual award from that year. I think that's an elegant solution. I don't see any usage guidelines associated with that parameter in Template:Infobox person, so there doesn't seem to be a right or wrong way. Does that answer your question? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems to be an elegant solution! Aankom (talk) 12:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archive Template is not linking correct[edit]

On Talk:War on I-4, the template archives is not correctly linking to the archive page Talk:War on I-4/Archives/ 1. It appears that the bot, ClueBot III (operated by Cobi), may have not built the page with the correct naming convention. I don't want to move the page on the chance that causes more problems for the bot. I am looking for help from Cobi or someone else with knowledge on the bot/template. Elisfkc (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was a bad archiveprefix parameter. I have fixed it [1] and moved the archive to the expected name Talk:War on I-4/Archive 1. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PrimeHunter: Thanks, I feel like a idiot for missing that. Elisfkc (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elisfkc: It's easy to miss. Lots of editors have done it when they asked for archiving help so I eventually created Category:Pages where archive parameter is not a subpage for another archiving bot. The category originally had around 2700 pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Question[edit]

I'm working on an article on something called the "Livingston Chart" or "Livingston Plot".[2] The trick is turning out to be figuring out the copyright status of various versions of the chart. The one I linked above is in Symmetry Magazine, which is an official publication of two national laboratories and the United States Department of Energy. Per WP:PD, U.S. government works are in the public domain BUT most works provided by national labs aren't. The Symmetry Magazine terms of use make pretty clear that they AREN'T putting the material in the public domain, unless I'm reading them wrong.

So back to the drawing board. Next up is the version in the 2001 Snowmass Report. This report is produced for the DOE Office of Science and Technology Policy periodically to guide future policy on particle accelerator dvelopment... but is published by SLAC. I'm fuzzy on how a claim of public domain on that one would be treated.

One approach would be just to reproduce the chart myself - the data is all public, and it would literally be a question of just throwing the numbers back into a charting program and making my own. But does that constitute WP:OR?

This chart is a pretty essential diagram in the field of accelerator physics. There's no question of its wiki-notability. I'm just kind of baffled by how best to actually get it in here.

Thanks for any advice. PianoDan (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Snowmass is from the US DOE Office of Scientific and Technical information. PianoDan (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PianoDan, both Fermilab and SLAC are public/private partnerships. The DOE provides that funding but the labs are administered, managed, operated and staffed by private-sector organizations. Cullen328 (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I gathered. What about the OSTI report? Or making the chart myself from scratch? PianoDan (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


HOW TO DELETE SEARCH HISTORY Johnmascaro1 (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnmascaro1: This doesn't seem to be Wikipedia-related. Google is your friend as it varies across browsers. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnmascaro1: To expand on that: Wikipedia software does not retain users' search history. Anything you see below when you click into the "Search Wikipedia" box has been remembered and placed there by your browser. In most cases, you should be able to hover over the suggestions and hit a delete (trash) button, or set the browser so it never shows these at all. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhojpuri language page[edit]

There are multiple users who are trying to spread wrong information on Wikipedia page of Bhojpuri language — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Then, you can try discussing it on the talk page of the article. Click the 'talk' tab at the top to get to the talk page, and press 'new section' to start a new topic. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 20:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction/Discrepency Reporting[edit]


I'm seeing a contextual contraction (hypocrisy) found on the page "Polyarchy".

Explanation of the Issue:

The opening statement and "summary table" of this page are in disagreement because the opening statement says:

- "It takes the form of neither a dictatorship nor a democracy" (line 2)

...whereas the "summary table" identifies the page's topic as "Democracy". (Row 1: line 2)


How would I request an appeal / revisitation of this page, on account of those issues? Daanksy (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Daanksy. There isn't anybody to "report" such issues to. They are resolved by a consensus among interested editors - of which you are one. If you can see a way of resolving the problem (within Wikipedia's principles of verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research) then you are welcome to edit the article; alternatively, you can raise the issue on the talk pageTalk:Polyarchy, and see who joins the discussion. You might also put a note at WT:WikiProject Politics pointing to the discussion you start. ColinFine (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Daanksy: It's not a "summary table" and doesn't define the page's topic. An infobox is a summary table but Polyarchy has a sidebar: Template:Democracy sidebar. The heading is "Democracy" but Polyarchy is listed under "Related topics", not "Types". There is no contradiction here. The same sidebar is usually displayed on many articles. This one is on 68 articles. I agree that polyarchy is a related topic to democracy and the link belongs in the sidebar. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is adding references to an article is not considered "minor edit"?[edit]

Why is adding references to an article is not considered "minor edit"? I think it doesn't change the content of the article. QiuLiming1 (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@QiuLiming1: Help:Minor edit says: "signifies that the current and previous versions differ only superficially (typographical corrections, etc.), in a way that no editor would be expected to regard as disputable". Other editors can see an edit is marked as minor and choose to not examine it for appropriateness. Adding references is definitely not minor. Other editors may for example want to see whether the source looks reliable and supports the content. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @QiuLiming1: A minor edit is marked to allow page watchers to know that they don't need to pay too much attention to it. An unscrupulous editor can add poor sources that push a point of view and mark it as minor edit, to hope it's not noticed. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In zh:Beethoven (sorry it's in Chinese Wikipedia) the article is filled with many {{citation needed}} and I added some reference to it, in that case do other editors still need to pay attention to my addition of references? --QiuLiming1 (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most definitely. Closely watching what kinds of references are added to articles is one of the ways we maintain as high a standard of quality and reliability as possible. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@QiuLiming1: Each Wikipedia language makes its own rules and many things can vary but I would expect addition of references to never be considered a minor edit. The Chinese page about minor edits is zh:Help:小修改. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Since zhwiki's help page only explains what is a minor edit, and doesn't describe the rule of that in detail, so I went here to ask. QiuLiming1 (talk) 00:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 5[edit]


Greetings. The wikipage for the Swedish actor Hans Ernback shows a photo of Robert Redford, rather than the actor in question.

Thank you. 2A02:C7F:784F:F100:90BB:2356:908F:D671 (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out, IP editor. That file was uploaded under the provisions of WP:NONFREE by Gpkp, who may like to comment. I must say it does look like Redford and not similar to other images from a Google image search of Ernback. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gpkp's user page is tagged as "Retired", and when investigating the image earlier I found the source URL no longer valid, and thought the supposed host website an unlikely (though not impossible) source for a photo of an actor. To be on the safe side, the photo should probably be replaced by one definitively of Ernback. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gpkp has declared himself retired on 28 May 2022. There are hundreds of (mostly uncropped) copies of the photo on the internet, mostly saying redford, if anything. There is also this stock image, which appears to be from same session, is labeled Redford, and I'd say looks more typically Redford. - R. S. Shaw (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the photo from the article. A bot should now delete the non-free image within a week, since it is no longer associated with any article. Once it is gone, a photo that is more clearly Ernback can be added. Mike Turnbull (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance with U.S. Navy admirals wikitable (code)[edit]

This wikitable for U.S. Navy admirals suffers from an extremely narrow "Notes" column. Despite practically copying the code I use in similar tables, I can't get the Notes column to be of a similar size as them. Using nowrap on the Notes column only makes it go past the page space. I'm unsure if the use of nowrap is causing problems, and which specific ones should be removed to fix the problem, if any to look like the other wikitables I've linked. I would appreciate if someone could communicate to me what the problem is here. SuperWIKI (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperWIKI: The problem is with the ridiculously long organisation names in the "position" column, such as COMSIXTHFLT/COMSTRIKFORNATO/DCOMUSNAVEUR/DCOMUSNAVAF/JFMCC. Browsers treat them as single, unbroken words. The use of slashes contravenes MOS:SLASH as its not clear what the slashes signify. Replacing each one with a comma followed by a space (or something similar which includes a space) will allow the browser to do it's work. The explicit "width" setting on the notes column header can be removed. Note also that specifying dates such as (1953–        ) contravenes MOS:DATERANGE; and it's not clear what such date ranges signify. Bazza (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You could remove {{nowrap}} from "Date of rank" and "Michael A. Lefever" to allow some columns to be more narrow. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yuan Bingyan[edit]

I need help, the profile of actress Yuan Bingyan has been hacked with malicious comments the last one that refers to June 13, should be deleted ALGUIENQUETIENEALGOQUEDECIR (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the page, this should be discussed at Talk:Yuan Bingyan. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the biography of Yuan Bingyan, a malicious paragraph has been inserted that aims to damage the good image of the actress and this paragraph brings references, malicious marketing articles, and comments from haters who want to ruin the career of the actress. This information is not endorsed by any competent entity in China, which may cause a legal claim, for damage to the good image of a public figure. It is required to delete this paragraph and references 1 and 2 of Yuan Bingyan's biography. Vandals are hacking her life all the time. ALGUIENQUETIENEALGOQUEDECIR (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ALGUIENQUETIENEALGOQUEDECIR: I strongly suggest you retract what you just wrote. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Wikipedia cannot allow this kind of malicious comments about a person's good image. ALGUIENQUETIENEALGOQUEDECIR (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ALGUIENQUETIENEALGOQUEDECIR: I strongly suggest you lay off the legal threats (as you've been warned on your user talk page) or else you will almost be guaranteed a block. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't make legal threats. I believe that Wikipedia cannot allow this kind of malicious comments about a person's good image. ALGUIENQUETIENEALGOQUEDECIR (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not making legal threats, I am only indicating that this is a slander, because there is no evidence of a controlling entity to support these comments. They are required to delete that paragraph. ALGUIENQUETIENEALGOQUEDECIR (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A distinction without a difference, as you're essentially threatening legal action by proxy in an effort to dictate content. We have no tolerance for that, full stop, because all it does is stop any discussion on the merits of the claim entirely. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the correct spelling of a name?[edit]

I had created the article Cătălin Tecuceanu as it is written in its original language. The article has been moved with the justification that it must be written as is in the language of the new citizenship. How are things? --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kasper2006 It should be written in the same way as most English-language sources write it, per WP:COMMONNAME. Absent English langauge sources, it should be as whichever sources you are using write it. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This from Worldathletics is the most reliable source. Can you please do the redirect reverse yourself? --Kasper2006 (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, as not mentioned, I had not seen that they had already done so. Thanks anyway. Kasper2006 (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Collateral damage[edit]

Civil Engineer 3 removed all significant contents carelessly in Ethiopia. Can you revert it to last revision please. Regarding The Supermind (talk) 06:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I see that Civil Engineer 3 had removed about a sixth of the content of the article, most of it with the edit summary "parse, grammar". I've reverted to the state before these deletions. More recent additions by The Supermind have thereby also been lost, but as they've asked for the revert I guess they can handle that. Maproom (talk) 07:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
article non legible again....very bad revert of edits by a copy editor here for 15 years who spend their time fixing copy edit tags... O well :-( Moxy-Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 13:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Farnborough Hall for Mr. Getty[edit]

Hello. I'm working on a project with the Getty Foundation and me and Gordon are gonna open an institute at my family's house. Can someone make sure that I changed the page appropriately. Its Farnborough_Hall. Its like JUST now public information. So who do I cite, myself? Kalorama20008 (talk) 08:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kalorama20008 Since you are associated with the project, you should read about conflict of interest. If you are compensated in any way(doesn't have to be money) for your work, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure.
With a conflict of interest, you should avoid directly making edits related to it, instead you may make formal edit requests(click for instructions) on the article talk page(Talk:Farnborough Hall) detailing changes you feel are needed. In terms of your question, you cannot cite yourself as there is no way to verify your claims. You need to cite a reliable source that can be verified, preferably an independent source. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. No problem. Can you help me. This is all a surprise for Mr. Getty to look at tomorrow. I didnt want to make too many permanent changes because he may hate the idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalorama20008 (talkcontribs) 08:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kalorama20008 Whoever he is, Mr. Getty's feelings are not relevant to Wikipedia activities, and Wikipedia is not concerned with any surprises you wish to spring or any other form of deadline you have for yourself. I don't mean to sound cruel, but I must be honest. We are only interested in summarizing independent reliable sources. If you propose edits as I described, this does not make a permanent change, although there is no timeframe for your requests to be reviewed. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, my husband and I own Farnborough Hall…so wikipedia is publishing information on property that belongs to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalorama20008 (talkcontribs) 09:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kalorama20008 Again, I don't mean to sound cruel- but you have no special rights to the article about your property because you are the propertly owner. This is just as Donald Trump or Boris Johnson don't have any special rights to the articles about them even though they say things both men probably wish the articles didn't say. See WP:OWN for more information. We are, however, interested in your input just as we are from any other editor, as long as you provide it indirectly as I have described(as an edit request). 331dot (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kalorama20008, you have claimed above that you and your husband own Farnborough Hall. According to the National Trust, they own it. In your edits, you changed its name to "Getty College at Farnborough Hall". The website of Oxford University lists no such college. I suspect that your edits are all a hoax. Maproom (talk) 10:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Totally made up. Like this, here, Research Institute. Except some people don't want to be in California. That's why we picked my house. Also, please cite to documentation proving the National Trust owns Farnborough. I've been looking for it for 12 years. They dont. I have the will of Marjorie Holbech. How do I upload that? Kalorama20008 (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Um, Maproom clearly linked to the website of the National Trust showing that it is theirs. If it's not, you will need to address that with them, not us. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I can't see anywhere on that page which states that NT owns the land. I don't know if the Trust owns all of the land in the public parts of sites it maintains. The page I link to below says Only freehold acquisitions are currently shown, but the National Trust also leases some land, holds restrictive covenants over some land (this imposes a restriction on the use of land, so that the value and enjoyment of neighbouring land will be preserved), and holds rights over some land.
But you can find Farnborough Hall on, where it says The house and surrounding grounds were transferred to the Trust in 1960 through National Land Fund procedures ColinFine (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OP blocked for a legal threat. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that was technically a legal threat. But it did provide ample evidence that further conversation with the OP won't be fruitful. Maproom (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, saying they are a government officer who will have me investigated in a federal facility and have me fingerprinted sounds like a legal threat to me. It certainly sounded like hogwash to me(maybe related to their earlier post on my talk), but it's still a threat. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Blaikley[edit]

I have been trying to change the Date of death of my dear friend Alan Blaikley who passed away last night 4th July 2022. Can you help me with this? Nicotenorino (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicotenorino As you can probably understand, we cannot just accept your word that he has passed. We need a reliable source that can be verified, such as a news story about his death, or a death announcement/obituary. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The mirror has a story at . I'm not sure on whether the Mirror counts as a reliable source.Naraht (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Mirror would be a "reliable enough in this context" source. Other reliable outlets will probably offer their own tributes in due course. Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Alan Blaikley  Done but not by me. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nicotenorino: and sorry for your loss. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using Wikipedia material[edit]

Can I use a "short" Wikipedia article as an introduction to a Public Domain book? JWMarek (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JWMarek Yes you can, as long as you follow the conditions for reuse, see WP:Reusing Wikipedia content for the steps you will need to take. Pay particular attention to images, as a lot of images are used here under claims of fair use which may or may not apply to whatever you use the content for. (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JWMarek: Not exactly, because the book will no longer be "public domain". Wikipedia is not public domain. It is copyrighted and licensed under CC-BY-SA. To use the material, you must comply with this license, which means you must attribute the copied material, AND you must license your "derived work" (i.e., the book) under the CC-BY-SA license. There are multiple ways to get around this if it's an electronic book, e.g. by making each chapter a different file. For a bound book, you can put you PD notice on each chapter except the one copied from Wikipedia. What you cannot do is state that the book as a whole is PD. -Arch dude (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a Notable Person[edit]

Hi I would like to Add the resident Gil Noble to Montclair New Jersey. He worked for ABC Television for over 40 Years, Anchored the Morning and Evening news, hosted his own talk show which won 6 Emmy awards and won over 300 hundred civic awards. He was a very beloved member of the community. Thank you. Lmnr711 (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lmnr711:  Done I had to find a source that he had lived in Montclair. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. He lived on Stephen Street in Montclair for nearly 50 years. 2603:7000:A306:E510:51DB:6E58:9C48:F230 (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all linked pages[edit]

Due to a page move, everything linking to Loring Park from other pages should be linked to Loring Park, Minneapolis. How can that easily be fixed? CTF83! 23:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Start by correcting the link within the prolifically transcluded Template:Minneapolis_neighborhoods. Then look at what else links to Loring Park. Edit each of these, correcting where appropriate. -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there an easier bot that can do it? CTF83! 02:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AWB can help. See Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks if you don't want to use or install it yourself. There are 74 source links.[3] That's not enough to get a bot. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. CTF83! 18:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 6[edit]

uploading images that are loaded into Wiki Commons and are properly attributed to Wiki Article[edit]

I am working on a article in Pittsburgh Engine House No 16. It is very well researched. I have been working on this for over two years. The article has many wonderful photos and images of Newspaper Articles with photos that have been uploaded to Wiki Commons. I can not get the images to upload to my article. Please help. Thank you. Fireman Creative (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fireman Creative: You have to give the full file name including .jpg for File:Engine House No 16 1913.jpg. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It still will not load. This image is in WikiCommons although I changed the license to Public Domain- it was taken prior to 1927. The photo was not published previously. It depicts 3 fire trucks from 1913- the first in the city. An amazing photo and it should be added to the article about Engine House No 16. I need to get this article in front of editors who can help improve
the article. I have great sources, great old newspaper and never before seen photos. The firehouse was built in 1888. Fireman Creative (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apropos of that photo, Fireman Creative, you say that it's your own work. I infer that you're at least 110 years old, and more likely over 120 or above. My respects! Alternatively, you are not; and the description "Own work" is mere fiction. This is what most people will guess, so the file risks deletion. Please study the "Hirtle chart", and adjust the description of the file appropriately. -- Hoary (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the photo was published before 1927 (not merely created), then it is public domain and should be tagged {{PD-US-expired}} (on Commons). However, I could not find the original source (the photo does not seem to be on the internet), so I will not change the tag myself.
Fireman Creative, please either change the description yourself, or just tell us here what the source of the photo is and we will sort it out. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 12:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is from the former Pittsburgh Fire Bureau Archives which were thrown out by the City of Pittsburgh in the 1980's. Photo is likely from the files of William E Patterson nicknamed Scrappy- who was the Chief City Clerk in the 1920 and 1930's. This photo is absolutely in the public domaine. It is a gift to the Wiki world that I am sharing it here. I could keep this to myself or publish it to a book for sale but I have decided to share this for no profit of my own. I will try and figure out how to change the copy right to PD-US-expired. Is this something that you can help me with? I have many old photos. I am working on a digital museum project. I want to share with the Wikipedia community but I also do not feel it is appropriate to be insulted as listing self- I have the photo- it was thrown away and I did not have clear instructions on how to identify. I want to to learn and I absolutely am respecting copyright laws. As I have the original print and the only known copy -I assumed it was mine to scan and to post hence self. Thank you for your help and support. Fireman Creative (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fireman Creative Sorry that you felt insulted; I'm sure that wasn't anyone's intention. Copyright is a mess, as you can see. As part of that mess, the term "own work" has a particular meaning-- it means you created the image. I don't think "own work" is very descriptive, so it's easy to accidentally mess up. (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thank you- I have read and reread the "Hirtle chart" - This photo is unpublished to my knowledge- it was taken in 1913 documenting the first fire trucks in service by the Pittsburgh Fire Department at Engine House 16. {{PD-US-unpublished}} It is absolutely in the public domain. It was absolutely created before 1927 {PD-US-expired}. with old undocumented never seen photographs that I think may have been part of the now decommissioned fire dept archives. I am archiving the Pittsburgh Fire Bureau digital museum and am actively searching for old images. I can just keep them private if Wiki proves too restrictive to allow. Why so hard and why have a mean attitude about mistakes. I am doing the public good. I need help uploading this photo and others. Fireman Creative (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I have nowiki'd a template in the above post that was messing with the formatting of the rest of the page. (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fireman Creative, unfortunately, the photo does not seem to be in the public domain. According to the Hirtle chart, it will not enter the public domain until 2033 (since there is no known photographer with a known date of death). Working out the copyright status of something can indeed be a complicated, painful process, but we or the Commons folks can try to clarify things if you ask (there's even a place set up specifically to address such problems, the Media copyright questions page). (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting me know that this photo will not be in the public domain until 2033. this is rather strange- I am working on a huge project for the Pittsburgh Fire Bureau and these finds are amazing. I have been digging deeper into my archives- the Chief City Clerk in 1920 was William Patterson- he may have taken the photo or paid for it to be taken for the Fire Bureau. William Patterson died in 1932. The city threw out the archives in 1980. All of the documentation went with it. On Sunday Sept 17 1916 the picture section of The Gazette Times feature a Rotogravure section- It featured the long truck No 9 and the squad truck. The article is about Pittsburgh's Up to Date Motorized Fire Apparatus. Is this type of discovery and research of unpublished content maybe is not appropriate for Wikipedia- I thought it was. I have uploaded this image to the WikiCommons. Can you check on that image. I am able to publish all of these images and maybe I need to write an article and publish it in a local history magazine and then I can site that in my Wiki. Seems convoluted. I may just say forget it and quit. I have worked too long and hard on this and really was only trying to share. Fireman Creative (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fireman Creative, I'm afraid a guess at the identity of the photographer isn't going to be enough - it's too bad all that documentation was lost! As for your 1916 image, since it was actually published, and its publication predates 1927, it is indeed in the public domain.
You're right that discovery of and research into unpublished content isn't what Wikipedia is set up for; the purpose of Wikipedia is to search out information that has already been discovered, researched and published in reliable sources, summarize it, and cite it. If your local history magazine is a good one, it might be a perfect source for use here (though you'd need to be careful about citing your own work too much).
Please don't give up on uploading images to Commons. I know it's hard to figure out copyright law and tag your images appropriately, but these really are valuable bits of history and making them more widely available is a Good Thing, entirely in the spirit of Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Don't be discouraged! Keep it up! (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the encouragement. I love the 1913 photo but I will have to publish it elsewhere first. I replace in the artile with a newspaper account and photographs- not nearly as nice but serves the article. I am trying very hard to have a complete and well edited Wiki Article. Any suggestions of how to get others to read and contribute? When do I leave the Sandbox and post to the community? Fireman Creative (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I noticed something that might be vandalism. Could someone please check?

At Farmington,_Maine#Prophecy the link to Licia Kuenning (formerly Lisa Bieberman) goes to Timothy Leary#Psychedelic experiments and experiences, impying thartthe prophesy was a result of drug use, not religious belief.

Also, are any of these suitable references for that section?

2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:34A3:8C98:350B:62D1 (talk) 06:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be vandalism, though I noticed you posted this to the talk page of that article, where people more knowledgeable about it may have a firmer answer for you. - Purplewowies (talk) 07:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bieberman/Kuenning is mentioned in that section of the Leary article (in the "Dissension over studies" sub-subsection), and that's presumably why the link was added. Deor (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate edits[edit]

Hi, i need help. An editor named "Alototus" keep reverting my edits on article named " Deoghar Airport" where he keeps adding layover/ connecting flights to airlines and destinations page. I think only direct flight that operates from airport should only be there. It is obvious that airport will interconnected via each other by some connecting flights that doesn't mean that editor should keep adding those lenghty list. Any help to fixed this will be highly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flashthomsom (talkcontribs) 07:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to discuss this with interested editors on the article talk page: Talk:Deoghar Airport. That is what the talk page is for. What flights should be included does not depend on what you think, or what you think is obvious; simply report what reliable sources say about the airport flights. I notice that airport is not yet open, so there are currently no flights at all. Have a look at other airport articles and see what flights they include. Please remember to sign your posts. Shantavira|feed me 08:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Client Wikipedia Request[edit]

Hi there, we work for a PR agency and one of our clients, owner of a high-end hospitality company is looking to create a Wikipedia page for themselves. We've read the F.A.Qs about declaring conflict of interest, and we were wondering how likely it is to get a a page set up for them. The client has done several interviews with news sites such as Big Hospitality and About Time Magazine, and has been mentioned in reviews of the restaurants in Design My Night and GQ. How likely is it for the page to be accepted given the conflict of interest and these sources? Thanks (talk) (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does your client understand that if an encyclopaedia article about them is accepted into Wikipedia, whoever writes it, it will not belong to them, will not be controlled by them or you, will not necessarily say what they would like it to say, and should be based almost entirely on what people unconnected with them have chosen to publish about them in reliable sources not on what they or their associates say or want to say? You might like to read An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.
If you and they decide to proceed, the first thing you need to do, once you have made the necessary declarations of your status as a paid editor, is to decide whether you want to create an article about them or about their company: you can't do both in one article. Having decided that, look for sources each of which meets all three of the following criteria:
  1. It is published by a reliable source - which excludes social media, most blogs, and most self-published sources.
  2. It is wholly independent of them - which excludes not only their own publications but also anything based primarily on an interview with them or a press release from them or you
  3. If contains significant coverage of them, not just routine announcements.
If you find at least three sources which meet these criteria, then the subject probably meets our criteria for notability, and it may be worth proceeding to create a draft.
Nobody can tell you how likely it is to have an article acccepted without doing this research; and, frankly, you are unlikely to find a volunteer editor interested putting in the effort to do research which you are being paid to do. ColinFine (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would temper ColinFine’s last paragraph. Some volunteer editors (probably most?) refuse to help paid editors; such editors have a spectrum of opinions ranging from "I hate those shills, they should be banned on principle, and I want to actively counteract their plans" to "maybe they can crank out acceptable articles but we don’t want to incentivize people to pay for Wikipedia articles". Some other editors, like myself, disagree; I think paid editing is going to happen no matter what, so it’s better if it happens in the open and under community supervision than in secret.
However, it is also true that few editors would accept to search for sources (which is a hard job) for a subject they are not interested in. That would be true even if the request comes from another volunteer editor.
If you post the best three sources here, I (or someone else) would probably accept to give you a review of whether they think the sources are sufficient for an article or not. But make sure that each of them checks all the boxes above. (Why three? Read WP:THREE.) TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 11:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It will be easier for you and for us if you create an account. Otherwise you would need to declare your paid status on basically every edit, and that is tedious. When you do create your account, it will be for a single individual and not for your PR firm (not for the "we" you mentioned). If there are several of you, then each of you needs an account. Account names like "BethAtPRinc", "BobAtPRinc", etc. are perfectly acceptable, but "PRinc" is not. ~---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arch dude (talkcontribs) 15:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just referring to the sources you mention, interviews are useless for notability (connexion to subject) and mere mentions in sources are also useless for notability (too sparse). Coverage of his restaurants does not equate to coverage of him, so reviews of his businesses aren't going to do you any good unless they dedicate some serious article space to discussing him directly. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Links / Orphan[edit]

Hi there everyone, just curious, why is the below page been marked as an orphan page? It appears to have a number of links within the article?'s,buy%20quirky%20or%20unusual%20objects. Icd777 (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, lcd777 and welcome to the Teahouse. Those are outward links. Orphaning is about inward links. If you pick "What links here" on the article, there isn't a single article in the list (except Irish Pickers itself - I don't understand that). ColinFine (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine: The entry for the article itself at Special:WhatLinksHere/Irish Pickers says "(transclusion)". Citation templates often cause a page to transclude itself due to the feature at Help:Citation Style 1#Auto-formatting citation template dates. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A correction[edit]

I wish to correct a statement and although I can delete the 1 sentence and replace it with the corrected wording, when I look again it has reversed my correction? (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP address' edit history has no other edits, so we need to know which edit you are referring to. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the page may have "Pending changes protection" (indicated by a grey padlock with a tick in it, at the top right hand corner of the page)
To quote from WP:Pending changes "When a page under pending changes protection is edited by an unregistered editor (also called an "IP editor") or a new user account, the edit is not directly visible to the majority of Wikipedia readers until it is reviewed and accepted by an editor with the pending changes reviewer right." So you have made the change, but can't see it, as it has not been reviewed and accepted by a PC reviewer. - Arjayay (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where to ask a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline?[edit]

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)'s header says: If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards. Despite this guidance, it's not clear where I should ask if and how WP:RSPYT and WP:RSPTWITTER ("generally unreliable") relate to policy when statements from such sources have been published in independent, secondary sources listed as "generally reliable" at WP:RSP, and those "generally reliable" sources are referred in articles instead. There is a matter of dispute resolution (should or should not those "generally reliable" sources be cited), particularly the need to clarify the policy to editors involved. (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Report user[edit]

Hey I want to report this user. I already did so at this page but it's supposedly not the right page. Where do I go? Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquatic Ambiance: It's possible your report was malformed and that is the reason it was wiped. Have you considered using Twinkle? It's got features like creating 3RR reports so that you don't need to worry about the formatting. I also don't think that this is considered vandalism. Unsourced or non-constructive? Sure. But it seems like they have good intentions, even some of their edits are purely cosmetic. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russell, Manitoba- Wikipedia[edit]

Good morning, I’m from Russell Manitoba and I was reading up on my hometown on Wikipedia and noticed a person’s name that could be added under the Notable People section.

Darren Boryskavich has won more than 55 medals as one of Manitoba’s top Special Olympians.

I’m not a family member but a proud Russellite that would like to see Darren’s name added.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Regards, Heather Lee (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Heather. As a Paralympic medallist, he should meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, so there could be an article about him, and so he could be added to that list. But it would be better if somebody wrote the article first. ColinFine (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it is common practice that persons on such lists already have an article about them before being listed. (I would also note that the Special Olympics are not the same thing as the Paralympic Games) Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, Beeblebrox. I had never heard of the Special Olympics, and assumed it was a common name for the Paralympics. In that case, Boryskavich may not meet the criteria for notability: I was surprised to find little non-local news coverage of him. ColinFine (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fix your damn maps[edit]

This is the help desk, not the angry rant desk. --Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How pathetic is it that wikipedia doesn't have functional maps? The red dot disappears when you click on the map within the wikipedia page. How amateurish. Don't you guys get trillions of dollars every year? Fix this. Its embarrassing. I can't show my friends or parents wikipedia because how embarrassing the site functions. 2600:1700:D640:88C0:69BB:304A:4D51:C84D (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most Wikipedia development of this type is done by volunteers. The money goes for keeping the servers up, etc. If you want this fixed, why not learn how to fix it yourself? If you want an unpaid volunteer to fix it, maybe you should try to be polite, and also try to provide a specific example, like a link to the page that has the map. -Arch dude (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicating User Pages[edit]

Are users allowed to copy someone else's user page, with their userboxes, barnstars, and articles started, into their own? Such as what User:Dr. Bakruddin puncherwala did with User:William Avery's user page? Nythar (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both, for you help sorting this. William Avery (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove picture of child victim with her killer as profile picture[edit]

Please remove picture of child killer posing with his victim. It should be replaced immediately 2601:643:381:2C80:C9AC:27E7:7017:4D8A (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which article are you even referring to? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 7[edit]

Requesting that a Page be Improved[edit]

Having stumbled across it and finding it interesting and important, the article 'Universal preschool' made me sad - for lack of a better term. I'm brand new to the editing side of Wikipedia, but it seems to me that the page's quality is unexpectedly poor, considering its relatively considerable (I think?) number of visitors (452 in 30 days).netball Gghuuiioljlnnhad I'm k This led me to search for an option to request improvements on a page. Is there an established way to do this? 'Edit Requests' ( do not seem to fulfill this role, as they are limited to more specific purposes. Ubadubba (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The normal way to do this is to put cleanup templates onto the page, which mark specific problems with them. The problem is that there aren't enough people around to fix all the pages that need fixing – the article Universal preschool already had {{cleanup}} and {{MoS}} tags on it, and nobody had acted on them, probably because there are so many other articles which also need the help (there are 34,987 pages tagged for cleanup at the moment, for example). I added another cleanup tag, {{underlinked}}, marking a more specific problem with the page – specific requests to improve a page are often handled faster than the more general ones.

Another thing you could do is to improve the page yourself! You don't have to fix all the problems with it at once; many pages here get better as a result of a series of small edits by lots of different people, and as long as all the edits are improvements, the article will end up in a good shape eventually. --ais523 00:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The article Universal preschool claims to be about "an international movement", but provides no evidence that such a movement exists. It offers evidence that pre-schools are a good thing, but it isn't actually about anything, it's just a piece of (imho justified) propaganda. In my view, the whole article should be deleted. Maproom (talk) 07:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've contributed a small improvement by removing the entirely invalid "See also" list. However I think Maproom makes a good point, there should probably be an AFD discussion about this. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to create a page of the same name as an existing one but for a different purpose?[edit]

Hello! I am an artist and I go by George Worthylake. However this is already a page, for an old lighthouse keeper. I'd like to have my own wikipedia page, and I have seen other duplicate pages for different people/professions. How can I do this? Thanks. Lpt01720 (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lpt01720: Writing about yourself is very strongly discouraged. See WP:AUTO. If you decide to go ahead, read WP:YFA and use the wizard there to create an article draft first. If the draft is approved, the naming can be sorted out then. RudolfRed (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, George, that it is not possible for you (or anybody else) to "have my own wikipedia page". Nobody in the universe "has their own wikipedia page" (apart from a User page, if they have one, which is where they can give information about themselves as Wikipedia editors to the Wikipedia community). If there is an article about you, whoever writes it, it will not belong to you, it will not be controlled by you, it may end up containing material you don't want, and it should be based almost entirely on what people unconnected with you have chosen to publish about you, not on what you or your associates say or want to say. Please see an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. ColinFine (talk) 09:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another question about a moving[edit]

For the World Athletics is Diego Aldo Pettorossi, for the FIDAL is Diego Aldo Pettorossi. I created the article as Diego Aldo Pettorossi but the article has been moved to Diego Pettorossi. --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@V: In the page history it shows it was moved by @Arorae:. You can ask them about it on their talk page. It might be a case of WP:COMMONNAME RudolfRed (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RudolfRed your CTRL+V didn't work Face-smile.svg Kasper2006 (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to club RM discussions[edit]

I am a regular RM discussions non-admin closer and today I found someone who made 2 related RMs as 2 separate requests even though it would benefit from being made as a grouped request. An example is this and this. These must've been a single grouped request.
How can I group this discussion and request systematically? >>> 08:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After that, I might want to relist the discussion to see new response in context of those 2 moves together. >>> 08:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that WT:RM would be a better place to ask this. ColinFine (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will take a shot there as well. >>> 09:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]