May 31[edit]

Hi, I asked User talk:Prikryl a question and he gave received a reply to me that was snarky and rude. It's not what he said, it was how he said it, like he had no respect for me. This is not the first time he has done this as back in February, he made a comment on the Talk:2024 Women's U-19 World Floorball Championships page which had the same level of disrespect again, calling what I said completely irrelevant.

I feel that some people treat me with no respect on the site and I'm very sensitive and I feel I get these responses too often when I try to be civil with people and they just make hurtful responses and don't care about being civil. It's not the spirit of Wikipedia. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 10:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ILoveSport2006 The comments you received from @User:Prikryl appear quite reasonable to me. I suggest you take their suggestions on board. This is a collaborative project and editors here expect feedback. If constructive criticism upsets you, perhaps this is not the place for you. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shantavira Calling my opinion irrelevant and saying (something you hardly ever do) is not constructive. Did you even read mine and his response? I receive this snarkiness from other people too. Just give me the constructive criticism and move on. Don't make snarky comments. How can you say what all he was saying was constructive. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 11:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shantavira The help desk is supposed to help me, not make me feel worst. Can you not say If constructive criticism upsets you, perhaps this is not the place for you. Do you want me to feel worst? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prikryl says nothing rude either in his talk page or in Talk:2024 Women's U-19 World Floorball Championships. And if you want specifics, "And what 'looks aesthetically better' is imo completely irrelevant" is fine too. (If, making a design or other editing decision, I were to appeal to some criterion that you found irrelevant to the concerns of Wikipedia's goals, guidelines, policies, etc, then you'd be welcome to call it "irrelevant". You could use "immaterial" or "inconsequential" instead; if you wanted to be ambitious, you could even try something like "nugatory". I'm not saying I'd agree with you: I might disagree. But I wouldn't complain that you hurt my feelings -- primarily because you wouldn't hurt my feelings.) And so I second Shantavira's suggestion above. -- Hoary (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary @Shantavira Even though I understand your points (although, personally, I disagree), you need to understand that in the past, I have received actual personal comments from people that have upset me. So I probably have a lot of paranoia. I probably do take comments the wrong way because I assume they re going for the you're an idiot tone. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ILoveSport2006 It's really hard to understand tone in online written communications, and as we're a global project there is a myriad of communication styles, some of which may come across as brusk or rude. In the gentlest possible way, I think it's important to have some thick skin and not to take things personally when faced with that.

Wikipedia is not a project that is worth getting upset, paranoid, or anxious over. Qcne (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qcne True. It is sad my brain works like that. I have to stop that. Thanks for the advice. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was looking to make a page for the web development software Framer, however since the page 'Framer' is taken I know I will have to append something in parenthesis to the title, and I'm not sure what to put. Thanks! - LostInInfinity (contribs • talk) 13:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Framer (software) would be a good option, in my opinion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's also the name of the company (Framer Inc; b

.

based in Amsterdam), so would that change anything? - LostInInfinity (contribs • talk) 19:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how that newline appeared, I deleted it while editing. Apparently the Wikimedia mobile editor is still broken. - LostInInfinity (contribs • talk) 19:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LostInInfinity: Please do not proceed until you are very sure that Framer is notable by the Wikipedia definition of the term, and that other editors will agree with you. See WP:NCORP. If it's not notable, it cannot have a Wikipedia article, no matter what else you do, and you will be wasting your time ans ours. See WP:AMOUNT. -Arch dude (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this article qualifies, as well as this one - LostInInfinity (contribs • talk) 18:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LostInInfinity: TechCrunch is slightly problematical: see WP:RSP. Tech.eu is not listed there either way, so you might want to go to WP:RSN and ask. Both of these pieces look to me like the kind of reportage my marketing guy got published in the trade press for my company, and if so they are not "independent". I'm just one editor and I would not vote for deletion of your article, but I would really prefer a stronger source. -Arch dude (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page File:Stjepan_Vuk%C4%8Di%C4%87_CoA_element.png has a flag which should have a transparent part in it. Is there a way to do this and make it transparent? 7s3s (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@7s3s As with almost any file you find on Common (this one is File:Stjepan Vukčić CoA element.png), you are free to modify it and re-upload it. In this particular case the best solution might be to redraw as an .svg file with transparent background where required. If you can't do that yourself, you can request it be done for you. See WP:LAB Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request I made was declined twice by @Pppery with no explanation about why it was declined except stating that it was a waste of time. However, the request I made was clearly outlined in this guideline page. Why was it declined? 2003 LN6 20:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you care so much whether a redirect has a blank line? Drop the stick. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: I know it does not matter much, however I am opposed to non-guideline conforming instances where a minor fix would be extremely easy to perform. 2003 LN6 21:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed to you creating makework for others by obsessing over trivial issues. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it can work either way. WP:BROKE may explain your opinion here. I just believe that a simple fix would be good to maintain style. You can choose to decline, but I would still like a reason for declining the offer instead of accusing me of makework. I am only attempting to systematically revise and improve the redirect according to the guideline and mean no harm to anyone. Please check my contributions around late May 29 and you will see that I was formatting many redirects and wanted to keep a uniform style. Thank you! 2003 LN6 01:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, but Pppery's refusal seems reasonable to me. For those who don't feel like clicking through, the guideline's guidance reads Use of a blank line between the redirect target link and all rcats and category links promotes readability of the code. There's not even a "should" or "recommended" in there. The presence or absence of a blank line amidst *checks notes* four lines of code, which makes no difference to the rendered page, which is only visible if people click through the "redirected from" link: this is truly a triviality, like reordering citation template parameters or capitalising the first letter of template calls.

2003 LN6, focusing on deeply unimportant matters such as this is unlikely to win you much social capital on this project. You seem to do a lot of good work in antivandalism, so thank you for that. The issue here is not worth pursuing further. Kindly, Folly Mox (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so there are many different acceptable formats for redirect categorization? 2003 LN6 01:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any guidance of type "guideline" describes one of multiple acceptable practices. Rigid adherence to the letter of every recommendation made in projectspace is both impossible due to internal contradictions and additionally not the vibe. Folly Mox (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Folly Mox: Thank you! I will not pursue the subject further. 2003 LN6 04:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Edit requests, you can start a discussion on the article's talk page to seek other editors' opinions and hopefully form a consensus. If not enough participation was received, consider starting a Request for comment. Help desk isn't a great place for such discussion, as the whole discussion would be archived 4 days later, so better hold a discussion on the talk page of the intended article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy--My article was accepted! (Yay--and thanks to spinster300 for editorial assistance!). However, I've noticed other bios of famous make-up artists include lists of their famous clients, which we had in a late draft and which featured citations name by name, but that content was removed by the editor before the draft was published presumably because it was deemed inappropriate/irrelevant --something about fame by association. Of course, when you're a famous make-up artist, your client list is your resume and the reason you get to judge Miss USA or appear regularly as "the" expert on Regis & Kelli, et. al. Their fame--is partly the creation of the makeup artist since he/she is the one who provides their "looks" on red carpets, magazines, awards shows, editorial spreads, etc. Also, my subject, is known for his philanthropy, in particular, for a star-studded, "party of the year" event he he co-hosted in Cannes in 2002 that was reported on in major gossip/celebrity/society publications around the world, and which I cited extensively. I want to bulk up the section on his philanthropy (which is linked to his work as a celebrity make-up artist and the owner/founder of a revered cosmetics brand) but worry that such content will be deemed inappropriate. I also don't want to "rat out" any wikipedia bios that do the things I was told I couldn't do. I merely want to include such related and well-documented content too! (LOL). Help? Flgreene13 (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flgreene13, thank you for disclosing on your user page that you "have been paid by Frederick L Greene- Copywriting on behalf of Vincent Longo for their contributions to Vincent Longo." Simply make your edit requests on Talk:Vincent Longo. Please do "rat out" any Wikipedia bios that are promotional. -- Hoary (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hoary! I'll take your advice! Flgreene13 (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Flgreene13 Wikipedia content is based on reliable sources that are independent of (in this case) Vincent Longo. If you can find newspaper etc. articles that mention his make-up in connection with some other celebrity then that could be valid extra content for the article on him, provided they were not just parroting some press release. There is an edit request wizard that will highlight any suggestions you make for uninvolved editors to review. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am working with others to collectively envision realistic "storylines" of our future based on current and anticipated events and technologies. Would this use case be allowed on Wikipedia given its current policies. I can provide more details if needed, but perhaps this is enough. Thanks! 130.51.143.37 (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia content is based on content verifiable in published reliable sources only. You seem to be describing collaborative original research from contributors, which is not permitted. So sorry, no. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad. Are you aware of any Wiki-like platforms that might be open to this use case? Thanks for your help. 130.51.143.37 (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google for "free wiki host". You are of course free to link from your wiki's pages to articles hare on Wikipedia. If you are adventurous, you can implement a mediawiki wiki on a virtual server on the Internet instead of using an already-implemented wiki host. -Arch dude (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@130.51.143.37: I recommend trying your luck at Miraheze (on which I am a user)--but there's a modest barrier to entry (thanks to their "Request Wiki" feature). Make your best pitch and hope for the best; come back and remind us if you and your team made it through. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 07:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 1[edit]

This was incorrectly placed on the Wisconsin geography page

Category:Geography of Minneapolis–Saint Paul 135.134.231.118 (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing it so maybe it has been fixed. If not, please link to the page you see the problem on. RudolfRed (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baqerabad Castle - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baqerabad_Castle#References

could you please give me permission to use a picture of the castle in my academic paper. Sociologist2015 (talk) 03:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sociologist2015: Permission is already given by the license, which is [1] In short, you can use the image for any purpose as long as you give attribution and release any modifications under the same license, but read the license for all the details. RudolfRed (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A friend, not at all keen on IT though uses email, has taken a photo which would improve an article I have edited. She is not a registered editor and is not interested in editing. As far as I can see, the upload process, whether to Commons or to en.wiki, requires her to be registered. Her reaction is "I really don’t want to have to set up a Wikipaedia account", though I've told her how simple it is to do so. So:

1. Is there any way for her to upload her photo without registering? or
2. Is there any document I can show her which promises that registering an account will not mean that she gets emails from Wikipedia, which I guess is her fear? or
3. Any other ideas on how I can get her photo into the article? PamD 05:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PamD, I don't get email from Wikipedia, from Wikimedia Commons, from the WMF, etc. Other than occasionally, when somebody clicks on my "Email this user", after I opted to accept such mail. Same for you? If so, just tell her not to opt to receive email. Done. (And Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia, is where to upload.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary I don't get wikipedia junkmail either, but it would be nice to be able to point her to a statement saying "Registering an account will not mean that you start getting emails from Wikipedia"! Do we have a page pointing out the advantages of registering and spelling out that there are no disadvantages to doing so? PamD 07:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD You are not even required to enter an email address to register; it is optional. There are many advantages to creating an account and I suggest you read Wikipedia:Why create an account? Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PamD, another option might be the VRT process, where your friend would send a release statement by email, allowing you to upload the file in her stead. That'd still reveal her email address to VRT, though. Rummskartoffel 10:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rummskartoffel Thanks, that might work - I'll see whether she'd be happy with that, as she's quite keen to improve the article by offering the photo, just very wary of signing up to anything! PamD 11:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Miller was a playwright; but he was also an Academy-award nominated actor... Why does his page say ONLY Playwright in parentheses, that's very silly and misleading... especially since he's more known as an actor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=Jason+Miller+(playwright)

2600:6C50:7A7F:1C3E:942A:73D8:58AB:DFE (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title (currently Jason Miller (playwright)) (i) should distinguish the man among the various Jason Millers and (ii) shouldn't be misleading. The current title doesn't deny that he was an actor. If you believe that he's more notable as an actor than as a playwright, you're welcome to argue that the article should be moved to (i.e. renamed) Jason Miller (actor). Please read Wikipedia:Requested moves#CM on how to go about this. -- Hoary (talk) 07:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it is indeed legal to use the cover of "The Resurrection of Pigboy Crabshaw" by The Butterfield Blues Band I think it would be great to include the other side. Excellent portrait photograph of the band as well as track listings and lack of copyright year as it was legal to exclude back then. Unfortunately my copy is in less than perfect condition, but I would submit it if there were no other options (which I doubt; fantastic album!). Inner sleeve is just the standard Elektra pattern. Glizhnegrobichan (talk) 06:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would qualify as fair use. Lack of "copyright year" is irrelevant. Shantavira|^{feed me} 06:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please help ManCityFanIndian (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi @ManCityFanIndian and welcome to Wikipedia! info regarding userboxes may be found at Userboxes. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 09:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need to appropriately source an image that I created myself on a page I have authored and can't figure out how to do it right. Rudard (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rudard, please could you link the page and the image and say what information you are trying to add? TSventon (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm received a notice that I had not appropriately sourced the top image on the page, which is a photo I took myself of the subject. (David2024.jpg] 2601:47:4C81:47F0:8918:3FD0:A57:92DE (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The message says add {{own}} to the file on Commons, which you have done. However Commons is a separate project so you might get a more knowledgeable answer at their helpdesk Commons:Commons:Help desk. TSventon (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Rudard: The files you uploaded for use in David Fair were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. Wikimedia Commons is a sister site of Wikipedia and it has it's own policies and guidelines; so, you will need to resolve the issues with the files on Wikimedia Commons. You can try asking for assistance at c:Commons:Help desk, but before you do you might want to take a look at c:Commons:Licensing, c:Commons:Essential information, c:Commons:Project scope/Evidence, c:Commons:FAQ and c:Commons:Own work for reference since those page might contain the information you're looking for. Finally (and this part is related to Wikipedia), if you're somehow connected to Fair either personally or professionally, you probably should take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for reference as well. That particular page provides guidance as to what the Wikipedia community expects from those you are connected to the subjects they're editing or creating content about when there connection is something more than a casual one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So if I'm not a writer, or an editor should I just delete my account. I was under the impression that we could express ourselves and maybe connect with our our personal experiences. Just delete the account. Swordfish19694647 (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Swordfish19694647: For technical reasons accounts can't be deleted. Just abandon the account and never use it again. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't have to be a writer or editor in real life to edit Wikipedia, but you seem to have used your user talk page for self promotional purpose, which is the reason for you getting a warning. As long as you make constructive changes to articles or other contents on this site, you can still edit. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'd like to see a translation of the French O'Riordan page: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famille_O%27Riordan

I am not allowed to attempt the translation myself, as per error on attempt.

The French version is far more detailed and historical that the content-light English version.

There is a an existing English URL, but the page is different & nominal content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Riordan LouieMO (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you are not allowed to use the translation is not an error, as the translation tool on English Wikipedia is only accessible to extended confirmed users. You can start an article named O'Riordan family and put the translated content there. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I was just looking at the recent changes page and found an anon user who has been making a lot of changes to lots of articles to change "Donald Trump" to "Donald J. Trump" over the course of several hours. I've asked them to stop and to get a consensus before continuing, and they seem to have stopped (for now, anyway). I don't know much about antivandal tools, and they appear to have been doing it in good faith (haven't seen any really disruptive edits from them) - just wondering if anyone with the know-how could revert all these changes at once? Talk:Donald Trump has made consensus that the middle initial shouldn't be included when referring to him (see consensus point #12). BugGhost🪲👻 14:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All sorted now - @Adam Black has reverted the changes BugGhost🪲👻 15:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edits do appear to have been in good faith, but were non-constructive in my opinion so I reverted them en-masse using Ultraviolet. I've left what I hope is a friendly enough message encouraging them to continue to contribute to Wikipedia but to pay attention to our policies and guidelines. I think an admin could have mass reverted all of the changes, but I did check all of the edits as I was doing the reverts. They all either changed "Donald Trump" to "Donald J. Trump" or changed the image used for Trump, which I felt should also have consensus. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 15:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will take a look at Ultraviolet, thanks for the info - and thanks again for taking care of the reversions BugGhost🪲👻 15:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am creating a page for my childhood neighbor who was a genius scientist at Princeton University, I created the page, but I want to make it his page, not mine and it won't let me add any more photos. here is a link to the current page. what can I do? many thanks, I appreciate your help. Betsy Finston User:Bfinston Bfinston (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you shouldn't be the one to write this article, as your relationship with the subject counts as a conflict of interest. What you should do is gathering enough indepth, reliable and independent sources about the scientist in question, make sure that these sources prove that he passes WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Once the notability criteria is met, make a request in the Scientists and people in science section. If you really want to write it yourself, use Article wizard to create a draft, and wait for other editors to edit the draft until it is ready for review and publication. Once you made the draft, you should also put Template:User COI on your user page to declare your conflict of interest. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bfinston, that's good advice. As it stands, it's a text dump with no in-line references, no wikilinks, a promotional tone with your opinions when we just want facts, and non-standard formatting Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a compilation of sources from princeton university and his family, with many links out in the reference section. I am unclear why it is appearing otherwise. Its not just a text dump. I put external links in there, perhaps they aren't showing up, and there is not a promotional intent of any kind, hence it is hard to understand why you are reading that tone into it. 2603:7000:473D:3774:A87B:316A:9658:138D (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not cite information from his family. We want to hear what trustworthy and independent sources said about the subject. Family members are incentivized to present the subject in a more favorable light, which runs counter to the purpose of Wikipedia. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To enlarge on what others have said: many people misunderstanding the purpose and foundation of Wikipedia. An article should be a summary of what indepedent reliable published sources have said about a subject, little more (the "little more" can be a summary of what non-independent reliable sources have said).

What you know or believe about the subject, or what the subject has told you about themselves, do not belong anywhere in an article, unless they are also to be found in reliable published sources. And your opinions (like my opinions, and anybody other random person's opinions on the internet) on the subject do not belong in the article at all. ColinFine (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A web search suggests that there may be enough sourcing for an article if it is written properly. But the current version is more like a personal reflection than an encyclopedia article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've designed an article about myself and my work. How do I get it approved to move from the "sandbox" to a posted and available Wikipedia page? Fcoffman (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't write a Wikipedia article about yourself, as it is very difficult to stay neutral and objective when the subject of the article is yourself. Find some sources that covers about the subject (in this case, yourself), make sure that they are 1) Indepth, not just some passing mention or entry in a list; 2) Reliable, no online blogs or others sites with user-generated contents; 3) Independent of the subject, so no sources from people you personally know or organizaions you headed; 4) Non-routine, so sources like being appointed to certain positions do not contribute to notability. Once you are confident that the sources pass WP:GNG or WP:NBIO, make a request at appropriate section of Wikipedia:Requested articles. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fcoffman: That sort of thing doesn't belong on your user page. Your user page should be about you in the context of what you do on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:User pages for guidance.

I have moved your draft to Draft:Frank Coffman. As it is now, it would not be acceptable for publication in article space. See Wikipedia:Golden rule. If you abide by that, then the article could be accepted. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fcoffman has not got a single source in it. This happens all the time, and the material rarely if ever finds its way into the mainspace, as Wikipedia is not Facebook, LinkedIn or a similar service.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the draft has sources, but they're all inline external links, so they don't appear in a reference list. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xi Jinping was born in Beijing or in Shaanxi Province? I found different places from online sources. 2A02:B123:F00:B9BC:CA33:FFA8:1FAC:77C3 (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Chinese Wikipedia, Beijing is where he is born, while Shaanxi is his Ancestral home. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An infobox, in this case — Yours Truly, ⚑ AtikaAtikawa 17:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which infobox? Are you referring to the actual template name, or the name displayed when the template is in an article? ~Anachronist (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The actual template name, the infobox I have in mind is Template:Infobox computer virus — Yours Truly, ⚑ AtikaAtikawa 18:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might need to start a discussion to see if there's any consensus for the renaming. Make a Requested Move at the template's talk page. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have the right to do so as a non-EC? — Yours Truly, ⚑ AtikaAtikawa 18:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically you can just rename the template by move it, but with template it is recommended to be cautious and get a consensus first. Do you mind to explain what you want to rename the template to and the reasob for it? Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to rename it into "infobox malware" considering that this template been used for worms, ransomwares, trojan horses which are not viruses afaik.

If I fail to get consensus due to people not even interacting with the suggestion how should I proceed? (this is unrelated and more of a general question) — Yours Truly, ⚑ AtikaAtikawa 21:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask for assistance on the talk page of relevant Wikiprpjects, in this case Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing and Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science. You can also make a Request for comment at the requested move discussion. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2[edit]

This isn't the forum for either one of your purposes. Undeletion is requested at this page, and requesting the review of an administrator action is done at WP:AARV. 331dot (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since Institute for Legislative Analysis was deleted after an AfD, the correct place to appeal the deletion is WP:DRV. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm working on {{Nominee table}} and couldn't find a module that would handle color of text on different colored backgrounds. Is one avilable? Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I represent the Canadian hip hop group Conspirituality from Vancouver B.C. We formed the Group in 2007 and are still active in 2024. In 2011 two academics took our name, wrote an academic journal called the Emergence of Conspirituality. In the journal we are cited as the inventors of the Word Conspirituality. We first used the word in 2003. And our Wikipedia page was taken over and rewritten with out mentioning us. In 2018 adding insult to injury a podcast also took our name, briefly citing us on their website home page as the creators of the word. No one has ever contacted us. I’m not looking to cause issues. I just wanted to contact you guys because I want to correct some things properly and be added to the wiki page. We deserve to be part of the conversation, we have more than enough evidence and receipts and there’s mistakes and lies on the page as we speak. I was hoping that someone who reads this might be able to help me with some advice and some guidance on how to do, everything properly Thank you Gemineye (Conspirituality) Therealconspirituality (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added to Conspirituality#Characterization. Cabayi (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article wasn't taken over by the current content. The current content was first written in 2020. The article about your group was deleted in 2011 following a discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspirituality. – robertsky (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing that, I appreciate knowing that. We didn’t create the page and did not know at the time, that it was not made properly. This is the exact reason I wanted to contact someone on here, to find out the situation Does this mean 14 years later, we are not allowed to try again? We are cited in an academic journal of Contemporary religion as the creators of the word Conspirituality (certainly we should be at least mentioned now in the conversation for our contribution) ????? The page now states that the writers of the journal created the term ( Which is not true, we are mentioned in the first note of the journal, we have also been written about in two published books, we have an IMDb page, and movie credits for a documentary we are featured in. Thank you for taking the time to inform me, it is greatly appreciated 142.183.237.254 (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't really want you to write about yourself. If you are a notable group (see WP:N and/or WP:GNG) then someone will write an article about you. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The best course of action would be to gather indepth coverage of your organization from reliable and independent sources, then post the request at appropriate section of Wikipedia:Requested articles. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need to update credit card 174.16.184.9 (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No payment is required to access Wikipedia content. If you wish to donate please see Wikipedia:Contact us/Donors. You might also be interested in familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia finances. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also donate:Cancel or change recurring giving. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody please fix this table? The table formating isn't very intuitive IMHO.

List of chairmen of the Free German Youth[edit]

No.	Portrait	Name	Took office	Left office	Time in office	Party	Second Secretary
First Secretary of the Central Council of the Free German Youth Erster Sekretär des Zentralrates der Freien Deutschen Jugend
1		Honecker, ErichErich Honecker (1912–1994)	7 March 1946	27 May 1955 (reached age limit)	9 years, 81 days	SED	Edith Baumann (1946–1949) Gerhard Heidenreich (1949–1950) Helmut Hartwig (1950–1951) Werner Felfe (1954–1957)
2		Namokel, KarlKarl Namokel (1927–1988)	27 May 1955	15 May 1959 (not re-elected)	3 years, 353 days	SED	Werner Felfe (1954–1957)
3		Schumann, HorstHorst Schumann (1924–1993)	15 May 1959	13 May 1967 (reached age limit)	7 years, 363 days	SED	Günther Jahn (1966–1967)
4		Jahn, GüntherGünther Jahn (1930–2015)	13 May 1967	9 January 1974 (reached age limit)	6 years, 241 days	SED	Dieter Itzerott (1967–1971) Wolfgang Herger (1971–1976)
5		Krenz, EgonEgon Krenz (born 1937)	9 January 1974	1 December 1983 (retired)	9 years, 326 days	SED	Wolfgang Herger (1971–1976) Erich Postler (1976–1980) Eberhard Aurich (1980–1983)
6		Aurich, EberhardEberhard Aurich (born 1946)	1 December 1983	24 November 1989 (deposed)	5 years, 358 days	SED	Volker Voigt
7		Türkowsky, FrankFrank Türkowsky (born 1959)	24 November 1989	28 January 1990 (retired)	65 days	SED
8		Schröder, BirgitBirgit Schröder (born 1965)	28 January 1990	17 March 1991 (retired)	1 year, 48 days	PDS

Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxwhollymoralground: I have added | party_col = 1 above for the "Party" heading to only span one column. The default is 2 because such tables often have a colored cell there with a party color. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Thank you! Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been recently working on an article about an ongoing climate protest in Berlin and an editor who I have difficulty with in the past just rolled back some recent edits and removed most of the images I had added. Their commit messages were not especially focused nor helpful. I know from past experience if I engage with said editor, I will get swamped with Wikipedia legalese. If I roll back the edits in good faith and with considered explanations, an edit war will doubtless arise.

I should add that my interactions with other editors are normally productive and respectful. But in this case though, if I do react, conflict seems inevitable and quite possibly even sought. The said, that user's talk page also seems to consist mostly of strife with other editors [when I last interacted]. And I have had experience there too, batting stuff out in user space, when that discussion should really occur on Wikipedia talk pages in a more open and collegial context.

What can be done? Are there forums for resolving disputes of this type? Do I have to endure some unpleasant editing interactions before I can make a case? Are there proactive solutions on offer? Can some someone senior oversee the content development and adjudicate on the edit history as needed?

Indeed, the editing style on display seems to be solely confined to roll‑back and argument. The actual substantive contributions and good‑faith edits seem negligible, based on my past experiences. Surely such patterns of editing are identifiable by simple metrics? Or is there nothing that can be done against what appears to be hostile editing. Please help – this is likely to be very unpleasant and demotivating going forward.

And I should add that one roll-back happened so fast that the editor concerned would not have had any opportunity to read the source material, let alone make a considered judgement about the suitability and accuracy of that contribution. TIA, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RobbieIanMorrison You have taken the correct first step by raising the matter on the page at Talk:Starving for honesty climate hunger strike, Berlin, Germany, as per our usual process. The guidance the other editor is relying on seems to be WP:NOTGALLERY and that we require WP:INDEPENDENT sources. I'm sure that other interested parties will see this Help Desk thread and weigh in with comments on the Talk Page. The place to raise issues about another editor's behaviour is WP:ANI but I would advise against that at present. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull: Thanks. My preference is for dialog and due process and not escalation. And I understand that editing judgements can vary. But equally, the underpinning debate needs to be factual and reasoned. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One other consideration is that several of the pictures you want to include are your own work, which some may consider to be a conflict of interest if you add too many. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull: All the images were from me. And I willing concede that other editors should be involved in their assessment and selection. But there are very few quality open licensed images to be had. So I would be very happy if other editors could review that selection in a considered manner. But any kind of good process was certainly not evident to date in my view. (Moreover I sometimes put my potential images on talk pages and let other editors decide entirely, but time rather precludes that process in this case.)

I also want to mention briefly that one important passage I added (important in my estimation because it involved the German federal economics minister visiting the protest camp and thus quite remarkable in the current political context) was up for approximately one minute before being rolled back. How can that class as responsible editing? How can anyone check and assess the source and/or understand the merits of that material and then type in a commit message within that timeframe? Exactly how?

I don't find the current circumstances very conducive. but I guess I will just have to persevere. Involvement from experienced and neutral editors would be great, because I don't wish to face this quite possibly deteriorating and time-consuming situation alone. Really. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull: Anyone: I would like a senior Wikipedia editor to restore the Berlin hunger strike article to its state prior with reference to the recent controversial edits. In particular, this contribution covering written content should be reverted: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Starving_for_honesty_climate_hunger_strike%2C_Berlin%2C_Germany&diff=prev&oldid=1226915490

The related deletion commit message of "keeping it real. we are not the strike's website" is distinctly unhelpful and also pejorative in my view. Please read that earlier diff and its commit message to see what that content was and why it was added. And as discussed earlier and elsewhere, I believe this contribution to be important and relevant.

In addition, the full set of images should be restored so there can be a useful and sensible discussion on which photographs to retain and which not. And that will be a useful exercise which I particularly welcome.

I should add that I normally enjoy working on Wikipedia and value the input of other editors. But occasionally I encounter this style of what one might call "ill‑informed editing‑by‑deletion". And normally accompanied by several aspects: no attempt to rectify issues, no discussions on talk pages, high‑handed commit messages, and an avalanche of Wikipedia policy acronyms when challenged. And ofttimes, there are mistaken assessments regarding core facts and notability which are usually difficult to shift. In this case exactly, the resulting discussion on the talk page did not move beyond vague generalities and omitted issues.

Please, I am asking for help and interest. Editors acting in good faith should be respected and Wikipedia norms and practices followed. And, as I understand it (and although I am male), this form of broadly arbitrary editing‑by‑deletion is particularly difficult for woman editors.

Can we therefore roll back to the earlier positions and then discuss options and rectifications on the talk page? I much prefer modification, improvement, and ultimately deletion to be the starting points and not have to argue for restoration in the face of intransigence. Can we agree on that approach? Can someone make the requisite roll‑backs? Thank you in advance. (And yes I know the editor that I am in conflict with has administrator status.) RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The “languages” drop-down that adorns our article on Gaussian elimination offers the corresponding article on the Wikipedia site of each of 49 other languages. These 49 other languages do not include French. How do I add an entry for French Wikipedia’s (Wikipédia’s) article to that list? PaulTanenbaum (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The French article that you provided is already link to a former English Wikipedia article that is currently a redirect to Gaussian elimination. If you want to link the two articles, you'll have to go to the French article's Wikidata page (In this case, here), remove the frwiki entry, then add the French article to the "languages" sidebar of Gaussian elimination. Only do that if you are certain that Gaussian elimination and Gauss-Jordan elimination are the same thing. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created a draft new article. I hit publish but then I cannot submit it for review. It asks me to type the words in the field to check if I am a human. I have typed the words correctly several times but it time it does not recognize this. Then it says I have exceeded the number of attempts. Miamisunshine2024 (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're draft is already on the waitlist for review, maybe the system had an error and did not show you that you've successfully submitted. While you're at it, please remove the external links in the main body of the draft and put them in a separate "external links" section. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Don Vieira reads a lot like a CV rather than a biography, this would need to be fixed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick feedback. Can you please offer some feedback on how to revise in the style of a biography and less like a CV? I studied several other wikipedia entries for people in similar fields and theirs reads in this way so I am not sure what the best approach is. Welcome your recommendations. Miamisunshine2024 (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First thing to do, @Miamisunshine2024, is to remove all the external links from the body of the text. We don't allow links in the body. Check WP:EXTERNAL for guidance. Qcne (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I work with some Iranian students and the word for "Bronze" is incorrect. You have written the word for "rice" and not "boronzee"... 2607:FEA8:7DE:CB00:2D06:7FC8:4F09:D7AE (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which article are you referring to? The English-language article on bronze says nothing about Farsi terms. If you are referring at an article on the Farsi-language Wikipedia, you (or one of your students) need to discuss it there, as this help desk covers the English-language Wikipedia only. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bronze has an interlanguage link to fa:برنز. According to Google Translate, برنز means bronze. But the poster gives no indication whether it involves any of those pages or that word. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I use Wiki Shoot Me to take photos for Wikipedia while I’m traveling. Typically you can identify articles that need photos by looking for yellow dots indicating Wikipedia articles and larger red circles near by indicating WikiData items without photos (as previously these seemed to sync). In two cases recently I noticed articles with CC-licensed images placed correctly in the lead and appropriately sized that did not have their photos synced with WikiData: National Hotel and Wet Mountain Valley. I know the page image is being picked up because they display correctly on Special:Nearby using their coordinates: National Hotel and Wet Mountain Valley. It looks like they’re just not making it to WikiData. - Scarpy (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to read an article about "Howard's End" by EM Foster. How do go about finding it? 2600:1700:4A50:1F70:C46D:1984:838E:EB77 (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Howards End by E. M. Forster? It helps to start by spelling things right. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a search box or a magnifying glass search icon at the top of all pages. There is a redirect from Howard's End to Howards End so it works fine to search for "Howard's End". PrimeHunter (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 3[edit]

Forgive me if this has already been asked, I looked but couldn't find anything. I want to cite a specific article (Acanthoma fissuratum of the outer auditory canal from a hearing aid, page 304) within this collection of abstracts. How should I go about this? If I just use a citation generator the title will be "Abstracts of papers presented at the 27th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Dermatopathology" which isn't very helpful. Should I just manually create the citation and use the page number, authors, and title from the specefic article? If so should I include the doi from the collection since that specefic article doesn't have its own doi. Any advice is appreciated, I just want to make sure I am properly citing this source. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{cite conference |title=Acanthoma fissuratum of the outer auditory canal from a hearing aid |book-title=Abstracts of papers presented at the 27th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Dermatopathology |doi=10.1111/j.1600-0560.1989.tb00057.x |page=304}}

"Acanthoma fissuratum of the outer auditory canal from a hearing aid". Abstracts of papers presented at the 27th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Dermatopathology. p. 304. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0560.1989.tb00057.x.

Include author(s) of the paper, editor(s) of the Abstracts, publisher and publisher location, date of publication (year), ISBN, and any other pertinent bibliographic details.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

During this past month, I've begun to take notice of a new tag filter that detects old-school redirect pages consisting only of "#REDIRECT" and the linked [[page target]]; WP:Categorizing redirects now recommends adding an {{R from X}} tag to avoid the "Uncategorized redirect" message in summaries. Planning to take advantage of this new rule any moment from now; before then, can any editors/developers direct me towards a tool (à la WP:RATER for content assessment) that can help me on the way? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slgrandson, there are some suggestions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect#Scripts, but I haven't tried them myself. TSventon (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Description of the Deleted Content:[edit]

The deleted content was an article titled "The Stealing of Emily - Closed Material Procedures Secret Courts" that I authored. It provided information about a book I wrote, including its title, genre, and a brief summary of its plot.

Reasons for Reinstatement:[edit]

I believe the deleted content should be reinstated for the following reasons:

• The article adhered to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines, including those on notability and verifiability.
• The book "The Stealing of Emily - Closed Material Procedures Secret Courts" is a notable work in its genre, as evidenced by its positive reception and reviews on reputable platforms such as Goodreads.
• The deletion may have been based on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines.

Supporting Evidence or References:[edit]

• The deleted content was sourced from Goodreads, a reputable platform for book reviews and information. [Link to Goodreads page: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/195237122-the-stealing-of-emily---closed-material-procedures-secret-courts]
• The book is also available on the author's official website, further confirming its availability and relevance. [Link to author's website: https://thestealingofemily.co.uk/bookshelf/]
• The book has an official Facebook page maintained by the author, which provides updates and information about the book. [Link to Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/TheStealingofEmily/]
• The book's ISBN information is available through the ISBN Agency, providing additional verification of its existence and publication details. [Link to ISBN Agency page: https://www.isbnagency.com/titles/9781513697574-the-stealing-of-emily--fate-of-children-through-our-court-system]

Clarity and Conciseness:[edit]

The original article provided a clear and concise overview of the book, including its title, author, genre, and plot summary. It adhered to Wikipedia's guidelines for article structure and content presentation.

Respectful Tone:[edit]

I respectfully request that the deleted content be reinstated in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I believe that restoring the article would contribute positively to the Wikipedia community by providing valuable information about a notable literary work.

Thank you for considering my request.

Sincerely, [Your Martinnewbold] Martinnewbold (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinnewbold I have replied to your second question below, please don't make duplicate questions. Qcne (talk) 07:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how to add sources. Whereabouts do I add these sources? Thank you. R.FrancesFyfe (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello R.FrancesFyfe, check out:

• Help:Referencing for beginners
• Wikipedia:Citing sources

Typically, sources are added as footnotes at the end of the material they cover, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a tutorial at WP:INTREFVE which you may find helpful. I find the Visual Editor easier than the Source Editor, as it looks like Microsoft Word so you should already be familiar with it @R.FrancesFyfe. Qcne (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

=== Description of the Deleted Content: ===

The deleted content was an article titled "The Stealing of Emily - Closed Material Procedures Secret Courts" that I authored. It provided information about a book I wrote, including its title, genre, and a brief summary of its plot.

=== Reasons for Reinstatement: ===

I believe the deleted content should be reinstated for the following reasons:

• The article adhered to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines, including those on notability and verifiability.
• The book "The Stealing of Emily - Closed Material Procedures Secret Courts" is a notable work in its genre, as evidenced by its positive reception and reviews on reputable platforms such as Goodreads.
• The deletion may have been based on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines.

=== Supporting Evidence or References: ===

• The deleted content was sourced from Goodreads, a reputable platform for book reviews and information. [Link to Goodreads page: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/195237122-the-stealing-of-emily---closed-material-procedures-secret-courts]
• The book is also available on the author's official website, further confirming its availability and relevance. [Link to author's website: https://thestealingofemily.co.uk/bookshelf/]
• The book has an official Facebook page maintained by the author, which provides updates and information about the book. [Link to Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/TheStealingofEmily/]
• The book's ISBN information is available through the ISBN Agency, providing additional verification of its existence and publication details. [Link to ISBN Agency page: https://www.isbnagency.com/titles/9781513697574-the-stealing-of-emily--fate-of-children-through-our-court-system]

=== Clarity and Conciseness: ===

The original article provided a clear and concise overview of the book, including its title, author, genre, and plot summary. It adhered to Wikipedia's guidelines for article structure and content presentation.

=== Respectful Tone: ===

I respectfully request that the deleted content be reinstated in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I believe that restoring the article would contribute positively to the Wikipedia community by providing valuable information about a notable literary work.

Thank you for considering my request.

Sincerely,

[Your Martinnewbold]

Martinnewbold (talk) 06:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Martinnewbold.

The proper place to request undeletion is at WP:REFUND.

However based on your supporting evidence there is no way your article is suitable for Wikipedia. Only books that meet our notability criteria for books merit a Wikipedia article. Your four sources (Goodreads, your website, Facebook ISBN) do not prove notability in the slightest. Wikipedia is not a repository of book information, but an encyclopaedia of notable topics.

You also shouldn't be writing about a book you wrote in the first place! Please see conflict of interest.

As such I would not waste more of your time on this. Also, please don't use ChatGPT to author requests like this, we want to hear from you, not a robot.

Let me know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add, on the tortellini page, that the United States celebrates National Tortellini Day every year on 13 February, but my work doesn't focus on adding sources and I don't want to make mistakes; the source is this (which I don't know if it's reliable): https://nationaltoday.com/national-tortellini-day/ (information present in the "Giornata Nazionale dei Tortellini" section of the it.wiki page, https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortellini). JacktheBrown (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of the nationaltoday page you linked, it says "Got an idea for a holiday? Send it to us". If anyone can submit a holiday, then that site is unlikely to be reliable. Information present on another Wikipedia is also not a reliable source. You will need to come up with reliable sources. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7 years ago I noticed a glitch on Leviathan (2000 AD) in the multigenre section where the genres were always prefixed by a comma. Topic here - David Biddulph suggested that the first genre needed to be "first" not "y" and that fixed it - but none the wiser as to why 2000 AD (comics) didn't need the qualifier and was happy with a "y".

Now I've got the same thing on The 'Nam - but this is even weirder in that the existing revision has a "y" for the first genre, and the preceding comma, but if I change that to "first" then I still get the comma and also the first genre is bunched up without spaces to the second genre.

Should this be declared a bug in that the same criteria yields three different results:

1. 2000AD - fine with "y"
2. Leviathan - needs "first"
3. The 'Nam - doesn't work with either "first" or "y"

They all use the Infobox comic book title template, so surely behaviour should be the same? Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional - I've looked up Template:Infobox_comic_book_title#Genre_list, however all that does is state that "first" should be used - but in practice that's not the case as outlined above. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional additional - if I mark "War" as first it fails. If I mark "historical" as first, then it displays as it should. Why is this? Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the source of Template:Comics infobox sec/genre, it looks to me as if it's all coded for individual cases rather than any sort of general logic, so I'm not surprised that there are some individual oddities. I suggest asking at the talk page for either that or the main template you're calling. ColinFine (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(header added) Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi i have been with skyway group for 8years i am having problems with my account and my wife having same issue please can someone help us 92.27.141.89 (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor: This helpdesk is exclusively for assistance with using and editing Wikipedia. We cannot help with any other matter. There is an article SkyWay Group you may wish to read. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]