November 1

Been working on an article about a subject expert and just wanted to know if I could these sources [1] [2] [3] Thanks. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 02:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, and no. The first is selling the guys book, the second is his own website, and the third is a press release. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump I had a hunch for it that those weren't much reliable as well, ngl. Also here's WP:ELOFFICIAL, it states that When an official website is used as a source to verify a self-published statement in the article text, it should be formatted like any other reference used in the article. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 03:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The implication of your question, whether you intended it or not, is "Can I use these sources to prove notability?". Anything the subject or their surrogates control is useless for that purpose (and, by extension, for biographical claims that can sensibly be challenged). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 04:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jéské Couriano Why would I ask such a question when the person is already notable? I simply asked about those references to use them as sources. Not to prove notability. That's completely a different thing and irrelevant of the discussion. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 04:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

" . . . when the person is already notable?" – Since you yourself created the article directly in Article space only three days ago and are almost the sole editor, that may still be under question.

"Not to prove notability." – That was not evident in your original query, and is the more usual reason for such enquiries, so it was a reasonable assumption.

Even in terms of facts rather than notability, admissibility of subject-related sources is heavily dependent on what the sources are to be used for, so in the absence of exact details ("Use source A to verify fact X?") the query is unaswerable.

Helpdesk respondents are volunteers donating their time to provide advice to editors on this collaborative project called Wikipedia. Responding to their advice with an apparently combative attitude, and appearing to be trying to wikilawyer (even if that was not your intention), is not likely to encourage them to help you. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.189.208 (talk) 11:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Rejoy2003 for the (lack of) courtesy ping around this. For more context about the sourcing question, I removed these sources [4]. They were being used to source pretty promotional text like "He is also a popular panelist on TV and web shows hosted mainly in India and globally" and "... Goa Chronicle is one of the prominent globally recognised news portals ..." Also statements like "In 2021, it got a Rs 100 crore valuation" were sourced to one of the sites, which doesn't mention anything around valuation. These statements were removed [5], then added back with primary sources that sometimes didn't actually support the material. I would strongly encourage Rejoy2003 to take a much closer look at the sources they are using. There are still a fair number of primary sources in the article, including press releases disguised as churnalism (tag added). They need to take a more skeptical view of sources, looking at the byline especially to see if it's from a press release agency. See [6], [7], [8] - all of these are from NewsVoir which is a press release agency. This took 20 seconds of research. If a press release is the only thing supporting a statement, it needs to be seriously questioned if it should remain in the article. Ravensfire (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I make an edit to a page, and another user disagrees with my edit. They normally revert it pretty quickly, citing WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, or something else. I am prompted by them to establish consensus on the talk page. When I post on the talk page and ping this user, I get no response, and therefore, I cannot establish consensus with the one person who disagrees. After getting no response, guidelines, or advice to reach consensus, I invite the user to make a version of my edit that fits their standards. I am then told that the WP:ONUS is on the editor trying to establish consensus. This is a never-ending loop and it has become very frustrating. I want to collaborate with this user, rather than getting reverted, sent to the talk page, and then getting ignored. It's hard to establish consensus with someone who is not willing to add anything to the main page or tweak anything that is added to the main page. If possible, I would like to keep the other user out of this, so I kindly ask you not to dig into my history. I'm just looking for advice on how to collaborate with a user like this. GeorgeBailey (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GeorgeBailey: If they don’t respond to a good faith effort to start a discussion on the talk page, you’re welcome to revert to change back to your original version. If they revert again, you can revert them and start another discussion. Just don’t revert more than three times in 24 hours. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 03:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GeorgeBailey:, you could also look at the suggestions in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. TSventon (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My article is listed as a reference but the hyperlink has been replaced by another. How can I update the hyperlink Michael L Hays (talk) 03:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@michael l hays: change the |url= parameter. lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 04:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fred just died. His widow and I are trying to update his entry. Every time I edit the entry, I get messages from other wiki "editors" saying that my entries have been removed and the old outdated entry restored. Please someone help me ! Freds Friends (talk) 03:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We need a source to confirm his passing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 04:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/legacyremembers/fred-catero-obituary?id=36903207 Freds Friends (talk) 04:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the updates, discography, references and timeline. This is all causing his widow great stress. Thank you. DR Freds Friends (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@freds friends: no, as it is unsourced and not written for an encyclopedia. lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 04:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Fred Catero

The article was edited to include the information about the subject's death on October 10 and is sourced to an obituary. Unfortunately the more recent information that Freds Friends has attempted to add is extremely verbose, written in a very non-encyclopedic style, and is entirely unsourced (a list of books was added, but none are about the subject and there is no clue as to how each book supports the added information). Freds Friends, I am sorry about the passing of your friend, but information on Wikipedia must be written in accordance with our Manual of Style, and most importantly, every piece of information added must be verifiable; that is, published in a reliable source. You added a vast amount of information without the slightest hint of where that information came from. CodeTalker (talk) 06:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to upload IIM Nagpur photo on its Wikipedia page. Have been making efforts to do so multiple times. However, I have encountered problems uploading the photos. Please guide. Thank you. Communication office (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Communication office Instructions for uploads are at WP:UPIMAGE, but new accounts cannot upload images, please go to Files For Upload. 331dot (talk) 06:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Communication office, I'm guessing that you are employed by IIM Nagpur, in their communications office. Please note that:

1. Account names that suggest that they are shared or that they represent some organisation, are forbidden. Please abandon this acount, and create a new one that is personal to you. You do not need to use your real name (I do, but many editors don't), and you may show your affiliation if you wish (eg "Sam at IIS Comms" - that's just an example).
2. If you are in any way employed by IIS and intend to edit articles connected with IIS - even just adding a photo - you must make a formal declaration of your status as a Paid editor - see that link for details.
3. As a paid editor, you should not normally edit an article about your employer directly, but instead should make Edit requests on the article's talk page.
4. Please be aware that IIM Nagpur is not "its article": it is "Wikipedia's article about it". This might seem trivial, but it is important. IIM does not own or control the article, and the article should be a summary of what indepedent sources have published aboout the institute, not what the institute says or wants to say.
5. Before uploading the image, please read the policy on image use. Unless the copyright owner (who will be the photographer unless they have legally granted it to somebody else) licenses the image under CC-BY-SA or similar (which will grant anybody in the world permission to copy or alter the image), it may not be used on Wikipedia.

There is a lot to read in what I have just said: I'm afraid that it inevitable. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anybody can edit, but that does not mean that it is necessarily easy and straightforward, especially for those who may not understand how important it is that Wikipedia be neutral and free from Promotion. ColinFine (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made a comment before I signed in, and now my ip address is published... Aud28 (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to WP:OVERSIGHT to request that it be suppressed. 331dot (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I want to add language option (english) for İstinye University's page (https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%B0stinye_%C3%9Cniversitesi), but i cant because of my account's permission. What can i do about that? Thank you in advance. İstinye Üniversitesi (talk) 08:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@İstinye Üniversitesi: create a draft and submit it when you’re done. lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 08:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, İstinye Üniversitesi. I'm afraid there are several things that you do not understand about Wikipedia.

What you are trying to do is not "add a language option for Istinye University's page", but to write an article on English Wikipedia about that University. You may create such an article by translating one from the Turkish Wikipedia, but it must still meet all of English Wikipedia's policies. Most particularly, it must be properly referenced according to English Wikipedia's policies, which may be more restrictive than Turkish Wikipedia's. See WP:Translation for more information.

Secondly, your user name suggests that 1) it is a shared account and 2) that it is editing on behalf of the institution. Both of these are forbidden. Please read the detailed reply I gave to another editor two items above on this page, most of which is also relevant to you. ColinFine (talk) 10:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a short film with an article here called Ida Makes A Movie. The problem is that I cannot find a proper source for its airdate, nor can I find the confirmed airdate at all. The date commonly cited for years (September 12, 1979) has never been verified. An official book about the show claims September 20, 1980, but I cannot find any evidence of the film having aired on that date in all the newspaper archive sites I have access to. But that's not the point of this question. I was doing research on Newspapers.com I found an article from Tuesday, December 11, 1979 that claimed it aired "on Saturday", which would make it December 8, 1979. Would it be considered WP:OR to use this source because it doesn't directly state the date and it had to be estimated? Just to play it safe I've removed any date from the page and replaced it with a note. ToQ100gou (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, calculating Dec 8 from the source's date and statement boils down to simple arithmetic, which does not count as OR, but others may differ. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.189.208 (talk) 11:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ToQ100gou WP:CALC specifically says that sort of inference is fine. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Michael D. Turnbull Thanks, just had to be sure. ToQ100gou (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ToQ100gou: In such a case, I would include a quote of the newspaper in the citation (see WP:FOOTQUOTE), to indicate the exact portion of the text you relied on. Otherwise, someone reviewing the reference might read it quickly, see that no dates are given, and slap a {{failed verification}} on it. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:TCFlogo.png was accepted on Commons, so File:20th Century Studios.svg should be moved there with the same license. See also c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:TCFlogo.png. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and made a BOLD edit to File:20th Century Studios.svg, as it's basically the same file as File:TCFlogo.png except it says Studios instead of "Fox", marking it as suitable for commons. (even if it isn't expired copyright, it's still below the threshold of originality since the 2 files are practically identical save for one word) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a ™ in the corner of the Studios image but that's definitely not enough to make it above the threshold of originality, just means it can be marked as trademarked ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - not a wikipedia problem

In a previous version of this post I reported problems accessing links to EPA's comptox database.

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

Turns out this is a problem with accessing that database from Android. This is clearly not a wikipedia problem. Someone more knowledgeable may see something to do about it. If so - great ! - it's beyond my expertise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctmidgley (talk • contribs) 12:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The database seems to be inaccessible, not just from Android. Perhaps we can see whether the problem is temporary or permanent? - David Biddulph (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm investigating. The problem seems genuine and is either their servers or something similar to a Wikidata issue mentioned at the foot of wikidata:Property talk:P3117), which was indeed because they had altered their access URLs. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ctmidgley All our links, including the DTXSID are now working correctly again. It seems to have been a temporary glitch at the EPA's end. Report back, please, if you continue to see problems. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to add this source to TRAPPIST-1 but the cite template dropdowns don't recognize the DOI Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The DOI "10.3847/PSJ/ac68e6" works for me when I enter it in {{doi}}. Have you tried entering a {{cite journal}} template in the source editor, filling in the fields manually? Did you perhaps mistakenly include "/pdf" when you tried using the dropdown? Deor (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus I'd recommend the Wikipedia:Citation expander gadget, which converts doi directly into cite journals or cite books. It gives Schlichting, Hilke E.; Young, Edward D. (2022). "Chemical Equilibrium between Cores, Mantles, and Atmospheres of Super-Earths and Sub-Neptunes and Implications for Their Compositions, Interiors, and Evolution". The Planetary Science Journal. 3 (5): 127. arXiv:2107.10405. Bibcode:2022PSJ.....3..127S. doi:10.3847/PSJ/ac68e6. S2CID 236171388.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) for that doi. Note that the /pdf bit isn't part of the doi. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it works now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Over the years, I've tried to check that when an article with "List of" in its name is in a category that starts with "Lists of" there should always be a sort key. For example, List of Gamma Sigma Sigma chapters in Category:Lists of chapters of United States student societies by society. Is there any way to do a query looking for entries that don't?

Also, is there any way in general to include the sort key when viewing a Category? (This would be helpful in diagnosing entries in categories like Category:Pages using infobox organization with unknown parameters.Naraht (talk) 12:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This search finds about 19250 'List of ...' articles that have [[Category:Lists of ...]] without sort keys.

This is the same search constrained to Category:Lists of chapters of United States student societies by society. It finds about 70 articles.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trappist the monk However, it appears that (at least the first one) has a Defaultsort. Is there any way to exclude those which do the right thing using defaultsort?Naraht (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Try this search which finds ~4300 articles.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trappist the monk thank you. Wierd that the Prefix doesn't require its argument to be in quotes.Naraht (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:PrimeHunter/Sortkeys.js produces Sort keys on Category:Pages using infobox organization with unknown parameters. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunter Thanx. I'll look to add that tool.Naraht (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Naraht: You already added it in 2019 when I made it for you. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunter *D'oh* headslap. Sorry.Naraht (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the UCoC toxicity issue, and I wanted to see how often certain phrases were used. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please close. It has to a query. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would need to be a database dump. If you have the disk space to hold it, and the software to comb through the full database and extract certain text strings, Wikipedia:Database download has the information you need. --Jayron32 15:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for the reply. Ok - that's really really ..... really ... big. (Although I don't know what the numbers are in terms of of https://dumps.wikimedia.org/enwiki/latest/ Which of the files listed would most likely be the files for article talk, and article revision comments ? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC) Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wwas looking at a page and I think i got hacked necauwd it took me to this code thing and then this alphabet popped up and it made a sound and started typing everything i said. What happened to wikipedia now its on the page 100.42.252.205 (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of device are you using? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phone 100.42.252.205 (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has also been asked at the teahouse. Please do not ask in multiple locations as it may lead to confusing advice. The weird edits have been reverted. Eagleash (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you i dont know what was happening at the time that whole editing poopped up when i tried to click read. Sorty for the confision 100.42.252.205 (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You clicked source editing and hit the microphone button Dentsinhere43 is a new Wikipedian. 01:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did it look something like this? If so, you weren't hacked, you just hit the edit source button, probably by mistake. Misclicks are easy on a phone. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it did 100.42.252.205 (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They probably also hit that microphone button which enables speech to text. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I worked with Jim in Cowdenbeath Jobcentre in the late 70s while he was trying to establish his post player carrier in football. I have many fond recollections of how he worked with Jobseekers/Benefit claimants given that most of the local community knew him.

what I don’t know is if this is worth adding to Wikipedia ?

Ann 2A00:23C5:5402:C501:B584:F986:8FBC:8AD3 (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal recollections cannot be added to the article. If you can find the information in a published reliable source then it can be added. RudolfRed (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless it got significant press coverage. Your personal recollections do not constitute reliable sources as Wikipedia defines them. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Say something happens to you and you're rendered comatose, dead, or otherwise completely unable to communicate. How are we supposed to verify your recollection then? And this isn't even getting into the fact that memories can play tricks on us.... —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was a guideline saying that middle initial or middle names should not be used for disambiguation, unless the person is commonly known with that middle initial (like Michael J. Fox). I can't find anything at WP:DAB or MOS:DAB, but I am sure I have read it in the past. Does such a guideline still exist? Specifically, I would like to rename John G. Gorman (also under John Gorman) and it would be nice to site a guideline. Adpete (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I found it at WP:MIDDLENAME: "Adding given names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised.". Adpete (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2

List of states with limited recognition has a specific criteria for inclusion but does not cite any source for it. Does the criteria for inclusion needs to be cited and supported by a source or it this something that could be arbitrary according to consensus? StellarHalo (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, StellarHalo. Consensus is the predominant form of decision making on Wikipedia, so I do not accept your description of consensus as "arbitrary". List criteria are written by editors interested in the list. The criteria should reflect the discussion in the real world about such topics. So, "women in Wisconsin who are over six feet tall and have brown eyes" would not be an acceptable list article because reliable sources do not discuss that group of people. On the other hand, reliable sources do write about and compare and contrast "states with limited recognition", so that list seems legitimate to me. If you think that the list criteria should be changed, make that proposal on the list article talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 But if reliable sources do not use the same inclusion criteria in their definition of "states with limited recognition", doesn't that make the inclusion criteria used on this list original research? StellarHalo (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

StellarHalo, reliable sources are not in the business of writing inclusion criteria for encyclopedia list articles. That is the furthest thing from their minds. And reliable sources may vary widely in how they define "states with limited recognition", and may not even use those four words, and use synonyms instead. That is not a problem in itself. So, Wikipedia editors who are conversant with the literature about this topic get together and write the criteria, using the consensus model of decisionmaking. That's how Wikipedia works, and is the method that helps make Wikipedia a top ten website worldwide, with billions of page views each month. Cullen328 (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

StellarHalo inclusion criteria are based on editorial discretion and not on research, and thus are not under the guise of "original research". Per policy, While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Which is to say, it isn't research by which we decide what to include, or not include, but editorial decisions by editors, and when there is a dispute, we seek consensus through discussion. Verifiability and sources are required to include something, but they don't mandate that we must include it merely that we can include it. Editors of articles decide if inclusion of any bit of information is or is not WP:DUE based on a variety of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, among other things. --Jayron32 13:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am currently editing an article about an audio plugin, and I wanted to add a picture of the plugin.

Is it possible without infringing any copyright issues ? Because, I can take a picture of the plugin, but I am not the creator of it, so is it considered as "my own work" ?

Vincent-vst (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@vincent-vst: according to commons:screenshots, to upload the screenshot to commons, either the software needs to be free or prove it meets commons:template:pd-ineligible. otherwise, prove the image meets the 10 non-free image criteria and upload it here, to the english wikipedia. lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 06:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent-vst, if I am understanding you correctly, when you mention a "plug-in", you are referring to some computer software that is used to customize broader software. How can you take a picture of software, which is invisible? It is not like hardware, where you can take a photo of a box with wires coming out of it. If you are talking about the logo for a commercial product, please read WP:LOGO. Cullen328 (talk) 07:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@cullen328: he's probably taking a screenshot. lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 07:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i mean a screenshot, yes Vincent-vst (talk) 07:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you ! Vincent-vst (talk) 07:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are being undone for no reason. My changes are doing precisely the opposite of what is alleged, namely, I am removing promotional material AND updating with factual material. PromiseMade (talk) 08:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the sourced material, and then replacing it with less content, whilst reincluding some promotional material is not helpful, and your edits effectively concentrated what remained of the promotional material. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 08:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once your COI block is in place I am quite happy to go back and fully clean up that page. At this point, I'd just hit edit conflicts. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 08:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"In May 2017, Hartt was charged two counts of possessing child pornography, two counts of accessing child pornography and one count of “making available” child pornography. Hartt denied the charges, claiming that the images were likely downloaded by a stranger who used the WiFi during one of his screenings. Police with a search warrant also found 250 images "that could be found in pornography museums around the world or reputable bookstores around the world," according to Hartt."

The charges were withdrawn. This has not been reported in the media. I was asked in court if I wanted a publication ban on this. I said, "Yes." THE TORONTO SUN and THE STAR (with permission of my lawyer which shows how good he was) ignored the ban. Those stories have since been reprinted all over the web. The police found no evidence of the downloaded file that led to the charges. For further information contact myself. I would appreciate a notation that the charges were withdrawn. 2607:FEA8:5A3:7E00:996A:1CC:8CF5:231B (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, but that isn't how wikipedia works. we need a reliable source that says this. lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 10:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@IP 2607:FEA8:5A3:7E00:996A:1CC:8CF5:231B: Please take a look at WP:BIOSELF for reference. There are processes in place in which living persons who are the subjects of Wikipedia articles can express any concerns they may have about what's written about them on Wikipedia. This doesn't mean that such individuals have any such editorial control over what's written about them, but there are ways they can seek assistance. Please also keep in mind that anything you post on any Wikipedia page can be pretty much seen by anyone who wants to see it as explained in WP:REALWORLD; so, please be careful about reveling any personal information or other details you might not want to go public. There are email addresses listed on the BIOSELF page that you can use to discuss more sensitive matters. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As explained above, we will not write on Wikipedia that the charges were withdrawn without a source to that effect. That being said, I removed the paragraph entirely, based on our guideline WP:SUSPECT. Someone might revert me and reinstate the paragraph, or not. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I haven't done any major edits in a few years, and was wondering if someone more knowledgeable than I could help. There are three films called "Benefit of the Doubt". Two were listed on the "Benefit of the Doubt" page, and one is listed as "The Benefit of the Doubt". I just referenced the BOTD DAB page in the TBODT article, and vice versa.

Could someone please

• rename The Benefit of the Doubt to The Benefit of the Doubt (2017 film) and then
• redirect The Benefit of the Doubt to Benefit of the Doubt?

Thanks! 2601:45:403:ABC0:B996:5BF7:F65B:1CBC (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, could someone please link the DAB page to the Wiktionary page [9] ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:45:403:ABC0:B996:5BF7:F65B:1CBC (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have tweaked the hatnote on The Benefit of the Doubt.[10] The other films are only called "Benefit of the Doubt" so I think a hatnote is OK. Benefit of the Doubt already has a standard box with a Wiktionary link to the right. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.. chuck Thomas here .. I am trying to edit my BIO , but I am unable to do so, I thought I had the correct user ID but apparently I do NOT or my password has changed & I am unable to retrieve it.. please advise

Chuck Thomas (American football)

Chuck Thomas 2600:8801:2F1C:6800:F5A4:A02C:8675:3196 (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP. If you are indeed the American football player Chuck Thomas then I advise you to read WP:COI and not edit the page directly. Also, if you had an email attached to your account you can send a password reset email to it, otherwise we are unable to help you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is, we are unable to help you retrieve your password. I am not an expert, but if you have lost access to your account, I believe you can create a new account. Then you can make edit requests as described at WP:COIEDIT. This blue text, and the blue text within that page, are all clickable links. There's a lot to read in the entire COI article, which Blaze Wolf has also linked for you. David10244 (talk) 05:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no connection between an account and an article. With a few exceptions, anybody in the world (logged in or not) can edit any article. One of the exceptions is that somebody closely connected with the subject of an article (whether they are logged in or not) is strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, and should instead raise edit requests on the article's talk page. ColinFine (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Joanne and I am Dr. Bartley Griffith's executive assistant for 41 years. He has asked that I place certain information from his Curriculum Vitae into his Wikipedia. ALSO, we would like to change the photo to one that he prefers. 134.192.250.68 (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Bartley P. Griffith - 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Joanne. Your very first step is to register an account and make the mandatory Paid contributions disclosure. Read about editing with a Conflict of interest. You can upload a freely licensed photo to Wikimedia Commons for possible use in the article. Please also read about how the subjects of articles do not Own those articles. Cullen328 (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the photo upload, I highly recommend this tool. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the speedcube 167.128.81.8 (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently in relation to Draft:GANCube, submitted to AfC by the OP (and just declined). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not an issue for Help desk. Referred elsewhere

 – You need to take this up with the Portuguese Wikipedia, or maybe the Wikimedia Foundation, and maybe keep the nationalism to a minimum while doing so. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am from Portugal and something I got puzzled since of beginning of Wikipedia is that MOST of pt.wikipedia are in brazillian. There should be a pt-pt.wikipedia and a pt-br.wikipedia. I personally do not like reading the portuguese articles because the articles are contaminated with brazillian. The portuguese spoken in Brazil is NOT the same as the one spoken in Portugal. The portuguese of Portugal is the origin language of the brazillian. I still don't get why many companies have things in a such broken language. Why?! A good part of people living in Brazil do not read or speak properly. The last orthographic agreement was just one more stab in my mother language. I wish wikipedia had such 2 separated pt-pt and pt-br for articles. I personally like more to use the en.wikipedia. Hugosimoes84 (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why doesn't the footnote a on Taras Shevchenko work? --Espoo (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Espoo: Can you be more specific? Which footnote and what problems do you see? RudolfRed (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's the one named "a" (starts "At the time of birth of"), and nothing happens when i click on it in Chrome on Android. --Espoo (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What did you expect to happen? It's a footnote, not a reference. Maproom (talk) 08:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, when you click on "[Note]" right after the name, it's supposed to take you to the footnote "a". This works in desktop browsers, but the link is dead and makes most users think there is no (longer) a footnote in Chrome on Android in both the mobile and desktop version. --Espoo (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. It works in the mobile version but not in the desktop version on Android Chrome, which is what I normally use on my tab.

The reason i use the desktop version is that the text is too small edit: in the mobile version when it still fits the screen. Can that be changed in some setting? For example, the mobile version produces all of this in one line:

"As a hireling for the Kyrylivka priest Hryhoriy Koshytsia, Taras was visiting Bohuslav where he drove the priest's son to"

whereas the desktop version produces only this in one line:

"As a hireling for the Kyrylivka priest Hryhoriy Koshytsia, Taras was visiting Bohuslav". --Espoo (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Espoo: Unfortunately no, the desktop skin wasn't designed for that. I'd use text scaling where I can on mobile. RAN1 (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the not functioning jump to the footnote in the desktop version or the text that's too small in the mobile version? How can i make the text bigger in the mobile version without it flowing outside the screen? What do you mean with text scaling?

The basic problem is that (only) the mobile version completely ignores the accessibility setting in Android Chrome, i.e. the setting that increases the text size in the WP desktop version and most other websites.

And the link to the footnote now doesn't work in the mobile version either, so i wasn't wrong when i first said that. --Espoo (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 3

I did not get the publisher of this reference (number 7) - it is from a journal from 1921. Please fix and leave in quote. I have gotten the page number incorrect too - the placing of it (it should say "p" - not the actual page number, that is correct. I hope this makes sense. Sorry - thanks 115.70.23.77 (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to help help improve the encyclopedia. Where should I spend my time to do the most good? STEMinfo (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @STEMinfo, welcome to Wikipedia.

Ultimately, we're a encyclopedia, so content is our most critical aspect. It's also really help to do even if you find something else of more interest (as I have). So, I'd first take a read through Help:Intro (the "visual editor" pathway is probably best), especially the editing and referencing parts.

Then find some articles that interest you (I imagine STEM ones would be a good place to look?) but could use some improvements.

Unclear? Rewrite. Unsourced? Add a reference. Straight up wrong? Find the references to confirm it and then change and source.

Your Homepage tab should also suggest a few edits to you.

Best of luck! Nosebagbear (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Wikipedia is using russian spelling of Chornobyl. "ChErnobyl" spelling is russian and incorrect. You should use either ukrainian version or create a new english one. But using russian spelling in English is incorrect. Chornobyl page is blocked from editing, so please correct it. Thank you. Taras 91.245.223.50 (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chernobyl is best known for the nuclear accident in 1986. At that time, the spelling in news stories was Chernobyl which has become the WP:COMMONNAME. Since then, there have been attempts to rename Chicken Kiev to Chicken Kyiv because Russia is off the Christmas card list. The article Chernobyl also notes the Ukrainian spelling of Chornobyl in the opening sentence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Hello, Taras. The question is not "which name is correct", but rather "which name is commonly used". The town became widely known in the world, in the English–speaking world in particular, due to the accident in the nuclear power plant. That happened when Ukraine was a part of Soviet Union, so the vast majority of first-hand information available was written in Russian, the SU official language. Hence the 'Chernobyl' transcription from Russian language got recorded and still exists in most of written sources, while the 'Chornobyl' transcription from Ukrainian language remains much less known. Wikipedia does not try to set any standards or judge on correctness, but rather just summarize and report what reliable sources say. When the use of 'Chornobyl' prevails over 'Chernobyl' in English–language TV news, newspapers & books, then Wikipedia almost surely will change it, too. --CiaPan (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taras: The correct place to have this discussion is at Talk:Chernobyl. What you're going to need before your proposal gets any traction is a a series of reliable sources that show that the change has happened in English that you describe. It can happen, Kyiv has only become the standard English spelling in the past 2 years, but not before then. It doesn't seem like the spelling of Chernobyl to Chornobyl has happened yet in a preponderance of English sources, but maybe it has. Make the case on the article talk page and see what happens. --Jayron32 16:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If a template says someone need to find references for particular phrase (not a catchphrase, but a spelled-out acronym) would I just look for reputable sources using it in their writings or is there something else? Manyetana (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Manyetana: Something like a dictionary or other reliable source for words or terminology defining the term explicitly. Merely showing people using the term is probably not sufficient, you need to show that other reliable sources have explicitly defined it. --Jayron32 16:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell us which article you are talking about. It is hard to give helpful advice when people are not specific. ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was trying to fix what I think is a mistake and now have myself confused, so I hope this makes sense. I think there may be a problem with a redirected template and can't figure how to fix it. Basically an editor was adding the template {{Contract Research Organizations}} to articles resulting in the entire article Contract research organizations appearing at the bottom instead of the template like this edit here. I went and changed all the ones I could find to {{Contract research organization}} which fixed the problem, like this edit here. After fixing them, I found a redirect here that appears to be the cause of this, it looks like the editor redirected the first template I mentioned to the article instead of the second template I mentioned, so anytime the first template is added, the article appears. If my explaination makes any sense, can someone check this. Like I said, the articles are fixed, but I have no idea what can be done with the redirect. Cmr08 (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the edits to the template. I haven't time at the moment to discuss this matter with Fostera12, who made the change. ColinFine (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect should have been to Template:Contract research organization. I fixed that at this edit. At about the same time Editor ColinFine recreated Template:Contract Research Organizations from a previous version. Both templates were authored by Fostera12. I suspect that Template:Contract research organization (singular sentence case) is the preferred template title since that is where the attempted redirect was created.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had myself confused over something easy. I was actually trying to edit the wrong template page. I also think the redirect was meant to be to the lower case template, and the editor leftout the template part. Cmr08 (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ref number 8 is all wrong . I cant work out how to put the page number in correctly, and there is a problem with the date - but I think I have got that part correct. Please fix and leave in quote - thanks 115.70.23.77 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was an unneeded comma in the date field which generated an error message. I removed it. The page number seems to be OK. Cullen328 (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 4

I don't know if this is the right place to do this, just let me know if I'm doing something wrong.

I'm confused about Wikipedia's canvassing rules, I've been pinging a lot of people on discussions just to get responses, and people have been saying that I've been canvassing, I read Wikipedia's canvassing rules and it said nothing about pinging a lot of people, I have done this in a lot of discussions [11], [12]. I want to know if this is okay cuz I don't want to get blocked. I just want a tutorial, can you tell me if I'm doing right or wrong, and if there's any other incidences were people who did canvassing get blocked, cuz I feel like I'm breaking a rule I don't know, I really want to be taught it, just so I can learn from my mistakes, cuz I don't want to be blocked. 4me689 (talk) 03:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, pinging many people on a discussion goes against the "Spamming" rule of canvassing. This is seen as a way to get more people to vote/decide in said discussion, thus being favored to you since you were the one who mentioned them. It's made even worse if the people you pinged are not involved in the discussion. You said you are pinging people just to get responses, and this is why it's bad: because you're using it to get responses and not to start a thoughtful discussion. Also, it can be viewed as annoying. To avoid being seen as a canvassing rulebreaker, ping less people. I hope this helps. - 𝘾𝙤𝙤𝙡𝙢𝙖𝙣2917 (talkpage) 11:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't have an issue with this - I find it to be better than pinging specific people who you know a certain viewpoint. Pinging people at random is a bit of a pain - usually people don't mind so much if you ping people who have already taken part of a discussion or a parallel discussion. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks. I was planning to create a help request. If your looking for "input", for intellectual discussion, for example on a talk page or an RFC, then pinging lots of folks is ok. But if your looking to ping lots of folk where you looking for "support" for a particular action, or for a particular political point your trying to make, for example at Afd or an RFC, then that would be canvassing. Your going around asking for help to push in a particular direction, is not cool. scope_creep^Talk 12:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof that We Bare Bears 2 is happening because it is a fake, because the references are from three years ago for announcements for We Bare Bears: The Movie in production and We Baby Bears in development, and there is no way that Crunchyroll ever teams up with Cartoon Network. 2600:4040:5BE1:3300:F9FC:D1F4:AE41:D7DE (talk) 04:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the culprit here. I restore the above editor's removal of the We Bear Bears 2 addition to List of Cartoon Network Studios productions. I was mislead by the pseudo-sources. My apologies! Cheers Adakiko (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New section links are broken with Javascript off. Elephas X. Maximus (talk) 08:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elephas X. Maximus: If you have JavaScript off then disable "Enable quick topic adding" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't donate to you because you are not partial in your publishing. When posting something like "they shared false information" but don't post any proof of that, you lose credibility. See the notes under Kari Lake for reference. Garbage reporting. Get better and I'll support your cause. 199.96.122.147 (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If sources in the Kari Lake article are not being summarized accurately, please detail the specific errors on Talk:Kari Lake. If the sources are summarized accurately, but you disagree with what they say, you will need to take that up with the sources themselves.

Donating or withholding donations has no impact on article content, as donations are collected by the Wikimedia Foundation, that operates the computers Wikipedia is on. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to discover when a word/phrase/sentence was deleted if key words don't appear in the Edit summary? Mcljlm (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcljlm you can use Wikiblame for this purpose. – robertsky (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I posted here after using Wikiblame but getting "0 versions found". I searched twice, at first ticking/checking "Look for removal of text (binary only)", "Ignore minor changes (experimental)" and "Force searching for wikitext" and then without "Ignore minor changes (experimental)". Should I have searched in a different way?

Why is that the tool's name? Mcljlm (talk) 12:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcljlm It's called Wikiblame because it is often used to find out which editor made a particular change. For the purpose you want, I would suggest using just the less-common words from the phrase you want to check and take the default options. Since you are looking for removal of those words, you do need to use the "Look for removal of text (binary only)" option. If you still have no luck, please specify the article and the phrase whose removal you are trying to find so we can help further. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few times someone has given https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jibril_Rajoub as the source for Rajoub having an account at Bank Leumi. Since the current text doesn't include the word leumi (or any other bank account) it must have been deleted, assuming it was once there. Mcljlm (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcljlm, there are several possibilities. Someone could be incorrectly giving Jibril Rajoub as the source for Rajoub having an account at Bank Leumi. The content could have been added, then removed and the revisions could have been hidden (showing as a struck through date and time in the edit history). Finally, the information could have been added and removed, but not detected by the tool. I think the last scenario is the least likely. TSventon (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any certain way of finding it? Mcljlm (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In scenario three you could check all 180 edits, except the hidden ones. Obviously if the information was never added or has been hidden, you would not find it. TSventon (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this can be quite a job, but it's still less than going through all edits. What I've done before: I go to the last edit on the first page. If the edit I want is already there, I go to the next page and check the last one there. When I finally get to one that DOESN'T show the edit I want to find, I go about half way up the page and look. If the edit is there, I go about half way down the bottom half of the page; if it isn't I go about half way up the top half. Keep subdividing, and at some point (to be decided by you) it becomes easier to start checking next or previous edits. Uporządnicki (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcljlm: Binary search doesn't examine all revisions. If it ever finds both a revision with and without the text then it tracks down the removal by repeatedly halving the possible interval. But if it never finds the text then it doesn't try every revision to see if it was added and removed quickly somewhere in a long page history. Linear search examines each revision in an interval but the tool limits the interval size to 50 revisions for performance reasons, and search for removal doesn't allow linear search at all. You could use linear to search 50 revisions at a time for addition of the text but it's harder to make separate searches and it's a way to circumvent a performance limit on the server making the searches. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcljlm Having read the background, I think the most likely explanation is that Wikipedia never had such information and even if it did WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a bit of a mess of Golden Jubilee of Queen Victoria#21 June - I added a load of wikilinks and now the blockquote template markup appears. Are the wikilinks the problem or have I done something else wrong? Alansplodge (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you forgot to close one of the wikilinks, which caused this. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 14:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marvellous! Thank you most kindly. Alansplodge (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Hi there my name is Richard Price a uk actor I do a lot of work on a uk show called Doctor Who I have a verified Twitter @richard_price2 and also on IMDb I have no clue when it comes to Wikipedia as to how it works and wondered how you get a page on the site?

Can anyone help? Or does anyone write submissions etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:83A2:BD01:1063:7341:AFB:694E (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have pages, we have articles, typically written by independent editors unconnected with the subject in any way. If you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable actor or a notable person, someone will eventually take note of your career and choose to write about you. That is how the vast majority of articles are created- trying to force the issue is not usually successful. Please read about how an article is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked you up just now! You are indeed a Cyberman; I'm impressed (truly!).

That said, yes, IMDb does sound impressive; it did to me for a long time. But now I'm on IMDb, too. I had a secondary, but significant, recurring, speaking role in an independent movie. I play a one of a race of multi-colored, humanoid beings; I'm a member of a tribe that believes in going around completely naked. As far as I know, the movie only ever appeared on Vimeo.com. It was there for a few years, and then just a short time ago, Vimeo yanked it and the site on which it appeared--presumably because I was running around naked too much.

Facetiousness aside, other people who answer are probably going to explain why IMDb is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. Uporządnicki (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IMDB explains it fairly well. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard. Given how many articles Wikipedia has on Doctor Who, including The Power of the Doctor in which you are mentioned as part of the cast, it is probably only a matter of time until someone writes an article about you, especially if your contributions are mentioned in reliable secondary sources. You are allowed to create a draft if you wish and can be bothered to learn how to do so: use the WP:AFC process (explained at that link) but beware that writing acceptable articles is quite tough, particularly the need to meet Wikipedia's specialist definition of a notable actor! Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of solid actors, whether legit, TV or film, work for a lifetime without ever becoming high-profile enough to merit an article in a global encyclopedia such as this one. (And yes, I too have an IMDb entry; big deal.) --Orange Mike | Talk 00:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed that someone copied a Wikipedia article into Draft:Sandbox without proper attribution. Could this be considered a copyvio or no? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you policing a sandbox? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really. However I do know that certain policies do still apply to the sandbox so I just wanted to know if it was something that was allowed or not. I don't exactly remember how I came across the page again (I removed it from my watchlist for a while and then I probably reverted something there for a valid reason and it got added back) but I wanted to make sure as copyright still applies to the sandbox per WP:NOCOPYRIGHT (which is on WP:BADSAND) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sandbox is cleared automatically. Nothing is going to stay there long. If someone copies a Wikipedia article there, so what? The warning on WP:BADSAND presumably refers to content copy-pasted from external sources. Unattributed copying of Wikipedia content only becomes an issue if it is either in article space, or is liable to remain in other spaces for some time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah alright sounds good. I'm not all that familiar with how copyright works regarding copying stuff from Wikipedia within Wikipedia itself. I guess really the only harm would be the sandbox getting categorized into categories it doesn't belong to but most of the time as you said that's not a big issue. (really the only time I think it would be an issue would be if it gets placed in a category that tells the cleaner bot to ignore the page, and even then editors themselves can still undo that) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking the question, I'm not on the same page as AndyTheGrump. As a regular at CopyPatrol, reports of issues requiring investigation show up involving the sandbox regularly. It is not uncommon that edits to that page include copyright violations. I am aware that the sandbox is cleared automatically, but when I note a copyright violation, I typically perform an RD1. Per WP:BEANS, I don't plan to elaborate. That said, copying an existing article is less serious because it is simply an attribution problem, and that is likely to go away, but I don't want anyone left with the impression that copyright issues in the sandbox can simply be ignored. Thanks for asking the question, I'm sorry the response was so dismissive. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia seems to take a more lenient view, suggesting that such internal copy-pasting can be dealt with via nothing more dramatic that an edit summery added after the fact: "pages that contain unattributed text do not normally need to be deleted". And that applies even to stuff that isn't being deleted every few hours, at maximum. If there is even a technical violation of copyright involved in the sandbox edit, it seems too minor to be worth bothering about, in my opinion. Nobody is going to court over such trivia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She should be a famous person listed for the town of she is from in the state of Washington, USA. 70.57.201.221 (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does she have an article? If not then this won't happen unless a consensus is reached among editors to include her in the article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She does have an article (as you could easily have verified). I've added her to the list at Burns, Oregon.   Maproom (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there’s a bug I’ve found on a few pages which is present in the page I’ve just created, 2023 British Touring Car Championship. This bug means that all sections of the page are grouped under the first section, and I can see no issue in the source code and no way of resolving it. Does anyone know how to fix this? DRYT.Motorsport (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DRYT.Motorsport, are you saying that the article doesn't have a table of contents? That's not a bug - TOCs don't show up until an article has at least four headings. (WP:TOC) 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@199.208.172.35, No, is it not an issue on the page for you? There are multiple sections, titled Teams and drivers, Race calendar, References and External links, yet the latter three don’t show up as expandable sections on their own, the first section has to be expanded in order to view the others, which shouldn’t be the case. I’ll add that I am using the mobile version, it is not apparent on the desktop version. DRYT.Motorsport (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. One of the tables in the first named section wasn't closed properly. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Wiki page for the English drum and bass record producer "dBridge". But in "Category:English_drum_and_bass_musicians" he appears as "DBridge". This causes my app to include two entries for the same person. I cannot find the source of "DBridge" to correct it. Where is it? Thanks! Ron (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vossron: Interesting question. I don't think it can be fixed. All articles start with a capital letter, but there is a trick that lets some display it as lower case, such as on IPhone and DBridge. But, the article actually does start with upper case, so thats what appears in the category. The same way that Category:Mobile_phones_introduced_in_2007 lists IPhone and not iPhone. RudolfRed (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vossron: RudolfRed is right. DBridge contains {{lowercase title}} to display dBridge on the article itself but it cannot be displayed in other places like categories and search results. It's the same for all 4000 articles using {{lowercase title}}, and others which don't use this specific template. What does "my app" refer to? PrimeHunter (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vossron:, @PrimeHunter:, @RudolfRed: Now, this IS interesting! I'm not sure how relevant this is, but it hearkens back to my earliest days here, when I was doing massive edits as an IP user (YEARS ago). I was almost exclusively reorganizing Category pages, mostly for lists of species within a genus. In those days, Category pages used to alphabetize capital and lower case letters in separate alphabets on the page; for reasons I won't take time here to explain, that made some particularly large categories much easier to navigate. And something I read suggested that the system was designed that way. But then one day, all my beautiful Category pages started interfiling capital and lower case entries. I inquired everywhere I could find. But some answers I got seemed to say that this thing that I saw as a neat and useful feature was regarded by others as a glitch that had finally been fixed. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, our company has a wikipedia page which we did not create. Can we update the page and correct inaccuracies directly? 2001:8F8:1129:DD42:B710:93DC:6B34:B9DE (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid the answer is no. First, it is Wikipedia's article about your company, not "a Wikipedia page". Second, Wikipedia's Terms of Service mandate that Paid contributions must be disclosed. Third, editing the article about a Company you are a staff member of triggers what we call a Conflict of interest. Therefore, you are generally discouraged from editing the article directly and are asked to submit edit requests instead. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Yes you can. You can update facts (not opinions) directly, using a reliable source. Using a company page may require recognizing the source as the company and not a third party. You must also say you are paid by the company to edit the article.

If there is an issue, for example highlighting your failures too much or inaccurate style, make an edit request instead. For the full policy see WP:COI. Sungodtemple (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sungodtemple It is highly preferred that COI editors not directly edit articles in most cases. They should make edit requests. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of red text saying that a parameter is wrong. Is this a problem with the wikidata formatting? How could I solve it? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Liu, I took a crack at it. It appears to be an issue with Wikidata. When the page Template:Latest stable software release/Material Design, transcluded onto Material Design, was created, there was only one stable release of the software listed on Wikidata. The template took release dates from Wikidata using Template:Wikidata, and that was fine at the time with only one stable release. However, more updates have been released since then, so the article now lists multiple dates.

Template:Latest stable software release/Material Design uses Template:Start date and age, which parses a date and calculates how long ago it was. The use of Template:Wikidata returned multiple dates, as there were multiple stable releases, so Template:Start date and age broke, not being able to parse multiple dates.

I don't know how to fix this, presumably by separating the releases into different sections. The original creator appears to be taking a Wikibreak. Sungodtemple (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to fix it.

It appears that the issue was actually with the wikidata entries. There was a bot that automatically added releases from GitHub to the wikidata page. The repositories were also specified on the wikidata page. However, even though each repository's platform was specified, the bot didn't add them to the releases entries. The issue was fixed after I added the platform to releases. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How come at Bertelsmann#External links, the corresponding template is still rendered collapsed, even though |state=expanded is set? Hildeoc (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hildeoc: Some templates falsely claim to support a state parameter. The claim is made by adding {{collapsible option}} but the parameter also has to actually be coded. Гармонический Мир removed it [13] when changing the default. I have restored it.[14] PrimeHunter (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear PrimeHunter! Thank you so much – once again! You're always a great help. All the best, Hildeoc (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Folks, I have just researched what is being said about a company I am involved with. I came across a site named WiKifx and assumed it would be upfront and unbiased and connected to this site. However that was not my experience! They are a scamming company giving false reviews on companies that do not pay them to give reviews or vice versa. Not only that, they offer a paid service to resolve any issues you may think you have and with th company I am involved in, NovaTechfx there are no issues that the company do not and can not resolve. This is clearly a scamming site operating under the pretext of being affiliated to WiKipedia. 92.1.219.162 (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can't do anything here in this forum about scammers, unfortunately. You might want to contact the Wikimedia Foundation's legal department (I believe you want the first address there). Remember, scammers prey on those who are desperate for Wikipedia articles and haven't considered the consequences of having one. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A wiki is a type of website with collaborative editing. The concept is older than Wikipedia and lots of unrelated websites have "wiki" in their name. I'm not sure WikiFX actually has a wiki but it's their chosen name and nothing the Wikimedia Foundation can do something about unless they claim or imply to be affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That website does not make any claims that it is affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. Their logo is completely different and the appearance of the website is different. "Wiki" is not a trademark and anyone is free to use it. Wikileaks, for example, is a well-known website that is not affiliated with Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the term is technically copyrightable/trademarkable either since it's a general use term (I think it's why Google does not want you to say that you "googled something") ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to develop a timeline (1920-1970) for events that could effect Education (K-12) in the United States. So I need to identify WW1 and WW2 Korean War Viet Nam Wars but also innovations such as computers or digitization of education. So I would appreciate any assistance to get me in the right direction. Dr Paul Hollandsworth 2600:8805:3200:110:6D76:59D7:B14F:990C (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're better off asking at the reference desks, Dr. Hollandsworth. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Events that could "effect education"? Where did you get your doctorate, Paul? --Orange Mike | Talk 03:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Woke U, where thinking is regarded as an immoral waste of time! Uporządnicki (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My comment above was uncalled for; I apologize. I myself have gone back to things I've written, and discovered to my horror that in a moment of brain short circuit, I wrote some blatant illiteracy.

November 5

https://www.tmz.com/2022/10/26/jerry-lee-lewis-not-dead/ 72.17.81.138 (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TMZ says "Most editors consider TMZ a low-quality source and prefer more reliable sources when available." Dentsinhere43 is a new Wikipedian. 01:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and also this was published before the official announcement of his death that's currently cited in Lewis's article. —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule we do not cite scandal rags, and this includes TMZ. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 01:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are users allowed to publically declare that they plan to commit suicide in the future on their user page? —VersaceSpace 🌃 02:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Follow the advice at Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm and contact emergency@wikimedia.org immediately. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to make Ethiopia eligible for Good Articles. What text should be changed in the article? SpyridisioAnnis (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Ethiopia#GA Review. The assessment suggests that substantial work is needed - it isn't a matter of changing a few words of text, and will very likely need revision by someone both familiar with the topic, and with writing Wikipedia content according to relevant policies and guidelines. Not something I'd recommend for a newcomer to the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Not New To Wikipedia SpyridisioAnnis (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I'm not sure how Andy would know that, considering you have made 137 edits and are asking how to improve an article you haven't edited. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your five months at Wikipedia (SpyridisioAnnis (talk · contribs)) have not been completely smooth sailing. Bazza (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK! I will fix it... SpyridisioAnnis (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I retired a few months ago and requested my account's rights to be lowered as well. I have finally decided that I am going to contribute to Wikipedia again, can you please reinstate the rights of my account? Thankyou. zoglophie 13:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will write this request in appropriate page which I just found. Thanks zoglophie 14:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a place to put a wanted ad on this site? IE I am looking for someone to fix my car. 2001:569:F015:8D00:78E7:F02:518C:2821 (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No is the short answer. I'm not sure if this has ever been asked before.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Craigslist or similar sites are probably what you're looking for. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is an encyclopedia, not a jobs wanted website. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to search registered usernames using a regular expression? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is a way, at least not on Wikipedia. The closest thing I am aware off is this API query, which tells you for a given username wether it is able to be registered, and if not, why (including, but not limited to, usernames blocked by the antispoof extension). Victor Schmidt (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I'm asking because in the past weeks I've seen several usernames in the form "location + political party" and thought it'd be interesting to see how many like that there are. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They would be inappropriate as implying shared use rather than identifying an individual. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 22:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know that and report them when they crop up, just wondered whether I could enumerate all of them. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maddy from Celeste Not regex but / it does have regex works well for querying usernames: global user search —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 23:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! From what I can tell there's no pattern with these obvious accounts, at least when it comes to the US parties. Very useful tool in any case. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 23:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not really helpful but, you can search user space for titles that contain the word 'party'. This simple search finds about 580 User talk pages that contain the word. I chose User talk because User space is more likely to have sandboxen etc with the word as a legitimate part of the subpage title. Here is a search for 'republican party' (~12 user talk pages), for 'democratic party' (19 user pages), and for independent party (1 user page).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maddy from Celeste: This API query should be enough to write a script. RAN1 (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missed the regex comment. RAN1 (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All,

I have created a draft wiki page Draft:Mark Keil, a professor in the field of Information systems. I am planning to submit it for review. Can you please take a look at it and suggest any things to do before submitting it for review? I am not sure if there are any specific steps to be followed before submitting it for review. Thank you. Vamsy Alapati (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post gay stuff about homosexual serial killers? Simplystart (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]