Wikipedia:Help desk: Difference between revisions

Page for questions relating to Wikipedia

Social Repose

Reference help requested.

None of the references are in red, indicating a missing title, and I scanned them manually, so I’m not sure where there is a title missing

Thanks, Shanthophile (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shanthophile, your title is Referencing errors on [[Special:Diff/1295625433|Social Repose]]. It seems that you’re asking not about the article as a whole but instead about a slingle diff. This adds {{cite web |url=https://www.nataliezworld.com/2014/09/blood-on-dance-floor-announces.html |website=https://www.nataliezworld.com}} which, contrary to what you seem to be saying, lacks the title attribute. (You’ve specified the title of the website but not that of the particular page.) As for the article as a whole, this has a vast number (currently 490) of what are presented as references, but many of which merely point to where (on Youtube, etc) one may find this or that song. It’s not obvious where among these are the substantive sources on Giese (“Social Repose”) himself that are reliable and also independent of him. — Hoary (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m looking at that citation and it has a title in it, so I’m not sure what to do here?

“BLOOD ON THE DANCE FLOOR ANNOUNCES THE RECKONING TOUR”. Natalie’s World. 4 May 2015. Retrieved 14 June 2025.

So just to check, when I do the listing of singles, covers, etc., I can just list them and don’t need anything to support that? I can pull the links if they aren’t necessary to prove that it is what it is.

I appreciate the help, btw. Shanthophile (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie (4 May 2015). “Blood on the Dance Floor announces The Reckoning Tour”. Natalie’s World. Retrieved 14 June 2025. But as for these lists, Shanthophile, I’ve raised a larger question about them on your talk page. — Hoary (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Shanthophile, please see “Let me check with Richie”. — Hoary (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

can you make articles about yourself/people you know (friends and family)/personal projects?

just asking Direct Determine FM (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wikipedia isn’t for autobigraphies. DonIago (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks Direct Determine FM (talk) 04:43, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Direct Determine FM You might find a more suitable site at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but only under very limited circumstances. Firstly, they need to meet our notability requirements. Then you need to declare your conflict of interest, and work through the process described at WP:AFC to make a draft article and have it reviewed by somebody independent. Be aware that the criteria are very strict, and most people who try this fail; but—contrary to the answer already given—it is neither forbidden nor impossible. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 14:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you not offer vanishing or renaming for blocked accounts

What if the blocked account has real life name as username, before you say “they must appeal first” what if their appeals got rejected 49.237.38.203 (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because blocking is for the person, not the account. I don’t understand your second question. ColinFine (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine: Wild guess: The IP presumes that we are one of those websites (pretty common tbh) were you get a limited number of appeals (common are 1 or 1.5) after wich you are – short of being friends with the site owner or similar back door stuff – simply screwed. @IP You can always make another appeal, at least after a while and a good read of WP:GAB, wether via talkpage or WP:UTRS. And in the (AFAIK exedingly rare, if that ever happened) case that you’ll get a your talkpage revoked and banned from UTRS for no good reason there is always arbcom, still. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that for the second question, it doesn’t matter whether the username contains the editors’ real name or not, they get the same response regarding where to appeal. That is unless the username match those of notable/famous people in which case, they have to follow the instructions at {{Uw-ublock-wellknown}}. Or if the username violates the username policy. JuniperChill (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what if someone with real name got blocked for being sockpuppet of a person who vandalized Wikipedia yet that same someone got famous 223.24.191.47 (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking “What if somebody using their real name as their username [let’s call this person ‘SURNU’] got blocked for being a sockpuppet of a username blocked for vandalizing Wikipedia, yet SURNU then became notable?”? If so, nothing in particular. If they break Wikipedia’s rules, people who get articles can be or remain blocked. If people who are blocked become famous while they’re blocked, they remain blocked. But why do you ask? — Hoary (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Im worried itd ruin their digital footprint 223.24.191.47 (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What if somebody using their real name as their username [let’s call this person ‘SURNU’] got blocked for being a sockpuppet of a username blocked for vandalizing Wikipedia, yet SURNU then worked for job that made them a celebirty like musician or athlete? 223.24.191.47 (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would generally not impact their notability a whit. And as a general rule, userspace and user logs are noindexed, so reputable search engines wouldn’t find them in the first place. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 02:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

jobs could type wikipedia.org/user:SURNU to see if they vnadalized wikipedia 223.24.191.47 (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will you offer exceptions for not allowing blocked usernames to rename or vanish like digital footprint 223.24.191.47 (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. If someone doesn’t want to be seen as acting a certain way, then they shouldn’t act that way. There is an explicit notice about presumed permanence of all edits and giving up certain rights when publishing any text on this website. We are not in the business of helping create non-authentic reputations. DMacks (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what if they were immature when they vnadalized, regretted vandalism, and their appeals got rejected anyways 49.237.20.174 (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They they should live with that and move on to something else. Actions have consequences. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if jobs found out about the wikipedia account with irl name that vandalized wikipedia they should aplogize but not appeal if their appeals got rejected? 49.237.20.174 (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get the sense that you are talking about yourself? If so, you are evading your block by posting here and making it harder to be unblocked later. We’re willing to forgive and move past immature activities, but if you have no intentions of editing again, there’s no need to do anything with your account as blocks only prevent editing. Again, actions have consequences. Feel free to tell your employer/potential employers that your past immaturity does not reflect who you are now. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

im not talking about myself but will you also unblock sockpuppets

if john davis is sockpuppet of mack davis and mack davis got unblocked will you unblock john davis 49.237.20.174 (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don’t unblock sock accounts, we unblock the original account. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi my personal page for Lazaros Kalemis is being redirected to my companies page Simpay US. I tried to find the original page to request someone to droete the redirect command. I cannot get yo the talk page to list the request. Can someone delete the redirect 100.11.17.87 (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page was redirected by User:Curb Safe Charmer, because they felt that as a topic, you did not meet the requirements described at WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. I am inclined to agree.

If you disagree, on what basis?

Did you pay someone to write that about you? And about your company? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 14:00, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find a place on your webpage where I could express concerns. Please forward to the appropriate persons.

I am really assuming it is fake news from the unreliable right wingers, but when I heard that Wikipedia was considering removing Erika Kirk’s biography was Wikipedia, I thought that it was in extremely poor taste and utterly poor timing. If she warranted a biography before his assassination, then why remove it now? It is inflamatory, sexist, and politically motivated. I thought Wikipedia was above such things. I definitely did not agree with everything Charlie Kirk said or believed, but he was courageous to go onto college campuses to provide an alternative opinion. Colleges must be a place where diverse opinions can be discussed and considered. Erika Kirk is planning to carry on his legacy, and it is way too early for a decision to delete her. I faithfully supported Wikipedia financially. If Wikipedia stoops this low, I will have to reconsider my support and my encouragement of my friends to continue their support. If this is fake news, get in front of this distasteful attempt by right winger antagonists to discredit your important website.

Nelson Huseby
San Diego, California Nelson Huseby (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Nelson Huseby. You can view the deletion discussion for the Erika Kirk article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika Kirk. From the current consensus, it looks like the article will not be deleted. Please note deletion discussions on Wikipedia are not a majority vote, but instead a nuanced discussion among Wikipedia contributors. qcne (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope the right person closes that. Quite a lot of votes in there shouldn’t be counted because they are mere opinions with no justification. Electricmemory (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has obviously been canvassed off-Wiki. qcne (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s what I’m saying. Whoever goes and closes it eventually better be someone who knows what they’re doing or a deletion review will come up, and the whole discussion will drag on for even longer. Electricmemory (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’s very likely an experienced admin will take it on. There may be challenges etc anyway, but that day, that sorrow. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nelson Huseby: Erika Kirk’s biography was started after the shooting of Charlie Kirk.[1] Special:Statistics says Wikipedia has more than 100,000 active registered users. Anyone can nominate an article for deletion and create a discussion about it. Her biography is unlikely to actually be deleted. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I made a donation of £10.40 to Wikipedia on September 1st, but my Amex account shows that I was charged twice. I don’t understand how this happened, but could you refund the second £10.40 debit, please?
Thank you 2A0A:EF40:1029:8301:95F3:7B5D:4E2E:984C (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. Please email donate@wikimedia.org; they handle all donations. qcne (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an update for Citation #11 on the “Self-Image” page:
Self-image#cite note-11

This is the correct citation:
Walker, Jeffrey M. (2004) “Squid-heads and Coppertops: Discursive Power in the Postmodern Filmic Dystopia”; Literature and Psychology, 49(4), 43-81 97.120.99.91 (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. You’re welcome to go in and correct it yourself, if you feel able (note that the section you’ll need to edit is the section where the reference is cited (Residual) not the section where it actually appears (References).

If you don’t feel confident in doing that, then the article’s talk page Talk:self-image is the best place to suggest it. ColinFine (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am having visual problems which make it difficult for me to edit. I can still provide text and even insert it at the correct spot. However, I would welcome a wiki-buddy to sort out problems with references and other more technical aspects of editing. I’m sure I am not the first to be in this position. Is there a mechanism for such help?

Humpster (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could try Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee’s Area. 331dot (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might also find the m:WikiBlind User Group helpful. It’s not very active, but has some useful info. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 12:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested to read What is it like to edit Wikipedia when you’re blind?. MKFI (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Is someone able to help me remove the top messages on this page: Dimitri Krainc – I have looked into it and am having trouble doing so. Thanks in advance! Clagrone123 (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clagrone123 Well, in order for those messages to be removed, the issues must be addressed. MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 14:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed {{COI}}, because no issues had been identified on the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 15:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert F. KENNEDY Jr.’S photo is clearly doctored. Are you allowing AI photos, or photo shopped pictures allowed? Pjtawney (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s flattering, but isn’t necessarily photoshopped or AI. You’d be amazed by what old-school photographic lens choice, lighting and darkroom development techniques can do.

That said, I think the fact that it’s (allegedly) an ‘official photograph’ and therefore in the public domain probably counts for a great deal in favour of its use in Wikipedia.

Incidentally, you say “Are you allowing . . .”, but as an Account-registered editor of Wikipedia, you have exactly as much say in this matter as any other (and arguably more that myself, who remains accountless after 20+ years of activity) so you are free to bring this up and argue the case for disallowing it. You may want to peruse Wikipedia:Image use policy (including its Talk page) and Wikipedia:Photoshopped images.

(Personally, I’d be happy not to have to look at this . . . person . . . ever again in my life.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.153.108 (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if i make a wikipedia acount do I get to edit, delete, create, or change any page? 36.255.112.138 (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Among other things, pages might be protected from editing, or there might be other considerations. Your question is rather broad in scope though. DonIago (talk) 03:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having a wikipedia account enables you to eventually be authorized to edit certain pages that you wouldn’t otherwise be authorized to edit. But with or without an account, pages may only be edited in accordance with the rules. Creating a Wikipedia article, in particular, has a special set of rules, in that the subject must meet specific criteria, such as WP:Notability. Article authors also need to be aware of the conflict of interest rules. In general, I would say that if you are on some sort of mission that you are trying to accomplish on Wikipedia, I would be wary. If you’re here to fix typos, improve articles, such as by verifying claims using appropriate citations, add appropriate content along with supporting citations, these are good things, but if you jump in without exercising caution, you may get burned. Fabrickator (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only adminstrators can actually delete articles and other pages. Other editors can ask for pages to be deleted in various ways. For example, an editor blanking a page in their own userspace is interpreted as a request to delete that page. Cullen328 (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:User groups for details about what different users can do. You can already use Wikipedia:Articles for creation to submit an article for review but it’s difficult for new users to make an acceptable article. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:18, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally do not think so but I was just wondering. I think it was covered at WP:RSP but i typed in WP:MYHERITAGE and manually check RSP and I couldn’t find any results. It is used a bunch of Wikipedia pages (usually for minor things) so it might be important to reach consensus on its reliability 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 04:53, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Easternsahara There was an earlier discussion you missed at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_231#myheritage.com pointing out that it is user-generated but sometimes mentions underlying sources that could be OK. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve redirected WP:MYHERITAGE to that discussion, for now.We could perhaps do with a FAQ page about such sites in general. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 11:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends what you want to source:

“Abraham Lincoln was the first president to walk on the moon.” If this is what you find on a family tree, which is user-generated, then it’s not RS.

“David Lloyd George was at 10 Downing Street in June 1921, as per the 1921 census”. In some cases, primary sources like the 1921 England & Wales census can be accessed via providers such as the sleeping giant myheritage, ancestry etc. The policy of The National Archives UK is to enter partnerships with these businesses, so they are the medium that provides this information digitally, from behind their paywall.

If there is acknowledgement that myheritage is the medium and not the original source, all well and good in my opinion.Keith H99 (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In your second scenario, it is the census that is being cited, not MyHeriatge, or whichever site hosts it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 13:35, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have started drafting a guideline at Wikipedia:Genealogy sources. Please feel free to chip in. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 13:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some guideline that states that pages in a navigation box should display as bold when selected? —Jax 0677 (talk) 06:14, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: I guess you refer to selflinks where a link to the page itself is automatically bolded but not if it links via a redirect. See the first bullet at WP:BRINT. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to research and document the life of my father Timothy(Timmy) Woulfe who made a huge contribution to the lives of people in Athea, Co. Limerick, Ireland and beyond in educational, sporting cultural and many other areas. How should I go about this and how could Wikipedia perhaps help with this? Michael Woulfe. 51.37.124.94 (talk) 06:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should first review conflict of interest and understand that writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia(especially without prior experience in editing); but, you are permitted to create a draft using the Article Wizard in which you summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about your father and what makes him a notable person as Wikipedia uses the word. 331dot (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Michael. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks – at least – learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don’t follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia.

Note that a lot depends on what you mean by “research and document”. If your work is primarily finding information in reliable published sources, then you may well be able to do this in Wikipedia, as long as enough of the sources are also independent of him (see WP:42) to establish notability. But if your research is finding and documenting unpublished sources (eg letters) or non-reliably published sources (eg newsletters, privately published books), then your work would be original research and not accepted in Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 09:53, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you simply want to research your father’s life and work, you might do better to ask for help at your local library. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 11:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I created an article recently and ensured that the article meets the Wikipedia standards. Some editors have also improved the article but it hasn’t been approved till now.

What could be the cause please? Greatben001 (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to know which article you are referring to and to what approval you are seeking; I think you mean a New Pages Patroller‘s approval; that’s an entirely volunteer run process. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am referring to a New Page Patroller‘s approval. Here is the article: Derrick Lui. Thank you! Greatben001 (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you took a picture of him, are you associated with him in some way(in order to get access to him to take his picture)? You’ve also only edited about him or his work.

Yes, a Patroller will eventually review the draft, but this may not be done quickly. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not associated with him. A colleague with whom I discussed my recent article is familiar with his short films and was the one who sent me a picture, from which I only cropped his image. My knowledge of him and his work is limited to information available from secondary sources. I would appreciate it if anyone with additional information about his life and work could improve the article. Greatben001 (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greatben001 If you personally did not take the picture, nor your colleague(it sounds like), you must immediately without delay request deletion of the image from Commons, unless you can clearly show that the image was released with a license compatible with Wikipedia’s(allowing for reuse by anyone for any purpose with attribution). You cropping it makes no difference in this regard. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody has already marked the image for possible copyright violation, which I believe is not fair. I confirmed with my colleague about the issue, and he explained that he personally took the picture on the red carpet at an event. I was cautious before uploading it because I had a similar experience recently. Greatben001 (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Greatben001 We take copyright really seriously on Wikipedia: your colleague must release the photo to Commons under a compatible license. You can’t just upload a photograph your colleague took just because you say he said you can. qcne (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please, guide me on how he can do that. Should I ask him to send me a To Whom It May Concern as evidence or what? Greatben001 (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Greatben001 The easiest thing would be for him to create an account on Wikimedia Commons himself, then upload the photo. Note that by uploading the photo he is releasing it under a license that permits anyone to reuse and remix the photo for any reason, including for commercial purposes. Please see Commons:First_steps/Contributing qcne (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Greatben001 See WP:A picture of you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Greatben001 (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greatben001 Is your colleague associated with the subject? I assume he wasn’t at the “red carpet event” at random; he also seemed to have pretty good access to the event. 331dot (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is not associated with the subject but has good access to the event. Greatben001 (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it seems to be beyond what most ordinary people would have. Thank you 331dot (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the article in question. @Greatben001:, thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Greatben001 (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The navboxes at the bottom of articles: Is there a way to determine how much each navbox is being used by readers? Donald Trump is approaching the WP:PEIS limit, and the easiest solution would be to remove the least-used navboxes. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:01, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss we do not have such analytics unless the link is an unique on on the page. I would suggest condensing the content on the page further as an easier way out. – robertsky (talk) 10:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but your suggestion has been a point of contention for years, like eight of them. I said “easiest”, not “best”. You’re welcome to join the article on our side. Thanks for the reply. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:02, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: you have inspired me to propose an edit to the article. Has anyone suggested splitting the article into Donald Trump, Part 1 and Donald Trump, Part 2? TSventon (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I suggested that years ago. I was joking. I don’t think Wikipedia does that. Anyway, not even Donald Trump merits that much coverage in his BLP. The problem is too much detail for post-2015, and the refusal of editors to accept that fact. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 02:12, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir,

Is this the online venue to request editorial assistance in updating a profile. Thank you.

Husky84 Dccovey1 (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dccovey1: Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are Dana Curtis Covey, then I recommend reading Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects. You can suggest edits on the article’s talk page using an edit request. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not contain any profiles; such things are found on social media. What we have are articles about notable topics, constructed from verifiable reliable sources not related to the subject. —Orange Mike | Talk 02:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary defines profile as: “Noun: A summary or collection of information, especially about a person”. It is not unreasonable for a lay person to refer to a Wikipedia biography as such. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 11:25, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have created The Dead Girls. On Wikidata (Q135639411), I added the Spanish language version to the preexisting SV (Swedish?) version language in the alternate wiki. How do I make those show up in the language links at the top of the article.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger: Add the English article to The Dead Girls (Q135639411). PrimeHunter (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:PrimeHunter, I assumed since the wikidata had the English name, I didn’t have to. I see everything is connected now.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger: you had an English label (near the top), I added a link to en Wikipedia, near the bottom. TSventon (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AutoSuggestSitelink gadget might be helpful too, it will scan Wikidata for matching labels and then ask you if you want to connect the article to the Item (if a link doesn’t exist). It will make the connection for you if prompted. – Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 10:50, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to update a common student reference to the North Campus of Brown University as “norc” on the Brown Wikipedia page. This feels like constructive material and important to include. 128.148.206.63 (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google doesn’t show any obvious sourcing for this, nor does the Brown Daily Herald, so it shouldn’t be included. See also WP:ONEDAY. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chaunactis olsoni, a new demosponge fossil found in 1998 by Tom Olson, Geology For Kids owner, is a new marine invertebrate discovered in the Naco Formation,Pennsylvanian time period , central Arizona within the red chert horizon! About 46 complete specimens known so far! Published in the Brigham Young University science bulletin in 1999 by Kieth Rigby and Kelley Dillard! 107.127.25.43 (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Wikipedia help desk. What help are you looking for? — Hoary (talk) 10:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LDRHOW says that LDRs are disruptive to VisualEditor users, but does that apply only to LDR via {{reflist}} or does that also apply to LDR via <references>? Hopelessrailfan (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I would like to ask how we can change that Aleksandr Vlasenko is a hungarian figure skater not russian! He has hungarian citizenship and he compete for Hungary! Please correct it! 223.118.50.74 (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to Talk:Aleksandr Vlasenko and there explain that he has Hungarian citizenship. Link to some reliable evidence for this. (Such evidence is preferably in English, but Hungarian, Russian or another language would also be acceptable.) Alternatively, edit the article Aleksandr Vlasenko directly, but if you do this then be sure to provide a reference to a reliable source. — Hoary (talk) 10:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found pages of what I want to edit, they are short and I want to expand them. I don’t want to mess up since I’m not experienced at this. I need help, what should I do and what shouldn’t I do. I have links for the page I want to expand 169.244.113.129 (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the wrong section, please redirect me to the right place to ask this. 169.244.113.129 (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user.

There is no particular way you should or shouldn’t do this.

But some things that are worth keeping in mind are:

• Verifiability. Every single thing in an article should be verifiable from a reliable published source, and in most cases from a source wholly independent of the subject. There is not formally a requirement that everything be cited, but reviewers of new articles, for example, generally require this; and if you’re adding some information and so (necessarily) have a source for it, why wouldn’t you help the reader by citing the source? – see WP:REFB for how to do this.
• Neutral point of view. An article should be a neutral summary of what the sources say, and very little else. It’s not required that all sources be neutral – partisan sources are perfectly acceptable, if they are regarded as reliable – but the article should summarise what they say in a neutral way. In particular, no article should express a judgment – or even use judgmental words (see PEACOCK in Wikipedia’s voice, though it is sometimes acceptable to directly quote an independent source expressing a judgment. Never put your own opinions, about anything, into an article.
• No original research: only what is in the sources, not anything you know or think apart from the sources; and you should not advance any arguments or conclusions except what is in a source.

Don’t worry if you don’t get it right, and somebody reverts your edit: this is a normal part of learning, and indeed of editing. See WP:BRD.

I advise you to make small edits rather than great big ones, because if somebody does disagree with one, they can revert just that one, leaving your other work intact. ColinFine (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, got it.

Thanks! 169.244.113.129 (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just don’t want to get any warnings or/and bans. 169.244.113.129 (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You won’t get banned (or blocked) for behaving in good faith, only for repeated or egregious abuse. Likewise, any “warnings” should be expressed as friendly advice, under the same circumstances. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 16:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presumed Wikipedia Page Creation & Editing Opportunity that might be a scam

Hi,
I have received an email (twice) from a certain Steve Thompsan, Wikipedia Moderator, (from a Gmail address with a user id = thompsan.wikipediaeditor). His messages start with
“… My name is Steve Thompsan, and I have been part of the Wikipedia editing community for the past seven years. During this time, I have worked to support the accurate presentation of academic careers, especially those of individuals who have achieved Emeritus status”.
The he claims that he can help me create a “carefully maintained Wikipedia entry”.
His messages are suspicious; I suppose that it is a scam or a money making venture, maybe from a previous employee. Can you please confirm if he is really an employee of yours and if I can trust answering back to his messages?
Thank you very much for your help,
Jose 87.235.62.220 (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP Yes, this is a WP:SCAM and you should report it as described at the linked page. We don’t have moderators but Administrators. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am computer stupid. I am heavily into history. I have read a book which presents information regarding the death of Nap II, which I believe to be accurate. The book is Assassination at St Helena Revisited, Ben Weider and Sten Forshufvud, Pub. by John Wiley & Sons ISBN 0-471-12677-2 Chapter 49 pp 430-439 The authors and first book were cited under your work on Napoleon I in a somewhat speculative manner. The book is very strongly presented with descriptions and data to propose murder by poison for Nap I, and the repetition of symptoms of Nap II is equally strong for the same conclusion. I wonder if someone would refer this information to an appropriate individual for a more appropriate summation of one or both individuals. Wikipedia is frequently the first source for information on historical subjects, if not the only source. From a forensic point of view this book presents an overwhelming preponderance of evidence of blatatant murder. I believe in truth in the presentation of history. jude smith 1946judekendo (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @1946judekendo. The best way to find somebody interested in this subject is to post either on the talk page of an article about it (eg Talk:Napoleon II), or a related WikiProject, such as WT:WikiProject France.

Even if you post there, there’s no guarantee that an editor will respond, but it’s more likely than here. Wikipedia is entirely edited by volunteer editors like you and me, who work on what they choose: nobody assigns work to anybody.

One possibility is that you make the change yourself, or suggest it. It sounds as if you have a fairly clear idea what you would like the article(s) to say: if you post that on the relevant talk page, with a citation to where the information comes to (preferably with page numbers), then it’s more likely that somebody will pick up your suggestion and add it to the article – or discuss it with you if they don’t think it’s exactly appropriate, so you can reach consensus as to what should be added. ColinFine (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this book and theory regarding Napoleon I is also discussed in the article Sten Forshufvud, and its extension to Napoleon II has already been raised in Talk:Napoleon II#Cause of death. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.153.108 (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American late-night talk show monologues are de-facto news digests

All of Strike Force Five seem to be targets.

One could make a chronological list of news stories, on a daily basis, that they all ridiculed.

Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, Seth Meyers, and Jimmy Fallon

John Oliver is one topic weekly

Seth Meyers is next

Would a chronological list of news stories, on a daily basis, that Strike Force Five ridiculed be a Wikipedia:Encyclopedic article? (Reliability of Wikipedia)

Piñanana (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Though I’ve heard of the hosts, I hadn’t heard of Strike Force Five till I read your question and, immediately afterwards, the article Strike Force Five. When you say “All of Strike Force Five seem to be targets”, do you mean “Each of the episodes of Strike Force Five seem to have had targets”? If so, how many targets per episode? If no more than three, then the table in the current article could be augmented to show this. If five or more, then it couldn’t — but it might be called “indiscriminate information“. The article shows that there were 12 episodes, no two of which appeared on consecutive days; why “on a daily basis” (above)? (And what do you mean by saying that Meyers “is next”?) NB when I say that the table could be augmented, I don’t mean that this would necessarily be a good thing; rather, it would be something you could reasonably ask about in Talk:Strike Force Five. — Hoary (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Their statement appears to be a reference to Colbert’s cancellation and Kimmel’s suspension, meaning they likely meant a list of stories ridiculed on the five comedians’ shows. @Piñanana: As for your original question, I doubt that a list like that could be an encyclopedic article, per our policy on indiscriminate information, but it isn’t impossible. If you want to try making one, feel free to start a draft. While drafting it, please keep in mind our verifiability policy and our guideline on the notability of lists. Hope this helps. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

is it wrong for wikipedia usernames to ask for social media accounts on talk pages

User talk:45dogs#Do you have a social media account

check this for more info 49.237.23.152 (talk) 08:37, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be asking if what you did is okay- it’s not unusual for editors to ask other editors about means to communicate off wiki. An editor is under no obligation to answer such inquiries, but I know of no policy categorically prohibiting them. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

so its allowed but discoraged 49.237.23.152 (talk) 08:37, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know that it’s discouraged, in the sense that there is any policy discouraging it. My experience is that most Wikipedia editors prefer communication with other editors to take place openly, on Wikipedia talk and discussion pages, unless there is a compelling reason for private communication. ColinFine (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I, and I think other editors, tend to be suspicious of discussion of Wikipedia issues on media outside Wikipedia. Obviously anybody has a right to do so, but it often seems to be either inappropriate canvassing, or discussion by and for people who don’t understand what Wikipedia is and how it works; or both. ColinFine (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A lot will depend on context. If you’re getting along with an editor, collaborating on articles, no-one is likely to object. If you’re asking repeatedly, or as a form of harassment or hounding, or in an attempt at outing, it could lead to a block. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 09:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

article tagged as “Tag: use of deprecated (unreliable) source”, but there are none

Dear Admin,

the article Mayank Bawa has been tagged as “Tag: use of deprecated (unreliable) source”, but I cant tell which unreliable source it is referring to. Can you please help.

Thanks Gokodogo (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gokodogo:, we are mostly not admins here. The tag is automatic and has a link labelled “deprecated (unreliable) source”. If you click on it you should be able to look for the sources you used. I found Crunchbase listed as deprecated and Linkedin and PR Newswire as generally unreliable, with explanations why. I would suggest looking for better sources. TSventon (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gokodogo:, the script at User:Headbomb/unreliable will colour-code sources on a scale from green (great) through shades of yellow and red to black (eek) Jimfbleak – talk to me? 10:55, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About newspaper quotes. Does the title of the article have to remain in the original language?

Draft:Yukiko Nakahori is tlanslated me with Deepl tlanslate.

So I got lost when I translated a newspaper quote.

Please tell me if the quoted title must remain in the original language. H2-T2 (talk) 07:53, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The {{Cite news}} template has a |trans-title= parameter that might be what you are looking for (if you intend to use the original title and a translation). — Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:14, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That template also has the parameter |trans-quote= if you need to show exactly what the newspaper said and translate it. There is some advice at MOS:QUOTE. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m working on a wiki page about the Pokémon Gallade. How do I get it published and change the title of its name? The Neofighter (talk) 12:44, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Neofighter I’ve moved your draft to Draft:Gallade (Pokémon). Creating a new article is one of the hardest things you can work on in Wikipedia, so I wouldn’t recommend beginning your career with such a challenging task, but you can look at the instructions at the Your First Article page if you really want to write an article about Gallade. In particular, you’ll have to prove that it is notable enough to warrant a separate Wikipedia article. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Neofighter: Gallade once had an article at [2] but it was redirected. Gallade (Pokémon) is now a redirect to List of generation IV Pokémon#Gallade. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon#History. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I want to create a whole page about it. Like how Gardevoir has a whole page about it already. The Neofighter (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @The Neofighter.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks – at least – learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don’t follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia.

If you insist on giving yourself that frustrating experience, then follow Sungodtemple’s advice and before you do anything else understand notability and find the necessary sources which all meet all the criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

where do i find my saved pages Gerhardr1 (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerhardr1: If you refer to pages you have stored in a Wikipedia app then they cannot be seen with a browser. You have to use the app. If you refer to a page you think you have created then Special:Contributions/Gerhardr1 shows this post is the only saved edit by your account. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info…seems a bit of an oversight, but there you go. Gerhardr1 (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth raising this over at mw:Talk:Wikimedia Apps (I don’t use the mobile apps much so I don’t know if this is a regular request or if the iOS and Android versions behave differently). ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 22:39, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About Croatia joined the Confederation of European Baseball in 1992 during the war for independence. Croatian first national team ever played on Europe tournament in Germany. There are was Pioneers of baseball like Sasso, Grgur Marušić, Robert Lorenz, Danijel Frketić, Andrej Radovanič etc. They deserve to be mentioned. EditZg (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @EditZg. If there are changes you want to suggest to an article, the best place to do that is on the talk page of that article. Remember that unless there are reliable published sources where the information can be verified, then it will not be added. ColinFine (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I need help parameterizing these references in this article: Companion parrot This page was originally written in English and needed to be translated into Spanish. Please, if anyone who knows anything would like to contribute, I’d be happy to hear from you. 2800:484:9661:7D00:7163:A0DC:95B6:A744 (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. I suggest asking at es:Wikipedia:Café, where people are more likely to understand the templates available on es Wikipedia. It may not be simply a matter of translating parameter names (though it might be). ColinFine (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I’m trying to upload this image as a new version of File:Lotus Cars logo.svg, but when I try to upload the new version, it changes the size of the image, but not the actual image data?? It’s able to read the new image’s size as being 16×16, but rather than upload the image, it in effect resizes the current one to be 16×16 without actually changing to the new image, which is what I want. I have never seen this happen before, and have no clue how it’s even technically possible for Wikipedia’s file upload system to behave like this. Any ideas on what’s going on here? UniProbe62 (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@UniProbe62: I’m not sure what you think is wrong. I don’t see a problem. Clicking the date or image of your first upload at File:Lotus Cars logo.svg#filehistory leads to a 64×64 image at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/2/2f/20250921010144%21Lotus_Cars_logo.svg. It’s an SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) image so it stores information about how to generate an image which can be scaled to a larger size without losing quality. The file history displays a scaling to the same size for all versions. The current version of a Wikipedia file called “Lotus Cars logo.svg” will always be at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2f/Lotus_Cars_logo.svg. “2/2f/” is computed from the file name and is not something related to the version of the image. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, recently I tried to convert Chu Kheng Lim v Minister to use the WP:SHORTCITE citation method as I’ve heard it’s better for repeated citations where specific pinpoints are different for different claims. I’d just like an experienced editor to check over the article and make sure I’ve done it correctly as it doesn’t seem to look the same as other articles I’ve seen using this method. Any tips or help with using this method would be much appreciated 🙂 SnowyRiver28 (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(1) What source does “Chu Kheng Lim” refer to? It could mean either of the first two references in the reference section.

(2) What are things like “[40]” in the references? They’re not page numbers. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:16, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Chu Kheng Lim refers to the actual high court judgement document, and the numbers are paragraph numbers from the judgement document. This is done closely to how Australian legal citations are usually written, which probably isn’t aligned with Wikipedia’s syntax for citations. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 07:42, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowyRiver28, you say that “it doesn’t seem to look the same” as other articles with short citations. Those articles most likely use {{sfn}} or {{harvnb}} which is why they have a similar appearance. According to WP:CITEVAR, the citations are fine as long as they are consistent within an article. There are some Featured Articles that use plain text short citations (like “The Raven“) which you could use as an example if the templates seem too complicated. The only specific feedback I would give for the article you recently updated would be to use the short citations to get more specific inline citations. For example, one source is over 60 pages long but the short citations don’t include page numbers or other in-source locations, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the article Military rations citing this conference proceeding, right at the end. The conference proceeding is part of a series, the Proceedings of the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery, but each has its own topic, in this case Portable Food. I wasn’t sure where to include the topic. Currently, the source has journal=Proceedings of the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery, but the topic isn’t included, which makes it hard to distinguish from the others in the series. I’m also not sure how to include the year- this is the 2022 proceeding, but was published in 2023. The cover says Proceedings of the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery 2022, so should 2022 be included in the journal parameter?
Truthnope (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can use {{Cite_conference}} template and the topic will be book title. Ruslik_Zero 15:39, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! Truthnope (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m wondering if it is possible to fix suggested languages in the language sidebar. I speak English, Tok Pisin and Ukrainian but I accidentally clicked Basque, Ladin, Malagasy and Japanese once and I don’t know how to remove from suggested languages. DanaroEnEuskara (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DanaroEnEuskara: this has been asked before. The best answer I can find is from ColinFine – This is controlled by mw:Universal Language Selector/Compact Language Links, and that seems to have some instructions for managing suggested languages. I haven’t tried it myself. I would be interested to know if it works. TSventon (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can I delete the redirect that comes with Kobi Yaakobi which takes you to Israeli Prison Service ? Padres Hana (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Padres Hana:, generally, check Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#When to delete a redirect and then use Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. If you want to write an article about them, you can write a draft and then use Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. TSventon (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Padres Hana, hello, could I ask why you are trying to delete it? Right now, that article does contain information about “Kobi Yaakobi”. Are you trying to get the redirect deleted outright, or to replace it with an article? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are the edits I mentioned really a violation of UNDUE and Conflict of Interest? Or is this more a case of over-citing a single source? I’d actually like to address this source evaluation forum, but I don’t know if it’s possible to ask questions about a specific piece of material, rather than the entire resource. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Solaire the knight You might want to discuss your concerns with @BootsED: as they are the user who made the edits. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:38, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve tried this before, and it didn’t go well. I asked them about a political userbox that was bothering me, and they first ignored me, then tried to imply that it was because of my ethnicity. So I’m afraid that they will either ignore me again or it will end in conflict. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have started discussions on the article talk pages, which is the right first step. If no-one responds you could ping BootsED and recent talk page contributors. You can also check the guidance at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. TSventon (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. In that case, as I understand it, all I can do is wait. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is this about? I just got tagged here. BootsED (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits to the “woke” article. I noticed that you paid too much attention, in my opinion, on a single New York Times article and the new term they were promoting. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please view WP:ASPERSIONS. If you disagree with my edits, you don’t need to accuse me of having a conflict of interest and “apparently attempting to use Wikipedia as a platform to advance new political narratives“. Using a single source on two similar articles is not the definition of a conflict of interest.

Also, why are you insinuating I insulted your ethnicity? That’s not even remotely true. BootsED (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you openly suggested that I’m a “USSR fan” and trying to somehow justify “totalitarian regimes” when I wrote that I was confused by the context of your use of a derogatory term. Simply because I had a Russian userbox. Regarding conflicts of interest, when a user uses the same source and narrative in three different articles to criticize the right in a single situation (In all three cases, you use the same sources to accuse the right of hypocrisy over the murder of Charlie Kirk, an article about which you also edited), it’s not surprising that someone would think there’s a conflict of interest when you’re open about your opposition to the them. You were also the creator of the page Targeting of political opponents and civil society under the second Trump administration, which raises these questions even further. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You came to my userpage, demanded I remove a userbox that personally offended you about me not liking authoritarian communists who add revisionism to Wikipedia, and then demanded I respond to your demand when I didn’t and accused me of using “derogatory labels and veiled accusations”. This is a publicly available userbox that anyone can use that I picked out of many because I liked it. If you want to police userboxes complain on the page of the userbox. If you’re offended by my userpage, you don’t have to look at my userpage. There is apparently a deletion discussion about this userbox from someone else who thinks it is offensive, so voice your opinion there. If you think I insulted your ethnicity, I apologize that it was perceived that way, but it was not my intention.

However, you are now accusing me of political bias because I created a page and make edits to Wikipedia. Is there anything wrong with my edits? Are they sourced improperly or do they violate policy? If you don’t have evidence of this, you are engaging in a personal attack. Please stop. BootsED (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Demanded? All I wrote to you was, “I don’t care about your anti-communism, that’s your personal business. But could you please remove the term ‘tankies,’ as it’s a derogatory term and, in this case, could be taken as a jab at left-wing Wikipedia users.” Nothing more and nothing less. And while I don’t think a positive or neutral attitude toward the USSR is inherently criminal or shameful, trying to link it to my origins seemed like you were immediately trying to draw conclusions about my political views because of my roots. Regarding your edits to the Woke article, I again wanted to point out their obvious inconsistency with UNDUE, in my view. For example, after your edits, the section on the term’s modern usage spends one and a half times more space describing your “woke right” than describing the right-wing use of the term “woke” in general. I don’t know whether this was intentional or not, but 11 (previously 14) uses of a new term in a single article based on one or two sources is clearly excessive. The problem wouldn’t have arisen at all if you created a separate section for this term in the first place and expanded it calmly. Why was it necessary to devote so much attention to it across multiple sections of the page? Solaire the knight (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You accused me of political bias and “apparently attempting to use Wikipedia as a platform to advance new political narratives”. I explained myself “calmly” to you on the talk page. Please stop casting aspersions against me. BootsED (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Political bias in itself isn’t a rule violation, and let’s be honest, neither you nor I are clearly impartial on this issue. However, you’ve already responded to me in the thread mentioned, so I suggest we move on there and not dilute our debate in other areas. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at your page on the population of Israel and you are publishing, as the very first source, population figures that eliminate Palestinians in the West Bank. They don’t exist, according to Wikipedia. Then google replicates the demograpic figures presented in other searches. This, during a time of genocide by the US and Israel of the Palestinians. You are helping erase them and facilitating the public acceptance of their elimination. It’s unconscionable. Shame on you. I used to donate. Never again, and I’m not using your service anymore. I want nothing to do with facilitating violence, hate and especially genocide. Fix your process. 170.85.75.117 (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not exactly accurate to say that “they don’t exist, according to Wikipedia”. Although Demographics of Israel does not include Palestinians living in the West Bank in its population numbers, Demographics of Palestine does count them. The West Bank is legally considered a militarily occupied territory, although Israel considers it “disputed” rather than “occupied”. To count Palestinians living in the West Bank as part of the population of Israel would be to say that the West Bank is part of Israel, rather than Palestinian territory under military occupation or even disputed territory. Judging by your comment, I don’t think that is what you want. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:33, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

§@ONUnicorn@ONUnicorn@ONUnicorn@ 202.79.29.35 (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I regret signing up as this is way out of my league. Booloobub (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please use Special:GlobalVanishRequest. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 00:40, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Booloobub Since this is your only edit, you can just forget about the account and walk away. Or perhaps you have changed your mind in a year. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]