Wikipedia:Help desk: Difference between revisions

Page for questions relating to Wikipedia

Hello,
I’m reaching out with a kind request. I would like to add an English version to the existing Czech Wikipedia article about the Faculty of Economics and Administration at Masaryk University.
Unfortunately, when I try to publish it, I receive a message saying that I’m not an “advanced user” and therefore cannot submit the article.
The English translation is already completed and has been professionally proofread.
I would be very grateful for your help.
Thank you in advance! ECON MUNI (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you say ‘professionally proofread’, it sounds like you’re saying that this article has been written by someone employed by the university. Please read and comply with the guidance at WP:PAID, and WP:COI, and make the necessary declarations. It would be helpful if you could also direct us towards where the draft is – your edit to this help desk is the only edit you have made under this account. You may want to consider putting it through WP:AfC, where you can submit a draft and another edit will review it (but you should only do that after complying with the COI/PAID editing declarations that I have pointed you towards). Girth Summit _(blether) 07:51, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also your username, ECON MUNI, may not be in line with the Wikipedia:Username policy as it may imply shared use by the Faculty of Economics and Administration at Masaryk University. TSventon (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. Yes, I am an employee of the faculty I am writing about, so I understand the need to follow Wikipedia’s policies regarding paid editing and conflicts of interest. I have now created a draft of the article at Wikipedia:Articles for Creation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation).

Please let me know if there are any other steps I should take, or any further declarations I need to make. ECON MUNI (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ECON MUNI, as “ECON MUNI”, you have made no edits (even subsequently deleted edits) outside this “Help desk” page. And as your user page is redlinked, it’s clear that you haven’t made a “paid contributor” declaration there. — Hoary (talk) 08:46, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ECON MUNI: your edits were stopped twice by edit filters: [1] as you tried to add email addresses or the text was considered too promotional. Is this the corresponding Czech article: cz:Ekonomicko-správní fakulta Masarykovy univerzity? MKFI (talk) 10:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ECON MUNI What does “add an English version to the existing Czech Wikipedia article” mean? It sounds like you are trying to add something in English to an article that’s in the Czech Wikipedia. As far as I know, the Czech Wikipedia wants articles written in Czech. Or are you trying to add an English translation of the Czech article, to the English Wikipedia? I am confused by your request. David10244 (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am looking to translate and import to the English Wikipedia, an article from the Dutch Wikipedia (nl:Lagere technische school). I believe that the article may not be notable enough to warrant an entry here, but an abbreviation for this, LTS, is referenced in an article here about a Dutch Chef (Pierre Wind), although it’s not linked.

Would this have to go through the AFC process, so that it can be reviewed, and how long do I have to create this article? Please bear in mind it’s going to be a straight translation in my sandbox, and then submitted once I’ve checked it’s got no red links anywhere in it.

Thanks for reading. Dane|Geld 15:08, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DaneGeld: the Dutch article on LTS can be linked through an interlanguage link, so I have done that. If you wanted to create an article, it would have to be notable and the content would have to be referenced to reliable sources. Unfortunately the Dutch article has no sources at all, so a translation would need more work before it was suitable for English Wikipedia.

Using AFC is optional, it could be a good idea as a newish editor. There are no formal deadlines on how long you work on an article in a sandbox. Getting an article reviewed by AFC could take several weeks. TSventon (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LTS is explained at Vocational school#Netherlands again without a source, so perhaps LTS could be covered as part of a more general article. TSventon (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DaneGeld I have also added the ill template for the English language articles that have them so they will direct to the Dutch article until an English one is created. However the dutch article has no references at all, so you’d need references for a mainspace article on the english language article.Naraht (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please help me find pages to edit, fix, or create constructively? 169.244.113.129 (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the wrong places, apologies. 169.244.113.129 (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor: take a look at the WP:Task Center. If you create an account, one of the advantages is that you will then have a Homepage with suggestions suited to beginers. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor! Have you checked out Special:Homepage? It gives you suggested edits ranging from beginner friendly ones to more advanced edits. qcne (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any suggestions for IP users? Last reply wants you to enter your username and password. 169.244.113.129 (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While creating an account is not mandatory, we always recommend it. It gives you a number of advantages, including extra tools and hiding your IP address. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 15:00, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reply by User:Mike Turnbull will help. 169.244.113.129 (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the talkpage of an article that interests you, you will see links to one or more Wikiprojects. Check those links, perhaps something there will catch your interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The way I started was to read a wiki article about a town near to me. It did not mention in the history section an industry that was important in the town. I had a book about the industry and added some material to the article about it. I’d suggest you read an article about something you are interested in and have some knowledge of and maybe some books.on the subject. If there is something missing ,add it ,or if there is something you think is incorrect find a source and correct it. You can also find sources for this kind of thing on the internet.. .

Also, you might get interested in correcting spelling or grammar. Add some of the articles you work on to your watchlist and you can see how other editors react. If you are not reversed you are probably right. If you are reversed you learn all sorts of things about how wikipedia works. Spinney Hill (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the past I never had to have an account to use wikipedia. Why do I now have to create an account with all the hassle of creating a password etc. ? 92.17.127.7 (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although we recommend it, especially if you plan on editing regularly, you do not have to create an account.

There are a few aspects of editing, and some tools and features, that are only available to logged-in users.

What were you trying to do? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 14:14, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your very posting of that question shows that its premise is mistaken.126.34.33.95 (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

so i need some help with figuring out how to add references to infoboxes.
need to figure it out so i can cite the RayWiki [another great wiki focused primarily on Rayman stuff] for some stuff in my Rayman 4 proto article. Thatoneraynerd (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thatoneraynerd: you could look at Help:Referencing for beginners to get started on referencing. You probably shouldn’t cite RayWiki if it is a wiki site as it would not be regarded as a Wikipedia:reliable source. TSventon (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

aight bro. thanks for the help! am still learning when it comes to Wikipedia… Thatoneraynerd (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thatoneraynerd: most of us are still learning. You also could look at Help:Your first article. The main thing to check when writing an article is that there are sufficient sources to meet the Wikipedia:notability requirements. TSventon (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thatoneraynerd: References are added the same way inside and outside infoboxes in the source editor, but not in VisualEditor which has its own way to add templates. This way cannot be used when a template (like a citation template) is added to a parameter of an another template (like an infobox). Instead you have to write the source editor code for the reference in an infobox parameter. If you don’t want to write the code manually then you could create the reference outside the infobox with VisualEditor and then switch to the source editor and move the code to the infobox. Beware that some parameters of some infoboxes do not accept references because the parameter is processed in a way which requires it to be a “pure” value like a number. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edward Drummond Libbey Residence, exterior views, 2018 – DPLA – 4381d816a3fd94d490f7e166fc876e21 (page 7).jpg was added to Edward D. Libbey House in this 2020 edit. The current version of the Commons image was uploaded in 2025, it has no Commons deletion log, there’s no local file here at Wikipedia, and there’s no deleted history for it here at Wikipedia, so as far as I can tell it never existed here. How is this possible? The only explanation I can imagine is just preposterous: someone added a redlink to a nonexistent file in 2020, nobody bothered removing it for five years, and a bot happened to upload an image under this name in 2025. Nyttend (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: The added file name was File:Edward Drummond Libbey Residence, exterior views, 2018 – DPLA – aa7c307be24b855d9bbf422d04ae5238 (page 7).jpg with a different string after “DPLA”. It was deleted [2] and redirected [3] at Commons in 2025. Such Commons file redirects are hidden in a way other redirects are not so it’s easy to get confused. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
I am the actor that founded The Tabard Theatre, Chiswick,played roles in theatre, film and TV also I am a singer/songwriter/musician and recorded ten albums,signed currently to iconic PYE Records. Also author of The Adventures of Skippity Hop.
how may I create a page please? My web site is www.andreablack.com my publisher is Jack Russell Music. My acting agent is You-management.com
i live in London with my Daughter Xaviera who has created the brand www.motherrugger.com
Any help would be so appreciated.
Thank you,
Andrea.
recent roles: ‘Mary’ in the film Blurred to be released shortly autumn 2025 for Nymeria films directed by Helena Antonio .
Also ‘Abigail’ in Memories for Lumino films directed by Jane Sanger. 2A00:23C6:35B7:4401:E841:9D72:FBBB:942E (talk) 07:18, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a request to have an article about yourself, the answer is pretty much no. WP:ENTERTAINER applies here, and you should generally not create an article about yourself.–♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:47, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea: You might more usefully update our article on the Tabard Theatre which states that it will be reopening in July (and September) 2022. Please note that Wikipedia may not be used for promotion and you will have no control over any article about you. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:43, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For this to have any chance, we need WP:GNG sources about you, at the same time reliably published, independent of you and about you in some detail. Do you know any articles about you in for example The Times, The Guardian etc? I googled, but didn’t easily find anything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add two houses in Maitland: Toll House 1825 & Bridge House 1829.
I am not very computer savvy but can send a picture of both houses and comments about each.
Bruce Marich Bruce Marich (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruce Marich Thank you for wanting to improve the List of the oldest buildings in Australia. Provided you have taken the pictures with your own camera and hence can license them as required for Wikimedia Commons, you should upload the images there. Your account will be valid at the Commons upload wizard at this link and the instructions are fairly simple. You can look at related files like File:Commissariat_Store_Hobart_20171119-025.jpg to see how to enter your comments as part of the file description (not the filename, which you should keep concise). Ask at the Commons:Help_desk if you run into problems. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing when changing the inaccurate information of an existing biography on Wikipedia

How can one reference certain changes that need to be made when updating a biography like marital status, profession, end of professional activity, etc? Nimo5693 (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nimo5693: I assume that the subject is alive and that you either are the bio subject or know them. 331dot answered a similar question recently:

You need to provide citations- this is vitally important for any article about a living person, please see the Biographies of Living Persons policy. We cannot accept your personal word for anything. You should also review the autobiography policy.

For help with citations, please see Referencing for beginners. Ideally, however, you should be proposing edits instead of making them yourself, please see the edit request process(or the edit request wizard). TSventon (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject has a personal website, or a verified Twitter, etc., they can place information there and you can use that in a citation for uncontroversial information. See WP:ABOUTSELF for more detail. TSventon (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just got this in connection with this. Can I get input from other editors? 62.73.72.101 (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is an issue which should be discussed with @MadelynnSienna:? Lynch 44 13:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Her stance is already known – it is that my edit was vandalism. Given that I believe that this was obviously wrong from the start, I don’t have much hope that she will realise and acknowledge that she was wrong just because of my arguments. Humans have a tendency not to like to admit that they are wrong. That is why I am asking you and other editors to assess whether it was vandalism.–62.73.72.101 (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! My apologies, I thought that was an edit made on the main Kingdom of Germany page rather than the respective talk page. As you can see, they have already been reverted as good faith edits on the same. It was an honest mistake, but I will be more careful about this going forward. MadelynnSienna (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see no accusation of vandalism. Maproom (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reversing edit was tagged AntiVandal and the standard message suggested asking for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk, so I think the IP’s response was reasonable. On the other hand the reversal would probably look like a mistake to a more experienced editor. TSventon (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MadelynnSienna: I would suggest a brief a apology on the IP’s talk page so future talk page readers can see that the warning was an error. TSventon (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I already did that in addition to my response on this page. MadelynnSienna (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Somehow I missed that. TSventon (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maejor

Hi, I am not sure what is the right place to report this, but this article is unlikely to be OK. There is almost no reference, and it was extensively changed by one editor in the last few days: [4]. I deleted the lead image from Commons, as it is a copyright violation. Thanks for your attention. Yann (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, major WP:SPA case, we can say that much:[5]. And there is a leadimage again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång Doesn’t that article need some sources? At least one source? David10244 (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted again all images uploaded by this user. I guess they will be blocked soon. Yann (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann Fine, but I was asking about the article, which has almost no inline sources in the prose. David10244 (talk) 05:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does need sources. Yann (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was working on an article on Front Street Theater as in THEATER, a historical entity in Memphis, Tennessee. It is spelled in American English, theaTER. I cannot even create/title the article. It would be great if anybody would help. I quit doing edits years ago and apparently I don’t exist anymore. Freelance-writer-editor (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All autoconfirmed users with no sanctions (including yourself) can create an article from a red link, either with Wikipedia:Article Wizard, or by clicking the red links Front Street Theater or Draft:Front Street Theater and putting the desired article text there. As there is no redirect at the target, you shouldn’t have too much trouble beyond writing the thing. Departure– (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a secondary note, you should designate the article as being written in American English by putting the string {{American English}} at the top of your article’s talk page. This does not preclude using the term “theatre” in the article if it is in the official title, but I’m assuming from your initial text it isn’t. US English uses “theater”. Departure– (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing that would prevent you from creating a new article, (or preferably Draft of an article) as you have done before, but your User page is not the place to do it – that is mainly intended for you to say something about yourself as a Wikipedia editor (see Wikipedia:User pages, especially section 6).

I don’t understand what you mean by “I don’t exist anymore.” You have a User page and a User talk page, as linked by your signature. What difficulty are you encountering? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.98.196 (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t looked up this particular theater, and merely point out that many theaters in the U.S. have been named this or that “Theatre”. 110.2.106.35 (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just one example for now: Mercury Theatre. 110.2.106.35 (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Freelance-writer-editor Just to be clear “theater” is not specifically the American English spelling, the usage is quite mixed in America. So we do not go off of the official name nor do we go off of your understanding, but rather we follow the most commonly used name in reliable sources. TiggerJay (talk) 05:49, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the majority of the results I have found by web searching refer to the Front Street Theatre. Example: https://ovrtur.com/venue/2968. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.1.98.196 (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to post a photo of myself SELECTOR44 (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by your other posts, you seem to have mistaken Wikipedia for social media. That isn’t what Wikipedia is for, and your user page is liable to be deleted. Accordingly, before worrying about posting photos, I suggest you first decide whether you intend to contribute to this project for its intended purpose: as an online encyclopaedia, covering notable topics, and basing its content on published reliable sources. If all you want to do is write about yourself, I suggest you look elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SELECTOR44 you can here at commons:Special:UploadWizard at commons. Self portraits are acceptable as “own works”. But when you apply the latest version (4.0) of a CC license to your material, you also agree to waive or not assert any publicity, privacy, or personality rights that you hold in the material you are licensing, to the limited extent necessary for others to exercise the licensed rights. For example, if you have licensed a photograph of yourself, you may not assert your right of privacy to have the photo removed from further distribution. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 03:55, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Rafael’s answer above is misleading. The copyright holder of a photograph is the photographer, not the subject of the photo, so typically the subject of a photo cannot release a photo under the appropriate license for Wikipedia. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:20, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“when you apply the latest version (4.0) of a CC license to your material, you also agree to waive or not assert any publicity, privacy, or personality rights” Are you sure about that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 15:36, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
I found a photo of Fiorella La Guardia on your website and was wondering if I can use it in a book I amn writing about Italian immigration and Italian Americans. Is it ok?

Peter Chidichimo
Smithtown, NY 2600:4041:5078:D00:E493:ABB1:BA9D:A166 (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the photo and on the page that comes up, view the copyright information – every photo has different licensing agreements that you’ll need to understand and follow. TiggerJay (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean File:La_Guardia_by_NYT_Studios_circa_1934–1945_Trim_Edit.jpg, then it is public domain, as stated on the file’s page. For using other Wikipedia material, including text, please see WP:REUSE. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:29, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I Wanna Know How To Add Subtitles To Audio Files, Plz Teach Me How JustCory69 (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is about how to use wikipedia, if you are looking for general technical/computer information, we cannot help you. TiggerJay (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For audio files on Wikipedia/ Wikimedia Commons, see Commons:Timed Text. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 13:02, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The album cover for The Black Keys’ album El Camino was photographed on the corner of South Main St and West Archwood Ave in Akron, Ohio… but my only sources are a WP:UGC forum post^[6] and looking at Google Maps’ street view (which also features the van!).^[7] Surely, I can’t cite the street view and expect readers to use their eyes, can I? Should I sit and wait for a text-based reliable source to come about? As per a previous Help Desk answer,^[8] street view is reliable, but where is the line drawn between something obvious and something to be inferred (which falls under WP:OR)? This question extends to other, similar citations such as images where the information is visual.

Usually, I’d WP:BEBOLD and have added and cited the info already, but this is such an unusual scenario I figured I’d ask.

Thx, _♥^✿ TheMDC4 chat :3 ^✿_♥ 02:13, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheMDC4. I do not understand why the specific nondescript location is relevant or encyclopedic. The focal point of the album cover is the van and commentary on the album cover is about the van and the disconnect with the album title, which is that of another motor vehicle. Unless reliable sources discuss the specific location where the photo was taken, it simply does not belong in the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have never uploaded a picture to a wiki article, I need help and advice on how to do this and also how to search for licence, Thanks Foristslow (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:UPIMAGE. If you are sure that the image is copyright free, it should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.–♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:40, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thankyou for your time, how can I search for a open source picture for a article. Foristslow (talk) 10:51, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check settings in your browser when you search for images. If you make an image search on google, check under Tools. Youtube has a similar option. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:56, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Foristslow Rule of thumb: almost any image you find online is under copyright and can’t be used on WP, but context matters enormously. If you’re lucky, there’s a pic you can use at Commons. So: what pic do you want to use where? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Im being messaged saying that my contributions to random ahh things are rejected when I never edited them. To summarise Im being messaged about how my contributions are being rejected when im not making any contributions or changes to the page. 114.141.107.34 (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to your user talk page, IP addresses can be used by more than one person, so if you did not do the things you are seeing messages for, you may disregard them. If you create an account, you will only get messages for yourself(among other benefits). 331dot (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to add the page number of a book in a reference. The difficulty is that I only have access to the EPUB version, where the pagination does not correspond to the printed edition. Is there a proper way to address this issue in a citation, for example by using chapter or section numbers instead of page references? RobertoBriago (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RobertoBriago Yes, chapter or section numbers can work, see Help:References and page numbers#Other in-source locations. TSventon (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Additions to Ann Charters’ entry submitted by Ritlarge. Ann writes to me:

“I do have an addition to suggest at the end of my Wikipedia entry. In addition to my Beat papers archive at Columbia University, I have two other Beat literature archives. One is a collection of Beat books and papers from 1969 to 1994 at the Berg Collection in the New York Public Library. The other is my Beat literature collection from 1995 to the present time in the Dodd Center at the University of Connecticut in Storrs. Thank you for your help.’ 2601:14D:4001:BBF0:7D38:1794:D84E:ACF (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Ritlarge (please remember to login). The best place to suggest this is the talk page Talk:Ann Charters.

If Charters is writing to you, that suggests that you may have a conflict of interest in editing the article about her. While this does not forbid you from editing the article yourself, it is discouraged (see the link for how to suggest edits instead – as you have done here), and it would be a good idea to disclose the COI, probably on your user page. (You haven’t yet created a user page, which is why your username appears in red above. You are not required to have a user page, but that would be a good place to disclose your COI.) ColinFine (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the page on Newsweek a paragraph has recently been deleted. I have asked a question there but in case it is not seen I place it here as well.in a shortened version. The paragraph details a court case that has been brought but which has not yet been heard . It explains the fact that allegations have been made but does not say that the allegations are true. By its nature it cannot say it is true. The reason for deletion that was given was that the source was unreliable. Can somebody explain to me why it is unreliable. It is also described as primary and “COI.” The source was a web page which is called “International Buisness times” Can somebody explain to me why this site is considered unreliable. I am not familar with the publication.There used to be a page which set out examples of unreliable sources (the Daily Mail ,a British newspaper, was in the list.) but I cannot now find the list.Can somebody explain to me what “COI ” means ? I know what a primary source is but this does not appear to be a primary source ( unlike the court papers which were originally also cited). Spinney Hill (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC) Spinney Hill (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. In this case I would guess that there is a conflict of interest because International Business Times owns Newsweek, and therefore cannot be trusted to be unbiased when reporting on it.

You may previously have seen the list at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, where International Business Times is assessed as ‘generally unreliable’. Note that this list is not intended to be exhaustive, there will be many other reliable and unreliable sources that are not on it.

A Reliable source is usually one that has a reputation for good editorial control and fact-checking, but it also depends on what the source is being used for – a source might be considered reliable for some things, but not others. It may also be the case that a printed periodical may usually be reliable, but its website is less so. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.98.196 (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am in the process of making a significant edit to this article about the musician Patrick Schneeweis: Pat the Bunny (musician). My plan was to make the edit in several stages (starting with taking the discography from the biography portion of the article), before moving on to doing some radical changes to how the biography is structured overall (In line with Wikipedia:Be bold). I thought it would be most appropriate to do this through first publishing a version of the article when I have just split the discography, and then publishing a second time after I have made the changes to the biography (using {{in use}}) to make this clear. I think this would make it easier for future editors, particularly if someone wished to roll back or dispute the changes.

My concern is that after moving the discography to a new section the article would temporarily become borderline unreadable. Is it appropriate to do this?

Sam(A Horrible Person) (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hard and fast time limit, but so long as there is no more than an hour or so between the edits, that shouldn’t be a problem.

This would not be the case if the article was high profile, like a very major public figure or a current news item. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 12:05, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Putting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brrowbottom here since there’s a bit of a history with this page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PhilKnight, Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I don’t understand this. Srbernadette‘s account is ten years old, Brrowbottom‘s is three months old, so how can she be a sockpuppet of Brrowbottom? Srbernadette is incompetent, and does not learn from advice. She frequently type five-digits years like “22025” and asks for help correcting the error, and sometimes edits while not logged in. But she is well-meaning and cooperative. Maproom (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the who is a sp of whom is just on-the-fly naming, but sure, it makes sense that Srbernadette is the “master” here.

The SPI has been moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Srbernadette. TSventon (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom I’m sure you know that (almost certainly) she, under various IPs, is still posting questions at the help desks, asking for help fixing refs in the same small number of articles (saying “I can’t do it”). I also believe she is well-meaning, but after all these years, do the Lupton and Middleton articles still need improvement or the excessive detail?

If she as a person is blocked, should we have pity, or should we enforce the block? I’m 50/50 but this has been going on for so long (she used to be known as “the Lupton editor”). Help desk volunteers are still fixing things for her, which I suppose is not necessarily A Bad Thing… David10244 (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David10244, I agree with all that. The relatives of the British royal family interest me even less than baseball players. But her contributions are overall constructive. I once invited her on her talk page to make her requests on mine instead of here – but I doubt she read it. I guess that she’ll continue contributing from IP addresses. It seems to me that a block, maybe followed up by blocks of IP addresses, is a rather severe response to a non-problem. Maproom (talk) 06:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The definition is wrong since is not specific to woman and why is a woman of color is set at the example when you can be any race and be ratchet and be a man and be ratchet, this is just creating negative stereotype for African American women. 67.72.9.158 (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the article Ratchet (slang)? Its section Usage states “The term has since been extended to have broader meanings and connotations and is no longer strictly bound by race or gender”, which agrees with what you say, and that section’s subsection Reclamation also states “others point to how the term reinforces the negative portrayal of African-American women in the media.”

Wikipedia summarises what reliable sources say about (in this instance) how a word is used. It is not a vehicle for trying to change or argue against anything: see Wikipedia:Right great wrongs.

If you are instead referring to a use of the word elsewhere in Wikipedia, please give a link to the article in question. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.98.196 (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could a patroller please review the article Arman Mnatsakanyan?
It is a new biography with multiple reliable sources.
A review would help lift the noindex status so it can be indexed. Thank you! AnnaYerits (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a particular need for the article to appear in search results quickly? New Page Patrol is an entirely volunteer run process, we cannot guarantee a speedy review. It would have been better if you had submitted it for a review as a draft instead of moving it yourself, especially as this is the first topic you’ve edited. 331dot (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the volunteers in the Wikipedia:New pages patrol will get to it when they can, or else it will be automatically made indexable after 90 days from creation. There is currently a backlog of over 12,000 articles – is there some special reason that Arman Mnatsakanyan should be able to ‘jump the queue’?

You realise that a patroller might instead judge that the article does not yet meet Wikipedia’s standards and delete or Draftify it rather than lifting the noindexing? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.98.196 (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your article doesn’t establish any notablity so is at risk of being sent to WP:AFD. Theroadislong (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you were saying: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arman Mnatsakanyan.

@AnnaYerits: It’s really bad form for a new editor to move an article from draft to mainspace without proper review. A good guide is to refrain from moving any drafts into mainspace until you can get one approved via WP:AFC, so that you can learn what a mainspace article requires. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“It’s really bad form for a new editor to move an article from draft to mainspace without proper review”. Nope. If that were not allowed, we would make it impossible for them to do so. As it is, once an account reaches a certain level of activity, we explicitly allow such moves, and using AfC becomes a purely optional process for such accounts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 10:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t say it wasn’t allowed, I said it’s really bad form. And it is. It’s even worse form for a new editor to move a draft into mainspace anyway after it’s been declined, and I’ve seen that often, but not in this case.

It’s a good idea to practice writing articles by submitting them for review until you can demonstrate that you’re capable of writing something acceptable. This good practice isn’t required, and often isn’t followed. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you said; I even quoted it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 15:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I submitted a Requested Article submission on September 2. I was wondering how long it would take until I heard a response from a Wikipedia editor about the status of that hypothetical new article. Thank you for your time, SteveTexas1964 (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SteveTexas1964 I fixed your link, you need the “Draft:” portion. If you have edited the draft to address the last review’s concerns, you should click the blue “Resubmit” button

Note that you are actually referring to Articles for creation, not Requested articles. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this question is about a requested article request submitted on 2 September, not on the draft article on the same subject submitted on 28 August. Unfortunately most requested articles don’t get written, as explained in the preliminary note at Wikipedia:Requested articles. TSventon (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he was talking about a draft because he used the title of the draft in his link. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I did mean the articles for creation submitted on 9/2. I did see that note that most articles do not get published, but wanted to try anyway. If they decide not to write it, will I get official confirmation it was declined? SteveTexas1964 (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no “official confirmation”. Your request will stay there until it is removed, either because someone creates it, or someone just removes it.

If you wrote a draft, why are you requesting an article on the same topic? 331dot (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting an article on the same topic as my draft because I work for the company and do not believe that would pass ethically. I disclosed this information in the draft. SteveTexas1964 (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, though as you have been open about your association with the company, you are permitted to work on and submit a draft. It is usually tough for an employee to write about their employer as Wikipedia asks, but it isn’t impossible- and that’s not a barrier to just trying- if you desire. 331dot (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SteveTexas1964 The most common outcome for Requested Articles is that a request will stay there forever, and no one will ever create the article. You asked a week after submitting the request. Hope this helps. David10244 (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The note says that the associated Wikiproject is inactive. I doubt that people regularly read the list, still less reply to additions to the list. I think it is more likely that, very occasionally, someone searches for information about a topic on Wikipedia and finds an entry on the list. Going through AFC should be more productive, but you will need to show the subject is notable, as explained when your submission was reviewed. TSventon (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, thank you for the information. SteveTexas1964 (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve noticed that on some pages, the TOC subsections in the sidebar is autocollapsed by default (ex. Taylor Swift, Beyonce, Lady Gaga, BTS, Katseye, etc.), while on other pages, it is expanded by default (ex. Blackpink, Tate McRae, 2NE1, etc.) How would I make the TOC on the latter pages autocollapsed also? ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 22:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nkon21: mw:Skin:Vector/2022/Design documentation#2) Why are sub-sections collapsed by default? says: “Sub-sections are collapsed by default for articles with more than 28 sections total“. I don’t think this can be changed. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was contacted by ‘Nelson Hathaway Wikipedia Admin’offering to help build a page in wikipedia. Is this a legitimate offer. Please reply to (redacted) Many thanks
Tom Ling 24.206.97.19 (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn’t, see WP:SCAM, it is always a scam.–♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s unwise to post your email publicly; and we don’t communicate via email. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of admin(istrator)s. (Incidentally, admins are not sysops. But they were often called sysops in the distant past.) None of the many admins has a username starting either “Nelson” or “Hathaway”. — Hoary (talk) 11:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where a statement is within brackets (parentheses) and it has a citation using a <ref> tag, should the tag be inside or outside the brackets? I can’t find a definitive directive in MOS. Masato.harada (talk) 10:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Masato.harada: MOS:REFPUNCT says: “If a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the tags belong just before the closing parenthesis. “. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! So can we use a recording of a Google audio translation? On the one hand, Google isn’t CC-BY-SA, but on the other (perhaps) per WP:TRANSLATE “A translation is a derivative work”, and mechanical? —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi: can you give a more specific example, i.e. what audio is being translated and how would the translated audio be used? There are two issues, firstly what is the copyright status of the original audio and secondly what are the terms of use of Google audio translation.

Thanks TSventon. My question(s) stem from this discussion. The text itself is 13th-century Latin, so there aren’t any copyright concerns with it. But on the technical side, I’m not so sure! —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi: I think it is highly unlikely that audio generated by Google from a text would be freely usable for all purposes as required by Wikipedia. According to support.google.com, Translate service is governed by Google TOS; You can use the service for your own personal needs, not for commercial usage. TSventon (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suspected as much… I wonder if there is an open-source option somewhere else. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could always record yourself speaking the translation, and upload that. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kmouth is a good option, though it is exclusive to GNU/Linux and possibly other UNIX systems mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:17, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does Kmouth speak 13th-century Latin with an authentic pronunciation? TSventon (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the original Latin is not in copyright there may be copyright in the translation. A translation by a nineteenth century translator-Robert Browning for instance will also be out of copyright but a translation written this year will be in copyright. The two translations will not be the same and the 2025 translatpr will be entitled to payment for his or her work. A machine translation will probably not be worth reading but there may be a copyright.A recording of a person reading the work whether in the in 13th century Latin or in English may well have its own copyright. I may be wrong but this is the law so far as I understand it.. Spinney Hill (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add “Ghosts in Panama” DrJGardner (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DrJGardner. Please carefully read WP:YFA. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is this? I checked my filter log, and found a weird entry in the log. It said:

12:54, September 9, 2025: RaptorsFan2019 (talk · contribs) triggered an edit filter, performing the action “edit” on User talk:RaptorsFan2019/User warning sandbox. Actions taken: none; Filter description: LTA (long-term abuse) 1133

The edit that triggered the filter was actually just me experimenting with creating custom user warning templates in a sandbox. After I was unsuccessful with the experiment due to issues trying to set up templates and arrange the code, I gave up and requested deletion of the sandbox by tagging it with {{Db-u1}}, which removed the edit that triggered the filter. Don’t worry, these edits were made in good faith. RaptorsFan2019 (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don’t typically give out details of private filters, nor sanction people just because they hit one, but I will offer the explanation that your editing is highly unusual for an account which is 7 days old. Honestly, I’d have expected more filter hits. Anyway, false positives can happen. — zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RaptorsFan2019: There are public filters which can be seen by everybody and private filters which are hidden from most users to prevent them from seeing the filter conditions and work around them. This one is private so we are not giving details. Let me just say that LTA means long-term abuse so the filter was designed to look for patterns by a specific user. The filter doesn’t block the edit and you don’t have to worry about it. Nobody has ever mentioned my filter log which is a lot longer and has many public filters if you want to see examples of that. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of our “lists of earthquakes” articles have columns for the seismic intensity, which is normally expressed using roman numerals. Is there any way to make these columns sortable in a wikitable? The case in point is the pre-1900 list in list of earthquakes in Turkey. Thanks, Mikenorton (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{hidden sort key}} or {{sort}}

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Mikenorton: See Help:Sortable tables, in particular Help:Sortable tables § Specifying a sort key for a cell. Bazza 7 (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikenorton: I made {{Sort Roman}} for this. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for your help and especially @PrimeHunter: for having created a solution for this particular problem a few years ago. Mikenorton (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Problem sorted! Mikenorton (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My template is now used in five articles after three years. Woohoo! Thanks for using it Mikenorton. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The search insource:”sortable” IX insource:/\| ?IX ?\|/i gives other potential uses I will examine later. And yeah, there are many lists of earthquakes. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Make that six articles. Working on it! Mikenorton (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikenorton: Yay! We are going down in Wikipedia history for sorting this out (pun intended). By the way, you only need it for IX, XIX, XXIX, and I don’t know if the planet would survive the latter two. Maybe the giant-impact hypothesis would be a XXIX. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see Modified Mercalli intensity scale#Scale values ends at XII described as “Damage is total.” Pfft. I guess they didn’t think of colliding planets. Maybe it should only be a XIX and then XXIX could be spaghettification by being sucked into a black hole. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikenorton “Problem sorted.” Ha! Very clever. David10244 (talk) 00:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter And Prime too! David10244 (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before beginning I would like to confirm that I am permitted to create this page, as I know this person professionally as an advisor for my artistic work. Maria Mantia Papathanasiou (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Mantia Papathanasiou You should formally disclose a conflict of interest on your user page; you are permitted to create and submit a draft via Articles for Creation. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and it is even harder with a conflict of interest. It is highly recommended that you not dive right in to creating articles, and instead first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles as well as using the new user tutorial.

To succeed, you need to set aside everything you know about this person, everything their associates say about them, all materials from the person, and limit yourself to summarizing what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about them. You need to show that they meet the definition of a notable person broadly, or a notable artist narrowly. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer. May I use the subject’s website? Maria Mantia Papathanasiou (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if I create an initial page that is not too elaborate, might the subject be then allowed to edit and add to it? Or is this also “not reliable”? Maria Mantia Papathanasiou (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subject’s own website is not an independent source. Please see WP:42 for a metric you may use to evaluate sources.

The person themselves should review the autobiography policy. They should avoid directly editing any article about themselves in most cases, but they may propose edits in the form of an edit request to (this so far hypothetical) article about them. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what it’s used for. If it’s used to back up basic things such as name or date of birth, It’s allowed as per WP:ABOUTSELF mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recently made some edits to a write-up on my Wikipedia page, but most of those edits were removed. I would like to understand why this happened and how I can make improvements that comply with Wikipedia’s guidelines.
In addition, I have already written an article on my user page and would like to know the correct process for publishing it into the main encyclopedia. Could you please guide me on the proper steps to follow?
Thank you for your time and assistance.

Here is the article link: User:Prince Kayode Oyetunde Bayewuwon. Prince Kayode Oyetunde Bayewuwon (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The whole url is not needed when linking, I fixed this for you.

You have edited your user page, which is not article space.(note the “User:” in the title) It is a place for the account operator to tell about themselves as a Wikipedia user, not anything and everything about themselves. New accounts cannot directly create articles and need to use Articles for creation to create and submit a draft.

Writing about yourself is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. Your text cites no sources. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, not what the topic or its associates say about it. It needs to be shown how the person is a notable person. You are not a notable politician as you do not hold public office or have not won election to public office. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you take the image of yourself? It appears to be professionally taken, in which case the copyright belongs to the photographer and is not yours to release. If the photographer assigned you the copyright, you need to go to Commons and work with the editors there to indicate that. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot, @Prince Kayode Oyetunde Bayewuwon The the upload comment on the file says “Uploaded a work by Kayode…” which is confusing… David10244 (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that too- it is confusing. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Vault (www.dailyvault.com) is a music review website with over 11,000 reviews completed over the past 28 years. It is cited as a source in more than 8,000 Wikipedia articles. And yet there is no entry for it on Wikipedia, and my understanding is that when one was proposed in the past, the site was dismissed as “not noteworthy.” This seems inconsistent with the facts. Burgher25 (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello @Burgher25.

Notability and reliability are completely separate concepts. There are certainly many sources which are notable without being reliable (for example, iMDB and the Daily Mail); and it is no surprise that there might be reliable sources which are not themselves notable.

Notability is basically about whether there is enough independent reliably published material about a subject to base an article on; Reliability is about whether the source has an editorial policy that encourages ~~fast~~fact checking and responsible publishing.

The Daily Vault only seems to have been discussed once in the archives of WP:RS, in 2009, and the discussion was not conclusive, so arguably it should not be cited. But that has no bearing on whether it not it is notable. If the sources exist, then somebody could write an article about it. ColinFine (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine I’m sure you mean “fact checking”. David10244 (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David10244: You’re right of course. Corrected. Thanks. —ColinFine (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Burgher25: The Daily Vault is not cited in more than 8,000 articles. I guess you did a search on Daily Vault without quotation marks. This gives 8,471 results but like most search engines, it returns pages which contain each word somewhere. The vast majority are irrelevant hits. "Daily Vault" with quotation marks searches the words together and only gives 346 results. insource:"dailyvault.com" gives 348. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I need my picture to show in google search 2603:6011:C100:1760:F1A2:3BEC:28BA:94C2 (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If your question is related to Wikipedia, please explain; if it isn’t, you’re asking in the wrong place. — Hoary (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the page Suicide methods, two references are duplicated with the DOI doi:10.101/j.aap.2015.04.012. However, one of these comes from a section transclusion from Rail suicide. How best should I resolve this? I don’t want the article to break if the ref is removed from the transcluded article. Is it customary in this case to use template syntax in the transcluded article and wrap the offending reference in {{{1|reference code…}}}, and would that even work? Thanks, OutsideNormality (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use a named reference in both articles and manage the citation centrally to avoid duplication Editor1769 09:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reference help requested.

Thanks, RupertNY245 (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Don’t know what you mean[reply]

Hello @RupertNY245, could you clarify your question? GoldRomean (talk) 03:50, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @RupertNY245. “9/10/2025” is not an acceptable date format (probably because it is ambiguous – where I live, it means 9th October, not 10th September). See WP:Date#Consistency. ColinFine (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You did not add a title to your reference, instead putting the title incorrectly in the “last1” parameter. However, there is a bigger problem, and that is that you have only cited a random eBay listing’s image, which is not a reliable source as it is user-generated. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Someone reverted your edits for this reason; see the page history. OutsideNormality (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why there is no page available for Mr Gopal Chandra Mukherjee (Gopal Patha) in Wikipedia, he is hero of Direct action day happened in Bengal in 1946, he should get a dignified page on Wikipedia

please consider my request

Regards
Rajeev Agrawal Raj wip (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was briefly an article about Gopal Chandra Mukherjee, but it was deleted as an unauthorized resuscitation of an article deleted as the result of WP:AfD/Gopal Chandra Mukhopadhyay. That AfD was closed as “delete” by Joyous!. An “extended confirmed” user believing (i) that Gopal Chandra Mukherjee is notable and (ii) that they (the user) are capable of creating a draft that (a) demonstrates this and (b) is a neutral account of his life would be able to make a fresh start at Draft:Gopal Chandra Mukherjee and to submit this for promotion to article status. This would require the approval of Joyous! and is unlikely to be an easy task. — Hoary (talk) 08:31, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No dedicated article exists in the English Wikipedia due to its deletion in February 2023 after an Articles for Deletion discussion. Editors cited insufficient significant coverage in reliable, independent sources and reliance on partisan ones, failing WP:GNG. He is briefly noted in the Direct Action Day article for his defensive efforts. Editor1769 08:52, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Raj wip. The criterion for whether there could be an article about somebody is what Wikipedia calls notability – which isn’t quite the same as what people usually mean by the word. It’s not about being important, or famous, or popular, or influentia.: it’s about whether there is enough published information about the person to base an article on (remembering that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. )

As others have said, if there is enough independent reliably published material to base an article on, then somebody could write one. But there isn’t some sort of editorial board that you can address request to, as you have tried to do above. (Well, there is a page called requested articles, but requests there hardly ever get picked up). This is a volunteer project, where people work on what they choose. ColinFine (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been an editor for about 3 years now, but I’ve noticed some editors reverting or downplaying what I have written based on only a single source being used to note something. This is despite the fact said source accurately quotes the individual it is reporting on.

For instance, Michael Parenti, a political scientist, denied the existence of genocide in Bosnia in the 1990s in the 2000 volume of Project Censored, as well as the number of victims at Srebrenica. Despite this, the website Balkan Witness, who accurately noted that Parenti had said these things, with URLs as proof, the statements were then attributed, rather than being kept as fact.

Similarly, Sara Flounders, who in a 1995 article denied Serbian atrocities in the Bosnian War, was instead only written to be accused of doing so in a statement attributed to Pulse Media, which linked her denial.

Craig Murray, who as shown by OSINT for Ukraine had promoted Russian propaganda regarding the alleged genocide in the Donbass and that Euromaidan was a coup, was reverted based on the biases of the website, despite presenting a screenshot of his blog.

I don’t understand why things like these happen, although I will note that all three of these examples are self described left-wing personalities, which I think might be a problem of bias on this website.

What are other editors opinions on this? Is a single biased source accurately reporting on a documented fact not sufficient for articles on living people? JPHC2003 (talk) 08:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious material requires high-quality, reliable sources WP:BLP, and WP:DUE emphasises that a single source may not establish sufficient weight for such claims, even if it accurately quotes the subject. The sources used seem verifiable but may be seen as non-independent or advocacy-based, which WP:RS cautions against for BLPs without corroboration.

I propose citing the primary source directly to confirm the quote, supplemented by any additional reliable secondary sources. This aligns with WP:PRIMARY for direct statements while meeting WP:VERIFY. If the source’s reliability is disputed, we can discuss it at WP:RSN or seek consensus on the article’s talk page. Editor1769 08:31, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve suddenly found that I don’t seem able to perform admin actions, and pages like my watchlist don’t or are slow to load. Navigation is OK. I’m seeing this message repeatedly

/w/api.php?action=query&list=watchlist&wllimit=1&wlexcludeuser=Jimfbleak&wldir=older&format=xml&wlprop=comment|ids|title|user

with a don’t show check box, which doesn’t work, and an OK button.

I’ve restarted my pc to no avail (in fact the message came up while I’m typing this) Any ideas to get me out of this? Thanks Jimfbleak – talk to me? 10:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

seems OK now, any idea what happened? Jimfbleak – talk to me? 10:51, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found it difficult to save an edit today about that time. The error message said that the wiki had become read-only. Maybe that was the underlying problem? Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022 German railway attack

Hi,

this incident (rail traffic outage due to communications outage) ultimately was found to be not deliberate sabotage but the unfortunate occurrence of two cases of attempted copper cable theft at about the same time and in just the right/wrong places, according to de:GSM-R-Ausfall bei der Deutschen Bahn am 8. Oktober 2022 and the references given there. I’d like to update the English version to reflect that, but need some guidance.

– Does this re-framing change the notability of the event, as far as the English article is concerned? Should there be a new AfD?

– Because of the months- or years-long time gap from the indicent, the later findings were barely deemed newsworthy even in Germany, so there may well be no English RSs to reference. Is that a problem?

– The page title would need to be changed, clearly. Should the new one be a direct translation of the new German one, or is that too clunky?

Thanks,

– 2A02:560:4D22:8700:F4FE:FCB:26FB:9AD (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not have to be in English, they are just preferred when available. As for the notability of the event: imho, as WP:GNG was given then, it is still given now. Lectonar (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for the title…something like October 2022 German railway incident or such might be ok, but that would be a question for article talk I think. Lectonar (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to view the source (view only, not edit) of a non-protected page? Sometimes I want to look at or copy a piece of wiki markup from an article without the risk of actually editing it. —Jameboy (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the article and click the “View history” tab. From there, select the timestamp of the latest revision (or any specific revision). Then click on Wikitext to display the page’s source in a read-only format. Editor1769 13:05, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Editor1769: Where is this “Wikitext” link to click on? I tried it just now with Hydrogen, but couldn’t get past viewing the latest revision. (I’m on desktop using Chrome.) Bazza 7 (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the cur link for the specific version. Editor1769 13:32, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also can’t see the Wikitext option, whereabouts is it on the page? I also tried doing so when logged out, in case my widgets were conflicting with it, but again I couldn’t see it. —Jameboy (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah wait, do you mean the diffs, with the green and yellow backgrounds? That is indeed one way to view it, I hadn’t thought of that. —Jameboy (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if you have the page history open, replace action=history with action=raw. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&action=raw Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, the =raw option works well, thank you —Jameboy (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you remove this page? It indirectly impacts people with mental weakness.

Suicide methods.2603:8080:CA06:FE40:C199:37:D760:AC65 (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should discuss issues with an article on its associated talk page, in this case, Talk:Suicide methods. However, its outright removal is extremely unlikely, as Wikipedia is not censored for any reason. The topic is a legitimate effort to summarize with a neutral point of view what independent reliable sources choose to say about the topic. 331dot (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else has a closed connection to our company’s page

Hello,

I am the Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) of iMusician Digital, and I am disclosing this conflict of interest (COI) openly.

The article about our company already exists on French Wikipedia (fr:IMusician Digital).

I would like to improve and expand it with independent, neutral sources.

However, it seems that someone closely connected to the page is preventing edits or reverting changes.

As a COI editor, I understand I should not directly make promotional edits myself.

I would therefore like guidance on the proper way forward:

Should I propose suggested changes on the article’s Talk page in French?
Or would it be better to prepare a draft (in English or French) and ask uninvolved editors to review it?

My goal is simply to ensure that the French Wikipedia article is accurate, neutral, and properly sourced.

Could an uninvolved editor please advise on next steps, or assist in reviewing the draft I have prepared?

Thank you for your time and assistance. Breno iM (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The French Wikipedia is a separate project from the English Wikipedia, with its own policies, you should discuss your issue there. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to edit here, you will need to formally disclose your status as an employee, please see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Breno iM. I can’t speak for French Wikipedia, which is a different project, with its own policies.

But as regards the English Wikipedia, it’s not enough to be “accurate, neutral, and properly sourced” (or, rather, it is enough, but most people who are not well-versed in English Wikipedia’s policies usually misunderstand “properly sourced”).

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. So unless most of the sources are completely independent of the subject, the article will not be acceptable. See WP:42.

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. And that is even without a conflict of interest. ColinFine (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Should I propose suggested changes on the article’s Talk page in French?” Yes; or, in case you don’t speak French, you may do so in English at fr:Wikipédia:Bistro des non-francophones.

Either way, you need first to state in your French-Wikipedia userpage who you work for. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 16:13, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recently saw this speech in the news a lot, by a boy in Nepal that might be relevant to the 2025 Nepalese Gen Z protests. If you just google “nepal speech” [9] it will come up. Do you guys think it passes WP:GNG? I think it does but due to the nature of the topic I think a second opinion would be helpful. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? – _c) 21:53, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix, you’re expecting other people to look through a list of Google hits, click on those that look most promising, decide if they are good; if they aren’t then to click on more, etc. No. It’s for you to do the work of finding sources that go into depth about this speech, are reliable, and are independent of the speaker, the event, and each other. Find three and then, if you wish, ask about them here. — Hoary (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few years ago, a bit of the content of Naoki Higashida was merged into another article, the rest was deleted, and the article was turned into a redirect. The redirect page notes the possibility of creating a new article. I’ve decided to do that, drawing on some of the old content and adding a bunch of new content (properly sourced), as the subject is notable in his own right (draft in my sandbox, I’m still working on it). My questions:

Re: drawing on some of the old content, this isn’t quite the same as WP:CWW. Am I correct in thinking that I don’t need to say anything about the edit history for that content, since the history for this material is already in the edit history for the article (from when it used to be an article rather than a redirect)?
I haven’t ever created a new article, but my understanding is that if an EC editor adds a new article to mainspace, it will be reviewed by someone within a few months. Is that also supposed to occur with this sort of (re)creation? Or is this seen as equivalent to my making significant edits to an existing article, with no new review needed?

Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

review lasts too long – please check it

Hello. I created the Draft page: Draft:A.L. Kekin Gymnasium.
First time it was rejected cause of insufficient amount of inline citations. I fixed it immediatelly. Please review it cause it lasts too long, more that 8 weeks. Sportsmentos (talk) 08:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You submitted the draft on August 4. As the header says “Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,373 pending submissions waiting for review.” Meters (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sportsmentos. We have a limited amount of volunteer reviewers, and even less who can speak Russian.

It might be helpful for you to list here what the three strongest sources are that cover the history of this building in significant detail? qcne (talk) 09:12, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

How can I use this template to convert one unit into several others, i.e. convert square meters into square feet and square inches for example, without having to use the same template multiple times. I tried something like that {{convert|1|m2|sqft|sqin}} but the template doesn’t take the second unit “sqin” (correctly abbreviated) into account.

Thank you in advance 176.191.86.153 (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like this: {{convert|1|m2|sqft sqin}} gives 1 square metre (11 sq ft; 1,600 sq in). See Template:Convert § Into multiple units: 10 °C (50 °F; 283 K). Bazza 7 (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. Simple but not obvious. 176.191.86.153 (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am planning to create a new Wikipedia article about Diella , an AI virtual assistant developed in Albania that in 2025 was appointed as the country’s first AI “virtual minister” in public procurements, also first AI virtualy minister in the world.

Could you please advise:

1. Is the title “Diella (virtual minister)” appropriate? or other name?

2. Is the article structure (Infobox officeholder, lead, background, ministerial role) correct for a software/AI system with governmental functions?

Thank you, i welcome your suggestions. Lanceloth345 (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lanceloth345 As you know, Diella is currently a small article about a village and that has a hatnote to the main eAlbania article where the AI assistant is described. Neither articles are currently very large and I would have thought that expansion of eAlbania is the correct way to go. If you have many new sources and feel that the AI assistant is more likely to be what readers will be seeking when they search for “Diella”, then you could switch the hatnote to be the other way round, giving the AI as the WP:MAINTOPIC. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but since yesterday it has global media coverage also as first Ai Virtual Minister in the world some of sources are provided in current article alsoz this “intrigued” me to create an separate dedicated article. Lanceloth345 (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains a video showing the real-life murder of Iryna Zarutska.
This content is highly inappropriate and violates Wikipedia’s policies on graphic or sensitive material.
Please remove the video to protect readers from exposure to violent content.

I cannot provide the link, but the video can be found under the article: Killing of Iryna Zarutska. 86.24.90.241 (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Links are provided this way [[Killing of Iryna Zarutska]] which appears as Killing of Iryna Zarutska. The captions on that article claim that the actual act of killing is not in the video; if that is not the case, please discuss this on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, but the page is protected, and only extended confirmed users and administrators can edit it. 86.24.90.241 (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that while Wikipedia is not censored, the actual act of killing should not be depicted, and I would wonder if the video should be in the infobox. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don’t think this should be in the infobox, even though the part with the killing is blurred. However, the article is currently under full protection.–♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:05, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m a declared paid editor working on behalf of Leonisa. The current article has a notability tag and a new tag for nomination of deletion. I have prepared a sandbox draft with significant independent sources including Forbes, El Tiempo, INSEAD, and The Best of Intima. These demonstrate coverage in multiple independent, reliable outlets. I believe this addresses notability concerns. Please see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Leonisa3/sandbox. I’m unsure if an editor has reviewed the sandbox with improved references before the deletion nomination and I would like the opportunity to provide further references if these are not adequate. Thank you. Leonisa3 (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to check this is at the deletion discussion. Mikenorton (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply