Hello IP address. Could you be more specific? Is there a particular article that you are trying to find? 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 05:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try Special:Search.Shantavira| 08:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you have to click a magnifying glass icon to get a search box. Please be more specific about the problem if this doesn't help. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create a wiki page for an inventor Marawers (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David E. Flinchbaugh, perhaps? A few minutes ago I deleted Draft:Dr. David E. Flinchbaugh. It showed an extraordinary lack of awareness of what an encyclopedia is; it was even written in the first person singular. I know of no encyclopedia that contains such material. The first thing you should do, if you eventually want to create an article here about somebody, is to acquaint yourself with Wikipedia. Read a few articles. Think about them. Then contribute to existing articles. Then start to think about creating a new article. -- Hoary (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thank you for the advice. I assure you this is 100% legitimate, maybe we wait for you. When I said he is a modern day Thomas Edison I wasn't lying. Marawers (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:COI, WP:BOSS and WP:PROUD. It is very rare (in fact almost unheard of) for a Wikipedia article to be created simply because somebody wanted to have one. ♦IanMacM♦ 06:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an existing article. We created it tonight. Marawers (talk) 06:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It never got further than the draft stage, and nor is it likely to unless the subject meets the general notability guideline. Also, the rather extravagant tone of the proposed article suggests that somebody may have a conflict of interest here.--♦IanMacM♦ 06:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I appreciate your advice. I will try and improve our article before we submit again. I am new to this, so thank you for your patience abd your guidelines, it’s great advice! 71.215.2.68 (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Marawers. 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. ColinFine (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marawers, you write "We created it tonight", etc. Why "we" and not "I"? -- Hoary (talk) 08:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marawers, your draft was pretty much the exact opposite of what an acceptable encyclopedia article needs to look like. Did you do any reading about our policies and guidelines before wasting your time writing this poor quality content? If not, why not? Cullen328 (talk) 08:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Zoe McLellan has been archived in a weird way, see July 2024 edits:[1]. Can someone who is good at archiving fix this, please? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time achieving a talk page manually, but I believe I fixed it. Cheers. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 08:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That simple, huh? I'll try to remember that. Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was all thanks to this script: User:Elli/OneClickArchiver. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 11:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that user CoachBriceWilliams28 has posted another user's private information on a talk page. "Although I haven't ever edited this article, I have a theory that all these ANON posts above are still this [perma-banned] user. I couldn't help but notice all [ 1 , 2 , 3, & 4 ] users were in the same region. Either this user is who I suspect, OR they have a similar trolling motif unhelpful to the page. Perhaps an admin can run a CheckUser and look for a match between the 2 to see if this COI page has a confounding variable. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)" Is this allowed? It was on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Talk:International_Churches_of_Christ#COI_editing 2600:1700:4260:35D0:29CD:9764:81A0:2718 (talk) 07:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody edits Wikipedia without logging in, then their IP number is displayed. This is thus public information. WHOIS says which IP number belongs to which ISP, and perhaps also where the particular editor is located. This too is public information. The mistake within what you quote is Coachbricewilliams28's seeming belief that mere admins can run CheckUser. In reality, only a very small percentage of admins can do so (and they need a clear reason for doing so): see Wikipedia:CheckUser. The other mistake is, on seeing what one believes to be the divulging of private information, to write about the matter on a page such as this and thereby draw more attention to it. Instead, delete it and apply for "oversight". -- Hoary (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any personal information being posted. The linked IPs are all WP:SPAs on this subject and user:Coachbricewilliams28 suspects they are socks of an editor blocked for edits in this area. Note that all of these IPs, including the OP, were covered by a previous 6 month range block by user:Bbb23 on 2600:1700:4260:35D0:0:0:0:0/64 for socking by the user in question. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qewr4231. Meters (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reported to WP:SPI. Meters (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

user:2600:1700:4260:35d0::/64 has been blocked again, for one year this time. Meters (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia,

I recently edited this article: David Snoke

However, the thumbnail of this file doesn't show: File:Sciadv.adk6960-f2.jpg

Could you please help me with this issue?

Thank you very much! Van.truongson (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Van.truongson When I click to the Commons link at commons:File:Sciadv.adk6960-f2.jpg, I would expect to see the drawing. Instead, I see a link to the image, which I have to click to reach the actual drawing. I'm not sure what you uploaded but you need to overwrite the file with the .jpg from your computer. Don't attempt to upload a "thumbnail": that bit gets done after the file is on Commons (See Help:Pictures). Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... incidentally, I don't see why this detailed account of some physics theory should be included in a biography. Wouldn't it be better in a separate article about the theory, or about polaritons? Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Van.truongson: For some reason MediaWiki is unable to resize File:Sciadv.adk6960-f2.jpg. This sometimes happens if a file doesn't follow an image standard closely enough or there is a limitation or bug in MediaWiki. The original upload Media:Sciadv.adk6960-f2.jpg is not touched by MediaWiki but just served to the user's browser. It displays in Firefox for me but MediaWiki always makes a new version of an image when it's displayed at another size. Try uploading another version of the image, or maybe a version made with another program which can read your version and save its own version of it. Another thing, try to give meaningful names to uploaded images. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any video I can watch to master editing on Wikipedia? Utibe Noah Silas (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few instructional videos on specific topics, but I don't know if there's any one video that you could watch to bring you up to mastery. Maybe you could start with watching Become a Wikipedian in 30 minutes. -- D'n'B-t -- 13:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's Molly White (writer)! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can a third party please review the page and edit history of Turntablist transcription methodology ? Citations and fact-based information are repeatedly being removed and restored. Please review and adjust the content in accordance with Wikipedia standards. Thank you. WikiSkratch2000 (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a mess. It's edit history seems to consist largely of adding and removing badly-sourced and contradictory claims as to who invented the 'methodology', while the article itself almost entirely fails to explain what the 'methodology' actually entails. If the subject meets Wikipedia notability requirements at all (which might well be questioned), it might best be dealt with by finding someone less motivated to promote one 'inventor' or another to write it again from scratch, as something actually useful to a curious reader rather than as a venue for promotion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Andy. This makes total sense, more data about the system is needed.

A version of the article with no mention of the word "inventor" (as I've posted) seems like fair option, as this appears to the main revision and is a subjective point.

Is there way to stop the tug of war, and find a Wikipedia moderator to reinforce wikipedia standards? WikiSkratch2000 (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

rephrasing Help Desk question (see 8/18/24) WikiSkratch2000 (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grateful for a steer on rendering an English name in IPA before going to FAC. The person is Irene Vanbrugh, whose name is pronounced as close as I can get to Eye-ree-nee Vanbrr. I have put an ogg file on her page, but a proper IPA pronunciation would be a most welcome addition. Tim riley talk 17:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: I don't know how to construct the IPA in the first place, but after you have a candidate, you can check it using an IPA reader. There appear to be several on the Internet. One of them is IPA reader. -Arch dude (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

/aɪˈɹini ˈvænbɹə/ -- Hoary (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: /aɪˈrini ˈvænbrə/ if you want the interactive version via {{IPAc-en}}: {{IPAc-en|aɪ|ˈ|ɹ|i|n|i|_|ˈ|v|æ|n|b|ɹ|ə}} Bazza 7 (talk) 09:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bazza_7, I am enormously in your debt. Thank you so much! Tim riley talk 10:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: @Hoary deserves some of your praise for saving me from having to work out the IPA in the first place. Nice team effort all round. Bazza 7 (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My warmest thanks to both. Tim riley talk 15:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

فين فين ممكن اجابه من فضلكم 196.132.46.145 (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going off the question subject. Try the article I_(pronoun). If that doesn't help, please clarify your question and post in English. RudolfRed (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Me" is accusative and "I" is nominative. -- Hoary (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "me" is accusative, and arguably also dative--and used in genitive situations, to cover the four cases in modern German. I prefer to say that "I" is subjective and "me" is objective. The situations where (alleged) English speakers typically get it wrong are the ones where there are two pronouns together. So people say "to you and I" or (as David Garroway did in the first two minutes of the first Today Show) "between you and I," and some argue that that's the correct way.

I've often suggested to people that if there are two pronouns and you want to figure out whether to use "I" or "me," take out the other pronoun and see which you would use--then, that's the correct one with the other pronoun. You wouldn't say, "Show it to I," so you don't say "Show it to him and I" (or "to he and I"). There's a problem, then, with "between you and I/me," because you would never be saying "between me" or "between I" in the first place. Just remember, then, that the "hypercorrect"--what some would consider more formal--"between you and I" is a grammatical abomination that instantly--and accurately--labels one as trying to sound more literate than one really is. Uporządnicki (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AzseicsoK: The "between you and..." case can be handled in a similar way, again by recognising the plural: "between us" or "between we". Feline Hymnic (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to Save Articles but NOT download them to iOS devices

I can't find how to save articles to my account but NOT download them to my iOS devices. Sukkha (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "save articles to my account"; do you mean add them to your watchlist? 331dot (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessingthat you're talking about the "saved articles" feature which is available on IOS and Android apps, but not on the web interface. See if m:Wikimedia Apps/iOS FAQ answers your question. ColinFine (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added one to Talk:Bettina (disambiguation) (per nagging message), but the project isn't showing up. Also, what's the point of adding the shell? (Something unspeakably sinister from the Cabal?) Clarityfiend (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The shell serves to compact its WikiProject-related content. Yes, it seems to compact Anthroponymy into nothingness; but no loss, I think. I was going to provide an example of how useful such compacting usually is, with an example I expected would be extreme, so visited Talk:Donald Trump. This turns out to have

{{WikiProject banner shell |class=B |living=yes |activepol=yes |collapsed=yes |vital=yes |listas=Trump, Donald |1=
{{WikiProject Donald Trump |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject United States |importance=Top |USTV=Yes |USTV-importance=Mid |USGov=Yes |USGov-importance=High |USPE=Yes |USPE-importance=Top |USPresidents=Yes |USPresidents-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject New York City |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=High |American=Yes |American-importance=Top |political-parties=yes |political-parties-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Business |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Television |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Biography |a&e-work-group=Yes |a&e-priority=Mid |politician-work-group=Yes |politician-priority=Top}}
{{WikiProject 2010s |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography |importance=Top}}
}}

-- again, all compacted into visual nothingness, as far as I can see. Odd. But despite the invisibility (to human eyes) of the templates, the talk page is categorized properly. -- Hoary (talk) 07:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bettina (disambiguation) was missing a pipe after class=list so the WikiProject became part of the class parameter. I don't think disambiguation pages should have that anyway so I removed it.[2] The WikiProjects on Talk:Donald Trump are hard but not impossible to find. You did pick a page with a lot going on. Click "show" at "Other talk page banners" and then "This level-4 vital article ... is of interest to multiple WikiProjects." PrimeHunter (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me by deleting my submission or confirming deletion. Thank you. TrinbagoianNetwork (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only edit you have resembling a submission was an edit to a sandbox, which has been removed. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how this is done, so I am asking here.
I thought of creating an extension for it, but I can't seem to figure out how Wikidata gets all the possible languages. If I could, then I may be able to create an extension for it. But I don't, so I don't think so.
It doesn't seem like Wikipedia already has this setting, so I'm asking here. Kxeon (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki links in the sidebar from Wikipedia and Wikidata in general does not work for incubator wikis. See incubator:Help:FAQ. Reconrabbit 14:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kxeon: Incubator pages can add code to the page itself to display interwiki links on the page. For example, incubator:Wp/iba/Kenyah contains {{INTERWIKI|Q180540}} to display the interwiki links in the Wikidata page Kenyah Dayak (Q180540). However, the iba page is not and cannot be added there so other wikis cannot find it and display an interwiki link to it. wikidata:Help:Sitelinks#Linking to Wikimedia site pages says: "Wikidata currently supports sitelinks for most Wikimedia projects (except Incubator, see phab:T54971)." PrimeHunter (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am currently involved in an ongoing dispute regarding the article on Turntablist Transcription Methodology (a musical notation system for scratching and turntablism).

I have adhered to Wikipedia standards by adding citations and links to support fact-checked content, maintaining a Neutral Point of View (NPOV), and removing unsourced additions. Additionally, I have improved the article’s layout with a clearer timeline to reduce redundancy.

However, another user persistently reverts the article to a version that appears biased and cluttered with uncited information. The central issue revolves around the inclusion of an inventor credit, which is inherently subjective. To uphold NPOV, I have removed all mentions of "inventor" and similar terms.

Despite these efforts, the revert pattern continues without resolution. Could a Wikipedia expert intervene to assist in resolving this issue? Also, under what circumstances could a user be blocked for disregarding Wikipedia standards?

Thank you for your assistance. WikiSkratch2000 (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikiSkratch2000. It sounds as if you are asking for some sort of authority figure to come in and rule on a dispute. That is not how we work in Wikipedia. If you are unable to reach consensus with other editors, please look at dispute resolution for the next steps you can take.

See WP:blocking policy for the policy on how blocks are used. ColinFine (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way, tool or user role that would let me find article maintenance hatnotes – "more citations need", "written like an ad", etc – and sort them by date?

Reason: I frequently find these tags dated from years ago, that no longer apply to articles that have been significantly edited and improved since. I'd like to remove them when appropriate. Thanks! Tsavage (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsavage Some templates populate a category which you can look at directly and in other cases you can go to the template page and click on the tool "what links here". So {{More citations needed}} could work like that: but beware it has ~387,000 hits! I prefer to use the external link to WikiProject Cleanup Listings, which I can filter according to my interests. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can also look at the various subcategories at Category:Articles_needing_cleanup, to see if there are subjects that are of particular interest to you. Valereee (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull @Valereee Thanks. Lots of ways to almost get there, but not quite! If I could see something like "more citations needed" from 2010 and earlier, for example, that would be great. Otherwise, too much clicking through. I suppose a custom database query would be the way. Cheers! Tsavage (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsavage You can get that with an insource search. Hence to find those from August 2010 you would use this. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi guys to University of Johannesburg Lino khanyoh (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't, this is an encyclopedia, not a university application site. I suggest contacting that university directly to see how you can apply. 331dot (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice, especially when sections are large, to be able to close a section at the end of said section. GordonBombayIII (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GordonBombayIII. Take a look at Template:Discussion top. That may be what you are looking for. Cullen328 (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, GordonBombayIII is using the mobile version where level 2 headers usually have an arrow indicating the section can be collapsed/expanded. See e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/key/Encyclopedia#Characteristics. I don't know any way to add this option to the end of a section. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the back-end side, it seems like it wouldn't be hard to add a copy of the start-of-section toggle

<span class="mf-icon mf-icon-expand mf-icon--small indicator mf-icon-rotate-flip"> </span>

or something like it to the end of the section, just before the close of the section's </div>. No idea where this is all implemented, and this is just from diving into the page source just now. DMacks (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have several images that I have previously uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license. Is it permissible for me to change these to CC BY 4.0 (a less restrictive license)? Thanks! EvanBaldonado (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EvanBaldonado: That is absolutely fine (as long you are the copyright holder, which I assume is the case looking at the images). The original license will still technically also apply, since it cannot be revoked, but that's irrelevant because the new license allows everything the old one did anyways. Tollens (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, I'm the one who took them and am the copyright holder. I just updated them all to add the new licenses alongside the old ones. EvanBaldonado (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bot is marking images for deletion. On the whole, I think the bot does great work, but it needs an update to account for templates. It marked an image for deletion which I'd uploaded, then sent me a message about it. The only problem is the image is used in a template (so the same image can be used on a main page and also in a summation page), and the bot is apparently just checking the "what links here" and isn't then going to the same "what links here" page for templates which use the image.

The bot talk page specifically asks people not to try to reply there: "Hi, I'm a bot, therefore I cannot respond to your questions. , if you leave a note on my owner, B's talk page, I'm sure he will be able to help you. ..." However, the user talk page states, "I'm largely inactive / 99% retired. There are more important things in life. ..." I am fully in support of that, as I think even a cursory review of my own talk page makes clear. However, I'm not running a bot.

Again, I think the bot is doing great work overall, but it needs to account for templates which use images and then follow that chain through to see why the template exists, or at least what else uses the template. Banaticus (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Banaticus if you read the bot user page it indicates clearly that Please note that under WP:NFCC#9, images used under a claim of fair use are NOT permitted outside of article space. If an image is used only in user space, on a template, in a draft, etc, it is still considered "orphaned".

The bot operations is right. The non-free file cannot be utilised in Template space. – robertsky (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Banaticus. Thinking more broadly (beyond the technical detail Robertsky mentions), I'm concerned that a non-free image in a template is at high risk for use in violation of the NFCC: it is prone to using the template more widely than fair-use allows and makes it hard to keep the image-use rationale tags in sync. For example, fair-use images must not be purely decorative or used in galleries, and therefore virtually never in navboxes either. DMacks (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banaticus, non-free images are allowed only in articles, not templates, and only when the image fully complies with WP:NFCI. Please use only freely licensed or public domain images in templates. Cullen328 (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Banaticus: Which template is this about? Please always identify pages you refer to. The image is not used anywhere currently and I haven't found signs it was used when B-bot nominated it for deletion and notified you 18 August. It was previously used in {{Adventure West Council Infobox}} but another bot removed it 16 August with the correct edit summary "Non-free files are only permitted in articles".[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the "Adventure West Council" Boy Scout Council (or whatever we call the Boy Scouts nowadays) has territory in both Nebraska and Colorado. And so an infobox template for this council was added to both Scouting in Nebraska and Scouting in Colorado. So there needs to be an image= parameter in the infobox template and then the image name put only in the page itself, rather than hardcoding the image in the template. (I'm not offering an opinion on whether it's appropriate to have council shoulder patches in an infobox for each council within a state article - I'm just saying that this is the method that would not run afoul of WP:NFCC#9. If an image is embedded in a template, bots will - correctly - continue to remove it and tag it as orphaned.) --B (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following from thst B said, I find it hard to believe that this use meets the criterion 8: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" from the WP:NFCC. ColinFine (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to edit the page for DuPage County, Illinois to reference how it has been officially referred to as Du Page county (two words), specifically on the NCEI Storm Events database. This is an official US government website, but the alternative spelling isn't given any particular weight and both spellings are used when selecting the county zone, which tells me this isn't a mistake. Does this work as a reliable source as is, or should I keep looking for another source? GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn’t use that source to say it has “officially” been referred to with two words, but you could add (and cite) and note to the lede: “also spelled Du Page…” BhamBoi (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed some vandalism at Park Street Church. Namely, individuals are updating language on a present controversy with untrue or biased facts. They are using posts from a blog as a reference. At this moment, it claims "public sharing of internal documents describing spiritual abuse" (the "internal document" in question was a memo from the fired associate minister, and after three rounds of both internal and external investigation, no abuse has been found) and uses biased language such as "only" 2/3 members. Additionally, convoluted language claiming "a majority of congregants rejecting the assertion that Mark Booker is not disqualified from ministry" is confusing. A simple sentence would be that a majority of congregants assert that Mark Booker is disqualified from ministry, and this is untrue.

( Would an editor please assist me with fixing it? Thank you, Aubrey.eliza (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People at the Help Desk will not normally get involved in a content dispute. Please follow the procedure in disute resolution, which begins with opening open a discussion with the other editors on the article's talk page. ColinFine (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was supposed to be dispute resolution. ColinFine (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor (not an IP user) is adding a link to the "See also" section in a rather low-profile article, Racetrack (game), about a certain pen-and-paper game. It's a link to a sourceforge project (and, in the present version, a few other links too); I suppose it's possible to download and install a computer-playable version of the game via the link. However, the sourceforge project has no information relevant to the subject that adds anything to the article. I believe policy is that we do not have this sort of links in "See also" (or elsewhere). In Chess, we have link to e.g. ChessBase, but I believe that is because

1. the article covers chess technology as well as the physical board game itself;
2. ChessBase does in fact have load of info that adds to the wikipedia article.

The editor has added the link a total of 17 times over 4 months, and has been reverted as many times (mostly, but not exclusively, by me). The user has essentially made no other edits on Wikipedia. I am aware that this regrettably has taken on the character of edit warring (but afaik the 3rr rule applies to muliple changes over a much shorter timespan). I have not succeeded in engaging the user on the talk page, user talk page, or through edit summaries.

So, am I wrong that the link shouldn't be there, and if not, what can I do? Should I request some sort of page protection, or an edit ban on the user? How does one do that sort of thing? (I have made about 7500 edits to en.wikipedia.org over a 20-year period, but I have never considered that sort of action before.) Nø (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS stipulates that the user repeatedly adding the disputed content must generate consensus for inclusion, but at absolute minimum the sourceforge link would belong in subheading External links, not See also, which is exclusively for internal links to mainspace. A pblock would probably be the route to technical enforcement if the user cannot be persuaded to stop and no one else agrees the link is appropriate to include. Folly Mox (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! The link has actually at various points been added to either "See also" or "External links". I've now created a block request to the best of my ability. Nø (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

my utube video views is not increase please help Nighatomer (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nighatomer, this has nothing to do with editing Wikipedia. You will have to contact YouTube. Cullen328 (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kawshardowanekawshar mdkawshar1 01615031192 2404:1C40:BB:794B:1:0:5F6D:AC73 (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. What is your question about editing Wikipedia? Are you perhaps user @Mdkawshar1, not logged in? ColinFine (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy for citing several chapters in one book where each chapter has a different author? Currently, I'm working on a page and found an excellent source with one editor and each chapter has an expert address the topic at length. I will be citing the book several times, but I'm uncertain how best to handle the References section. Right now I'm doing the following, but I have absolutely no idea if this follows policy appropriately:

• {{cite book}} – Editor only entered here, link to full book (open access through publisher)
  • {{cite book}} again – Author entered here, editor entered again, probably just linking chapter again
  • {{cite book}} again – Author 2, ibid, ibid.

Is this appropriate? Is there a better way of doing that? Should I just cite the editor only and let the reader actually go to the book? Any help appreciated! ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{harvc}} is intended for this purpose as a stepping stone between {{sfn}} and {{cite book}}. Perhaps it will serve for you.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you so much! ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made some edits concerning her current location and how she is at dock currently, and I was wondering if Y'all could just make it look better. 2600:8807:3C01:6900:7106:76C6:2ACE:6CB (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more clear on what you think is wrong? One thing I notice is no citation for what you added. See WP:REFB Also, the lede should be a summary of what is in the main part of the article. RudolfRed (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just add citations and sources, as idk how to do that, and make it sound more professional if it doesnt already. heavily appreciated 2600:8807:3C01:6900:7106:76C6:2ACE:6CB (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, IP user: if you want to add information to an article, it is your responsibility to find the sources. That is the part of editing that takes the work, and it is unreasonable to expect somebody else to go looking. Note that if you cannot find a reliably published source for the information, then the information does not belong in a Wikipedia article. ColinFine (talk) 10:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwand has taken over my laptop so that I can no longer access the Wikipedia "Did you know" and the other three sections on the Main Page. What has happened? How can I get to view those four sections, please? Garrymo (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Garrymo: Wikiwand is not affiliated with Wikipedia as far as I can tell. You will need to ask that company for help. RudolfRed (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This also sounds like it might be a malware related issue. You could try various antivirus and antispyware tools to see if this fixed the problem.--♦IanMacM♦ 06:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwand is notorious for taking over. I suggest you get rid of it and all its cookies. Shantavira| 11:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just uploaded Susan Stevens.

Can someone help me make the first subheading Guiding Songs under the section "Select compositions" appear as the rest, rather than plain text? I have used {{columns-list|colwidth=20em| which I suspect has made it go wonky, but I don't know how to correct it. Thank you! 01:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC) BJCHK (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BJCHK: Stuffing whole sections into a template parameter can cause different problems. I used {{div col}} instead.[4] There is a little whitespace at the start now but it's a minor issue. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter thank you! I am still on a steep learning curve with the more technical aspects of Wiki. The column-list is one of my newer additions. BJCHK (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article I want to make and it have caret, so is it within the scope of WP:TSC and WP:FORBIDDEN. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 07:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, go ahead. I'm not sure what your question or issue is. Shantavira| 10:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article title is "Ar^c". Should the special character be part of the article title or use a hatnote for it? 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 10:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the subject but if that is the Wikipedia:COMMONNAME used in reliable sources, I don't see why it shouldn't be the article title. Shantavira| 11:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah almost all reliable sources uses that title. Thank you @Shantavira. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 11:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not considered a special character in page names and we for example have ^txt2regex$. I would add an entry at Arc or ARC. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes noted and thank you @PrimeHunter. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 14:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The caret falls under MOS:TMRULES serving no purposes other than purely for decoration. This shouldn't be confused on whether special characters is or not allowed for article titling. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where have deleted contributions gone? Definite editors of a deleted page appear in its history, but the page isn't now showing in their deleted contributions. I've seen this problem on several pages now, but one example is that Draft:World on the Brink shows User:Fractal Figment as the main editor, but deleted contributions shows nothing. It's the same on other pages, and a least one other admin has noticed this recent development Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: It's a bug. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Deleted contributions invisible has some discussion and workarounds. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John of Reading thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HELP! The person who set up our Wikipedia page is no longer working here. I need to make a lot of changes to a small university Wikipedia page. Can someone please help us through the spider web that is editing a Wikipedia page? Catherine Wetzel at SU (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Catherine Wetzel at SU Wikipedia doesn't want employees of universities (or any other organisation) editing the articles directly owing to their conflict of interest. We have specific procedures for you to follow. First, you must declare yourself as a paid editor. See that link for how to do this. Then make an edit request on the Talk Page of the relevant article. This is easiest to do with the edit request wizard, which then alerts neutral editors to consider your suggestions. Make sure you include reliable sources which for some things can be the university website: see WP:ABOUTSELF. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]