Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 00:06, 24 November 2024

↑ To top of page

Shortcuts

Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)

For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
If your question is about a Wikipedia article, draft article, or other page on Wikipedia, tell us what it is!
Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).

Ask a question

Search the frequently asked questions

Search the help desk archives and other help pages

November 20

Why is a particular article protected?

My question refers to the article entitled “Doner kebab.”

I went to read it after ordering Middle Eastern takeout food today and finding doner on the menu but little explanation of what it was. As I read the article, I noticed a minor grammatical error and so I decided to correct it because I was already signed in to Wikipedia.

To my surprise, I was notified that I wasn’t allowed to make edits in the article because it was protected. A food article? Even if of Turkish derivation?

I’d really appreciate understanding this.

Augnablik (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Looking at the article's protection log, that article has an extensive history of disruptive editing, necessitating it be protected to prevent that disruption. From what I can tell most of that disruption is related to how to identify the nation the dish is associated with, there was much edit warring over it. It may sound silly, but such disputes happen. There was even a dispute about whether a single letter should be capitalized- which was so significant it merits an article- Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness debate. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Augnablik, the truth of the matter is that there have been many deeply entrenched ethnonationalist disputes about the histories and origins of countless culinary dishes that can be broadly described as Middle Eastern cuisine. The hostility and bitterness is related to the conflicts between Israel, Palestine and other Arab countries, extending outward to include Turkey, Greece and Iran. When these arguments get out of control, as they all too often do, then administrators must apply protection to the affected pages. Cullen328 (talk) 09:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief! Augnablik (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We never know where our day will lead, do we? An innocent lunch and thought to do a minor grammar fix morphs into a most unexpected Wikipedia discovery. Wow, the drama! Augnablik (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot

There was an exchange of such magnitude over capitalization of into used as a preposition? How could there have been any question in the first place, as it’s standard editing practice to lower-case in such situations? Augnablik (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was a little more complicated as a title of a film.....beyond that I'll defer to the article about the controversy. :) 331dot (talk) 13:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes … I should have picked up on that point. The problem could have been started off in Hollywood, not Wikipedia … but in that case, the Wiki issue probably was whether to correct an incorrectly-worded title! Augnablik (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik: you say there is a minor gramattical error in the article. Go to talk:Doner kebab and use {{Edit semi-protected}} to request your desired change. Mjroots (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be a little more specific about this, @Mjroots — I go to that page and exactly where do I find, or type, {{Edit semi-protected}}? Augnablik (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik Easiest if you copy from here to your clipboard the template: everything from the first { to the final } and then navigate to that talk page and click the "Add topic" tab. Give it a simple title, then in its main section, paste the template. It expects your change to be expressed as "change X to Y". The purpose of the template is to populate a category that other editors monitor for such simple change requests. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd, though; Augnablik's account has been around for over 2 years and she's made more than 10 300 edits, which should have given her extended confirmed rights. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are extended confirmed as of 18 May 2024. Likely this has to do with the protection notice in the source editor - this appears even when one has the user rights to edit the page. There are no WP:CT/A-I sanctions in place, though.Departure– (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm replying here to both Tenryuu 🐲 and Departure– ... partly because what I'll say is related to the last message each of you sent and partly because something weird is going on technologically so my replies to messages no longer immediately follow the one to which I'm replying.

I need to post a short sequel to my "Doner kebab" article dilemma. I went back to the article to try what Mike Turnbull and Mjroots suggested I do in order to edit. Of course I again saw the protection notice for the article. But this time I saw something that had escaped my notice the first time: that autoconfirmed and extended confirmed editors were allowed to edit. Earlier, I'd been so stunned to see the protection notice saying something that at first glance seemed to say I couldn't edit that I hadn't read the notice further.

This meant I could just go ahead and make the edit as usual. A happy ending, but I can't help wondering how many other editors have been fooled by a protection notice when they, like me, came to one for the first time. Why wouldn't this notice appear only to editors who don't yet have at least autoconfirmed status (which is what we get after just 10 edits)? Augnablik (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess the notices appear for everyone to remind people to stay within policy. Pages are usually protected for a reason, so it won't hurt anyone to tell people why. Although, perhaps instead of a red box the same as a warning it'd be better off as a yellow informative box for users who can edit the page. Departure– (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a yellow caution light instead of a red stop light! 😂 Augnablik (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All's well that ends well. Glad you got this sorted in the end. Mjroots (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template for a pile of references

While editing, I came across the episode section of Karen_(1964_TV_series)#Episodes. It has a pile of references dumped at the top of the section, I'm guessing they're there because they relate to the episodes and need moving to specific episodes. I've tried looking for a maintenance template that does the job of "This pile of references need moving to the appropriate piece of text" but can't find anything suitable. What would be the appropriate template for this occurrence? - X201 (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@X201 is {{no footnotes}} what you're looking for? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The rest of the article has footnotes and references that are properly done. The problem is this pile of inline references that are at the top of the Episodes section. Some of them are obviously about single episodes and so need to be moved to the correct positions, whereas it's unclear what some of the other references in that pile are actually referencing. I'm sure that there's some kind of cleanup template to cover this, but can't find the correct one. - X201 (talk) 08:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{Text-source}}? DMacks (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore or Draftify a deleted page

I am seeking assistance to restore a page that was deleted via AfD back in 2016 per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingsley's Chicken. I have attempted to contact the admin who closed the AfD (MBisanz) directly but received no response. I note the AfD occurred after a WP:REFUND which I understand to be a once only option.

A concern raised in the AfD was that it did not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and at the time, it was hard to locate published versions of existing RS. Since 2016, there has been renewed interest in this chain, including a YouTube documentary highlighting its links to a number of Australian Hip Hop artists as well as featuring in a movie. Additionally, news archives like Trove now make it easier to locate historical media coverage and I believe the article now meet notability criteria and I would like to access the previous version and work on it as a draft to update it. Who do I talk to to have it restored to the draft space please? Dfadden (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MBisanz is no longer active on Wikipedia, and is no longer an admin. Per WP:DRVPURPOSE Deletion review should not be used: #9, just post your request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Meters (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dfadden, you're probably better staring from scratch. The last version created said only Kingsley's Chicken is a Canberra based fast food chain offering chicken based burgers, wraps, torps, chips & gray, BBQ chickens and salads and the version prior to that had much the same plus a description of a "A controversial advertising campaign in 2000". Neither gave any evidence of notability nor real facts such as financials, number of employees etc. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I seem to remember a version existing with a bit more information than that, although I may be mistaken as it has been many years. I'm also interested in reviewing the references it was based on, however I am happy to recreate from scratch if that is not possible. Dfadden (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit, revert, ghost—How to proceed?

I'm in a somewhat frustrating situation. On 3 November, Szelma W (talk · contribs) reverted (Special:Diff/1255250737) an edit of mine (Special:Diff/1255197206). On 5 November, I created Talk:List of Mersenne primes and perfect numbers#Recent reversion - is anything salvageable? to discuss the matter, as the revert's edit summary "It was better" didn't really give me a lot to go on.

And there, the discussion has stalled, as @Szelma W hasn't been on WP since 4 November. It appears they tend to contribute in small bursts about once a week (although I haven't noticed an obvious day-of-the-week pattern) and it's been two weeks with no edit activity. It's not like they're specifically ignoring me, they just haven't been around in a while. So there's no bad faith, but it's still frustrating for me as the memory of the various number theory pages I was working on at the time fades.

Does anyone have any suggestion as to how to proceed? My only real complaint is the lack of specificity in the original revert (I try to be a lot more encouraging when reverting a good-faith edit), but that wouldn't be a problem if there were subsequent discussion. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation would be to ask for additional opinions at one or more of the Project pages listed at the top of the Talk page. Please phrase the request as neutrally as possible (e.g. "Additional options at X would be greatly appreciated."). That way you can form a consensus, and if Szelma is unable or unwilling to chime in, you will at least have the opinions of multiple other editors to work with. Hope this is helpful! DonIago (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

97, I don't think that was an appropriate edit summary for a revert of such magnitude. I see there have been edits at the article since then, which I'm unqualified to assess. There has also been no pointer to the discussion dropped at any of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, Talk:Mersenne prime, nor Talk:Perfect number.

As general advice, it might be an idea to try to make more, smaller edits if you're able: this will make it easier for reviewing editors to figure out what all you're tryna do. In this case maybe one edit to format the tables, one edit to alter the template transclusions, one to copyedit the prose, and one to reogranise the paragraph structure.

This piecemeal approach can also be used as a gradual method for manual reversion of a revert: changes can be incrementally reinstated, taking care to heed any advice for suggested alterations or guidance compliance left by the reverting editor (here none). As above, this will allow reviewing editors to assess each bit of the full contribution on individual merits, and avoids edit warring. Folly Mox (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Searching through redirects

The page Sigma Phi Beta contains #REDIRECT [[Sigma Sigma Omicron]] {{R with possibilities}}

Can someone please explain to me why a search for insource:/Sigma Sigma Omicron/ does not find it?

(My ultimate goal here is to find all Redirects with Possibilities that are Greek Letter Organizations, yes, I know there will be false positives. Still seems better than walking my way through all 24 of he links like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Redirects_with_possibilities?from=Delta Naraht (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an instance of phab:T204089. That has a comment:

As @stjn noticed the behaviour is even inconsistent. An insource search should find a redirect if this contains the search string, but it does not.

An example: There is a redirect Scil in dewiki. None of these searches does find it:

search for : insource:scil – https://de.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Suche&search=%3A+insource%3Ascil
search for : insource:"Liste lateinischer Abkürzungen#scil" – https://de.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Suche&search=%3A+insource%3A%22Liste+lateinischer+Abk%C3%BCrzungen%23scil%22

ColinFine (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine Anytime a question gets a link to an existing phab entry, it means I may have been doing it as well as I can. I'll follow the renewed activity on phab.Naraht (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 21

Need some help with pywikibot

I'm trying to set up a pywikibot script that fixes problematic date formats; specifically, it will turn 2024-11 into Nov 2024, and so on. I got some python code working in IDLE, and managed to transfer it to pywikibot. When I try to get it to run on test.wikipedia, however, it says Page [[Test]] saved but doesn't actually seem to be saving it.

Here's my code:

import pywikibot
import re


def replace(s):
    str(s)
    datelist = re.findall("\\d\\d\\d\\d-\\d\\d", s)
    print(datelist)
    date = datelist[0]
    month = date[5:]
    year = date[:4]
    monthn = 'Something is wrong.'
    if month == '01':
        monthn = 'Jan '

    if month == '02':
        monthn = 'Feb '

    if month == '03':
        monthn = 'Mar '

    if month == '04':
        monthn = 'Apr '

    if month == '05':
        monthn = 'May '

    if month == '06':
        monthn = 'Jun '

    if month == '07':
        monthn = 'Jul '

    if month == '08':
        monthn = 'Aug '

    if month == '09':
        monthn = 'Sep '

    if month == '10':
        monthn = 'Oct '

    if month == '11':
        monthn = 'Nov '

    if month == '12':
        monthn = 'Dec '


    dateresult = monthn + year
    str(dateresult)
    print(dateresult)
    st = s.find(date)
    print(st)
    en = st + 7
    startstuff = s[:st]
    endstuff = s[en:]
    finalresult = startstuff + dateresult + endstuff
    print(finalresult)

mylang = 'test'
family = 'wikipedia'
site = pywikibot.Site()
page = pywikibot.Page(site, "Test")
text = page.text
replace(text)
page.save("Test date fix")

You should be able to view and run the code here.

Thanks for any assistance you can offer, Cremastra ‹ u — c › 00:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems rather specialized for a general help desk. See mw:Manual:Pywikibot#Get help for other options. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, I'll see if anyone is on IRC. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 01:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing may be helpful if there isn't and you still need something. Tolozen (talk) 07:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to update page.text. As it is, you're printing the new revision to the terminal, but you're not actually sending it to the server. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlwoodwa d'oh. :) Cremastra ‹ u — c › 22:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Commons Copyright explanation help

Hello everyone, I am looking to upload images that are not mine and need help with copyright. Terms of conditions from the owner say: "Copyright © 2008-2024 Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Croatia. All rights reserved. Content from this site may be transmitted without special permission provided the source is acknowledged." Now im interested if I am free to upload and if I am, under which license?

Thanks to whoever helps. Persian Meowth (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to ask this is the Commons Help Desk. Maproom (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The short and sweet answer, Persian Meowth, is that no image that is labeled Copyright © (any recent date) or All rights reserved will be accepted on Wikimedia Commons, because they simply do not host copyright protected content. As for uploading the image to the English Wikipedia instead, the image would need to fully comply with the very stringent standards described at Non free content -images. For legal compliance reasons, these standards are taken very seriously. Cullen328 (talk) 09:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thats very unfortunate for me lol. But to complicate things a bit I received this from the autor: author (Government ministry of the Armed Forces) stated "Content from this site may be transmitted without special permission provided the source is acknowledged". Furthermore, he stated that "said statement should be the basis of free use for whatever purpose, commercial or otherwise as it implies that the content is uploaded for everyone to use as long as it meets the criteria of naming the source".

Now honestly, I have no idea why they didn't upload an image under Creative Commons in the first place if they are waiving all rights (except for naming the autor) in this clause, but i didn't bother to ask that question unfortunately Persian Meowth (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Meowth, when a photo is labeled Copyright © 2008-2024 Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Croatia. All rights reserved, that is powerful legal language that absolutely prevents the image from being uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Any casual language that follows is of no significance. The people who run that website can remove that formal legal copyright language and substitute an acceptable Creative Commons license instead. Cullen328 (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Inscriptions and Herostones" articles

I've noticed a pattern of articles with titles ending in "Inscriptions and Herostones" or "Inscriptions & Herostones". I've copyedited and fixed bare URLs on a couple, but now that I've discovered just how many there are I'm not sure how to proceed. They all follow a similar format and I believe were created by the same user. They need copyediting, often rely on one source, and many have the same GitHub link in them which may be due to some kind of WP:COI. How should I proceed? The articles should at least all follow the same naming convention, not having "and" and "&" interspersed at random, and they usually have the region they're in in parentheses halfway through the article title. I didn't know where to ask because there's not one single talk page for such a group. Here's an example: Gulakamale (Bengaluru) Inscriptions and Herostones. Thanks. Tolozen (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tolozen, if you are concerned about COI you could ask the main editor and go to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard if you don't get a satisfactory answer. If you want to encourage other editors to improve the articles, you could start a discussion on a single page, possibly Talk:Kannada inscriptions, and post links at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology. Other editors may or may not be interested in the work. Most of the articles are at "Inscriptions and Herostones", I think this should be "inscriptions and hero stones" in sentence case, per Hero stone. TSventon (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source hosted on a fanpage

I've been editing the article on Selected Ambient Works Volume II in preparation for a GA assessment. I wanted to add information about the recording history, and found a fairly useful interview about the album. While the source is hosted on a dedicated fanpage to the artist, the source itself is an independent magazine, with a scan uploaded to this site. I couldn't find any other links to the desired source apart from this archive. Would this be okay to cite? Or is this totally unacceptable? Beachweak (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the magazine is a reliable source, you should just cite the magazine and not worry about where you found it. 331dot (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For GA, the source is probably adequate. It will depend on whether the reviewer will accept Richard James (1994). "Selected Ambient Words Vol. 1". Movement zine (Interview). No. 1. Interviewed by freelance attitude boy Jeremy. pp. 11–12 – via Lanner Chronicle blog.

Oh my gosh the typesetting!

It's clearly not what would pass muster for a highest quality reliable source (reputation for fact-checking etc) and shouldn't be used to support contentious or extraordinary claims, but we have little reason to believe the contents are fraudulent. Folly Mox (talk) 11:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In an era of deep fakes, hoax sites and Photoshop, I believe that no supposed scan of an alleged article should ever be used for sourcing. If it's not verifiable, don't use it; if it's been verified, then reference the actual original publication, not somebody's purported scan of a publication. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's absolutely not ideal and I intend to do a better search on sites like archive.org once I get onto a network that doesn't block access; was also just interested to know in the case of there being no other free source available Beachweak (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't need to be free, or even have a url. Orangemike's perspective is certainly valid. I would not personally suspect as a deepfake or a Photoshop anything with as many spelling, punctuation, and typographic errors as freelance attitude boy Jeremy's interview. And I can't tell if the top right of the second page is cut off from the scanning, or by the unfathomable design decision to format the text into a trapezoid, then justify the paragraphs by some method that included whitespace between punctuation (which also created lines consisting entirely of punctuation).

If this is a deepfake, it's certainly consistent with the vibe of the launch issue of a free mid-90s zine with no lasting presence on the internet, overenthusiastically formatted by a teenager using a word processing program for the first time.

Although, now that I type that up, it's also entirely possible that the whole interview was fabricated for cred. Folly Mox (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tsui Ming-sum

I came across the Tsui Ming-sum article while participating in the WP:NOV24 unreferenced articles drive. @JTtheOG flagged it as a possible WP:COPYVIO, but I think that it is more the case that it's an undeclared WP:COI and/or unintentional sockpuppetry, with editors acting on the subject's behalf, and using the subject's resume/CV as source material. Which of course, the subject uses on his institution web page, hence the c. 80% similarity

I note that the creating editor User:Tsui lincoln has only contributed to this article. Also, other substantial contributors:

may be sockpuppets for a single person - the edit summaries, to me, suggest that they are, and admit that they are editing on behalf of the subject.

In any case, I am not quite sure what best to do - I've drawn out some of the subject's more notable publications from the text body into a Selected Publications section, with some citations, which should get it off the WP:NOV24 backlog - that is my principal motivation! - but I am not especially interested in completely revamping the article, at least in the short term. None of the other alternatives (removing the copied content, submitting it for deletion) seemed especially attractive - because my sense is that the subject is probably sufficiently notable under WP:ACADEMIC - and I didn't want, in the first instance, to fling around COI / sockpuppetry accusations on the article's Talk page, as I think they were certainly not malicious in intent, and the edits happened six years ago. I would be grateful for some advice as to the best course of action. Thanks in advance! SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SunloungerFrog the 80+% copy of an all rights reserved source is way over the threshold, and there's nothing worth keeping without that, so I've deleted on G12. I'll post coi warnings too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak thanks for your help! SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SunloungerFrog I've posted COI welcome messages and tagged the accounts with AFG-sock warnings Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if it is a series of sockpuppets you're dealing with on the articles, than you should know where to report it. 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 15:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2601AC47 there are half a dozen SPA accounts editing this article between 2007 and 2021. Most of the account names are obviously similar, and I agree with SunloungerFrog that there is no real attempt to evade scrutiny, but none of the accounts seem to have had COI or multiple accounts warnings until today. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Named reference in infobox, unsure how to access

I'm trying to access citations in Template:Infobox_darmstadtium and finding that they aren't ever defined elsewhere. For example:

|electrons per shell comment=''(predicted)''<ref name=Haire/>

There's no other references to Haire in that article except further calls of the citation. How can I find the code it's referring to?

The wikidata items for both Darmstadtium and the infobox page don't have the reference either. Corsaka (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to stem from this edit in 2012, when the reference named "electron-configuration" was renamed "Haire", with no explanation. The template thereafter started reporting that Haire" was multiply defined - though I don't see another definition of it.

My guess is that at that point it was in a transcluded template, but I'm not sure which; and the definition was later removed from darmstadtium, and later still removed from whichever included template had it. ColinFine (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the definition of ref name "Haire" was removed in this edit in 2019, and the template stopped reporting a duplicate reference when you look at it.

That version still has citations of "Haire", so it must still be defined somewhere in scope; but I don't know where. Presumably it's now been removed from wherever it still was. ColinFine (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, I've found it! The infobox has a small references button that contains several lists worth of references for all this data. I've found the exact reference on the electron configuration data page.

I still don't fully understand why <ref name=Haire/> links directly to it, though, so if anyone has further insight, that'd be appreciated.

Corsaka (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If both the defining citation and the calling citation end up on the same page (eg by being in separate templates that are both transcluded) then I think they will match up. ColinFine (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to see which pages the current page is transcluding? WhatLinksHere does the opposite, only showing pages that transclude the current page. There's a light inconsistency between the two citations that I've only just seen, and now I'm curious as to where exactly this is coming from. Corsaka (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Corsaka: See "Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page" at the bottom of the edit window. For a preview it lists what the preview is transcluding. The Haire ref is from Template:Element-symbol-to-oxidation-state-data. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, you may try 'advanced' searching for insource:"Haire" in the 'Templates' space. I would be happy to do it for you, but it's quite annoying task to perform on my mobile's screen. --CiaPan (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friends Church (Yorba Linda)

Could someone please take a look at my comment at Talk:Friends Church (Yorba Linda)? I would prefer to not edit that page myself because I know some people who go there and want to avoid the appearance of a COI. That and I pretty much don't edit articles any longer for reasons I won't go into here. Thanks! --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! The job has been completed, and all of the updates have been made. Midtv22342 (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User Page CSS Help

I am an avid user of the Simple English Wikipeida and have helped out with the editing on Simple English and this Wikipedia. I am working on copying my User Page onto this Wikipedia, and one of my CSS styles on the page are giving me errors about how the CSS has to be sanitized. Is this intended behavior? If it is, how do I "Sanitize" the CSS? Thanks in advance. Link to the CSS

Midtv22342 (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Midtv22342: It's intended and can only be done by an interface administrator. You can place this on the talk page:

{{Edit interface-protected}}
Please change the content model to sanitized CSS. ~~~~

PrimeHunter (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can wait for a iadmin who happens to be watching the help desk to change the content model for you ... * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 22

I give you every year all that I can afford. Please stop with the incessant begathon

I give $50 a year to Wikipedia. That is all that I can afford, most years. However, ever time, in the past few months, that I try to use Wikipedia (even on a near daily basis), I am confronted with your begathon for more money. Please stop. I have given you all that I can. Please, no more of this daily of “Give us more money”. 67.83.212.36 (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A legitimate concern that others have had over the years. However, if you are tired of seeing the fundraising banners, you can create an account and uncheck Preferences → Banners →

Fundraising. You may still donate annually as you please, granted that this is still a "begathon" by the WMF; if you have concerns about that, see here. 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 00:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to connect your IP address when reading Wikipedia with any financial donation you may have made to the Wikimedia Foundation. If there was, it would be a privacy violation. As 2601AC47 points out, registering an account gives you the ability to shut off the fundraising banners. Plus, it is free, quick and easy, and gives you higher levels of privacy and anonymity. Cullen328 (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Judy Mikovits page

Courtesy link: Judy Mikovits

You have total lies about Dr. Mikovits who had the cure for aides before it killed so many. They put her in prison and stole all her research to stop her from letting the cure be known. Everything you have on her is from the "Powers that Be" that are controlling this world. You should learn the truth before putting false information on Wikipedia. I recommend you learn the truth and correct her page. She is one of the good guys but you fell for the lies and propaganda against her and posted it. 2603:8080:A00:715E:FD91:5B64:40B6:AD7C (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have donated to you when i can as an elderly person on a very small fixed income. But seeing that you didn't research Dr. Judy Mikovits before postimg lies, i don't know if i want to donate again unless i know you have done the research on people you have posted false information on. 2603:8080:A00:715E:FD91:5B64:40B6:AD7C (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, per the biographies of living persons, neutral point of view and verifiability policies, there's little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. To pull from them: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence.

Secondly, as noted in a section above, you're not obligated in any way to donate, but still... 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 02:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, she's subject to contentious topic restrictions by ArbCom for good reasons. 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 02:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia editors do is accurately summarize what published reliable sources say about a topic, Mikovitz in this case, not what random indignant people on the internet say. Judy Mikovits has 56 references to reliable sources, and that article summarizes them. If you think that your threat to withhold financial donations will influence our content decisions, then I have a few words for you: no it won't and we don't care. Cullen328 (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of Five Pillars of Wikipedia is "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute". This means you can edit, too. If you have any Reliable source about the subject, Be bold and add relevant info to the article. We are happy to present all the solid, verifiable information.
(BTW, your donation goes to Wikimedia Foundation who runs Wikipedia, not to us, authors and editors, so whether you do or do not donate does not affect our activity here.) --CiaPan (talk) 07:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

. . . although actually you can't edit it, not yet, anyway, as it's semi-protected. What you can do in the meantime is, on Talk:Judy Mikovits, use Template:Edit semi-protected to specify changes that would improve the article, of course citing reliable, disinterested sources for these improvements. -- Hoary (talk) 12:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can read arguments similar to yours, and refutations of them, at Talk:Judy Mikovits. Also, please see WP:FRINGE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could I advise you to read WP:TRUTH? In short, we are not the truth, we do not claim to be the truth, and it is not our goal to be the truth. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template question

{{Historical Dictionary of Switzerland}} currently has in its documentaten that the |date= should always be written as YYYY-MM-DD and it's also displayed that way. Would it be possible to make it display 21 November 2024 instead of 2024-11-21? Nobody (talk) 07:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@1AmNobody24: The documentation seems obsolete. In ancient times we usually wikilinked dates and had a feature to autoformat such date links but it has been possible to write anything in date since the link brackets were removed in 2009.[1] It will just display whatever is written. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it will be easier to just go change it with AWB. Nobody (talk) 12:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how to better myself

and better Wikipedia. I'm a quadriplegic learning to read faster on the internet through Wikipedia and type with the keyboard on screen using the most and other devices. I joined Wikipedia to learn more and to better myself. in the why did I join Wikipedia page. I wish it would have a to better myself. or an optional type in why I join. I joined because I wanted to teach and learn at the same time remember for that I need a repository that's teaching and learning TheChrisyllabus (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheChrisyllabus: - I've posted a welcome notice on your user talk page. Please click on the link marked "Learn more about editing", which takes you to a page with lots of helpful links. Any questions, please ask at my talk page. Mjroots (talk) 11:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheChrisyllabus: Welcome! I know of Wikipedia editors who are blind and use screen-reading software, but not of anyone else reading or editing in your circumstances, though there must be. One of the former is User:Graham87, and he might know if there is a forum or user-group for people using various kinds of assistive technology to read or edit Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, but you can ask accessibility-related questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility. Graham87 (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing:, I think people have missed TheChrisyllabus's point, at least as I understand it. When someone creates a new WP account, do they encounter a survey that asks "Why are you joining WP?" (I created my account long enough ago that I don't recall what I encountered.) I think TheChrisyllabus is saying that they wish there had been either a survey option saying "to better myself" or a survey fill-in option where they could have filled in "to better myself." If such a survey exists, I have no idea how the options are determined and whom to pass the suggestion along to. If such a survey doesn't exist, then clearly I've misunderstood. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FactOrOpinion: I joined Wikipedia so long ago that we didn't have to put up with such nonsense.

Mjroots (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting an article

I have done a lot of research on a person who is not the subject of a Wikipedia page, although two of his sons are. I'd like to submit the article without going through the editing training. Please advise if this is possible. Many thanks. Geoff Blow (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's not a conflict of interest with the person in question.

To create an article, follow these steps:

Read Your first article carefully.
If you don't have an account, consider creating one (it's not essential, but it makes some things easier, especially communicating with other editors) and logging in.
Learn the basics of editing with the Wikipedia:Tutorial
Make sure the subject is notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article
Gather reliable sources to cite in the article
Make sure no article on the subject exists under a different title by typing the subject into the search box and clicking 'Search'
Use the Article Wizard to create a draft.
Create the article, including all your references, making sure you adhere to the Manual of Style and our article layout guidelines. Base the article on what the references say, rather than on what you know.
Once you believe that your draft meets Wikipedia's requirements, submit it for review by picking the "Submit your draft for review" button in the draft.
Be aware that many drafts are not accepted the first time, or even the second time they are submitted for review, for failing to adhere to our policies and guidelines. New articles by new users are particularly likely not to be accepted, due to new users' unfamiliarity with our rules. Consider gaining experience by editing existing articles before attempting to create new ones. 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 14:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, take it from me, the training's mostly through trial and error. 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 15:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Blow You're kind of asking "I want to build a house but I don't want to take classes in construction." Is there a particular reason you don't want to learn about Wikipedia first? 331dot (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:ABOUTME. This is *very* good advice. While it may seem like fun at first to have a Wikipedia article about yourself, over a period of time many people have found that it isn't, for the reasons laid out in this essay.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I already pointed that out implicitly. 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 15:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this but I don't want to write about myself. The subject of the article died in 1985 but was a very high profile figure locally. I want to show his achievements but understand that the article should be neutral. Geoff Blow (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, but I have already written a lot about the subject of my article, who founded my choir 100 years ago and died in 1985. I appreciate that the article should be neutral, which I can do easily. I can list sources, compile lists for Discography, Awards, Competition achievements, Personal life etc.

what I can't do at the moment is create the hyperlinks to sources or relevant people, such as his two famous children and the most famous competitions in which he competed with the choir. I'd be very happy to submit the article and allow a more experienced editor create these. Geoff Blow (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May I recommend reaching out to members of one of these WikiProjects who can help you in making that process smooth? 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 17:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's really helpful. Thank you. I'll do that. Best wishes, Geoff Geoff Blow (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And that has yet to happen. FYI, there's this proposal that indirectly relates to what we've been dealing with here for the last 3-4 weeks. 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 15:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding the correct usage of sources/citing

Hello. I'm rather new to contributing to Wikipedia and have a few questions regarding sources. I recently contributed to the article (Distributed_version_control), and as such I used a direct manual as a source. But my sources weren't direct or word for word. (E.g "This is what someone said"[1] -> https://example.com/said.pdf) but instead, it was a rephrase/overview of the source itself. An example was "It allows developers to work in independent branches and apply changes that can later be committed, audited and merged (or rejected)" where I sourced (https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.1/process/submitting-patches.html). Is this up to Wikipedias standard or is direct phrasing required/preferred? Please let me know, if this isn't up to what is expected I'll undo my changes.

Thank you! Oak Atsume (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is where reliable sources should be noted (and example.com isn't exactly a good one). If they are questionable, self-published or deprecated, than they shouldn't be used. Also of note, maybe, is whether this is non-free content. Be sure that this is fair use. 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 15:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. example.com was just an example. For my case, I use direct sources such as the official kernel's documentation and sources from the git documentation itself.

My main concern is what is considered proper sourcing. In my case, I rephrased things such as "repository and work on such from a local environment where changes are tracked and committed to the local repository." While this isn't directly stated in the source itself (https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Tools-Revision-Selection), the idea and statement still stand. Is this considered appropriate? or is direct sourcing preferred? Oak Atsume (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Oak Atsume. "Direct sources such as the official kernel's documentation and sources from the git documentation itself" are of very limited value for a Wikipedia article. They may be used once an article has already been substantially written from independent sources, to add uncontroversial factual information, but the bulk of the article must be written based on independent sources, i.e. what people wholly unconnected with the subject of the article have chosen to write and get published in reliable sources. And in particular, non-independent sources do not contribute to establishing that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful, as well, to only say in an article what the source says. We prohibit any effort at "interpretation" which approaches original research and synthesis. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need help logging in

i need help log in 2601:587:8201:9380:C8B4:9D7B:969:A9AA (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Help:Logging in and if you then have a more specific question, feel free to return to the Help Desk. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing Wikidata connection

I moved Protein THEMIS to THEMIS (protein), and now the page has an error about the Wikidata entry. I tried renaming the same named entry in Wikidata, but that didn't fix it. Does anyone know how to make this work? Dimpizzy (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dimpizzy, this should be fixed. What you needed to do was edit the old Wikidata item to remove the link to Protein THEMIS and add a link to THEMIS (protein), so I did that. You had created a new Wikidata item, so I have merged it with the old one. TSventon (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing that! Dimpizzy (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 23

Scraping Wikipedia for AI Training

It is ok to using scraper to scrape Wikipedia for AI Training? 6D (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 6D. If you want to download a large number of Wikipedia pages, please do not use a web crawler, as the servers use considerable resources to convert wikimarkup to HTML. If you're downloading a small number of pages, leaving a small delay (at least a second per request) might be considered more reasonable, see also the page about database downloads, which has more information about this and how to get a database download instead. You are legally allowed to use content under the CC BY-SA 3.0 licence. You can also reach out to the Wikimedia Foundation's Machine Learning Team (mw:Machine Learning) if you think there's anything you can contribute back. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It will get IP blocked if you scarping too fast? 6D (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that you might get blocked or rate limited. You will be able to do AI training much faster if you use Database download instead. TiggerJay (talk) 06:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sir dr raj shekhawat has a famous celebrity and political backgroud but have not any wiki pedia page he also karni sena president this should be fixxed

sir dr raj shekhawat has a famous celebrity and political backgroud but have not any wiki pedia page he also karni sena president this should be fixed 2402:A00:408:1B0D:8024:1C3A:D4EB:EB6E (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can request that an article be created over at Wikipedia:Requested articles, alternately you can consider writing the article yourself. TiggerJay (talk) 06:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make a proper bulleted list in a blockquote?

At Design Law Treaty#Legal provisions, I am unable to make the first bullet being displayed as a bullet (and not as a "*") without putting a <br> before it.

Could someone please show me how to? Veverve (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change the text on {{blockquote}} to use a {{flowlist}} template:

{{Blockquote|text={{flowlist|

Don't forget to add the {{flowlist}}'s closing }} before those of {{blockquote}} Bazza 7 (talk) 12:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist filter

Hi, how can I hide the changes by one user on my watchlist? I've searched the available filters, is there a script? Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Braddock deGavre

I am trying to edit my draft. I cannot edit it. Can you please tell me why?? Robert T. deGavre (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Robert T. deGavre. What do you mean when you say you can't edit it? What actually happens when you try to edit Draft:Chester Braddock deGavre? ColinFine (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Chester Braddock deGavre

Here you are. Please note it's currently in draftspace - the non-public holding place for incomplete and work in progress articles - and isn't likely to be published and moved to mainspace in its current state. Departure– (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yo i got a question on how to make a page?

. PostRhythmRecords (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PostRhythmRecords Very few folk here respond well to "yo", but I will attempt it. Please read HELP:YFA. I have one caveat, which is your user name. It suggests that you are a business. If it is then you will need to consider changing it, the more so if it reflects your business. You will also need to comply with WP:PAID if writing about this putative business. In any case you may not promote that business 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @PostRhythmRecords. While "make a page" is not a completely wrong description of what we do here, using it suggests that (like many people) you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and how it works.

A better description is "write an encyclopaedia article about". An article should be a summary of what independent published sources say about a subject, and little else. 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 entirely 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.

It is also the case that trying to create a new article before you have spent time learning about Wikipedia's policy and practices is often very disappointing and frustrating. 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.

Judging from your username, as FiddleFaddle says, I would advise you to read WP:BOSS, WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:Username policy straight away. ColinFine (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 24

v t e Wikipedia help pages
*Visit the Teahouse* or the Help desk for an interactive Q & A forum. FAQs (?) Reference desks (?) Noticeboards (?) Cheatsheet (?) Directories (?)**
About Wikipedia (?)	Administration Purpose Principles Policies and guidelines What Wikipedia is not Disclaimer (parental advice) Making requests Who writes Wikipedia?
Help for readers (?)	FAQ Books Copyright Glossary Mobile access Navigation Other languages Searching Students Viewing media
Contributing to Wikipedia (?)	Advice for young editors Avoiding common mistakes Etiquette Simplified Manual of Style Simplified rule-set "Ignore all rules" "The rules are principles" Style-tips Tip of the day Your first article (article wizard)
Getting started (?)	Why create an account? Introductions by topic Graphics tutorials Picture tutorial IRC (live chat) tutorial VisualEditor user guide
Dos and don'ts (?)	Accessibility Biographies Biographies (living) Categorization Consensus Discussions Disambiguation Images Leads Links Lists References Tables Titles (of articles)
How-to pages and information pages (?)	Appealing blocks Article deletion Categories Citations/references Referencing for beginners Citation Style 1 Cite errors References and page numbers Convert Diff Editing Minor edit toolbar edit conflict Find sources Files Footnotes Image deletion Infoboxes Linking (link color) Logging in Merging Page name Renaming pages Redirect Passwords Email confirmation Reverting Simple vandalism cleanup Talk pages (archiving simple archiving) User contributions WP search protocol
Coding (?)	Wiki markup Barcharts Calculations Characters Columns Elevation Hidden text HTML Lists Magic words Music symbols Sections Sounds Tables Templates Transclusion URL Visual files
Directories (?)	Abbreviations Contents (Encyclopedia proper) Departments Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Guidelines Manual of Style Policies Tasks Tips Tools
Missing Manual Ask for help on your talk page (?)