Wikipedia:Help desk

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

September 1

Removal of birthdate per WP:BLP

Per WP:BLP you may ask to have your birthday removed. When I asked, someone was kind enough to do this for me, including removing it from the article history. My friend Lindsay Burns would also like her birthday removed. I took it off the page. Is there a way I can remove it from the page history or request this be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asbruckman (talk • contribs) 16:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

1. You have misrepresented or misunderstood what WP:BLP says about birthdates, and
2. In spite of your declared WP:COI, you have already removed the reliably sourced birthdate (rather than reducing it to just birth year), and

   Struck (I see you corrected it to year only in the next edit)

3. The declared COI/paid editor requesting the birthdate removal is SighSci (see User talk:SighSci#August 22); your post here could be interpreted to mean that SighSci is Lindsay Burns.

The full matter is currently being discussed at SighSci's talk and at the COI noticeboard. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Pueblo Nuevo, Temuco

Hello, the article Pueblo Nuevo, Temuco has an error in reference 27. And the references in the Share taxis, Metro and Metrotren Araucanía sections do not appear in the References section.I don't know how to fix it. Thanks in advance. Soy Juampayo (talk) 04:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Done, I was able to do the correction myself. Hugs. Soy Juampayo (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Outdated Data for Emplifi Article

@Timtempleton: said here the Emplifi Wikipedia page is pulling out-dated, pre-acquisition financials for the infobox from Wikidata (no new information is publicly available). He suggested I post here about how to stop wikidata from auto-populating the infobox, if possible, as it would be better to leave it blank than use financials that are just of the acquired business. JordanJulian19 (talk) 08:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@JordanJulian19: I think this is an easy delinking question for someone who knows the ins and outs of Wikidata. If that person isn't here, I also posted a question linking to this question and the other Wikidata question above at the Wikidata help desk. [[2]] TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Tool for seeing how people navigated to a page

What can I use if I want to see how users navigated to a certain page (so like, if I wanna see how users got to the page for "Canada", I can see that 23% got there from a search engine like Google, 10% got there by searching, 8% got there by clicking a wikilink on the "North America" page, 5% got there by clicking a wikilink on the "Ontario" page, etc.). I definitely have used this tool before, but I can't remember what it was called, and couldn't find it listed in relevant WP/help pages. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@TheGEICOgecko toolforge:WikiNav 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! TheGEICOgecko (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Wrong Talk Page

I just expanded Michigan eLibrary, however there is no Talk Page for this article. The Talk Page goes to Library of Michigan which is wrong. How can I get it corrected, where Michigan eLibrary has its own Talk Page? Keep in mind that Library of Michigan still has to have its own Talk Page. Two different articles that each should have their own Talk Page. Thanks for technical help.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Click the "redirected from" link at the top of Talk:Michigan eLibrary after it's been redirected. You can edit the page and remove the redirect. Bazza (talk) 10:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I corrected it this way. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Allied Names for WWII Japanese Aircraft

The Code name Joyce on the Wikipedia page says it is an unknown Nakajima plane but I found a page that says it was a fictional plane (https://ww2db.com/other.php?other_id=32)

If I could get logged in I'd be posting under my name  :) 2605:A601:AF50:4200:25A8:3072:A564:4863 (talk) 11:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I suppose the page in question would be World War II Allied names for Japanese aircraft, and suggest you post on the article talk page regarding the source. Sam Sailor 16:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily

WorldNetDaily references are unreadable.

• 1 a b c [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]
• 2 a b [13][14][15][16][17][18]
• 26 [19][7][20][4][21][22][23][24][8][25]

0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that there's a wild case of WP:Citation overkill? Or that it's just not human-readable? Explodicator7331 (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems like something went horribly wrong with this edit. The 40+ subsequent edits to the article will make it difficult to fix. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn Not sure what you mean, the groups of refs are still there in previous versions, they just appear after the refs inside them (e.g. the first bundle is ref no 9). It would be possible to separate the bundles of references out into a "notes" section using {{Efn}} and {{notelist}} if preferred. This seems to be yet another case of 0mtwb9gd5wx wasting everyone's time by asking poorly written questions: [3] [4] [5] [6]. If they expect other people to be able to help them they should at least put the effort in to write in proper English that other people stand a chance of understanding. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be preferable to separate the bundles into a notes section. As 0mtwb9gd5wx pointed out, the way it is now they aren't "readable" - i.e. they aren't expanded. In the article you see a footnote that leads to a footnote rather than a readable reference. I get why they're bundled, but they need to be expanded somewhere. Also, you are correct that they were bundled that way before the edit I pointed out - the bundles just weren't in the same location in the article, meaning it was less noticeable. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn The "footnote leads to a footnote" setup is intentional, it's called nesting footnotes and is quite commonly used when certain statements need a lot of references, e.g. most of the entries in List of video games considered the best and similar lists use this setup. The citations seem to be fine to me, if you use citation popups (default gadget) you can hover over the reference in the reference to get the full details of each source. As I said above though WorldNetDaily references are unreadable is not a question and we have no way of knowing what the issue here actually is. Unless 0mtwb9gd5wx comes back to tell us what they find "unreadable" about them I don't think there's much we can do here. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The mess at WorldNetDaily does not resemble anything that's recommended at nesting footnotes.   Maproom (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Need help publishing bio

New to wikipedia and trying to publish my Bio on wikipedia, I already created a words document draft, if anyone can help me publish it would be very grateful. I can send the word document private if you wish to help. Kanetam (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Kanetam: You are strongly discouraged from writing an autobiography about yourself on Wikipedia, as it is generally very hard for a subject to write neutrally about themselves. You may want to use a social networking site to do so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The article is not about me, it's about a Professor / book publisher that works in my country. Does that change anything? and if so, then how do I publish their bio Kanetam (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Kanetam, create a WP:DRAFT. Read WP:YFA for an overview of the article creation process. Sungodtemple (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Kanetam: In that case I'd suggest following Sungodtemple's suggestion, and make sure you have reliable sources that establish the subject's notability as Wikipedia defines it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Kanetam. As Tenryuu says, this is strongly discouraged. If you are unfamiliar with writing for Wikipedia it is unlikely that any of what you have written will be suitable. You would need to find several places where people wholly unconnected with you, and not quoting your words, have written a significant amount of material about you and been published by reliable sources - if these do not exist, then you do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability (like most of us) and no article is possible. If you can find such sources, you will then have the extremely difficult task of forgetting everything you know about yourself, and writing an article based wholly on what those people have published about you - including people who have been strongly critical of you, if there happen to be some.

If you succeed in getting an article written and accepted, it will not belong to you, will not be controlled by you, and might end up saying what you do not want it to say.

Do you see why we disourage you from trying? ColinFine (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Kanetam. I've seen your clarification. Much of my reply still applies: it is unlikely that your draft will be appropriate unless you have already worked with sources in the way I have suggested. ColinFine (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

User talk page mystery

I feel a complete fool asking a question here after 16+ years of editing Wikipedia, but when I recently archived my talk page the generated 'User talk:Derek R Bullamore/Archive 25' seems to be hanging on the talk page, rather than nesting in the cream coloured box to the right. There is probably an easy answer to this, but I am stumped (or LBW, bowled, caught, or even hit the ball twice). Many thanks - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

It was fixed by Trappist the monk in this diff (the link needed to be placed inside the {{Archive box}} template). DanCherek (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Recent donation

I tried to donate $500 as a onetime donation. My receipt said I donated $5000. Please correct this mistake no matter which of us made it. 76.171.34.121 (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Please try following these steps to request a refund. DanCherek (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2

USS Grant County (Cuban Crisis Involvement)

I served on the USS Grant County from Oct 10th 1961 ti Oct 10th 1964. Never did we stop at Camp Pendleton. That's in California! It was Camp LeJuene, N.C. that we stopped and picked up marines and did our thing during the Cuban crisis. I was Radioman 2nd class and served with some great sailors, mainly Melvin Bladen, Jerry Howard, Armando Arredondo, Chuck Chenoweth and Bill Leibold. We stopped at Camp LeJeune several times while I was actively on the ship. Never did we stop at Camp Pendleton. Wow....what an error. Thanks. Richard Warren Rew4219 (talk) 04:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy link: USS Grant County.
The article could use better referencing, but the statement that the ship was in Camp Pendleton in October 1962 comes from the Naval History and Heritage Command web site, which is an "official U.S. Navy web site". If you are claiming that the US Navy is wrong about the history of one of its ships, you should make your case on the talk page of the USS Grant County article. You will need to present a published source, not merely your memory. CodeTalker (talk) 07:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I want to learn about current English Wikiperia POV.

Hello, this account is 14 years old, but I only did less than 500 edits. I am not a native English speaker, which makes me require fixing Wikipedia pages about my country , made by western views.

I am currently joining an Afd discussion which needs worldwide views. The editor who created the article says, "English Wikipedia is always like this.Fix the article" (I avoid to talk Afd itself).Was it? Was English Wikipedia always biased unless we non-English countries native join to fix? Please understand, I am asking sincerely. It's always difficult to fix western biased articles. Paperworkorange (talk) 05:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I add I noticed there are so many systemic biases here in wikipedia so I joined WikiProject Countering systemic bias.It doesn't mean I understand the current situation.In this 14 years,world changed in crazy way, possibly wikipedia, too. Could you teach me systemic bias is becoming norm or still not? Paperworkorange (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Paperworkorange I think it depends on the topic. For example, political views can lead to very heated arguments which in turn make it difficult for Wikipedia to maintain its core policy of a neutral point of view. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, it just means that the sources which we use are more difficult to summarise to everyone's satisfaction. The same can be said of the way that editors on English Wikipedia may write about controversial topics such as the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, where almost inevitably we will take a "western" perspective. However, for less emotive topics such as almost all science subjects, it is easier to write neutrally, although some would argue we don't allow fringe opinions enough weight. You are welcome to help counter any bias but please remember that your own opinions are simply not relevant when writing articles: we only describe what already-published reliable sources say. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

When English editors write about non-English speaking country, (Yes maybe Russian invasion is included, but there is international law Russia broke, so it's neutral.) For example, inevitably there are little English sources when it comes to non-English speaking countries. Problem is, we non-English speaker are seeing so many article to fix.

I'm glad wikipedia don't allow fringe opinions, as what I deal with is fringe opinion.Thank you.Paperworkorange (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I correct. I cannot say I am dealing with Fringe Opinion every time, ⁣there are misunderstanding, bad source, ⁣improper Anglicization which I am not sure English-speaking editors are aware or not aware.Paperworkorange (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Are we talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-abortion by country? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The certain discussion made me feel despair, but not limited to the certain article.Paperworkorange (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Paperworkorange, you don't have to use English-language sources. You can use sources in any language. They must be WP:reliable sources and WP:Due weight. HLHJ (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

My primary source is Asahi shimbun ,well regarded paper which needs subscription. Is it ok on English wikipedia, as I don't think many people here subscribe Asahi?( I will replace if I have free article, but we don't have much free good papers)Paperworkorange (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I looked for discussions of Asahi shimbun as a source and didn't find much. I think that as it is one of Japan's major papers it would generally be considered a reliable source. The paywall is a barrier but doesn't disqualify a source by any means. Sometimes when there is a relevant short passage supporting the text which refers to the citation, the editor may choose to include that specific bit in the citation with the quote = parameter of template:cite news, or script-quote=ja: in this case. That may give English-only reviewers a bit more confidence in the citation as they can try google translate on it. Including your own English trans-quote= is also an option. - R. S. Shaw (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

How to nominate day on "On this date" section?

How to nominate day on "On this date" section in the Main Page. I don't find any route for nomination? The Supermind (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The Supermind See WP:OTD. 331dot (talk) 07:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I've tried to edit a page and want to revert to an earlier version

Hi I have been editing the University of Sussex page to update with our new Vice Chancellor Sasha Roseneil, but in attempting to rectify links I have altered the text at the top of the page. Could someone help? Many thank, Charlie Charlie Littlejones (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle has reverted your changes to University of Sussex. If you are not confident about editing an article, you can always suggest the edit on the article's talk page.

You say "our new VC": what is your connection with the university? It is possible that you have a conflict of interest, and if you are in any way employed by the universirt, then you count as a paid editor, and you are required to make a formal declaration of that (see the link I gave).

In any case, if you are connected with the university, you should not edit the article directly, but should use the Edit Request Wizard to suggest edits to it. ColinFine (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @ColinFine, yes, I do work at the University in communications. Apologies, I had not realised we couldn't make factual updates. I will go through the Edit Request Wizard route! Thanks for your help and for coming back to me so quickly! 2A00:23C7:6085:6201:5530:C490:A171:AA5E (talk) 11:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

You still have not made the mandatory disclosure of paid editor status, Charlie. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Charlie Littlejones —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Sources needing subscription

Can I insert a source which needs subscription to be read? Dr Salvus 20:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, if it is reliable. See WP:PAYWALL. Note that if you encounter a citation to such a source, you may be able to get access to it through WP:RX. ColinFine (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: You may use such a source the same rules as any other source: it must be reliable (WP:RS) and it must be used as a citation to support some assertion in the article. You may not "insert" any source, paywalled or not, unless it is relevant to the article. Gratutitous "insertion" of a source is called WP:LINKSPAM -Arch dude (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

September 3

Articles about legal self-representation

I was trying to look up the topic of representing oneself in court and found two articles, one devoted to the legal situation in the USA, the other devoted to the UK. What can be done to give coverage to other countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.? Muzilon (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Muzilon: Our articles are written by volunteers who are interested in the subject, such as yourself. Please see WP:YFA on how to proceed. -Arch dude (talk)

I'm afraid I'm in no position to write such an article myself, so I've added it to the Requested Articles page. Muzilon (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Capital punishment in Ethiopia

Please moved the Draft:Capital punishment in Ethiopia to Capital punishment in Ethiopia. Technically unable to move due to redirect. The Supermind (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The Supermind, you can use Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. TSventon (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@TSventon: I guess that can be happened there! I do not prefer request moves because the draft, posted yesterday, is still there with unknown reason. I've added additional citations as admin recommend me in notice and that's disappointing why things changed to controversial then. The Supermind (talk) 05:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@The Supermind And Teahouse hosts... Was this draft submitted to AfC? Should it be? 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

No, I want review of any single administrator rather than pending for review for months. The Supermind (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Jessica Davis Ba

on your page on Jessica Davis Ba, I wish you'd add that she is a graduate of Georgetown Day School. 216.15.53.253 (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source with that information, please offer it on the article talk page, Talk:Jessica Davis Ba. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Request to update Title page name for proper identification

Good day, I had attempted to add the middle initial "J" to the title page for Judge Michael Scionti. His middle initial is stated in the body of the wikipedia page, however, in order to properly identify him in a web search, it is important to have his middle initial referenced in the title page. This will help readers to decipher between Judge Michael Scionti and the numerous other Michael Scionti's that populate in a search. Due to this issue, there are numerous photos of other people sharing the same common name "Michael Scionti" and we plan to upload a photo to his page in the near future as well. Could someone please assist with this edit or direct me on what steps to make, because it appears that my edits from last night were reverted back. This name information is verifiable with a presently cited source on his Wikipedia page and additionally on the florida Judicial Directory website- Michael J. Scionti (fljud13.org) Thank you kindlyEleaseNat (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

EleaseNat Search results are not our main concern here. Articles are titled based on what the topic is called in independent reliable sources, see WP:COMMONNAME. For example, it is Bill Clinton, not William Jefferson Clinton(which is a redirect). We don't necessarily use official or legal names. That said, if using his middle initial is common, please visit Requested Moves. 331dot (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I appreciate the information.EleaseNat (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@EleaseNat: You mentioned "we plan to upload a photo to his page". Who is "we"? GoingBatty (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that as well... EleaseNat it is against Wikipedia policy - though I cannot find it at the moment, maybe some other help-deskers know the link? - to have a group account, multiple people cannot share a single account. If more than one person is using your account everyone needs to get their own single account. Shearonink (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The policy is described at WP:NOSHARING. CodeTalker (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@EleaseNat Make sure that the photo has the appropriate copyright status. Most photos that you can download from the 'net are not free of copyright. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Citation-type thing

Greetings, keepers of the eternal flame!

I came across a problem with a {{cite journal}} in a ref, discussed at Talk:John Cyril Porte#Cite journal error. Assuming that the document in question has been published for WP's purposes, and meets other requirements as discussed in the thread, what might be the best template to cite this type of unique, one-off typescript? Cheers, MinorProphet (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Does {{cite report}} work?

It seems to me that though it may be published, it cannot be regarded as reliably published, and should be treated as a WP:SPS. ColinFine (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Assuming that the Chilton archive at Imperial War Museums really holds the typescript (this search result suggests that it does), consider:

{{cite archive |last=Chilton |first=Edward |author-link=Edward Chilton |item=John Cyril Porte (1884–1919) Naval Officer, Pilot and aircraft designer extraordinary |type=Typescript |item-id=Documents.6892 |collection=Private Papers of Air Marshal Sir Edward Chilton KBE CB FRIN |collection-url=https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1030006743 |institution=Imperial War Museums}}

Chilton, Edward. "John Cyril Porte (1884–1919) Naval Officer, Pilot and aircraft designer extraordinary" [Typescript]. Private Papers of Air Marshal Sir Edward Chilton KBE CB FRIN, ID: Documents.6892. Imperial War Museums.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for your swift and comprehensive replies. I don't have time tonight, but tomoz I shall investigate whether Chilton might qualify as an SME. I imagine a case might be made for including him, even as as a {{bsn}}. If so - and so I hope - the {{cite archive}} looks ideal. Thanks both for your help, MinorProphet (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Mistake on the Jim Morrison article

There must be a mistake there, https:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Bonhommerichard.jpg that cant be Jim Morrison in 1964 if in 1966 The Doors released their first album unless Jim turned from kid to adult within 2 years. Maybe the writer intended 1954? 2.199.195.125 (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

According to the biography of Jim Morrison's father George Stephen Morrison, he took command of the Bonhomme Richard in 1963. That photo is taken from a weird angle, but it could be a 20 year old. Cullen328 (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

See also the 1963 mugshot of Jim Morrison. He looks somewhat baby-faced there. [7] AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the side view of that mug shot is very similar to the photo with his father. Cullen328 (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Access to Wikipedia by old iMac equipment (seems to be blocked) and there possibly is a remedy that Wikipedia can do

I cannot figure out a bypass on my old iMac, but is it possible that the website can be updated with a fix? 74.50.237.235 (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia runs on MediaWiki software. You may wish to ask this question at the MediaWiki Support Desk. It might help to tell them what version of Safari (or other browser) you are using. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 20:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

This is almost certainly being caused by a SSL certificate issue, relating to the age of your iMac. As for what you can do, if your iMac is PowerPC based (iMac G3, iMac G4, or iMac G5), you could attempt to use TenFourFox, however as that browser has been unsupported since March 2021 it is likely that if it does work now, it will stop working in the near future. There is a fork of TenFourFox called InterWebPPC that appears to still be getting updates, but I do not know if it is safe to use or reliable.

If your iMac is Intel based, then your choices are limited based on whatever the latest version of macOS your machine can run. If your machine can run macOS version 10.12 or newer, it should still be supported by the latest version of Firefox and Google Chrome. If your machine can only run macOS versions 10.9-10.11, then unfortunately you're probably out of luck, as most browser manufacturers have stopped supporting those releases. You could try to use Firefox 78.15.0esr, however as it hasn't been updated since October 2021, if Wikipedia does work it may stop working in the near future. With macOS versions prior to 10.12 you may also have certificate issues, as older root certificates expire and cannot easily be replaced. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Formatting? Citations? Am I allowed to cycle after an edit and discussion if the reverter tells me I can't edit again?

Hello, I am working on the Independent Animation page. I was hoping to seperate the animators from studios, because as someone active in the world of independent animation the focus is more about individuals. I tried to insert the commonly held definition of it but was told my sources were not good enough (though I will point out some sources that was reverted back were very broken or appeared fake). So while I research better resources I thought I would simply format it so that individuals were seperate from studios. Instead I was reverted and told it was "damaging" to the page? Can someone explain to me what I did wrong this time? The individual I have been discussing with seems to have a very low opinion of me. MrsBaker1 (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I am now being told to use the talk page before any of my edits can be approved. Is this normal? No one beside myself has used it since 2014. MrsBaker1 (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, MrsBaker. According to the Manual of Style, sentence case should be used in section headings. If other editors disagree with your contributions, you should discuss the issues on the article's talk page. This is standard procedure. The date of the last post there is not relevant. Cullen328 (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Cullen328, thank you for your response. I am happy to go by sentence casing. I tried to discuss the issue with the other editor. I was told my citations where not enough bc it was opinion, but my formatting was wrong bc of the other person's opinion. Now I can't edit a new version to try a better revision without the talk page? but the other editor can keep reverting/editing? I would be happy to try to negotiate with the other person but they are unwilling to talk and sent me to the "talk" page where no one has discussed anything (beside myself) for 8 years. It seems like a tactic to get me to not have any way forward instead of a willingness to compromise? Is that a wrong interpretation? MrsBaker1 (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is normal. Please see WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the resource. The person who made the revert is not willing to talk, and isn't allowing me a chance to cycle again but instead asking me to talk to other people. Is it normal to not get a second chance at a specific edit after hearing someone's concern to try and compromise before moving to the talk page. The resource you gave suggests I should be able to edit again:

Cycle. To avoid bogging down in discussion, when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can try this even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion, but be sure you don't engage in any kind of edit warring.

Please correct me if I am wrong here. MrsBaker1 (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Also I want to say that referencing the edit to other folks outside of the reverter without addressing the initial reason for the editor's concern (the justification being I deleted a lot of kbs due to an image I accidently deleted) is a bit hard to do when that issue is not one I'm trying to improve the page for. MrsBaker1 (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I guess I am asking am I allowed to cycle to try and reach a better compromise? Or bc the reverter told me he wasn't going to talk to me again I am not? There were other edits I was trying to address that I didn't get to. Is it all under the umbrella or do they count individually? MrsBaker1 (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I should note I have only made 1 edit specifically about this issue, and 1 other Large edit including the issue. Is 2 edits the max cycles? MrsBaker1 (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

MrsBaker, it is important to be accurate and precise here. MrOllie did not say that he would not discuss the issue. He said that he did not want to discuss it on his user talk page, adding correctly that the article talk page is the proper place to discuss article content. MrOllie has been a highly experienced and productive editor since 2008. Cullen328 (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, if we are being precise MrOllie directed me to ask others before I could try another cycle, not himself. Should I get a chance at one more cycle after a discussion or is a reverter allowed to say "you get no more cycles until others reply" after 1-2 attempts (which is lower than the 3 daily)? MrsBaker1 (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, thank you again for your reply. Can you answer my question about cycles? And if MrOllie can refuse my ability to edit one more time before I use the talk page? MrsBaker1 (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

MrsBaker, by "cycle", I assume that you are referring to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You were reverted and you were advised to discuss on the article talk page. You have not done so. Why are you so resistant to article talk page discussion, when several editors have advised you that this is the best next step? MrOllie cannot "refuse" to let you do anything, but you need to accept the consequences of your actions. Cullen328 (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, yes I was referring to the resource given to me during this help desk conversation. Should I not refer to resources in the topic? I apologize if that was out of place. You say I didn't talk, but I believe I did. The reason the reverter did the revert was because of a loss of KB. That was the reason they gave when I asked. I wasn't able to address the actual reason given for the edit:

You damaged the article by stripping out much of the formatting, I would guess by improperly cutting and pasting. The article size decreased by more than two kilobytes in your edit. Your new sections also did not agree with Wikipedia's Manual of Style MrOllie (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Then I was told I wasn't allowed to even try at another edit to address the given reason for the edit after I tried to engage in a good faith conversation and asked 2 questions in a single response:

"I don't think you should, chronological is better. If you feel differently use the article talk page and see if anyone else agrees with you. "

....

The image of bakshi was removed. My error. If I return the image and reformat will you leave it up? And we can ask people if they want it back and let them see how it looks? MrsBaker1 (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:::::No. Use the article talk page. Don't post here again, please. MrOllie (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)''

So can I cycle again? Or can I not? Can I address the justification in another attempt or am I prohibited from editing again? I am far from a perfect person so I won't pretend to be one, but this response doesn't seem like a good faith attempt that before I could address his initial justification I was sent to a page not used in 8 years and told I could make no further edits until people use it who haven't in 8 years respond. Does that mean I can't edit other things in the article in the mean time that I didn't address in this last round? It is very grey and confusing. Even before when I tried to address a definition of the term the article is about that is sourced in a book I provided with quotes from people in the wiki article I was told my citation wasn't good enough. And it was reverted to a version that had a description that included citations that were broken or seemed fake. This is something separate I have been working on but I am unsure if I can attempt this too when I am finished researching sources? I also wanted to add more people who are important to this topic, can I do that? MrsBaker1 (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@MrsBaker1 As you have been told several times, you need to discuss this on the article talk page. Not here. The link is Talk:Independent_animation. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Help talk:Searching

There are people looking for this sort of help at Help talk:Searching. Some sort of redirection might be in order. HLHJ (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

How do you report odd, subjective stuff intruded into articles?

For example if you read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_mafia you'll see that someone who edited this said "you can tell by the look on his face" that he is guilty, and there's a whole section with a huge sort of headline that's been dumped in toward the middle and it's all very peculiar and talks about "failing commmunist ideals" but it's not using quote marks or sources...well, just read it. I'm sure most of the info about the Bulgarian mafia is accurate but there's stuff that really doesn't belong in a wikipedia article. 2601:1C2:4002:9520:10A1:82C2:786D:4F4A (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I think you can just edit it and then explain why. Also if you don't sign the general populace will see your IP address just so you know. MrsBaker1 (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Editing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle MrsBaker1 (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

September 4

How do you set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request? I don't see any parameter listings or buttons or way to do this.

How do you set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request? I don't see any parameter listings or buttons or way to do this. TheFairfaxian (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@TheFairfaxian: I assume you're talking about Talk:Jan_Karski#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_8_August_2022. The general process to reactivate and edit request is to edit the section containing the request (there should be an edit link in the section header) and then replace {{edit extended-protected|(...)|answered=yes}} with {{edit extended-protected|(...)|answered=no}}, retaining the value I have marked with (...). Note that when copying the replacement from this page, you should copy it while viewing the page, as I have specifically inserted code which displays what should be replaced, rather than forcing you to edit this section to find out. See Help:Templates for more information about the curly bracket snytax in the Software behind Wikipedia.

As a related matter, there is a process to confirm that a particular text or image previously published elsewhere with a copyright notice can be made available under our two content licenses, as specified in the lead of Wikipedia:Copyrights and section 7 of the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use, however, I will warn you that Wikipedia's content licenses are deliberately very broad and this might not be what the university wants. That being said, if the university does want to make the text avialable under Wikipedia's content licenses, please see WP:DCM. Note that "permission for use in Wikipedia" or similar licensing shemes are not accepted. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Safari Reader View - Wikipedia changed something and it is broken

Hello,

I typically read wikipedia in Reader View on iOS Safari. In the last week or so, something was changed now the sections are no longer expanded.

Previously, all of the text of an article would be expanded, now the sections of an article are in bold, but tapping on them just creates a blue box and the text cannot be read.

This does not seem to affect Reader View on MacOS Safari.

Was this change discussed somewhere already?

Thanks

Iamagloworm (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe this is a general problem with the way these reader views work. I tried to reproduce it in Firefox by deliberately opening the mobile domain in an Incognito Window, and can confirm that sections which are not expanded before going into reader view will have their contents missing in reader mode. 08:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Marquess of Lansdowne

In the "Middleton connection" section at the end this article, please do a direct link to he section titled "Barbara Lupton (Lady Bullock)" on the Lupton family page where it says "Lady Bullock (nee Barbara May Lupton)". Can you do the same direct link to the "Olive Middleton (nee Lupton)" link to the Olive Middleton section which is also on the Lupton family page. Thanks - I cannot do this on this machine. Thanks 49.198.41.28 (talk) 08:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)