We don't have profiles here, not a single one- if you want to create a profile, that should be done on social media. This website is an encyclopedia composed of articles, with criteria for inclusion. For people that criteria is written at this link. Writing a new article is one of the most challenging tasks to perform here. If you are associated with the person, it's even harder due to the conflict of interest(please read if applicable). It is recommended that you first gain experience and knowledge about Wikipedia by first editing existing articles, so you get an idea of what is being looked for. If you create an account, you can use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. If you still want to dive right in to creating an article, please read Your First Article, and then visit Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you encountered an error on a website or document, it is likely an issue with the webpage itself or the software you are using to access it. Here are a few general suggestions to help you troubleshoot the problem:
Refresh the page: Sometimes, a simple refresh can resolve temporary glitches or loading issues.
Clear cache and cookies: Clearing your browser's cache and cookies can help remove any stored data that might be causing conflicts.
Try a different browser: If the error persists, try accessing the page using a different web browser to see if the issue is specific to your current browser.
Check for updates: Ensure that your browser and any relevant plugins or extensions are up to date, as outdated software can sometimes lead to compatibility issues.
Contact the website administrator: If the error continues to persist, it may be worth reaching out to the website administrator or support team to report the issue and seek further assistance.
Is it possible to have the references a bit lower at the end of this page and closer to the margin... it currently all looks a bit odd. thank you in advance. 08:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
To adjust the placement of references or any other elements on a page, you may need to utilize formatting tools provided by the software or platform you are using to create or edit the document. These tools typically include options to adjust margins, paragraph alignment, spacing, and other layout-related settings. SDavid088 (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what that error is, but I'm confident it is a problem with the level of software way below anything to do with the content of the Wiki. i.e. it's not anything whatever to do with your edits. If you continue to get the problem, please try asking at WP:VPT. ColinFine (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1 - the article is protected (I can understand) the talk page is ALSO protected, this makes NO sense since it stops people from requesting edits and discussing new sources and proposing wording.
2 - content issues. Right now there are very good reliable sources such as [2] that are not reflected, and the section "Allegations of connections to the QAnon conspiracy theory" has been loaded with unclear WP:WEASEL wording and heavily relies on placing the claims of the producer/writer of the movie rather than reflecting the reliable source coverage such as [3].
Any advice that can be provided is helpful? I am still trying to read through all the talk page but there is a big look of people trying to push for their proposed promote-the-movie narrative rather than reflecting the reliable source coverage. Saikyoryu (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is unusual to protect a talk page, there must have been severe disruption there. I suggest that you contact the blocking admin about how you can offer proposed changes to the article. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea, Saikyoryu. But if I have to write something long and intricate and worry that it might be deleted for some/no reason before I complete it, I use a text editor (specifically, Geany) to write it, intermittently saving it to my hard drive, and only when I'm happy with it copy it to Wikipedia. If Wikipedia misbehaves in the meantime, I lose nothing. -- Hoary (talk) 11:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Saikyoryu Read WP:EDITXY, item 3, "You can edit semi-protected pages yourself after you have made at least ten edits and your account is at least four days old."
When you click "edit" you get a notice that the page is protected and the name of the editor who protected it. Contact them in their talk page with your concerns.
I was using the blue button under "Current requests for edits to a protected page" as I was told to do.
"When you click "edit" you get a notice that the page is protected and the name of the editor who protected it." I don't get this. There's no "edit" button on Talk:Sound of Freedom (film), just "view source" and that leads to a page that doesn't say who did the protection.
This is very frustrating. It seems like the answers people are providing in this "help" page either go to the wrong pages or are just wrong information. :( Saikyoryu (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trappist the monk: True and irrelevant to this help request At least "I can understand" from the first paragraph of the original question seems to make that clear.
Saikyoryu, 97.126.97.156's advice about WP:RFPP/E is correct. This may be frustrating, but that's the place you're looking for. As others have advised, please create a copy of your text on your computer before submitting it to prevent it from being lost. It shouldn't happen, but it can't happen if you follow this advice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
THE PAGE DOES NOT WORK. I saved some text, pasted it in 3 times and it just vanishes. Thanks for the run around treatment and being no help at all. And you posted to your talk that you refuse to help with a simple talk page comment so thanks for nothing. Saikyoryu (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ToBeFree writes "I personally am uninterested in continuing this conversation." Wow. RUDE AF.No help, this "help" page seems to be a joke. Saikyoryu (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Saikyoryu, I have no idea why your text is vanishing - do you get any error message at all? I can see the form is working for other folks (and it's worked for me in the past, though quite some time ago).
Please keep a few things in mind:
1. The edit request system is for use if you have noticed an error or have a suggestion for a simple, non-controversial change. The page is not for continuing or starting discussions regarding content should both an article and its discussion page be protected. Please make a request only if you have a specific edit you wish to make.
2. You should contact the protecting admin if you want to ask why they protected the page or ask for it to be unprotected, not to ask them to implement edit requests - unfortunately that wasn't really made clear earlier.
When I click it just goes back to the blank page and all my text vanishes. And I tried following the advice and the insulting admin responded "I personally am uninterested in continuing this conversation" and I got a notification saying my message was deleted. This SUCKS. The "help" isn't helpful and sends me off in bad or useless directions. Saikyoryu (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Saikyoryu, we're just volunteers here, like you. Anyone can post at the help desk. Sometimes you'll get bad advice, yes - that's part of the risk of crowd-sourcing stuff, encyclopedias (and encyclopedia help desks) included. 97.126.97.156 (talk) 03:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I know of. It may be possible that you were trying to post a blacklisted link without realizing it. Nothing shows up as being blocked by a filter in your filter log; I'd suggest reporting this to WP:VPT. 97.126.97.156 (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Broken/rotted reference link now leads to (probable) scam(s): what to do about it?
I have come across an archived reference link where the old, “rotted”, link, is still there, and sometimes leads to probable scams. What should be done in this case? Should the out-of-date link be deleted (to help protect people from scams)?
@FrankSier: Great! You are now the expert, so please feel free to modify those two help pages if you feel that the next user may need further guidance.
Do you think it's likely that anybody here will be able to answer that question? What I can tell you is that it was inserted by Messirulez in May 2020. But as to why ... ? ColinFine (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. I have two questions. How do I make a new party color template and is there a way for me to have access to other party color templates? As in to see what the color codes for other political parties are etc. You were able to do both before (make new party colors and see what the color codes are for the ones already made), but since the change to the templates, I don't know how. Bakir123 (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As well as what Arch dude says, please note that English Wikipedia strongly discourages writing about yourself, anbd that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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. ColinFine (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Linnapp: First, make sure the subject meets the English Wikipedia's notability requirement, see WP:N and (probably) WP:NACADEMIC. If you are not notable, then no article is permitted on the English Wikipedia. Notability is the only absolute requirement for an article. Once you have done this, come back and we can provide further guidance. -Arch dude (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Today I got permission on my gmail from the fkzeljeznicar.ba webpage admin that I can freely upload any image from the webpage on to Wikimedia Commons. I had priorly asked him if the images were free for me to use and reupload. Now, I'm not sure under what license that goes and what kind of source do I put for it. I can't just link my gmail, that's private. Any ideas? Bakir123 (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bakir123: Sorry, but that e-mail is insufficient. The copyright holder must release the material under an appropriate license (CC-BY-SA) that allows reuse by anyone, not just use on Commons. The copyright holder may upload to Commons, or the copyright holder may simply place this license on the material on their own web site, but an e-mail to a third party (you) won't work. -Arch dude (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly So if I ask the copyright holder if they were willing to send an email to Wikimedia VRT, and Wikimedia approves it, will it be okay for me to then upload the images? I assume that there will be a license available after the copyright holder themselves reach out to the Wikimedia admins? Bakir123 (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A copyright holder may license their content any way they want; however, if they want their content to be OK to use on English Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) projects, they need to make sure their choice of licensing meshes with relevant WMF policies. Bascially, this means that the copyright holder releases their content under a license that allows pretty much anyone in the world to reuse their content at anytime for any purpose (including commercial and derivative uses); moreover, once they release their content in such a way, they can't really take their consent back if they subsequently have a change of heart. For reference, the copyright holder isn't relinquishing their copyright ownership or transferring it to someone else in such cases, they're just making a version of their work available to others to use as they please with minimal restrictions and without needing to get separate permission for each re-use.So, if the website is really the copyright holder of the work (i.e. it's not just simply hosting a work created by another person), and it's willing to give its WP:CONSENT, then all it needs to do is send an email to Wikimedia VRT stating as much. You can ask the copyright holder to do this by following the guidance given in WP:PERMISSION. Another possibility is for the copyright holder to somehow clearly indicate on its website that the work is licensed under an acceptable free license. There are different ways to do this, but some sites like Flickr and YouTube have options related to licensing, and the copyright holder can choose one that is OK for WMF purposes. If the work has been previously published somewhere and the licensing can't be changed to comply with WMF policy, a consent email is going to be needed.Either you or the copyright holder can upload the file, but only the copyright holder can give their consent. Once you've received confrimation from the copyright holder that they are willing to give their consent, you can upload the file. If they've made the file available under a free license via their website, just provide a url link as part of the source information that shows this to be the case when you upload the file and use the same license the copyright holder has choice for the file's licensing. If they're emailing their consent, add the template {{Permission pending}} to the file's page so others know VRT has been emailed and the license the copyright holder has stated their going to use, The rest will be taken care of by the VRT member who reviews the email. Make sure, regardless of how the consent is given, you provide as much information about the file as possible when uploading it. Finally, if the copyright holder has agreed to give their consent, you should probably upload the file to Wikipedia Commons using c:COM:UPLOAD because Commons is better suited to host such files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Creation of articles ?
Hi everyone,
I have been on Wikipedia (mostly in Serbian) for a few years now. I am the interface administrator (chosen by Serbian Wikipedia) and have created over 800 articles that have been fully approved.
I am curious as to why two, three articles that I have tried creating in English are not being approved.
I have tried getting clear answers but I did not get any explanation as to why my articles get denied.
Can someone, please, explain me how I get over 800 articles on one Wikipedia, I uuse exact same format on the other an,d it gets denied as if I am nebinewe who just started?
Hi Боки. The most general answer that can be given is WP:OTHERLANGS. Each local Wikipedia has its own policies and guidelines, and its own community of editors. In some cases, there may be lots of overlapping, but in other cases there may be some important differences. So, when creating or editing content on English Wikipedia, you're going expected to comply with relevant English Wikipedia policies and guidelines regardless of how experienced you are on Serbian Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources seem to be two areas of English Wikipedia that often differ quite a bit from other language Wikipedias. Given that English Wikipedia is the largest of the local projects in terms of number of articles and number of users, its policies tend to be more rigorously applied than perhaps is done on some other local Wikipedias. When drafts are declined on English Wikipedia, the reviewer almost always explains why. If there's something unclear about that reason, you can adk the reviewer for clarification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... which is exactly what I have done @Marchjuly but I did not get any clear answer for both of my articles (Jelena Zigon and Slobodan Sarenac).
I am well aware, as someone who has lived in Canada for over 23 years, that English Wikipedia does have different policies and more stricter policies but I really would love to see what I have done wrong as in "treat me like a newbie but don't treat me like I'm stupid", you know what I mean ?
If I create an article, would you be able to assist me in case if they do not approve it (for any reason) and tell me in plain simple English why I did not get approved ?
Neither I nor anyone else asnwering questions here at the Help Desk really has any special priviledges when it comes to creating articles. Everyone is expected to follow relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and it's near impossible to WP:OVERCOME a lack of Wikipedia notability. If, however, you can provide links to the drafts you've mentioned above, then perhaps someone can clarify why they weren't accepted. For reference, there already exists an article about someone named Jelena Žigon. If that's they same person you're trying to create a new article about, then there's no need for you to do so. You can simply work on improving the existing article if you want. I wasn't able to find anything on a Slobodan Šarenac other than a mention in Serbia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2016. There is a notification about a Draft:Slobodan Šarenac on your user talk page dating back to September 2022 that explains why it was declined. The draft was subsequently deleted per WP:G13 by a Wikipedia administrator (declined drafts need to edited at least once every six months to avoid being considered "abandoned"). This is a non-contentious deletion, and you can request that the draft be restored by either (1) asking the deleting administrator directly on their user talk page or (2) posting a request at WP:REFUND. Once the draft is restored, you can seek feedback at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk or you can continue working on it and resubmit it for another Articles for Creation (AFC) review. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly I see that my colleague from Serbian Wikipedia, @Sadko, has created Jelena Zigon's file. That's not an issue. The issue is the fact that I do not get a response as to what I am doing wrong in order to get at least one article approved. I will see what I can do in the future (depending on time)
I'm sure you probably already understand this Боки, but all Wikipedians are volunteers; this means your mileage may vary when it comes to getting replies. So, if you post something and don't get a response in a reasonable amount of time, you can try seeking feedback from others. If you find that your questions aren't being answered by an AfC reviewer, you can always ask them at the AfC help desk or a more general help desk like here or at WP:THQ. Finally, Draft:Slobodan Šarenac was declined on September 25, 2022 by a reviewer named Greenman. I can't, however, find any record of you posting at Greenman's user talk page asking for clarification. I did find a post about you made on the user talk page of a Wikipedia administrator named Vanjagenije the previous day (September 24, 2022), but the post isn't in English and I needed to use Google translate. It appears you were asking for Vanjagenjie to review your draft, but the post was eventually archived without a response. That might've been because Vanjagenjie did check your draft, saw it had already been reviewed, and then decided there was nothing more to do. Do you remember where you asked Greenman for clarification about why your draft was declined? Perhaps you posted something and Greenman just didn't notice it? Did you post something at Draft talk:Slobodan Šarenac? That page was deleted when the draft was deleted and I can no longer see it. If that's where you posted, maybe your question was answered and you just didn't notice it or see it in time. As a posted above, you can request that the draft be WP:REFUNDed if you'd like to continue working on it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Боки So, I had a look at Draft:Slobodan Šarenac and the talk page, and I've gone ahead and restored them so you can see what I'm talking about and continue working on the draft to try to improve it if you like.
You say you don't understand why it wasn't approved. It wasn't approved because as written, the draft didn't show that Šarenac meets the notability requirements.
How do you demonstrate that an article subject meets those requirements? By citing sources that meet those requirements.
You cited 3 sources in that draft.
Слободан Шаренац, МВП интервју (21.01.2013), Retrieved January 28, 2016 - This appears to be an interview of Šarenac. As an interview of him, it fails the criteria of being independant of him. It is him telling his story and saying what he wants to say, possibly painting himself in a good light. It is inherently not neutral in its presentation of him. We need to be able to summarize what people who have no incentive to portray him in a particularly good or bad light have said about him. If the main or only source we use is his own words about himself, we cannot write from a neutral point of view.
Basically, in order to show that he is notable and get the article accepted, you need to find more than one source that talks about him in some length and detail, but was not produced by him or his employers. He can be quoted, but it should not be a straight up interview. Does that help? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving22:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ONUnicorn This is exactly what I was looking for ! True feedback ! Thank you ! Now, my question is since he is sports reporter, most of the stuff about him is him commenting on sports events, which is in the form of interview.
He is one of those people that (somehow) escapes paparazzi pictures and media gossips so you can't find as much news about him (other than his wife being involved in car accident few months ago and few more of his, again, interviews where he talks about certain sports events)
I am not sure how to go about that part.
Can you, please, help me ? I mean, this guy is ex-yu sports legend when it comes to reporting. He definitely deserves his spot on English Wikipedia.
Hi, Боки. As ONUnicorn explained, you need WP:INDEPENDENT sources, which interviews with or by him are not, and you need significant coverage, which is more than his wife's accident. A book with the biographies of the 25 top sports reporters in Serbia with an entire chapter about Šarenac, would be one significant source. A cover article in a sports magazine by an independent journalist that followed him around for a week on the job, writing about his life and his career would be another significant source. A third one like those two, but completely apart from them, would probably establish notability. But from what you have indicated so far, it doesn't sound like he is notable in en-wiki's definition. Can you come up with three, solid sources such as the ones I have indicated?
@Mathglot and @ONUnicorn - Thanks for your feedback and assistance. I have edited Draft:Slobodan Šarenac with more reliable sources. I am not sure if this is good enough.
@Sadko: As someone from Serbian Wikipedia, can you, possibly, assist and give your opinion on what else I can add to make this article (finally) approved?
@Боки: When it comes to journalists and sport commentators from the Balkans, you should write articles about only the best in their respected fields. I'm not sure if our colleagues from the West are going to share your opinion that Šarenac is notable.
You need to expand the article a bit. Try to add more sources, ideally Euronews Serbia, N1, BBC in Serbian and media outlets like that. If I were you, I would move the text about his private life under Biography (not to mention that better sources are needed, per BPL). Try to fix your link for Treći kanal RTS.
How to export Wikipedia entries I have written to a MS Word format maintaining the viewed structure (e.g. references) as footnotes/endnotes in MS Word. Aim being to combine several entries into a coherent story for journal publication. Ray Oaks (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many editors contributed to Michael Yamashita's page after my original edits, and I spent quite a bit of time learning the ropes of Wikipedia editing. So much to learn.
I believe the COI warning can be removed at this time, but wanted to check in here and ask for neutral perspective.
The prior state of the page did not meet current Wikipedia standards, so it's in much better shape now.
His studio is attempting to upload a photo as well. I am am unpaid volunteer, photography fan, etc.
If anyone can take a look at the page, evaluate, and offer any recommendations on additional steps needed to remove the COI warning, that would be helpful.
Hello, Cryptohydrate. I verified that several experienced editors helped improve the article, so I removed the COI tag. I also upgraded the rating from Stub to Start. Thanks for your contributions. Cullen328 (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cryptohydrate With regard to uploading pictures to Commons, the simplest thing would be for Yamashita to upload a selfie himself or for you to take a picture of him and upload it as your own work. There are alternative options which can get more complicated: see c:Commons:Email templates for the details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
validation of a wikipedia consumer product website
This seller is using wikipedia logo and is advertising a product that is far below the average price. I have emailed 2 addresses I found. Both came back "
Sorry, we were unable to deliver your message to the following address." How can I find out if this is a valid seller?
If they used a Wikipedia logo, that would be an issue for the Mediawiki legal department, but I don't see a Wikipedia logo there. ColinFine (talk) 08:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Wikipedia logo on that page, but the site is clearly untrustworthy (placholder copy on their homepage) and you've already stated you're unable to contact the seller, so don't waste any more time on it. Shantavira|feed me08:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I was answering another question, I put in the wikilink [[BBB]] and I got a pop-up message saying "Would you like to make the link more specific?". How do I turn that feature off? I am using the old vector skin and have all the discussion tools turned off as far as I know. I use the normal editor, not Visual Editor. It also pops up even if I am not creating an actual link, such as using nowiki tags as I did here. RudolfRed (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At San Jose International Airport#Destinations map, there are five maps showing the destinations served by this airport. When one hovers one's mouse over the map, a white box with text appears. I believe that's a tooltip? On the first map, which is a map of the United States, the box says, "San Jose International Airport is located in the United States". But the other maps are of Hawaii, Mexico, Europe, and Asia, and they generate the tooltips "San Jose International Airport is located in Hawaii", "San Jose International Airport is located in Mexico", "San Jose International Airport is located in Europe", and "San Jose International Airport is located in Asia", which are incorrect. Obviously, these tooltips, or whatever they are, are generated by some code based on the idea "[Title of page] is located in [subject of map]", but I don't know where that code is generated, or, more importantly, how to suppress and replace it with regard to the latter four maps here. -- Metropolitan90(talk)04:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As per the Documents Raja Anangpal Tomer is blongs to jat community and when you check all details and all documents as per history Raja Anangpal Tomer is jat Chhillar jaat (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing to you from the largest urban old-growth forest in the United States, Wesselman Woods. Someone made a Wiki page for Wesselman Woods years ago: Wesselman Woods Nature Preserve
It has not been updated for years. Can you please give us some background information on editing this page? We've had huge projects and new acres added. We would like to capture all of that information into our page. Also, regarding the Conflict of Interest statement, can we have one of our volunteers at Wesselman Woods update our Wiki page?
I would note that it is not "your page" but a Wikipedia article about your preserve. The main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic, not what the topic wants to say about itself. You may, once you formally declare your COI with a new username, propose edits in the form of an edit request(click for instructions) on Talk:Wesselman Woods Nature Preserve. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Zach. Any of your volunteers certainly has a conflict of interest, and is probably counted as a paid editor (even if they don't get paid in money). This does not prevent them from making suggestions for improving the article. What they should do is:
Each volunteer that is going to work on it should create a paersonal account. This is not essential (you can edit without an account) but it is preferable for communication between them and other editors. What they may not do is to share an account. The name of the account may not suggest that it somehow represents the organization: you could use "Zach at WWNP", but your current username is not permitted, and you should abandon it and create a new one.
Each volunteer should make a formal declaration of their status as a paid editor: see WP:PAID.
None of you should edit the article directly: instead, you should use the Edit request mechanism to make requests - make them as specific as possible (eg "In section XX ... after XYZ, add WRQ"), and all informaiton which you wish to introduce should be cited to a reliable published source.
Furthermore, almost all information should be cited to a source independent of your organization. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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. ColinFine (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to ask you guys if you could make a Polish Wikipedia page of "Uniqlo" because it doesn't exist yet and Poland has a Uniqlo store and is very popular there. I can't make a Wikipedia page because I'm not from Poland and I can't speak Polish so I would be happy if you guys could do it and many users could get the information in Polish language. Xmln.195 (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I download an article as a pdf, sometimes an error page will appear when I hit download. This first started happening yesterday. It does not always happen and and I don't see any pattern. My wifi connection is stable. Where should I report this bug? Khainelives (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed a few edits by recently created accounts are tagged as being "newcomer tasks". I have read the description of what these are, but it seems that some such edits aren't constructive and are introducing typos rather than correcting them. What would be the best way to handle this? Is it in any way different from an account not using newcomer tasks? RedPanda2503:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, RedPanda25. Newcomer tasks are just automated suggestions intended to draw new editors into active editing. The notifications to other editors are intended to encourage other, more experienced editors to be friendly and helpful to newcomers. But that does not mean that we should tolerate obviouly bad edits from anybody. Bad edits should be reverted and such editors warned if they persist, and blocked by an administrator if their conduct becomes a serious problem. The same general principle applies to student editors. Interact with them in a friendly fashion, but do not tolerate obviously bad edits from students. Cullen328 (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Standard colors, fonts, and so on for an infographic
Hello, are there standard font or color preferences for charts and other infographics? Something like a visual manual of style? Or an unwritten standard?
@Rjjiii: Whatever you do, do not rely solely on colour to impart information (as has been done, for example, in this diagram from the article you referenced above). (For example, do not use red to mean "no", green to mean "yes" without also providing another means such as the words "no" and "yes", or cross and tick symbols, as well.) See WP:ACCESSIBILITY and MOS:COLOR (the last of which needs improving on File:Open-source-license-chart.svg). Bazza (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to Wikipedia editing, and I'm working on my first attempt to improve a Wikipedia page. I noticed that the first citation contains a broken hyperlink (this) in the title of a reference paper. I wanted to ask for some guidance on how to handle this situation. Should I remove the hyperlink and only include the title of the paper in the citation?
I've noticed that the referenced paper is freely accessible via the DOI provided in the citation, so users can still access the content. However, I want to ensure that I'm following the correct practices for editing Wikipedia.
Hi @Bubasa and welcome to Wikipedia editing. The general advice is at WP:LINKROT and WP:DEADREF. In this specific case you can definitely remove the URL because, as you say, the DOI works and gives access. In some other case, it may be possible to find the original URL archived at The Wayback Machine, in which case it can be rescued from there. That helps when the DOI leads to a paywall. Looking at the article in question, it would benefit from a somewhat less technical explanation in an introductory section for less mathematically competent readers! Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Michael D. Turnbull and thank you for the timely and comprehensive response. I think I will add the latest working snapshot available on The Wayback Machine. As for the introduction, I agree that it is too technical but I am far from being an expert in finite model theory and would not know how to contribute.
Once again, thank you for your guidance and support. I'm looking forward to further contributing to the Wikipedia community. Bubasa (talk) 11:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've tried putting in {infobox organization/Wikidata | fetchwikidata=ALL}, as instructed on that page, but it still doesn't have a lot of the data that's in the French article. Am I doing something wrong?AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AlmostReadytoFly, the English Wikipedia is stricter about providing sources than is the French Wikipedia. Everything in the infobox should have a reference, either in the article itself, or if not mentioned in the article then in the infobox. Take only the material with sources unless there is a source for it explicitly in the article. I assume much of the unsourced information comes from the organization's website so is available. If there is no reference for a field in Wikidata then add unsourced fields manually to the template with a reference instead of having that field take its data from Wikidata. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stuck in Edit Request Process
Hi everyone,
I was hoping someone could help me out, as I am stuck in an edit request process. Several months ago, I made some edits to the History section of Schott AG (I am an employee and my conflict of interest is disclosed on my user page). With my edits, I wanted to address the warning template "self-published sources" by improving the sources. As you can see on the Talk Page, I then asked if someone could remove the warning template. At this point, my effort to improve the article got lost in the Wikipedia process. After two edit requests and some back and forth, my attempts to discuss the edits with the involved Wikipedians did not go anywhere. It would be great if someone could have a look at my edits to the article and the Talk page, and help me out with this issue. Thanks in advance for your help! Elisabeth at SCHOTT (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elisabeth at SCHOTT I note that Spintendo commented at the foot of that Talk Page about 3 weeks ago to ask that you re-submit a new edit request rather than (I assume) having someone disentangle previous edits/reverts to the article to reach a version all will be happy with. I know that this will be more work for you but it does seem to be the best way forward. There is a template called {{edit COI}} which should be used (instructions a that link). I understand that there is currently no backlog for these requests, so once you have made one it should get actioned quickly. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike, thank you very much for your quick response! I had hoped to restore the edits I recently made, but if you think the template would be the right route, I can also submit them through that process again. I had just been a little frustrated that the Wikipedians involved on the Talk Page seemed more attached to the process than actually reviewing the content of what I thought were useful edits. Elisabeth at SCHOTT (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cambalachero The simplest way is to navigate to the article's page you are interested in and use the star symbol top right which sets/removes pages from watchlists. If you already have that page on the list, the star will be filled in black (if not it will be unfilled). Toggle to the unfilled star, then when you click to add (or re-add) the page, a menu will appear which allows a time period to be set. On talk pages, there is an alternative method for individual threads (such as this one) where you can click on the "subscribe" option to the right of the thread title. That won't add the thread to your watchlist but will instead alert you each time someone adds more content to the thread. It will also notify you with an alert when the thread is archived and no more alerts from it are to be expected. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding language links when the page is protected
Hello, I have ran into a problem with adding related articles in different languages' links. It is that a page is protected and I cannot add the link for it. I do some editing at the Livvi Karelian side of Wikipedia, which means that I have to make pages for very very basic things. Which are protected under the English Side of Wikipedia, or any side for these basic articles. Any Help with this? NoteAStyle (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For me that is not possible for some reason? Even if it is only semi-protected. Apologies if i was not clear enough in my original message. It only gives me the "View History" option, the whole Wikidata page is protected apparently. Any Help? NoteAStyle (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NoteAStyle, could you be a bit more specific with which page and in which wiki you are trying to edit. Neither Livvi-Karelian language nor its wikidata item appear to be protected. A reminder that on Wikidata, you must press "edit" in the specific section you are trying to change, there is no "edit" button at the top of the page. Isabelle Belato🏳🌈15:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are reference desk discussions archived according to the first, not last posted comment of the discussion? In Finnish Wikipedia, the discussions in Kahvihuone (equivalent of Village pump) are archived according to last comment, and all discussions that have not got new comments over last 28 days are archived automatically. Is the archiving policy of RD also in Village pump? If it is, I don't like that. --40bus (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Village Pump uses a different bot for archiving. If you want to change how the RD is archived, you can suggest it at WT:RD. Read the previous discussion first. RudolfRed (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do the Hyphenator and Findlink tools count as "minor" edits?
I had a question regarding some automated tools. Hyphenator basically formats ISBNs with dashes and upgrades them to ISBN13 if applicable; the actual citation is not entirely different. Findlink essentially adds a wikilink to an article if there is one. My question is whether or not they count as "minor" since they don't change much about an article. I have read WP:MINOR and am still a bit confused about it so I'm asking here. Thanks in advance. Losipov (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This page times out for me. Talk:Golden ratio responds normally. I tried to purge it, but although the purge prompt displayed, when I clicked 'Yes' it timed out again.
The history works, and there was an edit on 15 July, but the diff times out. Therefore I think something strange resulted from the last edit. By reverting that edit, I see that {{Circa|1876}} was replaced by c. 1876, which seems innocuous enough (though incorrect by MOS:CIRCA). I did not complete the reversion, in case there is more to it than meets the eye. -- Verbarson talkedits19:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of large mathematics pages have been slow for me recently. I was able to load golden ratio but it took a few seconds. I suspect something in the Wikimedia software, perhaps related to mathematics, rather than any recent change to that specific article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I was too quick to assume it was a recent change that made the difference for me; also others have a different experience. I have just done a crude binary search of the history, and it starts timing out (for me) on 22 September 2021. That is assuming that the failure 'happened' at some moment and remained thereafter. I experienced very slow loading of pages before that point, which may indicate that it is the increasing complexity of the page/diagrams/markup/templates that causes timeout. Why it happens differently for other people I wouldn't know enough to even guess; all I can see is that it's not a local memory/processor issue as my aged Linux box is not hitting any limits. I believe there is a way of calculating the complexity of a page, in terms of templates and other high-demand items; would that give a clue? -- Verbarson talkedits21:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Math-heavy pages would not load at all for me yesterday during daytime hours (USA), but worked better late at night (presumably less server load). Something may be wonky with the math rendering plugin / the infrastructure hosting it. –jacobolus(t)16:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, perhaps, I find that previewing all three pages or opening them from the links above is as fast as usual (< 1 sec). I'm in the UK, so maybe the speed has something to do with the path through the interweb your connection takes. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on reflection that idea doesn't make sense as anyone loading long non-math pages would find them all to be slow. Maybe it is a browser issue: I'm using the latest version of MS Edge which perhaps handles complex markup more quickly than other browsers? Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of variables here; it could be a caching issue, an issue with certain skins vs others, an issue with your preference settings for how mathematics should be rendered... —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Curiouser and curiouser. Loading Golden ratio (from the UK) on my
Linux laptop (using Chrome, which is basically the same as Edge these days): TIME OUT
Android phone using the Chrome browser: TIME OUT
Android phone using the Wikipedia app: LOADS INSTANTLY
(note that laptop and phone are both using the domestic router, unless the app redirects via phone data for nefarious reasons of its own)
Knowing that Chrome is not identical to Edge, and that I've just loaded one of the regular updates (Version 115.0.5790.102 (Official Build) (64-bit)) perhaps there is a bug in recent versions that has yet to be included in Edge? -- Verbarson talkedits19:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the browser is something to do with it. I've just updated to MS Edge 115.0.1901.183 (64-bit) and although two out of three maths articles still load (a bit slower) the Newton's laws of motion usually times out, although the error message "Sorry, the servers are overloaded at the moment. Too many users are trying to view this page. Please wait a while before you try to access this page again. Timeout waiting for the lock" suggests that Wikipedia's servers are also a factor. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly a backend infrastructure problem rather than a browser problem. It's possible with the app you are sometimes getting a cached (possibly stale?) page or that the math rendering goes through a different pipeline than when a browser loads the page. –jacobolus(t)20:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just spent an inordinate number of hours editing something in a secondary sandbox. I know: Save Early Save Often or whatever. But I've been editing on Wikipedia for over a decade and nothing like this has ever happened. In any case, I wanted to preview my file, so I clicked Preview, and in the midst of my review, the current tab closed. No request for an edit summary. No window with the Leave option. Notta. I'm sure there's not much that can be done to reclaim my work, now presumably lost to the ether, but given the sequence of events, I strongly suspect there's a bug in either Preview or Sandbox. In any case, feedback would be appreciated. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just reviewed the existing file and found I had saved a couple hours ago prior to heading out to cut the lawn. So most of what was lost was formatting, an hour's work. Still, the tab's disappearance has me mystified. A Google Chrome bug is the only other explanation I can think of. Allreet (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which article are you looking at changing? Is it Adolphe Thiers?
Which fact is incorrect? What should it be instead?
What source do you have for the correct fact?
Also, editing in general is easier if you sign up for an account. Other editors could notify you when they respond to questions like this. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 06:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is Telegram a reliable source?
Hello! I'd like to publish an article about well-known people (i.e., artists, authors, etc.) and I was wondering whether it is appropriate to take from a Telegram channel. I'm aware that I can take from several social media platforms, but I was wondering about Telegram. Thank you! Yara Elhawary (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC) Yara Elhawary (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, per WP:SPS. Anyone can set up a Telegram account and say whatever they like with no editorial oversight. Some people like Yevgeny Prigozhin have become notable on Telegram, but their posts have been reported in reliable secondary sources.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)12:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
some one made a page under my name
hi,
actually someone made a page under my name as 'mohsen rabiei' in wikipedia and i am struggling to add my bio and a new article under my name, could you please specify how i can handle it Mohsen rabi (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I created a wiki page for myself (Draft:Desirée Shahnaz Townsend) as a large news organization will be publishing a follow-up to my story next week and wanted a reliable source for people to find information on me. I am not sure if I have the correct disclosure for an autobiography as I was the only one to edit this.
Also, I know this is not published, but am I able to ask others in the community to edit/add to this even though it is not published or can only I see it on my side?
@Desireestownsend83, you are able to ask that. One immediate issue I see is the photograph - it has a copyright statement at the bottom in which your name does not appear. This may be a problem; the image is likely to be deleted as a copyright violation. Do you have any photos of yourself that you have taken? That is what "own work" means. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have the copyright permission for this now as the owners are friends and have given an assignment to me. On that point, it might be best to have the photo updated to reflect my copyright ownership in it. Thank you for your advice! I will make that update. Desireestownsend83 (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Desireestownsend83, your friends will need to email Commons in order to officially (and legally) verify that they, the copyright holders, have released the image under a compatible license. Here is a link to an example email template: C:commons:Email templates. Giving you permission is not enough, they must contact Commons themselves. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Desireestownsend83, someone else may come along to comment on the sources used in your draft, but in the meantime, a related thing to work on is a conflict of interest disclosure. Instructions are at this link; in my opinion the easiest thing to do is just edit your user page (User:Desireestownsend83) and add the following bit of code (called a "template" in wiki-speak): {{UserboxCOI|1=Desirée Shahnaz Townsend}}
Visual Editor might play havoc with the formatting a bit, I'd recommend switching to source editor just this once and copy/pasting in that line of code. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Number of References for Qualifying for Wikipedia Article
I created a wiki page for myself (Draft:Desirée Shahnaz Townsend) as a large news organization will be publishing a follow-up to my story next week and wanted a reliable source for people to find information on me.
I received a rejection stating that the coverage done of me was not significant enough to qualify for a page. My question is based on the guidelines of notability of people... How many secondary published articles need to be cited to meet this criteria?
Interestingly, I was mentioned in a Wiki here: Rashid Buttar which links back to this Desiree Jennings, so this gives me the impression that the coverage was significant enough at some point if a page was created (Desiree Jennings).
That is absolutely the wrong reason to create an article. Wikipedia has no deadlines and has no interest in publicity efforts. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. People should not trust Wikipedia blindly, but examine the sources provided in determining what to believe.
Your drsft was only declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning here, that resubmission would not be possible. Declined means it is possible. There is no specific number of references required, it depends- but to pass AFC reviewers generally look for at least three independent reliable sources to be summarized. Those sources must have significant coverage of you personally. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point, but from my perspective, in an effort to try and clear up the disinformation surrounding the anti-vaccine movement, this is incredibly important. Too many people may have not received vaccines because of what they "thought" happened to me. And you are right, I think too often many people do see Wikipedia as a reliable source. I know I did for sure in college, haha. Thank you for the ~ reference number and description of the type of sources. I do appreciate you taking the time to respond. Desireestownsend83 (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. The intention of this draft is just to have a starting point for down the line after the news piece airs so that there is something already drafted that is easy for the community to edit, add to, etc. Thank you profusely Mike for the clarification on the criteria for an independent publication. That helps to better select sources. Much appreciated! Desireestownsend83 (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Foris crypto .com has my money that was saposto go to crypto.com app on my phone how do I get my money back it was sent to the wrong place
my fund were sent to the wrong crypto.com place how do I greet my money bak to my crypto.com app on my phone
I have forgotten my password and I wanted to sign in to change my phone number.
My old phone number is now invalid.
I cannot login because I forgot my password.I need to change my password to log my new phone number so I can receive and confirm verification code. 84.68.107.6 (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia accounts are not associated with a phone number, so perhaps you are asking on the wrong page. If you do need to change your Wikipedia password, and you have an email account assigned to the account, you can do a password reset at Special:PasswordResetRudolfRed (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Black Irish
I came across Wikipedia's definition of "Black Irish" in the 21st century: "A black person living in Ireland". and that the 19th and 20th century definition was black haired light eyed Irish people of possibly Spanish decent. Well, my father was black Irish and I am alive in the 21st Century and by your definition, I no longer exist. To say I was rather upset is putting it mildly. Eachai (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I am interested to learn how I might go about adding images from books to support articles. I love writing articles but as soon as I try to read pages like this Wikipedia:Non-free content my mind turns into cottage cheese and nothing goes in. Is there a really simplified Idiot's Guide for non-technical people like myself?
You can't add copyrighted images to Wikimedia Commons. Under narrow circumstances you can add low-resolution copies to Wikipedia (under the "fair use" provision of US copyright law) if there is no other way to illustrate the subject, but it's slightly frowned on, and the image may get removed. Scroll down the page you linked to Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images which goes into more detail. –jacobolus(t)01:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Translation of Russian geographic names.
Are there any rules for translating Russian names? I find out that Leningradskaya oblast is translated as Leningrad Ovlast - which is correct - but Leningradki Prospekt is translated as Leningradski Avenue which is obviously inconsistent with the Russian language. It would be equally absurd to call Connecticut Avenue something like Connectutian Avenue.
This is just an example. Why do we call the region Moscow oblast but do not follow the same rule for the districts for instance Lotoshinsky District? Afil (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tips on editing an article with numerous issues?
I plan to edit the Path 27 article to fix numerous deficiencies that were introduced en masse in a major edit on 16 December 2022. It feels like a daunting task to address many issues that were introduced at once. I'm inclined to make edits that fix issues one at a time, factual errors first and then issues of phrasing and relevance. I welcome any tips on how to proceed in a case like this. What do you do when faced with an edit that extensively reworked a page, and (trying to put it delicately here) not always for the better? Tom239 (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to wikipedia no muslims are involved in medicine
At least "I can understand" from the first paragraph of the original question seems to make that clear.
. So that site has no reference to or is anything to do with Wikipedia. Bazza (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Babyboy AV
