Wikipedia:Help desk: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Tags: Reply Source
Tags: New topic Source
Line 342: Line 342:
::{{u|Reeealllkeyyss}} There are no completely private areas on Wikipedia, though some areas are harder to find than others. If you don't want anyone to see what you write, don't put it on Wikipedia. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 22:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
::{{u|Reeealllkeyyss}} There are no completely private areas on Wikipedia, though some areas are harder to find than others. If you don't want anyone to see what you write, don't put it on Wikipedia. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 22:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Okay thank you! - [[User:Reeealllkeyyss|Reeealllkeyyss]] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 22:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Okay thank you! - [[User:Reeealllkeyyss|Reeealllkeyyss]] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 22:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Reply with a bullet point to things like AfDs with Discussion Tools ==

I'd like to be able to reply to an afd with the reply in discussion tools. Is there a way to do this? [[User:Aaron Liu|Aaron Liu]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu|talk]]) 22:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:52, 28 September 2022

The Wikipedia help desk is a place where you can ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia. For other types of questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
  • For other types of questions, see Help:Contents and Are you in the right place? 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.
  • We are all volunteers, so sometimes replies can take some time. Please be patient. Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
  • If you need real-time help, you can join our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
  • If you are a new editor, you might prefer to ask your question at the Teahouse, an area specifically for new users to get help with editing, article creation and general Wikipedia use, in a friendly environment.
  • Remember to sign your post by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. Alternatively, you can click on the signature icon (Wikipedia edit toolbar signature icon) on the edit toolbar.

September 25

Need help using the "JustReplace" script by User:Sreejithk2000


I am not sure if this is the right place to ask this but I'll give it a shot anyway.

Has anyone here ever heard about and/or used this script that globally replaces images? I've been trying to use it for a while now but it keeps giving me an error. I've tried using the newer, updated script made by User:Perhelion but it also didn't seem to work. Probably because I don't know how to use them.

The pop-up error using Sreejithk2000's script reads as follows:

An error occurred while trying to do the requested action. A detailed description of the error is shown below:

Error while asking CommonsDelinker to replace Flag of Ichikikushikino Kagoshima.JPG with Flag of Ichikikushikino, Kagoshima.svg Reason: API request failed (abusefilter-warning): ⧼abusefilter-warning-delinker-filemover-page-syntax⧽ at Sun, 25 Sep 2022 01:07:54 GMT served by mw1362

User:SpinnerLaserzthe2nd has been helping me by globally replacing the images I upload on Wikimedia, but I want to do it on my own. Any help, guidance or advice on this would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you. EnviousBird (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your deletion of the page I created

I protest against all your complaints and removing the page I created. This is pure discrimination. JonathanV123 (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi JonathanV123. The article Jayvé has been tagged for proposed deletion. You can halt this process by removing the tag from the top of the page, as it's intended for use in situations where deletion is uncontested. Before you remove the tag, I recommend spending some time looking for reliable, independent, secondary sources that could be used to prove Jayvé's notability. If you remove the deletion tag without such a demonstration, it's very likely the article will be taken to Articles for deletion where a discussion might lead to its deletion anyway. You can save a lot of time by either leaving the tag up or proving that Jayvé is notable. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hi @JonathanV123 and welcome to the help desk! Reliable sources basically people who are reputable and completely unaffiliated with them talking about them, which you'll use to back up the claims you make in their article and especially their notability criteria. fulfilling both of them is essential in making sure an article stays, and the lack of them means anything may not have an article regardless of any other qualities they may have. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 03:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JonathanV123: You were given help on how to stop the article being deleted a few days ago. Have you done anything about that? Bazza (talk) 09:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question About using OABot for open access citations/links


I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I had question regarding using OABot to add freely accessible links to citations. Is there a guide to how it exactly works? When I do a preview of the links it suggests to add, it either says "allowed", "unknown", "restricted" or "forbidden" (I usually just add the ones that have all three criteria as "allowed"). The reason that I'm asking is because I don't want to mistakenly add something that constitutes as a copyright violation whenever I use this tool. Any explanation or guidance would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Losipov (talk) 05:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Losipov Bots are implemented as if they were User accounts. So you can look at the page User:OAbot to see how it works and if you wish can post a question on its Talk Page at User talk:OAbot. One of the humans who look after the bot will then reply there to answer your query. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

my username is NOT capitalized....sabastianblak

help me access my old acct, please? Sabastianblak (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe that this is a technical limitation. All usernames, like page titles, are uppercase. – robertsky (talk) 07:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noting that robertsky's username is actually Robertsky, as seen at User:Robertsky. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, on my user page the user name appears as Ianmacm, but when I sign in, it is with ianmacm (all lower case). This may lead to some confusion.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hi @sabastianblak and welcome to the help desk! Sabastianblak and sabastianblak act as the same account due to the technical limitation above. you may edit your signature via Preferences > User Profile > Signature to display your username as lowercase. if you ever create a userpage, you can also use {{Lowercase title}} to make it display as lowercase. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 08:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Claim for creation of the term Generation Z

On the Wikipedia entry for Generation Z (Generation Z), it suggests that the term Generation Z was first used by demographer Cheryl Russell in 2009. This is incorrect as I wrote an article for Brand Strategy magazine in February 2007 in which I posed the question 'when would we meet Generation Z'. I have a PDF copy of the article as it doesn't exist online. I have tried to update Wikipedia but it's been rejected or, rather, changed back to the original entry. Please advice. Thank you. Crispin Reed CrispinGJReed (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. You added the text in this edit on 2017-08-18, and it was removed by an IP editor in this edit on 2017-09-29, with the Edit summary "removing vague and unreferenced material". This is part of the normal give and take in Wikipedia (see WP:BRD), and your next step if you wish to pursue this should be opening a discussion on Talk:Generation Z. Given that you are wishing to cite your own work, you also had a conflict of interest in inserting that information (though the editor who removed it probably didn't know that) and so you should have discussed it on the talk page first anyway. ColinFine (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with the whole of ColinFine's comment above. Also, according to the article, Cheryl Russell allegedly coined the term iGen, not Generation Z. Yes, you need a citation from an authoritative source for any new fact that you add to an article; however it does not have to be online. I cannot yet find Brand Strategy magazine mentioned online, but if it is (or was) a published magazine, then you can cite the magazine's name, author's name, article title, date, and page number. Optionally, if you want your citation source to be online, then try to get your pdf uploaded to a reliable website (not a blog). Hope that helps. Storye book (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Some time ago I started making regular donations to Wikipedia. Something I am glad to be doing, and continue to do. However, I regularly still get prompts to donate. So, I've created a Wiki log in, but I can't find a way to link my regular donations to my new account. Is there a way to do that, or Should I cancel my original donations and set up a new donation plan? TuryScrema (talk) 11:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi TuryScrema - we don't link donations to accounts, but provided you always use your account, the next time you receive a donations request, there should be a dismiss button, allowing you to block any further requests - Arjayay (talk) 12:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, TuryScrema. There is (purposely) no way to link donations to an editing account: absolutely nothing in Wikipedia knows anything about who has made what donations. But what you can do is to go to Preferences and ask it to surpress the banner. (You can do this whether you actually donate or not). ColinFine (talk) 12:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete user profile

I set it up incorrectly and cannot change the user name ass so wish to delete the profile. Not obvious how I do that. Thanks Bill Wkbrannigan (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accounts cannot be deleted for technical and legal reasons. It is possible to change a username (see CHU), but since you've made no other edits on this account, the easiest thing is just to abandon it and create a new one. If you choose, you can create a User page for this account saying what you have done, but there is no need to. ColinFine (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please be aware that User:Wkbrannigan is not a "profile", and should not be regarded or treated as one. It is your user page, intended only for your activities in Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Account blocked

How can you help me to restore my account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you remind me the duration of this block please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please log in to your account to request unblock, all information should be there. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When will be the end of this block? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Posting questions here is block evasion. Stop posting here. Log into your account. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dr. Donna Singer Wikipedia Page

Hello -

I am wondering what the below means regarding this page Donna Singer

The below was added, but this page has been up for a long time:

This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (August 2016)
This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (June 2022)
This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. (June 2022)

How do I fix this? If nothing gets fixed will the page be deleted? ElizabethJamey (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ElizabethJamey: It looks like the {{orphan}} tag has been removed, so I'll explain the latter two:
  • The article contains promotional wording, which should be removed. Articles should have a neutral point of view.
  • The article content appears to have been written by someone for financial gain, and should be edited to be more neutral (like above).
Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for this response. I read the articles on Promotional wording and neutral point of view, however, the article for Donna Singer, to me, doesn't seem to fit that criteria. Can you please advise of at least a section or a sentence or something on the Donna Singer article that would point to either promotional wording or something that is not neutral, so I can see an example and update accordingly? Thank you for replying back to me and thank you for all of your help, I do appreciate it. ElizabethJamey (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks to me as if Marchjuly has cleaned up most of the puffery, but in the Career section, ". . . includes Doug Richards (bass), a highly applauded jazz musician who worked with . . ." should have "highly applauded" removed unless this description can be cited to a quote in a Reliable source.
On a more grammatical point, in the The Doug Richards Trio section's first paragraph, ". . . which combined both jazz standards as well as original instrumental tracks" doesn't make logical sense – combined these two things with what? Presumably each other, though I doubt that the standards and originals were literally combined, but rather interspersed with one another, in which case something like ". . . included both jazz standards and original instrumental tracks" would be better. Ordinarily I copy-edit such things myself when I come across them, but in this case I'll leave you to do it. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did some cleanup of the article, but it probably needs some more work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding a website to a movie page

I am curious as to why I can NEVER add the movie site TMDB to a movies page? A couple of years ago a 'spam ' alert would come up if I tried. But it is a LEGITIMATE SITE & has been around for 14 years (2008)! Hardly spam. Any idea why I can't add it to the external references section? Beccib23 (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's on the spam blacklist here so any attempt to add it will be blocked automatically. I'm not sure exactly when or why it was added to the list, but it is usually because the link was added in a spammy way to various articles.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can read a discussion here. Ruslik_Zero 20:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ellen Terry

Please check ref number 2 - It is all wrong. Thanks (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was you who made it. The right approach is to preview it, see that it's wrong, and fix it before "publishing" it. This is the approach taken by the vast majority of editors who are as experienced as you are. -- Hoary (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 26

How to cite an anthology with a compiler instead of an editor


I'm trying to cite an Anthology work which has a "compiled by" instead of an "editor". How do I do that?

I tried this:

Heiki Jr., Robert Debs; Heinl, Nancy Gordon (December 1978), "The Marine Corps Gazette article The American Occupation of Haiti: Problems and Programs, 1920-1928", in Evans, USMCR, Col. Stephen S. (ed.), U.S. Marines and Irregular Warfare, 1898-2007: Anthology and Selected Bibliography, Quantico, VA: Marine Corps University (published 2008)

but it's clearly not right, it lists the compilers name before the name of the anthology and adds "(ed.)".

Please advise, Thanks, Gecko G (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You could use the 'others' parameter, like this: Heiki Jr., Robert Debs; Heinl, Nancy Gordon (December 1978), "The American Occupation of Haiti: Problems and Programs, 1920-1928", U.S. Marines and Irregular Warfare, 1898-2007: Anthology and Selected Bibliography, Compiled by Col. Stephen S. Evans, USMCR, Quantico, VA: Marine Corps University (published 2008) Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Gecko G. In this context, I believe that a human compiler is pretty much synonymous with a human editor. Comparing the meanings of the words is complicated by the fact that both words are also used in a computer software context. Cullen328 (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict)I could've sworn I had tried that exact same thing and it gave me an "ignore" error message, but yeah, that works (I guess I must have had a typo or something), thanks Firefangledfeathers, that will work if there's not a proper way to cite an anthology!
Cullen328-I suppose there is some overlap, but the source specifically labels him as a compiler, not an editor so I want to list him as such.
to any/all- Given that this is an article originally from a magazine, collected into an anthology work, what's the best way to list the three titles (article title, original magazine title, and anthology title)? Is there no anthology specific citation templates? I tried to find the original magazine but I'm not finding any of that years Marine Corps Gazettes in my usual online sources, let alone that particular issue. Gecko G (talk) 02:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You don't. You cite the source that you consulted. cs1|2 or other forms of citation are not compliations of a source's publication history. If you consulted the magazine then:
{{cite magazine |mode=cs2 |last1=Heiki |first1=Robert Debs Jr |last2=Heinl |first2=Nancy Gordon |date=December 1978 |title=The American Occupation of Haiti: Problems and Programs, 1920-1928 |magazine=The Marine Corps Gazette}}
Heiki, Robert Debs Jr; Heinl, Nancy Gordon (December 1978). "The American Occupation of Haiti: Problems and Programs, 1920-1928". The Marine Corps Gazette.
Compiler/editor for the purposes of a citation are synonymous. While |others= 'works', |editor= is the better choice. Omit Evans' rank and affiliation; name only.
{{citation |last1=Heiki |first1=Robert Debs Jr |last2=Heinl |first2=Nancy Gordon |chapter=The American Occupation of Haiti: Problems and Programs, 1920-1928 |editor-last=Evans |editor-first=Stephen S. |title=U.S. Marines and Irregular Warfare, 1898-2007: Anthology and Selected Bibliography |publisher=Marine Corps University |date=2008 |location=Quantico, VA}}
Heiki, Robert Debs Jr; Heinl, Nancy Gordon (2008), "The American Occupation of Haiti: Problems and Programs, 1920-1928", in Evans, Stephen S. (ed.), U.S. Marines and Irregular Warfare, 1898-2007: Anthology and Selected Bibliography, Quantico, VA: Marine Corps University
Also, see MOS:JR.
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trappist the monk Thanks!
(and especially thanks for the link about "Jr", as I'm never sure how to properly do that).
Though- then when would you use |publication-date= if not here? Doesn't not using it make it look like the article is 30 years newer than it actually is? Gecko G (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are citing the compilation, the proper date is the publication date (|date=) of the compilation. The purpose of a citation is to help the reader of articles locate a copy of the source that you used when writing the article. The unique weirdnesses of |publication-date= and |publication-place= don't really aid the reader in their search for the source. I hope to see both parameters go away.
Trappist the monk (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not trying to be difficult, but that really doesn't seem correct to me. Are you sure? I'm only planning on one quote, but if there was a subsequent quote with a reference list wouldn't that have to then be listed as Heiki (2008), even though Heiki wrote in 1978, vs. Evans (2008)? Wouldn't that make it harder for a reader to find a copy, not easier? How do those 2 parameters not help to clarify? Perhaps I'm not understanding or missing something... Gecko G (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you wanted the year the magazine article was initially published you could use |orig-date=1978 which will have that year in square brackets (showing it has been added and is not strictly speaking part of the citation where you got it) in addition to |year=2008.
{{citation |last1=Heiki |first1=Robert Debs Jr |last2=Heinl |first2=Nancy Gordon |chapter=The American Occupation of Haiti: Problems and Programs, 1920-1928 |editor-last=Evans |editor-first=Stephen S. |title=U.S. Marines and Irregular Warfare, 1898-2007: Anthology and Selected Bibliography |publisher=Marine Corps University |date=2008 |orig-date=1978 |location=Quantico, VA}}
Heiki, Robert Debs Jr; Heinl, Nancy Gordon (2008) [1978], "The American Occupation of Haiti: Problems and Programs, 1920-1928", in Evans, Stephen S. (ed.), U.S. Marines and Irregular Warfare, 1898-2007: Anthology and Selected Bibliography, Quantico, VA: Marine Corps University
Umimmak (talk) 05:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I'm sure. You are citing Heiki & Heinl in Evans 2008. You won't find Evans 1978 in a library catalog. You will find Evans 2008 so 2008 is the correct value for |date=. Using |orig-date=1978 implies that there is a 1978 edition of Evans. Even were there an Evans 1978, don't imply that you have consulted Evans 1978 if you have not.
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Using |orig-date=1978 implies that there is a 1978 edition of Evans., not all that does is say that the text of the Heiki & Keinl article was originally published that year; this is standard citation practice. CMoS provides the example Du Bois, W. E. B. (1903) 2016. “Of the Coming of John.” In The Making of the American Essay, edited by John D’Agata, 253–68. Minneapolis: Graywolf Press.; MLA provides Franklin, Benjamin. "Emigration to America." 1782. The Faber Book of America, edited by Christopher Ricks and William L. Vance, Faber and Faber, 1992, pp. 24-26. Both of these have a year for the original publication date of the chapter, not of the entire anthology. Umimmak (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought I remembered that was how a citation normally would be. Unfortunately the wikipedia citation template puts the dates next to each other if using |orig-date= so It seems to either need further explanation (building upon your originaly idea, like in my example "A" below) or one needs to use the |publication-date= (like in my example "B", also below). Personally I lean towards favoring B, but A works too. Gecko G (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both of these have a year for the original publication date of the chapter, not of the entire anthology. What? Of course both of those have dates for the anthologies: 2016 for D'Agata and 1992 for Ricks & Vance. I stand unpersuaded. Too many dates is too many dates. It is not necessary to know when Du Bois or Franklin wrote their contributions to the anthologies. Presuming that you consulted D'Agata 2016 and Ricks & Vance 1992, knowing Du Bois 1903 and Franklin 1782 won't help a reader find the sources that you consulted.
Trappist the monk (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It gives the researcher the option to find either the original OR the anthology, i.e. they can try to locate either Du Bois 1903 or D'Agata 2016, and it doesn't send them looking for a nonexistent Du Bois 2016 or Franklin 1992 Gecko G (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict)
But I fear your citation would cause the reader to search a library catalog for Heiki & Heinl 2008. It seems there's one of 2 possibly correct ways to do this (if there's no anthology specific citation template). Either:
A) incorporate Umimmak@'s suggestion of using |orig-date= but including explanation, thusly:
{{citation | last1= Heiki | first1= Robert Debs Jr | last2= Heinl | first2= Nancy Gordon | chapter= The American Occupation of Haiti: Problems and Programs, 1920-1928 | editor-last= Evans | editor-first= Stephen S. | title= U.S. Marines and Irregular Warfare, 1898-2007: Anthology and Selected Bibliography | publisher = Marine Corps University | date= 2008 | orig-date= Original article December 1978 | location = Quantico, VA }}
Heiki, Robert Debs Jr; Heinl, Nancy Gordon (2008) [Original article December 1978], "The American Occupation of Haiti: Problems and Programs, 1920-1928", in Evans, Stephen S. (ed.), U.S. Marines and Irregular Warfare, 1898-2007: Anthology and Selected Bibliography, Quantico, VA: Marine Corps University
or B) keep closer to your idea but keeping 2008 in the |publication-date= parameter, thusly:
{{citation | last1= Heiki | first1= Robert Debs Jr | last2= Heinl | first2= Nancy Gordon | date= December 1978 | chapter= The American Occupation of Haiti: Problems and Programs, 1920-1928 | editor-last= Evans | editor-first= Stephen S. | title= U.S. Marines and Irregular Warfare, 1898-2007: Anthology and Selected Bibliography | publisher = Marine Corps University | publication-date= 2008 | publication-place = Quantico, VA }}
Heiki, Robert Debs Jr; Heinl, Nancy Gordon (December 1978), "The American Occupation of Haiti: Problems and Programs, 1920-1928", in Evans, Stephen S. (ed.), U.S. Marines and Irregular Warfare, 1898-2007: Anthology and Selected Bibliography, Quantico, VA: Marine Corps University (published 2008)
Thoughts? Thanks. Gecko G (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gecko G: But I fear your citation would cause the reader to search a library catalog for Heiki & Heinl 2008. no the reader will see those are the authors of just one chapter so they'll go to look up the 2008 book edited by Evans. There's no need to have extraneous information like "Original article" because having square brackets around the date says that already.
Another suggestion is just have both full citations, have something like [Reprint of Marine Corps Gazette, vol. 62, no. 12, pp. 46–56, December 1978] following the citation of the 2008 book where you got it.
Note that the surname is not Heiki as I actually check the sources (and also obviously you should have |pages=89–99 somewhere in your citation for the 2008 book). Umimmak (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
re: first 2 sentences- That was in reference to Trappists original suggestion of the 26th, not yours.
re: third sentence- At this point, yeah it might be easier to just ditch the wikipedia specific citation template.
re: fourth sentence- looks it up... wow. You're absolutely right, they are both surnamed Heinl. I must of made a sloppy typo in jotting down my notes during research.
Gecko G (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) I was planning on citing only 1 specific point and so would have the specific page number for that part, but now I'm thinking I might include more from that source, in which case I'll give the page range. Thanks. Gecko G (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that Heiki is not the surname; see "The American Occupation of Haiti: Problems and Programs, 1920-1928" (p. 103)
If you are going to argue that it is necessary to include the date of the magazine article, are you also going to argue that it is necessary to include the page numbers where the article appears in the magazine? It is much of a muchness. Extraneous information should be left out.
Trappist the monk (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Labelling as 'false claims' news articles that had been corrected or retracted

It is my understanding that news publishers sometimes make corrections or retractions, with or without notice, and that it is routine practice in the industry. I came across the article The Raw Story which has a long list of entries (18) under the heading "False claims". Every one which I have looked into was about an article which had been quickly corrected or retracted within a reasonably short period of time. Some of these articles had relied on news agency or syndicated articles which were even cited/linked in the published article. I have searched other Wikipedia articles on news organizations that published/corrected/retracted the same material and yet I do not find similar content in their Wikipedia articles, nor do I find any similar sections or lists for 'false claims'.

Some of the language in the Wikipedia article The Raw Story is exaggerated, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE or based on exaggerated or twisted claims by the cited articles. I have tried to remove some of the entries and have put my reasoning on the talk page, but one particular editor (who was a major contributor to content on the page and I believe who added this list) reverts and insists that the content is well sourced and NPOV. But it isn't. Regardless of what I write to explain my edit, this editor uses very strong and aggressive language to discourage me from continuing. I have tried to search for specific Wikipedia guidelines about this type of content, but have only been able to find NPOV, SYNTH, UNDUE and, frankly, WP:COMMONSENSE.

If any of the 26 citations in The Raw Story were actually alleging that Raw Story routinely and repeatedly publishes false claims and is negligent about retractions, then that would be a different story, but there are no sources covering that concept. Instead, the majority of these citations are Snopes-like in that they mention some issue that made the rounds of the internet which they found to be untrue or unlikely and they happen to mention that Raw Story as well as others had published it.

I am unsure how to proceed. The article is a wreck and even though I have only a limited amount of time to spend on Wikipedia, I don't want to abandon it to this "owner". Is there a more specific guideline or policy that covers this sort of content? Or does anyone have any advice or direction that can unstick this impasse with another editor? Grorp (talk) 04:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This seems like a conversation you and Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d need to have on Talk:The Raw Story before EITHER of you revert again. I do see you have posted detailed reasoning for your changes on the talk page and Dr. Swag Lord has responded, but I can see how you might think his response (basically your explanation is TL:DR and to "Stop removing well-sourced content.") is less than productive. I think the two of you need to have a good faith conversation about if that material is being given due weight or not. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Grorp As I explained on the talk page, please try your best to express your arguments in a succinct manner and avoid WP:WALLSOFTEXT. It's very difficult for editors to respond in more detail to thousands and thousands of bytes of arguments. This especially rings true when the article has been ransacked by sock-puppets, declared & undeclared COIs for the last few years. Thank you very much. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: I am not responsible for the earlier history of the article, nor your fatigue over it. Please talk with me... and not with the "ghosts of edits past". Grorp (talk) 03:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Severe problem with routine addition of content

Hello, I'm having severe problems with routine addition of content, succeeding only on 5th or 7th try after 15-20 mins:

Can anyone please investigate it and explain why? Is there any problem with editing at the moment in general? Or any problem with this IP addr or range so it triggers some internal protection (I usually get assigned IP from a different range, this one is a very rare occurrence).

This is infuriating, as I wanted to do one more edit of the page, and it keeps failing with "Error, something unexpected happened upon loading the preview. Please close and try again." reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC) P.S. in case such questions should be asked elsewhere, please let me know. (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Making note here that it's definitely not an abuse filter issue (I checked and they haven't triggered any abuse filters). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It might be just general internet problems. In case you hadn't noticed, IP, there is an ongoing war in Europe, and both sides (in the broadest sense) are doubtless making cyberattacks on each others' internet services. {the poster formerly known as} (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would make sense considering the IP is from Russia according to WhoIs. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears the problem was entirely on my end: shortly after my futile edit attempts I noticed I couldn't watch YouTube vids even at min quality; YouTube-reported bitrate fell to 50-80 kbps – numbers I don't recall seeing before. The fact that I easily posted here, but couldn't edit the article, is probably explained by its big size – perhaps something in MediaWiki is sensitive to very low connection speed. Now the speed is back, and I edited the article as usual, without a hitch.

So thanks to all who reached out to help, and apologies for the alert folks, if it occurred to me that I should have checked my connection, I would have done it. Case closed it seems (except someone here is brave enough to go ahead and fix that MediaWiki "feature" for the good of all editors sitting on flaky connections). (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think that would be a MediaWiki issue but probably just a website issue. Usually if your connection isn't very good certain things won't work on websites because your internet isn't strong enough. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Censorship and propaganda.

If Wikipedia wishes to remain a legitimate source of knowledgeable information, it should refrain from locking pages with politically biased information subject to propaganda laws and attributes to support narratives through emotion and remain factual and logical. Example: Fascism - Wikipedia States "far-right" and locked in Talk as: The lead of the article says that "Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy that rose to prominence in early 20th-century Europe." This statement is the result of a very long process of discussion and debate and has strong consensus acceptance within the Wikipedia community, based on the consensus of political scientists, historians, and other reliable sources that Fascism is a (far) "right-wing" ideology and not a "left-wing" one. This has been discussed numerous times. Please see this FAQ and read the talk page archives." When in fact no discussion was had. I do not know, though I suspect government meddling, was the source cause of this. I have plenty of biased propaganda sources such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube for these kinds of content, and hope Wikipedia can return itself to normalcy while remaining unbiased in word definitions. The above example of "Fascism" is neither right nor left as described and outlined in the remainder of the article as well as its source references. This and other similar source information meddling is the reason I no longer monetarily support the Wikipedia foundation, see also redefinition of “Vaccine” as other source. ELXaber (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ELXaber: Talk:Fascism has a "Search archives" field. A search of left-wing shows many discussions. Some American conservatives and others are trying to redefine the term but until they convince the World at large, Wikipedia will probably continue to use the normal international meaning. I don't know where you are from but if you mainly follow conservative American media then you don't get a proper impression of how the term is normally used. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and tries to avoid special terminology used by limited groups. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ELXaber, the Wikimedia Foundation has massive cash reserves and will not miss your donations. Experienced Wikipedia editors pay no attention whatsoever to anyone's comments about withholding donations. Cullen328 (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ELXaber This is a help desk for answering questions about editing. In the future please feel free to voice your concerns by starting a discussion on the relevant article talk page. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edits using bot

Hi, I need to find a talk page (or project) or a user who knows how to operate a bot (I've seen these edits before, but can't remember who made them). I don't edit English Wikipedia, so don't know where to ask my question exactly. Thank you RiniX (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds like you're looking for Wikipedia:Bot requests, or possibly Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard, depending on the nature of your question. —Cryptic 19:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


User:ItsKesha makes unexplained deletes. User:ItsKesha also makes additions to Professional wrestling and association football articles. .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are you saying this here, 0mtw etc? You do not appear to have made any edits to User talk:ItsKesha or any other talk page in the last four days. Those are where you should start any discussion with or about the other user. ColinFine (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Main Page

Is there a way to receieve a daily email link to the Main page. I've found that I simply can't remember everyday to go there but an email (which I check regularly) would be a helpful reminder. (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think Wikipedia can do that. The Google search daily email reminders gives many services. I don't know what else they may do with your email address. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could subscribe to the daily featured article email list? (talk) 08:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 27

Talk page archives

I tried using OneClickArchiver on my talk page, but it won't work. I'm trying to figure it out but there must be something I'm missing. —VersaceSpace 🌃 02:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@VersaceSpace: It seems to be some sort of script problem. I see that you're using the version by Equazcion, which is unmaintained. Perhaps try switching to one of the versions listed at Wikipedia:One click archiving that are still maintained. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dug a little deeper, and it seems like the RegExp in line 47 is the immediate problem. I am by no means an expert at RegExp, but it seems like the Regex expects the line with the count variable to be present as |count = number, allowing only for differential insofar as that the spaces I gave a red background can be ommited. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good practice would be to make the spaces explicit, and variable in length: \s* Bazza (talk) 09:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SPI with IPs

Where can I report sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry involving IPs? Is this still appropriate at SPI, given the sensitive nature of the issue, or should I email somebody? Duonaut (talk | contribs) 10:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Duonaut You can report sockpupperty with IP's at SPI, but checkusers will not connect IP's with accounts - any blocks will have to be based on behavioural evidence alone. (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good to know. Thanks! Duonaut (talk | contribs) 10:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2022 Uganda Ebola outbreak

hi, I did this edit which moved text from one article to another,(and gave attribution) and I noticed I got this, what do I do??--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ozzie10aaaa you asked Diannaa about this 20 minutes earlier, so I would suggest waiting for her response. She will not always be able to respond immediately as she will sometimes be busy, or asleep. Please do not ask the same question on different pages as it wastes volunteer time. TSventon (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC) ‎Reply[reply]
ok, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikidata problem

Hi--can any of you figure out why Lycée Lamartine links to the wrong article in the French wiki? When I click the French link, it goes to another lycee. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed it. There were some interlanguage links being interpreted as pre-wikidata interwikis. Madeline (part of me) 20:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should work now. Ruslik_Zero 20:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. For future reference, if you want to link inline to an article in another edition of Wikipedia, you need to start with a colon, so [[:fr:Lycée Jules-Ferry (Paris)|Lycée Jules-Ferry]] displays as Lycée Jules-Ferry, and links to the French article. But a better approach is to use the template {{Ill}}. So {{Ill|Lycée Jules-Ferry (Paris)|fr|lt=Lycée Jules-Ferry}} displays as Lycée Jules-Ferry because there actually is an article in English, but if there weren't it would link to the French article with a little "{fr}" by it to warn the reader that it was in a different language. ColinFine (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, all of you! Drmies (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dark mode

Is there a dark mode to using wikippedia? Ebbedlila (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ebbedlila: Yes but actually no. There is a gadget that enables a "dark mode" on Wikipedia, however it's really just a color inverter. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 22:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To try it out, click "preferences" at the top of the page, then "gadgets", then look under "appearance" - Arjayay (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 28

Reference quoting

Hi There,

I want to add a reference to a publishing or an article or newspaper article in my new page. But I don't have the web reference to it however I have a pdf version of it with me. What needs to be done in these cases? Can I still use that as a reference in the article? Can I create a web item using the pdf I have and quote it? Vamsy Alapati (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Referencing a page does not generally involve quoting it. You would only need to provide enough information to look the source up in a library or archive, using {{cite news}} (we need the publication name, publication date, source title, source byline (i.e. who wrote it), and page(s) the source's on). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I just have some softcopy of the item or scanned copy of an old publication in newspaper. What can I do to use that in the reference? Can I use the archive or such to create a web item and reference to that? If yes, Can you help me on how to do that? Vamsy Alapati (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I invite you to re-read what I just wrote. None of it involves what you're intending to do. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The source for a citation doesn't need to be currently available online as explained in WP:PUBLISHED as long as it's considered to be a reliable source, published and reasonably accessible and used in proper context. Being available online of course typically makes assessing source reliability and context much easier, but it's not required. So, if the soft copies you have are from an old newspaper that is considered to be a reliable source for which archived copies exist in some form (e.g. microfilm) that someone can go and check (even if they have to travel at their own expense to do so), then it can still possibly be cited as a source. If the soft copies that you possess are the only copies of the old paper in existence anywhere in the world and access is granted to only certain people determined by you (e.g. a private collection), then the source probably isn't OK for Wikipedia's purposes. In the case of old newspapers, there may be old archived versions found online via sites like and you may have to pay to access the source, but that's still OK per WP:PAYWALL as long as the source is considered reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. Quoting a source often can be helpful when dealing with offline sources because it can aid in establish the context in which the source is used; you don't need to quote the entire source, but rather only the sentence which directly relates to why the source is being used. You don't need to do this, but you should be ready to clarify the source if querried about it by another user. I wouldn't recommended uploading your copies of the source to some website and then linking to that because there could be copyright related matters involved per WP:CONVENIENCE that are separate from whether the source is reliable in the first place. There could also be concerns raised as to whether your version is a true version or has been modified in some way. Finally, content is not automatically OK to add to articles just because it can be supported by a citation to a reliable source as explained in WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Often its encyclopedic relevance and weight need to be separately assessed even when reliably sourced; an extraordinary claim or some kind may be much easier to discuss and sort out when it can be readily assessed by viewing online sources, and some editors may be opposed to using offline sources in such situations unless the source itself is really quite extraordinary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC); [Note: Posted edited by Marchjuly to add the missing "not" referred to below. -- 13:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)]Reply[reply]
I think there's a "not" missing in your sentence Finally, content is automatically OK to add to articles..., Marchjuly. ColinFine (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, there was. Thank you for catching that ColinFine. My apologies for any confusion the missing "not" may have caused anyone. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rosamund Pike

Rosamund Pike is originally born on January 27, 1979. (talk) 09:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possibly. But we need a reliable source (see WP:V) before it can be added to the article. - X201 (talk) 09:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Was she also born at other times after that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did a quick search but didn't find anything that looked original that sourced the date. If the date is wrong in one place, it's sometimes lazily copied to other crowdsourced sites and takes on a life of its own. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leeds School of Medicine

Ref number 1 is all wrong - please fix if able. Thank you (talk) 11:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Sungodtemple (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

can i merge accounts

i have 3 accounts ( intercity225, 2006toyotacorrola and northamptontown) and i want to merege them so i'm not accused of sockpuppeting is this possible 2006toyotacorrola (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, merging accounts is not possible. Tropicalkitty (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2006toyotacorrola To avoid accusations of sock puppetry, you may either abandon your other accounts and stick to your current one, or clearly identify the other accounts as yours on their user pages(and on your current user page identify the other accounts you have). 331dot (talk) 11:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i've forgotten the passwords for the other two so i might do so 2006toyotacorrola (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are sandbox pages public?

Hi, I'm using my sandbox page to write a draft for a wiki page I might upload later, I just wanted to know if sandbox pages were public? - Reeealllkeyyss — Preceding undated comment added 21:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Reeealllkeyyss, yes, they are, though they're obviously less visible than other areas of Wikipedia. They are invisible to search engines by default. (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reeealllkeyyss There are no completely private areas on Wikipedia, though some areas are harder to find than others. If you don't want anyone to see what you write, don't put it on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay thank you! - Reeealllkeyyss — Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply with a bullet point to things like AfDs with Discussion Tools

I'd like to be able to reply to an afd with the reply in discussion tools. Is there a way to do this? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article is a derivative under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. A link to the original article can be found here and attribution parties here. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.