Wikipedia:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:HD)
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.
If you have a question or concern about the new skin that is enabled by default, please go to this page, and leave your comment on its talk page. Thoughts about future directions for the skin's deployment can be submitted at this Request for Comments.
  • 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.

January 29[edit]


Do you know why this section is NOT archiving properly? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, it's being told not to buy the comment <!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 17:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC) -->. If you remove it it will archive. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dante Leon Disambiguation Page[edit]

I am planning to turn Dante Leon into a Disambiguation Page. I will be adding an article about another Dante Leon who is a martial artist.

What is the process to do this?

-04:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC) Imcdc Contact 04:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Imcdc: First, create your new article Dante Leon (martial artist) and let it sit awhile to make sure it will not be contested and deleted. Then, move the existing Dante Leon to Dante Leon (wrestler). This move will leave a redirect in place at the old name. Now you can edit that redirect to turn it into a disambiguation page. Use another disambiguation page about a human name as a worked example (e.g. John Palmer), including the {{hndis}} template at the end. finally, create a redirect named Dante Leon (disambiguation) to point to Dante Leon. -Arch dude (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Imcdc: Or, read Wikipedia:Disambiguation. -Arch dude (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Death notice (Floyd Sneed)[edit]

Not really a question: You may want to post (or have someone post) about the death of Floyd Sneed, the drummer for Three Dog Night. (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please direct this comment to Talk:Floyd Sneed. 331dot (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Floyd Sneed is still showing as alive, but a Facebook post isn't a reliable source for saying that he has died. He may well have died but there needs to be better sourcing. I couldn't find any news stories at the moment, but the Facebook page is only two hours old.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another ghit here, but probably not a Reliable source, as it's only quoting 'the Group's media page.' {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creating a list of articles based on content[edit]

I would like to get a list of all Wikipedia articles that are not about people or places, is this possible, and if so, what would be the best way to go about this? Jordanisanerd (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jordanisanerd Such a list would be in the millions and difficult to manage- maybe your best bet is starting with Category:Main topic classifications. 331dot (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Contents. Shantavira|feed me 09:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jordanisanerd: Each Wikipedia article is associated with an object in the database of our sister project Wikidata. These objects are in turn linked to (related to) other objects: its a relational database. The database can be queried to generate reports such as the one you want. Constructing a database query at first appears to be intimidating, but in fact you can learn to do it quite quickly. Start at d:Wikidata:Main page or maybe at d:Wikidata:Data access. The huge advantage of this is your ability to refine your query to zero in on the subset that you really want.-Arch dude (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for a deleted article[edit]

The article is [[The Abolitionist Wedding of Theodore Weld and Angelina Grimké]]. I wrote it. It was deleted 2-3 years ago. I want to see if I can salvage something of it. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The deletion discussion was at WP:Articles for deletion/The abolitionist Weld–Grimké wedding. The outcome was "redirect", so the previous version is still there in the history of the redirect The abolitionist Weld–Grimké wedding. See ColinFine (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consult sources of Chinese metro population data[edit]

hi,I can't the sources of Chinese metro population data for example,the metro population of Shenzhen is 23,300,000,but I can't find the exact source,can u give me the reason? JeanLee23 (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, JeanLee23. That figure of 23,300,000 is cited to here, but that does not seem to confirm the data. I thought perhaps that somebody had altered the figure since it was first inserted, without updating the reference; but that does not seem to be the case. Editor Batternut appears to have added the figure and the reference in this edit in 2017. Batternut seems to be still active, and I've pinged them here, so maybe they'll come and explain where the figure came from.
Generally, the talk page of the article is a better place to ask about specifics in an article. ColinFine (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was able to verify. On the 39th page of the linked PDF is a table with populations of cities including Shenzhen as of 2010. Shenzhen's 'total population' is 23.3 million, and its 'urban population' is 21.7 million. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 14:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're quite right. I didn't notice that the two columns in the table were the FUAs in one column and the cities in the other, so I'd only noticed Shenzhen in the second column. Thanks ColinFine (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your reply.But data for other cities confused me.
For example, the metro population of Beijing is 22,366,547, but Beijing‘s 'total population' from PDF is 24.9 million.
Are the two sources of data different? JeanLee23 (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Potential disruptive editing on Ukraine article[edit]

An entry made about events 26 Jan has been re-written entirely. The editor has deleted much important information (the context of this strike for example), the English is unacceptable and the terms now used indicate not that events happened, but that officials in Ukraine say that events happened. I've asked on the talk page for the deleted material to be reverted, the editor has returned but not reverted.–2023_Russian_strikes_against_Ukrainian_infrastructure#2023 It looks as if the protection on this page may have changed. Can someone please see if they agree with me that this is not acceptable editing and help with the way forward. Thanks. Thelisteninghand (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC) Looking further at the article it appears there has been a great deal of trimming going on, and a lot of unacceptable English throughout. Upsetting because I have spent hours correcting bad English only to see it mangled again. Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why does Wikipedia log me out every time I go to the Commons or anywhere else?[edit]

This happens even though I have checked to keep me logged in for a year. My password is hard, and this is a bother not worth doing most of the time. Krok6kola (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should be centrally logged in across Wikimedia projects. I don't know why this isn't working. In general, you cannot assume that logging in on a single Wikimedia project automatically logs you in to the others. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 16:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Check the checkbox saying Keep me logged in when logging in to the relevant project, this should help. -- StarryNightSky11 02:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simplifying Community Portal[edit]

I feel like the community portal page is very, very complicated. I would like to try to redesign it and maybe share it and see if people think it’s an improvement on Wikipedia. Maybe someone knows like, if you can fork wikipedias code, modify it, submit as a pull request, and see if people think it’s an improvement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Community portal is a wiki page. You can copy its contents into a sandbox. This is much easier it you first create an account, so the sandbox can be a sub-page of your user page. Please remove the categories in your copy: you can put them back if your page ever becomes the official page. However: Wikipedia is a collaborative project. You should almost certainly start by opening a discussion on the page's talk page at Wikipedia talk:Community portal. Note that although the page is a Wiki page, it uses a great deal of raw HTML, so you will need to use both unless you truly intend to start over from scratch. -Arch dude (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
you would also need to ask at Village Pump, and also post a notice at the talk page for the community portal. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can't find archive link[edit]

In this diff, a talk page's archive link was changed after the talk page and its article were moved. Where is the link to the archive? I can't find one anywhere, either in that version of the page or the current version. All I see are wikiproject links, pageviews, section sizes, and general policy links that aren't particularly related to this page, such as Seek dispute resolution if needed. (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS, I've found Talk:List of school shootings in the United States (2000–present)/Archive 2 (simply by guessing), but Talk:List of school shootings in the United States (2000–present)/Archive and Talk:List of school shootings in the United States (2000–present)/Archive 1 don't exist. Why would there be a 2 without a 1: just a mistake, or is there a good reason? (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I found that archive 2 link by using "What links here" on the current Talk Page. It would seem that something has gone wrong, so I'm alerting Aidan9382, who made the edit you linked, in the hope they can help. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's been fixed by PrimeHunter..... thanks to him and to you, IP editor for pointing it out. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fixed it by moving the old archives. counter = 2 in archiving instructions means that future archiving will be made to archive 2 until it's full and then 3. The talk page template making archive links first looks for archive 1 and stops if it's not found. Before the fix there was no archive 1 at the current title. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My apologies there - when I was fixing these quite a bit back, I was unaware of the previous pages moving, and so didn't really apply fixes properly. I've been doing them properly recently, but I haven't found the time to go back through my contribs and fix my old mistakes among all the others. Sorry! Aidan9382 (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleting a file[edit]

I have a file that I published and I am wondering how to delete it. Can you please help Dean Symonds (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you recently uploaded it, and it's unused, tag it with {{db-g7}} and an administrator will delete it. (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Dean. I see that you nominated the file for deletion on Commons, so that should disappear shortly.
I see you are taking the right steps to protect yourself, but if you haven't already read advice for younger editors, I advise you to do so. ColinFine (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Gemini kid (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hide footnote markers?[edit]

Is there an option to toggle footnote markers on Wikipedia articles? WongSeo (talk to me!) 22:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WongSeo If there were, I think it would be an option in your preferences but I can't find one. The best I can think of is described at User:TheDJ/Print options, which will enable you to do various things including removing these markers (and even the references themselves) when printing an article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! This is exactly what I was looking for. WongSeo (talk to me!) 02:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I can't find how to make a donation to Wikipedia. Kearney1429 (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kearney1429: Please see WP:DONATE to donate to the Wikimedia foundation. Each Wikipedia is a project of the foundation. They are the ones who pay for the servers and keep them running. -Arch dude (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Wollte heute Abend schauen, was so geschrieben wurde , finde weder mi ch wieder in Wiki no ch meinen Lotsen Perrak.

Mag er/ sie mich nicxht mehr? bin ich rausgeworfen und warum? MaikenMaus (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia. If you are having difficulties on the German Wikipedia, we cannot help you here. Cullen328 (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MaikenMaus: Link to the German Help Desk: de:Wikipedia:Fragen_zur_Wikipedia RudolfRed (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Danke. MaikenMaus (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 30[edit]

File talk:Elbert Benjamine AKA C. C. Zain.gif[edit]

Hello, I recently learned that there is no entry pertaining to Elbert Benjamine only a and a request to start a discussion. I don’t know what ‘start a discussion’ means. Elbert Benjamine died 70 years ago and is unknown so there is no one who can discuss him. His page can be improved by having his life story available for people to read and I would like to do this. I would be grateful if you could tell me what to do without having a meaningless discussion. The Gemini kid (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, The Gemini kid. You have started a discussion. This person is covered in Church of Light. I suggest that you begin by adding well-referenced content to that article. Cullen328 (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi The Gemini kid. There actually was a Wikipedia article about C.C. Zain that was WP:MERGEd into the article about the Church of Light as a result of the WP:CONSENSUS established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. C. Zain. The main reason for that seems to have been that it couldn't clearly be established that Zain satisfied Wikipedia:Notability (people) for a stand-alone article to be written about him; so, content about him was incorporated into the article about the church. If you feel something has changed and that Zain is now clearly Wikipedia notable, you might first want to discuss the possibility of creating an article about him at Talk:Church of Light to see what some others might think. If the consensus is that a stand-alone article about Zain is now OK because he's clearly Wikipedia notable, there's really no need to start from scratch since part if not all of the original article can probably be restored. Any new content and sources that are found can then be incorporated as needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@The Gemini kid You said "His page can be improved by having his life story available for people to read and I would like to do this". This means that you have found in-depth published material about him, from sources that Wikipedia considers to be reliable and independent of him, right? If so, you can create a draft, possibly starting with the older material. If you haven't seen this yet, please read your first article. David10244 (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New format help on desktop[edit]

I’m not proud to have to ask this, but can someone tell me how exactly you log in on a desktop with the new format? I can not find the login button on the list that comes up, and the only thing now visible is the create account button, but I’ve been here nearly 20 years at this point so I don’t need an account. It’s likely some stupid thing that I haven’t thought of, but I don’t have time to think it through at the moment, and not being able to check watchlists is bumming me out. 2600:1011:B14C:3627:D866:6799:7A51:C006 (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There should be a drop-down menu, which appears when you click on the "…" button in the top right hand corner. Happily888 (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@OVasileva (WMF): - wasn't sure how pieces of in-play feedback like this were best passed to you Nosebagbear (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Happily888: Thank you so much for the reply! God knows I looked for it for two hours or so an three different days and could not find it, its always been in the upper right hand corner. I kept clicking the three lines box on the left figuring it'd be there somewhere or that if I left eh main page it might show itself, but it never did. @OVasileva (WMF): For the record, three dots (...) can be intepreted by older generations who grew up ahead of the digital curve as "to be continued", however in this case that is very misleading because I did not need options for creating an account (getting started, registering, etc), I just needed a log in button. It'd be the same issue with the hashtag, in my day it was known as pound sign since that what it was referred to on land line phones, but try using that interpretation with Gen Z and beyond and it'd be lost on most of them because that isn't what they know it for. I disagree with the decision to redesign everything for exactly this reason, all the up and coming redesign people think they are making it better but what actually happens it that it forces us to relearn everything we already know to account for naked vanity and pride that comes from people who feel adjustments like this help. Two of the biggest failures in Microsoft's history resulted from that exact train of thought, first with clippy and then with Windows 8, both of which forced changes on users they weren't happy about. Windows 8 in particular was a catastrophy because it was built for mobile at the expense of the desktop, which is where the bulk of Microsoft's business was coming from at the time. There is also an unseen security risk in this, if people like me who have advanced rights can not easily discern how to log in we may be tempted to leave our accounts permanently logged in which in turn can result in unauthorized persons using advanced level accounts for malevolent purposes. Lastly, I wanted to draw your attention to an old signpost issue with a story titled Why does the number of Wikipedia readers rise while the number of editors doesn't?, to which I replied with my own analogy in the discussion section. The long and short of it is fiddling with the equipment can have unexpected and adverse results, some of which may not be so easily seen and/or understood. I've already found one, in this new format I couldn't log in, and I'd wager others are going to find more in time. Thats why defaults should be left as is, and skins like this should be optional for users and not forced on us. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I want to use this tool, but I don't know how to use it. The documentation says there is a "redirect" button in the search results window, but I can't find it. Please help me. (using google translator) -- ginaan(˵⚈ε⚈˵) 03:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@기나ㅏㄴ It appears you added the code on User:기나ㅏㄴ/common.js. Did you follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache? If that doesn't work, I suggest asking the script owner at User talk:Awesome Aasim for assistance. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@기나ㅏㄴ: The installation code was wrong. It wasn't made by Awesome Aasim. I have fixed it.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your editing is of great help to me. Thank you very much for helping me:) --ginaan(˵⚈ε⚈˵) 16:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Screen appearance[edit]

Is there any way that I can change the Wiki screen background from white to black. It is much easier to read. aI have my Google screen setting to black but can't find any way to change the Wiki screen. 2001:569:5461:E700:683A:DAE6:1B35:296D (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See WP:DARK.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proof of articles[edit]

I added some facts to a site…but how do I show proof of what was added to a site so it isnt removed again MRZIPITYDUDA (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You need to find a reliable source which quotes these facts, and then generate a citation for the source. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MRZIPITYDUDA Specifically you added information which you may know to be true but you didn't provide a source so that readers could verify that what you added is correct. That's a central policy of Wikipedia. It may be that an existing reference in the Allen Jacobs article could have been used (see WP:REFNAME for how to do that). Otherwise you have to find and add a new source: see this essay. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MRZIPITYDUDA Where did those facts come from? If they came from a published, independent, reliable source, you would cite that source. If the facts came from anywhere else, they likely won't be allowed to stay in the article (not site). Wikipedia only documents stuff that is published elsewhere. I hope this helps explain Wikipedia's way of working. David10244 (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dichroic prism?[edit]

Dichroic prism

Hi, I'm not really sure where best to ask this question... The article Dichroic prism, which defines its topic as "a prism that splits light into two beams of differing wavelength (colour)", is illustrated by the image on the right, which is a featured picture. However, it looks to me like there are quite a few more colours than just two in this image. Can anyone explain this? I would ask on the article talk page, but it doesn't seem like it's a well-watched article so don't know if I'd get an answer. Is there a science helpdesk or similar I can go to? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Amakuru I think that you need to compare this sort of prism with a more conventional one, explained at dispersive prism where white light is split into a single beam containing multiple colours. I'm not able to give a detailed explanation but you'll get one if you repeat the question at WP:RD/S. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article has two diagrams. One is clearly labelled as showing a trichroic (not dichroic) prism, and is to some extent comprehensible, though I can't guess what the orange line labelled "F2" is. The other is completely incomprehensible, and although it is captioned "dichroic prism", it shows light of at least nine different colours. The text refers to "the diagram", without making it clear which diagram is meant.
Sometimes a Wikipedia article gets into such a state that whenever anyone, even an expert in the field, sees it, they think "OMG what a mess. I'm not going to get involved in that." But the best place to ask your question is the article's talk page. Maproom (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mike Turnbull and Maproom: OK, I'll give the RD/S a try, thanks. Not too confident in the article talk page, it hasn't been edited since 2015 Smiley.png  — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cannot insert images[edit]

I tried to add an image to Death by burning at the Effect section and the image just don't seem to load even though the wikitext is valid. Is this caused by some sort of censoring here? CactiStaccingCrane 15:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The image is on the Bad image list. You can request an exception for this article at the talk page MediaWiki talk:Bad image list. —Kusma (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arabic Wikipedia[edit]

Dear Sir Greetings from Egypt I want to submit a complaint, regarding the management of the Arabic Wikipedia, as the editors and administrators who have the power to accept or reject articles, as they are controlled - like all Arabs - by the religious character, and this absolutely affects their work on Wikipedia. This is confirmed information, I am a secularist edit articles, many of them was rejected, even books articles, because it may contradict Islam and the sanctification of formal religiosity such as the niqab, or it may delve into unseen matters that Islam has been silent about, Then they cover it up by saying it's not encyclopedic. if you review the articles that were canceled for me in arabic section, you will be sure of my words. it is certain that the Arabic Wikipedia does not present the scientific truth as it is, because of what I mentioned,In defense of the legacies and the protection of pre-modern beliefs, which caused the emergence of extremist thought. How can I convey this idea to the central higher management of Wikipedia, which has the right to intervene in the management of the Arabic section? محمد عبد الرحمن المهدي (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@محمد عبد الرحمن المهدي Meta-wiki might be the right place for you. CactiStaccingCrane 16:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@محمد عبد الرحمن المهدي, I suggest you try to raise this issue at the "Movement Strategy Forums," an official forum for the WMF, and for discussions. Sm8900 (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia search querry string for suggestions[edit]


I am trying to add wikipedia as a search engine to Chromium and I had no problems adding the search functionality. I can't find a suggestions link anywhere though.

Here is a suggestions querry link for Google as an example: ""

in contrast to the search link: ""

I didn't find the suggestions link in the Help:Search article here on Wiki. Can anyone help? We could add it to the search help page also, since I doubt I am the first to look for that solution.

Thanks for any replies. Ondřej Janča (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Try using Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why make wikipaedia so complicated???[edit]

Cant you guys leave anything alone, it all worked fine before, Now i cannot type in an enquiry regarding any random subject because it does not exist. There used to be a box in the top tight hand corner i could type in a request for information regarding just about anything where has that box gone. You annually ask me for a contribution and i usually send you a fiver, it looks to me like you do not need my contribution anymore. I shall have to get my information from you tube and google. Wikipaedia is history it would seem. Poydem2011 (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Poydem2011, see Wikipedia:Vector 2022 for more about this change. As you have an account, you can change your preferences to return to the previous behaviour (Appearance -> Vector legacy). This will only work while you are logged in, though. —Kusma (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And the search box is still there in Vector2022: it's just moved to the top left. ColinFine (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Poydem2011 And the search box is now top left, just to the right of the logo. It is an improvement, IMO. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Depending on the width of your screen, the search box is very clearly either to the left or bang in the centre at the top, you can't miss it? Theroadislong (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And, I just (!) realised, there is a search magnifying glass at the very top left of the drop-down menu that appears when you are viewing material at the end of an article or on Talk Pages. Hence in Vector 2022 (unlike Vector 2020) you don't even need to scroll to the top of a page to immediately do your next search. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In a narrow window you may have to click a magnifying glass icon at the top to get the search box. It's a universal icon for searching. Most users will know it or quickly guess it. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protection request[edit]

List of largest political parties is being vandalized repeatedly by anonymous accounts. Please restrict editing by anonymous accounts. Thanks. // sikander { talk } 🦖 17:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The place to request page protection is WP:Requests for page protection. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@David Biddulph: Got it, thanks. // sikander { talk } 🦖 14:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BLP subject requests removal of birthdate[edit]

Hello! This is regarding the edit request made by the subject of Joel Gallen. THey have requested their birthdate be removed, however I don't think we can do that just because they ask. I'm not actually able to find anything about this however so I'm asking here to see if anyone knows where to find somethign that talks about this. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should probably remove it. Per WP:DOB: "If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it." I might feel differently if there were oodles of reliable sources for the DOB, but I'm not seeing more than just the one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Blaze Wolf, did you check WP:DOB and perhaps WP:BLPKINDNESS? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It also depends on how publicly available the birthdate is already. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I had. I just thought there was some help page regarding what to do if a BLP subject requests information be removed from their article. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Done. In the future, please note that per WP:DOB we generally err on the side of "don't include birthdates" for BLPs unless it's literally everywhere and it's a person who is very well known. In the case of either a marginally notable person or if the birthdate is only found in a few places, it's fine to leave it out. --Jayron32 18:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Policy on articles providing "Pet Care", and what a reliable source for that looks like?[edit]

It seems like over time a lot of animals commonly kept as pets have had the addition of "Care" sections. It felt a bit odd to me, since animal care has never been objective in the slightest. An example is the care section on the Chinese Mantis page, it is completely uncited and includes a lot of information considered very subjective in the hobby. I don't know of any reliable sources that back this information. You could definitely find reliable sources saying they can eat those bugs, but I don't know of any that confirm it is a suitable diet in captivity.

Sometimes when care articles do cite sources, it is places like Petco's website. Does this count as a reliable source? I would argue they have a fairly poor and outdated understanding of most animal husbandry that does not run on any actually reliable information. Obviously that's partially my own opinion on Petco, but even if I thought they had it all correct, do they actually count as a reliable source just because they're a big pet company?

I feel like having these pet care sections can be risky, since people (despite what they are told) will go to Wikipedia for objective, well researched facts. I imagine there's some extent that things in these section are not permitted, but I've struggled to edit them because I do not know where the line is, and don't want to enforce a policy that doesn't actually exist. Would appreciate any pointers, thanks! PoetaCorvi (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per several Wikipedia policy and guideline pages, if you see uncited material in ANY article at ANY time, you have several options:
1) find citations yourself
2) Tag the material as needing a citation using the {{cn}} tag
3) Remove the uncited material
Option 3 (removing the material) is especially warranted if there are other issues with the text, such as it being likely wrong, or trivial, or otherwise not appropriate for the articles in question. In general, Wikipedia defaults to not including information if there are some problems with it, see WP:BURDEN or WP:ONUS. If someone objects to your removal, you are within your right to challenge them to provide sources; but also don't edit war, as that can get you blocked. --Jayron32 18:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! In the past had offered my own citations or tagged as cn, but I wasn't super confident in removing problematic info. This and other replies definitely helped me figure out whether certain things can be deleted, appreciate it! PoetaCorvi (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:NOTGUIDE applies here: an article should not read like a "how-to" style owner's manual, cookbook, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. Even if properly cited, content on pet care almost certainly doesn't belong in such articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! I figured there had to be a policy like that somewhere, but I must have missed that one. PoetaCorvi (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PoetaCorvi: I think the policies listed above apply and the sections should be removed, but the specific subject is outside of my area. You might ask the folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals to comment or to direct you to a more focused project if one exists. -Arch dude (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! Will definitely head over and ask around sometime soon, didn't know a page like that existed. PoetaCorvi (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems to me that "pet care" has some similarities to "medical advice". Especially if someone includes pet care information that turns out to be harmful, and someone follows that advice. Given all of these various reasons (not HOWTO, etc.) I am strongly in favor of removing pet care information wherever it appears. David10244 (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah I definitely agree, I've seen a handful of articles in the past give subjective or (in my opinion) harmful care information, glad to know I'm justified in changing it. Would hate for someone's animal to get hurt because they trusted misleading information on here. PoetaCorvi (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving my article from my Sandbox to Wikipedia[edit]

How do I move my article from my Sandbox to Wikipedia??? PegDag (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read Help:Your first article. There is no realistic prospect of the material being accepted as an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why so? The topic is valid and notable and I expect some help from colleages in fleshing out the topic. The learning curve to writing the article and to understand the Wikipedia protocol is certainly high. The intent is to start small to get something going, and then build on it. PegDag (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first source you cite is a broken link. The second is to a webpage that says nothing about the topic. The third is a primary source - an organisation promoting the concept. We need evidence of notability through significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the learning curve for writing articles is high. This is why we recommend first spending time editing existing articles, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. You may also find it helpful to use the new user tutorial. Starting small is fine, but the draft must still meet certain minimum standards if it is to be sustained in the encyclopedia and not subject to a deletion discussion. 331dot (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PegDag: Yes, start small. The very first step is to establish notability as we define it. Until you do this there is no reason to continue, as notability is the only absolute requirement for and article. Look at WP:CSMN to see several ways to mess this up. Once you are certain that most editors will agree the subject is notable, build your article as a draft, so you can build it incrementally in a relatively benign environment. See WP:YFA -Arch dude (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia REST API under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL[edit]

As stated in

By using this API, you agree to Wikimedia's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Unless otherwise specified in the endpoint documentation below, content accessed via this API is licensed under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL licenses, and you irrevocably agree to release modifications or additions made through this API under these licenses. See for background and details.

Does this actually mean that any content returned must inherit and comply with GFDL license? (even though underlying text returned in JSON belongs to articles that are not necessarily under GFDL?)

Also, does GFDL license apply to software (and recursively any further software) that is used to call API? If so, in what ways? (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi IP user. The first link you supplied doesn't work. I think you meant this one with an extra /. Any edit adding material to Wikipedia is made under under a CC license. So, for example, here at a Talk Page there's a warning that says By clicking "Reply", you agree to our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.. Hence all of Wikipedia's content is CC BY-SA 3.0. What I think this means (IANAL) is that anyone who extracts Wikipedia content via the API and chooses to re-publish it must do so in accordance with the license: in particular the "SA"="same again" part, attributing their source as Wikipedia. There is more information at WP:REUSE but for more technical questions I think you should ask at WP:VPT. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not sure that content accessed via this API is licensed under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL licenses is correct. Most of Wikipedia text is dual-licensed as such, but not all of it is - see Wikipedia:Copyrights and the links from there for the glorious details - and I do not believe there is any way to determine which is which via the API.
CC-BY-SA 3.0 should apply to everything, though. (By the way, Michael D. Turnbull, "SA" means "sharealike" - i.e. the same license should be applied to derivative works - not "same again".)
Yes, Tigraan, that's correct. I used "same again" because that seems to me to be less jargon and is [what the license page says] "you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original" (my emphasis) Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So would an interpretation that API documentation provided in description about usage conditions is referring to a general note that content provided by the API may be either under CC-BY-SA or GFDL?
As phrasing may be a bit misleading to treat such sentence as explicit declaration that content under the API is explicitly licensed under both CC-BY-SA and GFDL.
The underlying reason to understand the semantics here is that GFDL requires extra steps in attribution and structuring of content, as well as I must understand how to license my derived content. (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those licenses only apply to the content the API returns. The software used to query the API might have its own license, but the point of an API is that you can choose to query it with almost any programming language (as long as you obey the rate limitations etc. but that is not a licensing issue). TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, that answers a second part of my question, that software licensing does not inherit license based on the content. (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Wikipedia page is gone.[edit]

For many years there was a Wikipedia page about my work and books. My name is Charles D. Hayes. I am about to turn 80 years old, and the page is suddenly gone as doesn't exist. I am frequently under attack by political zealots and figure they must be responsible for taking it down. Can you check? (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was deleted in Feb. 2022. Here is the discussion about it: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_D._Hayes RudolfRed (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And in case some of the terms used in that discussion are unclear, Charles, a Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what independent sources say about a notable subject. Not being an admin, I can't look at the deleted article, but by what those comments say, it did not establish that you meet Wikiepedia's criteria for notability, was not written neutrally, was based on non-independent sources, and mas mostly a copyright violation anyway. "Political zealots" have no power to remove an article from Wikipedia, unless they can persuade other editors that it meets Wikipedia's criteria for deletion. --ColinFine (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As somebody who is in agreement with you on many matters, Charles Hayes, I am stunned that something as grossly inadequate as the "article" about you was not deleted many years ago. It was not only deleted, but speedily deleted because it did not come anywhere near meeting our minimum quality and accuracy standards. Sorry; but it's the truth. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 31[edit]


Hello, I have just created a page on Chrysostomos Dimitriou, who was, among other bishop positions, Archbishop of Zakynthos during WW2, and a page called "Chrysostomos of Zakynthos" exists, but redirects to "Rescue of the Jews of Zakynthos" . Can someone teach me how to have it forwarded to "Chrysostomos Dimitriou" instead? (Knowing that the article in question has a link to "Rescue of the Jews of Zakynthos" already) AgisdeSparte (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AgisdeSparte Click on Chrysostomos of Zakynthos, which opens Rescue of the Jews of Zakynthos
The article will say (Redirected from Chrysostomos of Zakynthos) at the top: click on that link.
You will then open the redirect and be able to edit it. TSventon (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you ! @TSventon AgisdeSparte (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

provincial-level cities vs province-level cities[edit]

Hello, everyone. I am weak in English. For instance, List of provincial-level governors in South Korea and List of province-level administrative divisions of Vietnam with Hán-Nôm characters. Which is right? Thank you. Sawol (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Sawol. English is my first language and provincial-level sounds best to me. That's what most online sources use, including UNESCO. Cullen328 (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright and drafts[edit]

I am not very good English speaker. I cannot copy paste content from sources. But also cannot change the meaning.

In what English, was I supposed to write from this source? The source says, eunuchs (Hijra (South Asia))extort money from train passengers.

Then another editor TrangaBellam comes and says, I should be topic-banned for writing that line. I can see that there is lots of anger in what he/she wrote. And also moved another article which nobody else said should be drafted. I think targeting the second article was done to harass me.

If my grammar is not perfect, then I did not prevent anybody to edit that articlres, and I have seen other editor's who tried to improve the article not threaten with anger.

I think drafts are places where, you can write, edit, modify before publishing articles. Does lines written in drafts, are taken so seriously? Rambo XTerminator (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Extortion by eunuchs in India   Maproom (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's currently the opening sentence of the draft, and it surprised me when I first read the draft (and before I read that comment about it). I'd never encountered the word hijra until a few minutes ago, and of course Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but the article Hijra (South Asia) says that hijra "are eunuchs, intersex people, or transgender people who live in communities that follow a kinship system known as guru-chela system". It does not say that they are extortionists. Meanwhile (and perhaps just because you made a slip in English), the draft says that they are extortionists. Are they all (or even mostly) extortionists? If you want to say this, you're going to have to present very compelling evidence for doing so. I'll err on the side of caution, assume that most are not extortionists, and make an interim edit accordingly. -- Hoary (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rambo XTerminator: It is extremely easy to patch together multiple news stories about group X and make it seem that X is a badly-behaving group - here is a well-written essay that makes the point by writing a well-sourced scare story about cardiologists. That sort of writing, where the writer takes individual sources to patch together a narrative that none of the sources make (the most glaring example is the section "deaths") is known on Wikipedia as synthesis and is not allowed. You need a reliable source that would specifically link hijras to organized crime (if I had to guess, it is likely to be some group of hijras in some area of India rather than a subcontinent-wide issue).
Another issue is that the draft mixes many different things:
  • incidents of aggressive panhandling on the Indian railways (and that itself may be a rather mixed bag going from "someone asked for money loud enough that I could not read a book" to "he pulled a knife on me")
  • an organized protection racket in Bathinda, by hijras
  • another protection racket in Hyderabad, against hijras
  • protests by "real hijras" against "fake hijras" (which is not extortion by any reasonable definition of the term)
TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very dubious reference, with pseudoscience in first sentence[edit]

I'm very concerned by this, but I don't want to just delete the sentence. Proper steps to take?

Have a look at reference no. 14 from the Desalination article. From the outset it has a grammar mistake in the body, and it's hosted on MDPI, a controversial publisher.

But click through and read the abstract and keywords. Barely in the first sentence we get a reference to an unscientific concept. Then reading the article, it turns out the claim laid in the reference, is entirely about this nonexistent substance (see figure 1). At least the organization running the conference it's in the proceedings of appears to exist. (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yup. Looks like woo. Or at minimum, a single primary source being cited for an extremely dubious claim. I've removed the paragraph. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Grr, Andy beat me to it whilst I was checking it out! Total agreement. Thanks for bringing this to our attention "", have you ever thought of setting up an account? WP needs good constructive editors. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! And yes, I do some edits now and then, and every time I do I remember I should make a proper account. (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Account made! Again thanks for the help and I'll be back here if I need any more assistance NotAnAstronaut (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Welcome! And you're always free to ask if you need help, thanks for your contributions thusfar! BhamBoi (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hungarian Wikipedia[edit]

Added section header Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[[کس ]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the Hungarian Wikipedia, 2-3 administrators are systematically suppressing and deleting articles about the Hungarian Libertarian Party (, ignoring objectivity and doing so solely based on personal offense and/or the media's circulating prejudices. Despite the party having Facebook pages with 11,000 and 20,000 followers ( and videos that are viewed by many people. They held two protests, one of which was reported by numerous media outlets on January 31, 2021, and the organizers received hefty fines. A video of their other protest, held on August 20, 2022, was watched by more than 1 million people, and one of the party's leaders, Szilárd Ecsenyi, was also fined. His twin brother, the party's founder, Áron Ecsenyi, has been a topic of the media several times, had a public debate with public figures, and currently has 11,000 followers on TikTok. Although the Hungarian Wikipedia claims to have no central leadership, it is openly known that no one dared to disagree with Peter Gervai, even though it was revealed several times that he had no idea about libertarianism and considered the party a joke because of its name, and he is not charged with political impartiality, which has been revealed in several debates on the so-called tavern wall, where one can beg to restore an article if he feels like it. The reality is that if he deletes something, nobody dares to restore it or question his authority. That is why I see the only solution to report this to the American side, that political impartiality is not met in Hungary at all. Peter Gervai has permanently banned all Wikipedia editors who had anything to do with the constant restoration of the party's article over the past 2 years, obviously doing so in the heat of the battle, and he no longer maintains the appearance of objectivity, and he cites that many people insulted his personality during the already poisoned debate. If this is true, it should not have anything to do with an encyclopedia dedicating an article to a clearly notable party or not. Please take this matter into consideration and take appropriate action.

Ecsenyi Szilárd (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We at the English Wikipedia cannot take action regarding the Hungarian Wikipedia. Any complaints you have should be made there. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When Wikipedia was started, the American founders invited the first non-American admins. Since I have exhausted all legal remedies in Hungary, and Péter Gervai literally banned me and my party members from the Hungarian Wikipedia, I would see it as expedient for his American colleagues to make a scandal. That alone would convince the local petty king that his behavior reflects very poorly on the encyclopedia's reputation. Ecsenyi Szilárd (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ecsenyi Szilárd: Each language Wikipedia is a separate and independent project of the Wikimedia foundation (WMF). You can attempt to contact WMF about this: WMF is not the English Wikipedia. We volunteers here at en.Wikipedia have no say in how our sister projects operate. We at the help desk have no charter and no interest in off-wiki issues: we are here to help you and others use and edit the English Wikipedia. -Arch dude (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ecsenyi Szilárd: the next place up the chain of command if you have a complaint about a specific admin that is not being dealt with by the normal dispute resolution process on your local Wikipedia is to contact your local Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, which I believe is This at hu.wikipedia. As noted, literally no one at English Wikipedia can help you; every individual language Wikipedia runs its own affairs. If you have greater concerns that are not being addressed at your language Wikipedia, and after you have tried resolution via your local ArbCom, the next option is to contact the WMF directly; though they tend to take a hands-off approach towards meddling in the local affairs of each Wikipedia. --Jayron32 17:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Layout ...[edit]

I'm a HUGE Wikipedia fan ... and one of these days when I am able I promise to make a nice contribution to help keep you going. My first and only comment is that I like the new layout. I believe a nice addition to it would be to have your logo at the conclusion of the articles (or somewhere) with a link back to the homepage. It's an unnecessary scroll back to the copy and yet another click to get back there now when one if finished reading the article. Anywho ... great job. My name is Lee Cooke. Thanks for listening ... 2600:6C5E:2900:576:1559:462A:EB9E:7606 (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the comment. On my PC, the article contents are now in a "sticky" column on the left of the browser window and there is always a "Top" link in view. So clicking that jumps right up to the top of the article, only one more click away from the Mainpage (and bringing other useful menu links into view). I guess you are using a mobile view, so the menus will be different. You can make suggestions at WP:Village pump (proposals) Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editing O.R. Melling Page (mine)[edit]

Tried to register under O.R. Melling, my more known pen-name, but was unable. Registered with new pen-name I will be using for my entry into literary non-fiction. I've read online it's against Wiki etiquette to edit your own page. Mine has been up since B.C.E. & is slim pickings. I managed at least to add new publications some years ago. The more famous writers I know, whose entire lives are on their pages, simply paid someone to do it. Sad tale: I'm an aging writer & artist living on an old folk's pension. I can't afford to hire any of the Wiki edit services offered online. Ah, it's an unfair world. (And I contribute €20 to Wiki every year since I use it a lot.) I would, of course, provide media & online citations to prove what I would like to add. Would appreciate any advice from you young ones. Val Decraney aka O.R. Melling Val Decraney (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: O. R. Melling - (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Val, and welcome. First, please, please, please don't pay any money to anybody to edit Wikipedia. If they are honest, they will tell you that they must declare their status as a paid contributor, and that they cannot guarantee any particular result for you. (If the people that other writers hired did not declare their status, then they were violating Wikipedia's terms of use).
I suggest you read WP:AUTOPROB. Then you can make edit requests on the talk page Talk:O. R. Melling, preferably with citation to sources that are independent of you. Remember that a Wikipedia page about you should be based on what other people, wholly unconnected with you, have published about you in reliable sources - something that the article currently lacks entirely. If you have some such sources - reviews of your work, published in reliable places, or studies in books from reputable publishers (especially if these contain anything about you as opposed to your work) this will assist editors in improving the article from its current dire state. What the article should not be is promotional in any way. ColinFine (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, the real professional writers I know don't come anywhere near the "services" who claim to make the articles about them more to their liking, because they know that most of those operations are either merely shady or actively in violation of our Terms and Conditions. Chip Delany doesn't pay anybody to update the article about him; nor do Jodi Piccoult or James Patterson or Noam Chomsky. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Val Decraney: As a separate issue, please do not feel obligated to donate to Wikipedia (actually, to WMF) even though you use it a lot. We have lots and lots of money and do not need a piece of your pension. What we do need and that you may wish to contribute is some expertise and some time. Pick articles in areas you know about and improve them (include references), or (since you are a writer) pick articles that are in need of copyediting. -Arch dude (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Val Decraney: The account User:O.R. Melling was created 1 April 2018. If it's you then the old password will still work but you cannot get a new password because the account has not stored an email address. The account has no edits so you can probably usurp if with a request. See Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. If you are fine with your current username then just keep it. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is accounting[edit]

What is accounting — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See accounting. -Arch dude (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 1[edit]

Is a TOC with columns possible?[edit]

Hello from el and en.wiktionary. Asking for help here at en.WP, sorry to bother you with external subject. I was wondering, if some kind of template for Table of Contents is possible, quasi _ _TOC__ but with breaks at Level2 to create columns? Our contents at dictionaries are usually for 3 or 4 lanugages with short, repetitive section-titles. It would be lovely to have a template with new_col=... and/or new_row=... something like... (compare at wikt:en:σκληρός, how it would look it looks different here)

Would readers of wikipedias like it too? Thank you very much, Sarri.greek (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Corporate Logo Images[edit]

Hi all, and thanks in advance for your help. I've been asked by a mid sized international company to create a wiki page for them and I can see in advance and from previous experience that uploading their corporate logo to use on their page is going to cause me headaches. Can someone please tell me what's needed to ensure this doesn't get taken down for copyright violation? I'm sure that if necessary I can get something from them stating I have the right to use the image, but what would be the best process.

Thanks again! Curtcaster (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Curtcaster: Please see Wikipedia:Logos. If we needed their permission, then we would not use the logo. Either they licence it CC-BY-SA (highly unlikely), or it has no copyrightable creative elements, or we use it without their permission under our extremely conservative interpretation of the "fair use" doctrine. This third option is the most likely to apply here. -Arch dude (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) @Curtcaster: Hi there! Thank you for declaring your COI on your user page. If User:Curtcaster/sandbox ever becomes an article, then you can use Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard to upload the Kilburn Live logo under fair use. GoingBatty (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Curtcaster: Before doing any other work on this, make sure you can demonstrate that the company is notable as we define the term: see WP:NCORP. Most mid-sized companies are not notable, and there is very little that you can do to affect a company's notability. See WP:AMOUNT. If the company is not notable we will decline to accept your article, so you probably want to make sure the company knows that. -Arch dude (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]