Wikipedia:Help desk/Archive 68

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Sockpuppet Reporting of Multiple Blocked Accounts

Hi, I noticed 30+ accounts that are almost certainly sockpuppets of a user who has been long-term abusing Wikipedia. None of the blocked accounts have indication to who the sockpuppet master is, and while I'm familiar with opening a report per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet, this doesn't seem like a case to open an entirely new report when evidence of long-term abuse is there. Is there any way to find the sockpuppet master or somehow categorize all these accounts as suspected sockpuppets without knowing now who the sockpuppet master is? Thanks, Rosalina2427 ^(talk) 01:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@Rosalina2427 I don't think I am qualified to answer your question, but if you click here then you'll find a list of active checkusers who can help. Polygnotus (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I've gone down a deep rabbit hole and found the many suspected socks of BMX On WheeIs. I suppose there's no point in tagging any of the accounts as suspected sockpuppets when some are already flagged for LTA anyway and they're all blocked. Thanks anyway! Cheers, Rosalina2427 ^(talk) 02:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Quran or Qur'an

Someone uses Qur'an and Qur'anic in Umrain Mahfooz Rahmani. Should we change it to Quran and Quranic? I looked at MOS:QURAN and while it does mention the Quran, without apostrophe, it is concerned with italicization not apostrophes. Polygnotus (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I think there are some discussions on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Arabic but no strong consensus one way or the other. I would just leave it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Yeah if its just personal preference then I'll leave it as is. Polygnotus (talk) 01:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi!

So I got hired to edit a page on here and I think I messed up.. how does this page get published? It’s all facts and I did include the numbers! Trustnation (talk) 07:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Trustnation totally fails Wikipedia guidelines. A user page is not an article, and if this was submitted as a draft article it would fail here as well. If you have been hired or paid to write this, then you are in a conflict of interest situation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

thank you I’ll just go hide under the rock I came out of Trustnation (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I take it you are referring to the material you have posted at User:Trustnation. There is no possibility whatsoever of that getting published as an article. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform, and we have little interest in what a company says about itself. Articles must be based primarily on what independent reliable sources have to say on the subject. I suggest you start by reading the following:

Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Wikipedia:Reliable sources

You should then read Help:Your first article, and, after making the necessary disclosure, create a draft, and submit it for review. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

apologizing a million times * Trustnation (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback god bless Trustnation (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Trustnation, My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 10:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump is right. Of the five pages you've been pointed to, read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) first. It explains that a large percentage of companies simply aren't notable (as defined here), and thus can't have articles. Proceed only if you're certain that you can demonstrate the notability of Electrustcity LLC. If you are, then what you have to do before writing anything about the company is described in Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Incidentally, although you're paid to describe Electrustcity, Ianmacm, AndyTheGrump, I, and most of the other people hereabouts aren't paid to do anything on Wikipedia. A look at your deleted advert for Electrustcity suggests that you know nothing of matters such as how text is formatted here. Really, figuring out how to do this kind of thing is your job, not ours. Once you've created a non-promotional, well referenced, and generally solid draft, people here are likelier to help you with remaining glitches. -- Hoary (talk) 08:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Include Enrollment History for College and Universities

Hi: Layperson Wiki user here. Please consider.... Adding history of Enrollment counts for Colleges and Universities. Why? Given enrollment challenges today, those numbers have relevance. Any value? Absolutely. Aggregate Enrollment History for most Colleges and Universities is all but impossible to find quickly. Wiki pages holding that history would be a huge plus for users. Thank you for considering. All the best! 50.52.121.3 (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

You can make such requests at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

AAM Consulting Page Review Request

We kindly request that the reviewed version of the article "AAM Consulting" be updated to match the content we previously submitted, which currently appears only in the unreviewed version.

The submitted content complies with Wikipedia's standards and offers a more accurate and up-to-date overview. We would appreciate your support in making it the official reviewed version.

The exact name of the article that I wish to discuss is: AAM Consulting, you can find the URL here:

hu:AAM_Consulting

Thank you for your assistance. Bettina.aam (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

That article is on the Hungarian-language Wikipedia (hu.wikipedia); this is the English-language Wikipedia (en.wikipedia). The two are run independently of each other. You will need to ask on the Hungarian project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

What do I do if another user claimed a page I made has promotional content but won't identify which text needs to be changed?

I recently created the page for the Global Student Forum. While creating the page, the cite source function stopped working, and it seemed like the only way to avoid losing my progress was to publish it unfinished and make subsequent edits to the page, which put it at risk of being swarmed by other users in its unfinished state. Sure enough, a user named Sumanuil put a banner on it alleging that the page contains promotional content. I cited sources for factual claims, tried to write in a neutral tone, and am not affiliated with the organization. I edited the text to remove what could be misconstrued as promotional, but the banner has remained. I posted a request for clarification on Sumanuil's Talk page, but Sumanuil removed this without providing any clarification.

I have been a Wikipedian for over ten years. The Wikipedia I have come to know is a toxic, insular group that is hostile to new and less experienced users. On multiple occasions, I have seen knowledge erased on minute technicalities that could have easily been ameliorated with dialogue and collaboration. Please do not let the Global Student Forum page be another example to further reinforce what I have reluctantly perceived. You can see the timestamps on the Global Student Forum page to see the time I put into creating it and researching the sources. I want to be compliant. I just need clarification and assistance. For historical purposes (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The requirement that Wikipedia articles be primarily based around what independent sources have to say on the subject, rather than citations to the subject's own website etc, isn't a 'minute technicality'. In my opinion, the 'promotional' banner is still justified. As for difficulties with editing, you have the option of using your sandbox, which should ensure you can publish the article only when you consider it complete. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @For historical purposes.

Several portions of the article are based on the GSF's own publications.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

The presence of text that is clearly what the subject wants to say about itself is what makes it promotional.

If you have been around for ten years, I would expect you to know that the way disagreements get resolved is by engaging with the other parties, not by appealing for support in another forum. Please see WP:DR. ColinFine (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Though I agree with everything said above and that the tag should stay, I would like to note that For historical purposes did ask Sumanuil on their talk page, which was promptly reverted. I can see why the message may be interpreted as perhaps vandal spam, but I think the revert was uncivil and unjustified on Sumanuil's part. GoldRomean (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The article is entirely promotional, I have removed chunks of promotional text supoported only by primary sources, but it appears that there is nothing salveagable, Wikipedia articles are based on what reliable independent sources have reported on a topic NOT what the topics website says! Theroadislong (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@For historical purposes: Since many of the users above have said what I wanted to say, I'll add that you may want to consider the use of the {{in use}} and {{under construction}} templates if you want other editors to be aware that an article is being worked on at the moment if you're concerned about it being swarmed by other users in its unfinished state. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

This is the first time I received actual guidance from other users on how to create pages. I appreciate the clarifications. However, it is too bad that the page is now recommended for deletion before it could be fixed by adding independent sources and rewriting the removed sections. For historical purposes (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

If you can fix it in the next few days, I may consider changing my vote. Best, GoldRomean (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

A welcome message was left on your talk page in 2013; it included a link to Wikipedia:How to write a great article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Automatic archiving

How many days/months should messages on an article's talk page be archived if one implements the automatic archiving bot? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

This really needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis, looking at factors such as whether the subject is currently in the news or going viral, how much discussion it's generating on the talk page, and whether the article is being heavily edited. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 10:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I use 30 days (|algo=old(28d)) as a default, but leave a minimum of four threads visible (|minthreadsleft=4; that has the added advantage of maintaining a ToC). Remember that this "days since last new comment", not since the thread started,

I've set it to as low as 2 days, but manually archived even sooner than that, for breaking news such as the recent new Pope.

See also WP:BIKESHED. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Odd AfD nomination

I just created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zubair Ahmad Quraishi using Twinkle, but for some reason the AfD template didn't subst itself. It's not broken or anything, and the wikitext is sitting there like it's plaintext. Did I mess something up? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind, I forgot to type closing brackets. That's why we preview, kids... '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Citing an email/letter

Hi all,

I'm attempting to cite a briefing/email forwarded to an Industry Compliance Committee by an official from the Australian Treasury. To clarify, this is not a primary source, but rather a directive that is not otherwise available as a commentary on the government page. Is there any specific format for this, or any template through which a reference provide more clarity? Any help would be appreciated.

All the best - CSGinger14 (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Reverse that. It's an email from the compliance committee to the Treasury. Not sure if that changes anything. The information I'm drawing in either case isn't based off of personal assessments made by the committee, which is professional and independently governed (Edit: Have since block-cited personal assessments, noting them as such in the deliberation). CSGinger14 (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, CSGinger14. Wikipedia summarizes published sources, so the question is whether an email is "published". I do not think so. In WP:Published, it says It is necessary for the information to be made available to the public in general, not just to individuals or selected groups of people. Emails (unless later duplicated in a published source) are, by their very nature, intended only for individuals or selected groups, not the general public. I believe that your example is a primary source, and that the email should only be mentioned on Wikipedia if it was later analyzed and interpreted by reliable secondary sources. Cullen328 (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Cullen328. I appreciate your response. The source discussed, this document here has explicitly been released to the public for the purpose of transparency and public knowledge. It is a submission in response to a Treasury department inquiry on regulation of the sphere, intended to be made open to both government and public observers to ensure guidelines are followed and consumer protections remain open and veritable. WP: Primary sources states that some primary sources are acceptable in the event that they come from a professional, disputable, and verifiable source, which I'm fairly confident a closely watched Australian oversight committee qualifies for, especially given that it was not published as a part of private inquiry. The submission is effectively the department's form of response, other publications exist which discuss the committee's work, but unless someone can find the report it cites, I'm otherwise at a loss for how to properly and accurately discuss the issue. My use of the source is primarily intended to provide a detailing of the framework of the committee's work, its responsibilities, and the steps it has taken to comply with Australian regulation.

Thank you for help and insight. If you have any advice on how to cite the source regardless, or can point to specific policies which override the points made above, I'd be happy to hear them. Otherwise, all the best - CSGinger14 (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

CSGinger14, I will repeat my opinion that it would be more appropriate to cite coverage by reliable secondary published sources that analyze and interpret this email. Otherwise, how can a Wikipedia editor determine that this particular intergovernmental email deserves discussion on Wikipedia as opposed to any one of countless billions of other emails? Cullen328 (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328, there are no secondary sources that seem to be reporting on the Compliance Committee's commentary on the use of a loan service that has now been used by more than a third of Australians, half of Americans, and a broad portion of the larger global population. I'm not arguing that you're wrong that a secondary source would be better, but there is a reason why the site allows for the use of primary sources in certain cases. I'm not interpreting anything, I'm writing down exactly what they said (as close as can be for certain citations to avoid plagiarism). I only refer to strictly administrative information apart from a quote of their surmising of the body's responsibilities. There are many among those billions of emails that I imagine do in fact qualify under the site's interpretation of primary source qualification, and I contend that this is one of them.

Best - CSGinger14 (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

CSGinger14, if there are no secondary sources covering and analyzing and interpreting the importance of this email, then the material does not belong on Wikipedia. You are advancing an argument that "it's important". That is not a judgment for Wikipedia editors to make. That is not our role. That is a judgment that the authors and editorial staff of actual published reliable sources must make. We are just a bunch of mostly anonymous volunteers. Cullen328 (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Respectfully, I don't appreciate accusations. I'm advancing the expansion of information around a topic of importance that a particular piece of writing is not necessarily considered a topic of importance within, despite it providing reliable/verifiable information that is pertinent to a person's understanding of the topic. There are at least 10 sources that I can reference right now from the topic at hand that discusses this very particular issue, my point is that there isn't one that says how the body is organized, because that is necessarily the sort of information that would only reasonably need to come from the body itself. You are advancing claims based on a judgement you've made of the character of my edits without making a serious attempt to understand or fairly represent my claim, which is unfair and which I do not appreciate. This isn't WP:Advocacy, this is me attempting to uphold the very same set of guidelines you feel discredit me.

CSGinger14 (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

To add, I have added it. There are several paragraphs worth of evidence on the topic that have been added with sourcing and commentary specific to Australia. Unfortunately, secondary sources can only take you so far so much of the time. Sometimes, it's necessary to refer to primary sources to fully contextualize an issue as part of a broader description. News sources and business commentary don't always feel the need to include the minute details in the interest of the general reader. Sometimes, and only occasionally, they provide additional referencing within the article to expand on readers' understanding. Unfortunately, this is not always enough. A primary goal of this site is to go beyond the interests of the general reader, and to be able to provide a complete and accurate portrait of issues of note and importance to readers at even the most advanced level. After a certain point, this requires some degree of primary sourcing, and it's use does not always imply that an editor is actively attempting to violate WP:Original Research policy. There is a reason why the use of primary sources is left open to some degree of interpretation. The general rule is meant to be used to prevent misleading readers on account of poorly performed editor synthesis. I have not done that here, or any synthesis of it for that matter, and regardless, this should not immediately be used to exclusively prevent primary sources' use.

CSGinger14 (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 And to return to your earlier point, why doesn't belong on Wikipedia? If it provides relevant (dated) information on the topic at hand that hasn't otherwise been discussed by a secondary source, shouldn't it be used? It is dangerous to assume that someone, eventually, will write something about it or record it otherwise. This one, thankfully, will, because it's a government publication. But that's how nearly 25% of websites got lost between 2013 and 2023. The fact of information coming from a primary source does not automatically refute it, that is based on a narrowly focused interpretation of administrative procedure that I have found is widespread on this website, where bad intention or ignorance is assumed without any real consideration of the merit of the information itself, simply its coverage elsewhere. Withholding that information has as much potential to mislead readers as additions based on unreliable* primary sources. That seems to be in contrast and relative opposition to the goal that everyone act in good faith, not only towards other users, but towards the website more broadly. Sometimes, that means that interpretation is justified. On other occasions, it very clearly doesn't, but there is a widespread hesitancy to accept primary sources' use, despite the fact that the site allows them. We deem genuinely important information disreputable based on narrow interpretations of site guidelines, and suddenly it disappears, and no one gets to be the secondary source to comment on it anymore, because it's gone. It expands readers understanding, and nothing about its use is misleading or inaccurate. It is noted as a submission to the Treasury Department, no other description other than its metadata was provided. I'll seek to find another source, but quite frankly that kind of reasoning appears equally if not more dangerous to the pursuit of advancing public knowledge as the potential threat you perceive to the site's integrity from the use of such sources.

CSGinger14 (talk) 07:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

CSGinger14, what accusations? I accused you of nothing more than being a volunteer Wikipedia editor, which I also accuse myself of. You came here and asked a question and I gave my opinion based on my 16 years of experience. You disagreed. I tried to clarify. And so on. You have not persuaded me and I have not persuaded you. That's OK. Making your point repeatedly at greater length and detail does not make your point more persuasive. I am not trying to "refute" this particular information. I am simply expressing my opinion of whether or not it is appropriate for use as a citation on this encyclopedia. No more, no less. So let's both move on. Cullen328 (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, experience dealing previously with another editor made me hostile on contact. Reasonable request and one I'll follow, thanks for your time, and genuinely my apologies. Speaks to the times were living in ig, very tense feeling everywhere you go, didn't mean to rub that off on anyone here. Keep well - CSGinger14 (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328

CSGinger14 (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Requested move

I need help changing the title of a page from Margaret Spencer, Countess Spencer to Margaret Spencer, Viscountess Althorp

Reason: The current title is incorrect. Margaret Spencer never held the title Countess Spencer during her lifetime, she was known as Viscountess Althorp. Thank you! ItsShandog (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:RM. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

How do I translate my English page into Spanish and save it to my sandbox?

I recently completed the upgrading of an English starter article to B level. It is called the Bombardment of Greytown. Because it is a history piece set in Central America, I would like to bring my version to the attention of the Spanish editors who created the Spanish version of the original article.

I thought the best and least intrusive way to do this, would be to do a translation that would not overwrite any of their established article. So I thought I would create a sandbox for it and invite them on the talk page of their article to visit my sandbox and see if they might want to incorporate some or all of the translation into their Spanish version of the article.

What do you think?

~~~~ Will-DubDub (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Why translate it? How about just leaving a note on (currently blank) es:Discusión:Bombardeo de Greytown about the recent augmentation of en:Bombardment of Greytown? -- Hoary (talk) 05:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

You could also inform the editor who created and wrote most of the Spanish article on their en or es talk page. TSventon (talk) 06:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Middleton family

Middleton family

Please fix - I cannot do this! Ref number 17 is the same as ref number 41 and Ref number 18 is the same as ref number 42

Please make these "double up".

Thank you Srbernadette (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Please fix - I cannot do this! Ref number 17 is the same as ref number 41 and Ref number 18 is the same as ref number 42

Please make these "double up" if you can. Thank you again115.70.23.77 (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Please see, read, and implement Help:Footnotes#Footnotes:_using_a_source_more_than_once. And then, in your [when logged in] user page, add a link to Help:Footnotes#Footnotes:_using_a_source_more_than_once, for future use. -- Hoary (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I have tried again and again

This helpful line of advice: Names must not be purely numeric; the software will accept something like ":31337" (which is punctuation plus a number), but it will ignore "31337" (purely numeric).

is what really confuses me.

I cannot do this effort - I don't have the technical skills and I am embarrassed to ask for help. Unfortunately I will let this go - someone in the future might do the "double up" of refs, but it will not be me.

Thank you again Srbernadette (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

What's within the quotation marks of "31337" consists of nothing outside the set {0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9}. This isn't true of what's within the quotation marks of ":31337" (because the numerals are preceded by a colon, of course). Incidentally, I wonder about the accuracy of the advice above: Wikipedia "source" isn't (X)HTML, but it's based on it; and if I remember right, an ID in (X)HTML mustn't merely include something other than a numeral; rather, it must start with something other than a numeral. So, the needed skill: Provide one (and only one) reference like <ref name="somedistinctivename">full details of the source</ref> and one or more other references like <ref name="somedistinctivename" /> -- what particular technical skill is required? -- Hoary (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps that wasn't clear enough. For one source, it must be the same distinctive name. Thus for example if one has (a single instance of) <ref name="leksikon">{{Cite website| last1=Sørensen | first1=Knud | last2=Haislund | first2=Niels | date=1 August 2014 | title=Otto Jespersen | website=Dansk Biografisk Leksikon | access-date=12 May 2025 | url=https://biografiskleksikon.lex.dk/Otto_Jespersen | language=da}}</ref> then one also has one or more of <ref name="leksikon" />. HTH! -- Hoary (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I cannot do this - you are very patient, but I'm sorry. It is beyond me. 49.199.153.245 (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

My Wikipedia app's clock has jumped ahead by about 5 hours. How to fix?

I just noticed that my Wikipedia home page is showing the date as June 3, when my local time zone says June 2. I assume it's using GMT rather than Eastern Time. But I don't know how to reset the time/date, or even where to go. Any help would be appreciated. 2600:1700:846A:190:30A8:F5E1:B88D:2A91 (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

If you have an account...Preferences → Appearance → Time zone Moxy🍁 01:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia uses UTC which is similar to GMT. The above setting only affects logs like page histories and user contributions. Main Page displays the same date to everybody. If you have an account then I'm not sure which clock you refer to. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Photographic Murals in Peter Cooper USPS, New York NY

I am a New York based photographer. I have to photographic composite murals in the Peter Cooper post office, on permanent display. I would like to upload photographs of the murals, their titles and a brief synopsis of their subject matter. I do not know how to write computer code. How would I go about accomplishing this? Addthomp (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Pls review Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Feel free to come back here if you have more questions. Moxy🍁 02:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, Addthomp. Coding wouldn't be necessary; reading will be. You'd have to start by finding out whether the murals fall into the public domain (in the legal sense of this term). For what is and isn't in the public domain in the US, please read c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States. Start by assuming that the murals aren't in the public domain; look for incontrovertible evidence that they do (and be ready to cite this evidence). If, and only if, they are demonstrably in the public domain, then you may upload your photographs of them to Wikimedia Commons. (Each time, you'd have to attach an appropriate US public domain template.) These photographs of yours would themselves be in the public domain (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.). If the murals are not in the public domain, then your options are very much more limited (see Wikipedia:Non-free content). I note that the article United States Post Office (Cooper Station) says that the building they're in "was built in 1937"; I'm assuming that the murals weren't moved in from elsewhere and thus are no older than 1937. -- Hoary (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I upload a photograph and title. I upload the wrong photograph with that title. Where does the image go when I upload it? I went to the Peter Cooper webpage and I don't see the photograph? Now I need to delete that submission. Addthomp (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

You have uploaded no images to Wikipedia. You have uploaded one image to our sibling project, Wikimedia Commons, at c:File:Moses on the Hudson River. 2008.jpg.

Presumably, you did so using c:Special:UploadWizard; leastways, that's the best place to make uploads in future. It will guide you through the process.

If you tried to upload anything else, and were logged in, the upload did not complete. Please try again, using the link I provided. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The Imitation Game

The Imitation Game

Ref. number 117 is in red. Please fix if you can. Thank you Srbernadette (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Srbernadette, that is a problem within what is very likely the longest footnote I have ever encountered anywhere in Wikipedia. I have a soft spot for lengthy footnotes, but this really is monstrous. More problematic is that it appears to quote, at enormous length, something published very recently. If this is, as I suppose, conventionally copyright ("All rights reserved"), then I suspect that the bulk of the quotation exceeds what copyright law normally permits. (However, I'm not particularly knowledgable about copyright law, and am open to being corrected.) Meanwhile, the technical glitch is trivial. What is now Washington, DC | October 9–11, 2025 Intelligence should instead be Washington, DC {{!}} October 9–11, 2025 Intelligence. -- Hoary (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Check medical digital inteligence

Mdi 105.245.120.35 (talk) 06:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Precisely what help are you asking for? (Though if it's for a particular article, better ask on that article's talk page.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, we have no article called "medical digital intelligence" (with either spelling). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

The Article make miss stake

This article is make miss stake the location that's make both country got the dispute about temple , But the real the location is in Cambodia country

th:ปราสาทตาเมือนธม

Verify Address :

https://www.google.com/maps?ll=14.349167,103.266389&q=14.349167,103.266389&hl=en&t=m&z=15 ApichaDev (talk) 04:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@ApichaDev: The article you're linking is in the Thai Wikipedia, which is a different project from the English Wikipedia. You will want to either discuss this on that article's talk page or whichever page at thWiki is the equivalent to this one. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

So , Open the discuss must be thai Wikipedia page ? ApichaDev (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@ApichaDev: Correct.

[automated translation] @ApichaDev: ถูกต้องแล้วครับ. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

You can start a discussion at th:พูดคุย:ปราสาทตาเมือนธม or th:วิกิพีเดีย:แผนกช่วยเหลือ. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I now see that there is an English version of the article, at Prasat Ta Muen Thom. It makes clear that the site is the subject of a border dispute. Google Maps is not a reliable source for resolving such issues. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Deleted article

Someone deleted the page "Denmark national under-19 football team". How can we create it again? 85.218.220.137 (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

You can gather independent reliable sources to summarize and demonstrate that the team is a notable organization; that doesn't seem likely which is why the article was turned into a redirect. 331dot (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

All European countries has a specific article for their under-19 national football team, but someone deleted the article of the Denmark team.

You can see the articles here:

Category:European national under-19 association football teams

Please redirect this article for the "Denmark national under-19 team" again. 85.218.220.137 (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. I have looked at three or four articles in the category you mention, and none of them is adequately sourced. (I have tagged them accordingly). I suspect that none of the teams meets Wikipedia's criteria for Notability, but I'm not interested enough to spend the time checking.

The article you are talking about was deleted, because somebody cared enough to look at it and decided that it was not adequately sourced, and that adequate sources do not exist. We have thousands and thousands of articles which are inadequate, and should be improved or deleted; but it is rare that somebody takes the time and effort to do so. But we do not evaluate articles against other articles: we evaluate them against our standards (which are more carefully applied than in the past): see other stuff exists.

If you want to look at some of those other articles and carry out the WP:BEFORE diligence, and either improve their sourcing or nominated them for deletion, that would improve Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I have restored the article.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

hacked

This email and number are hacked please cancel the meta accounts. 185.6.149.222 (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

If you'd like something done at Wikimedia Meta, ask there. If you want something done at what used to be Facebook, ask that company. Whichever it is, if you want something done about an email address or some number, better specify what it is. -- Hoary (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Antonio Amaya (boxer) - Synthesis or allowed?

Antonio Amaya (boxer)

For context, see User_talk:Jeraxmoira#Antonio_Amaya. Is it okay to write whatever the author wants in a biography article, solely by citing a boxing records database that only contains scores and no additional context? Wouldn't this fall under WP:SYNTH? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Please resolve your dispute with the other editor by following the process outlined at WP:DR. This page is for generic editing support, not dispute resolution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

As you can see, there is no dispute at this point as it occurred a few months ago. I just want to know whether synthesizing from database records is allowed. If this is considered synthesizing, I might start an ANI thread when I have the time. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

If you're thinking of starting an ANI thread, then the dispute is continuing; use WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Input birth date, get years

Is there any auto-updating template that takes a person's birth date and reports the age in years only? Wikipedia:Age calculation templates has plenty of templates, but they're a mix of age in other ways (e.g. age in days), age as of a certain date (so not auto-updating), age without a specific date, and {{Birth date and age}}, which reports the birth date along with the age. I want to tweak Wikipedia:About, which says For over 24 years, editors have volunteered... and must be updated annually to avoid under-reporting the number of years. Ideally, {{age}} would serve this rôle, but it doesn't appear to support a specific birth date, and I don't want to say For over 23-24 years, editors have volunteered... Nyttend (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

{{Age in years|2001-01-15}} → 24?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The documentation for {{Age in years}} didn't say that full dates can be given. I have updated it.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

What's the right place to discuss matters like this?

At Dickey's Barbecue Pit, three different accounts have been removing the same thing a few times, with similar edit summaries. The oldest of the three has been blocked. This looks pretty suspicious, but I haven't had experience with this before, so where do we discuss stuff like this? Weeklyd3 (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

You could try Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. TSventon (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Blocked the two newer ones and tagged for puppetry. DMacks (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Weeklyd3, Dickey's Barbecue Pit has been subjected to three days of attempted whitewashing by sockpuppets after the New York Times published an investigative article critical of the chain's franchising practices. I have semi-protected our article for one week. Cullen328 (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the investigation and action. DMacks (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Pythagorean Prime Numbers

I tried to add more numbers to the list of Pythagorean Primes in the sequence A002144 of OEIS that ends with the number 617, but the edit option does not work. I would like to add more of these primes to the list. Morwizzy1 (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

There is really no need for more, the one’s given are sufficient. Where would you stop? Maungapohatu (talk) 05:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

The sentence specifically says "The first few Pythagorean primes are...". Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Hichem algerino

Hello, I am trying to log in to my Wikimedia account, but I am being prompted to enter a verification code that was supposedly sent to my email address. Unfortunately, I am either not receiving the email or no longer have access to that email account. Could you please assist me in one of the following ways: Resend the verification code to a different or updated email address, or Help me regain access to my account through an alternative method.

Here are the details of my account: Username: [Hichem algerino] 41.108.174.146 (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Hichem. If you are logged into the account from somewhere, you should be able to update the email address to one you do have access to. Unfortunately, if you are not logged on and do not have access to the email set for it, then there is no way to recover your account. You'll need to create a new one - I suggest that then you note on the User pages of both accounts that you are Hichem algerino under a new name. ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Did you get a response to this? I'm in a similar situation and locked out of my account, despite having access to what I thought was the email address on record 23.127.164.51 (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

How do you disambiguate a page which currently exists as a redirect to another article?

Links: Gold Rush (TV series), Jesse D. Goins, Jesse Goins (redirect)

Hi. After watching a show on the internet, I went to look for information about a person called Jesse Goins, who was part of a TV series called Gold Rush: Dave Turin's Lost Mine. Upon going to the page with his name, I was redirected to a page about an actor called Jesse D. Goins, who is not the same person.

I was thinking of changing the redirect into a disambiguation, and including Jesse Goins, directing users to the page about that show. Since I don't want to screw the redirect up, can someone please advise me on how to change a redirect into a disambiguation page please? A search reveals that the show (Gold Rush) does have its own article, and Jesse Goins is mentioned in the subsection relating to the version I mentioned.

Thanks for your advice and help. Dane|Geld 18:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey there,

If you get redirected, you should see "(Redirected from Jesse Goins)" underneath the page title in the top-left corner of the article.

Clicking on the name will take you to the redirect page without you being redirected again. From there, you should be able to click to edit the page as normal.

You'll want to completely remove what's there, and then use the Human name disambiguation template. ···sardonism · t · c 19:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I am not convinced that a disambiguation page is needed, per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic with only one other topic, you could add a hatnote to Jesse D. Goins. TSventon (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the Gold Rush article it appears the Jesse Goins in question here was only present for that single specific spin-off series (and possibly only mentioned because of his death), making me question the utility of adding a hatnote for someone that not many people are going to be trying to find on Wikipedia. Amstrad00 (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

locked out!

Hello! I'm hoping for some help with my account. Login user ID is "essness" when I try to reset, no email is sent to reset. I do have a prior email from Wikipedia at that address, which seems to confirm that it's the one on file. Is there anyway to get help with this? 23.127.164.51 (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi there,

Sorry to hear you're having trouble signing in!

It seems that there's no account with the username Essness.

Could you double-check the spelling?

Alternatively, you mention an email from Wikipedia - this may contain one or more link(s) that would help to verify your account name. ···sardonism · t · c 18:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

If you tried to get a password recovery email and it didn't work, there is no other way to regain access to your account. You may create a new one and identify it as a successor to your old account. 331dot (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Remember that (as far as I know) Account names are case sensitive: is it possible that you capitalised one or more letters of "essness"? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.192.228.242 (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Account names are case sensitive except for the intial character which is automatically capitalized if it's a letter. Could it be User:Esness? The account was created in 2016 and only has one edit to Maneesh which was later deleted. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

What about User:EssNess? Fabrickator (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Babe Paley article

Under the subheading Babe Paley#Style, there appears to be a coding problem with the thumbnail for image File:KN-C19647. First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy's Tea for the Special Committee for White House Paintings.jpg. The thumbnail is displaying a "broken" icon. (I've tried several different web browsers). Muzilon (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@Muzilon: It works for me. Is it still broken for you? PrimeHunter (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the thumbnail won't display on my MacBook, nor in the Wikipedia app on my (Android) cellphone. No issue with the other images in the Babe Paley bio, just that group photo. Muzilon (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Addenda: OK, this is weird - I just tried Tor and a proxy, and the thumbnail did display properly. I've replicated the problem by adding the thumbnail to my Sandbox. It would seem this may be a problem with my ISP, although I don't know why it would just affect this particular image. On further experimentation, I note that two of the extracted images listed on the source image's Commons page are broken for me too. Muzilon (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@Muzilon: Some ISP's use caching. They may have tried to cache it at a time where it was broken or they couldn't connect to it, but ISP caching may not be possible when Wikimedia uses https. It's also possible you reach another Wikimedia server via Tor. I'm in Denmark, Europe. One of the extracts is broken for me: File:Jacqueline Kennedy and James W. Fosburgh (cropped).jpg works on the file page but the extract tries to load the 250px version /media/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/Jacqueline_Kennedy_and_James_W._Fosburgh_(cropped).jpg/250px-Jacqueline_Kennedy_and_James_W._Fosburgh_(cropped).jpg which says "Error Too Many Requests". PrimeHunter (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I can reproduce that issue too. I get a Wikimedia error message "Our servers are currently under maintenance or experiencing a technical issue". For the record, I'm in New Zealand. Muzilon (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

'Dead' sources

What should I do with sources that have broken SWFs (that are the main source of info)? What should I mark the source as? There's some sources on a page I'm editing that Ruffle is unable to load the SWF for at all with a CORS policy, and another source that just says the SWF is invalid. Should I remove the source, should I mark it as dead (some are already marked as usurped and use the Wayback Machine) KamiraMV (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, how do I update a source to use the Wayback Machine instead of the normal url (a few sources just redirect to a homepage) KamiraMV (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

The simplest method is with this tool: https://iabot.wmcloud.org/index.php?page=runbotsingle -- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)