Wikipedia:Help desk#Where to find the AutoGenerated ToC template?

Search the frequently asked questions

Search the help desk archives and other help pages

I'm directing this message to Wikipedia. Please re check all the history pages and the sports pages because they are inaccurate academically. It's a free bold tip! Thank you for listening!

Check your pages. They are modified and inaccurate academically. They are written in codes but they are like published by canibals. ~2025-39247-85 (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @~2025-39247-85 but this is an extremely vague and borderline incomprehensible "tip". Can you give us some specific examples? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone, including you, an edit. If you see a mistake, fix it. But do make sure you have reliable sources for anything you add. HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Back when I was a first-year anthropology student, I can remember reading an academic work on allegations of cannibalism (sadly, the author escapes me), which noted just how often such claims concerned some disliked 'other', almost invariably unaccompanied by anything resembling evidence. Some things never change... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At least this adds to the pool of possible names for Wikipedia's house band. "Published by Canibals" is a bit long to fit nicely on a t-shirt though. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canibals will be our record label mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found the work mentioned I above: William Arens' 1979 The Man-Eating Myth : Anthropology and Anthropophagy. Needless to say, Arens' claims regarding the rarity (or non-existence) of culturally-acceptable cannibalism have been disputed since, and by most accounts debunked, though I don't think anyone disagrees with his suggestion that allegations of cannibalism have often been made to simply project negativity. In the interests of good faith, I'm going to assume that the OP's intimation was just that, rather than an actual allegation of cannibalism by Wikipedia contributors. Quite how one might detect this particular gastronomic preference through writing style escapes me... AndyTheGrump (talk)

OK. I call dibs on football. Category:WikiProject Football articles has 500,000+ pages but some of them aren't actually articles so this should be easy. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How many of them cite academic sources? I know that academia tends to throw its nets wide when trawling for subjects (bad metaphor, since trawlers don't throw nets...) but is there actually published peer-reviewed work on Huddersfield Town's single-appearance Joseph Wigmore? I rather doubt it. Not unless he subsequently ate someone? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I heard he was dating that woman who Daryl Hall and John Oates sang about. In fact, she probably wrote our article about him. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TooManyFingers At least the OP made it easier to fit on a t-shirt by misspelling Canibals with only one n.Naraht (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I expect there's a market for books like The Canibal Codes: The Do's and Don'ts of Eating Your Relatives. MinorProphet (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MinorProphet Was The Canibal Codes written by Dan Brown, by any chance? David10244 (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that one is actually by S. Green. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TooManyFingers They were fine young can[n]ibals. David10244 (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your article on Nick Fuentes is bias and absurdly far left. If you're not going to write a neutral documentary, then don't cry for people to donate to your lame site. ~2025-39495-55 (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. Feel free not to donate. Or to read Wikipedia at all. Plenty of people do both, though whether the WMF (which actually solicits the donations, rather than Wikipedia) actually needs the humungous pile of dosh it is sitting on is a matter of debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of "Nicholas Joseph Fuentes (born August 18, 1998) is an American political commentator and a far-right white nationalist, activist, and live streamer. He hosts America First, a livestream promoting Christian nationalism, white supremacy, misogyny, anti-LGBTQ views, and antisemitism including Holocaust denial." do you feel is not supported by citations in the body of the article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One might indeed ask whether Fuentes would deny any of that. —Antonissimo (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right! Like, of all right wing commentators, Fuentes is probably the easiest to write an objective article on. He doesn't shut up and leaves no room for ambiguity mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:14, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what kind of person it takes to search for Nick Fuentes on Wikipedia, see the donation banner at the top of the page, and get so pissed off at the combination of those two things that they have to come and tell us about it. Athanelar (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, the kind of person who reads text like that I quoted, and thinks "This is someone whose reputation I must defend". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Andy. David10244 (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I ask to delete Dr. Peter Lacker from the filmography in the TV Show on L.A. Law, Episode I'm in Nude for Love. Dominic Chianese is not playing as Dr. Peter Lacker. Robert Ellenstein plays as Dr. Peter Lacker. I find it on IMDb. I got it right. ~2025-39997-74 (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not a reliable source on Wikipedia, because it can be edited by anybody. See WP:Citing IMDb Athanelar (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That does not mean that IMDb is always wrong.

We need to know which page(s) the first poster refers to, so that we can see what sources (if any!) are cited there, and check them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've already deleted him from Dominic Chianese, so what's the problem? P.S. IMDb is pretty accurate as far as credits are concerned, and the episode entry agrees that Ellenstein (uncredited) played Lacker. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend IMDb might be pretty accurate, but as you probably know, just like Wikipedia, it's user-editable and therefore can't be used as a source. David10244 (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The cast credits are not afaik user edited. When a user asks for an addition/change/correction to the cast, it has to be submitted to the site for approval. (I know this from my own experience.) In any case, Chianese has no source either. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I have edited the article "Rungis International Market", as it is in no way "international", but "d'intéret national" which mean "Nation wide".

But I don't know how to edit the entry name.

Best SBOINSAR (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The changes you made to the article are not supported by either the French or English web sites of the market organization, and have been reverted. Discuss on the article's Talk page with other editors at Talk:Rungis International Market. General Ization ^Talk 20:24, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SBOINSAR: Your alleged name "Rungis Nation Wide Market" has no Google hits and no chance of being accepted when the Official website of the market is linked in the article and shows in the red bar at the bottom that Rungis International Market is the real name. Do not add made up names to Wikipedia. Our content is based on published reliable sources. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: In fairness to the OP, it appears (from a 2014 comment on the article Talk page) that the name of the market changed from the one the OP is proposing more than 10 years ago to the one currently reflected here (so the OP's proposal does not appear to be a "made up" name, but is no longer correct). General Ization ^Talk 22:34, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The former page name was Marché d'Intérêt National de Rungis. The OP called it Rungis Nation Wide Market in the article [1] which was apparently an attempt to translate a former French name of what is called Marché International de Rungis today. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the OP's proposed name was a literal translation of the former name (Intérêt National in this case being idiomatic). General Ization ^Talk 23:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nationwide is usually one word, by the way. —Antonissimo (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I need Help with Someone, I am not getting through to them ... User_talk:K-popguardian they deleted a Page (or redirected it) (Lucia Field) and they are not understanding why it's wrong to do it ... Jena (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jena Fi: what K-popguardian did was a common process called blank and redirect, see WP:BLAR. They didn't think that Lucia Field is WP:NOTABLE, so they redirected the page, you disagree, so you should explain why Field is suitable for an article on the talk page. TSventon (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok but I will wait... I don't think they will do it again ... and reading the talk page ... they are having some problems with Wikipedia Jena (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jena Fi: I absolutely will do it again, especially now that its been explained as a common practice by @TSventon:, unless you can professionally and properly explain to me WHY this page should stay, without making any personal attacks on my wikipedia record, JUST focusing on what's allowed and not allowed on Wikipedia. - K-popguardian (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to tell you before ... you have to discuss it with people before you do it, Lucia is the Blue Wiggle and she is Anthony's Daughter.. that is why she is notable Jena (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not all members of a notable band are inherently notable, nor is being related to a notable person. I don't have an opinion on Field generally, however. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:00, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jena Fi That’s not what "notable" means in the Wikipedia sense. Please click here: WP:N and read it. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jena Fi: An article has to be more than two pieces of trivia. As I mentioned in the redirect reasoning (which I'm starting to think you didn't even read), not only was her article ridiculously small but there's only TWO non-primary sources on the entire thing. There's a reason why Kelly Hamilton doesn't have a page but someone like Philip Wilcher does. The coverage of these individuals' careers is what ultimately matters most, and by extension, artices focused on said individual and not the group as a whole. Otherwise the entire article really is just "Lucia Field is the daughter of Anthony and the Blue Wiggle." And AGAIN, saying this for the third time now, I made it a REDIRECT to acknowledge that she might be more notable in the future but seeing as she's the wiggle with the least amount of information on wikipedia, she does not meet the criteria to have a page. And it's really bothering me that all you've done to justify this is tell me "don't do it again", complain about me to the help desk, take aim my wikipedia record, and doing everything but proving her notability. This feels more like something you're doing as a fan and not because you know this article meets criteria. - K-popguardian (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: Just taking a quick glance at Lucia Field's page, do you think she's WP:NOTABLE enough to have a page right now? - K-popguardian (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Passer-by, but as someone active in reviewing new pages/drafts, this doesn't presently pass WP:GNG. No in-depth coverage from multiple independent sources. Do more exist? Not sure, but currently there's not enough to meet independent notability under WP:NBANDMEMBER. // hekatlys [talk] 02:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically this image File:Sea Power game logo.png (fair-use image, can't display) Opecuted (talk) 03:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps this not copyrightable because it is simple text

Piñanana (talk) 04:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's some texturing going on in the text, so I'm playing safe. —Opecuted (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The texturing going on in the text is not in the image,

it has to do with displaying an image with "transparency" Alpha compositing

other images on commons that have "transparency" exhibit the same phenomenon

Piñanana (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They mean the pattern on the white text itself, not the alpha checkerboard pattern. It's much more visible against a dark background. —Cryptic 15:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox has a way of doing this (see, for example, Template talk:Infobox/Archive 19#Forcing a bg color on images with transparent bg), but {{infobox video game}} doesn't seem to pass the parameter through. —Cryptic 15:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've opted to replace the logo with the cover art instead (File:Sea Power game cover art.jpg), thanks for trying to help. @Piñanana @Cryptic —Opecuted (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to create my own website? ~2025-40142-91 (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @~2025-40142-91. This is the help desk for Wikipedia editing only. Please use an internet search engine to find information on how to create a website. qcne (talk) 09:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(heads up, I made a template for this kind of scenario) mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Alternative outlets for some free tools and services. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:40, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can I determine whether an image, such as a company logo, is copyrighted or otherwise restricted? I previously uploaded the AbsoluteDigital Pictures logo to Wikipedia, but it was removed due to a missing license. I believed it might be acceptable to upload because I searched the USPTO Trademark Search (TMSearch.USPTO.gov) and did not find any associated trademarks, or any indication of whether a trademark related to the logo was active or expired. I now understand that trademark status is separate from copyright, and I am unsure how to properly verify this before uploading images. WVWG9652 (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @WVWG9652. By default you should assume every image you come across is copyrighted, unless it is very specifically released under a compatible licence.

Logos can be uploaded to Wikipedia directly under fair use, but must meet specific requirements and can not be added to draft articles. qcne (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WVWG9652. Many company logos consist of letters in commonplace fonts and perhaps a few common shapes. These lack sufficient creativity to be copyrighted and are therefore in the public domain. We currently have 5,602 such images in Category:Public domain images ineligible for copyright (logo). Cullen328 (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't these files be exported to Commons? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:20, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aftonbladet TV7.svg has a tag saying not to. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But some don't, e.g. File:141 Schools for Peace.png. I guess this depends on the threshold of originality laws for the origin country. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:37, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then I see no reason not exporting those. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WVWG9652 If there is an org with a WP-article, you can generally add a logo as WP:LEADIMAGE.

If it's a very simple logo, like File:Enhanced Games Logo.png, you can upload it on Commons, more at COM:TOO.

If it's a more complex logo, like File:Superleggera 2024 logo.jpg you have to upload it on English Wikipedia: Go to WP:FUW, pick Upload a non-free file > This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use. > This is a logo of an organization, company, brand, etc.

In neither case call yourself the author or mark it as your "own work." Unless, you know, you actually designed the logo. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was the image I added: https://mediaproxy.tvtropes.org/width/1200/https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/absolutedigital_pictures.png WVWG9652 (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guessing by User_talk:WVWG9652#Copyright_status:_File:AbsoluteDigital_Pictures_(Horizon)_(Print_Black).svg you didn't have any/wrong copyright tags, like you can see under the Licensing heading at File:Enhanced_Games_Logo.png. If you check here, you'll see how they are written. But that's a guess, I can't see deleted file pages. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok WVWG9652 (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WVWG9652 There is a pretty detailed guide to all this at WP:Logos. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I didn't even design the logo! It's just that I don't know if its simple or complex logo. WVWG9652 (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with simple, seems equivalent to File:Adobe Systems logo and wordmark.svg IMO. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what should I choose in Release rights to get the image uploaded? WVWG9652 (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This work was created by someone else and is free to share
• This work is not protected by copyright law

Then, in the add a specific public domain tag, if applicable field, add the tags I linked above, {{pd-textlogo}}{{trademarked}}.

It gets easier after you've done it a few times. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, if it's a complex logo, you have to wait with the upload until you have an actual WP-article to put it in, non-free isn't allowed in drafts. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Help Desk Team, My name is Dr. Marcello Maviglia (MD, MPH), and I am writing to request assistance regarding a biographical draft I published earlier today. The draft appeared on my screen after I clicked “Publish,” but I am now unable to locate it in my user space, Draft space, or contributions list. I am concerned that it may have been saved in an unexpected namespace or that a technical issue prevented it from being properly recorded. I want to express this respectfully: I have the perception that I may not be receiving a fair opportunity for my biography to be considered. I fully understand Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, and I believe my academic, clinical, and system-level contributions meet those standards. My intention is not to accuse anyone, but to ensure that my work is evaluated equitably and according to Wikipedia’s established criteria. To assist you in understanding the context, here is a summary of my professional background:

Given the scope of my academic and professional contributions, I respectfully request assistance with: Locating the draft I published today, which is currently not visible in my user or draft space Determining whether a technical issue occurred during the publishing process Ensuring that my biography receives a fair and unbiased review according to Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing guidelines Thank you for your time and for any guidance you can provide. I am committed to following Wikipedia’s policies and contributing constructively to the platform. Sincerely,

Dr. Marcello Maviglia, MD, MPH  
Albuquerque, New Mexico Marcellomavi (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dr. Maviglia. Unfortunately the material you placed there had to be deleted because it was advertising your services or your business. Wikipedia does not allow such material, even on users' pages. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am quite frankly offended by your answer. I am trying to gain legitimate space by publishing my honest work. I did submit my cv adapted to Wikipedia style. It looks like your selection criteria are unclear, and the directions are very vague. I do not think I have been given a fair chance. Marcellomavi (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing vague about it. If you "submitted your CV adapted to Wikipedia style" then you directly contravened a policy literally called WP:NOTCV. You not taking the effort to familiarise yourself with our norms and procedures is not the same as them being unclear or vague.

Furthermore, absolutely nobody here is under any obligation to give you "a fair chance" to promote yourself here by publishing your CV. We strongly discourage people from writing their own biographical articles, and outright forbid self-promotion. Athanelar (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a Wikipedia article about you at some time in the future, it will not include the kinds of things you wrote. Instead, it will be a simple restatement of what has been written about you by people who have no connection with you, such as reporters independently writing about you without an interview. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you telling me that all your articles in Wikipedia have followed the process you are suggesting? This does not match my info. In fact, I think that can be challenged. You are actually stating that all the articles on people on Wikipedia have been written by other people who had no connections with the individual who is the subject of the narrative? Can you say YES? Marcellomavi (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most are, yes.

It is not absolutely forbidden for people to write about themselves on Wikipedia, see the autobiography policy- but Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. People writing about themselves must set aside everything they know about themselves and all materials that they put out(like interviews) and limit themselves to summarizing what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about them and how they are a notable person as Wikipedia defines one.(there are also narrower categories for some specific fields). Most people have great difficulty doing that, and most do not succeed. Are you the rare person that can? Possibly, but the odds are heavily against it.

Also know that an article is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification. I would like to respond precisely to the point I raised.

You stated that “most” biographical articles on Wikipedia are written by individuals with no connection to the subject. That assertion does not align with the historical development of many articles—particularly those concerning academics, clinicians, artists, and other professionals whose entries are often drafted or initiated by colleagues, students, institutional affiliates, or individuals with some degree of familiarity with the subject. This is well documented in the platform’s edit histories.

My question was therefore specific: Are you asserting that all, or even the overwhelming majority, of biographical articles on Wikipedia have been written exclusively by people with no connection whatsoever to the individual? That is a strong claim, and one that can reasonably be examined and discussed.

I fully acknowledge the guidance regarding autobiographies and the need for strict reliance on independent, reliable sources. I also understand the challenges involved in maintaining neutrality when writing about oneself. However, these principles do not negate the factual reality that many articles have historically been initiated or shaped by individuals who were not entirely “independent” in the strictest sense.

My intention here is not to dispute policy, but to ensure that our discussion is grounded in accuracy and that broad generalizations are not presented as established fact. If the position is that Wikipedia prefers articles to be written by uninvolved editors, that is entirely understandable. But that is different from asserting that this is how the majority of articles have actually been produced.

I appreciate your answer and look forward to a constructive and policy‑based dialogue. Marcellomavi (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between familiarity with a topic and being connected to a topic/writing about yourself. Yes, people rarely write about topics at random- but a student writing about a professor at their university with whom they take no classes(without their knowledge) is different than writing about the professor for whom one works as a TA or work with as a colleague- or writing about themselves. That is a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest editing is not forbidden, either, but must be done according to policy. You're not forbidden from attempting to write about yourself, but it's not likely to succeed. I've been here many years and never personally seen it happen(though it probably has). 331dot (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is almost certainly AI generated, and I would challenge you to provide absolutely any evidence to your claim that "the platform's edit histories" show what you claim they do. Athanelar (talk) 12:46, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is your constructive, policy-based dialogue:

WP:CIR

For you to write anything on English Wikipedia, including on this page, you are required to write in English, in your own words. Your repeated use of AI tools in this discussion indicates that you regard yourself as lacking ability in English.

Therefore, please change the way you are doing things. If your own use of English is clumsy but understandable, that's perfectly fine - people here will appreciate your honest effort and we'll do our best to respond. If you do not use English at all except with the help of AI, then please leave the English Wikipedia, and consider using a different Wikipedia in a language you're familiar with. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please refrain from using an AI to communicate with us here. We have no interest in talking to a chatbot. All user-to-user communication should be carried out in your own words. Athanelar (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not using a chatbot. Having content reviewed by programs with AI functions does not mean that I am not contributing to the content. Everybody uses AI. I am a serious professional. I do not need lectures. The bottom line is that I have not been treated seriously and with here. Marcellomavi (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:45, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have never used AI to write anything anywhere.

You do need what you've called "lectures", because despite your professional competence, you have not yet approached a minimum standard of competence on Wikipedia. It takes time and experience. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please refrain from insulting remarks. You have not sent one single iota of your feedback. Please refrain from making insulting remarks. Your feedback has not provided any useful information for someone trying to publish. There are several issues here: the site is confusing, and the responses come from individuals who do not reveal their identities or qualifications. I also have the distinct impression that you are arbitrarily creating obstacles to my publishing efforts. Nevertheless, I will follow the rules and ensure that my rights are respected. I will not give up. Thank you. Marcellomavi (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have no "rights" on this privately operated website. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A gentle note, @Marcellomavi, that this is a high-visibility page with lots of traffic, and your remarks in this thread are potentially professionally embarrassing considering they are tied to your real-life identity. I would strongly urge you to re-consider from posting further with your current attitude. qcne (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can take care of myself, since my image and reputation are solid and respected. The vagueness confusion and approximative logic in the answers and even the insulting attitude do not affect me. Moreover, professionalism implies that in a conversation among two individuals both parties reveal their own identities. This is not happening here. Also, it would have been professional if you had given me clear instructions about the criteria for your selection. Instead, I get comments like this (just to cite one): "your remarks in this thread are potentially professionally embarrassing considering they are tied to your real-life identity. I would strongly urge you to re-consider from posting further with your current attitude"; another comment from you: "You have no "rights" on this privately operated website". Please specify which are the embarrassing remarks. Also clarify if your referring to my not having any rights is related to me personally or to everybody and if means that your selection criteria vary according to your own preferences. In my view I have raised legitimate questions about lack of clarity on the selection process. However, if you want to give a positive twist to the conversation, please state clearly below the selection criteria for publication, and the process step by step to be considered for publication. Thanks! Marcellomavi (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are an encyclopedia. Essentially what we do is summarise topics that have been written about in secondary sources. We call this 'notability'. We have specific notability guidelines for things like corporations and people, and even more specific ones for academics for example. There are lots of other rules like WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research for example, but notability is our 'criteria for publication,' as you put it.

It's also important to note that we explicitly do not allow the things outlined at WP:What Wikipedia is not. This includes things like promotional articles and CVs. Athanelar (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that should you meet Wikipedia notability criteria, and should a biography on you be created, you will have no editorial control over the content: like any other Wikipedia article, it will be open to all to edit, subject to the same policies and guidelines that apply to all articles. This may not necessarily be to your advantage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be perfectly clear that we are under absolutely no obligation to assist you in your "publishing efforts," because this is an encyclopedia, not a webhost for your CV. Athanelar (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanations. I want to reiterate that I am still working through the policies and I will continue to ask focused, policy‑relevant questions as I do so. Understanding how Wikipedia functions—its criteria, its editorial culture, and its limitations—is part of participating responsibly.

I am aware that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia built on secondary sources, not a platform for self‑promotion or personal narratives. I also understand the importance of notability, verifiability, and the prohibition on original research. My questions are directed at understanding how these principles are applied in practice, especially in cases where a professional trajectory spans multiple systems and countries.

I also recognize that Wikipedia is a collaborative environment where no individual has editorial control over an article. That is precisely why clarity matters. When policies are invoked, I want to understand them accurately rather than rely on assumptions or interpretations that may not reflect the written guidelines.

Regarding the repeated remarks about “using AI,” I want to be clear: nothing I have written violates any Wikipedia policy. Editors themselves routinely use automated tools, bots, and various forms of assistance. What matters is whether the content aligns with Wikipedia’s core policies—not the presence or absence of technological support. My engagement here is in good faith, and I will continue to ask questions until I fully understand the relevant standards.

My intention is not to challenge the purpose of the encyclopedia, but to understand how its policies are applied and how one is expected to navigate them. I will continue this process until I have the clarity I need. Marcellomavi (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And we're back to the AI generated responses, after you've specifically been told to desist. Read WP:LLMCOMM. If you won't give us the basic dignity of actually talking to us in your own words, expect the same level of effort back. Athanelar (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. This is a help desk, where answers are provided by volunteers. We are under no obligation to answer any particular question, and if people perfectly capable of communicating in their own words (which I would have to assume is true for Dr Maviglia, given his qualifications and his position at UNM) insist on spamming the page with vacuous and repetitive next-word-guesser-bot platitudes the most appropriate action is probably to ignore it. Dr Maviglia has been pointed to relevant policies, and can figure it out for himself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody rate Seventeen Mile Lake, Seloam Lake, and Gold Lake, Nova Scotia? I am bad at rating accesment scales Versions111 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Versions111, I find it hard to decide between "start" and "C", or between "C" and "B", so I don't bother rating articles. If it's an article I've freshly promoted from draft status (as it usually is), some other editor quickly arrives and grades it. I've never got a comment about not grading, let alone a complaint. -- Hoary (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you have a fairly accurate idea of "decent article" and "no-good article" and know which side of that line you're on, you can and should just ignore all the rest of the ratings. I'm no good at ratings either. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:59, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Versions111  Done THANK YOU FOR THE GREAT WORK. Happy editing CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 06:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Versions111, Hoary, TooManyFingers, and Thilio: you all (except Hoary) need WP:RATER. I think it does a good job of deciding if an article is a goodish stub or a poorish start. TSventon (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah TSventon, grading. If my article Jindřich Marco is a C-class numismatics article, then the FIFA Peace Prize is a peace prize. -- Hoary (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary do you want to explain, I think you are saying something like Ceci n'est pas une pipe, but I could be wrong. TSventon (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TSventon, I think that Jindřich Marco is a decent stab (if I may say it myself) at an article about somebody who definitely was a photographer of note. I'm pretty sure that the man was also a numismatist of note. But as my numismatic knowledge hardly extends beyond my possession of a couple of cans-full of coins that back in the coin-using era I found in my pockets on my return from travels, I don't even know where I should attempt to read up on a numismatist. (I did try the very obvious, e.g. Google Scholar, but got nowhere.) I am sure that the article is, numismatically, a mere stub. Years ago I might have said that if you believed that, numismatically, it was a "C", then I had a bridge to sell you; but there's no need to reach into the hazy past now that each day's news brings us politicians and their spokespersons shamelessly spouting obvious poppycock (e.g. that the "FIFA Peace Prize" is a prize for peacemaking). -- Hoary (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary Time for upgrades lol :) CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 13:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming increasingly bonkers, Thilio. -- Hoary (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, thank you, I think we express our scepticism differently. I think that saying an article is C-class often just means that somebody has tagged it as C. I don't think I was involved in doing assessing articles project by project. And I hadn't clicked on your links. TSventon (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article (Chinese independent high school) is kind of heavily uncited. I don't know what to do with it since it has been marked since 2021, if anyone knows what to do with it please help. Thank you! N niyaz (talk) 09:17, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google the term "chinese independent high school" (and the chinese language name) and see if you can find any sources with useful information evidencing notability, then add and cite the info from those sources. If you can't find anything, then it might be time to consider WP:Deletion. Athanelar (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"chinese independent high school" is too generic a term (a search returns results about high schools in China that are independent). A search for "chinese independent high school" Malaysia (with quotes as shown) may be more successful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STUBIFY it down. Stubs are better than deletion. // hekatlys [talk] 12:26, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do topic bans apply to all Wikimedia projects, or just Wikipedia? Erika Dauði (she/her) (talk) 12:28, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Topic bans are applied by the admins or community of English Wikipedia only, so they apply to English Wikipedia only. Athanelar (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thanks. Erika Dauði (she/her) (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do note that if you are topic banned, taking your antics elsewhere probably wouldn't be appreciated (you were banned for a reason, after all) mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other language versions of Wikipedia may also choose to have topic bans, but there is no such thing as a single cross project topic ban. Cullen328 (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make a new page for a public figure who doesn't have one yet. I tried putting two brackets around their name in an article in which they are mentioned but this did not create a red link I could use to create the new page. Do I currently have the username credentials to create a new page? Davestewart85 (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

presumably you are talking about setting up an article at Sophie Haydock?

Bare in mind creating a page is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. See WP:YFA for more details. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:03, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Davestewart85.

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.

One of the specific problems for new users is that the criteria for notability are complicated and rather unexpected when you first meet them; but if your chosen topic does not in fact meet them, then an article is impossible, and every second that you spend working on it (other than looking for suitable sources) is time wasted. ColinFine (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should, however, bear in mind how to spell. MinorProphet (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Published a page the other day and just wanted to know what's the process to having it removed from draft? Draft:Bōde. NikMJ (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NikMJ, I have re-added the AFC template, which you deleted on 9 December. This includes the big "Submit the draft for review" button, which you need to press when you think your draft is ready for review. Good luck. - Arjayay (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One question - Do you work for, or have any business links whatsoever to Bōde? If so, you must declare that Conflict of Interest (Please see WP:COIEDIT), and, if you work for them, or receive any remuneration for creating the article, Wikipedia considers you a paid editor. Please see WP:PAID for the additional declaration you must make in such circumstances. - Arjayay (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @NikMJ.

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) 22:17, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Historical sources generally indicate that Xerxes I was born around 519 BCE rather than 518 BCE. Since 519 BCE is more commonly accepted among historians, his birth year should be revised accordingly. ~2025-40531-69 (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've also raised this at Talk:Xerxes I#Birth year, which is the appropriate place, and I've responded there. NebY (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reading a page about someone being fined $500 in 1844. Do we have a template that will convert that to 2025 (or some other modern year) dollars in such a way that the page will always have a fairly recent equivalent dollar amount? Is there such a template for pounds, euros, etc? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inflation; for the USA this goes back to 1634.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:03, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

see {{inflation}} Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:04, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! just what I was looking for. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Provide these 2 - complete $ to -gold/-crude oil per annum since 1973 to 2025. MichaelUP (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we compare the price of a gallon of milk with a gallon of gasoline over the decades?  :-) David10244 (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He or she stays in south africa Zolotoffk (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. We have several articles on people named Lee Smith, but unless you are referring to one of them, we cannot help you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This page is for people who need help editing wikipedia. You might have better luck with a search engine like Google or DuckDuckGo. If you still want help from a Wikipedian, then the reference desk could prove helpful! mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I knew a Lee Smith in California long ago. At the time, the name was also used by Bank of America on dummy credit cards. —Antonissimo (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is great... How do I link my bank card and account to my Wikipedia profile MichaelUP (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't unless you are actually trying to creates some sort of entirely pointless security risk. There is no reason whatsoever why anyone on Wikipedia could possibly have a legitimate reason to access such information. If you want to donate, note that it is the Wikimedia Foundation, rather than Wikipedia that collects funds: see [here]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @MichaelUP

Why on earth would you want to do that?

If you are talking about making donations, they go to the Wikimedia Foundation, and there is (quite deliberately) no connection whatever between a donation or a donor, and a Wikipedia account. If you wish to say on your user page that you are a donor, that's fine, because it's your choice.

If what you are trying to do is get Wikipedia to stop showing you the donation banner, then you can turn that off for your account - but there is still nothing anywhere in Wikipedia that knows that you have or haven't donated. See Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-centralnotice-banners. ColinFine (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On firefox, the sound player glyphs stop being rendered after I click it once. You can view a video here: (Apologies for my goofy cursor...)

https://streamable.com/vldp24 Erikgobrrr (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Erikgobrrr: It works for me in Firefox 146.0 on WIndows 11. Does it also fail at commons:File:Near-close near-front rounded vowel.ogg? Does it help to reload the page with Ctrl+F5? PrimeHunter (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me too, in 145.0.2.

I notice that when I play the clip, it replaces the symbols there with new ones (replay, and sound), and your browser is presumably not displaying those symbols. That sounds as if you haven't got a font which shows them. ColinFine (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was my first thought but I looked up the hex values displayed instead of characters: F103/F101/F11B and F107. They also display as those hex values for me here in Firefox: . They are all in a Private Use Area so they are not supposed to display something on their own. I don't know how the audio player works but maybe it's supposed to load symbols to display for those values. That's why I asked for a Ctrl+F5 reload which should reload everything used to render the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it's because I have an extension that changes the font and I coincidentally chose a font which doesn't have those characters. Erikgobrrr (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the extension has been disabled. Erikgobrrr (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Erikgobrrr, I realize your problem was solved, but if you wish to change the font for Wikipedia, you may copy and paste the following into this page:

 body {font-family: 'YOUR FONT OF CHOICE','Segoe UI','Segoe UI Emoji','Segoe UI Symbol','Lato','Liberation Sans','Noto Sans','Helvetica Neue','Helvetica',sans-serif; color: #000; font-size: 0.95em; line-height: 1.5}

Changing "YOUR FONT OF CHOICE" with the name of a font on your computer. The other ones are backups. You can change the rest of the parameters too if you want. win8x (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This page is for people who need help editing wikipedia. You might have better luck with a search engine like Google or DuckDuckGo. If you still want help from a Wikipedian, then the reference desk could prove helpful! mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. I'm asking about an ident of the irish channel TV3 (Now Virgin Media One). The one mentioned on Kojii's page. There was also an infamous horror version. I think it's a good idea to add about it either on her or the network's page, because it's really unique due to the sheer amout of blood as well as it pretty much being a creepypasta that really exists. What about you people? What do you think? ~2025-40048-69 (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @~2025-40048-69. Having gone looking for something or somebody called Kojii, I have found Kojii Helnwein, so I know have at least a vague idea of what on earth you are talking about.

If you have a suggestion for improving that article, please make it on Talk:Kojii Helnwein. But note that unless you can find a reliable source talking about the "infamous horror version", nothing about it should go into the article - and even if you can, it is an editorial judgment call whether it belongs in the article or not. ColinFine (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Yes, Kojii Helnwein is exactly who i meant. Concerning reliable sources, it's complicated. Also, it seems like you don't know what i'm talking about. I'm talking about https://www.avid.wiki/Draft:Virgin_Media_One. Specifially the 2006-2008 section. The horror one is under a spoiler. Is that a good source? Even if it isn't, it's still noteworthy. ~2025-40048-69 (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You ask if https://www.avid.wiki/Draft:Virgin_Media_One is a good source. This is a page that tells us: This page is currently being drafted. It is a work in progress that anyone can edit. It's what might be called a textbook example of an unusable source. You continue: "Even if it isn't, it's still noteworthy". We're concerned here about notability as defined by and for English-language Wikipedia. If what we hope to say about some event, person, thing, etc can't be verified from a reliable source, then it can't be written up here. -- Hoary (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a real bummer. But you gotta admit it's impressive that it was on public TV. ~2025-40048-69 (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Percival Wilde plays are Public Domain with ISBN-13

an example: The Beautiful Story ISBN 978-1-4254-7780-6 $43 !!!!

I have seen this for many authors whose works are Public Domain

should they all be removed if free on archive.org or google books ?

Piñanana (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the actual places you're talking about removing something. But wouldn't it make more sense to not remove anything, in case someone wants it, but to also proclaim loud and clear that they are public domain works? TooManyFingers (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unaware of any practice of declaring that works are in the public domain. It is considerate of editors to point out if a book that's on a website requires registration for the website or "subscription" (payment) to it. Template:Cite book provides for this. -- Hoary (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Do you really mean these are inserted somewhere by spammers? Or do you mean this is widespread copyfraud ... or what? TooManyFingers (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Piñanana.

As far as I know, an ISBN-13 is interchangeable with its ISBN-10 version, and there is no significance to using the longer form.

In citing a book, the ISBN, where there is one, is an important part of the citation, as it uniquely identifies the (edition of) the book. A link to Google books or Archive.org is not an essential part of the citation, but merely a convenience for the reader. So, no, do not remove an ISBN from any citation unless it is actually wrong. ColinFine (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My article was declined, and I’d like to understand which specific notability or sourcing issues I should improve before resubmitting. I want to make sure I fix it correctly.

Thank you for your time. Dileepnnit (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about Draft:Naren Shetty? -- Hoary (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If It is, Dileepnnit could start by actually citing sources for things they say, rather than making shit up and hoping nobody notices. See my comment on the draft page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:43, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LLMs love to namedrop "coverage" like that... Nil🥝 06:53, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like we need some kind of three strikes rule with drafts. If someone's draft gets declined three times in a four day period (including twice on the same day) it seems to me fairly self-evident that they aren't (whether due to lack of sources or lack of ability) able to act on the feedback being given in the decline notices, and they should probably be prevented from resubmitting that draft and politely told to find something else to edit. Athanelar (talk) 10:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or, in the case of paid contributors (which is what we are dealing with here, though the declaration [2] doesn't make this immediately obvious) told that if they post dishonest promotional bullshit again, they will be blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should issue bans on any paid contributor who has more than 1 of their edits reverted for sourcing issues. If they're being paid to edit, they should be expected to know the rules better than that mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes ~2025-40820-58 (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Is it possible to reverse vanishing and restore my account? ~2025-40841-58 (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @~2025-40841-58. WP:Courtesy vanishing does not mention a way of requesting this, and says explicitly It is not intended as a temporary measure, and also vanishing is a last resort, intended only for those who wish to stop editing permanently and minimize their visible past associations.

But it also says If the user returns, the vanishing will likely be fully reversed, the old and new accounts will be linked, and any prior sanctions or restrictions reinstated, which suggests that this is possible.

I suggest you contact a recently-active admin, explain exactly why you requested vanishing, and why you now want to return. See https://apersonbot.toolforge.org/recently-active/?admins for recently active admins. ColinFine (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another, probably better option would be to use meta:Special:EmailUser/Wikimedia Global-renamers (if you have an account) or to email renamerswikimedia.org, with proof you own the account. I am not sure if they will grant the request, though.

A better alternative is to start fresh, with a new account. win8x (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think that starting fresh after a courtesy vanishing was allowed or encouraged. It could be a way for a problematic editor to escape scrutiny. David10244 (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am editing a wikipedia page and my edits keep being reversed who can I contact about this? ~2025-38634-22 (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @~2025-38634-22, in one edit summary, you said I have been asked to do this by the person associated with this page Jo Delahunty KC. Please have a read of our conflict of interest policies and procedures. Nil🥝 12:09, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-38634-22 Please respond to the messages here User talk:~2025-38634-22. You are at risk of being blocked from editing. qcne (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth pointing out that I don't think Tescomealdeal1 has been going about this properly, as I've already mentioned at their talk page. At one point they say I appreciate the time that you have spent to appropriately source your edits but I still cannot allow them due to your Conflict of Interest (COI) with the topic., but COI editors are merely strongly discouraged from editing their COI topic, not forbidden from it, and it is improper to revert a well-sourced and productive edit merely on the grounds of a COI existing. Athanelar (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope you are well.

I have been doing extensive research on the Rand Rebellion ( Rand Rebellion ) and i have a few issues relating to the page for the Rand Revolt. Firstly, how does one go about editing a page? I would like to contribute much more information to that page if possible.

Secondly, i have an issue with what is stated on the wikipedia page for that topic. Mostly, my main issue is that it lacks nuance, uses politically biased sources, and does not have enough detail. For example, it states that "The young Communist Party of South Africa (CPSA) took an active part in the uprising on grounds of class struggle whilst reportedly using racist language in its opposition to racial conflict during the strike". It then goes on to use marxists.org as a source, which i would say is a fairly biased and politically inclined source, and therefore shouldn't be used.

My main issue with this particular paragraph is that, according to an independent judicial report made after the revolt (linked here) https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/WbU-AQAAMAAJ?hl=en , The leaders and many members of the Communist Party of South Africa knew fully well that the revolt was instigated by fears of the colour bar being removed, and yet still supported it and the racist aspects of the revolt, since that was the entire revolt.

Hope i can get some help with this. Cheers. ~2025-40680-02 (talk) 12:09, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-40680-02 See WP:BOLD and, in case someone disagree with something you boldly do, WP:COMMUNICATE. On the use of sources, context matters, see WP:ALLOWEDBIAS. It is very important to know how to add references correctly, WP:TUTORIAL can help you with that. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you may or may not be able to get helpful input in places like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The bias of a source has to be considered in the context of the information it's communicating to you. For instance, the statement "The Communist Party took part on the grounds of class struggle" is fairly uncontroversially sourceable to a communist source, I'd say. The mere fact that a given source has a particular political inclination does not necessarily mean we can't trust any information from it, it just means we have to be careful what information we use it for. The extra context is something you could add and source to that other report. Athanelar (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I actually did this yesterday, how to create a draft article Gfroi (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gfroi, visit the Article wizard. Remember that creating a new article is very hard! win8x (talk) 13:43, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your post yesterday was at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#16:40, 14 December 2025 review of submission by Gfroi.

You can find your previous edits at Special:Contributions/Gfroi. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

without getting into the details here, I went to create an account for my company and saw that a username was already created, yet there is no page for it. How do I get help for this? ~2025-40980-08 (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of the company in question? Athanelar (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't allow an account for your company, see WP:ROLEACCOUNT. If you wan't, you can register with something like "Kim at Company X". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @~2025-40980-08. Your question suggests that, like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which contains neutral and well-sourced articles about notable subjects (according to Wikipedia's special definition of "notable").

If there is ever an article about your company, the article will not belong to your company, will not be controlled by your company, may contain material your company does not like, and could be edited by almost anybody in the world except you and other people associated with your company.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

Accounts are entirely separate from articles: with certain restrictions (such as the conflict of interest that I alluded to above) anybody, with or without an account, may edit any article.

You and your colleages are welcome to create accounts for yourselves (though you don't have to), but there is no such thing as a "company account".

If any of you intend to edit any article relating to your company, you must first make a formal declaration of your paid editor status (see that link for how).

If there is already an article about your company, you should not make any edits to it, but you are welcome to make edit requests relating to it: make your requests as specific as possible, and make sure you cite a reliable published source for any information you wish adding.

If there is not already an article about your company, then you are permitted to create one using the articles for creation process. But note that:

• Most companies in existence do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and so no article about them will be accepted. If you want to create an article, your first priority will be looking for sources which are reliably published, wholly independent of your company, and contain significant coverage of the company (not just of its people or products, and not run-of-the-mill business activities). I suggest also reading WP:BOSS and WP:YESPROMO.
• 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) 17:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose moving the article Heidi to Heidi (novel), since the animated television series Heidi, Girl of the Alps has comparable notability and cultural relevance. I've posted my proposal on the Talk:Heidi. ~2025-40949-23 (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article talk page is the place for this. Give people a week or so to respond. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:15, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Is there any way to find edits from users in a specific category? As in, have any users in Category:Assas Wikipedians made edits since 00:00 UTC 13 Dec? Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 19:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a convenient onwiki way, no, but I've done an analysis at quarry:query/100040. The only two to edit since that timestamp are User:Assas CHEUNG and User:17714Margaux. —Cryptic 19:43, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, and thank you very much for doing this. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 23:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17714Margaux wasn't in Category:Assas Wikipedians when they edited... TSventon (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However, as Epicgenius, Narutolovehinata5, and YuniToumei point out in this thread, the account 1) matches the format of the other Assas usernames, 2) is making edits similar to the others, and 3) was created on frwiki (Assas is in France). Even though the assignment is officially over, to be honest, Assas CHEUNG hasn't shown to be too organised previously and it seems like things may not have been communicated properly. That's why I was asking, as I wanted to make sure that no other edits had been made by Assas users that needed looking at. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 23:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chorchapu: the point I was trying to make was that the latest account wasn't part of the category, but was spotted through other criteria, so we can't be completely sure that no other edits had been made by Assas users. As you have been looking at the users' edits, my point is probably not surprising. TSventon (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My skin has changed unexpectedly. Its seems to have changed a field of white with loads of instructional content like for newbies. I've tried changing back but not saving. I'm was on the oldest skin. Is that still valid. Its peeving me off. scope_creep^Talk 21:14, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What was your old skin, and what is your new skin? win8x (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The old skin was the oldest, the earliest one. Can't remember the name of it. Its now on Vector Legacy now which has got most of it back but its not the original skin. For some reason it did this about 10 year ago. Just dumped the profile onto the newest one. I would like to get back to the original one. It was donkey's ago. Appreciate the help. scope_creep^Talk 22:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only deprecated skins are Modern (turn on here) and Cologne Blue (turn on here). Full documentation is at Wikipedia:Skins. Is that what you are talking about? win8x (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is. Its Cologne Blue. Whatever you did, seemed to work. It's now fixed. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 22:19, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cologne Blue is excellent, Scope creep. I changed from it only recently and reluctantly. Its incompatibilities are so few that I could for the most part ignore them. And a bonus: It looks very different from the default, so even if I was sleepy or distracted I never thought I was logged in when I wasn't. I'm thinking of changing back. -- Hoary (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Morning @Hoary: I'm really used to it now, the look and feel and found it quite hard to adapt the last time the profile failed about 10 year ago, so wanted to switch back right away this time and get on with it. That new default skin, which I hadn't seen before is absolutely beautiful. If it wasn't for fields of white space and lack of bounderies, I would have stayed. The flow of salient information is much much better. I'm thinking of creating a seperate account, a scope_creep affiliate after Christmas to use it part time to see if I can adapt to it. scope_creep^Talk 07:22, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this is properly solved, I can say it began as the most medical-sounding Help Desk item I've seen so far.

The unexpected twist that it's gone all white and become cluttered up with instructions for newbies was ... I'm not sure what. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a donor for several years and I am getting annoying banners on my phone when I access Wikipedia. Bobsinair (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobsinair, visit Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-centralnotice-banners and turn "Fundraising" off. You need to be logged in on your phone. win8x (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reporting this proposal to move the Tottenham article. ~2025-40984-91 (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you reporting it for? Athanelar (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our general awareness, I guess? It has just indirectly led me to making an additional entry on the Chelsea (disambiguation) page, so it's had at least some outcome. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, quick question: should poke cake be added to the Poke disambiguation page under the food section? It isn't currently listed. ~2025-40984-91 (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it makes sense to do so. Add it, and if you get reverted, start a discussion on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The bureaucrat and administrator user rights sound the same, so what is the difference between a bureaucrat and an administrator? ~2025-39288-34 (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-39288-34: A bureaucrat can add more user groups than an administrator. Notably, a bureaucrat can add the administrator group to other users. See more in the lead of Wikipedia:Bureaucrats and Wikipedia:User groups#User access level changes. Administrtors can do many things Bureaucrats cannot but on the English Wikipeia, all bureaucrats are also administrators. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to log into my Wikipedia account on other devices and keep being told that a verification email has been sent, but I recieve nothing. Digging into my account, I found I made a mistake that's preventing me from getting emails from Wikipedia. My email address in Wikipedia is set as gmail.org but obviously, that was a typo on my part and should be .com As a result, I can't get any of the verification codes to log in or even correct the error I made. Any help correcting this would be appreciated. SheriffJackCarter (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SheriffJackCarter: If you know the password then can you use "Change or remove email address" at Special:Preferences? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I swear I tried that before and it still wanted the emailed conformation code. This time, it worked! Thank you! SheriffJackCarter (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Please disregard this question if this is not the appropriate place to ask it. I had requested a good faith courtesy vanishing a couple months back due to privacy concerns. While I had initially intended on not returning to Wikipedia due to said reason, I have found myself wanting to contribute once again. Any clarification as to whether returning after vanishing is possible would be greatly appreciated, and I completely understand if it is not. Thank you! :) ~2025-41006-07 (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing says For questions about vanishing or to explore less permanent solutions, consider contacting a Functionary or a member of the Arbitration Committee for advice. TSventon (talk) 23:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's embarrassing. I should've read the page more closely. Thank you for your help! ~2025-41006-07 (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At Wisconsin Integrally Synchronized Computer, the last sentence before the references, what needs to be done to make the cite web display properly? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:12, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use the real title? Wrap the template in <ref>...</ref> tags. Perhaps this:

<ref>{{Cite web |title=WISC (Wisconsin Integrally Synchronized Computer) logic unit |website=Computer History Museum |url=https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102657546 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20210713235535/https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102657546 |archive-date=2021-07-13 |access-date=2025-07-10 |language=en}}</ref>

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put it in there, I was just trying to get it fixed. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:49, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ive Created wikipeadia account and first i want to start with editing, how to start it guys and my contribute button is freezed how to use contribute button Sandeep M Ganesh (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "contribute" is not a button but a header, the words underneath are links. Click the words "community portal". You may also find the new user tutorial helpful. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Introduction and Help:Contributing to Wikipedia

Happy editing! Athanelar (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will also note that if English is not your primary language, you might find more opportunities to contribute to the global project in the Wikipedia for your mother tongue or for some other language(s) in which you are more fluent. I don't have to tell you, the planet is full of languages, and the Wikimedia Foundation tries to support as many of them as possible. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:47, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donated $10-20 every few years and stopped getting "reminders" but now they're back. Annoying to say the least. ~2025-41339-18 (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your generosity. If you create a username and log in under this then you'll be able to opt out of such advertising. And you'll only have to log in again after a full year. -- Hoary (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to spell it out: there is no data link whatsoever between records of donations (which are made to The Wikimedia Foundation), and readers, IP/temporary account users (like you the OP, and myself), and fully signed up User account holders (like, for example, Hoary above) on Wikipedia. It is impossible for the software to know whether any person using any particular device, or someone logged in to a User Account, has or has not donated. (Wikipedia cannot read your mind.) This separation is deliberate, in part to eliminate any possibility of donations affecting editorial decisions.

As Hoary says, someone logged into a User account can switch off the display of the donation banners, but that is the only way not to be shown them. I have been seeing them for 20+ years, and I don't find it irksome to just close them. Why do they irritate some people so much? Do they get equally upset if they see an ad on the side of a bus for a charity they've already donated to? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He died in Fener, not Padua ~2025-40955-77 (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Egidio Forcellini died at his home in Campo di Alano on 5 April 1768, not in Padua, and his place of death should therefore be corrected accordingly. This information is confirmed by the plaque displayed on his birthplace in Faveri (Fener): [3], as well as by multiple reputable sources, including: [4] ; [5] ; [6] ; [7]. ~2025-40864-83 (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - welcome! Please go to the article about Forcellini, and at the top of the page click on "Talk". On the Talk page, please create a new topic - you might call your topic "Place of death" - and suggest that the page be changed. When you do that, hopefully it will start a conversation and maybe an agreement to change it.

• Note that you are more likely to get a good result if you try to be "diplomatic" about it.

If you wait a week and no one has responded at all, then go ahead with your changes, making sure to provide your references in one of the correct ways accepted on Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QSI International School of Brindisi, I need to remove the "QSI" SalentoDreams (talk) 04:42, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Move

The way you rename a page is essentially by moving the content and history to a new page with a different title. In this case you'd want to provide a source for the name change in your move reason, but be mindful of WP:COMMONNAME; if the school's changed its name but it's still more commonly referred to with the QSI, then the QSI should be kept in the title. Athanelar (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm working on a draft and did a major edit by basically adding every reference and changing a lot of stuff, so now I'm trying to save my page, and the captcha just isn't loading, I tried checking my internet, I got good connection, nothing wrong with the article and it just isn't loading? Gfroi (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that.

There is a known bug with the Captcha system used, hCaptcha; I believe a fix is imminent. Meanwhile there is a work-around which may help: "Upon clicking Publish changes again, the hCaptcha appears." See phab:T411927.

We always recommend making smaller changes, and saving more often, in case such things happen. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:59, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

alr I'll do that next time thanks

(This time the captcha loaded after abit, I'll keep this in mind tho Gfroi (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like being asked for money period and I want it to stop period..What I put in the browser dose not have to be answered by you but stop being the first one there let me alone period. ~2025-40636-03 (talk) 07:00, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have no control over the WMF's donation begging (and most of us would rather prefer they stop doing it and torquing people off.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:27, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOBANNER, as being a logged in user rather than an IP user is the best way to avoid this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You say: What I put in the browser dose not have to be answered by you but stop being the first one there. The meaning isn't entirely clear, but I think it's "A question that I ask the browser [and that it passes on to a search engine, e.g. Google] doesn't have to be answered by you, so stop being the first on the list." If I'm right, then you have a beef with the search engine, not with Wikipedia. If you consistently avoid clicking on the links to Wikipedia, then the search engine is likely to adjust your filter bubble accordingly. -- Hoary (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This attached link is the translated page of a prime ministerial candidate from the People's Party of Thailand for the upcoming election in the early February 2026, which is considered a public figure and widely known in Thailand now. As my account's capacity right now cannot publish the translated page yet, is there any suggestion or assistance for publishing this page? Thank you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ContentTranslation?from=th&to=en&page=%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%B5%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B0%E0%B8%A2%E0%B8%B8%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%98+%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%8D%E0%B8%88%E0%B8%99%E0%B9%8C%E0%B8%8A%E0%B8%B9%E0%B8%89%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%95%E0%B8%A3 Garetktpz (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could always try the more manual approach of reading the sources from the Thai article and then rewriting the article content manually in English for the English article.

This is usually the better approach anyway; the English Wikipedia has the strictest standards for reliability of sources and verifiability of information, so it's good to look over the sources of the article you're trying to translate and make sure they actually provide enough suitable coverage to create an enwiki article. Athanelar (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you use "Settings" next to the Publish button, you should be able to save it as a draft rather than a new page. -- Reconrabbit 21:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Just wanted to make sure I did this most recent edit request correctly. If not, feel free to revert it and let me know that I can do better in the future. Thanks, AirmanKItten203 (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijah Wilder It looks OK to me, though I must admit the content went right over my head as I'm not a gamer the terminology is unfamiliar. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Yeah, I somewhat understood it. It seems they were rewriting some of the sentences for the page in the request. Elijah Wilder (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted an article to be published this morning. What happens next and will I be notified by email or do I just keep checking in from time to time? SWJeff1750 (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SWJeff1750, you haven't submitted any draft for review. You need to press the big blue button to send it for review. However, for Draft:Stanley L. Robbins, I would advise against doing so, because it would get denied. You do not have any inline citations, which is an issue. For every piece of text in the draft, there must be a reference. You may wish to consult Help:Referencing for beginners. win8x (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @SWJeff1750.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

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) 17:03, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I really appreciate your extremely helpful feedback. I know this is a really basic question, but where/how do I find what I've written so I can begin to take the necessary steps to submit it again? Thank you again for your mentorship and guidance. JMRSW (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the very first response to your original question, there's a link to where your work is. Unless I'm misunderstanding something. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, why are SWJeff1750, JMRSW, and Jeffers1750 all acting as if they're the author of Draft:Stanley L. Robbins when only the OP of this section has contributed to it? Does the same person control all three accounts? What is happening here? - Purplewowies (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any explicit misuse so no SPI, might be worth asking on their Talk page - I'm guessing they got confused or lost their password or something? Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was openly floating the question rather than stating there was a problem because it definitely didn't look SPI-ish; I just thought maybe I was missing something obvious. *files away note to maybe ask on talk page when it's not past my bedtime* - Purplewowies (talk) 07:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it's always worth checking if you're not sure! Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Talk:Mangala (game), I requested that Mangala be moved to Mangala (Turkish game), as the name Mangala is also used for the African game Alemungula. I would appreciate it if someone could express their opinion on this matter. ~2025-41502-58 (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @~2025-41502-58, looks like you posted this only a few hours after submitting and other editors are now discussing your request. Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:21, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a user box and i want to put it where the others are in the gallery. Motherwell6 (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the page you want it to be displayed (for example Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location/Pakistan) and add it to the appropriate location using the template {{yy}}. -- Reconrabbit 21:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She was born in 1970 and was an actress, I might be connected to her as my Grandmother Hertha Healy, hiw would I contact her? Lacy65 (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page is only for questions about using Wikipedia. We cannot help you with contact information. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably this is Frances Healy (note spelling)? If so, that article has a link at its foot (under External links) to an 2017 archived version of her official website, which has contact details on it, though these might be out of date.

However, as AndyTheGrump says, this was not the appropriate place to make such a query; a better one would have been the Entertainment reference desk. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've been the type of person to make massive changes per edit for some articles. However, I think some broke it down and made an edit for every part of the article they changed. Are we allowed to do this? For example, when copyediting an article, can we press "submit changes" per section of the article, and then do the same with the next section? How about per sentence? Where is the line drawn? Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not considered good Wikiquette to make huge changes to an article in a single edit, or to make large numbers of very small edits. The ideal approach is somewhere in between, explaining the edits in the edit summary as you go along.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:32, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not considered good Wikiquette to make huge changes to an article in a single edit wait really? I thought it would've been the opposite. Why not?

The ideal approach is somewhere in between, explaining the edits in the edit summary as you go along. How do you quantify that exactly? Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My personal best practice is to only edit one section of an article at a time. That way there usually isn't an overwhelming amount of changes for any other editor who wants to review my work to look at, and I can leave an edit summary that's clear about what I was doing. What I don't like about making a lot of changes at one time is that there's (probably) no way your edit summary can really say what you did, and something like "improvements" doesn't help anyone. DonIago (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea, thank you for your help! Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One important reason: if anything needs to be reverted, they have to revert your entire edit, even if parts of it were OK. Editing in "a chunk that should all be reverted together, if necessary" is not a bad alternate way of thinking about it. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But then why is it problematic to break down your edits into even smaller changes (eg per sentence or edit)? Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Partly because having to revert one electron at a time is only slightly better? :) TooManyFingers (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well revert one quark or plank length at a time. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'll walk the Planck for spelling it that way! :) TooManyFingers (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous articles where I've made far too many tiny edits. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really etiquette related, but long single edits run the risk of WP:edit conflicts. Also more change of the session being broken. I tend to make a lot more smaller edits and that's fine, so long as your mission isn't simply to get a large edit count. See WP:editcountitis for more details. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:27, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any guide or policy that we could add onto, that would say that you shouldn't have more than one section per edit? Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, because there are times when editing the whole article is still the right thing to do. (For example if the subject's name is spelled wrong in a lot of places). TooManyFingers (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What if we said that but added exceptions, such as the one you just named? Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert in this, so I don't have a useful opinion on that; I hope others will add to this discussion.

There is a Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) page for suggesting changes, but please see the instructions posted there about how to get started (checking to see if your proposal has already been made, and so on). TooManyFingers (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested it here, and I appreciate your help. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about writing an essay? We use those all the time to help explain things that aren't official policies/guidelines but are still good practice - the best ones get used frequently, like Wikipedia:Large language models or Wikipedia:1AM.

No harm in adding to the list, but maybe check if we've already got one because there are loads!

If there is an existing essay, l you can add to it - especially if it's got a good redirect that people are likely to use. Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about adding it onto Help:Editing? (Also for your LLM essay, I think there's currently an RfC as to whether to add something like it to a guideline). Wikieditor662 (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One important reason: if anything needs to be reverted, they have to revert your entire edit, even if parts of it were OK. Not true, TooManyFingers. In this edit, I added very roughly 70 kB to an article, and I make no apology for having done so. (Indeed, I remain rather pleased with the edit. I'm pretty sure that other editors thought it was for the good, as much of it survived in the version promoted to GA.) If you'd thought my new version was an improvement over its predecessor other than for having degraded this or that section, paragraph or whatever (let's call that SPW), you could have looked at the previous version, copied the SPW as it appeared there, looked at the new version, deleted its SPW, and pasted the old SPW in its place. Easy. -- Hoary (talk) 08:10, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Someone made a wikipedia page for me -- I approved the text but when he posted it the refernces were completely insane and wrong -- they had nothing to do with what he was citing. I think he is a bot or something. Can I get the page taken down? ~2025-41342-36 (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would help people understand the context if you could link the page you are talking about (because it would let people know what is on the page and if it needs fixing)... but at any rate, you should not be "approving" the text of any article you have a conflict of interest about, including one about yourself. You may want to read this guide: Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide - Purplewowies (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me like you were a victim of a WP:SCAM. I hope you haven't handed over any money. Athanelar (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

". . . the references were completely insane and wrong". This is a classic symptom of someone having used an AI/LLM to create the article (which would have taken near-zero effort), because such programs frequently "hallucinate" references – they know what a reference looks like, but not actually being intelligent they often can't find a real source and if they do often can't create a correct citation to it.

This is why Wikipedia deprecates the use of AI to aid in creating articles, and queries and replies on Desks, etc. (not that you yourself, OP, have done either of these things). Commiserations. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the more applicable link re:AI not being allowed for article creation is WP:NEWLLM Athanelar (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I couldn't remember what it was and didn't find it by searching. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a game released into early access in Sept 2025 but hasn't released in full yet (with no official date) should it be referred to as a "2025" or "upcoming" game? Basically, should early access count as a release date? Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 23:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that video games routinely stay in 'early access' for years (Star Citizen has been that way for getting on for a decade), and a good few never get beyond that, I don't see any reason not to treat any release that actually lets people play when they hand over their dosh as sufficient to treat the game as a current product. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:50, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if it ever does fully release, it's probably not unprecedented to do something like January 1, 2000 (early access)[break]January 1, 3000 (full release) in the infobox for a game with a significant early access period. (I say this as someone who does not frequent video game articles and also can't bring to mind any games with an early access period (that aren't still in early access) I can check.) - Purplewowies (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style or on someone else's question somewhere on one of our help forums it was mentioned that for American topics(ex: Pittsburgh Steelers or Minnesota Vikings) we use American English, and for British topics we use British English. But, do we use American English or British English for universal articles(articles that are relevant to America, Britain, Canada etc)? RickyMiller28 (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is "Yes". For an article with no specific connection with American or British English, the rule is merely to choose one and stick with it for that article. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a universal topic, then the article stays in whichever variant it began with. That's why we have the article Orange (colour) instead of Orange (color): because somebody began it in British English. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, I just wanted to know what our unwritten policy is. RickyMiller28 (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RETAIN is the policy.

Personally, I don't think it really matters. We could probably code something that changed regional spellings per reader's setting by now if we really cared. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:24, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter on the large scale, but on the small scale it's strange to read an article that switches between spellings. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But that would be a hassle to code for such a small issue, meaning imo it wouldn't really be worth it. It would be a nice Christmas present, but still it's a decent price, small payout situation. RickyMiller28 (talk) 13:29, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having the hardest time getting a table template to work properly. Need a "Nominated" and "Won" table for awards. Tried using the "nom" templage but I clearly don't understand why it won't display properly. BadMachine12 (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BadMachine12 You will need to remove the vertical bar (|) before the template markup (e.g. | class="" Outstanding Special Directing| {{nom}} to | class="" Outstanding Special Directing {{nom}}). However, since class templates are not used in awards tables (and no need for repetition of category names in the same cell), you should remove the text before the template and leave it as |{{nom}}. It should display correctly after this. Jolly1253 (talk) 06:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the article "Dissociative disorder", there is a problem with the excerpts that I have recently added to the Classification section, namely, that the spacing after these excerpts and the following section headings is smaller than between a normal paragraph and a section heading. Might I have missed some crucial detail? BlockArranger (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda just curious ngl Gfroi (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What for? TooManyFingers (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what do u mean like why am i asking this or idk what kind of template Gfroi (talk) 06:23, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant what kind. Like, what's your actual plan, instead of just asking a random question. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:50, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

well I want to know since I might want to make one later Gfroi (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gfroi: See Help:Designing infoboxes. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I'm unable to log in. I've requested password reset to no avail. Please advise? ~2025-41518-36 (talk) 07:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What happens when you request the password reset? TooManyFingers (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the article Boston Blue and I noticed someone had written in plot synopses for many of the episodes. It was clear to me that these were not written originally and were possibly copy-pasted from somewhere else.

I reverted it here, but thought it would be wise to report it as a possible copyright violation. I haven't done something like this before.

Could someone please guide me in the right direction?

Thanks! Urbanracer34 (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recently designed a user box that says "1 of the # of active editors on Wikipedia" and was wondering if it was possible to turn it into a template. If so, is it allowed? Thanks, Elijah Wilder (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijah Wilder: You can make it a user subpage like User:Elijah Wilder/UBX/1 of active and transclude it with {{User:Elijah Wilder/UBX/1 of active}}Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/Personal statistics#One of many users already lists {{User 1ofActive}} so I don't think you should save it in the template namespace or add it to a userbox gallery. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]