Wikipedia:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
The Wikipedia help desk is a place where you can ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia. For other types of questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
  • For other types of questions, see Help:Contents and Are you in the right place? If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
  • Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
  • We are all volunteers, so sometimes replies can take some time. Please be patient. Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
  • If you need real-time help, you can join our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
  • If you are a new editor, you might prefer to ask your question at the Teahouse, an area specifically for new users to get help with editing, article creation and general Wikipedia use, in a friendly environment.
  • Remember to sign your post by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. Alternatively, you can click on the signature icon (Wikipedia edit toolbar signature icon) on the edit toolbar.

May 22

Delete my account

I want to delete my wikipedia account permanently. Username : Eagle Ojo... Reason : I have another wikipedia account on the same email address. So, I don't need this account Eagle Ojo (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Ojo It is not possible for technical and legal reasons to delete an account. If you no longer wish to use it, just abandon it. You may also be able to request a vanishing of it. The email address used is not relevant. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About editing Wikipedia.

I had been trying many times but not succeeding, every time I try am told that I am not logged in how can I log in?😑 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2C0F:FE38:224A:7E3D:1:0:4471:4B33 (talk) 12:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular article you are trying to edit? (Some articles are protected from editing by new accounts and IP users to prevent vandalism or disruption) If you cannot edit the article itself, you may edit its talk page, detailing the change you would like to see. If you would like to create an account, you may do so. If you are on a computer, there should be a link in the upper right corner. You may also request an account at WP:ACC. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Account vurnishing

Hello, I want to vurnish my old account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2C0F:FE38:224A:7E3D:1:0:4471:4B33 (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to vanish your account, go to WP:VANISH. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not to put too fine a gloss on it. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a matte finish. (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving user contribution history

I used to edit as user Sandals1 but I've forgotten my password. I just created a Sandals2 account. I created a user page stating this fact. Is there a way to move my contribution history to the new account? Should I also move my talk page history? Sandals2 (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. contributions cannot be re-attributed. The best you can do is to put a message on each User page (and on the talk pages too, if you wish) explaining that the two accounts are used sequentially by the same person. ColinFine (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Files i upload getting deleted


I started using Wikipedia only recently, the files i upload using Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International getting deleted for copyright violation, whereas, the copyright rules says its fair to share by giving proper links to the source. Can someone guide me on this please ? AvRam (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read through the guidelines on non-free content. It's not impossible to upload copyrighted images to Wikipedia, but it should be done sparingly and in a way that complies with these guidelines.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The files I think you are referring to were deleted from Commons, so you need to ask there. I see you have asked for clarification on you Commons User talk page C:User talk:ஆனந்த் ராம், but it unlikely that the users who performed the deletion wiil see that. Please go to c:COM:VP/C. --ColinFine (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing topic name

Anyway I can edit the topic name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffp56 (talkcontribs) 16:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffp56 I think you are asking if you can change an article title; the answer is yes, an article title can be changed, but should it be changed? This you should discuss with other editors on the article talk page. I'd also be familiar with policies like WP:COMMONNAME. 331dot (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as 331dot says. But what you may absolutely not do is hijack an existing article about something of the same name. The existing article Sartor is about a fish, and editing it to refer to something else is disruptive editing. If the company of that name meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then somebody could write an article about it; and if such an article were accepted, it would be necessary to sort out the disambiguation between the two different subjects of the same name: we have standard ways of handling this.
If you wish to have a go at the difficult task of writing an article about the company, please read your first article carefully. ColinFine (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question about citing papers as links

Yes, how do you cite, but you keep it in a link format? For example, Buchholz (1789), but with the link giving a citation. Hope that should clear a little. - TomEpsilon (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TomEpsilon. The article Buchholz hydra doesn't use conventional inline citations, which is why there is a comment at the top. For example, you added today an entry/link Buchholz (1987) which, when clicked, takes readers directly to the source reference at the DOI you specified. This is against the policy (see WP:EL for what external links should be in the body text of articles). Instead, inline citations should be in the form "Bucholz's publication in 1987 was thought...."[1]


  1. ^ Buchholz, Wilfried (1987). "An independence result for (Π11 - CA)+BI". Annals of Pure and Applied Logic. 33: 131–155. doi:10.1016/0168-0072(87)90078-9.
.... and all that article should really cite from its sources that way so that readers know and can verify which source supports which claim in the article. Note that journal articles with DOI don't need access dates, as their URL are supposed to be stable. All this is summarised in WP:REFBEGIN, which will give you the full details of how that article might be cleaned up. Good luck. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. - TomEpsilon (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are NTD and vision times legit source?

I really want to know if news media such as NTD (New Tang Dynasty) and Vision Times are legit source or not? I heard they are run by falun gong practitioners and often known for their baised anti-China news. Though NTD claim itself a quality source in its website and abt Vision times there are not much info available on google. Can they be trusted as far as entertainment is concerned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arorapriyansh333 (talkcontribs) 17:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to discuss this at the reliable sources noticeboard. 331dot (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed user

Hi Is the "extended confirmed user" a qualification that is contingent upon a particular country or language rather than global? I made over 500 edits mainly in one country and found out I am not an extended confirmed user in another (with another language). Sincerely, VW — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanWagn (talkcontribs) 19:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed is given per Wikipedia. If you have additional edits on a different project (such as de.wikipedia), then it doesn't count towards one here, for example. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at your account, you don't have 500 edits on any projects, but nearly do on the French Wikipedia. You will need 500 on the English Wikipedia to get extended confirmed for this site. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems to be. I am extended confirmed on the English Wikipedia but not on any other wikis. (message me | my contributions) 05:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Every Language version of wikipedia is, for the most part, independent. Each project gets to set its own policies and guidelines, so information you read here won't apply to other projects. Additionally each project gets to customise it's own version of mediawiki to some extent, meaning that some user groups or features which exist here won't exist elsewhere (and vice versa). Only your edits on the English wikipedia count towards getting automatic user rights here, a lot of projects don't even have an extended confirmed user group. (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Harper article

I tried to correct the references in this article by removing the (incorrect) references to the 1978 TV miniseries "Little Women", in which Jessica Harper did not appear, to the follow-up 1979 pilot for a failed TV series, in which she starred.


Note that Wikipedia has an article for the miniseries...

...but not for the TV pilot in which Harper starred.

However, I probably used some incompatible terms (and possibly mark-ups) in my description of the TV show pilot episode. If a Wikipedia editor could check that over and make edits as needed, I'd appreciate it.

Lensman03 (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for navigation boxes such as "Template:Utah Tech University"?

Should navigation boxes such as Template:Utah Tech University have categories such as Category:Dixie State University that are not a category full of templates? On a side note, I am trying to use refill to fix Death of Chad Oulson, but I get the message saying "Pending Waiting for an available worker". Please {{ping}} me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 23

Pizza Express

The English Wikipedia was sorely missing an article about pizzerias, so I translated the Finnish article. The Finnish article says that one well-known pizza chain is Pizza Express. Now the Finnish article links to fi:Pizza Express, a Finnish pizzeria chain, while the English article Pizza Express is about an unrelated British pizzeria chain. However, as both are well-known pizzeria chains, I figure it doesn't matter that they are not actually the same pizzeria chain? JIP | Talk 01:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JIP: Translated articles don't have to follow the original article and it's sometimes best to avoid it. Pizza Express redirects to PizzaExpress. Use the article title if you want to include that chain. Pizzeria claims "Famous pizzeria chains include ..." I think all Finnish pizzeria chains should be removed unless they have somehow become famous in other countries. Finland only has 5.5 million people and isn't known for pizza. Category:Pizza chains by country has plenty of others to choose from. Large American/multinational chains are probably best known. I would at least list the three with own subcategories in Category:Pizza chains of the United States. Page views can be a crude estimator of fame. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be cautious about using the word "famous". See WP:FAME. Use "notable" or "popular" if that's what they are, which is more objective. Shantavira|feed me 09:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to change the invalid external link in one of the references for this page Daniel_Hillel ?

Hi, I would like to change the invalid external link in one of the references -> from to Please kindly advise me on how to amend that. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikewspc (talkcontribs) 02:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mikewspc I made the minor change, which just involved removing the broken DOI and leaving the working URL. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi Mikewspc. Is there a reason the url needs to be changed? The link appears to be a WP:DEADREF, but it's not always necessary to remove or replace a reference just because it's no longer accessible. If the two links lead to the same identical source, then it would make sense to replace the one that's no longer working; if not, then perhaps you should add the worldscientific source as a separate citation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikewspc: Another editor fixed the problem and if you'd like to see what they did, just look at the WP:DIFF for their edit in the page's history. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a bot, tool, or script for converting Twitter citations to Cite tweet

Is there any bot, tool, or user script with such feature? --Mann Mann (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:TweetCiteBot, operated by User:TheSandDoctor does this in theory, but it hasn't run since February. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: Thanks for the reminder. I was getting datasets from BrownHairedGirl to run, but haven't gotten any recently. With everything going on in my life off-wiki lately, this sort of slipped my radar...apologies. Do you have any datasets, BHG? --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops! Sorry, @TheSandDoctor. It slipped off my radar too.
My set of scans of the database dumps expanded so much that the whole set takes over a day to run, and I kept on meaning to get around to the tweets, but didn't. Facepalm Facepalm
I have just run the Twitter-ref scans on the latest 20220520 database dump, and have email them to you a few seconds ago.
For future reference, this insource search finds most of them (currently over 1,200). However, the full search times out, and this slightly-simplified version misses some. However, this supplementary search gets most of the rest.
Hope this helps. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The" and stadiums

Should stadiums be prefixed with the word "the" on Wikipedia? For example:

Thank you, NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. In Britain, Wembley Stadium is always referred to as Wembley Stadium or Wembley, not "The Wembley Stadium". The Millennium Stadium in Cardiff does have "the" in front of it. It's best to look at how RS describe the stadium to get a feel for the correct version.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Empty thumbnail

How to use invisible thumbnail image in article which means when I searching index on Wikipedia, there are images appeared within the article because they are put in the lede section. Thumbnail like this emblem in Foreign relations of Ethiopia does not exist in the page. I want to implement the emblem to the article Ethiopia under federal republic. The Supermind (talk) 06:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Supermind: You apparently refer to searches in the mobile version of Wikipedia. The page image is shown there, an image picked by mw:Extension:PageImages. A page image must be displayed in the lede and not tiny so you cannot effectively hide it in the article by making it tiny. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, you are asking how File:Emblem of Ethiopia.svg shows up in the article Foreign relations of Ethiopia without being added directly to the article. The Emblem of Ethiopia is part of {{Politics of Ethiopia}}, which is the little box that appears at the top of most articles related to politics in Ethiopia, including Government of Ethiopia, Federal Parliamentary Assembly, Elections in Ethiopia, and more. The image is part of that template, and the template is transcluded in each of those articles. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RSN (lack of) feedback

Hello, I tried opening a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard twice for Thomas de Waal [1][2], but on both occasions there were no replies and the discussions were archived without anyone commenting. What could the next course of action be to assure somebody will review the concerns? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ZaniGiovanni. Just from looking at what you've posted at RSN, I'm going to guess the probably one of the reasons you didn't get any replies had to do with WP:WALLOFTEXT. Your posts were so dense and filled with information that it would've probably taken quite a bit of effort to just read through them, yet alone try to assess them. Try to remember that all editors are WP:VOLUNTEERs which means that many respond to things they're interested in or that they think they can help resolve, and they may avoid things that look as if they're going to take lots of time and effort to figure out.
Perhaps if you try reposting once more but only this time keeping things much simpler, you might get some responses. Try to provide some specific examples from Wikipedia articles where this person is being cited as a reliable source and why you think that's problematic. Try not resolve so many issues in a single post, but just pick the one example which best represents why this person shouldn't be considered a reliable source without all of the extra interpretation or commentary. Once the discussion gets started, you can then start to go into more detail as needed.
Please understand, though, that all sources are WP:BIASED to some degree and a source isn't necessarily not reliable just because it presents or represents a viewpoint that you may not agree with. As long as the source isn't WP:UNDUE (i.e. given more weight than other equally reliable sources), then it might be acceptable for Wikipedia's purposes.
I'm posting this after only briefly scanning over your two RSN posts because I'm simply not familiar enough with the subject matter to make a good assessment. You can also seek input from the members of relevant WikiProjects (e.g. WP:ARMENIA or WP:AZERBAIJAN) to see if others might be aware of this person and be able to help assess his reliablity as a source. Once you start a discussion at RSN, use the template {{Please see}} to let the members of those two WikiProjects know about the discussion. Just make sure that by doing so, you don't fun afoul of WP:CANVAS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for posting my own WALLOFTEXT above, but hopefully you'll understand what I'm trying to suggest. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Marchjuly No worries, thanks for your comment. I'll work on a shorter RSN thread. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly How meta! It gave me a chuckle. (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image help?

Template:Unsigned -->— Preceding unsigned comment added by MDmulwa (talkcontribs) 11:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC) Please, help me on how to fix images on my Wikipedia articles.[reply]

@MDmulwa What sort of help do you need with images? I've taken a look at your edits to your userpage and your sandbox, and I don't see where you have tried to add images. Perhaps looking at Help:image tutorial will help? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please help with changing DOB

Is anyone able to help me change Connor Evans date of birth? It keeps on changing back to 24th January 2001.

He was born 24th January 2002.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treehouse1234 (talkcontribs) 14:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source that his birth year is 2002? This clearly lists his birth date as 2001. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol watching blue lashes.svg Courtesy ping: Treehouse1234Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I am his mother and I gave birth to him on the 24th January 2002. I have his birth certificate but not sure how to upload it. Treehouse1234 (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit of a poser, Treehouse1234. To be a little technical, Wikipedia (like many other encyclopedias) is a Tertiary source based mostly on published, independent, well-edited Secondary sources. It prefers not to rely on Primary sources (of which a birth certificate is a classic example) unless they've been checked and their relevant details published by a Reliable Secondary source, and does not accept uploads of copied original documents, because such things are easily faked online and some mischievous actors do so. For this reason, a Birth certificate would (bizzarely) not be acceptable.
Where articles about living persons are involved, Wikipedia has particularly strict rules governing what can be included and what rules must be followed, in order to protect those subjects and their families, etc. (see WP:BLP). Bear in mind that as of now, Wikipedia has no proof that you are who you say you are (though I am not actually doubting it). If the current, referenced date is disputed (and it is, by you), and cannot be contradicted by one or more "better", published sources, it would be preferable to remove it until such sources are available.
Tedious though it may seem, your ultimately best option would be to persuade the currently-used source to correct itself (thus obviating future disputes) and/or to get the correct date published in a (more) Reliable source as described above. However, if you can find some already-published (Reliable) sources (such as newspaper articles) that corroborate your date, and can link to or give bibliographical details of them in the Talk page of the article so that others can check them and make the correction (you should really not be editing the article yourself, as you have an obvious Conflict of interest), someone will doubtless do so.
I'm sorry if this seems annoyingly bureaucratic, but Wikipedia's rules in this regard are designed to protect subjects from misrepresentation. Incidentally, I'm a Rugby fan in the UK, and I look forward to seeing Connor play in future competitions :-). {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining the process to me.I now understand and will (talk) 07:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
do as suggested Treehouse1234 (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism help request from SarahTHunter

I have noticed some vandalism at Anderson High School, Lerwick. Namely, this page has been repeatedly vandalised due to "controversies" section being uploaded again and again, this is the third time that I've had to take this down and I'd like to request for semi-protection to prevent this happening again. Would an editor please assist me with fixing it? Thank you, SarahTHunter (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the surface they look like good factual references to a crime that happened at the school. It's not vandalism to add that information. Wikipedia is not here to manage the school's reputation as you seem to imply on the talk page. - X201 (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand but the problem is that it gives the school a really bad reputation and I've been made aware of this section by a close friend who works in this school. I've been a pupil at this school too and having this plastered about my old high school is disgusting. SarahTHunter (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SarahTHunter: Wikipedia articles do not intentionally lionise or demonise their subjects. An article isn't always a good thing, and Wikipedia is not censored. If something is notable via reports from reliable secondary sources, it can be added onto the page and is difficult to take off. If you want to argue for its removal you might want to study some of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies like WP:BLP and WP:DUE and see if those are applicable to the situation. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SarahTHunter As you say, that info certainly might detract from the school's reputation. But, to be blunt, that's just too bad. Negative, factual information can appear in an article, and you cannot force the info out, no matter how much you would like to. You keep saying the info is detrimental; we know that. It won't be removed just because it's detrimental. Hope this clarifies things a bit. (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Please see WP:NOTVAND. That's not vandalism. While there may be other issues with including such information, such as WP:UNDUE, I see no evidence that the information you removed is vandalism. It looks like you object to including that information, which is your right per WP:BRD, but the fact that you want it removed doesn't make it vandalism. --Jayron32 16:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I believe it does make sense now. Like I said above, the controversies section has been deleted by me three times and it's getting on my nerves when it keeps reappearing. I've asked for semi-protection a while but I didn't get any success (the edits have been done by new users and I believe that they are school pupils who are misbehaving). I have a very close friend who works at this school and said that she'd like this section to be taken down because it gives the school a bad reputation. Okay there are news stories about the controversies but I honestly feel it is really inappropriate to put it up! Anyway, I'm stuck in the middle with this as it has been plaguing on my mind for months since this all started. SarahTHunter (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So much to unpack. First WP:3RR, read it, and then I would advise you getting a mug of tea and stepping away from WP for the rest of the day (or at least the article). Next, the article does not belong to your friend or the school. It is Wikipedia's article, the school has no control over it apart from requesting inaccuracies are fixed. This is not an inaccuracy. By your own admission, you are WP:COI editing for your friend by proxy. I'd advise another mug of tea and stepping away from the article. The only question to be raised about this content is how noteworthy it is. Personally, I think a school failing in it's safeguarding procedures twice in nine years, and failing in one of the worst ways possible, IS noteworthy. - X201 (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't think that can be counted as vandalism. The information has several reliable sources, and is probably noteworthy. Bazza (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How do you apply for page protection? Can someone show me a link for this. SarahTHunter (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SarahTHunter: page protection will not help. You are engaged in a content dispute, and page protection if for vandalism and/or edit warring. When there are two legitimate sides to a dispute, then an admin is not supposed to pick one or the other, so protection might freeze on the one you think is "wrong". Instead, you must engage with the other editor(s) on the article's talk page and reach a consensus as to what should be in the article. If you keep reverting, you will be administratively in the wrong even if you feel you are morally in the right, and you will be blocked. -Arch dude (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Take note of X201's comments above. They succinctly summarise your misapprehension about what Wikipedia is and how its content is written. I agree with the comment on noteworthiness: the article has several reliable sources, stretching over a reasonable amount of time, on the euphemistically-named "controversy". Bazza (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The section heading is indeed a problem. The miscreant was reported to the police, charged, found guilty, and sent to prison. There is no controversy, unlike say this.   Maproom (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl McCormack birthday change date

How do I change Daryl McCormacks birthday to the 20th of January? - which is his correct DOB not December. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tillyjames123 (talkcontribs) 16:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to Daryl McCormack or Darryl McCormack? Because neither list a birth date in January and the first doesn't list a birth date and won't unless a source can be provided. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Short citation usage

This is a question about the circumstances when short citations are an appropriate citation style in an article that uses more than one style (also uses standard inline citations). The question concerns the article Michael Gove and the format of its references for The Price of Peace, Unleashing Demons and Dods Parliamentary Companion. These three books are cited once, using standard citations, whereas many different pages of the book Michael Gove: A Man in a Hurry are cited, using short citations. Should a short citation or standard citation be used for the books that are only cited once? Or is it more appropriate to use short citations for all the books? Thank you in advance. Andysmith248 (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of WP:CITESTYLE is that style citation should be consistent, so picking one style and sticking with it is WP-good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, thank you for your reply. The use of short citations for Michael Gove: A Man in a Hurry allows for many different pages of the source to be cited without having to copy the entire citation. I would like to keep this as it is, but I am unsure of the ideal citation style for the first books I mentioned. Andysmith248 (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andysmith248, I think it's a bit eye-of-the-beholder. Personally I'd prefer turning the book into a named "reftoolbar" style cite and then add Template:Rp as appropriate in-text. Re-using named refs is nice and easy. And all the "Benetts" under references get merged into one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...and now I've learnt from WP that Gove was trapped in a lift for 30 min. I wish I hadn't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, thank you for your suggestion, which I'll be sure to investigate further. Andysmith248 (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 24

Why are A7 and A9 separate criteria?

To me, WP:A7 and WP:A9 seem pretty much the same, except that one is for "articles about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event" without an indication of importance. A9 seems to be the same thing, but for musical recordings. Why are there two separate criteria? (message me | my contributions) 05:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out that A9 only applies when none of the artists have an article. Is there any other difference? (message me | my contributions) 05:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is largely historical; as A7 (the "credible claim of significance" criteria) originally had only applied to certain specific categories of articles, generally those which had the potential to use a Wikipedia article for promotional purposes. A9 was created to fill a loophole that people were exploiting to basically do the same to publish articles about their mixtapes. The reason why A7 & A9 have limited categorical applications, rather than being universal, is that the 'credible claim of significance' criteria really is only a problem for stupid shit like "John Doe is a school teacher and a really nice guy" or "Mario's Italian Restaurant is an Italian Restaurant in EBF, Indiana" or something like that. For some other really stubby articles, like say a random species of frog or a tiny river tributary, it was thought that those had a low threat for abuse, and that while those could often be deleted, that AFD was a more appropriate venue for that. --Jayron32 16:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] A9 Was originally intended as a kind of "clean up" criteria - it used to be the case that if someone wrote an article on their band and their new music recording that they sold 2 copies of the article on the band could be deleted under criteria A7 as a {{db-band}} but their obviously non-notable musical recordings would have to have a full AFD discussion. The original intent of A9 was that when an article on an obviously non-notable musician was deleted under A7 all the related articles on their recordings could also be deleted at the same time. Because this criteria has different criteria for when it applies (i.e it's conditional on the existence of other articles) it was created as a different number rather than an extension of A7. For the historical background you can read the discussion that lead to it's creation Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 31#Extending A7?. (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @ and @Jayron32 for explaining this. (message me | my contributions) 23:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Combining articles

I have been broadening the definition of an article (with technical content), which has rendered potentially one additional article redundant (and has become in effect the main page for a number of others). Once I have ensured that all the content in the redundant article is captured, what is the most efficient way to bring them together? Just moving and deleting?Guy WF Loftus (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is about User:Guy WF Loftus/sandbox, which makes extensive use of the contents of Oil reserves, without giving credit to its authors. Guy WF Loftus, if your plan is to replace the current article Oil reserves by the contents of your sandbox, you will need to give due credit to those who have contributed to it. You should also expect resistance from anyone with Oil reserves on their watchlist who disagrees with any of your changes. Maproom (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Maproom: You guess correctly on all accounts (thanks for your help). Those whom I would like to credit have no Wiki identities (industry and academic specialists) - how do I credit them? I am hoping for little resistance because what replaces Oil reserves is just industry standard, removing the need for specific (exceptions) and ephemeral content. But of course all informed (and public domain) contributions are equally valid and welcome.Guy WF Loftus (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy WF Loftus: Attribution needs to be made to those editors that created the articles or contributed substantially to them. You can find the relevant guidelines at WP:CWW. Eagleash (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your rapid rapid responses but two core questions remain unanswered:
  • What is the most efficient way to combine articles (attribution withstanding)?
  • How do you attribute content to individuals who are not Wikipedia editors but who nonetheless peer reviewed and contributed to wikipedia content?
Guy WF Loftus (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy WF Loftus: For attribution, in the sense of re-using verbatim text that other Wikipedia contributors wrote, see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia (a long and boring page, but read at least the first paragraph).
You may cite specific articles / talks by experts etc. if they contributed to your general understanding of the topic when writing it, even if they are not inline citations to specific claims - see WP:EXTERNAL. However, you may not cite some expert in general, you need a published source for that - any use of expert names as an appeal to authority is a no-no.
If you want to acknowledge the assistance of some person, I am not aware of any good way to do that. One would usually want that person to perform the edits themselves using their own account, but it’s too late by now, and not everyone likes wiki-editing anyway. You could leave a note on the talk page along the lines of "I talked with Jane Doe in May 2022 about the article and she was a great help for my edits" (make sure Jane Doe is OK with her name being on Wikipedia forever first). TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 08:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tigraan:Very clear and most helpful Tigraan - thank you. One question down - one to go (viz. "What is the most efficient way to combine articles?")Guy WF Loftus (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Copy-pasting your sandbox into the article would satisfy attribution etc. requirements, but it would also probably result in one big revert. At this point, you should probably slowly merge your draft into the main article, bit by bit, so that if anyone objects to one change they can easily undo that change only and not the other sections.
There is still a risk that you end up reverted, which is why "the most efficient way" is to make the edits directly into the main article from the start. That way, as soon as there is pushback, you can discuss and see what the problem is. And if there is no pushback, you can work your way through further edits. See WP:BRD (technically not a guideline but virtually every experienced editor agrees with it). TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Potential copyright issues with it:Giovanni Pietro Luigi Cacherano d'Osasco

I have been creating an biography article Giovanni Pietro Luigi Cacherano d'Osasco. I know that there is an Wikipedia Italian article it:Giovanni Pietro Luigi Cacherano d'Osasco. I decided not to use and translate that, but use the following source:

However when I used Google translate so some of the translation (as one would expect) was not clear. So I cut and pasted the relevant paragraph from the Italian article and to my surprise the translation was nearly identical, despite far more sources allegedly being used in the Italian article.

Once I had finished my translation, I ran the Italian article through the DYK toolbox Earwig's Copyvio Detector unfortunatly is show that 90.4% of the text of the two articles match.

I do not know what Italian copyright laws are, but I suspect copying text from a 1973 article without accreditation is at the very least plagiarism and most likely a copyright violation. Please can someone who reads and writes Italian informs who ever is responsible for policing this on the Italian Wikipedia that they may have a problem. -- PBS (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PBS, copyright is taken very seriously here at en:WP. They may be a bit more relaxed at it:WP, but I suspect they still won't tolerate what you describe. Unfortunately I don't know enough Italian to report it there. Plagiarism is fine, but should be admitted to – I've seen whole sections closely based on, and attributed to, out-of-copyright editions of Encyclopedia Britannica. Maproom (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
PBS, thank you, I have followed the process at it:Wikipedia:Sospette violazioni di copyright#Testi to report the problem. TSventon (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


hello my name is Charles; I manage an affiliate store called; with that said; I've valued your website very highly; I find it informative and trust worthy; and I would like to exchange backlinks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to link to any article in Wikipedia. However, there is no place in Wikipedia that is appropriate for a backlink to your store. -Arch dude (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam says that external links are nofollow'd, so even if they are inserted, they will not get any PageRank. (message me | my contributions) 23:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And also, Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, but an encyclopedia, so I don't think exchanging links builds the encyclopedia. (message me | my contributions) 23:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I need to be able to contact someone

My family has a page on wikipedia. I went to the page as I do every so often and noticed my parents obituaries appear on the site. There is also incorrect information. How do i get in contact with someone to correct this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LodeStarrr (talkcontribs) 16:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell us the name of the page (or provide a link to it) so we can help you further? --Jayron32 16:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be about Boss (rapper), based on reverted edits by this account and certain edits/editors in that article's history. (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • LodeStarrr Your family does not have a page on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has an article about your family here. You should use its article talk page to make a formal edit request(click for instructions) detailing changes you feel are needed, preferably sourced to an independent reliable source. 331dot (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia stalker editor

There is a man who has been obsessed with my son Brennan Gilmore ever since he had a band in high school. As he grew older this man would attend his concerts and then send gifts and fan letters to our home. Brennan's mates would tease him about this nut case. Evidently he is a dedicated Wikipedia Editor and scours the internet and publishes any tidbit of info on Brennan. He has followed his college and career till the present day. The fact that Brennan has had some remarkable career and life experiences has sent him into a flurry of self importance as the Brennan Gilmore expert. Several attempts have been made to edit this entry down, but he is very Wikipedia savvy, and they pop back up. As a result Brennan has a Wikpedia " article that stretches to infinity. Brennan hates it. It seems so self serving and ridiculous to have a Wikipedia article that far surpasses Einstein's.

People really look to Wikipedia for info that is more complete and vetted better than news media. I am a monthly paid subscriber myself. Can you do anything about the disproportion of this entry? Brennan says trying will get him excited about engagement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C5:C100:1D33:E8DB:BD70:ED40:6585 (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Brennan Gilmore. (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not have paid subscriptions. Do you mean that you make a monthly donation to the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization that operates the computers Wikipedia is on? Wikipedia does not claim to be a reliable source and people should not be looking to Wikipedia for vetted information, because we don't do that. We summarize independent reliable sources.
Please understand that a Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a topic. If you are saying that the sources offered in the article are not being accurately summarized, please describe the specific errors on the article talk page(Talk:Brennan Gilmore). If the sources are summarized accurately, but are incorrect, you will need to discuss that with the sources themselves to get them to issue corrections. Modern topics that receive much coverage online will by nature often have lengthly articles here.
If Mr. Gilmore is being the subject of stalking, he will need to contact his local authorities or perhaps seek legal counsel for options to stop it. That's not really a Wikipedia matter unless Mr. Gilmore is a Wikipedia editor being stalked here on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seem to be two aspects to this request. One is about content, which you've already been advised on, but I would also direct you to the specific help for people in your situation at Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects. The other seems to be a complaint about the behavior of a specific editor, which is not something the help desk is really designed to deal with. If you have diffs of specific problematic edits that the user in question has made, you may want to start a thread at WP:ANI to discuss it. Accusations by themselves will not result in action being taken, you must present specific evidence. If there are aspects of this that are related to Wikipedia but not visible on Wikipeida, please email that evidence to the Arbitration committee at . Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the article and don't see anything that is out of the ordinary. It seems properly sourced and neutral. As long as there are no BLP privacy violations, I'm not sure anything can or should be done. Long after the stalker has passed away, there will be a good record of Brennan's life which will serve as his legacy. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Albert Einstein is five times larger than Brennan Gilmore, and it's only one of numerous articles in Category:Albert Einstein. Brennan Gilmore is not large by Wikipedia standards (we have billions of words) and I see no sign of anyone trying to reduce it. The creator and main contributor has 11,500 Wikipedia edits. He had been an editor for ten years before starting the article which is only a tiny part of his Wikipedia work. That doesn't sound like a stalker to me. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a casual observer, I think a lot of the information in the article is.... minutia. Such as Brennan Gilmore's grandfather, John Middlemas, a 97-year-old World War II veteran, "took a knee" in support of NFL players... and His grandfather's activism was inspired by his own New Zealand relative, a British settler... and Gilmore has been outspoken on the lack of restrictions on personal spending of campaign funds in his home state... Do we need to know all of his political opinions, or all of this stuff about his grandfather? I think this is far too much detail. I hope the subject isn't actually being stalked, but if I were Brennan, I would think this amount of detail is weird. (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The grandfather taking a knee only became public because Brennan photographed and tweeted it [3], generating 139,000 retweets and many news stories like Brennan's own Twitter replies indicate he appreciated the attention. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have a similar problem someone is stalking my wiki entry, constantly editing in stuff and I really need to talk to someone about the problem. 2001:8003:37C0:E700:54C:ECE5:7C44:2115 (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia entries are edited "constantly". We have articles about subjects, you do not own an article about yourself. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia welcoming of Christianity?

I’m a little afraid of joining wikipedia because its users may harass me for being a Christian, After seeing several users calling Christians “crackpots” “nut heads” “lunatics” “fundies” and “thumpers”. Also it seems like it’s largely comprised of atheists. I just want to know whether Wikipedia is welcome or persecuting towards Christians. (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the note at the top of the page that reads "The Wikipedia help desk is a place where you can ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia." I can say that there number of assumptions in your post that are completely wrong. MarnetteD|Talk 22:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MarnetteD Just for clarification are you talking about me or the assumptions that are made about Christianity? (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I want to step back from this question and suggest that if you are offended by opinions, strongly held, that are different from your own, then perhaps you should examine if you really should be using the internetz? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 22:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not “offended”, i only want to know if I will be harassed for expressing my belief via user talk page. (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's pretty unlikely. You could also just not discuss it outside of discussions where it's necessary, which should be few and far between as personal views shouldn't be part of editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I just got a little discouraged from a editor calling Christian’s crackpots. You may not know how that feels to be called that, (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been called a whole lot, and more. Luckily it's text on the internet, so it's easily ignorable. Of you create an account and find that you're being harassed, there are mechanisms to address that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Well that’s good to know! (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Roxy the dog also are you assuming I’m closed minded because I Christian? (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one should be able to tell from your edits that you are a Christian -- or that your eyes are blue (or whatever). If someone checks your user page and sees that you are a Christian and then harasses you for that, the person can be warned and blocked if necessary. If others can tell from your edits, then maybe, possibly, you need to adjust your edits... Welcome. (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Welcome! Llll5032 (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It was a general observation. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 23:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for responding (:. (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am a Christian, and I express it in a userbox on my user page. I have never felt unwelcome because of that. So long as you are not a jerk about it, you should not receive harassment. If you do feel you are the target of harassment because of your faith, ask for administrator help. (I am an administrator, but I am not the only one.) ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 00:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I have actually seen a fair number of users (in the long time I've been here) who have expressed their Christian faith on their userpage. Generally speaking, that is just fine. At the same time, the times I've seen it go wrong is when there are adherents to a particular religion who feel that their belief/faith somehow removes the requirement from citing sources or doing other necessary Wikipedian things when they edit. Take a look at the links AngusW🐶🐶F has included below and if those things aren't going to be a problem, then there's no problem. Harassment isn't okay here in any case. Jessamyn (my talk page) 02:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And in case you didn't find it on your own, here's the Christian Wikipedia category (i.e. those who have noted it on their userpage) and it's a big group, and the Theist Wikipedian category is even larger. Jessamyn (my talk page) 02:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would read WP:ADVOCACY, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:HOLYWAR. Also, if you are a member of a particular congregation, you might want to stay away from editing that group or leader's Wikipedia article because of conflict of interest. WP:COI AngusW🐶🐶F (barksniff) 01:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undocumented feature?


I have been editing articles with the basic Wikitext editor for some time (laptop, Windows10). Recently something happened to change the appearance of displayed text when editing, such that any legal markup, eg

''[[]]'' or ''[[Hello world]]''

gets colored two-tone blue. I could get used to this if it weren't for the cursor also turning blue when within such a string and hard to find, but other several other tricks cropped up at the same time, including:

  • My [Insert] key now toggles the editor between insert and overtype mode with no indication which mode the keyboard is in.
  • The span of the vertical slider no longer corresponds with the range of the article I'm editing, and hovering the mouse pointer near the bottom of the slider, its shape turns to a diagonal (NW-SE) pointer and has the power to raise or lower the slider's lower range.

The embarrassing thing is that this happened before, maybe a year ago, and a knowledgeable and helpful User drew my attention to a checkbox in (I think) Preferences, which I had somehow triggered, perhaps by an undocumented Shortcut (does Wiki editor have Shortcuts, such as [Ctrl + W] etc?). Sadly I did not take a note of their solution, and now I can't find the checkbox, and in any case if it can happen to this old duffer it can happen to others. Thanks in advance. Doug butler (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug butler: I'm not familiar with the situation you describe. If others can't help, perhaps you might ask at the technical issues section of the Village Pump. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Syntax highlighter turned on? That is the icon next to the Advanced dropdown on the wikitext editor toolbar.
Trappist the monk (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks TTM, that clears the problem. How it happened is a mystery but probably attributable to fat fingers :). The associated symptoms would seem to be bugs; I'll copy this conversation to the Village pump as suggested by TT. Thanks allDoug butler (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 25

What's the name of the thing?

What's the tool that lets you see which Wikipedia articles contain a certain URL? Like if I find a website that is not reliable, and I want to find every article currently using that website as a rouce. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer Special:LinkSearch? (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it, thank you Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Place things in global context

I thought there was a project guideline stipulating something that should be obvious, that statements ought to have geographic context if applicable: references to small towns ought to mention the country ("John Doe is a politician from Birdsville"), references to seasons ought to mention the hemisphere ("in the spring of 2009"), and so on. Does such a page exist? (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a general guideline for the lead (MOS:INTRO) that the subject should be placed in a context familiar to a normal reader. For example, it is better to describe the location of a town with reference to an area or larger place than with coordinates.
There is also MOS:SEASON about the specific case of seasons (Avoid the use of seasons to refer to a particular time of year [...] as such uses are ambiguous). TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contact in regards of an Article

I contact you on behalf of Isaacs and Isaacs Law Firm regarding a Target URL in the "References" section posted on a article. The firm changed the Domain Name of the website and I would like to know if it is possible to change the Target URL in the "References" section of this article? Because the Target URL it is not available anymore and makes that reference in the article irrelevant.

Here is the article link:

Link to a Wikipedia mirror

You will find it as " "1. Legal Complaint - Very Simple Definitions - Lawyer Terms". Retrieved 21 March 2018." and here the Target URL and website domain name that need to be changed.

Here is the new Target URL: And the Domain name is not anymore.

Kindly wait for your reply. Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:B007:3400:31A5:1119:E6E2:DF86 (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is best directed at the article talk page, Talk:Complaint(not sure why the url you provide has .su in it). You will need to declare as a paid editor, see WP:PAID. This is easier to do if you have an account, but you must do it even if you do not. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) First of all, note that you linked to, which is apparently a mirror of Wikipedia (in violation of the licensing requirements). The .su subdomain does not inspire confidence to me. The correct link is: Complaint, which goes to, which did show the same problem.
I fixed the link (thanks for the info). Usually, I would encourage you to fix it yourself (Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit), but in that case, you did well not to. Arguably it is spammy to cite a commercial website for such a definition, so other editors may choose to remove it entirely; as an employee or close associate of the law firm, you have a conflict of interest in having the link stay, and you should not add such links directly. It is very possible that someone else will remove the link at some point.
In any future such cases, you could make an edit request - go to the talk page of the article in question (here that would be Talk:Complaint), create a new section, copy-paste the "magic code" (template) {{request edit}} at the top of the section and type in your suggested edits in a "change X to Y" format below. The template will cause your query to appear in a review queue, where an independent editor will eventually come around and implement it (or not).
Do also check out the link that 331dot provided (WP:PAID) - assuming you are editing Wikipedia as part of your work, you should disclose that relationship in a formalized manner, as a terms of use requirement. ("Editing Wikipedia as part of your work" can be a bit fuzzy if you are not in a marketing / PR role, the rule of thumb is whether your boss would be happy to see you do such edits during your work time. Read the actual link.) TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The real question here is "why are we citing a firm of personal injury solicitors for a definition which could be found in any legal dictionary?". There are a huge number of high quality reference works we could cite for this information. The original addition here seems to have been link spamming anyway, the text was added by Darryl Isaacs [4] Who I'm sure has absolutely no COI at all with a law firm that uses his name, then 2 days later an IP shows up to add a link to the Isaacs and Isaacs website [5]. This should be deleted as a completely unsuitable reference added by a spammer, not fixed to point at their new "we win lawsuits" website. (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tigraan Pinging Tigraan since they implemented the edit request above. Would you object to deletion of the reference on the basis that 1) we should not be citing commercial websites when the information is available in all manner of reference works 2) The lead of an article does not require citations 3) The link was added by an obvious COI editor for the purposes of self promotion? (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The spam link could be replaced with this [6] strangely my IP address is blocked from editing that page so I can't make the change. Theroadislong (talk) 10:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No objection at all to the change of ref; I made the edit because it was a clear improvement, but as my post hints to I do think a more neutral ref should be preferred.
Theroadislong, I made the change you suggested, but I rather doubt your IP is blocked. I would wager that you tried to edit on the mirror, created by a crawling bot, and you are therefore seeing the page that the crawling bot itself encountered when clicking the "edit" link. I collapsed the OP’s incorrect link to prevent others from doing the same mistake. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 11:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes of course, my silly mistake, thanks for the change. Theroadislong (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklist of forbidden links

Where can I find the reason why a particular site - - has been banned? If possible I would like to cite an article on that site as a source - if the reason for its ban is not absolutely against it of course. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dodger67 There are two spam blacklists to check, MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist which covers just the english wikipedia, and meta:Spam-blacklist which covers all WMF sites. Both of these have a log page which records additions to the lists along with the reasons, and request pages. In this case the link is globally blacklisted, and a search of the archives on meta turns up this discussion from 2007 [7] Which indicates that it was being spammed cross wiki and might have been copying information from wikipedia? (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! So if they habitually republish other sources I might be able to find a different original source of the article I'm interested in. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dodger67 I'm not sure, I'm just going off what they said on meta: it appears to be copying from en:wiki rather than intentional use of the site to improve the articles which is a bit difficult to understand. The main reason for the blacklisting seems to be a 2007 era spam campaign, and no-one seems to have ever put together a good request to have it removed. If you just want to use one or two links you can use the local whitelist (MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist) to override the global blacklisting on specific articles/sub domains etc. (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to mark a editor for block

Hi Folks!! What is the process for marking an editor with csd or whatover, if they for example, are a spammer? I saw something about it a while ago, but never really used it.scope_creepTalk 14:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep For obvious spammers/Vandals report them at WP:AIV. For username policy violations (e.g shared accounts, profane usernames, promotional usernames) Report them at WP:UAA. For sockpuppets or abuse of multiple accounts use WP:SPI, unless the edits are obvious vandalism/spam, in which case WP:AIV will produce a faster response. For any other issues use WP:ANI. (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I've been doing so far. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 14:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep I'm a little unclear what you mean by "the process for marking an editor with csd". We don't delete the editors, we delete the pages they create. You might mark their userpage for speedy deletion if it is spam or whatever (see all of the G criteria and all of the U criteria at WP:CSD), and in rare cases we may delete their talk page, but we don't delete them. We may block them or ban them or globally ban them - but it seems you are already familiar with those processes. So I'm not sure what you are asking. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ONUnicorn: I read something in passing in 2012 (about) when ACTRIAL finished, about if you came across a bad draft by a spammer you could mark the editor page with a "tag" and a admin would come an address it. I never bothered with it at the time, and never saw it again. scope_creepTalk 15:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep The "general" speedy deletion criteria apply to draft pages, if you come across a draft that is so promotional it is unsalvagable you can tag it for speedy deletion under criteria WP:G11. (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing section of 'In the news'

How do I figure out if the war in Afghanistan has been in the Ongoing section of 'In the news'? Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tyrone Madera: I tried several incomplete methods to search for something and found [8] with 2021 Taliban offensive. I don't know whether the main article has been there. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


For some reason I've been logged out of Wikipedia, I can't remember my password, and password reset is not working. Any idea how I can resolve this? MFlet1 (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have been logged out, can't remember your password, and you do not have an email connected to your account, you cannot retrieve your account. See Help:Logging in#What if I forget the password? The Tips of Apmh 17:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MFlet1: You appear to be logged in, though. Take this time to go to prefences and set an email address for your account so if you do forget your password you can get a reset via email. If you forget your password and no email is set up, you won't be able to access your account. RudolfRed (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RudolfRed: See Special:Diff/1089788811. The Tips of Apmh 17:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked that the password reset emails aren't ending up in your spam email folder? (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the help pages Help:Logging in and Help:Reset password. Do either of them contain anything that helps? (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:MFlet1 has not set an email address. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had set one - I guess that explains why I'm not getting a reset email. Thanks - MFlet1 (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) [reply]

northshore insurance

what insurances dose northshore — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a general question asking forum, sorry. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]