Wikipedia:Help desk

Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)

• For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. 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.
• If your question is about a Wikipedia article, draft article, or other page on Wikipedia, tell us what it is!
• Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
• For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
• New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).

Ask a question

January 30

File talk:Elbert Benjamine AKA C. C. Zain.gif

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

Hello, The Gemini kid. You have started a discussion. This person is covered in Church of Light. I suggest that you begin by adding well-referenced content to that article. Cullen328 (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi The Gemini kid. There actually was a Wikipedia article about C.C. Zain that was WP:MERGEd into the article about the Church of Light as a result of the WP:CONSENSUS established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. C. Zain. The main reason for that seems to have been that it couldn't clearly be established that Zain satisfied Wikipedia:Notability (people) for a stand-alone article to be written about him; so, content about him was incorporated into the article about the church. If you feel something has changed and that Zain is now clearly Wikipedia notable, you might first want to discuss the possibility of creating an article about him at Talk:Church of Light to see what some others might think. If the consensus is that a stand-alone article about Zain is now OK because he's clearly Wikipedia notable, there's really no need to start from scratch since part if not all of the original article can probably be restored. Any new content and sources that are found can then be incorporated as needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@The Gemini kid You said "His page can be improved by having his life story available for people to read and I would like to do this". This means that you have found in-depth published material about him, from sources that Wikipedia considers to be reliable and independent of him, right? If so, you can create a draft, possibly starting with the older material. If you haven't seen this yet, please read your first article. David10244 (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

New format help on desktop

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

There should be a drop-down menu, which appears when you click on the "…" button in the top right hand corner. Happily888 (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@OVasileva (WMF): - wasn't sure how pieces of in-play feedback like this were best passed to you Nosebagbear (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

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

redirectcreator

• User:기나ㅏㄴ/common.js
• User:Awesome Aasim/redirectcreator
  • User:Awesome Aasim/redirectcreator.js

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

@기나ㅏㄴ It appears you added the code on User:기나ㅏㄴ/common.js. Did you follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache? If that doesn't work, I suggest asking the script owner at User talk:Awesome Aasim for assistance. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@기나ㅏㄴ: The installation code was wrong. It wasn't made by Awesome Aasim. I have fixed it.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Your editing is of great help to me. Thank you very much for helping me:) --ginaan(˵⚈ε⚈˵) 16:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Screen appearance

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

See WP:DARK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Proof of articles

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

You need to find a reliable source which quotes these facts, and then generate a citation for the source. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@MRZIPITYDUDA Specifically you added information which you may know to be true but you didn't provide a source so that readers could verify that what you added is correct. That's a central policy of Wikipedia. It may be that an existing reference in the Allen Jacobs article could have been used (see WP:REFNAME for how to do that). Otherwise you have to find and add a new source: see this essay. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@MRZIPITYDUDA Where did those facts come from? If they came from a published, independent, reliable source, you would cite that source. If the facts came from anywhere else, they likely won't be allowed to stay in the article (not site). Wikipedia only documents stuff that is published elsewhere. I hope this helps explain Wikipedia's way of working. David10244 (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Dichroic prism?

Dichroic prism

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

@Amakuru I think that you need to compare this sort of prism with a more conventional one, explained at dispersive prism where white light is split into a single beam containing multiple colours. I'm not able to give a detailed explanation but you'll get one if you repeat the question at WP:RD/S. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The article has two diagrams. One is clearly labelled as showing a trichroic (not dichroic) prism, and is to some extent comprehensible, though I can't guess what the orange line labelled "F₂" is. The other is completely incomprehensible, and although it is captioned "dichroic prism", it shows light of at least nine different colours. The text refers to "the diagram", without making it clear which diagram is meant.

Sometimes a Wikipedia article gets into such a state that whenever anyone, even an expert in the field, sees it, they think "OMG what a mess. I'm not going to get involved in that." But the best place to ask your question is the article's talk page. Maproom (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Turnbull and Maproom: OK, I'll give the RD/S a try, thanks. Not too confident in the article talk page, it hasn't been edited since 2015  — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Cannot insert images

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

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

Arabic Wikipedia

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

@محمد عبد الرحمن المهدي Meta-wiki might be the right place for you. CactiStaccingCrane 16:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@محمد عبد الرحمن المهدي, I suggest you try to raise this issue at the "Movement Strategy Forums," an official forum for the WMF, and for discussions. Sm8900 (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Friend, Many thanks محمد عبد الرحمن المهدي (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia search querry string for suggestions

Hey,

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

Here is a suggestions querry link for Google as an example: "http://suggestqueries.google.com/complete/search?client=firefox&ds=yt&q=%s"

in contrast to the search link: "https://www.google.com/complete/search?client=chrome&q=%s"

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

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

Try using https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=opensearch&format=json&search=%s&formatversion=2 Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Why make wikipaedia so complicated???

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

@Poydem2011, see Wikipedia:Vector 2022 for more about this change. As you have an account, you can change your preferences to return to the previous behaviour (Appearance -> Vector legacy). This will only work while you are logged in, though. —Kusma (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

And the search box is still there in Vector2022: it's just moved to the top left. ColinFine (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Poydem2011 And the search box is now top left, just to the right of the logo. It is an improvement, IMO. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Depending on the width of your screen, the search box is very clearly either to the left or bang in the centre at the top, you can't miss it? Theroadislong (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

And, I just (!) realised, there is a search magnifying glass at the very top left of the drop-down menu that appears when you are viewing material at the end of an article or on Talk Pages. Hence in Vector 2022 (unlike Vector 2020) you don't even need to scroll to the top of a page to immediately do your next search. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

In a narrow window you may have to click a magnifying glass icon at the top to get the search box. It's a universal icon for searching. Most users will know it or quickly guess it. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Protection request

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

The place to request page protection is WP:Requests for page protection. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: Got it, thanks. // sikander { talk } 🦖 14:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

BLP subject requests removal of birthdate

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

We should probably remove it. Per WP:DOB: "If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it." I might feel differently if there were oodles of reliable sources for the DOB, but I'm not seeing more than just the one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf, did you check WP:DOB and perhaps WP:BLPKINDNESS? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

It also depends on how publicly available the birthdate is already. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes I had. I just thought there was some help page regarding what to do if a BLP subject requests information be removed from their article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Done. In the future, please note that per WP:DOB we generally err on the side of "don't include birthdates" for BLPs unless it's literally everywhere and it's a person who is very well known. In the case of either a marginally notable person or if the birthdate is only found in a few places, it's fine to leave it out. --Jayron32 18:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Per several Wikipedia policy and guideline pages, if you see uncited material in ANY article at ANY time, you have several options:

1) find citations yourself

2) Tag the material as needing a citation using the {{cn}} tag

3) Remove the uncited material

Option 3 (removing the material) is especially warranted if there are other issues with the text, such as it being likely wrong, or trivial, or otherwise not appropriate for the articles in question. In general, Wikipedia defaults to not including information if there are some problems with it, see WP:BURDEN or WP:ONUS. If someone objects to your removal, you are within your right to challenge them to provide sources; but also don't edit war, as that can get you blocked. --Jayron32 18:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! In the past had offered my own citations or tagged as cn, but I wasn't super confident in removing problematic info. This and other replies definitely helped me figure out whether certain things can be deleted, appreciate it! PoetaCorvi (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here: an article should not read like a "how-to" style owner's manual, cookbook, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. Even if properly cited, content on pet care almost certainly doesn't belong in such articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I figured there had to be a policy like that somewhere, but I must have missed that one. PoetaCorvi (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@PoetaCorvi: I think the policies listed above apply and the sections should be removed, but the specific subject is outside of my area. You might ask the folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals to comment or to direct you to a more focused project if one exists. -Arch dude (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Will definitely head over and ask around sometime soon, didn't know a page like that existed. PoetaCorvi (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that "pet care" has some similarities to "medical advice". Especially if someone includes pet care information that turns out to be harmful, and someone follows that advice. Given all of these various reasons (not HOWTO, etc.) I am strongly in favor of removing pet care information wherever it appears. David10244 (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I definitely agree, I've seen a handful of articles in the past give subjective or (in my opinion) harmful care information, glad to know I'm justified in changing it. Would hate for someone's animal to get hurt because they trusted misleading information on here. PoetaCorvi (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Moving my article from my Sandbox to Wikipedia

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

Read Help:Your first article. There is no realistic prospect of the material being accepted as an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Why so? The topic is valid and notable and I expect some help from colleages in fleshing out the topic. The learning curve to writing the article and to understand the Wikipedia protocol is certainly high. The intent is to start small to get something going, and then build on it. PegDag (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The first source you cite is a broken link. The second is to a webpage that says nothing about the topic. The third is a primary source - an organisation promoting the concept. We need evidence of notability through significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the learning curve for writing articles is high. This is why we recommend first spending time editing existing articles, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. You may also find it helpful to use the new user tutorial. Starting small is fine, but the draft must still meet certain minimum standards if it is to be sustained in the encyclopedia and not subject to a deletion discussion. 331dot (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@PegDag: Yes, start small. The very first step is to establish notability as we define it. Until you do this there is no reason to continue, as notability is the only absolute requirement for and article. Look at WP:CSMN to see several ways to mess this up. Once you are certain that most editors will agree the subject is notable, build your article as a draft, so you can build it incrementally in a relatively benign environment. See WP:YFA -Arch dude (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia REST API under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL

As stated in https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1

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

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

Also, does GFDL license apply to software (and recursively any further software) that is used to call API? If so, in what ways? 82.183.36.43 (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP user. The first link you supplied doesn't work. I think you meant this one with an extra /. Any edit adding material to Wikipedia is made under under a CC license. So, for example, here at a Talk Page there's a warning that says By clicking "Reply", you agree to our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.. Hence all of Wikipedia's content is CC BY-SA 3.0. What I think this means (IANAL) is that anyone who extracts Wikipedia content via the API and chooses to re-publish it must do so in accordance with the license: in particular the "SA"="same again" part, attributing their source as Wikipedia. There is more information at WP:REUSE but for more technical questions I think you should ask at WP:VPT. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure that content accessed via this API is licensed under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL licenses is correct. Most of Wikipedia text is dual-licensed as such, but not all of it is - see Wikipedia:Copyrights and the links from there for the glorious details - and I do not believe there is any way to determine which is which via the API.

CC-BY-SA 3.0 should apply to everything, though. (By the way, Michael D. Turnbull, "SA" means "sharealike" - i.e. the same license should be applied to derivative works - not "same again".)

Yes, Tigraan, that's correct. I used "same again" because that seems to me to be less jargon and is [what the license page says] "you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original" (my emphasis) Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

So would an interpretation that API documentation provided in description about usage conditions is referring to a general note that content provided by the API may be either under CC-BY-SA or GFDL?

As phrasing may be a bit misleading to treat such sentence as explicit declaration that content under the API is explicitly licensed under both CC-BY-SA and GFDL.

The underlying reason to understand the semantics here is that GFDL requires extra steps in attribution and structuring of content, as well as I must understand how to license my derived content. 82.183.36.43 (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Those licenses only apply to the content the API returns. The software used to query the API might have its own license, but the point of an API is that you can choose to query it with almost any programming language (as long as you obey the rate limitations etc. but that is not a licensing issue). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, that answers a second part of my question, that software licensing does not inherit license based on the content. 82.183.36.43 (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

A Wikipedia page is gone.

For many years there was a Wikipedia page about my work and books. My name is Charles D. Hayes. I am about to turn 80 years old, and the page is suddenly gone as doesn't exist. I am frequently under attack by political zealots and figure they must be responsible for taking it down. Can you check? 66.58.181.128 (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

It was deleted in Feb. 2022. Here is the discussion about it: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_D._Hayes RudolfRed (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

And in case some of the terms used in that discussion are unclear, Charles, a Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what independent sources say about a notable subject. Not being an admin, I can't look at the deleted article, but by what those comments say, it did not establish that you meet Wikiepedia's criteria for notability, was not written neutrally, was based on non-independent sources, and mas mostly a copyright violation anyway. "Political zealots" have no power to remove an article from Wikipedia, unless they can persuade other editors that it meets Wikipedia's criteria for deletion. --ColinFine (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

As somebody who is in agreement with you on many matters, Charles Hayes, I am stunned that something as grossly inadequate as the "article" about you was not deleted many years ago. It was not only deleted, but speedily deleted because it did not come anywhere near meeting our minimum quality and accuracy standards. Sorry; but it's the truth. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

January 31

Redirection

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

AgisdeSparte Click on Chrysostomos of Zakynthos, which opens Rescue of the Jews of Zakynthos

The article will say (Redirected from Chrysostomos of Zakynthos) at the top: click on that link.

You will then open the redirect and be able to edit it. TSventon (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you ! @TSventon AgisdeSparte (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

provincial-level cities vs province-level cities

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

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

Copyright and drafts

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

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

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/over-73000-eunuchs-held-for-extorting-money-from-railway-passengers-in-past-4-years-5694645/

Then another editor TrangaBellam comes and says, I should be topic-banned for writing that line. I can see that there is lots of anger in what he/she wrote. And also moved another article which nobody else said should be drafted. I think targeting the second article was done to harass me. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics&diff=prev&oldid=1136514566

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

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

 Courtesy link: Draft:Extortion by eunuchs in India   Maproom (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It's currently the opening sentence of the draft, and it surprised me when I first read the draft (and before I read that comment about it). I'd never encountered the word hijra until a few minutes ago, and of course Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but the article Hijra (South Asia) says that hijra "are eunuchs, intersex people, or transgender people who live in communities that follow a kinship system known as guru-chela system". It does not say that they are extortionists. Meanwhile (and perhaps just because you made a slip in English), the draft says that they are extortionists. Are they all (or even mostly) extortionists? If you want to say this, you're going to have to present very compelling evidence for doing so. I'll err on the side of caution, assume that most are not extortionists, and make an interim edit accordingly. -- Hoary (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rambo XTerminator: It is extremely easy to patch together multiple news stories about group X and make it seem that X is a badly-behaving group - here is a well-written essay that makes the point by writing a well-sourced scare story about cardiologists. That sort of writing, where the writer takes individual sources to patch together a narrative that none of the sources make (the most glaring example is the section "deaths") is known on Wikipedia as synthesis and is not allowed. You need a reliable source that would specifically link hijras to organized crime (if I had to guess, it is likely to be some group of hijras in some area of India rather than a subcontinent-wide issue).

Another issue is that the draft mixes many different things:

• incidents of aggressive panhandling on the Indian railways (and that itself may be a rather mixed bag going from "someone asked for money loud enough that I could not read a book" to "he pulled a knife on me")
• an organized protection racket in Bathinda, by hijras
• another protection racket in Hyderabad, against hijras
• protests by "real hijras" against "fake hijras" (which is not extortion by any reasonable definition of the term)

Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Very dubious reference, with pseudoscience in first sentence

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

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

But click through and read the abstract and keywords. Barely in the first sentence we get a reference to an unscientific concept. Then reading the article, it turns out the claim laid in the reference, is entirely about this nonexistent substance (see figure 1). At least the organization running the conference it's in the proceedings of appears to exist. 177.226.224.215 (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yup. Looks like woo. Or at minimum, a single primary source being cited for an extremely dubious claim. I've removed the paragraph. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Grr, Andy beat me to it whilst I was checking it out! Total agreement. Thanks for bringing this to our attention "177.226.224.215", have you ever thought of setting up an account? WP needs good constructive editors. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! And yes, I do some edits now and then, and every time I do I remember I should make a proper account. 177.226.224.215 (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Account made! Again thanks for the help and I'll be back here if I need any more assistance NotAnAstronaut (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome! And you're always free to ask if you need help, thanks for your contributions thusfar! BhamBoi (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Hungarian Wikipedia

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

[[کس ]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.114.77.70 (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Ecsenyi Szilárd (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

We at the English Wikipedia cannot take action regarding the Hungarian Wikipedia. Any complaints you have should be made there. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

When Wikipedia was started, the American founders invited the first non-American admins. Since I have exhausted all legal remedies in Hungary, and Péter Gervai literally banned me and my party members from the Hungarian Wikipedia, I would see it as expedient for his American colleagues to make a scandal. That alone would convince the local petty king that his behavior reflects very poorly on the encyclopedia's reputation. Ecsenyi Szilárd (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ecsenyi Szilárd: Each language Wikipedia is a separate and independent project of the Wikimedia foundation (WMF). You can attempt to contact WMF about this: WMF is not the English Wikipedia. We volunteers here at en.Wikipedia have no say in how our sister projects operate. We at the help desk have no charter and no interest in off-wiki issues: we are here to help you and others use and edit the English Wikipedia. -Arch dude (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ecsenyi Szilárd: the next place up the chain of command if you have a complaint about a specific admin that is not being dealt with by the normal dispute resolution process on your local Wikipedia is to contact your local Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, which I believe is This at hu.wikipedia. As noted, literally no one at English Wikipedia can help you; every individual language Wikipedia runs its own affairs. If you have greater concerns that are not being addressed at your language Wikipedia, and after you have tried resolution via your local ArbCom, the next option is to contact the WMF directly; though they tend to take a hands-off approach towards meddling in the local affairs of each Wikipedia. --Jayron32 17:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Ecsenyi Szilárd (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

New Layout ...

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

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

Editing O.R. Melling Page (mine)

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

 Courtesy link: O. R. Melling - 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Val, and welcome. First, please, please, please don't pay any money to anybody to edit Wikipedia. If they are honest, they will tell you that they must declare their status as a paid contributor, and that they cannot guarantee any particular result for you. (If the people that other writers hired did not declare their status, then they were violating Wikipedia's terms of use).

I suggest you read WP:AUTOPROB. Then you can make edit requests on the talk page Talk:O. R. Melling, preferably with citation to sources that are independent of you. Remember that a Wikipedia page about you should be based on what other people, wholly unconnected with you, have published about you in reliable sources - something that the article currently lacks entirely. If you have some such sources - reviews of your work, published in reliable places, or studies in books from reputable publishers (especially if these contain anything about you as opposed to your work) this will assist editors in improving the article from its current dire state. What the article should not be is promotional in any way. ColinFine (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the real professional writers I know don't come anywhere near the "services" who claim to make the articles about them more to their liking, because they know that most of those operations are either merely shady or actively in violation of our Terms and Conditions. Chip Delany doesn't pay anybody to update the article about him; nor do Jodi Piccoult or James Patterson or Noam Chomsky. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Val Decraney: As a separate issue, please do not feel obligated to donate to Wikipedia (actually, to WMF) even though you use it a lot. We have lots and lots of money and do not need a piece of your pension. What we do need and that you may wish to contribute is some expertise and some time. Pick articles in areas you know about and improve them (include references), or (since you are a writer) pick articles that are in need of copyediting. -Arch dude (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Val Decraney: The account User:O.R. Melling was created 1 April 2018. If it's you then the old password will still work but you cannot get a new password because the account has not stored an email address. The account has no edits so you can probably usurp if with a request. See Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. If you are fine with your current username then just keep it. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

THANK YOU EVERYONE for your replies and advice. I hope you don't mind that I'm responding this way rather than individually. As recommended, I will collect what I wish to have posted and provide sources, citations etc for same. Meanwhile I'm honestly happy to contribute a small amount to wiki annually in gratitude for such a major free resource tool that doesn't inflict me with ads (unlike the otherwise brilliant Trecanni.it et al). It's also easier for me than contributing time which I seem to have less and less of these days. Not ready to retire yet! Best wishes to all. I'll be back with a load of data in coming days. PS But am I jinxed? Wiki login refusing both my password & now temporary password sent for reset. So this can only be posted via IP address Val aka O.R. 109.78.16.41 (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

What is accounting

What is accounting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.140.0.40 (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

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

February 1

Is a TOC with columns possible?

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

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

Corporate Logo Images

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

Thanks again! Curtcaster (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Curtcaster: Please see Wikipedia:Logos. If we needed their permission, then we would not use the logo. Either they licence it CC-BY-SA (highly unlikely), or it has no copyrightable creative elements, or we use it without their permission under our extremely conservative interpretation of the "fair use" doctrine. This third option is the most likely to apply here. -Arch dude (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Curtcaster: Hi there! Thank you for declaring your COI on your user page. If User:Curtcaster/sandbox ever becomes an article, then you can use Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard to upload the Kilburn Live logo under fair use. GoingBatty (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Curtcaster: Before doing any other work on this, make sure you can demonstrate that the company is notable as we define the term: see WP:NCORP. Most mid-sized companies are not notable, and there is very little that you can do to affect a company's notability. See WP:AMOUNT. If the company is not notable we will decline to accept your article, so you probably want to make sure the company knows that. -Arch dude (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Just going to add that Wikipedia notability has nothing to do with images. So, perhaps it's best to not start worrying about uploading files until after whatever article your trying to create has actually been created. Non-free images, in particular. can only be used in the article namespace; so, uploading one now and adding it to your sandbox will just result in it being removed and most likely deleted. Focus on ensuring that the draft article you're trying to create is clearly notable per WP:NCORP that it will be accepted when you submit it for review. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Curtcaster, with one exception you have made NONE of the mandatory disclosures on paid editing. Continued failure to disclose is likely to lead to a block or ban on you and your account(s). --Orange Mike | Talk 19:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

new seller

how to register as a seller and my products 171.76.82.105 (talk) 11:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a database of sellers where products are offered for sale, sorry. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

This isn't an advertising website. It is an encyclopedia. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I made anent to a profile that wasn't updated by wikipedia why?

I just made an edit to a profile and it wasn't updated I would like to know why Nassim ismaila (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Nafisat Abdullahi.   Nassim ismaila, Wikipedia doesn't have profiles. It has articles, which are written by people independent of the subject, and based on published sources independent of the subject. Your edits were reverted because you didn't provide reliable independent published sources for them. Maproom (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Restore a draft

Hi, how can I restore a deleted draft? It's been a while and the person handled it is no longer available. Thank you,Raves2023 (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Raves2023 It would help if you let us know the name of the draft. As David Biddulph said, Requests for undeletion is the appropriate place to make such a request, but they will need the name of the draft as well. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Updating page name

Hi,

I am updating our page for New England Bible College. The institution has changed its name to New England Bible College and Seminary. It has updated on the side panel, but the main title and url remains the same. Can you help?

New England Bible College

--Molly Sparling

NEBCS Chairman MSparling (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi MSparling, the best way to do this is to start a Requested Move (RM) discussion. The instructions at WP:RSPM will walk you through how to set this up. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! MSparling (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Molly. If you are the chair of the institution, then you are a Paid editor. You must formally declare that status, preferably on your user page (see the link for how), and you should not directly edit the article New England Bible College and Seminary, but should instead make edit requests on its talk page. I also advise you to read WP:COI and WP:OWN.

I see also that the article is essentially devoid of independent sources, and is liable to get deleted unless somebody adds suitable sources to establish that it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this information! What if it is an unpaid position? Am I still considered a paid editor? And yes, I did notice that and am looking for sources outside of our own website to validate the content. Thanks again- I am new to editing wiki! MSparling (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Even if it is an unpaid position, it is assumed you benefit in some way (reputation, credentials, politically, socially, etc.), from being on the board and the university having a good reputation. By our definition of a paid editor, "Payment or compensation: includes, but is not limited to, money, goods or services." Since it is not limited to money or tangible objects, the non-financial, non-material benefit received from being on the board is considered payment or complensation for the purposes of our terms of use. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful clarification. Happy to abide by the policies! MSparling (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

When you have made the declarations, make sure you read Golden Rule to understand what we require in a source. The Sun Journal piece is presumably a reliable source, but it fails both independence (because it obviously comes from a press release) and significant coverage (since it has only a short paragraph about the college). Non-independent sources may be used to support certain kinds of information in an article, but they do not contribute to notability. ColinFine (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! MSparling (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

List of motor yachts by length

Something in the code has shifted the notes and references for the article to the side of the table, instead of at the bottom, and I cant figure it out. Anyone else find it? Nswix (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

They're below when I look at it. I'm using the old Vector skin so have the full width of the screen usable, are you using the new squeezed one? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

No, it was that the table wasn't properly closed, but Trappist the monk appears to have fixed it. ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

EverybodyWiki

Hi there, I edited and created a page for an artist. However it is now in EverybodyWiki and not on Wikipedia. How can I move it please? ElleltaLove (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@ElleltaLove It would help if you give us the name of the page. Is it Draft:Lidiaana by any chance? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's Draft:Lidiaana . Thank you ElleltaLove (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has absolutely no connection with EverybodyWiki. If your article was on Wikipedia and is no longer, then it must have got deleted - but I see that EverybodyWiki grabs articles undergoing deletion from Wikipedia, so that is plausible.

If you tell us what the article was called, we can look and see why it was deleted: it is likely that it was felt to be unsalvageable, and (at best) would need to be started again from scratch; but we can't tell without knowing the title. ColinFine (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I created Draft:Lidiaana and It got reviewed twice and I thought it would go straight to Wikipedia. I haven't seen it published on wikipedia though. When I looked it up on google, I noticed it was on EverybodyWiki. (New user) Thanks ElleltaLove (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@ElleltaLove, it was reviewed and declined twice. You haven't resubmitted it, so for the moment, it's just sitting in draft space, waiting for improvement and resubmittal. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

oh! thank you so much. I just resubmitted it. ElleltaLove (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid I declined it because it is not remotely clear how they pass WP:NSINGER? Theroadislong (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, thank you. I added a discography. What else needs to be added? Everything else I had found weren't acceptable articles. Thank you for your help (new user) ElleltaLove (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@ElleltaLove, a discography is not what's needed here. Have you read WP:NSINGER? Which of the criteria does this person meet? It may be that they're just not notable enough for a Wikipedia article (yet). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand now and will add what is necessary. Thank you for your help ElleltaLove (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Separating One Entity That Should Be Two

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Insider should be two different websites, Insider.com and Businessinsider.com are two distinct domains, even on WikiData. Additionally, and as noted by Insider, Inc. they have several domains/subdomains that should warrant having multiple pages.

Is there a way to separate this to help ensure that the information is correct? Ronin.abv (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Have you got suitable sources that establish that insider.com is notable independently of businessinsider.com? There are many examples of subsidiary companies that are not notable independent of their parent, and some that are notable. Simply existing as a separate entity is not enough to ground a separate Wikipedia article.

In any case, I suggest opening the discussion on Talk:Business Insider - and you, should study the arguments in Talk:Business Insider#Requested move 18 April 2022. ColinFine (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ronin.abv: There are already two articles: Insider Inc. (for insider.com) and Business Insider for (businessinsider.com).

Insider used to be a separate unrelated article, but then it was deleted. Today I see that Insider was recreated as a redirect to Business Insider. I've changed Insider from a redirect to a disambiguation page with these items:

• Business Insider, a multinational financial and business news website now knows as Insider
• Insider, Inc., an online media company known for publishing Insider (formerly Business Insider) and other media websites

Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Entry [Ian Jordaan]

he following appears at the beginning of the article:

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article reads like a press release or a news article and may be largely based on routine coverage. (February 2016) This biographical article is written like a résumé. (February 2016) The neutrality of this article is disputed. (March 2017)

Attempts over many years have been made to correct these items but the statement on "issues" remains unchanged. The comment on neutrality is very odd, it has been attempted to remove all claims but the statement stays in place.

It would be preferable to remove the entry entirely rather than continue with the impossibility of removing the statement on "multiple issues". 142.162.188.160 (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Ian Jordaan - 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

NO real efforts have been made to address these issues. The assertions of notability and innovation must be sourced to impartial reliable published sources, not personal websites and online CVs. This is not optional, particularly in the case of a biography of a living person. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

But the assertions of discovery were removed some time ago. They had been made by a third party but no changes made have been "noticed" by wiki, nor by this commentor. 142.162.188.160 (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The whole stretch of "He continued his work on ice-structure interaction, with particular focus on challenges to oil and gas development in the Canadian offshore.

Jordaan has made contributions to industry by providing advice on design issues and research approaches on a broad variety of offshore and Arctic projects. He led design loads studies for the Terra Nova and White Rose Floating Production, Storage and Offloading Systems (FPSOs), as well as the Hebron project. He also studied and assessed the pressures measured on the Molikpaq structure in the Beaufort Sea during 1986.

Jordaan was a principal consultant for Ice Engineering with C-CORE, a Canadian research and development company specializing in harsh environment technology innovation. He developed methods of analysis for the ice loads on structures in the shallow Caspian Sea and consulted on structural concepts for the Shtokman gas project in the deepwater Barents Sea. He also worked with the C-CORE Ice Engineering team on design loads for the Confederation Bridge 13-kilometre-long (8.1 mi) connecting Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick." is completely unsourced. Words like "contributions" and "developed" seem calculated to fluff him up. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Adding a parameter in infobox

Is there a particular place where one can ask for the addition of an important parameter within template:infobox film? I've asked on the talk page but I'm not sure there's going to be much response seeing the history of the talk page. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Shshshsh Hi there! I was going to suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, but see that Template talk:Infobox film#"Music" field in infobox for a musical film is already pointing there. GoingBatty (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

war crimes allegation not supported by citation

hopefully i am in the correct place for this question. is it appropriate for a biography of a deceased person to contain an accusation that they are a "war criminal" in the lead section, when the person has been neither tried nor convicted of any war crime? Mikhail Tolstykh contains such an accusation despite never being tried nor convicted of a crime, and the citation does not claim that he is a war criminal, and no other source except Wikipedia repeats this claim. i did post an edit request on the talk page, but my request was denied possibly because i cited the incorrect Wikipedia acronym, but i cant find the correct policy and theres just so many. would someone please have a look at my edit request and re-assess it? if im in the wrong venue, hopefully someone could point me in the correct direction. .usarnamechoice (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done What part of "Givi and other warlords who have been killed in the past two years have publicly assaulted prisoners of war and been engaged in what can be classified as war crimes" in the article's sources did you not read? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@.usarnamechoice: Your edit request wasn't really declined because of the short-cut (i.e. acronymn) you used, but rather because the policy you were tyring to use as justification no longer applies to the subject of the article. WP:BLP applies to content about living persons or recently deceased persons, but it doesn't really apply to persons who have been dead for more than a few months. The policy could be applicable if it had to do with content about living persons mentioned in the article about Tolstykh, but not about Tolstykh himself. Moreover, as Orange Mike posted above, the sourced cited in support of the "war criminal" claim does seem to state as much. Apparently, Tolstykh was killed before formal charges were made. You could try and argue that the article content should be "accused war criminal" or something similar since he never was formally tried and convicted of any war crime per se, and the place to do would be first on the article's talk page and then maybe at WP:NPOVN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

thank you for the pointer @Marchjuly:. the text as it currently appears on Wikipedia is false. "war criminal" is an extraordinary claim that is not backed up by an extraordinary source, much less widely covered in reliable sources. Wikipedia is the only site making this claim ("war criminal"). this source claims that he and others "engaged in what can be classified as war crimes", which is a different claim than "war criminal". it seems to me that Wikipedia/Wikipedians would want to fix any misinformation found within Wikipedia articles but i admit i dont know enough about Wikipedia policies to state that i am sure of that. i will watch for any replies on the article talkpage and if the false information persists, i will try WP:NPOVN. thank you. :) .usarnamechoice (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

What's extraordinary about "a separatist warlord was a war criminal" backed up by press reports? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

i see no press reports claiming this individual was convicted of any war crime. the claim that this person was a war criminal is false, and it is extraordinary (to me) that there is no desire to correct it. :^) .usarnamechoice (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Your extremely restrictive definition of "needs to be convicted in a court of law" excludes the following people:

• Shirō Ishii (see Unit 731)
• Lavrentiy Beria (see Katyn massacre)
• Anthony Miers (firing on shipwrecked crew)

...as well as many others. It does not seem reasonable. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

On that tight definition, even Adolf Hitler avoids the term! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Judge Harris Hartz

I would like to take a screenshot & post a photo of Judge Harris Hartz from the You Tube link below. Do you know what license I can use to be approved by Wikipedia Commons?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc5t32zwyfo MIAJudges (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@MIAJudges: Since Harris Hartz is still living, a non-free image of him is almost certainly not going to be allowed. Most YT videos are released under a license not compatible for Wikipedia's purposes and can't be uploaded to Wikipedia (either as a video or screenshot) without the copyright holder's consent. Sometimes, though, a YT account release its content under a Creative Commons license that's OK for Wikipedia. This is usually stated in the videos "see more" section. Can you see if this video has been released under such a license? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I do not see a "See more" section anywhere on the video. Does that mean the video does not have one or am I just missing it? 

MIAJudges (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

There's usually something in the gray box that that says "Show more" (not "See more" as I mistakenly posted above). It should be right below where it lists the number of views and how long ago the content was upload. If you click on this, you should be able to see whether the content has been released under a CC license. I checked and it doesn't appear to be released under such a license. If you're still confused, try looking at www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2S5Ov-7Mzo for example of a YT video released under a CC license. Click on that video's "Show more" and you should see "License Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)". If you don't see anything like that on any YT video, then it's best to assume it's copyrighted and most likely not OK to upload to Wikipedia. If you're still confused even after looking at that example, there's lots of information online about CC licensing and YT, including some YT videos explaining how to find CC licensed content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a "See more" section anywhere on the video. Does that mean this particular video doesn't have one or am I just missing it?

MIAJudges (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a "Show more" link; but all it does is reveal the four "chapters" into which the broadcast was divided, and show the one comment which was made to the video. There's no copyright waiver there. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@MIAJudges: Did you read my second post above where I explained "See more" was a mistake and you should be looking for "Show more"? If you did, then why simply repost the same "I don't see a "See more" section anywhere ... " that you posted more than an hour earlier. Repeatedly posting the same thing over and over again isn't going to get you a faster or different response, and it's not going to make others want to try and help you. Double posts often happen and aren't a big deal, but posting pretty much the same thing over an hour later and almost 30 minutes after it was responded to the first time, it probably not the best way to try and seek assistance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah no, I didn't see your second reply. I'm just getting back from my lunch break. Let me take a look. Thank you

MIAJudges (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I see it in the video you posted. Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed). I will look for that going forward whenever I have a question as to if I can use it or not.

Thank you for your help

MIAJudges (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2

Can I edit my university article

Based on Wikipedia rules, am I free to edit the article which belongs to the university that I'm currently studying in? Is it Wikipedia:Conflict of interest? It does not make sense. Because a physicist edits articles in physics more frequently. A Chinese person may edit China related articles more frequently. A human being might edit articles related to humans. There are blurred lines of when it is actually a conflict of interest.

Anyhow, Can I edit my university article? LastElement (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@LastElement: COI is a continuum. You must decide for yourself if your relationship to the subject rises to the level of a COI. In general just being a student there rarely rises to that level. Go ahead and declare your relationship on your user page, but be meticulous about using published information instead of personal knowledge. -Arch dude (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi LastElement. Are you being compensated (e.g. money, academic credit, internship) in any way to edit the article about your school? Are you being asked by someone at your school to make edits on behalf of the school that reflects the particular interests of the school? Conflict of interest editing isn't something that's expressly forbidden by Wikipedia (unless it's undeclared paid editing), but it's something that's highly discourgaged because it often leads to more serious problems. Because many COI editors often are more WP:NOTHERE than WP:HERE, many of the Wikipedia community are quite suspicious of the motives of any COI editor and mistakenly assume that all COI editors are a problem just waiting to happen. Simply being a student of a school doesn't automatically mean you have a conflict of interest; however, if your edits start to indicate that you're more interested in promoting the school or advocating on behalf of the school than trying to comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then that could indicate that you do have a serious COI and should follow relevant policies and guidelines related to COI editing. If other editors start reverting some or all of the edits you're making because your edits aren't really in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, and your response is someting like "I go to school here so I know more than you", your Wikipedia experience isn't probably going to be very enjoyable but may also turn out to be very brief.

Since you've made only two edits so far with this account,a nd assuming that means you're completely new to Wikipedia editing, perhaps it would be better to edit other articles not related to your school for a bit to gain some more familiarity with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines and how they're being applied by others. Is there some pressing reason why you need to edit the article about your school asap? It will, after all, almost certainly still be there after you've become more familiar with Wikipedia, and you might find it a bit easier to edit appropriately and avoid problems with some more experience. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I was a wikipedia editor more than ten years ago, and I left it to get some time for my job and life. There is no emergency to come out of blue and wanting to edit my university article, but when I see its a short article, and there are bunch of independent sources there which cover the topic, its like a social responsibility to complete it. I do not want to just promote it, but I want to say the facts, based on reliable sources. So now, you feel its appropriate for me to start editing my university article, considering that I'm familiar with wikipedia rules, from my past experience in more than ten years ago (if all the rules have not been changed). LastElement (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

A few things based upon what you posted above. First, as long as your edits indicate you're WP:HERE, you probably won't have any problems editing the article. So, if you believe you can improve, then be WP:BOLD and go a head and do so. If someone disagrees with your edits, remember to try use the article's talk page to discuss and resolve things per WP:DR. As long as you don't try use any past connection you may have had with the school as some sort of justification for why you're edits should be allowed, you should be fine. Please understand, you don't need my or anyone else's permission to edit the article. Edits made by COI editors aren't simply reverted because of their COI per se (at least they shouldn't be); they're mostly reverted because they're not very good edits.

Next, if you can still access your old account, you might want to use that instead of this new one you created. It might make it clear to other users that you're not a complete newbie and have some idea about Wikipedia and editing articles. You're not required to do so, but you might find yourself being asked something like "Have you ever edited with a different account?" if you start doing things or knowing about things that a typical Wikipedia newbie might not do or know. If you don't have access to your old account but want to let others know that you did edit Wikipedia before, you can add some information about this to your new accounts user page; for example, "I used to edit using this account ten years ago, but forgot the password" or something like that. You don't have to do anything like this, but some people do.

Finally, if, by chance, the account you were using ten years go was blocked or banned for some reason and that block or ban is still in effect, then creating a new account is going to be considered a violation of WP:EVADE. I'm not saying that this is the case, but just pointing out that blocks and bans apply to the person using an account, and not the account itself. Some people who are blocked or banned may reappear using a new account after several years have passed and may never be noticed; however, many probably end up going back doing what they were doing before or editing the articles they were editing be before and eventually someone notices them. If none of this applies to you, then don't worry about it. If it does, you might be better off requesting that your old account be unblocked so that you can properly return to being an editor in good standing instead of trying to work around the block. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

CONFIRMATION of NEW SUBMISSION(?)

I composed my first article and (I believe) I submitted it for "review"... Would I have received some confirmation (from some person or automatic acknowledgement) that, indeed, I had successfully submitted it for "review"? Curious-curation (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Curious-curation. Are you asking about User:Curious-curation/Sample page? If you are, then "no" that page has not been submitted for review yet. Apparently, someone recently tried to recreate an article about Gregory Perkel, but it was moved to the draft namespace as Draft:Gregory Perkel because it was considered not ready for article status. Was this you by chance? If it was and you would like that draft restored so that you can continue working on it, then you can ask a Wikipedia administrator to do so by posting a request at WP:REFUND. I'm not an administrator so I can't see the draft that was deleted. If, however, the deleted draft is anything like what you've been working on in your user sandbox, I'm afraid neither of the two are going to be upgraded to article status anytime soon. Please take a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners for some general information about what kinds of subjects are OK to try and create Wikipedia articles about, and how to properly write and source a potential Wikipedia article. In addition, if you're connected to the subject of the article either personally or professionally, you might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for reference too. Finally, since the subject of the article appears to be still living, it's very important that you look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for reference too. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Account Recovery

We have created Onpassive account long back. We want to recover that account now. Please help us in recovering the account. 115.246.246.179 (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP 115.246.246.179. Are you asking about a Wikipedia account or are you asking about something completely unrelated to Wikipedia? If it's the former, please clarify the name of the account and perhaps someone can help you. If it's the latter, then sorry but there's nothing anyone here can do to help you since this page is only for asking about things related to Wikipedia. You can try Googling "Onpassive" and see whether there's any information about it online. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

There is an account named ONPASSIVE, which has no edits here and was indefinitely blocked on Wikimedia Commons for having a promotional username & spamming in 2020, but it does not have a email adress specified. There is also another account named ONPASSIVE OFFICIAL (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal), which has 1 edit here and was indefinitely blocked for {{uw-spamublock}} (more info there) which does appear to have a valid email adress specified. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I am an administrator and could view the deleted revision of User:ONPASSIVE OFFICIAL, and it was overtly promotional and completely inappropriate for this encyclopedia. I advise against further editing of that kind. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising, marketing or promotion. Cullen328 (talk) 07:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Reversed edits

Hi, I am a massive fan of the Undead series by MaryJanice Davidson and saw that the wiki page was outdated. For some reason user Sheep8144402 reversed my edits saying they were unconstructive. Just wondering if this person is an admin or something and why my adding additional (missing) information and correcting outdated information is considered 'unconstructive'. Thanks ~AussieAmazon — Preceding unsigned comment added by AussieAmazon (talk • contribs) 07:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, AussieAmazon. Your edit began with You'd think that traipsing around Hell with her half sister, Laura, would mean Betsy got to know Laura better. We never address the reader directly. Encyclopedic content is written in a neutral, disinterested tone. We never assume or comment on what the reader might or might not think. Cullen328 (talk) 07:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, your assumptions seem to go beyond the bare bones facts of the plot into your own personal interpretations. Please be aware that Original research of this kind is not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Thank you for explaining. Could you explain the other edits which were removed? Such as updating the number of books in series, and the additional short stories which accompany the main story? I'm a very new contributor and am happy to take direction. ~AussieAmazon — Preceding unsigned comment added by AussieAmazon (talk • contribs) 08:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

AussieAmazon, I do not have the time to examine all of your edits, but it appears that you were adding content without providing references to reliable sources verifying your additions. Cullen328 (talk) 08:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Please read Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)