I noticed that the Teahouse is in Category:Pages_with_syntax_highlighting_errors. From the note that at top of that category, this is due to the syntaxhighlight tag. The only occurance currently on the Teahouse is this:
Apparently this fix is to just define a known computing language name for the syntaxhightlight tag, as if that is the most intuitive thing to understand and do. But there are no instructions on how to do that that I see. How is that done, and is there any way to know which languages are currently supported? Is there a page with more instructions somewhere?
Also, it seems that maybe setting lang="text" might mask the errors. Is there any way to make that the default? The Teahouse thread will eventually be archived, making the problem there temporary, but there are 1350 other pages with this error currently.
I am trying to create a citation on an article and I couldn’t do an auto-citation so I clicked on “Manual” and clicked “Website” and the menu disapears instead of opening the usual menu. GameOfAwesome (talk) 04:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the deletion proposer @Sfjohna: I don't really understand the purpose of this article. It starts with a definition explaining the article is not to be confused with Open scholarship (research), but Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It then lists a random bunch of recipients of the an Open scholarship (research) award? It is not clear why there is a definition and it is not clear why you've chosen those recipients.
the list of open scholarship recipients includes all articles of people that state such on their wikipedia page and, later, some that were located and are wikipedia-notable. .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you mean archiving your own Talk Page, the help is at H:ARC. I use MiszaBot but there are other options. See the source code at the top of my Talk Page for one type of archiving in practice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm trying to edit someone else's bio which is on Swedish Wikipedia in Swedish. I do not speak Swedish and tried to add the info plus citations. A message was sent saying that this had to be in Swedish. So I used Google translate but then received a message back saying it was not properly formatted in Swedish and citations missing (which I knew). But I am not able to link the citations because I am not able to figure out where they go. And I'm not even sure if the Swedish translation is correct. Would anyone have any specifics instructions on how this could be handled in English? Many thanks! Galwriterpro (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The help desk on the English Wikipedia is here to provide help with issues on the English Wikipedia. The Swedish Wikipedia has its own help desk. That said, if you don't speak Swedish, why are you trying to edit an article on the Swedish Wikipedia? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving18:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. Hi, the person lives in Sweden and is a scientist who requested that the page be updated. He does quite a bit of business here. Can I create a new page in English? Many thanks. Galwriterpro (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Galwriterpro, if you are being paid to edit, you must comply with WP:PAID with your next edit. This is mandatory and non-negotiable. The English and Swedish Wikipedias are separate projects, each with its own policies and guidelines. You can work on improving Draft:Tord Wingren but you are not autoconfirmed and cannot yet create articles. If you are paid, you should submit any draft to Articles for Creation. Cullen328 (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Galwriterpro: Just going to add a few things to what Cullen328 posted above. First, whether an English Wikipedia article about this person will be accepted depends entirely upon whether the person satisfies English Wikipedia's notability guidelines; if this person is deemed to not be notable per English Wikipedia's notabilty guidelines, an English Wikipedia article about them has no chance of being accepted. Each Wikipedia project is different in the sense that they all have their own separate policies and guidelines, and their own respective communiies applying them. So, just because an article about this person exists on Swedish Wikipedia, doesn't automatically mean a similar article should also exist on English Wikipedia. It's quite possible that the Swedish Wikipedia shouldn't exist, but nobody ever bothered to properly assess it. It's also possible that Swedish Wikipedia's notability guidelines aren't exactly the same as English Wikipedia's guidelines, or they are but just aren't being applied as rigorously. Even if this person turns out to be notable by English Wikipedia's guidelines, there's still no requirement stating that the English Wikipedia article needs to be a direct translation of the Swedish Wikipedia one. Translation are allowed as long as they're done in accordance with WP:TRANSLATE, but often it's better to simply create the article from scratch as if no non-English version exists. English Wikipedia's Manual of Style may differ quite a bit from Swedish's Wikipedia's and some of the format or syntax commonly used on the latter might not be acceptable for English Wikipedia. Moreover, unless your pretty competent in the source language, a direct translation is likely going to be filled with many errors or otherwise unnatural phrasing that too aren't desireable for English Wikipedia. Machine translations aren't really allowed per WP:MACHINETRANSLATION, in principle, and often end up deleted if they are beyond fixing. Finally and perhaps more importantly, is that if you're being asked by the subject of the article to update it or create it, you need to explain to them Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Ownership of content. The subjects of Wikipedia articles have no final editorial control over article content; they may make suggestions for improvement, but ultimately if will depend upon whether such suggestions comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There are processes in place in which subjects of articles and their representatives can seek assistance when they have suggestions or concerns about article content, but most of these strongly encourage the subject of the article and their representatives to not attempt to directly edit or create new content about the subject. It's very important that you make sure the subject of the article understands this because it will help avoid possible problems with other Wikipedia users. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 98.186.55.18. If you no longer want to edit (i.e. retire from Wikipedia), there's nothing special that you need to do; you can simply just stop editing. User with registered accounts can post something on their user pages or their user talk pages letting others know they've decided to WP:RETIRE, but it's not required and most likely not appropriate to do when editing from an IP account. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In person questions and facts
This summe I I am going to myltiple historical sites and I want to ask the polocy if you ask a question to a historian and theh answers it. How do I site that? I have learned a lot and I want to update few pages. LuxembourgLover (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, LuxembourgLover. I'm afraid that you can't cite unpublished information. If the historian gives you a reference (eg a book or article to find the information in), then you can look for that published source, and if you find it, and it is a reliable source (eg, not self-published by an amateur historian) and it supports the information you have been given, you can add the information to a Wikipedia article, with a citation to the source. But without a published source, you may not add the information.
Another possibility is to post on the talk page of the article in question, or of a relevant WikiProject saying "I was told XXX by a volunteer at YYY site. Does anybody have a published source so that I can add this information?" ColinFine (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was taking a look at the New Pages feed and noticed that Schooley Mitchell was recently created, without addressing the issues that caused it to be declined at Draft:Schooley Mitchell. I think the page should be WP:DRAFTIFY'd as the issues are related to NPOV and COI violations. Of course, since a copy already exists in draft space, the mainspace article should just be deleted. Would this qualify for WP:CSD? Under what criterion? GoodCrossing (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodCrossing, deleted as WP:CSD#G11, unambiguous advertising. I have also tagged the draft page for deletion (could have deleted it, but four eyes are better in most cases). In general, if a page that has been draftified is copied to mainspace, and you think it shouldn't be, check if it satisfies the WP:CSD, and if not, nominate via WP:AFD, which will help settle the matter more definitely. —Kusma (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm blind, using a Windows 10 PC with JAWS 2020 screen reader and Google Chrome.
Over the past year, after a Google search, I would click on a Wikipedia link and seemingly get a blank page. Today I checked with Windows Narrator and found I had been returned to my desk top.
The latest was today, a search for "Kon Tiki". Each time I clicked on the Wikipedia link, I was kicked back to my desk top. A few times lately, links within a Wikipedia article also did this. Google links to other sites on the same topic worked as expected.
Not sure how are you navigating so I'll give two options. In Wikipedia there are some access keys that can help. The combination that will take you to the search field is: alt and shift and F. When using TAB key this will be (in order): jump to content (link), menu button, Wikipedia button (main page) and then the search bar. After search you should use that jump to content link to go to the main content. Then JAWS should be able to read the article contents directly. You should be able to use the H key to navigate to headers (sections) of the article. Though I'm not sure why would you end up in a blank section. Maybe some hotkey of JAWS changed and you used that. Nux (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with JAWS, but looking at the website, I found that you can get free technical support by phone, email, or webform: [1]. Maybe this is an issue they can help with. Additionally, JAWS 2020 is not the most recent version, so perhaps tech support can advise on if using a more recent version will help. RudolfRed (talk) 02:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brian, indeed, updating will probably help, but it would be relatively expensive, especially because you're in Canada (per your IP address), not in the US, where it would be cheaper. As for your actual issue, this sounds a bit like this technical support bulletin, except that you say it's been happening for the past year or so. Maybe updating Chrome like it says (which is free) might help, but that should have happened automatically ... it has for me, at any rate (but I use JAWS 2023 so I didn't have this issue). Graham8704:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still have a copy of JAWS 2020 and I couldn't reproduce this issue with it after going through several Wikipedia pages in Incognito mode. Perhaps updating Chrome fixed the issue, shared files in newer versions of JAWS may have done so as well, or I didn't go through enough pages to come across the problem. Feel free to email me at grahamwpgmail.com for more ideas. Graham8704:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, a couple of weeks ago I tried to make changes to Ms. Hunter Lovins wikipedia page because I could see that it had incorrect information and needed updating. I keep getting emails from Wiki saying that it looks like I'm a paid editor and I am not. I have written back to the several times telling them I have nothing to disclose and they still will not post the changes. I verified the correctness of my edits with Ms. Lovins office as well. Can you please get my edits on her page? Thank you. SolaSands (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SolaSands: In addition to what 331dot posted above, please understand that Wikipedia isn't really interested in what Lovins or her office has to say or what changes they may want made. Lovins and her office have no final editorial control over the article's content as explained here, and any changes that are proposed are going to need to be in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Lovins and her office are almost certainly going to be considered WP:PRIMARY sources when it comes to information about her and there are going to be lots of restrictions placed on such information. It would be much better for you to look for WP:SECONDARY and WP:INDEPENDENT sources that aren't directly connected to Lovins or her office that support whatever changes you or they feel need to be made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any other source of information about her background would be unreliable. Calling her office at Natural Capitalism Solutions office staff only verified the information I requested. I don't see conflict of interest. I have no interest financially or otherwise with Ms. Lovins and just want to ensure that I am writing correct information about her. SolaSands (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SolaSands: Contacting a company in which she has a stake in means the source isn't independent from her. Independence is part of what makes a reliable source reliable. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not concerned about the truth; it only cares about what sources deemed reliable say about her. You are more than welcome to deliberate the veracity of the information the sources use and cast doubt on their reliability. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I'm new to Wikipedia, and I recently made some edits to the manifestation page. I feel that manifestation is a significant topic, and the current paragraphs on the page don't adequately cover its depth and importance. However, I've noticed that my edits keep getting removed, even though I provided quality information and reliable sources.
I want to clarify that I wasn't trying to engage in an "editing war" or create unnecessary conflicts. In fact, no one else has been editing the page besides me. I wasn't aware of the limit of three edits per day, and I apologize for any unintended violation of Wikipedia's guidelines.
I'm reaching out to you for guidance on what I might be doing wrong and how I can improve my contributions to the manifestation page. I believe this topic deserves a more comprehensive treatment, and I'm eager to collaborate and ensure that the page reflects accurate and valuable information.
Below is the source I used for the edits:
Manifestation (or manifesting) refers to various self-help strategies that can purportedly make an individual's wishes come true by mentally visualizing them.[1][2] Manifestation techniques are based on the law of attraction of New Thought spirituality.[3] While the process involves positive thinking, or even directing requests to the Universe, or Source,[4] it also involves actions on the part of the individual.[5]
The practice became popularized in the public through the film The Secret (2006) and a book of the same name by Rhonda Byrne. It has been popularized on social media since the 2010s, particularly on platforms like TikTok, where it has gained immense traction and become one of the most popular topics. The rise of manifestation techniques on TikTok has introduced a younger generation to the concept and allowed for the sharing of different approaches and methods.[6][7]
One of the manifestation techniques that has gained significant popularity on TikTok is the O-Method. The O-Method involves a transformative journey of sensual awakening and pleasure, combining elements of tantra and manifestation. TikTok users share their experiences with the O-Method, discussing its potential for deepening connections with partners and unlocking manifestation abilities.[8][9]
Another popular manifestation technique on TikTok is the Mirror Method. This technique involves using mirrors to visualize desires and affirmations. Users create videos showing their mirror rituals and share the positive outcomes they have experienced.
The 3-6-9 Method, based on numerology, is also widely practiced on TikTok. This technique involves setting specific intentions or desires at 3:33 AM, 6:33 AM, and 9:33 AM, aligning with the repeating numbers. TikTok users document their experiences with this method and discuss the synchronicities and manifestations that occur.
TikTok has provided a platform for users to share their experiences with manifestation and offer guidance and inspiration to others. The short-form video format allows for quick and engaging content, making it accessible to a wide audience. As a result, manifestation has become a hit on TikTok, with creators sharing their success stories, techniques, and tips to manifest their desires.
While manifestation has gained popularity on social media, it is important to note that it remains a subject of debate and skepticism. Critics argue that it lacks scientific evidence and can perpetuate unrealistic expectations. However, for many TikTok users, manifestation offers a sense of empowerment and a tool for personal growth and self-improvement.
== References ==
^Weingus, Leigh. "Can You Really Attract the Things You Want via Manifestation? Here's What to Know About the Technique People Are Obsessing Over". Parade: Entertainment, Recipes, Health, Life, Holidays. Retrieved 2022-09-23.
^Jennings, Rebecca (2020-10-23). "Manifesting is the new astrology". Vox. Retrieved 2022-09-23.
^Brogley, Gianna (24 October 2020). "The psychology behind manifestation". The Campanile. Retrieved 4 February 2021.
^Zapata, Kimberly (22 December 2020). "How to Manifest Anything You Want or Desire". The Oprah Magazine. Retrieved 4 February 2021.
^Fournier, Denise (27 December 2018). "Manifestation: The Real Deal". Psychology Today. Retrieved 4 February 2021.
Wikipedia is not a platform for the propagation of credulous horseshit. And the opinions of random TikTok users are about as far removed from the reliable sources we require as could possibly be imagined. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The subject-matter is obvious twaddle (and with "gained immense traction and become one of the most popular topics" and the like, the description "needs work", shall we say); however, Wikipedia does attempt to explain twaddle (QAnon, the utterances of Sidney Powell, trickle-down economics, etc etc) and the obsessions of Tiktok users for those who are curious. Discuss your proposed rewrite at Talk:Manifestation (popular psychology). -- Hoary (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On a certain talk page, a user posted a question containing (apparently) their home address. I removed it, but it's still in the history. How do I ask for an admin (or whatever) to suppress that version? —Tamfang (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is for sure the correct advice, but since I am on that team, I figured out what you were talking about and dealt with it. Please do use WP:RFO in the future though, thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(i) Just what about it is "all wrong"? (ii) Do you have any intention of attempting to fix references yourself? (iii) Will these accretions of Lupton/Middleton trivia never end? (This one tells us "...Alan Lupton began at Eton, boarding there from 1888 to 1892. He married Mary Burrell in 1905, the sister of his fellow old Etonian Sir Merrick Burrell, 7th Baronet. His second cousins Francis and Olive Lupton - Kate's great-grandmother - were guests at the wedding.") -- Hoary (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By contrast, I do see an error in the title of this thread: It's the same as the title of another thread on this very page. It would help if the person in/near Perth avoided the repetition of titles. -- Hoary (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was a problem: you had specified an access date in the future (14 July). Somebody fixed this by changing it to 12 July. This is supposed to be the date that you most recently visited (accessed) the linked reference, usually today's date, certainly not tomorrow's. Card Zero (talk)17:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Publishing Article for Public Consumption
Hello,
I am writing an ongoing article about the visual Artist Steph Gorkii, I am wondering how I "Publish" or otherwise make the article available for viewing via your search engine / google.
Please inform me of the steps I need to take in order to do this.
Okay...SOooooo I'm trying to understand the point of a crowdsourcing encyclopedia if it is impossible to add articles to it...everyone has to get started somewhere! i've successfully edited existing articles, and the article I am writing is about one of the greatest American Artists of the 2oth and 21st century, who was famous before his life ended up on the rocks. I have cited numerous sources - including webpages and books. Uploaded images from originals sources that have been sent to me in support of this project. and have been working on this article for months.
There is some contention over this man's Intellectual estate, so I have been hoping that Wikipedia was the best way to get his story out there while allowing those who knew him to edit the articles while they are still alive.
I am willing to jump through however many hoops are necessary to meet Wikipedia's requirements, and however long it takes. I am a young guy and this project will likely be something I am pursuing the rest of my life.
The problem is that wikipedia's "Requirements" heretofore have been almost completely opaque...at least to me.
I hope that Wikipedia will be open to this. I also am a bit of a scholar and have access to original documents on obscure and esoteric subjects, that I would like to contribute to the collective consciousness. but if since I am "new" and there is no route to get any of that information, available no where else out there. then I guess I will find a workaround, of which there are always ---
And by "original sources" I am talking about books about Benjamin franklin that were writtten while he was alive...and are on paper. So even the images scanned / photographed would be original. As well as numerous items in my own collection. I believe Human kind deserves a lot better, and I don't know a better way to disseminate information other than this platform -
Further, KodyBosch, your remark that "I have been hoping that Wikipedia was the best way to get his story out there while allowing those who knew him to edit the articles while they are still alive" is somewhat worrying. Getting his story out: If you're talking about providing easier access to facts already published in printed materials that aren't available in many libraries, OK; but if you're contemplating a dependence on letters and the like, no. Those who knew him: People who knew the subject of an article may at least use the talk page of an article to suggest edits to that article; but their suggestions must derive from "reliable sources", not from personal recollections, and they need to digest and edit in accordance with the "Plain and simple conflict of interest guide". -- Hoary (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
References
Hello, anybody hanging around who can take a look at Temple of Apollo Patroos? The first reference, more specifically the plato-dialogues.org/tools/agora, URL accessed on June 3, 2008. IMO, a proper "cite web template" would be an improvement to the page. I would make use of the Refill tool, but as that tool automatically changes the accessdate, I was wondering if it is still a consensus the original accessdate is not that important (as it remains in the article history). Also, since it dates back from 2008, the link might be dead and the tool would not change anything. Thank you so much for your time. Lotje (talk) 05:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lotje. Generally, you should be OK improving citations per WP:CS#Generally considered helpful, but you should be aware that some people do consider switching from a non-template to template format to be contrary to WP:CITEVAR. So, if that's basically what you're thinking about doing and the article as a whole doesn't use citation templates, then you might want to suggest the change on the article's talk page first. If, on the other hand, most of the citations use templates, then tweaking those that don't to use templates should be OK. If reverted, don't argue but instead try to resolve things through article talk page discussion just like you would in the case of a content dispute. FWIW, as long as the WP:CITESTYLE is consistent throughout the article, then whether a template is used shouldn't matter. Non-template citations can be formatted to give the same appearance as a citations that use templates. As for the access-dates, my understanding is that the "access-date" represents the date was last accessed and verified to still be working and suporting the relevant content per WP:ACCESSDATE; so, that date doesn't necessarily need to remain the date the citation was added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Refill automatically changes the accessdate that is yet another reason for it to not use it. The tool cannot know that the online source still supports the text in our articles so should not make it appear that on the new access date the source still supports our article. Every aspect of every edit made by refill must be closely examined before editors driving the tool publish the edit. Alas, far too many editors blithely publish without validating the tool's edits and that is detrimental to the quality of our articles and causes no end of work for those of us who follow behind cleaning up the mess.
@Lotje: If you verify that a source supports whatever it's supposed support, you probably don't need to worry too much about the change in access-dates. You should, however, try to verify the source and not just simply change the date. If the source doesn't verify what it's supposed to be verifying or can't be accessed, then there are two possibilities why that might be the case. The first one is that the source never supported what it was being claimed to support. If that's the case, then encyclopedic value of the source should be reassessed and it either be removed altogether (if completely unrelated to the subject matter) or left as is tagged with an inline cleanup template {{Better source needed}} (if somewhat related but not clear). If the source is removed altogether, you either should try to find a replacement or add a template like {{citation needed}} for others to see. The other possibility was that the source actually was "good" when originally added, but over time it either got over written or just otherwise became inaccessible. It that case the source still has value and shouldn't simply just be removed leaving the content unsourced. As explained above by Trappist the monk, there are ways to work around this by either finding an archived version of the source that does support the relevant content, finding a replacement for the source that does the same thing, or by using a template {{deadlink}} to let others know about the problem. Since I don't use tools or scripts like "Refill", I don't know all of their ins and outs. I get that using such things can help save time and effort, but you have to remember that any "problems" their use causes are, for the most part, going to be attributed to those who use them. So, it's probably a good idea (as Trappist the monk suggests above) to go back and make sure the edits you made are OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly:, would you be so kind as to take a look at this? I guess, the title a user would fill in would be Find bioprotection products for your crop, which could imo be considered as blatant advertising. Imho, Refill did a wonderful job here by adding neutral information. Cheers Lotje (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
en.wiki does not care what a subject says or wants said about itself. The subject's website can never be a reliable source. Setting those things aside, I don't think that your example citation is all that great. The title that a reader sees is "Find bioprotection products for your crop" so that is the title that {{cite web}} should have. |website= should be the name of the website from the site's logo/banner area so, in this case, should be |website=CABI BioProtection Portal. As I understand it, Refill auto-fills |access-date= with the current date. It should not do that because |access-date= is the date that an editor (not some brain-dead tool) has determined that the source supports the wikitext of our article. Refill has no ability to make that determination so should never auto-fill |access-date=.
Imho, Refill did a wonderful job here by adding neutral information. Not really. Refill simply copied the content from the source:
<title>BioProtection Portal - biocontrol and biopesticide products</title>
Don't give the tool more credit than it deserves.
If you decide to keep that citation, perhaps you should mark it with {{better source needed}}.
@Tstanford1987, those are non-free images hosted locally on English Wikipedia - they are not on Commons because they do not meets its requirements. If and only if they meet Spanish Wikipedia's requirements for use of non-free images, you can upload them to Spanish Wikipedia. You will need to ask there about their rules and processes. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Published Page shows my UserPage Name, NOT the title of the Article
I logged in successfully, though for the first time in many years. I posted a new article but the published page shows my UserPage Name-- User:Scholar1000 and NOT the Title of the Article-- Steve Farrell. After reading directions I could not find a MOVE option to get the Title Right, perhaps because I am not auto-confirmed? How do I get this page posted/ moved with the right title? which should be Steve Farrell. I tried submitting at MoveRequests but that did not "take" either. You will see this article on Wikipedia at User:Scholar1000 whereas the title of the pages should be Steve Farrell. Please advise Scholar1000 (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest you start by reading Help:Your first article. As it stands, moving the page to article space will almost certainly result in it being moved back as a draft clearly not in compliance with requirements to demonstrate notability through significant coverage in sources independent of the subject himself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm an elderly retired economics professor who does know of the subjects important work in conscious business, so I did volunteer to process his data, at a recent online public conference (Conscious Business Institute) -- I don't think that's a conflict of interest but I DO agree that if one was going to post this successfully the information provided needs to have significant references from sources other than those directly connected to him. Scholar1000 (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We could debate whether you have a conflict of interest, but I believe most experienced Wikipedians would probably say that you do. However, that will not matter if you're unable to establish how the subject is Wikipedia notable. Maybe take a look at Wikipedia:Notability and perhaps even WP:NOBLE for some general information on Wikipedia notability. Then, if you still feel like the subject is Wikipedia notable, I suggest you use Wikipedia:Articles for creation to try and create such an article. Once you've created a "draft", you can copy-and-paste what you've already done onto the draft's page and then continue working on things there. When you think the draft is ready for article status, you can click the "Submit" button at the top of the draft and someone will review and assess it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a copyright violation, plagiarism, or neither?
Hello, Fred Zepelin. Works created by employees of the U.S. federal government are in the public domain, so there are no copyright issues in this case. There may be plagiarism issues if the content is not properly attributed. Cullen328 (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi Fred Zepelin. Doing such a thing is typically not allowed and is considered a copyright violation per Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Under US copyright law, however, content created by US federal government employees as part of their official duties is considered to be within the public domain. Since the website you've linked to above appears to be an official US Air Force website, the original content (text and images) on it is probably not protected by copyright (unless it specifically states otherwise, e.g. third-party content the website is hosting). So, even though the original text content of that website might be in the public domain, it still needs to be properly attributed per Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources and WP:Plagiarism if used verbatim in Wikipedia for it to not be considered inappropriate. Another problem is that such content wasn't originally written for Wikipedia; so, regardless of its copyright status, it's overall tone or style might not be in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Generally, it's better take text content found in sources and summarize it in one's own words for Wikipedia's purposes. If you feel you can do that while still reflecting the source and the context it's being used, then feel free to do so. Just leave an clear edit summary explaining what you did and why. Finally, the images are probably OK from a copyright standpoint, but the way they're being displayed in the article may need to be reassessed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm understanding from this is that it is not a copyright violation, but it IS plagiarism, as the content was about 99% copied word-for-word from the 40 individual squadron pages on the US military's website, and not attributed as such. Should I remove it? Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Fred Zepelin, throwing hats into the air upon graduation surely isn't typical of cadet status, which I suspect has a lot more of sitting behind a table as someone older talks. Perhaps choose something from Category:United States Air Force Academy that is more representative of the United States Air Force Academy Cadet Wing than is the "Guys (no women) shouting as they threw their hats into the air twenty years ago" photo? -- Hoary (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]Yes. And its overall tone or style is not in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This Wikipedia article reads like advertising bumf. Unsheathe your editorial machete and hack away at the thing. -- Hoary (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can provide attribution and from a copyright standpoint that should be enough to avoid the need for revision deletions. However, using the content as is might not be the best thing to do from an encyclopedic standpoint. So, if you rewrite it, you can just cite the the website as the source for the content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fred Zepelin: No, you should not remove it. We must preemptively remove stuff immediately only if it is a copyvio, which this is not. Instead, you should immediately attribute it, to remedy the plagiarism. As a completely separate issue, you (or someone) should begin improving it to make it more encyclopedic. The differences here (in order of time-critical importance): copyvio: immediately remove to comply with the law. Plagiarism: Attribute to meet our ethical obligations. Copyedit: bring the material up to our editorial standards. -Arch dude (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Hoary here - the text that was copied was 99% about the squadron's patches and not about the squadrons themselves. I don't think it serves any useful purpose on Wikipedia. All of it is available on the military's website anyway. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pubbaseliya
I was trying to find some information about an obscure early Buddhist school called the Pubbaseliya. Wikipedia not unsurpringly suggested it was merely mentioned in the article on Early Buddhist schools and gave me a preview of the passage in which the word supposedly occurs. CTRL+F failed to find that word in the article, or in older versions of the article. Copying all the text into a text editor and searching for it there also failed to find it. It's not very important as I'm sure I can find information elsewhere, but why is the preview showing text that seemingly doesn't appear in the article? Shantavira|feed me09:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Im relatively new here and I just completed my 1st article by following the wikipedia guidelines and also completed the 10 edits. However, I discovered my 1st article was deleted. Could you please shed more ligths on this.
@Wljy: If this is about User:Wljy/sandbox, that was deleted under speedy deletion criterion U5, which states that you were using Wikipedia as a webhost, which is not allowed. It was also nominated for speedy deletion under criterion G11, which means that the nominating editor thought it was blatantly promotional and not worth salvaging without starting from scratch; however, that was not included in the deletion reason.
I can view your deleted draft; Wikipedia is not a place to tell about someone and their accomplishments. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic and what makes it important/significant/influential as a notable person. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No direct link. I'm newly introduced to how wikipedia works and decided to try my hands on it.
Im a freelance researcher and opinion writer on online media. See attached
You claimed the professionaly taken images of Mr. Olayinka as your own work, so either you have a connection with him or you improperly used the images. Which is it? 331dot (talk) 11:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you are associated with him. You must read WP:COI and WP:PAID.
As I said, you claimed the images as your own personal work. If you did not take the images, you can't do that. Mr. Olayinka can't necessarily grant permission to use his image, as copyright is typically held by the photographer, not the subject of the image. At least one of the images is watermarked with the photography agency that took them. If his contract with the photographer assigns him the copyright, he must be the one to upload the image, or at least you must demonstrate that the image is made available with a copyright compatible with Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My article is a well-researched biography and a summary of referenced independent reliable sources. I have studied the pattern of few other biographies and I have edited some as well. The individual im writing a notable person. Wljy (talk). 11:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody who can write "His belief in peaceful co-existence is unparalleled" in a proposed Wikipedia biography is in any way qualified to tell more experienced contributors what is or isn't 'notable'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have not formatted your citations correctly (which is understandable as a newcomer) but as a professional journalist you must realise that this source is the worst sort of "puff piece" that cannot possibly be used as the basis for an encyclopaedic entry. It is full of the sort of language that Wikipedia calls WP:PEACOCK writing and is to be avoided. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thing that you're probably missing, Wljy, is that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.
The other thing I would say is that making 10 edits and being here for 4 days (i.e. having autoconfirmed status) means that you have the technical ability to create an article directly. It does not say that you have the knowledge of Wikipedia necessary to create an article that stays. I always advise new editors to spend a few months making improvements to existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works, before they even try the challenging task of creating a new Wikipedia article. I would also advise anybody who hasn't already got a track record of successfully creating articles here to go through the AFC process rather than try and create new articles directly. --ColinFine (talk) 11:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a mentorship scheme which as a new editor you should be able to access at Special:homepage. You may need to set that up in your preferences. However, for most questions of a general nature, you would be better off continuing to ask here at the Help Desk or at the WP:TEAHOUSE as there are a larger number of experienced people watching these and you may get a quicker response. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Coat-racking in on the conversation) Thanks for this discussion. They answered a lot of questions I posed over at BLP Noticeboard: Terry Waldo but received no replies. Taking in the above advice, it would seem that the article I am presently debating on heavily revising (scrubbing) may fall into this category. Thanks all. Maineartists (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Handling possible plagarism
Whilst doing some linting fixes, I came across Backpressure routing. During reading the article, something didn't feel right about the tone. So, I followed the docs and ran it through the Copyvio Detector, which returned a 92.6% similarity.
The docs say to contact the author of the article, but they don't appear to be active on Wikipedia anymore. I've also looked at removing the text, but it's a technical subject I'm not familar and I'm not comfortable editing the article. What's the best way to proceed? LicenceToCrenellate (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, why does this help desk have a short desc of "Process to make one's wishes come true" when that text is nowhere to be found on this page? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you get no response and if you have tested you new code sufficiently to prove that it works as it should, be bold.
It doesn't. The short description is "Community page for questions and assistance relating to Wikipedia". Where are you seeing that string? ColinFine (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Lisa Skurow. My grandfather with last name Skurow lived in Mariupol - at that time around 1910's was Russia - left Mariupol and ultimately came to the USA - Baltimore, Maryland. He was sponsored by Skurow's in Baltimore and Cincinnati.
My daughter, Abby Skurow is having a Bat Mitzvah October 14, 2023 in Las Vegas, Nevada. How can I found out information about Skurow, Poland a small village outside Warsaw to determine if it is part of her heritage. 68.104.5.254 (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a help page for questions about editing and using Wikipedia, not for general knowledge.
In my recent translation of Hanna (Russian singer), one or two of the tables turned out to be wonky once I published it. I tried to understand what went wrong, but I can't seem to find a solution to it. Is this the right forum to ask for help fixing it? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Losipov (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a perfectly okay forum, be bold, someone will let you know if it isn't .
@Losipov It is perfectly OK to use foreign-language sources in such an article, particularly if no equivalent English source exists, but it would really help readers if you added the parameter |trans-title to give the English version of the title of the major citations. There are also parameters |quote and |trans-quote which work with some citation templates and can be useful. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Losipov, there was a template error at the bottom of "Singles" section. If a section is divided in columns, there needs to be an ending template or all of the other sections that follow will appear in columns also. I added end to the template and article sections are no longer messed up. Cmr08 (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An unpublished article that appears in Research Gate (and another database called Lexis in the original Italian), presents a new solution to the Metabasis paradox. I'm not the author of the article in Research Gate, so I cannot even take credit for the new solution although I produced it independently 5 years after the author. Is it allowed to add this theory to Metabasis paradox or would the article have to be published? It would at least be useful to readers to know about it. Could it be placed with a note saying it's unpublished? Best wishes, cdg1072 Cdg1072 (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cdg1072 I would assume that anything available in ResearchGate is "published" in the sense that it is now available on the web: and can be cited as such. Whether the article is reliable in the Wikipedia sense is a different question: that article is presumably not peer-reviewed. However, we sometimes use {{Cite arXiv}}, which has similar issues. While secondary sources are preferred, Wikipedia does allow primary sources in some circumstances (see WP:PRIMARY.) Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. The author, who last worked in Lausanne, Switzerland, has also not been contacted so she wouldn't know that her unpublished idea was being described. But her piece has now sat unpublished for nearly 10 years. It is as though she had no intention of ever publishing it, and given its very high quality, it is surprising if it was never peer-reviewed. The author states the theory as well, or nearly as well, as I could. Cdg1072 (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do I need to work with a 3rd party to create a Wikipedia page for my company?
I am working with a company who claims that they can help me navigate the process of creating a wikipedia page for my company. Now they are claiming that I will have to pay extra to another 3rd party company in order to accomplish "Wiki-Linking" on our listing. It is sounding like a scam? Should I be able to create a wikipedia listing myself and accomplish linking? Thanks! Gutterbrush (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gutterbrush Be advised that Wikipedia does not have "pages for companies" but articles about companies. Those articles must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company says about itself, only in what others say about it. If you pay someone to edit about your company, it is no different than you doing so, the editor must comply with the paid editing policy, a Terms of Use requirement. Do not hand over one penny to this company; what you described is a scam. My advice, instead of working to get a Wikipedia article, just go on about the business of your company and allow an article to organically develop and be written by independent editors who take note of coverage of your company. Trying to force the issue does not usually work. There are good reasons to not want an article. 331dot (talk)
To be precise about "wiki-linking", from the context it sounds like paying to have someone insert links from other Wikipedia articles to the article on your company, in an attempt to make it appear more legitimate. Any editor has the technical capacity do this, but it could violate Wikipedia policies if the links were promotional, unnecessary or otherwise inappropriate. The company you're talking about couldn't prevent other editors from removing these links if they were perceived as inappropriate.
To be somewhat blunter than what's already been said, if you have to engage a paid editor to write an article about your company rather than wait for a volunteer to write about it on their own initiative, your company is extremely unlikely to merit a Wikipedia page. You are likely to overestimate how significant your company is. If you try to have an article written anyway, it will probably not be accepted.
@Joshua JonathanMOS:LEAD suggests that the lead section should be no more than about four paragraphs, as an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. In its present state, I don't see how you can spare any of the lead for the bulleted list that's currently there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone. I'm having a problem with the file "File:Logo Vinamilk (2023).png", can you help me fix the copyright so that the file can't be deleted? Please help me!. DANGGIAONo risk, no life. No malice, no fear07:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it copyrightable, Shantavira? It doesn't obviously reach the (US) threshold of originality; although I know even less (indeed, nothing) about Vietnamese IP law, and imaginably it's copyrightable there. -- Hoary (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shantavira I mean the downloader chose the wrong copyright and if it is wrong then hopefully someone knowledgeable can correct the copyright in the article. DANGGIAONo risk, no life. No malice, no fear09:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This file is of type typeface. And the typeface is completely copyright-free. You can view the source of that file, the owner does not hold the copyright. The file should not be deleted quickly because its owner does not claim any copyright and because it is a typeface and font file that is freely used. DANGGIAONo risk, no life. No malice, no fear09:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DANG GIAO: There's no point in making that argument here because the file wasn't uploaded to Wikipedia and whether it ends up deleted isn't going to be decided here on Wikipedia. You're going to need to make that argument in the Commons discussion linked to above (which you already seem to have done), but you're also going to need to remember that the copyright laws of each country aren't necessarily the same. In some cases, they can be quite different. So, just because this logo wouldn't be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law, it could possibly be eligible for copyright protection under Vietnamese copyright law, and that's likely going to be what determines whether Commons ends up keeping the file. Any information you can find out about Vietnamese copyright law (particularly from official government sources or court cases) that shows that simply fonts aren't eligible for copyright protection will make it much easier for a Commons administrator to close the discussion as "Keep". Commons tends to err on the side of caution as explained in c:COM:PCP and files are often deleted just to play it safe when their copyright status is unclear. Finally, even though Commons is a multi-lingual project and people often post comments in languages other than English, you're probably going find the Commons discussion will be easier for others to follow if you try to post in English. I'm not sure how many Commons administrators understand Vietnamese, but those that don't might decide to pass on trying to close the discussion. So, you might find the discussion will be closed more quickly if you and the other person who's commented so far try to use more English. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you add content to an article, you are essentially making a proposal, and others may choose to disagree: see WP:BOLD. However, if you feel that a particular addition would benefit by prior discussion, then make your proposal on the article's talk page before adding it to the article. If you are thinking about a new article instead of changes to an existing article, then create your article as a draft: see WP:YFA. The review process there acts to provide at least a first level of consensus in addition to its other functions. -Arch dude (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A couple days ago I WP:SPLIT content for Hardcore History out of Dan Carlin. Afterward I randomly decided to run a quick copyvio detector and found that there is a 74% match with Dan Carlin's website, a 66% match with Apple Podcasts, and a 47% match with Google Podcasts. It appears that editors have been copying and pasting episode descriptions directly from the website or the syndicating platforms that host the podcast. Descriptions have been copied and pasted into the episode table as far back as November 2008 (The same editor added the first 24 episodes by November 21, 2008). Another editor added more episodes and their descriptions in 2010, in 2011, and again in 2013. Episodes and their copy-pasted descriptions have also been added by various IP editors over the years.
I know that generally when content is copied and pasted it's considered a copyright violation and the edit history ends up being redacted. However, I've never come across a copyright violation that goes back 5 years and now exists across multiple articles because I split it into another article. Should 5 years of edit history be redacted across both articles? Is there a better way to handle this? Is it not a big deal because it's just the episode descriptions? Any assistance would be appreciated. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilinks causing unwanted Series Infoboxes to appear
Hello, I just added mention of Plato and a few articles related to him to the main philosophy article. This auto-populated the page with two identical infoboxes claiming that the article is now part of a series on Platonism. How do I get rid of these? In no way do they belong on this page.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The OP has been indefinitely blocked so there's really no point in keeping this discussion going. Any further advice can be given to the OP on their user talk page, but it's probably best that they focus on getting unblocked first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your administrators are power tripping. Removing content without good reason. I expect no better assistance here. Surprise me. But this is my attempt at recourse before emailing Jimmy Wales. Already have contacted Larry Sanger. TrueFan2000 (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. I'm sure Mr. Wales still has abundant sway. Whether or not he would listen or do anything is another question entirely. TrueFan2000 (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That edit attempt was in response to that person deleting my user page without cause, and then not responding to my objection about it. And automated systems blocked the actual edit. Maybe instead of defending bad behavior, don't? I understand the concept of a boomerang. In some places it is called karma. And time does it's own work. TrueFan2000 (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that edit did go through. The edit that was blocked was on the Meta Wiki for the same user. If the user tends to be busy in real life, no problem, but don't destroy other peoples work, especially of a new user who barely knows how anything works. TrueFan2000 (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand being upset, but reacting like that isn't going to help. If you just left the message on the talk page, you probably would've gotten a response – they may not have watchlisted your user talk page, or they may not use the watchlist at all (I was that way for a while), and there's no other good way to know you got a response on your user talk page unless you ping them so they get a notification. A message on their talk page, on the other hand, leaves a notification automatically, without anything further having to be done.
As for the deletion itself? I don't know what the actual page looked like. Was it a similar list to your current user page (which I'd say is fine, as a list of useful links)? It was nominated for deletion as unambiguous advertising or promotion, before actually being deleted by an administrator under NOTWEBHOST, which states not to use Wikipedia as a web host. You could always go to the deleting administrator, Fastily, and ask them to restore the page or why it was deleted. I'd guess the main differences between your page and User:Jimbo Wales are that your page had little to no relevant information to Wikipedia itself, and any information that was relevant would have been unlabeled.
"User pages are mainly for interpersonal discussion, notices, testing and drafts (see: Sandboxes), and, if desired, limited autobiographical and personal content." This is the definition from Wikipedia:User pages on what user pages should be used for. Jimbo's page satisfies this (limited autobiographical/personal content, some thoughts on how Wikipedia works (generally also allowed, I'd say meta-commentary on Wikipedia is also fine), along with a notice that anyone (autoconfirmed) can edit his user page, and info for contacting him under interpersonal discussion). Skarmory(talk •contribs)00:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Duchy of Lancaster or Royal Duchies
The Duchy of Lancaster is not in 'escheat' nor is it 'bona vacantia'. I am a rightful claimant to the Duchy of Lancaster. Charles Mountbatten is not the possessor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Duchy of Lancaster or Royal Duchies are 'free-hold' and belong to the descendants of the Kings that possessed them before Elizabeth II who was de facto Queen and not of the royal descent that had rights to the Duchies. I made my changes and they were removed. This is a legal matter, and it is not correct that Wikipedia has stated in their article the condition of the 'free-hold' state of this Duchy, then refused to understand the rightful possessors of the Duchy, which is not Charles Mountbatten or any of the Mountbatten's. There are living descendants of these Duchies who have expected the American governing body and the people such as Nicola Sturgeon who proclaimed Elizabeth II to be a World War II war criminal that they would follow through removing Elizabeth II from succession. Also, Elizabeth II and Philip did not receive permission for their marriage, therefore, since their was a hierarchical right to the 'Crown's of Great Britain' and the 'Crown of Scotland' married when Elizabeth II was two years old, Elizabeth II was required to get permission to marry from them, she did not. Her children are not legitimate. This is understood in the public, no one speaks about it. 75.134.148.28 (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have profiles here, not a single one- if you want to create a profile, that should be done on social media. This website is an encyclopedia composed of articles, with criteria for inclusion. For people that criteria is written at this link. Writing a new article is one of the most challenging tasks to perform here. If you are associated with the person, it's even harder due to the conflict of interest(please read if applicable). It is recommended that you first gain experience and knowledge about Wikipedia by first editing existing articles, so you get an idea of what is being looked for. If you create an account, you can use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. If you still want to dive right in to creating an article, please read Your First Article, and then visit Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to have the references a bit lower at the end of this page and closer to the margin... it currently all looks a bit odd. thank you in advance. 08:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure what that error is, but I'm confident it is a problem with the level of software way below anything to do with the content of the Wiki. i.e. it's not anything whatever to do with your edits. If you continue to get the problem, please try asking at WP:VPT. ColinFine (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Problems on Sound of Freedom (film)
1 - the article is protected (I can understand) the talk page is ALSO protected, this makes NO sense since it stops people from requesting edits and discussing new sources and proposing wording.
2 - content issues. Right now there are very good reliable sources such as [4] that are not reflected, and the section "Allegations of connections to the QAnon conspiracy theory" has been loaded with unclear WP:WEASEL wording and heavily relies on placing the claims of the producer/writer of the movie rather than reflecting the reliable source coverage such as [5].
Any advice that can be provided is helpful? I am still trying to read through all the talk page but there is a big look of people trying to push for their proposed promote-the-movie narrative rather than reflecting the reliable source coverage. Saikyoryu (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is unusual to protect a talk page, there must have been severe disruption there. I suggest that you contact the blocking admin about how you can offer proposed changes to the article. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea, Saikyoryu. But if I have to write something long and intricate and worry that it might be deleted for some/no reason before I complete it, I use a text editor (specifically, Geany) to write it, intermittently saving it to my hard drive, and only when I'm happy with it copy it to Wikipedia. If Wikipedia misbehaves in the meantime, I lose nothing. -- Hoary (talk) 11:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Saikyoryu Read WP:EDITXY, item 3, "You can edit semi-protected pages yourself after you have made at least ten edits and your account is at least four days old."
When you click "edit" you get a notice that the page is protected and the name of the editor who protected it. Contact them in their talk page with your concerns.
I was using the blue button under "Current requests for edits to a protected page" as I was told to do.
"When you click "edit" you get a notice that the page is protected and the name of the editor who protected it." I don't get this. There's no "edit" button on Talk:Sound of Freedom (film), just "view source" and that leads to a page that doesn't say who did the protection.
This is very frustrating. It seems like the answers people are providing in this "help" page either go to the wrong pages or are just wrong information. :( Saikyoryu (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Broken/rotted reference link now leads to (probable) scam(s): what to do about it?
I have come across an archived reference link where the old, “rotted”, link, is still there, and sometimes leads to probable scams. What should be done in this case? Should the out-of-date link be deleted (to help protect people from scams)?
@FrankSier: Great! You are now the expert, so please feel free to modify those two help pages if you feel that the next user may need further guidance.
Do you think it's likely that anybody here will be able to answer that question? What I can tell you is that it was inserted by Messirulez in May 2020. But as to why ... ? ColinFine (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. I have two questions. How do I make a new party color template and is there a way for me to have access to other party color templates? As in to see what the color codes for other political parties are etc. You were able to do both before (make new party colors and see what the color codes are for the ones already made), but since the change to the templates, I don't know how. Bakir123 (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
July 17
Peeter Linnap - how to convert already done Wikipedia work (article) into English ?
Hello !
Peeter Linnap - how to convert already done work on my bio article from Estonian into English with minimum losses and minimum double work ?
Done, I fixed the reference error for you. Cmr08 (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
gmail.com for more ideas. Graham87 04:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
.jpeg)
.
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}