Jump to content

Wikipedia:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Darwinbish (talk | contribs) at 13:53, 6 January 2024 (→‎Can a person legally hold two wikipedia accounts in his name?: not wise). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    ↑ To top of page
    Shortcuts
    Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)
    Ask a question
    Skip to top
    Skip to bottom

    January 2

    Amelia Opie

    I have done reference 5 incorrectly I think - please check if you have the time. Thank you 175.38.42.62 (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I tinkered with it. Is it OK now? -- Hoary (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    {{cite DNB |last1=Gordon |first1=Alexander |wstitle=Bruckner,_John |volume=7}}
    Gordon, Alexander (1886). "Bruckner, John" . In Stephen, Leslie (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 7. London: Smith, Elder & Co.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, O Trappist monk. (My feeble excuse is that none of "my" articles has been about a Brit of the kind who'd appear in the DNB.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    175.38.42.62, I'll leave it to you to copy 'n' paste the monk's neat solution. -- Hoary (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    how to delate new edition

    By mistake I edited a page. How to delate my edited content Vishnumayachathan (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Vishnumayachathan, it seems the problem has been taken care of:[1][2]. WP:TUTORIAL may be of help to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:OR

    If the source says "the besiegers lost nearly two hundred men every day..", can we calculate the total casualties of the military conflict by multiplying it with the number of days? Wouldn't it be considered as WP:OR? Imperial[AFCND] 13:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @ImperialAficionado: Hello! I think it would be original research, if the source doesn't explicitly state the total number of casualties and you reach this conclusion yourself. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I made this edit on the Siege of Chittorgarh twice and it was reverted. I am afraid that I may get a warning if I remove that again. Could you make a comment on the talk section I started at its talk page? It helps. Imperial[AFCND] 13:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In many contexts this would fall under WP:CALC, but I'm not sure the "casualties" figure in an infobox is an appropriate context for that. I can't access the source, but from the quote provided, the figure should make it clearer that it is an approximation. If the source's source claims "nearly 200 each day", I don't think it's appropriate to say "about 25,000", when what is meant is "certainly less than 25,000, but it's not clear how many less". Folly Mox (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gog the Mild, could you help? I can provide the reference used. See page number 21. But I couldn't find the number of days that the conflict lasted as the reference haven't provided the date which the siege got started. Imperial[AFCND] 14:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO WP:CALC is as applicable to casualties as it is to anything else. Off hand I would go with something like "Up to 25,000" or "Fewer than 25,000" in the infobox. While that is just my personal view I suppose I have enough background in this sort of thing to have a more informed than average opinion. Assuming that the way it is phrased in the source is considered RS, which doesn't seem to be at issue here, then if this were to turn up at FAC I wouldn't bat an eyelid at that sort of statement in the infobox, either as a reviewer or as a closing coordinator. Does this help? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Thank you. Imperial[AFCND] 16:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ImperialAficionado:or add a footnote by using {{efn}} to explain that the source actually said 200 per day. -Arch dude (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for Assistance in Redirecting Article

    I want to write an article about a Japanese music band called "Tuyu", but when attempting to create it, I found that the article "Tuyu" redirects to the "Tuyu Township" article, which is about a town in China. I would like to create an article specifically about the music band Tuyu. Is it possible to redirect the current article from the town to the music band's article? Alvin Valeryan (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Alvin Valeryan: No. You should create a draft article named "Tuyu (band)". If the article is accepted it will be under that name, and we will decide how to "disambiguate" the two articles, e.g. by turning "Tuyu" into a disambiguation page. But first, read WP:YFA to see how to create your article. -Arch dude (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft Question

    What is the process of creating a draft in English Wikipedia? I have previously contributed articles to the Indonesian Wikipedia for an extended period, and the concept of "Draft Creation" was not present. Is it a requirement to make a draft before initiating the article creation process on English Wikipedia? Alvin Valeryan (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The best way to create a draft is the Article Wizard. IP users and accounts less than four days old with less than 10 edits must use it, but it is otherwise a voluntary process. It's a good idea if you lack experience in article creation, though, and users with a conflict of interest should use it. 331dot (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alvin Valeryan: "Draft" is a friendlier process. You get supportive feedback and lots of chances to retry. A user who just creates an article in mainspace is presumed to know all the main rules and the article will be reviewed more critically, with the possibility of being nominated for deletion. -Arch dude (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MOVED
    OP (Deltaspace42) moved the continuation of the off-topic discussion to Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion 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.

    Subcategorization: Category:Historians -> Category:Biographers -> Category:Autobiographers

    While doing some stubsorting, I encountered a curious paradox. From WP:SUBCAT: If logical membership of one category implies logical membership of a second (an is-a relationship), then the first category should be made a subcategory (directly or indirectly) of the second. When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the subcategory really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent also. So autobiographers is a subcategory of biographers (they write biographies), and biographers is a subcategory of historians (which is logical, since they deal with a history of other people), then autobiographers is a subcategory of historians - and this is where it falls apart, since almost all autobiographers do not study history, they just write a biography about themselves.

    If this were to be changed, then all categories like autobiographers by nationality, by century etc. needs to be recategorized, so it would be a major change across many categories which I don't want to do without discussing it first. And I don't feel like nominating them to CfD since I think it is for deleting, merging and all that stuff and here it is just about changing the parent category.

    So, should autobiographers not be considered a subcategory of biographers? What do you think? Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the best place to discuss this would be Talk:Categorization. Personally I don't agree that a biographer is necessarily a historian, but I'm not going to contribute further to this debate. ColinFine (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ColinFine: I am afraid that if I post my observation there, no one will stumble across it. And I don't know who to ping and invite there to discuss. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ColinFine: Oooh, I think you meant Wikipedia_talk:Categorization, because Talk:Categorization is about the article Categorization, no wonder why it's so empty there on the talk page. I'll check it out. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Following chains of logic through the category structure will always result in contradictions. Folly Mox (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it seems to me that the weak link in this particular chain is not "autobiography is a subcat of biography" (which is true even at the lexical level), but "biography is a subcat of history". If a change were to be made here, the one I'd support would be reparenting Category:Biographers. Folly Mox (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Folly Mox: Woah, I didn't know that there were that many category cycles out there. Will keep in mind when I have nothing to do. Anyway, I think this case is particularly special, because there is no obvious mistake in categorization when you look at individual categories, but when you look at two levels at once, then autobiographers become historians.
    I would think that, from purely logical perspective, while autobiographies should be considered a subset of the biographies, autobiographers might not necessarily be a subset of biographers because all autobiographers need is a good memory of their life and biographers need to work with documents and other stuff to reconstruct the life of other people, and this is pretty much what historians do. On the other hand, it seems counterintuitive to just exclude autobiographers from biographers. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Deltaspace42, I understand and agree with your point about biography and autobiography being pretty different skillsets for an author. Also, the category cycles (or category loops, for the search function next time I forget the technical term) probably aren't as bad as the linked bot report shows: it hasn't been run in a few years, and a lot of the larger cycles will have been broken by category deletion and reparenting. Folly Mox (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is more a content question that is more fitting to be placed in category-related pages like Wikipedia talk:Categorization or WikiProject Categories. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thinker78: Hello! Yeah, I missed that there is a whole WikiProject dedicated to the categories, I'll take a look, thanks! Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 4 January 2024 (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.

    Random Unicode snowmen in my edit

    I recently made this edit to the Koala page. As you can see, I replaced a template with Unicode snowmen. But I did not actually do this, and I spent 5 minutes digging through the article’s history trying to find who had replaced the koala’s body length and weight with Unicode snowmen before finally seeing it was me.

    Can anyone explain this? I absolutely did NOT do this myself. The only thing I did was the other part of the edit, the bit about whether it’s correct to say ‘koala bear’. The edit in question was done on an iPhone, on Safari. Zanahary (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Zanahary: Hello! Did you preview the changes (diff) before publishing? Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Deltaspace42! No I didn’t, I just directly published (from the mobile visual editor, by the way, not the source). Zanahary (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zanahary: Then it was probably just a browser glitch. I think it would be a good idea in the future to check the diff before publishing to make sure that your Safari doesn't replace something with snowmen. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deltaspace42 What kind of world am I living in where my Safari has a tendency to randomly replace text on Wikipedia with snowmen? Zanahary (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An arctic world? Anyway, if it is (or just might be) a Safari problem, Zanahary, then how about trying with a different browser? I haven't used either for editing Wikipedia, but for other purposes Firefox Focus and Ghostery are fine browsers on my Android thingie, and there are probably others besides. -- Hoary (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hoary I am much less concerned with preventing this from happening again (I’ll just preview) and much more with discerning how something this weird could happen. I remember seeing an extended-protected edit request asking that some snowmen be removed from another article. What da hell? Zanahary (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm familiar with this problem, but I'm just as baffled as you are. It often shows up in the emoji edit filter. Recent example, Example from four years ago. I'm not sure using a different browser will help; AFAIK all browsers on iOS are more or less re-skinned Safari. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's on and off visual editor bug. See all the phab results for "snowman": https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/search/query/piVHGUAji7x3/#R. Probably should be reported to phab (especially if a reproducer can be found). Galobtter (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    January 3

    Draft: Uman

    Hi my article was rejected for notability issues yet I have articles citations from the New York Times, Paris Review, The New Yorker, Brooklyn Rail, as well as this adria work is listed is Mutual Art, Artsty,

    and are represented by a blue chip (Gagosian, Zwirner institution that represent high value notable artist) gallery; Hauser and Wirth which have their own Wikipedia page as well as other artist on their page. They are also notable because they would be one of the only artist from Somalia that is recognized in the greater western artworks which is very difficult in of itself. Nabil vega (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Courtesy link: Draft: Uman Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't rejected, Nabil vega, it was declined. There's a difference. Here's a sample (with my emphasis): Uman, a Somali-born artist, gained notability for her unique and original approach to art, blending cross-cultural, art historical, and textile-based references in her paintings, sculptures, and assemblage works. Originality and uniqueness call for reliable sources. One source is provided: a page for a gallery (not in the sense of "art museum", but in the sense of "art dealer") that has a financial interest in adding to the appeal of Uman's work in order to increase the chances of sales. -- Hoary (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nabil vega: Please discuss this on the draft article's talk page. Please first read WP:CSMN, and point out to the reviewers a very short list (two or three) of the references that best establish notability by our definition. -Arch dude (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi I just removed the links provided by the art galleries she is represeneted by and put independent art institutions. Also added that she is having her first solo show in a museum Aldrich Contemporary Art Museum 2024. Nabil vega (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Referencing errors on List of Malayalam films of 2024

    Reference help requested. reFill or reFill2 feature is NOT working. Is there any other tool to fix CS1 errors or any option to enable some auto-fix feature for the page? Thanks,
    Anish Viswa 04:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Anishviswa: Hi there! reFill 2 worked for me in this edit, although I'll go back and tweak the results. GoingBatty (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    YouTube Channel Link Not Working in Infobox, glitch?

    I am trying to put in an infobox over at Draft:Kane Pixels, and for some reason every time I try to put in the Channel Link Name as "Kane Pixels" it loads it as 'Pixels Kane Pixels" instead of how I typed it. Also, trying to put in the YouTube channel link following the instructions on the infobox is not working either. I checked other functioning infoboxes from other YouTubers (DanTDM, Jacksepticeye, and PewDiePie) and could not figure out what I was doing wrong. I will do my best to provide more information if necessary. I would greatly appreciate any help on this, thanks! Not0nshoree (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed. @Not0nshoree: |channel_name=, |channel_url= and |channel_direct_url= are URL-holding parameters, they respectively construct the URL's the following way: https://www.youtube.com/user/channel_name (expects a username, this URL format is afaik legacy), https://www.youtube.com/channel/channel_url (ecpects a channel ID) and https://www.youtube.com/channel_direct_url (can use any of the above formats, plus the c/name format, and the @name format). All three of them break when containing spaces. The link text can be altered with |channel_display_name= if nessesary. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Marking a page as needing a gender rewrite

    Is there a procedure (ideally, a template) to mark a page as needing a rewrite to correct pronouns and names throughout the article? See Talk:Daniel Küblböck. Anonymous-232 (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Offhand, Anonymous-232, I don't know. I took up your suggestion of seeing Talk:Daniel Küblböck. There doesn't seem to be agreement there on which pronoun(s) to use, so "a rewrite to correct pronouns and names" would seem presumptuous. Get agreement first. (For this purpose, you might try launching a "request for comment".) -- Hoary (talk) 07:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the last discussion on the subject's Talk page was pretty clear "If someone can come back with cast-iron sourced evidence that the individual definitively transitioned and was known by the new name". Do you have this evidence Anonymous ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anonymous-232: To answer your general question, one could use something like {{copy edit|reason=correcting pronouns and names throughout the article per talk page discussion}}. However, getting agreement first on the talk page is important. GoingBatty (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    LOC MARC?

    The Comparison of country codes lists one as the "LOC MARC code". But is "LOC MARC code" an established term? Is it appropriate? Wouldn't maybe just "MARC code" be better in the table? --KnightMove (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    MARC is a catalogue system used by libraries. LOC is the Library of Congress. "LOC MARC code" means the country code used by the Library of Congress in their MARC system. I don't know the field. Do all MARC implementations have country codes, and use the same codes? If not then "LOC" is necessary. It varies which countries are recognized by eachother, and new countries are sometimes created. I wouldn't be surprised if some MARC implementations reflect this. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The last page of this introduction may assist. Country codes are used within MARC to record:
    • 008/15-17 Fixed-Length Data Elements / Place of publication, production, or execution
    • 044 Country of Producer Code
    • 535 Location of Originals/Duplicates Note / Repository location code
    • 775 Other Edition Entry / Country code
    • 851 Location / Repository location cod
    • 852 Country code
    Furthermore: "The Library of Congress is the maintenance agency for this list" (second to last paragraph), perhaps this is why "LOC MARC" was used. The LOC may have started MARC, but it is now international in scope; from MARC standards we see "Currently MARC 21 has been implemented successfully by The British Library, the European Institutions and the major library institutions in the United States, and Canada". The LOC uses the Library of Congress Classification scheme for its holdings, but these then map onto MARC for international collaboration in the same way the British Library (which uses a mixture of LCC and FAST) and Dewey do. MARC is for data interchange, not a classification system in itself. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't access my Wikipedia account

    hi, my name is Mohammad Javad Sargazi wiht artist name Alenso, i can't access to my account I'm living in iran i received error ip or i don't know i cant access to ny account maybe i foreget my mail or password i can't recive link for resert password idont no exacly what is problem, my username is Alenso, please help me thanks 5.125.123.156 (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    you'll have to create a new account. ltbdl (talk) 13:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks 91.236.230.91 (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You will want to identify your new account as a successor to your old account, saying something on your user page like "I am User5678, I was User1234 but lost access". 331dot (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you had no surviving edits for User:Alenso, I don't think it matters very much whether you link your new user account to it or not. I note that the user page User:Alenso was deleted in August 2022 for reason "U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host". That fact, together with the fact that above you refer to Alenso as "artist name" as well as username, makes me wonder if you have made the same mistake as many other artists, and thought that Wikipedia was a place to promote yourself.
    My apologies if I have jumped to a wrong conclusion; but if that was your idea, please read NOTPROMO, AUTOBIO and NARTIST. ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    editing a page

    Hi, I am trying to edit a page; the page for Arnold Krupat, which I am editing at his request. The edits seem to publish ok. Then I close out and then reopen the page just to check, and the edits are there. But, after a minute or two, when I double-check, the page reverts to the original. Could you please help? Thank you. Vmk61 (talk) Vmk61 (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Vmk61: Hello! Other editors revert your edits and they explain in the summary why they do it. Perhaps, you didn't look at the history of the article. You should. And, yeah, also look at your user talk page, as Drmies noted. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vmk61: If you are editing on behalf of the subject, you really shouldn't be directly editing the article as you have a conflict of interest. You should be submitting edit requests over at Talk:Arnold Krupat. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Page counts for container categories

    On the top right of the Category:Orphaned articles page, there's a total count of how many pages are in the monthly subcategories. Would it be possible to show the total on other maintenance/container categories pages that have different subcategories, such as Category:WikiProject templates with unknown parameters? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @GoingBatty: The table with the counts is made by {{Parent monthly clean-up category}} which calls {{Orphaned articles progress}} which calls {{Progress box}} which uses Module:Progress box which has a loop cycling through months to guess the names of the subcategories. Templates don't have access to the name of subcategories. They can test whether a given category name exists and how many members it has. That works for monthly categories with systematic names but not for the various WikiProject names in Category:WikiProject templates with unknown parameters. Something new would have to be coded with the WikiProject names stored in a wiki page which would have to be updated when categories are added or removed. It's a non-trivial task. I'm not doing it. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PrimeHunter: Thanks for the explanation. I was hoping that someone knew of something existing that could be used. I don't want anyone to do a huge amount of work just so I can enjoy see a total number going down as I work through the 400+ subcategories. GoingBatty (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GoingBatty: The number of subcategories may soon make it impossible anyway. If the total is displayed automatically in a wiki page then each subcategory has to be counted with {{PAGESINCATEGORY:}} which is considered an expensive parser function by MediaWiki. 500 are allowed per page. Category:WikiProject templates with unknown parameters currently has 488 subcategories. The category page uses 1 expensive parser function now so there would be room for 11 more subcategories, assuming everything is done without other expensive parser function calls. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    consejos populares of Cuba

    In several pages of Consejos populares of Cuba, the ward isn’t mentioned as one on the official website, but is on other sources. I believe that it’s likely they have changed them from over time, but there is no source that has said it. Just in Camajuaní, there is 4 of these, being Sagua la Chica, La Quinta, Vega de Palma, and Sabana. Should these “wards” be mentioned as former wards, or as disputed, or never a ward? Sources for them being a ward:Not said, but there is 13 wards in Camajuaní on the map instead of 9 on pg. 4, 5, seen on map, mentions Vega de Palma as a ward, mentions it having 13 wards, etc. While the official website for the municipality saids there’s 9 https://www.soycamajuani.gob.cu/es/nuestra-region/region-camajuani/sobre-nosotros. This is not only Camajuaní, with Dos Hermanas in Encrucijada not appearing or being mentioned as a ward on most sources, but is mentioned as one on the official website https://www.somosencrucijada.gob.cu/delegados/34-politica-y-gobierno/delegados/86-consejo-popular-dos-hermanas/amp. CubanoBoi (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I would recommend posting about this on the article's talk page, where there are likely to be people specifically informed about the topic to discuss changes with. Remsense留 23:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    January 4

    Martineau family

    Ref number 95 is in red - I have double checked - please fix, it is hard on my device to fix it myself. thanks 175.38.42.62 (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Fixed There was an extra "4" in "2024" in the parameters, and I've fixed it. In the future, you can check the article yourself and edit it so you can help improve Wikipedia too. Cheers and thanks for catching that ‍ Relativity 00:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrong picture on my information

    I just looked at my information on Wikipedia and I noticed that you are using the wrong picture of me. 96.230.2.174 (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    We have around one million biographies of living people. Please link the Wikipedia page with the problem, and check that the problem really is on the Wikipedia page. Many similar reports turn out to be about a problem on a Google search results page where Google added a wrong picture which was not taken from Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which article are we talking about? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Give back my post, which was taken away by filter.

    I wrote and contributed my first Wikipedi article, but the filter saw it as a round-up of other people's articles. I did cite other people's articles, but I never copied them in their entirety. I spent a long time working on the text of that post.I do not have a copy of the text of that post of mine.　 Please return my article. 比良奥山 (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @比良奥山: This is the only edit by your account at the English Wikipedia, and it has no filter hits here. If your post is about the Japanese Wikipedia then you have to ask for help there. I don't know Japanese. If it's about the English Wikipedia then maybe you were not logged in but we might be able to find something if you give the title of the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    頁のタイトルは　寺内孝の経歴と業績　です。 比良奥山 (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    頁のタイトルは　独立研究者　寺内孝の業績　だったと思います。 比良奥山 (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please ask for help at the Japanese Wikipedia, the English Wikipedia cannot help you. Remsense留 02:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will.　Thank you very much. 比良奥山 (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @比良奥山さん宛: 残念ながら、これは英語のWikipediaの権限以外です。日本語のWikipediaで相談してください。 —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    あなたの助言に感謝します。私にはWikipediaに関わる勉強不足がありました。反省しています。 比良奥山 (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    比良奥山, you seem to be attempting a continuation of this discussion about something written for Japanese-language Wikipedia (ja:WP). Yes, as PrimeHunter says, if deletions (etc) on ja:WP should be discussed, then they should be discussed at ja:WP, not here. However, the discussion there is over. And one point: it's alleged there that the material that you posted was largely taken from an external web page titled 独立研究者　寺内孝の業績. If the analogous deletion happened here in English-language Wikipedia and you asked for restoration of the deleted material, it would not be restored, because restoring it would repeat the copyright violation. I have no idea who 寺内孝 is, but if he merits an article in ja:WP then you should start afresh, carefully following the policies of ja:WP. -- Hoary (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The notion that the English Wikipedia is the "boss Wikipedia" or the "master Wikipedia" or the "most important Wikipedia" that decides what other language versions must do is incorrect. Each language version is autonomous. I would never think of going to the Japanese Wikipedia to try to resolve a dispute on the English Wikipedia. And yet people come to the English Wikipedia expecting us to deal with problems on the Japanese, Russian, Hebrew, Portuguese, Arabic, Serbian or Urdu Wikipedia versions. That is not going to happen. Cullen328 (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But as for ja:WP, an interesting contrast with en:WP: Here's the history of the last 50 edits to ja:Wikipedia:利用案内, which is ja:WP's help desk. Currently number 50 (at the foot of the list) is an edit made on 20 November '23. Currently number 50 in the history of this page is an edit made just yesterday. -- Hoary (talk) 06:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps Japanese editors are on average more skilled at searching for help pages on their own, and perhaps they have a smaller influx of brand new editors worldwide. Perhaps Japanese culture discourages spamming and self-promotion. Cullen328 (talk) 10:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    they just recently established a national user group, which has been making strides in expanding the active editors base on jawiki. We can expect to see their help desk being more utilised in the near future. – robertsky (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for your kind advice. 比良奥山 (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    potentially stray comments by OP
    I cordially appreciate advice. I have recognized that I have to study Wikipedia. Thaks again. 比良奥山 (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    あなたのコメントに感謝します。 比良奥山 (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    あなたのコメントに感謝します。ありがとうございます。 比良奥山 (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    私にはWikipediaに関する知識が不足していました。反省しています。 比良奥山 (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    あなた様の助言に納得しています。私のWikipediaに関する知識が不足していました。申し訳ございません。反省しています。 比良奥山 (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The OP had previously scattered these replies, seemingly meant for this topic, across other topics. I've collated them here instead. Remsense留 07:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pop ups misdirecting / fake pop ups

    New Year's Eve main page had an article on the House of Habsburg. When hovering over the link to "Holy Roman Empire" in the third paragraph, a completely weird pop up appeared about non existent organisations and people (eg the 4th reich and Queen Elizabeth !!!). BY 01 Jan it had been fixed, but I took a screen shot of it. The link though when clicked was to the real wiki Holy roman empire page. How do these pop ups work? Yesterday I thought I would try to fix it but obviously that has now been done. But i am interested anyway Thanks Thanks Virgobeach (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have skimmed through the history of both pages, and it seems like you accidentally caught this bit of vandalism on the other page before it was reverted—moreover, going by the edit timestamps the vandalism seems to have only been there for 10 seconds, so it likely got fixed before you had a chance to click through. Remsense留 03:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Virgobeach: The popups are created automatically from the target page by mw:Page Previews which says: "The Page Preview shows a cached version of a page. If the page has been edited and you want Page Previews to show the new version right away, you can purge the page." It's annoying that vandalism can remain visible in this way long after it has been fixed. It's not as bad as many years ago where unregistered users (meaning most users) often saw an old version of an article when they were viewing the article itself. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    hi I can't find how REMSENSE found that source code in the edits but yes that is it. And the same user IP address also messed this one up. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenisha_Pratt&diff=next&oldid=1192517997 So how does one then deal with that type of regular vandalism? thanks Virgobeach (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can look at a page's history, where you can find a link to compare revisions of a page like the one above.
    If an edit is pure vandalism, editors can remove it by undoing the edit, usually. Multiple edits in a row can often be rolled back. Also—there are a lot of automated tools and bots running under the surface that can identify and sometimes automatically undo vandalism if it's obvious enough. Remsense留 05:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    hi I can't find how you found that source code in the edits but yes that is it. And the same user IP address also messed this one up. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenisha_Pratt&diff=next&oldid=1192517997 So how does one then deal with that type of regular vandalism? thanks Virgobeach (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Virgobeach, my suggestion to all serious editors is to use the original source editor, which is robust and fully functional. The visual editor, on the other hand, is not fully functional despite being "in development" for over 11 years, if you can believe it. Cullen328 (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple PD notice template

    Hi Folks!!, I got this template here {{PD-notice}} It states "This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.". Ive put it on a book which has multiple article, collected in the book. Is there a more suitable PD attribution tag that would available. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 03:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Scope creep: {{PD-notice}} does not appear to have any magic side effects, so you can simply use whatever text you want to use instead of using a template. -Arch dude (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Can anyone help me to publish a new page

    I need help to publish a page on a up and coming professional athlete. Thank you Alex118White (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    See your first article. But please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a place for social media profiles, CVs etc. The person should meet the general notability guideline. Also, if you have been asked or paid to do this, there will be a conflict of interest situation occurring here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you certain that he meets all the requirements at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)? If not, the "up and coming" implies that it may simply be Wikipedia:Too soon for an article.
    If this is the Jacob Bradshaw you have discussed on your Talk page, then the answers already given there contain as much advice and relevant links as anyone on this Help desk could provide. By and large, Help desk/Teahouse respondants are not likely to undertake co-writing or extensively researching for a Draft of an article. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.104.88 (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The term "up and coming" almost certainly means that it is far too soon for an article about this person. A person must have already arrived and been noticed in order to meet the definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See "Up-and-coming Next Big Thing". --Orange Mike | Talk 21:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Trying to publish an article but receiving no stashed content alert?

    Hi, i am trying to publish an article but every time I hit publish I receive this red alert:No stashed content found for 1190716733/92fef679-9e69-11ee-bd29-d094663b40e2. I'd really appreciate any help. Thanks Naomicreative (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I would firstly recommend that you use the WP:AFC process to start a new article and be advised that it is the hardest task here! Theroadislong (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Naomicreative, your account is too new and lacks the minimum experience to create articles directly. The autoconfirmed user right requires an account at least four full days old that has made at least ten edits. Cullen328 (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for replying. I have submitted it for review now- Template:AfC submission. it says, Review waiting, please be patient.
    This may take 2–3 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 503 pending submissions waiting for review.
    Is this what you were referring to? Many thanks Naomicreative (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Naomicreative, I cannot find any draft submitted by you. I wonder if you submitted it while logged out? What is the name of your draft? Qcne (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Draft:John Cameron (British Antiques Expert and TV Presenter) Naomicreative (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: thread now being answered over at the AfC helpdesk. Qcne (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Middleton family

    Reference 61 is in red and I don't know why.... Please fix and I hope I got the Publisher correct. please help. Sorry again. 175.38.42.62 (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think has an error message because the date provided in the "date" line is only a year. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the access date was listed as 4 January 20024. I removed the excess zero and that solved the problem. Cullen328 (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi IP editor, you seem to regularly accidentally add in errant zeros into the date fields of references (e.g. making the date the year 20024 instead of 2024 in this example). How can we help you to ensure you don't continue to make this mistake? Qcne (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Google Knowledge Panels

    Hello, happy new year! I'd like to ask a question about google knowledge panels. A few months ago I was trying to make a wiki page for a musician and it got rejected for lack of enough notability. Very recently I noticed that the respective musician now has a Google Knowledge Panel. Would this help to prove notoriety and legitimacy when creating a wiki page? And, on that note, my page was rejected. What if the musician I was writing about gets enough press and achievements to be considered notable on Wikipedia? Since my page was rejected I cannot resubmit my page, no matter how many important information I can add. What can I do in this situation? Thank you in advance for your replies! Ingridach (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "Would this help to prove notoriety and legitimacy when creating a wiki page" No it would not. "gets enough press and achievements to be considered notable on Wikipedia?" Everything can be resubmitted, but I'd very much advise caution. The bar is pretty high. I also note that your articles often concern individual artists that are part of bands. That means that essentially these artists already ARE in wikipedia. Just not as individual articles. That only raises the bar for an individual article even further. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notoriety and legitimacy: an odd combination! What you could do, Ingridach, is here, in this thread, present links to three informative web pages, independent both of each other and of the musician, about the musician outside the band of which he's a member. Then we'd be able to make a guess at the musician's level of (Wikipedia-defined) notability. -- Hoary (talk) 12:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ingridach Rejection is not final for all time- it just means in essence "we won't consider this again until something fundamentally changes about it", such as new sources that now establish notability that did not exist before. Typically the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer to ask them to reconsider given new information- but as Hoary says, feel free to offer sources here so we can give a better opinion. 331dot (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks everyone for your quick replies! I understand the notability criterias. The only thing that confuses me is seeing that other members of the band have Wikipedia pages with less information and sources (or sources which only discuss the band, and not them individually), so it makes me wonder why I can't manage to get mine approved. I am making a page about a musician which also has a prolific career as an A&R manager, that's why I believe in his ongoing relevance.
    As you requested, here are three links I picked. Some are from printed magazines but I provide scans in this drive link.
    1) Hard Working Class Heroes Festival 2018, Paul Jones Keynote (podcast link + bio written by the festival)
    2) Molenda, Michael (December 2000). "'The Art of Noise: Elastica's Justine Frischmann and Paul Jones fuse feral riffs and pop hooks'". Guitar Player Magazine. p. 67-70 (attached in drive; the article is less about the band and more of an extensive dive into their guitar gear, inspiration and equipment they use)
    3) Elastica - Their @rse, Our Place". Disorder Magazine. July 2000. pp. 25–27. (attached in drive; Jones appears on the magazine cover with the band, and the article is mostly about his induction in the band)
    Hope that is clear. I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts about this, thank you in advance for your replies! Ingridach (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know about the other two, but SoundCloud isn't reliable. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ingridach: It seems you are interested in writing an article about the musician Paul Jones. Hoary asked you to present links that are independent of the musician. The podcast and both articles you provided are interviews, which are not independent. If there are problems with articles about other members of the band, you may improve them, add maintenance templates, nominate them for deletion, or ignore them, but trying to use them to justify another problematic article won't be successful (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, a Google Knowledge Panel is just a snazzy form of search-result, info taken from algorithm-knows-where, though fairly often its Wikipedia. It does not help the case for WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello there I am the real owner of outfit7

    Hello there evergreen they are not the real owners of the game. I have met the real Talking Angela that look look like a nine years old when I was at their event in Hollywood on Dec 20 2012 I left due to an my own mental condition. What did she write on a paper and the picture if they are the real one. they have been taking advantage of a young woman and harassed her and her parents life not only did they take her games and never paid her ones time. They have cause identity theft issues. I hope you people do the right thing and give this game back to the person who created this game in the first place

    Regard, Kenny KennyChesney55 (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 12:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to change some information in a Wikipedia article, please link the article you want to change and provide an appropriate source for your claim. We can't change stuff just because you said something here. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Courtesy links for the curious: Talking Angela, Outfit7. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.104.88 (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    linking to other articles

    When linking to other articles, should I use the redirects that match it, or should I use the article page? For example, if I wanted to link to snapping turtles, should I link it as snapping turtles or as snapping turtles? Thanks! Qwaabza (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Qwaabza: Hello! I'd say it doesn't matter, but I personally prefer the former, because it looks better in the source editor. If you are worried about the performance (using the redirect), read Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups/About fixing redirects. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, thanks for the info! Qwaabza (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    January 5

    User deletion of warns

    If a user deletes a warn they were given from their talk page (whether the warn was valid or invalid), what would be the course of action to take? Fanfanboy (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing. It is their user page: the point was to warn them, and they've presumably seen it. Others can also still see it in the history pretty trivially, so chronic issues usually won't be overlooked. Remsense留 02:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fanfanboy: Warnings may be removed. There are a few things that can't be deleted from the user talk page, such as declined unblock requests. See WP:REMOVE RudolfRed (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fanfanboy, removal of a user talk page warning is construed as evidence that the editor read and understood the warning. The removal provides no protection at all to that editor. They are still expected to comply with reasonable, accurate, policy-based warnings. Cullen328 (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    When to go to RSN

    Is it appropriate to open an RSN discussion to assess the reliability of sources currently being cited in an AfD discussion? And should I ping the people involved in the AfD discussion? Or should the reliability of the sources be discussed at the AfD and an RSN discussion can be opened at a later date if necessary? TipsyElephant (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Without knowing the specifics, I would say discuss at the AFD, and if you are not satisfied, then go to RSN for wider input. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft

    I'm currently working on a draft here: Kingdom of Menabe. I've tried searching for sources but haven't been successful. Could you direct me to some reliable sources that have anything related to Madagascar history? ''Flux55'' (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Flux55: Hello! It appears that you are trying to write the article backwards, i.e. first you came up with the subject, created a draft, and then started thinking about the sources. In short, you should have first found enough sources and then created draft, etc. I mean it's not a wrong approach to write an article backwards but it's way harder than doing it forwards: experienced editors would say at least 20 times as hard (from the text I linked). Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Art Venegas

    I recently submitted an entry about track and field coach, Art Venegas. I tried to submit the entry earlier, but I botched it. My question is, can someone verify that my Venegas entry has successfully been submitted? Eric-Dieter Eric-Dieter (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Eric-Dieter, you appear to have written a draft on your user page, User:Eric-Dieter.
    1) It has not been submitted for review. It would likely be declined if you did submit it, since the formatting of your references is essentially broken, and there are some serious issues with tone.
    2) Your user page is place for information about yourself as a Wikipedia editor, not a place to draft articles. Ideally you should be working at Draft:Art Venegas, or at least in your sandbox, where you've already created a sample page - User:Eric-Dieter/Sample page.
    Have you reviewed Help:Referencing for beginners and/or Help:Your first article? 57.140.16.1 (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: @Eric-Dieter: I have moved your draft to Draft:Art Venegas. Note that "publish changes" or "publish page" should be understood as "save changes" and "save page" respectively, it does not publish straight to the encyclopedia. The reason why they're labeled this way is because every page on Wikipedia is publicitely viewable, if one knows where to look. Victor Schmidt (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made some tweaks to improve readability and bring the draft further in line with our style guidelines. Beside the problems I mentioned above, I see information which is not tied to any reference, particularly in the personal life section, plus many formatting problems. @Eric-Dieter, I recommend you try using the Visual Editor here on Wikipedia to get the draft looking the way you've envisioned, and that you remove any family details in the draft which you do not have a reliable source for. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Images license

    I would like to upload some images from the https://fkzeljeznicar.ba/ website, both past and future ones, on to Wikimedia Commons. Not too long ago, I emailed the club's PR team and asked them if it was okay with them to freely use the images. They responded and said that it was totaly fine. However, when I approached the Help desk, all of the moderators here told me that a written permission was not enough and that the owners (in this case the PR team) had to have a license published on the website saying all the images are free to redistribute. Recently, I thought of reaching out to them again and asking if they would like to do that in order for the images to be freely used. Now I am just wondering, is it enough for the license to be placed, for example, at the bottom of the website, and if so, what specific license would be the best to put up which would guarantee for the images to be 100% free to used and to upload on to Wikimedia Commons? Thank you for all your answers in advance :) Bakir123 (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Bakir123, I think the best choice of licence for Commons would be probably be CC BY-SA 4.0. But they should be aware that once they publish their images that way, anyone is allowed to reuse them, not just Commons or Wikipedia, and they won't be able to go back on it. Rummskartoffel 22:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bakir123: You can also suggest that they read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and donate a set of photographs themselves. GoingBatty (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    See User contributions for... in more summary form

    In my watchlist, I have multiple changes (in a day) wrapped into a single line in the list. e.g.:
    16:39 Scotland‎‎ (14 changes | history)...
    This makes the list much more compact and usable.
    Is there something comparable for my User contributions? Exactly the same functionality would not really work, but wrapping up all the edits for, say, the last month in a single line would be useful. Then I could go back and look for editing that, in the light of further reading, now seems incomplete – or anything that needs further review after any initial burst of enthusiasm. (Yes, I have rewritten or even deleted some of my editing in the cold light of dawn!) If that [suggested] month were easily variable, that would be even better.

    Or to put things another way, how can I remind myself of what I have been doing on Wikipedia in the recent past, so that I can check for anything that I have done that needs a bit more work?

    The current question comes from doing some reading of a lengthy (5 volumes, approx. 9 inches of shelf space) and complex source that has relevance to a number of articles. Finding a balance between keeping reading and doing appropriate editing is a challenge – especially as the source has information somewhat dotted about and no adequate index. So having a good review of my editing would really help. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If you just want a list of articles you recently edited, XTools might do the job: [3]. Rummskartoffel 23:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ThoughtIdRetired: I can't answer your question (sorry), but what do you use to get your watchlist to wrap up multiple changes in that way? Bazza (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Make sure the "Latest revision" filter is turned off, click the cogwheel on the right side and check "Group results by page". Rummskartoffel 12:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    January 6

    I think

    I think the article Wikimedia Foundation needs to be updated at the expense and the revenue of the organization. I concluded them above. 2001:EE0:4BCA:3F20:BC4C:1488:250F:E6D9 (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please direct concerns about that article to its talk page, Talk:Wikimedia Foundation. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Warnings

    Please check my talk page. A user claims that I made "Personal attacks" and gave a warning for it. Imperial[AFCND] 12:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    what's your question? ltbdl (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please check the deletion discussion on Battle of Thane and the talk section. Do any of my comments there reflects personal attacks? Sorry for doing this here but I think this isn't much to take to ANI. Imperial[AFCND] 13:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dropping a {{uw-vand2}} on User talk:Jonharojjashi for mixing up two historical figures who shared a name wasn't really the best way to engage. The comment about the mixup could have stood on its own, without the warning template, and it's not terribly surprising they've responded in kind.
    If you're concerned about the reputational damage of unreverted warning templates on your usertalk, just stay focused on the content of the Battle of Thane article and its deletion discussion. Editors are never under any obligation to convince one another of anything or satisfy each other's demands. Folly Mox (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We made conclusion by discussing. Btw, thanks for looking into this. Imperial[AFCND] 13:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Can a person legally hold two wikipedia accounts in his name?

    Is it wise and legitimate to hold two wikipedia accounts with similar usernames for a same person? Yashrajkarthike (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Yashrajkarthike: There could be reasons, for example, it might be that they forgot the password for the previous account. In any case, they have to tell on their user page that they have another account. Please read WP:MULTIACCOUNT. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely not wise. bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 13:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Agreed! darwin bish 13:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=1193961517"