Wikipedia:Help desk

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

• For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
• Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
• Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
• For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
• New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners.

Ask a question

November 16

Wikipedia thanks feature

Wikipedia has this nice thanks feature which allows editors to send thanks to each other without actually making a Wikipedia edit. I have both sent thanks and received them. However, once I get a notice about receiving thanks and viewing it, the notice vanishes. I have no way of keeping a record of whom I have thanked or who has thanked me. Is this by design, or is there some way to do this? JIP | Talk 01:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello JIP. Please read Help:Notifications/Thanks, which explains the function, including the Thanks log. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@JIP: from and to. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks (pun intended), I see how the log works now. JIP | Talk 01:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

BTW, does anyone know how to form the "internal link" version of the "to" log (i.e. [[Special:Log/thanks/what?]])? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: not possible yet. Wikipedia currently has no way of linking to an internal page with ? in them, with the exceptions at Special:Redirect. This is unfortunally none of them. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt mobil: Note there are some of the Special: pages that do support being called as internal wikilinks, including the "from" case I gave above, in which Special:Log/thanks/JIP is the equivalent of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=thanks&user=JIP . There doesn't seem to be a way, though, of adding the page parm to get the equivalent of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=thanks&page=User:JIP . Other examples of these are Special:Permalink/988975233, Special:Diff/988974179/988975233, Special:PageHistory/Wikipedia:Help desk, etc. I don't think the parms supported by these are documented, except maybe in the code itself. Can someone point me to the code for Special:Log? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

It looks like there is some documentation on the Special pages listed at mw:Help:Special pages and maybe others that aren't in that list, like mw:Help:Log. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 10:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I must have been unconcentrated, this particular shortcut (Linking with the to param) is afaik impossible without using full urls. 11:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Merle Robbins

Can someone fix Merle Robbins? Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. Someone had vandalised it. I also removed irrelevant text at the bottom of the article. JIP | Talk 01:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

How To Edit A Logo On Page Infobox

Good day,

I hope this mail finds you well.

I work in the Bank Windhoek Marketing and Corporate Communications Department and would like to update the logo on our page to our latest logo, however don't know how to upload and change it in the infobox, could you please assist by providing guidance on how to do this?

The page I am referring to is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Windhoek

Warm regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by BWMCCS (talk • contribs) 05:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks like this has already been done. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Providing an English (or any other) language version of an article that I already wrote on German Wikipedia

Hello, I'm trying to provide an English version of an article I wrote in German, without wanting to replace the German one... I also plan to provide a Polish version.

The article concerned is about Jan Jaroslawski

Thanks for help — Preceding unsigned comment added by R. Montheureux (talk • contribs) 07:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

If there’s good sourcing demonstrating notability, you’re welcome to try to start the article. Please also read WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@R. Montheureux: To explain a little more in-depth as to what Timtempleton is talking about, English Wikipedia's standards are not the same as German Wikipedia (e.g., reference policy). Just be aware that creating an article about Jaroslawski here isn't as easy as a direct copypaste and translation. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

R. Montheureux, Translation is also relevant. --ColinFine (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

False information

Dear Wikipedia There is an article published known as delhi riots 2020 which shows false information about the recent riots happening , which can cause communal pressure so please remove the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:10:204A:803:A8B7:1A98:DA8C (talk) 09:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Any subject that is notable by Wikipedia's definition can and should have an article. "Communal pressure" is not a consideration. Delhi riots 2020 meets our criteria (WP:N) so we will not delete it. If the article contains any asssertion that is not supported by a cited reliable source, then that assertion should be removed. If an assertion is supported by a reliable source, it will not be removed, but if you have a different source that contradicts the assertion, then the fact taht the assertion is disputed should be added to the article. You should discuss this at Talk:Delhi riots 2020. -Arch dude (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The page appears to be at 2020 Delhi riots and the related talk page, at Talk:2020 Delhi riots. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 10:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

The history of this page shows me making an edit on the page re-instating a large amount of text which had properly been deleted or archived. I didnt make this edit,or at least didn't intend to although I did intend to make an edit. Can anybody say what happened? I have been having problems with my internet connection this morning. Is this connected with the edit? My apologies to the people who have altered it back and to any body else whose edits have been lost. I use the visual editor on a PC.Spinney Hill (talk) 11:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Spinney Hill: My guess is that you either started editing the page several hours earlier, before Scsbot archived November 8 at Special:Diff/988937476 at 2020-11-16T03:09:12Z, and then eventually saved it at Special:Diff/988981288 at 2020-11-16T10:43:48Z, missing the ec warning. Or you might have been looking at the older rev of the article and edited it, missing the warnings about that. Or maybe you were editing the page before Scsbot, tried to save, and the save got hung up for several hours, finally posting at 10:43Z. The 03:09Z edit sumary does not include the "reverted" tag, so it probably wasn't an accidental "undo". Your edit summary was blank (unusually), so maybe it was some other kind of mis-click(s). I'd say keep an eye on your contribs for a while to see if it happens again. Otherwise, "stuff happens". —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it was editing an old version Spinney Hill (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

New article

Hi, my draft for a new biography page was rejected due to "trivial or non-independent" sources, though it already included independent media. Wikipedia already has pages in French and German on the subject. I have since added the New York Times, Washington Post and Deutsche Welle as sources. Do you think this will make it strong enough for reconsideration? The person concerned did pay me to draft the page some time ago and I included this declaration with the subsmission. Best wishes, KRL219 (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

KRL219 That other language versions of Wikipedia have articles on this topic(which I assume is Draft:Jean-Baptiste de Franssu) does not necessarily mean there can be one here too, as each version of Wikipedia is its own project with its own editors and policies. Here, an article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject. That does not include press release or routine announcements. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

changes to wikipedia Abakuá page for Haitian religion

Hello, I am a scholar of Haitian Vodou and recently made an edit on a wikipedia page for Abakuá to correct something that was listed incorrectly about Haitian religion. I just received this message: "Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions--specifically this edit to Ababkuá--because it did not appear constructive."

Why was my change reverted? And how do I make this edit as a scholar of Haitian Vodou who made an edit about a Haitian Vodou reference? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/146.115.92.231

Hello, IP user. There were two problems with your edit. First, it did not cite a published source; secondly, it broke a link, to Haitian Vodou Culture Language. That article, in fact, gives "Langay" and "Langaj" as alternatives, but there isn't currently an article called Langaj. It is possible that there should be a redirect from Langaj, or that that article should be moved to have Langaj as its title (though the two references both seem to give the longer phrase). But in any case, if an edit of yours is reverted, the thing to do is to open a discussion on the article's talk page: that is how the collaboration works on Wikipedia. Please see BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft Article Review

Hi! i had an article that apparently didn't have enough citations moved to the draftspace. I have since worked on it and added more references. However, this time I have not had any contact regarding it, and it has been a month. I also saw that someone edited the draft 10 days ago. Was just looking to speak to someone about it and see where I might be going wrong. Thanks!

Draft: Morressier— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geonomes.germany (talk • contribs)

Has bee reviewed today morning. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You say it "didn't have enough citations". I think that's a misunderstanding. The problem was, and is, that the citations aren't good enough. Four good citations is enough. Adding more citations of even lower quality than those you have already doesn't help; indeed, it is likely to deter reviewers from considering your draft. Maproom (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

consulting help posting page

I've drafted a page, but can I get consulting help in posting it?

I received a message suggesting I post a page on myself since I appear on the list of US Supreme Court law clerks. I drafted the following page in the Sandbox but when I preview it it all runs together. It has now disappeared from the Sandbox. My newly created account and the page under it are under the name R George Crawford, or George Crawford. I would like to get consulting help posting it.

Here's the page:

Draft content

Draft for Wikipedia George Crawford has worked in government as a law clerk to Justice Byron White and on the White House Staff; in academia as a Consulting Professor at Stanford Law School, President of the Harvard Law Review, and writing books and articles; in law practice as a partner at JonesDay; in finance in connection with several investment management businesses; and as a producer and director of documentary films and related publications, in conjunction with George's wife Holly, an artist and art critic who taught at UCLA and runs AC Institute, a nonprofit. Selected publications: Derivatives for Decision Makers: Strategic Management Issues, George Crawford and Bidyut Sen (John Wiley 1996) A Fiduciary Duty to Use Derivatives? George Crawford, Stanford Journal of Law Business & Finance, Spring 1995; reprinted in Smithson, Managing Financial Risk 637 (McGraw-Hill 1998) Investing Under Inflation Risk, George Crawford, Jim Kyung-Soo Liew, and Andrew Marks: The Journal of Portfolio Management, Spring 2013 Spot Commodities as Inflation Protection, George Crawford, Jim Kyung-Soo Liew, and Andrew Marks: The Journal of Wealth Management, Winter 2013 Selected documentaries dealing with states of mind: coproductions with French Connection Films; bilingual - The Healing Within - Living & Breathing - The Quest for the Perfect Athlete associate producer: Bedlam, an intimate journey into America's mental health crisis (Sundance)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RGeorgeCrawford (talk • contribs)

@RGeorgeCrawford: I am afraid that you have selected to do one of the absolute hardest tasks as a new user: creating an article about yourself. While not forbidden, autobiographys are strongely discouraged. Please be advised that a Wikipedia article is not nessesarely desireable. You can try to follow this guide when trying to create your article.

Template:RGeorgeCrawford Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Correction in statistics

Under the head List of India Test Captains the following anomaly is observed

Against Sourav Ganguly- for year 2003-04 Pakistan series the following is mentioned Played- 3 Won-2 Lost-1

However he did not play in 2 tests and played only 1 (the last )test. So the figures must be corrected as Played-1 Won-0 Lost-1

In the first 2 test, Rahul Dravid captained India and both tests were won by India The above has been correctly mentioned against Rahul DRavid

Sundaresan Suresh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durgapur Suresh Iyer (talk • contribs)

Article in question seems to be List of India national cricket captains#Test match captains. Indian cricket team in Pakistan in 2003–04 does say that Ganguly captained one Test match, and Rahul Dravid captained the other two. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Missing subject

Hello

Please will you organise an entry for https://www.clamxav.com/about-us/

It is NOT the same as Clamav

2A00:23C7:E204:D200:D83D:3E24:B67F:C827 (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. Nobody "organises an entry": Wikipedia is created by volunteers - like you and me - who choose to contribute to the encyclopaedia. If you want us to have an article about Clamxav, really you have two choices: either write it yourself, or persuade somebody to write it. (There is a third option, which I really wouldn't advise: there are scam artists out their who will offer their services writing articles about people for money. Whatever they may say, they cannot guarantee that an article will be accepted, or that it will be acceptable to the subject).

Neither is easy. Writing it yourself is the most effective, but this is the hardest task there is for a new editor. I suggest that you 1) create an account; 2) take The Wikipedia Adventure to learn how to edit.3) Spend a few months adding value to Wikipedia by improving some of our six million articles. 4) When you think you are ready to try it, read your first article and create a draft.

Do remember that a Wikipedia article is not for the benefit of the subject, does not belong to the subject, and will not necessarily say what the subject wants it to say. See PROUD. --ColinFine (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome for experts

I'm not having much success finding a guide page or template (I don't remember which) that welcomes and advises new subject expert editors. I'm pretty sure it exists but it's hiding from me. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Dodger67, I'm not sure it "welcomes", but Wikipedia:Expert editors exists. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gråbergs Gråa Sång it was "hiding in plain sight" - the links listed at WP:Expert_editors#Advice for new expert editors. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dodger67: Ot perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/List of reviewers by subject is what you are after? Eagleash (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks but that's not it. I'm trying to advise a newbie editor who happens to be an expert (has a Ph.D.) in a particular subject. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Tell them that English Wikipedia is considerably worse than any SCR (UK: Senior Common Room). Your so-called Ph.D. will have to start at the very bottom like everyone else, and work their way up. English WP is merciless and unforgiving. There are no short cuts. Even Albert Einstein would have a hard time here. MinorProphet (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

261st Multifunctional Medical Battalion

Good morning, I have been tasked to update our information on our page could please assist me with it

V/R

Maharaj, Andy SFC, USA— Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.239.218.36 (talk)

First, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you are required to make. The link you posted went to a nonexistent article, is it under another title? If it is, you may make a formal edit request on the article talk page, detailing changes you feel are needed. If possible, information should be sourced to independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello Andy, and Welcome to Wikipedia. First of all, before editing any further, please review WP:PAID. Second, it's not "your" page, but Wikipedia's page about 261st Multifunctional Medical Battalion. Since the article does not currently exist, it would need to be created from scratch. There is a guide available at Help:Your first article. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Account

Good Day,

I am a business owner and a 2 or more years ago i requested my team activate a wikipedia account for me in my name. Today we started to set up an account forgetting that one was set up and we cant as tiger name has been used. what do we do and how can you assist please on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.58.242.184 (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You can create a new name for yourself, but remember that accounts cannot be shared. You can't create an account for your company or your team, it must be for one person only. RudolfRed (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:COI, re conflicts of interest. We highly recommend you do not create an article about your own company. Second, Wikipedia is not a business directory. Articles are not "accounts". You do not own or control any article, even if it is about you or your company. Assuming you comply with WP:PAID and make the article WP:Neutral, an article can be created with a disambiguation modifier - for example, see Tiger_(disambiguation)#Businesses and organisations. Your have to assure that your company is notable under our guidelines. You will need to cite to reliable sources to prove that it is notable. Just proving that a company exists is insufficient. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 18:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected Content

 Courtesy link: Diana, Princess of Wales

Hi

A few of us have noticed some content on the page for Diana, Princess of Wales.

The following statement implies bias by the choice of phrasing:

"Five years into the marriage, the couple's incompatibility and age difference of almost 13 years became visible and damaging.[56] Charles resumed his relationship with his former girlfriend Camilla Parker Bowles, and Diana later began an affair with Major James Hewitt, the family's former riding instructor."

Charles' affair is referred to simply as a relationship. Diana's affair is not. This implies a negative bias towards Diana's character but Charles has been represented differently. Please amend this to reflect the statements fact equal to both parties.

Many thanks

Please discuss this on the article's talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion started by me. Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales#Separation versus affair - starting discussion for other editor (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

AfD

 Courtesy link: Talk:Cathedral High School (New Ulm, Minnesota)

Hi, I'm new to the AfD process, I've mainly been working on vandalism in the Recent changes section and adding information to articles.

I recently proposed an AfD, but I've run into some problems.

• The Wikipedia AfD page says that a section for discussion of the AfD is automatically made and a link posted at the top of the notice. I used Twinkle to generate my AfD and I couldn't see a discussion link.

• I believe that my arguments for the AfD were right, but an unregistered (IP) user reverted my AfD notice edit without engaging in a discussion. They just replied with 2 arguments that I would like to question further but I don't believe that their Talk page would be appropriate.

• AfDs cannot be made on a page again after the notice has been deleted as per policy. As the user has reverted my notice without even engaging in a discussion, would this mean that I can't nominate the AfD again even if I would like to hear from others? WP:CLOSEAFD states that the discussion should normally be allowed to run for 7 full days, and this has not been the case.

• WP:CLOSEAFD states that usually admins/trusted editors/the nominator should close an AfD. This directly goes against the AfD notice which states "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason"

Cheers Hunter 20:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Just warned the IP user for removing AFD notices from articles without engaging in the discussion Pahunkat (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I think you are getting WP:CSD and/or WP:PROD and WP:AFD confused. CSD notices can be removed by anyone except the creator. PRODs can be removed by anyone. AFDs cannot be removed by anyone (unless the discussion is closed). A PROD is just a proposed deletion of non-controversial material. A CSD is a speedy admin deletion of pages which fall within defined categories. An AfD is a community discussion around whether an article should be deleted. Can you please indicate which page you are speaking of? ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 20:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I have just realised I selected the wrong option on Twinkle. For some reason XFD is for an AfD template, so I got a bit confused. Thanks for the help! Hunter 23:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) If you're talking about your edits at Cathedral High School (New Ulm, Minnesota), you actually didn't start an AFD, but a completely different deletion procedure known as proposed deletion. This is the level of deletion between speedy deletion (completely uncontroversial) and WP:AFD (needs discussion to delete). Anyone can contest a PROD, but you can still list it for AFD. You should follow the directions at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion to list it for AFD. bibliomaniac15 20:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm just making my AfD proposal now. Hunter 23:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

My bad, it's a PROD. If you want to make an AFD discussion I think it's the XFD tab on Twinkle. Pahunkat (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Seems like I'd accidentally pressed the option above. I'll be adding an AfD template now.Hunter 23:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Holidays

How do I participate in the community project?MargeIn (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to help! Go to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Holidays. There is a note at the top there. To get started, post a note on the talk page, check out the todo list, and add your name to the participant list. Happy editing! RudolfRed (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@MargeIn: adding missing ping! RudolfRed (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

November 17

Ivis Williams

A local Labour Party councillor in the Royal Borough of Greenwich since May 2018.

@Dawneta: Did you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Extreme bias and inaccurate information on MeWe article

Discuss at Talk:MeWe

This article calls "Stop the Steal" a group of conspiracy theorists. This is inaccurate The election is contested, with very credible allegations of fraud currently being litigated in several states "Stop the Steal" is a broad-based movement of concerned citizens who want election laws and state and federal court orders respected, including one issued by the U.S. Supreme Court. Also, this article used the terms "alt=right" and "far right" to refer to conservatives, Republicans, and anyone concerned about massive reports of voting irregularities. It calls information shared by conservatives "misinformation." These are pejorative terms grounded in bias, rather than fact. Please flag this article as defamatory and an attempt to silence legal efforts to defend the rule of law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:A4C0:4E2:5B08:3E1C:74D7 (talk) Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say, adopting a neutral point of view and giving proportional weight to differing perspectives. For instance, if the overwhelmingly common practice in reliable sources is to term Stop the Steal a conspiracy theory, that will be reflected when discussing the campaign. Not to do so would reflect bias in favour of Stop the Steal – it would be presented in a more flattering light compared to how reliable sources describe it. I've only examined the article briefly, but I do not see anything that obviously indicates these best practices are not being followed. If you still have concerns, comment at Talk:MeWe. – Teratix ₵ 07:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC) For other users, Trump is getting almost literally laughed out of court; most observers see their legal arguments as without merit(and in some cases they have no legal arguments at all other than "I didn't win"). 331dot (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC) Content disputes belong on the article talk page, not the help desk. -Arch dude (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Heads up for spurious death announcements

I'm posting this here as it will be quickly seen: if there are other/more appropriate desks etc. for it, please feel free to copy or transfer it as appropriate.

This is a BBC report of a recent, accidental premature publication of ~100 pre-prepared obituaries of various well-known people, by Radio France International.

I imagine this may cause a spate of well-intentioned but erroneous attempts to edit the relevant articles. Perhaps someone might like to prepare a template or other stock reply and/or edit summary for use when reverting such edits. I'm sorry not to be able to put in more effort on this myself, but it's beyond my previous Wiki-experience, and I'm currently preoccupied by unfortunate family circumstances in Real Life. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.26.5 (talk) 08:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Want the assistance of a Wikipedia Editor

Hi, Please I am looking forward to have any contact to a qualified wiki editor for creating a page for my company . for contacting me : sara tarek ,Brand manager (redacted)

41.41.3.131 (talk) 10:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place with "pages" about companies. Wikipedia has articles about companies that meet our criteria; a company must be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. You should also review conflict of interest and paid editing. If you wish to allow other users to email you, you should create an account and add an email address to it, not post it publicly in this forum. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Sara. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. This is a volunteer project, and all editors are people who choose to work on it, and choose what they will work on. Promotion of any kind is forbidden: if at some point we have an article about your company, you will not own it, you will not control it, it will not be for your benefit,you will be strongly discouraged from editing it directly, and it will not necessarily say what you want it to say: see An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.

If your company meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then we could have an article about it. This article will not be based at all on anything that your company says or wants to say, but only on what people who have no connection with your company, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of your company, have chosen to publish in reliable sources.

If after this admonishment you consider going ahead, please read conflict of interest, paid editing, and your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

F Is for Family

Hi! A user suggested that this title should be changed to "F is for Family", which just lowercases the capital I. They were trying to explain some points, but they were getting pretty aggressive and wasn't taken too seriously. Here are the sides:

The I should be capitalized according to MoS. Is is a prefix, and should not be capitalized because that's just how it is on Wikipedia.according to MoS. Is is a prefix, and should not be capitalized because that's just how it is on Wikipedia.

The I shouldn't be capitalized because that's how the show stylizes the name according to the logo, and should represent that.

What accordance should we follow? I have no part in this discussion, and it won't benefit me in any way, I'm just figuring it out so I can report it to the user. Le Panini ^Talk 11:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: The I should be capitalized per MOS:CT. Every verb is capitalized including "Is". —teb728 t c 11:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, that's the opposite of what MOS:CT says; secondly, the article is illustrated with the title card showing that the show doesn't capitalise the I either. Straight-out no-brainer. ‑ Iridescent 13:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Iridescent, No, it says there that "Always capitalized: Every verb, including forms of to be (Be, Am, Is, Are, Being, Was, Were, Been)". They want to abide this rule because the show's title card displays it as otherwise. Le Panini ^Talk 14:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

OH I MIXED THEM UP I FIXED IT so sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Le Panini (talk • contribs) 14:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

recover user name

We have had a change over of personnel and would like to edit or pages, but no one remaining at the office has the username or password. Can you help me out with finding the user name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.87.126.98 (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, no. Please see Wikipedia:Username_policy#Shared_accounts. You cannot share accounts on this website. Furthermore, see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. You are strongly discouraged from editing from the point of view of an organization, especially if you are editing articles related to that organization. So, I suggest, if you wish to edit as an individual in a neutral voice and not in topics related to your organization, that you create a new account. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 15:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Who is "we"? Wikipedia accounts are single-person only. You will need a new account anyway. Please create one account for each individual in you office, and make sure that all accounts comply with WP:PAID and WP:COI. The username policy is at WP:USERNAME. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello. It sounds as if you have a common misconception that Wikipedia's article about your company is in some way yours to maintain or update. It is not. You are welcome to suggest changes on the article's talk page using the edit request mechanism, but that should be the limit of your involvement in it. --ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article about your company is in no way connected with your company. Anyone in the world is able to and allowed to edit it. Your company, as the subject, does not enjoy any privilege over the article. In fact, because of conflict of interest reason, the employees of your company are specifically strongly discouraged from editing the article. JIP | Talk 17:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not think you can 'recover' a username. Your IP address has a history of edits, four of them were done in two articles related to nudity: Special:Contributions/74.87.126.98. A history of edits in those two articles doesn't seem to contain any other systematic edits, related to your society. Are you SURE your former employee was using a named account in Wikipedia...?

Anyway, even if any account existed, it was either private or organization-related.

• If it was a private, personal account (say, JakeSmith or Naturist or something) you may not recover it, because it belongs to a specific person. Possibly to someone still active at Wikipedia, just not on your society's behalf.
• OTOH, if it was shared (like, say, NaturistSociety or NatSocStaff) then it was against Wikipedia policies and should be blocked. As a result, you may try to 'usurp' it but you will not be able to use it.

So, the only option is to create a new account. But this is NOT a GOOD option, as it would be likely breaking the policies of WP:COI and WP:PAID, if not WP:SHARE. Additionally, such accounts usually are likely to edit against WP:WWIN, esp. WP:PROMO and WP:NOTDIR, which ends in a block. --CiaPan (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

CiaPan: I don't think that last is helpful advice. They have a legitimate interest in the article about their company, and as long as they follow the principles various people have given them, and do not attempt to edit the article directly, they should be fine. --ColinFine (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@ColinFine: It's not an advice; it's an option, and – as I emphasised – not a good one. I have no idea why you call it an advice when I say something is not a good choice. Their best option is to refrain from touching articles connected to them and make edit requests at relevant talk pages instead. This can be done either with a named account or from an IP address. But whichever they choose, with the attitude presented they are likely to slip into editing (actually, they did already: Special:Diff/989209191), hence the warning at the end of my entry above. --CiaPan (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Errors in Simultaneous Interpretation article

The historical note in this page refers to "Gordon Finley." It seems that the reference should be to Alan Gordon-Finlay, who has his own Wiki entry. Also, he is referred to as an emplyee of IMB. That probably was meant to be IBM, although the Gordon-Finlay Wiki never says that he was employed by IBM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19B:4401:31D0:CF5:5CFF:6091:A575 (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and have updated the article accordingly. In future, you can also ask at the article's talkpage, which for this article is Talk: Simultaneous interpretation. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Feedback on draft of article

I have recently started work on an article in my userspace about GCSE English as it was pointed out GCSE Science existed but none of the other core subjects existed. The draft can be found here. I am not asking for a full review as it isn't ready yet but just for a rough idea if I'm doing things correctly as this is my first article. Thanks Eyebeller (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Eyebeller. I don't see any independent sources. If you start writing an article without independent sources, you're quite likely to have to rework it from scratch when you find some. --ColinFine (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I see your point, I'm not sure where to find independent sources though. But surely official sources would be better? Eyebeller (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism help request

I have noticed some vandalism at Transient Lingual Papillitis Transient lingual papillitis.

Namely, this politicized and absurd statement was added in a recent edit. "Another known cause for lie bumps is if you voted for Joe Biden in the 2020 us election.

Would an editor please assist me with fixing it? Thank you,

Terry

2600:1702:1030:E220:D8C1:260A:2719:2172 (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

In the future, please take comments like this to the article talk page, in this case: Talk:Transient lingual papillitis. However, the vandalism has been removed. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 18:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The page is also not protected, so for simple vandalism like that you can go into the article's history and undo the change yourself. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Marguerite Littman

Hi, I am familiar with uploading front and back of press photos at Wikimedia Commons, where the software allows me to list the alternate image on each file page under "other versions=". However, when uploading a fair-use image on Wikipedia, I do not see such an option. While uploading File:Marguerite Littman.jpg and giving it a fair-use license, I also uploaded the back of the photo here: File:Press photo of Marguerite Littman (back).jpg. Now I am getting a bot message on my talk page telling me that if I don't add the latter image to an article, the file will be deleted in 7 days. Do I have to worry about that? The back of the photo only corroborates the image details that I listed under File:Marguerite Littman.jpg. Or is there another way that I could combine the two images into one file that won't be deleted? Thank you for your help. Yoninah (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Well, that one is a bit of a mess. On the one hand, File:Press photo of Marguerite Littman (back).jpg is almost certainly not covered by copyright, since it contains merely text without any creative content (Threshold of originality not met). So you could just relicense it with the template {{pd-because}} (none of the more specific pd templates really fit).

On the other hand, the image is fairly useless in itself; maybe you should just copy the information it contains to the description page of the other image, and put a link to the source of the information there. (The vast majority of Commons description pages are unsourced, which is a bad thing IMO.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tigraan: thank you very much for your advice. I will do that. Yoninah (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Category with wrong alphabetical entry.

I am having an issue with an article (Aime Hansen). I recently added some categories to the article and a defaultsort. The subject is properly alphabetized in the categories I added (20th-century Estonian poets and 21st-century Estonian poets). However, another category I added (University of Tartu alumni) shows her entry correctly in the H column, but last; not properly alphabetized. Rather confusing. Any ideas? Thank you ExRat (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@ExRat: This should resolve itself in a few days. A software change is being installed behind the scenes - see here and here for discussion. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I thought I was doing something wrong and just couldn't figure it out! Cheers and thanks. ExRat (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

New page created

Good evening,

I created a new page on Wikipedia and would like to submit it to an editor for approval and publication. Could you kindly help?

User:Thecastle2020/sandbox/Lebohang Kganye

Many thanks,

Julie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecastle2020 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I have added the appropriate information to allow you to submit your draft for review. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Community

Is it possible to look for other wikipedians and if it is how? Also, I don't know how to add my self to the participants list for Wikipedia holidays.MargeIn (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MargeIn (talk • contribs) 22:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@MargeIn: What do you mean by "look for other Wikipedians"? To add yourself to the list you can click on the "edit source" link and add your name to the list. I might also suggest you try out The Wikipedia Adventure to get a hands-on interactive introduction to using Wikipedia. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. What I meant about looking for other Wikipedians is connecting to them personally and discussing topics or contents with them, is this possible?MargeIn (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

MargeIn, Wikipedia focuses more on the content than the editors, so there's no directory to speak of. The closest things would be WikiProject groups and conversations would usually be carried out on someone's talk page. Just keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a social network and that striving to improve content is paramount. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, thank you.MargeIn (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a talkpage

Hi colleagues, I'm a user from the Italian Wikipedia! I still don't have a personal talkpage here on Wiki.en, it could be a problem if someone wants to talk with me. Thank you! Cicognac (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Cicognac, if someone tries to start a conversation on your talk page, it will be made. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, don't you post some kind of "Welcome, dear new user!" template? We do in this way in Wiki.it whenever a new user is registered. Cicognac (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Cicognac, it's not automated. They're arbitrarily given by friendly editors. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, next time I can ask someone to reply in a new page. Thanks! Cicognac (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

November 18

Delete page

Avi Nardia has a page about him that is constantly being edited with false information about him, he would like the page regarding him taken down immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinShinobi (talk • contribs) 00:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

JustinShinobi Unfortunately, the wishes of the subject are not relevant as to whether or not an article about them exists, because Wikipedia summarizes what publicly available independent reliable sources state. See WP:OWN for more information. If there is incorrect information in the article about him, and you have independent reliable sources to support those claims, please offer them on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The other option, is if you wish to argue that Mr. Nardia does not meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable person, you can initiate an Articles for Deletion discussion. 331dot (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted that this editor has already been blocked as WP:NOTHERE. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding a Watchlist filter

Hi.

I want to exclude Bot edits from my Watchlist. I open the Watchlist and click "Show" next to "Active filters" then " ≡ Filter changes (use menu or search for filter name)" and I get list of available filters, with those in effect checked. I check "Human (not bot)" and click outside the filter list. Sure enough, "Human (not bot)" appears under "Active filters". But then if I close the Watchlist tab in my browser, reopen it, and click "Show" again, "Human (not bot)" has disappeared and bot edits are reported. How do I make this filter permanent?

Peter Brown (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Peter M. Brown, after selecting that filter, did you click on the bookmark icon that has the tooltip "Save current filter settings" directly to the right of all the active filters? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The tooltip doesn't appear when one doesn't know enough to hover over it. It would be nice if it were labeled somehow.

Peter Brown (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Not sure where to post this

I have a suggestion that involves the devs of wikipedia themselves. I'm not sure where to post this where they can read and consider adding it to their site.

"I propose a new idea, and though I'm sure long time users of wikipedia will be divided, I think it is in line with the times.

What I suggest is simple: The option to comment on any wikipedia page. This will not only allow editors to gain feedback but also supplement any existing knowledge. There may be information within a given community that could only be had by this setup. Let's say x article has a cult following. There is a very elementary page about it but none of the users are willing to edit it for themselves. Their commentary would allow a contributor to update the page with new information. etc.

I think this could easily be implemented through disqus." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:743:4100:17A0:B879:3FB9:E430:8265 (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

No, because this is redundant with what Wikipedia already has. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 04:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Each Wikipedia article has a talk page. The talk page is intended to allow editors (that's everybody) to make suggestions on how to improve the associated article. See WP:TALK. Any editor can then choose to update the article based on these suggestions.-Arch dude (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Copied discussion from: WP:VPM#A new addition to Wikipedia

As others have said, talk pages already exist. Having something like Disqus would more likely cause conversation to shift towards a general forum about the subject rather than discussing the article itself. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Problematic Prolific Uninformed and Contentious Editor

In my decade + of editing Wikipedia I am having my most frustrating experience ever. Just recently an editor who is knowledgeable about editing Wikipedia and who edits prolifically has decided to become interested in editing a few summary pages involving one of my main areas of expertise (ancient philosophy). This editor has never edited any detail page on the subject. I have over 1,000 such edits. I've also had a book published in the field. This editor has picked up two breezy introductory books to the subject and, due to their lack of understanding of the subject matter and the thinness of the sources they're relying on, are misinterpreting and misunderstanding what they're reading while citing these two sources over and over. Usually if one points out to another editor that they have made a factual error, they become more careful and circumspect in their editing, especially if more than one error has been identified. That's not the case here. We're well into double digits now of factual errors. The editor in question is repeatedly reverting my annotated corrections (annotated either on the edit itself or on the Talk page) based, of course, on their conviction they understand the material better than I do, based on consulting two thin introductory texts. While several experts in individual philosophies regularly edit those individual philosophies, few of these editors are involved on the summary pages which historically have had thin content, mostly just linking to key pages about the subject because these are complex topics that are difficult to summarize. So, I'm finding myself alone in trying to deal with the introduction of erroneous claims based on misunderstandings of the cited sources. The editor in question appears to have far more time available to devote to Wikipedia than I do, yet I keep getting sucked in because so much erroneous content is being added and my edits are constantly being reverted (all carefully within the rules - the editor is an experienced editor).

Any advice on how to persuade this editor they are in over their heads on this subject, and that they should refocus their prodigious editing efforts on topics they better understand?Teishin (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Could we have some examples.--Moxy 🍁 03:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you can look at the lengthy discussions going on at Talk:Hellenistic_philosophy and at the editing comments and reversion history at Hellenistic_philosophy. Similar and related but less overheated activities are occurring at Ancient Greek philosophy, Western philosophy, and Ancient Roman philosophy, all involving the same subject matters. Teishin (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This appears to be in regards to Hellenistic philosophy, which appears to have been the subject of a 3RR notice. Teishin, if you and the other editor are unable to resolve this on the article's talk page, perhaps you can take the matter to either WP:DRN or WP:3O. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct that shortly after I posted here the other editor filed a 3RR complaint. (The complaining editor admits that the 3RR rule was not actually violated. The complaining editor has also filed two previous 3RR complaints against me which they have had to withdraw as unsupported). I was hoping to find some way of heading off such a thing. <sigh>Teishin (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Teishin, please stop spreading this disinformation that the earlier complaints were withdrawn because they were "unsupported". I did so as a gesture of goodwill, which you subsequently squandered. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't really need to add much here since the comment above really reveals the other user's motivation, which is an absurd sense of territoriality. I wonder if there are any relevant guidelines for dealing with these individuals who expect their expertise to be respected on an anonymous online platform? Keepcalmandchill (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Keepcalmandchill, you were not mentioned here, nor were you invited here to participate in my request for help. Teishin (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a public page. He needs no invitation or mention to chime in here. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 05:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

That's true, but it doesn't negate that what I said was also true. Teishin (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Teishin, if you are going to so blatantly misrepresent the facts, then you really should not be shocked at me coming here to correct them. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I suppose that no further evidence is now needed to demonstrate that the user in question is contentious and has lots of time on their hands.Teishin (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

TimedText

I want to change TimedText:Example so that it displays the same as the commons page at Commons:File:1958-03-17 3rd Vanguard Successful.webm with the extra TimedText tab, the "Available closed captioning." box, and the CC) "Licensing" box. Is that possible? I can't figure out how to format the page to show the extra tab.

Cutting and pasting the source doesn't work, of course, but I do have an interesting side question: when I cut and paste the source from the commons page to the English Wikipedia page and hit preview, why does it mention Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets? Where did that text come from? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzammil.ansari37 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

More information needed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Probably about Draft:Muzammil Y Ansari, which in its infobox uses two references by name without them being defined anywhere. Anyway, it's an autobiography with no evidence that its subject is notable, so further work on it will be a waste of effort. Maproom (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Uploading company logos

Good morning,

I work for Global University Systems, a company which owns a number of educational institutions. Recently, one of the institution's we own changed their logo. I have attempted several times to upload the new logo but am having trouble getting it onto the Wikipedia page. I have received this message several times:

"Thanks for uploading File:University of Europe for Applied Sciences logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)"

I have asked a Wikipedia Editor who has advised: "Hi @MsAttempt:. Thank for your declaring your COI. I am not an expert in copyright images on Wikipedia, but after reading Wikipedia:Image use policy I have some ideas on what to do. You may also want to ask the Wikipedia:Help desk so someone with more experience with images can help. The message above states that the image is not being used in any articles. Since this is a non-free image, Wikipedia will delete the file if it is not being used. Please address the concerns below and post a reply to this request. I or another editor will take a look at the file and add it if necessary. The rationale section in the file is incomplete. The "Author" is blank, and the "Replaceability" and "Commercial" fields are marked with "n.a." These will need to be filled in with why this image fulfils that criteria. Once the above concerns are fixed, please message below so an editor can decide whether to add it to the article or not. I have also included a declaration of your COI at the top of this talk page. Z1720 (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)"

However, whenever I've uploaded the image, there has been no option to fill in an author, replaceability or commercial box. I have also gone onto the page where the image is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:University_of_Europe_for_Applied_Sciences_logo.png) and tried to edit the details from here but am unable to add an author.

Please could you advise on how I can get this image on the institution's Wikipedia page? We own and created the logo.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. MsAttempt (talk) 08:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@MsAttempt I have answered the talk page question there and uploaded the image. I edited the "Summary" section of File:University of Europe for Applied Sciences logo.png (editing on a computer) by selecting "edit source", doesn't that work for you? TSventon (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Cat with dogs

In Category:Individual dogs, Kubrick the Dog is not in italics but should be, while Honolulu (dog) is in italics but shouldn't be. How do I fix that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: On a category page, the software uses italic formatting to mark redirect pages (see Help:Category#Categorizing redirect pages). It's not related to whether the article uses {{italic title}}. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Excellent answer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Archiving own talk page

I'm finally wanting to archive my own talk page... I used the guide in Help:Archiving a talk page, but I'm just wanting to make absolute certain that my edit won't somehow mess a whole bunch of things up, lol. Would this be the correct stuff to add to the top of my talk page in order to start archiving it? And if I read everything correctly, I believe this should automatically archive it itself without me needing to manually move things to archives, and it should start going as soon as I submit the edit with those templates on my talk page? Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Magitroopa, I decided the same thing recently, and did this [1]. It worked, but I had to wait about 10 hours for a bot to come by and do the job, you can see it in the history. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Linked images in refs - ok or not?

If you have the navigation popups active, the article Taboo (permalink) has File:CC-BY icon.svg as preview image. I suspect that is due to the fact that this image is included in ref #3, which probably comes sooner in the wikitext than either the sociology series logo or the "cannibalism" drawing.

Regardless of the nav popups which is after all a side issue, is it appropriate to have such images in the references? I would think not, but I found nothing in WP:CS. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Tigraan: I agree. I have BOLDly removed it. --ColinFine (talk) 13:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

New article idea and questions

I want to make a new article which is a list of United States Congresspeople who have cast the most lone votes in the history of Congress. I have two questions:

1. Is this encyclopedic? I would guess it is, but want to make sure before I invest time in this.

2. How would I go about citing it? As far as I know such a list has not been constructed before, but all the necessary data is available on sites such as govtrack.us and voteview.com. Linking to each lone vote is obviously not possible, because there are far too many. Would adding the sites mentioned above to the External Links section of the article suffice? Jonjbm (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Jonjbm. Unless you are able to take essentially all your data from a single reliable source which is a study of the matter (not just of voting patterns, but specifically of people who have cast lone votes) it will be original research, and not acceptable, I'm afraid. --ColinFine (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

By "single reliable source" do you mean it must all be on a single page? All the relevant data exists on a single reliable website (how every member voted on every vote in history), it's just not been collected onto one single page yet. Jonjbm (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I think collecting one piece of information from each table in a document and putting them together would be synthesis, Jonjbm - one kind of original research - especially if you were wanting to talk about "the most". But in any case, that sounds like a primary source. If nobody has published research or commentary on at least the phenomenon of lone votes, and preferably the question of who has cast the most, then it is not a notable subject. --ColinFine (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Article title and focus

I would like to invite you to comment on the following issue:

Talk:Michael Fagan (intruder)#Article focus

Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Fellow The Crown fan here - I commented at the discussion. An RfC does this in a more scalable way. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

How does one convert a big list of articles on The English Wikipedia to their Wikidata IDs and vice versa?

? WikiJunkie (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@WikiJunkie: I'm not sure how the Wikidata ID is used to identify articles, but you might have more luck asking here [[2]]. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

November 19

Close captions aren't appearing on a page despite adding content to it's time text page

I recently attempted to add lyrics for the audio sample on the Big Bang Baby page, despite adding lyrics to the page it redirected me to, the page still says no text track is available. I wasn't sure if it was a sample page (basically a page similar to a sandbox), so I tried creating a new page that follows the correct naming format, but I am unable to move it.

XNanoWarriorx (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

https://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/ - Please delete this page/link

Dear Wikipedia Editor/ Help Desk,

I am hoping you will be able to kindly assist and help.

This link was created as a result from a wikipedia entry back around 2007-9 and is still coming up in Google with incorrect information.

Can you please source the link and delete the content please and page link entirely.

The link that needs deletion is : https://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/

thank you for any help available.

§ Margiejprice (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Margiejprice, we don't have any control over a site outside of the Wikimedia project, and as far as I can tell there was a discussion about the article's deletion back in 2011. You'd have to get in contact with enacademic. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

See WP:Mirrors and forks as to our overall policy on sites like this. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 01:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

. Appreciate your help and swift reponse guys thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margiejprice (talk • contribs) 01:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Margiejprice (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Or to elaborate a little on what Tenryuu writes: You, Margieprice, are talking about a page on "enacademic.com". That website regurgitates material that is, or has been, on Wikipedia (and much else); however, it's completely out of the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization that runs Wikipedia. Incidentally, you're talking about a "link" when you probably mean a "page"; if you did ask Google to "delete a Wikipedia link to" that page, or similar, then that would explain why Google sent you here. -- Hoary (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Whois suggests that "enacademic.com" is Russian. I'm not an expert in interpreting Whois information; perhaps somebody more knowledgable can infer more than I can. -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

They are using "Privacy protection service - whoisproxy.ru" -- which means that they can be anywhere.

Margiejprice can write a letter to:

enacademic.com C/O whoisproxy.ru

PO box 99

Moscow RU 123308

This is unlikely to work, but it is cheap to try.

Margiejprice can also send four separate emails to:

• enacademic.com@whoisproxy.ru
• webmaster@enacademic.com
• abuse@enacademic.com
• postmaster@enacademic.com

This is also unlikely to work, but costs nothing to try.

I advise Margiejprice to get help wording the letter and the email. If it is anything like her initial post here then even if she reaches enacademic.com they are unlikely to undersand the request -- especially if English is not their primary language. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

According to https://www.accessify.com/e/enacademic.com# the following domains share IP adresses with enacademic.com

• enacademic.com
• omniglot.com
• askdavetaylor.com
• thewindowsclub.com
• soapcentral.com

I suspect that they are unrelated. No similarities that I can see.

According to https://www.ip-adress.com/website/enacademic.com they are using an Amazon server in Germany (amazon sells hosting services, so this is nout unusual.)

Margiejprice can try sending a letter to the address in Germany listed on the above site.

--Guy Macon (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

In 2012, before the site started using the privacy service, the listed owner was "Mark A Adamenko".

According to https://domainbigdata.com/gmail.com/mj/X3-SYhEMVyV-mbKM1SmU5w his contact info (still published in the public WHOIS of fourteen domains, so no privacy issues posting it here) is:

Mark A Adamenko

Zemlyanoy val, 14/16, 77

Moscow RU Russian Federation

mark.adamenko@gmail.com

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you everyone and Guy also. We would appreciate some help if you think we need to make my request with certain terminology when contacting them. Otherwise we appreciate all the help. Trying to find a contact address to request page deletion has proved very troublesome. Margiejprice (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC) MargieJ

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_joke

Is it common practice to use racial slurs on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.176.39 (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. If the use of racial slurs is necessary to understand the article, they will most likely be used for academic reasons. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Deleting paragraphs of an article because of poor placement?

Link to what I'm referring to.

Hi, I was recently involved in a bit of a disagreement with another editor as to how poorly placed but well-researched content should be treated. I was (and still am) of the opinion that a courtesy comment on the talk page after the deletion or in most cases moving the content yourself into an appropriate section should be the action that you should take. I'm just wondering if my argument lines with Wikipedia's policies, as I see both points but (maybe due to bias as I'm the one with the opposing opinion) I still believe that deletion without notification or discussion goes against the spirit of Wikipedia? Please note I'm not trying to direct attacks to or harass the editor by posting this, I'm just wondering whether the case I made is valid? I would have posted this in disputes but since I also agree that the placement was bad, I didn't think it fitted there. Regards, Hunter 02:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

(revised comment) This is the edit that started this. [[3]] Basically an IP editor removed a chunk of text without leaving an edit summary and you reverted it. I would have done the same. It was unexplained removal of text, which is frowned upon, especially by IP editors. I would then ask him to add an edit summary. If they persist without discussion, the IP address can be blocked. Hope this answers your question. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Hunter 11:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

WP: List of Controversial Issues

How do articles get added and removed from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_controversial_issues? Thanks. Rohan608 (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rohan608: Unlike Category:Wikipedia controversial topics, which is autogenerated by adding the "Wikipedia controversial topics" category to the bottom of an article, the list entries are added and deleted manually. It may appear to be redundant, but just using the category tag in an article won't properly sort these articles by topic. The page watchers keep things from getting out of hand. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

BLP under musical groups/bands members section

Is including table consisting of Stage Name, Birth Name (Romanized and other language related if applicable), Date of Birth, Nationality, Position/Roles column inside musical groups/bands members section violating Wikipedia:BLP? There is additional last column for the inline citation to ensure Verifiability. I can't find any guidelines on that topic hence I need clarification as other Wikipedian say it is violating Wikipedia:BLP and including such information is consider off-balance. The article in question that i'm talking is located here, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aespa_(group)&oldid=989457393, it is no longer the latest version because as mentioned above others keep saying it violated this and that.

Adding on the reason for not having these information created as individual members article is because there's lack of content currently to expand beyond the lead section and infobox.

Paper9oll | Talk:(Paper9oll) 04:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

article

hello my name is flower.i published an article under the title Yugyeom today. but im confused as i couldnt see it.is it accepted? how long will it takes for you to publish it? why cant i have the access to my own article? at the top on the left side, theres a box to either project page and talk or user page and tallk. how can i access to article? i dont get it. i need explanation. once again.

I PUBLISHED AN ARTICLE UNDER THE TITLE YUGYEOM. CONNECTED TOA BOY BAND NAME GOT7. HOW LONG WILL IT TAKES FOR MY ARTICLE TO BE PUBLISH/ ITS JUST A BIOGRAPHY.NO HATE OR INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT AT ALL. PLEASE RESPOND. I NEED ANSWERS.

THANK YOU, FLOWER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowergirldandelion (talk • contribs) 09:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The reason on why you're not seeing the article is simply because you didn't remove the Wikipedia:Redirect tag at the top, however I have reverted your edit because the article doesn't meet Wikipedia:SINGER and Wikipedia:BLP requirements. Even if I didn't revert your edit, someone else will do so, simply because it doesn't meet the mentioned requirements. Paper9oll | Talk:(Paper9oll) 09:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

 Courtesy link: Yugyeom @Flowergirldandelion: Unfortunately, you edited a redirect and saved it before before your content was ready to publish. The redirect page has red warning text about this. An article about Yugyeom will need better sources. If you look at the other Got7 members, you'll see their articles have better sources. I think you should spend more time improving the article draft in your sandbox. You can open your sandbox by clicking on the sandbox link on the upper right of your screen next to your user name. When you think the draft is ready, come back here and let us know and we can review and help you publish it if it is ready. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Flowergirldandelion: I moved your user draft from your main user page to User:Flowergirldandelion/sandbox.

Can anyone help correct my entries below to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_and_Criminal_Evidence_Act_1984

Can anyone help correct my entries below to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_and_Criminal_Evidence_Act_1984

In the case of Christopher James Miller v Director of Public Prosecutions (2018) <ref>[4] <ref> Mr.Miller’s conviction for drug driving was revoked because West Midland Police had breached Code C of PACE by not providing him with an appropriate adult despite him telling officers that he had Asperger and being aware from his previous interactions that he had Aspergers.

IPC C Investigation 2012/011560 - A breach of Code C of PACE occurred in 2012 when a vulnerable 11 year old girl Child H with a neurological disability similar to autism who was denied an appropriate adult by Sussex Police after she was arrested on 4 separate occasions for minor offences between February and March 2012. Sussex Police referred the complaint to IPCC and accepted the IPCC recommendations, <ref>[:https://policeconduct.gov.uk/recommendations/recommendation-sussex-police-february-2016]<ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.209.191 (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done

The change made: Special:Diff/989517324.

The result: Special:PermanentLink/989517324#Case law. --CiaPan (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Translation tool - how to get rid of it?

I went to Special:ContentTranslation to see what it was, and now I've got an annoying drop-down when I point to "contributions" at the top of any page. How do I get rid of it please?

It's OK - preferences -> beta features. DuncanHill (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Need Help Finishing proper Wiki format fpr page

 Courtesy link: Draft:Alexander Jackson Maier

Hi guys, I created a page but I do not have publishhing power. I was able to fill out a lot of information at it *looks* like Wikipedia format, but I need an editor to finalize the small details and publish.

-Joshua — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faits1789 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Faits1789: It appears that while the draft hasn't been officially approved or declined, a reviewer has noted some issues with it that should be addressed, particularly Maier's notability as an actor. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

All the review needs to do is read The New York Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faits1789 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Faits1789: Removing legitimate review comments with edit summaries susch as "Irrelevant trolling again" and then the following bizarre statement "Called the issuing office in St. Lucia and information confirmed. Any change after should be evidence specifically against the firsthand evidence. Two spokespeople confirmed the significant detail" is not helping your case. Information about the honour may belong in a different article about the award itself but not in this one. Please review WP:NACTOR and demonstrate how this person passes those guidelines. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Already confirmed, thank you! I don't need any more advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faits1789 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Faits1789: Presumably your 'confirmed' comment refers to the information about the award which does not belong and it seems you have now removed. The second quote in my post above was of your edit summary when again removing the review comment. The ES was at best misleading and bore no relation to the actual edit. You have asked for advice and help and now you are not taking heed. And you have removed the comment a further time. If you continue disrupting the review process you may lose editing privileges. *Again* (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.). Eagleash (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

HELP!!!

 Courtesy link: Sarajane Hoare

I am trying to adjust an incorrect & derogatory post that was creating by someone I do not know I make the edits & 2 minutes later it reverts to the page I disagree with. This is personal & professional information about Sarajane Hoare, how is this possible???? How can I make changes or have the whole entry deleted?

Thank you!

Sarajane Hoare SAUSFRUK (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@SAUSFRUK: The reason why people have been reverting your edits is that you're removing content that is reliably sourced from secondary sources. Also, while editing an article about yourself is not prohibited, it is strongly discouraged, as your edits have made it sound promotional, which Wikipedia does not do. If you wish to propose changes, please do so on the article's talk page with edit requests. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, I am not a computer illiterate person but have NEVER seen anything so complicated ... Not even sure you'll receive this reply! How can I have the page deleted? The information is incorrect & derogatory, would rather have nothin than false info! How is this actually even legal in this day & age? i am not an administrator but no longer wish to appear on Wikipedia at all in this case. Please advise, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAUSFRUK (talk • contribs) 16:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@SAUSFRUK: Get the page deleted? You can't, if it is well-sourced in publicly available, secondary sources. This is what Wikipedia is for: to gather and present a common knowledge. This is legal these days. If you disagree with the article's contents, find WP:RELIABLE sources that show something contrary to the article. Then add lacking or more precise information with references to those sources (or better, propose appropriate edit at the article's talk page). --CiaPan (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@SAUSFRUK: See also Wikipedia:FAQ/Article_subjects#How_can_I_get_rid_of_the_article_about_myself_or_my_company? and other questions in that FAQ]] Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

How to update "Official site"

Hi. The page Dev-C++ has a long history. The "old" official site www.bloodshed.net had been supplanted by orwelldevcpp.blogspot.com, but this year has been taken over by a new fork that is actively maintained at www.embarcadero.com/free-tools/dev-cpp. These are listed in the info box. But how to update "Official site" in the EL? Thanks for your help. peterl (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Peter1. {{Official website}} is one of the templates that draws its information from Wikidata: pick "Wikidata Item" from the sidebar of the article, and you can edit it there. But in my opinion, worrying about this is like cleaning the windows of a house that is about to fall down. Unless enough independent published sources are added, the article does not establish that the subject is notable, and it is likely to get deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Diets and vegan activism

I'm interested in making an article about the carnivore diet, yet all I see here is pointing to the fact that even if I write one it will be removed because of vegan activism on wikipedia.

For example, I just edited a carnivore disambiguation page to remove the word "fad" from "... a fad diet..." which immediately got unmade by a username that is a vegan activist. The word fad is a qualitative descriptor and as such has no place on an objective site.The editor called it nonconstructive to remove biased wording.

I see a lot of vegan activism here, not only for the amount of different articles about the vegan diet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan_nutrition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian_cuisine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan_studies

and so on and on.

Also a lot of diets that are not in line of vegan propagandist here get called fad diets(which is funny since veganism by their own definition is a fad diet that didn't exist before 19th century, no society was even vegan in human history), edits are added with questionable sources to discredit them and a lot of other things.

So, should I start writing or is it pointless? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustANameInUse (talk • contribs) 18:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, were these edits made as User: 93.140.41.35 ? Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   18:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes. They were test edits on that ip to see what would happen. --JustANameInUse (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi JustANameInUse, welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, which is not compatible with advocacy and propaganda; please see the essay on "righting great wrongs" before you go any further. "Neutral point of view" means that we reflect the point of view of reliable sources as closely as we can, rather than making articles reflect our own points of view. Your edit was reverted because the text you changed linked to the carnivore diet, which is described by reliable sources as a fad diet. Note that the diet described in the linked article is a diet of eating only meat, not the typical human diet without specific exclusions, so in fact your edit was not correct. Also, we have a policy of assuming good faith which means that everyone is required to assume that all edits are done with good intentions, and another policy which forbids personal attacks; calling other editors "vegan activists" goes against both of those policies. If you have specific suggestions for improving any articles on veganism or any other diets, or any articles at all, you can be bold and make the edits yourself, or propose edits to discuss with other editors on the articles' talk pages (for example by writing a note at Talk:Veganism). Thanks for your question. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean. You already assumed I was biased because I called out editors who even on their pages say they are vegan. Why are they even following changes to carnivore disambiguation page? Your point is that if you can find a source that describes something as a fad diet then it is. What if I find a source that says otherwise? Who chooses? The disambiguation page has no sources listed for the fad qualifier. Or does the most common agreed upon bias trump objective writing? --JustANameInUse (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

We assume you're biased because, like a lot of people who post on this page, you think there is a conspiracy against your viewpoint. Usually it's anti-Indian or pro-Indian or anti-Trump or pro-Trump, you just chose a different topic. There isn't any anti-meat campaign on Wikipeida. Follow the tenets of Wikipedia and you'll be just fine. Having a page on Veganism does not prove that there is a vegan conspiracy afoot. If you want to make a neutral and well-sourced page about the carnivore diet, do it. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 19:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow, you are assuming a lot about me. Who talked about conspiracy or anything? I just tried an edit to see if I would get a response from a vegan, and look, a vegan did. I also noticed that the last carnivore diet page was removed and the responses redirected to Monotrophic diet, which by definition it is. As is veganism, but you don't see it mentioned. I'll edit it now to see how long it stands. That is why I asked this question. I'm neither a carnivore proponent nor interested in diet wars. Lately I've been reading a lot about nutrition to learn and I find it interesting that a lot of dietary information is not available on wikipedia.JustANameInUse (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

And the edit has been reversed withing 5 minutes as unsourced. What were you saying? JustANameInUse (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

And the editor, who is vegan, who reversed it is here slandering me. And I'm paranoid? JustANameInUse (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are six sources provided in the article if you click through the link to carnivore diet. They are:

1. Dennett, Carrie. "Popular Diet Trends: Today's Fad Diets". Today’s Dietitian. Retrieved 2020-02-04.
2. Hamblin, James. "The Jordan Peterson All-Meat Diet". The Atlantic. ISSN 1072-7825. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
3. Hosie, Rachel (13 August 2018). "'Carnivore diet': New social media trend criticised by nutritionists as 'very damaging'". The Independent. Retrieved 2020-02-04.
4. "The Carnivore Diet: A Beefy Leap of Faith". McGill University. Retrieved 2020-02-04.
5. McLaughlin, Terence. (1979). If You Like It, Don't Eat It: Dietary Fads and Fancies. New York: Universe Books. p. 62. ISBN 0-87663-332-7
6. Sutton, Malcolm (2019-12-05). "The beefed-up diet 'changing lives' but health experts not so sure". ABC News - Australia. Retrieved 2020-02-02.

Number five is not available online and number three is behind a paywall, but of the others, one describes it specifically as a fad, one includes it in a cautionary list of fad diets, and the other two don't use the word "fad" but are similarly cautious reviews of a diet that's trendy on social media and warned against by anyone who's ever studied nutrition. That, generally, is how we decide: we review available reliable sources (reliable meaning independent of the subject being discussed, among other conditions) and present information as they do, considering the due weight of possibly contradictory opinions, as closely as we can. When it's not obvious how a thing should be described then we discuss it with other editors and come to a consensus. But consensus can change, and if you have high-quality reliable sources which say the carnivore diet is not a fad diet, then you can bring that new information to the article's talk page and start a new discussion. It doesn't necessarily mean anything will change or change in the way you want it to, but that's how we do it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

So, how would I find a reliable source that claims that it isn't? Reliable sources generally don't concern themselves with something like that. Let say I delete that qualifier and link something like the British Medical Journal where such qualifiers aren't mentioned, would that be a good edit? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2256728/ JustANameInUse (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

JustANameInUse, you assume without evidence that Vegans will interfere with a page on the Carnivore diet. Is it OK for me to assume without evidence that you will interfere with pages on veganism? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Without evidence? A vegan editor follows carnivore disambiguation page and reversed the edit within a small timeframe? And you call me out that I will interfere on vegan articles that I didn't even touch? Are you serious? JustANameInUse (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Please note this is unlikely to be a new user. JustANameInUse is very likely to be a sock-puppet of the banned Zalgo or associated with him. If you check the monotrophic diet article he has been blocked on many accounts previously in regard to his obsession the carnivore diet. Previous socks of Zalgo obsessed with the carnivore diet and criticising veganism include skyisdeep, BecomeFree etc. A trademark of this sock is he doesn't like his userpage red. Amongst the earliest edits on JustANameInUse were to create it. The monotrophic diet article is low traffic, every few months Zalgo turns up on a new sock to edit it. It's no surprise that he is now editing that article [5]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

And here comes the slander from the vegan who took over the page. I don't even know who Zalgo is. What does it matter it is a low traffic article? It linked me to it from the carnivore disambiguation page. If you look over my ip you will see I'm from Croatia. Have you no decency? JustANameInUse (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

There has been a lot of sock-puppetry in regard to the carnivore diet, monotrophic diet etc this year on Wikipedia. I find it unlikely you are a brand new user. Even if you are a new user unfortunately you have gone about this the wrong way and your edits are disruptive. You are now removing the fact the carnivore diet is a fad diet on specific articles. This is disruption because the content is well sourced. We do not need a vegan vs carnivore diet battle mentality on Wikipedia but that is what you are trying to create. The medical community and dietitians do not take the carnivore diet seriously. We have multiple reliable sources dismissing it as anti-science and quackery. By arguing against consensus you are going against WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Your post here just confirms your vegan bias. First you slander me to be another user, then call my edits biased when they are just a removal of a quantifier that has no place in a objective writing and now you call the carnivore diet anti-science and quackery. And you call yourself unbiased and fair? Are you kidding me? JustANameInUse (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

This is clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. So far you have called every editor on here you dislike a "vegan". You have a battleground mentality. There are no vegan editors here in this discussion. Your edits are disruptive, as were the edits on your alleged IP [6]. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your pet fad diet. There is no vegan agenda here. We reflect what mainstream nutritional sources say. Maybe read the fad diet article and get a better understanding of what a fad diet is. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Editors I disliked? What are you talking about? Your own user page has a vegan award, quote: "Thank you for your contributions to the visibility of vegan and vegetarian historical developments on Wikipedia!" Those were test edits to see what would happen. I'm not here to promote anything. What are you so against this? JustANameInUse (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Taylor & Francis academic journals

On the page Category:Taylor & Francis academic journals when I click on "A" I get B through J and when I click on "B" I get C through J. "C" gives me D through J, and "D" gives me E through L.

"0-9" gives me A but the "previous page " link works and brings me to Écoscience for some reason.

"W" gets me X and "X" gets me "There are no pages or files in this category".

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: This should resolve itself in a few days. A software change is being installed behind the scenes - see here and here for discussion. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

bias

I would donate to you guys but it seems you are biased so I don't — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.69.183.43 (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

There are millions of articles here and thousands of volunteers with different biases, but somehow it works. If you have issues with any of the millions of articles, you are welcome to open a discussion on the article's talk page to see if you can convince others that you are right. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Add to a page or make a similar one

Hello, I and many othes have lots of photographs of Cornish mines and engine houses. There is a Wiki page already -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Cornwall_and_Devon?fbclid=IwAR0AXZskvVufMyiIy08Pzo3YueCGoHpPAzqj9aL7s59_6BgyaAKUm4uZlnQ#Partial_list_of_Cornish_mines.

The above is a general run around about mining in the Southwest.

I want a page (maybe called Cornish Mines), where people can upload pictures, articles etc. on each individual mine in Cornwall. Can I set up a new page and link it into the one above, or a totally new page?

Thank you for your help Tracy Elliott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracyclimber (talk • contribs) 21:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Tracyclimber. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which contains articles which are summaries of what reliable sources say about notable topics: a gallery of pictures would not be appropriate, unless it was attached to an article, say about Cornish tin mines. However, assuming that you and your friends hold the copyright to them, or that they are old enough to be in the public domain, then you are very welcome to upload them to Wikimedia Commons, where they would be a resource that can be used in any Wikimedia project; for example in articles about the towns where the mines were. Many Wikipedia articles have a template such as {{Commons}} or {{Commons category}}, which draws readers' attention to the existence of relevant materials in Commons. --ColinFine (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what their policies are, but maybe Wikipedia's sister project Wikivoyage would be more appropriate? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I am Councilman Jay H. Banks' Chief of Staff and I am submitting his official biography.

The Councilman has asked that I edit his official page — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLewis4Banks20 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I have moved this to Draft:Jay H. Banks, but of course it has no chance of being accepted as an article, not only because it is so poorly written and promotional, but because there is no evidence anywhere in the puff piece that councilman Banks is notable enough to merit an article in a global encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@JLewis4Banks20: Welcome to Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's policy on paid editors. You should not directly edit the page directly, and instead suggest edits on the article's talk page through edit requests. You should also disclose your affiliation with the subject on your user page. You may use {{paid}} to do so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)