Help desk
< November 28	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

November 29

Can I get a receipt for my donation?

Can I get a receipt for my donation? DrKarl-Oz (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DrKarl-Oz. The volunteer editors here at the English Wikipedia have nothing to do with financial donations. You will have to contact the Wikimedia Foundation. This link will give you information. Donating to the Wikimedia Foundation Cullen328 (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have nothing to do with the donation process, please email the Foundation at donate at Wikimedia dot org. 331dot (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting sources

I'm a new editor so if I'm asking this in the wrong place, please redirect me and accept my thanks.

I'm editing an article about the founder and first director of Musée de la civilisation in Quebec, Roland Arpin. Page 63 of this source says that what in 1980 time was called Musée du Quebec had a mandate to display ethnographic collections, but it was falling short so a new museum was needed. I decided to verify that.

Musée du Quebec is now called Musée national des beaux-arts du Québec. That page's primary source for the history of the museum is here. This makes no mention at all of ethnographic collections. What should I do? Would contacting the author of the book be original research? If it's allowed in this case and she responds to me, how do I cite that in the article? Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Oona Wikiwalker. Here is my view: The fact that one reliable source makes a plausible claim and another reliable source does not comment on the matter does not mean that the sources are in conflict. If the first source is truly reliable, then it can be cited without a second corroborating source. Anything you learned through direct communication with the author would be original research. Cullen328 (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oona Wikiwalker: By "original research", Cullen328 means WP:OR. Bazza (talk) 09:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oona Wikiwalker, you could look for further published sources. A Google books search for "Musée du Quebec" + ethnogaphique produces some relevant hits. TSventon (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

deletion stats

how could one obtain the number of article deletions per day over a year, please? it doesn't need to be a graphical plot, a table or list would be fine. thanks! PS: wmcharts seems to be out of date: https://wmcharts.toolforge.org/wmchart0004.php fgnievinski (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fgnievinski, if no one here knows, you may find someone who can help at WP:RAQ. Folly Mox (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are third party sites selling Wikipedia branded merchandise legit?

I was promoted tonight to make my annual donation and remembered Wikipedia also has a store with Merch for sale. Years ago there was a tote bag available with the wiki globe logo on it, but has since been discontinued or sold out. But when googling that phrase it seems there's lots of other sites selling a similar wikipedia branded tote bag. Are these "officially" licensed in any way or no? I ONLY want to support wikipedia and if that means never getting this tote bag I'm okay with that, I just don't know where to find out for sure.

Presumably the answer is no, but perhaps it's just been outsourced? Kreezzalee (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kreezzalee: I don't see any tote bags on the official Wikipedia store. I do see tote bags on Redbubble (and lots of other merchandise with other logos) that has no indication of proper licensing from the trademark owners. GoingBatty (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No way to know for sure, but to my mind I can't see the Foundation licensing our logos to other party. But if the person is using them without permission, the Foundation probably doesn't care enough to spend resources to play wack-a-mole with these sort of businesses, would be my guess. Herostratus (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Removal of Unregistered User Edit - [Article title: بلال پاشا]

Dear Wikipedia staff, Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to bring your attention to a recent edit made by an unregistered user on the [بلال پاشا] page. Unfortunately, due to unforeseen circumstances, I am unable to log in and address this matter directly.

I understand the importance of maintaining accurate and reliable information on Wikipedia, and I am concerned about the inclusion of my recent edit, which is associated with my IP address. I kindly request the removal of this edit from the article.

I acknowledge Wikipedia's commitment to transparency and community-driven content, and I want to assure you that this request is made in the spirit of upholding the platform's standards. I believe that removing this edit will contribute to the overall accuracy and quality of the mentioned page.

I am more than willing to provide additional context or clarification regarding my request if needed. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards

[Your Wikipedia username, if applicable] [Additional contact information, if desired] 154.80.84.43 (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: بلال پاشا at the Urdu Wikipedia

Every Wikipedia is independent of the others. If you have a request for ur:Wikipedia, you'll have to make it at ur:Wikipedia, not here in en.Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, when I click on that courtesy link, I see the Urdu page has a return link to my user page. How handy! Bjenks (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts and extended-confirmed protection

OP is a sockpuppet, now blocked. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Several pages have been reverted to bad versions and then protected, in some cases extended-confirmed protected. For starters, see the recent edit histories of Opeyemi Sowore and Tower of London, where reverts have restored display errors. In Mercy Aigbe, a revert removed words which clearly belonged there. It's slightly more complicated with Mark Geragos, Charles Ingram, and Porter and Jick, but if you look at the sources, you'll see that the other versions were clear improvements (and if you know anything about U.S. politics, you'll know that a pardon is quite unlikely to have been requested on January 20, 2001, which is what the Mark Geragos article currently states.) If you follow certain editors' recent histories, you can find even more pages where similar things have happened. I wish people would just focus on content.

(Yes, I know this probably isn't the right place for this, but I don't see where else to go, all things considered.) 204.102.40.250 (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have no ability to change the protection situation but I fixed the clear broken formatting in the first two ones. I hope. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The right place to discuss such things, at least initially, is the talk pages of the articles.

I've had a look at the edit histories of several of tha pages you list, and observed that IP editors are less likely to be taken seriously than registered editors. That is "wrong" and against Wikipedia policy. Nevertheless, I would advise any serious IP editor to register an account. Maproom (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That won't work, unfortunately. The only hope here is that an already established user will step in and focus on actual content. Mark Geragos is the place to start; when you see the absurdity of those reverts, you'll realize that Porter and Jick, Charles Ingram, and other pages are worth looking at as well. 204.102.40.250 (talk) 05:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This IP, of course, is just another block-evading sock complaining that their prior socks' edits were were rightly reverted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Weird interlanguage link

Can anyone figure out why this article shows as having an interlanguage link to a nonexistent Norwegian nynorsk article? It doesn't appear to be on the wikidata entry. This is unrelated to me adding the local interlanguage links to the Swedish and Afrikaans wikis (to override wikidata because other language wikis have articles on the perpetrator and not the event), it was there before. I thought adding those might fix it, but it did not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA: there was an incorrect interwikilink in Template:Massacre-stub (for several months) which got included in the article. I removed it. MKFI (talk) 09:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MKFI Ohhhhh, that makes sense, yeah it didn't seem like an article title. Thank you very much. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 36.80.31.52 (talk) had added similar broken interwikilinks to several other templates and also to some categories. I think I got them all cleaned up now. MKFI (talk) 10:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

photos

Why can't I upload photos to my Wikipedia page it gives me this warning " We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons." The picture is not copyrighted and not graphic. Maggie on the block (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie on the block Are you attempting to upload your image to Commons? You'll need to handle issues with the process there. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maggie on the block: Try starting at commons:Special:UploadWizard. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that you say "The picture is not copyrighted". If is was produced at certain times and places this can be accurate, but at most times and places in the modern world, every work is automatically copyright (not "copyrighted") unless the right is explicitly waived. For this reason, Commons requires an explicit justification for a claim that an image is in the public domain (which is another way of saying "not copyright"). ColinFine (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie on the block, that is an automated warning. However I echo what ColinFine says above, as the logged warnings c:Special:AbuseLog/10243939, c:Special:AbuseLog/10243941 and c:Special:AbuseLog/10243942 suggest that you were trying to upload an album cover art which almost certainly would be copyrighted. MKFI (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maggie on the block: If you are trying to upload album cover art, you can use the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard and upload it as a non-free file, and then add the image to the infobox on the article about the album. Then you can visit the article's talk page and remove any WikiProject parameters like |needs-photo= and templates like {{photo requested}}. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maggie on the block: It's copyrighted by default and the copyright by default is owned by the photographer. If you take it yourself, it's still copyrighted, but you own the copyright and you can therefore license it to Wikipedia. -Arch dude (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template portal

I have always written "{{Portal|Food|Italy}}" (example), but I would like to know whether the country should be written before or after. JackkBrown (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JackkBrown, I don't think it matters. In any case, I believe portals are mostly inactive. TSventon (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not "incactive", "unfortunately declining", perhaps. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: @Edward-Woodrow: no longer necessary, I did it all manually (the valuable List of Italian dishes page helped me a lot); lists are so underrated, but they are so useful. JackkBrown (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for a Reference

In a long article, I want to know if a particular reference has been used previously. I can tediously examine every reference at the end of the article to determine this but is there an easy way to interogate/search the article to find a match to a keyword for a particular reference? Newwhist (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Newwhist: Use your browser's search function (ctrl+f). You can either search the article as displayed, or search the wikisource of the article if you need to search the reference's URL syntax. To search in the wikisource, click the "edit" button at the top of the article. Please do not accidentally actually edit the article during this process. -Arch dude (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Newwhist: It's ctrl+f in Windows browsers, also at other websites. If it doesn't work then tell us your browser and operating system or device. Wikipedia's standard source editor has a more advanced search function which can also replace text and use regular expressions. First click "Advanced" in a toolbar above the edit area and then a magnifying glass icon at the far right. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

I have noticed that on the "Southern Italy" page lowercase letter is used for "Southern", whereas on the "Northern Italy" page "Northern" is written with a capital letter. Why? What is right? Remember that I am not a native English speaker. JackkBrown (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown: Why are there inconsistency across articles? Because no one has taken the time to make them consistent. Building that consensus could be done on one of those article talk pages, or maybe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Italy. GoingBatty (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But the editor is asking about consistency within an article. Inconsistency across articles doesn't matter, it's not worth worrying about IMO.

Either is correct, but within an article, inconsistency on matters like this might be annoying, possibly slightly confusing, likely to be argued over, and makes us look a bit feckless. So it's worthwhile to fix it if you're up to it.

Since either is correct, to decide which way to fix it... use the way that's most used in the article, or just pick one at random (or, ideally, use the case used by the article creator (or first person to use the term in the article) if you're up to that). There's no rule about this I don't think. Herostratus (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JackkBrown, in conventional English orthographies, "Southern X" and "southern X" often have different connotations: the former implies that the term is conventionally recognised in some particular context (which could be in government administration, a weather-forecast region, some scientific discipline, a commercial company's sales-force organisation, etc., etc.) while the latter is more vague and may be a current writer's momentary description with no intended precision. Thus a particular article could validly use both to mean slightly different things.

It is my impression that in the Southern Italy article, both meanings are being used. Determining whether or not each variation is being used appropriately in all 51 instances of "S|southern Italy" is an editorial exercise I do not care to undertake, though you are welcome to. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.32 (talk) 08:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I see what you mean. Mnmn. I was wrong, I take back what I said. Instead: "Southern" would only be used in a proper noun phrase, or shorthand for a proper noun, which would be rare in most articles like this. It implies a formally named entity and shouldn't be used otherwise. I would not be adverse to sticking this into a rule in one of the MOS's somewhere.

In the article, every use of "Southern" is either the start of a sentence or clearly incorrect; "... and Southern Italian ports...", which was used in the article, can't be correct; it's either "southern Italian ports" or "Southern Italian Ports", which the latter would only be correct if referring to The League of Southern Italian Ports or something in which case you had better use the full name anyway, at first introduction at least. This was the only error that I found in the text.

Fixing it, not that onerous a problem I guess, altho it is a bit of work. Nobody's required to fix it, we all pass on lots of things that need fixing if we're doing something else. Hold on... [type type type]... Done, did not take long, but I see what you mean, there are a number of instances where upper-case is properly used: Start of sentence, title case for books and articles, names of image files. There weren't any proper noun phrases in this article but you do have to watch for them. There was one mis-cased Wikilink that needed to be fixed. The target article was properly cased, what to do if the link is to an article that itself is miscased, I don't know, or care really. It would be hard to write a robot to fix this, altho I suppose ChatGBT could. Herostratus (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Libelous Posting

Someone has edited my company's page. They are Anonymous6256. The posting is libel and will cause significant harm to our company. They appear to be a disgruntled employee. Is there some way to block this person and ideally, find out who they are so I can discuss with them? Lynn.hamilton (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a legal threat(elsewhere). 331dot (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]