- For other types of questions, see Help:Contents and Are you in the right place? 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.
- We are all volunteers, so sometimes replies can take some time. Please be patient. Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
- If you need real-time help, you can join our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
- If you are a new editor, you might prefer to ask your question at the Teahouse, an area specifically for new users to get help with editing, article creation and general Wikipedia use, in a friendly environment.
- Remember to sign your post by adding 4 tildes (
~~~~
) at the end of your post. Alternatively, you can click on the signature icon () on the edit toolbar.
January 13
University of St Andrews
Ref number 36 was hard to do - please fix with various concerns. Sorry and thank you. 1.145.153.254 (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- I changed "page 30" to "page=30". The rest of the citation was fine. MB 03:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
University of Dundee
ref 15 is all wrong - please assist thanks. 49.198.41.28 (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- It says "missing or empty title", that means the
title
parameter in the template is missing or empty. 😛 One way to fix is to copy the URL, re-insert a new "cite journal", and use the automatic lookup feature to fetch details. The process varies depending on whether you're using the classic source editor or something else (I used the former, tapped the Cite drop-down and in the form that pops up, there is a magnifying-glass button under the URL field). Compare the before-and-after: Special:Diff/1065386926. It still should have authors added, but won't display a warning if they are missing. Hope that helps! ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 08:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Howl at the Moon Piano Bar
Should the "Relisting" comment at Talk:Howl at the Moon Piano Bar not go after my comment on January 1, 2022? Please {{ping}} me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677: I moved the comment so it now appears in the proper chronological location. GoingBatty (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Converting mobile diffs
I hate mobile diffs, so anytime someone uses one, which is unfortunately all too often, I want to convert it to an ordinary diff. It used to be that if I clicked on the mobile diff at the bottom I could click on "desktop" and that would convert it to a normal diff. Lately, the word desktop is gone. For example, look at User talk:Bbb23#Question and the mobile diff there. BTW, if anyone can do a better job answering the question posed by the user, that'd be good. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- I hadn't realised that the word "desktop" has gone, and yes it's annoying, so I hope that someone responsible can look at it. To convert to a normal diff one needs to remove the word "Mobile" from the url, so change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1065336137?diffmode=source to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1065336137?diffmode=source . --David Biddulph (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- I guess in the example you gave the easiest way would be removing "Mobile" from "Special:MobileDiff", which would convert to a normal diff. I don't know if there are any other methods. Concerning the question by the user, I believe Wikipedia:Rollback#Additional tools contains the answer they are looking for. Isabelle 🔔 14:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- I read the additional tools link, thanks, but although I'm assuming that the word "sum" automatically does what manually adjusting the URL does, it doesn't say that Twinkle adds the word "sum" (and the tiny picture doesn't show it).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have Twinkle installed and do not have that option. I looked around and it appears to be from this script, which adds the "sum" button. Isabelle 🔔 14:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- I read the additional tools link, thanks, but although I'm assuming that the word "sum" automatically does what manually adjusting the URL does, it doesn't say that Twinkle adds the word "sum" (and the tiny picture doesn't show it).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- They posted the wikilink Special:MobileDiff/1065336137. If you click it at the desktop site then you actually stay at the desktop site, like all wikilinks. That's why you still see the normal desktop menus. It just uses a diffent way to display the diff. I also dislike it. You can click "Mobile view" at the bottom to go to the mobile site, and then click "Desktop" at the bottom to go to a normal desktop diff. It's silly but it works. If you have an End key to jump to the bottom then it doesn't take long. Or you can just remove "Mobile" from the url as others say. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- It was probably that way before, and I just forgot the extra step. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- It wasn't always like this, and it only happens when somebody posts a wikilink like Special:MobileDiff/1065336137 instead of a url like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1065336137. In the past, mobile diffs had url's like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1065336137. It redirects to Special:MobileDiff now but that special page hasn't always existed. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- It was probably that way before, and I just forgot the extra step. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Importing pictures from other Wikipedia languages
Can I import pictures used in articles in other language Wikipedias? How do I do it? Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, Jokkmokks-Goran. If the picture is in Commons, then you may freely use it in any Wikimedia project. If it is not, then you need to check its licensing. If it is freely licensed compatibly with Commons' C:COM:Image use policy, then you can transfer it to Commons, and use it. If not, you need to determine whether your proposed use of it will be consistent with all of the Non-free content criteria. If not, then the picture cannot be used on English Wikipedia. If it does meet them, then you will need to upload it to English Wikipedia separately (I would think you can give the URL of it in the other-language Wikipedia) as non-free, and give the justification for using it in en-wiki. --ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
cutting a link
Hello, Quite new in Wikipedia. I added info to precise child names in a person infobox, it triggered an automatic link to an homonym of one a children. How do I suppress that link (the child has no wikipedia page) ? Thanks for your help, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zibou7 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Removed. We don't list non-notable children in the infobox. And you should not just assume that articles exist or that they are for the correct person. Johanne Wagner (entered as [[Johanne Wagne]] ) is a red link because there is no article by that name. If we were going to mention that person it would simply be entered as Johanne Wagner, without the square brackets. Christian Wagner is an American film editor and is unlikely to be the son of the Canadian politician Claude Wagner. Meters (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Problems with editing text box
I'm having a lot of problems with the text box to edit articles. It is very slow; I type something and it can take up to 2 minutes to actually show on the screen. This results in a lot of errors due to the fact that the delay in it appearing the screen causes me to lose track of any changes I've made. Please help.--Beneficii (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Beneficii: Are you using the visual editor or the source editor to edit, and are the articles you're trying to edit rather large? Some pages use templates that cause them to slow down substantially, especially with the visual editor. The best quick-fix I can think of is to edit in source by section. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Beneficii: I had this issue on a few articles yesterday. I hope it was a temporary issue, as I'm not experiencing it today. GoingBatty (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Volume numbers in book citations
This is no doubt explained somewhere, but I cannot find it. I use a lot of references and citations that are multi-volume but cannot see any way of giving a volume number without the p. showing before it in the book citation. There must be some way of doing it, so if someone could give a link or explanation, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScotHistMaven (talk • contribs) 19:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- {{cite book}} allows a parameter of |volume. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Trouble updating wikipedia page
Hi there. I am having trouble editing a wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeff_Pollack_(music_executive)&oldid=1065125647
I updated it the other day with Jeff Pollack's film, TV, and producer accomplishments, and fully cited everything. But my updates were immediately removed. Need help figuring out why and what I am doing wrong! Thanks, Tara — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.150.11 (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like it was removed for both being a promotional piece, and also a copyright violation. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted sock notice template?
I was giving a SPI procedures Wikipedia page a read and I found a red-linked template there. Someone may want to fix the issue. The red-link is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerk and checkuser procedures § For tagging. Cheers! ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 21:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- @CX Zoom: Hi there! You might want to post your note on Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerk and checkuser procedures, where you'll be more likely to find knowledgeable editors who will know whether the template should be replaced or deleted. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- I actually posted it here because it looks like the relevant talk page is followed only once every long while and this place is always lively. Nevertheless, I posted it where it should reasonably belong to, at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerk and checkuser procedures § Deleted sock notice template?. Thanks and cheers! ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 22:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- An editor took the appropriate action after posting it on relevant talk page. Thansk everyone. Thanks Batty. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 23:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- I actually posted it here because it looks like the relevant talk page is followed only once every long while and this place is always lively. Nevertheless, I posted it where it should reasonably belong to, at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerk and checkuser procedures § Deleted sock notice template?. Thanks and cheers! ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 22:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
How Do I get my Wiki page posted?
Hi there, I'm trying to get my Wikipedia page for Oberix Group posted. But it keeps getting knocked back saying it 'doesn't have significant coverage of the topic.' How do I change this? I find the automated response a bit vague and I'm a bit lost. Thanks, Magnus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnusthurley (talk • contribs) 21:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Magnusthurley If you are associated with this company, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures you must make. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about the existence of a business; a Wikipedia article(not a "page") must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage- coverage that goes beyond merely telling of its existence or what it does- say about it, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. If there is no signficant coverage of this company, it would not merit a Wikipedia article and no amount of editing can change that. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- You have a VERY clear conflict of interest which you must disclose as per the instructions on your talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Magnusthurley: Hi there! The automated response contains many links to Wikipedia policies that you might find helpful. For example, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Independent sources. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Gallery problem
I can't figure out why the third second photo in Kelly-Springfield Motor Truck Company#Gallery isn't showing up. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Clarityfiend: In this template, unless you explicitly mention a parameter such as
title=
,height=
, etc, this assumes that every alternate line is for a file and it's caption. In this specific case, 1st line is for title, then 2nd, 4th, 6th, .... are for File names; whereas 3rd, 5th, 7th, .... are for corresponding caption. The second picture is at the 5th line which should've been used for caption of picture at line 4. As line 4 is blank, the content of 5th line doesn't appear either. To fix it, place pictures at line 2, 4, 6 and so on. I hope it was helpful. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 23:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)- I think the point is that the
altn
parameter neets to be named. The layout in the Template documentation carefully uses thealtn
parameter every time, but doesn't draw attention to the fact that it is named every time. --ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)- I went to add a qualifier to that line but don't have the rights to edit Template:Gallery. "|Altn= – alt attribute: |alt1= for the first image, |alt2= for the second image, etc. If altn is blank, a single | must still be included between file names for the template to work.", at least until they fix the template code. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Resolved
- Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- I went to add a qualifier to that line but don't have the rights to edit Template:Gallery. "|Altn= – alt attribute: |alt1= for the first image, |alt2= for the second image, etc. If altn is blank, a single | must still be included between file names for the template to work.", at least until they fix the template code. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think the point is that the
January 14
Wikipedia Tasks
How to get the anti vandalism job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WolfeReAds (talk • contribs) 01:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- WolfeReAds, please read Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit. Cullen328 (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Chef Jean Pierre
For being the authority of encyclopedia knowledge, you and your staff can be incredibly stupid when it comes to research. Jean Pierre, evidently a common name, has no reference to him owning a famous Florida restaurant for years, teaching cooking for fifty years, and being the most popular chef in America with NO, NONE, NON-EXISTENT article about the man, his background, his history - NOTHING! How idiotic is that? The reference page refers the reader to a French cartoon. What? Say what? So I give up on Wikopeedeah... yeah, I spelled it wrong on purpose. I'm withdrawing my annual funds, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinemabon (talk • contribs) 08:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Cinemabon: there are no staff here. Just volunteers who write all the articles. So if you notice that there is a gap where you think an article should be written, then you are welcome to write it - that is how every other article came to be here.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Cinemabon would first have to specify which Jean-Pierre. A quick look at sources reveal at least this one, Jean-Pierre Leverrier, who used to run a restaurant on County Road, Palm Beach, and that one, Jean-Pierre Brehier, operating a cooking school in Fort Lauderdale. So there is at least two different Jean-Pierre chefs within a twenty kilometer radius with some minimal sourcing about both of them.
- That being said, from my cursory search I believe the latter one might be notable. If someone wants to start a draft, I would be happy to assist. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Kudos, Tigraan. My searching failed to establish even his likely surname. Most of the relevant hits for "Chef Jean-Pierre" are of his YouTube videos, restaurant advertisements, and other promotional material clearly not independent of him, so not useable to establish his Notability in Wikipedia's terms, which, Cinemabon, is not the same as "fame" or "popularity". If you think this subject merits an article (and along with Tigraan, I think it's likely), then assist us by providing suitable sources (not necessarily on line) on which an article can be based. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.195.175.103 (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Cinemabon: Your assertion that this chap is "the most popular chef in America" is the last reason in the world that one would find a Wikipedia article on him. We can document the highest mountain, the deepest ocean, the tallest building, perhaps even the tallest or oldest person. As for "most popular chef in America," that's no more than what I said--your assertion. Uporządnicki (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Kudos, Tigraan. My searching failed to establish even his likely surname. Most of the relevant hits for "Chef Jean-Pierre" are of his YouTube videos, restaurant advertisements, and other promotional material clearly not independent of him, so not useable to establish his Notability in Wikipedia's terms, which, Cinemabon, is not the same as "fame" or "popularity". If you think this subject merits an article (and along with Tigraan, I think it's likely), then assist us by providing suitable sources (not necessarily on line) on which an article can be based. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.195.175.103 (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Career Statistics box isn't showing in Grey for headings or totals for Cameron Devlin
I just added the Career Statistics for Devlin however it is all showing as white for some reason even though I took the code from the Football Wikiproject page. I can't see why the headings and totals though bold are not grey as well like the example? — NZFC(talk)(cont) 09:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Must be a browser or monitor error as on my phone can see it properly with the grey boxes.— NZFC(talk)(cont) 09:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- @NZFC: Have you tried purging the article within your browser? GoingBatty (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Who copied whom?
The background to this question is that I am doing a DYK check, and I ran the Copyvio tool against the article (Eberhard Zeidler). It found that large slabs of text were identical to two web sites: www
- It is apparent that insideeko.com copied off Wikipedia. Their article is dated January 12, 2022 (which is after the timestamp of my edits in question). —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Doing... Hmm, the metalocus.es source requires some investigation. It is dated December 2015, and the Wayback Machine’s first snapshot is in March 2017). The Wikipedia article at the time (in 2015 or in 2017) does not contain any text similar to the current content... but then the WayBack machine’s snapshot has no paragraph about Zeidler either. I will check a bit the snapshots. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 10:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have tagged Talk:Eberhard Zeidler that the first source has copied from us. Tigraan if you determine the second source copied from us too, please can you add it to the Template:Backwards copy on that talkpage, so this article (hopefully) doesn't get flagged as a copyvio again? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Back from the investigation, I have no proof of the copyvio status either way. I am judging based on the paragraph
Zeidler first joined an architectural firm with Blackwell and Craig in Peterborough, Ontario. He later relocated to Toronto...
. That text was added on Wikipedia in Bloom6132’s January 9, 2022 edit, citing that source (dated January 7, 2022) (whose information was repackaged, so no copyvio on that side). On the other hand, the Wayback machine has a snapshot on May 2021 (the most recent one) that does not contain the text. The possibilities are therefore:- Bloom6132’s Jan 9 edit is legit, and metalocus did the copyvio somewhere between Jan 9 and today (Jan 14)
- metalocus added the text at some point between May 2021 and Jan 2022, and Bloom6132 made a copyvio edit that contains another plausible source but not the copyvio source
- Since Bloom6132 has assured us on the DYK nomination page that #2 is not what happened, I am going to go with possibility #1. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Back from the investigation, I have no proof of the copyvio status either way. I am judging based on the paragraph
- I have tagged Talk:Eberhard Zeidler that the first source has copied from us. Tigraan if you determine the second source copied from us too, please can you add it to the Template:Backwards copy on that talkpage, so this article (hopefully) doesn't get flagged as a copyvio again? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
incorrect information
HI i have discovered a Wikipedia page about myself however some of the infoirmation is not correct. I have corrected it but the corrections do not appear. For example I did not develop an incontinence 'nappy' I developed washable incontinence knickers or panties. I also added several bits that were missing. I have for example old newspaper articles relating to this information but they are pre internet and do not appear. please advise how I go about rectifying these errors. Thanks and best wishes
Judith Balcazar — Preceding unsigned comment added by HFA1953 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, Judith. Please see WP:Autobiography#Problems in an article about you for how to proceed. You should not directly edit Wikipedia's article about you, but should rather suggest edits using the Edit request process. Silver seren partially reverted your edit because you introduced information which was not cited to a published source: verifiability is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Just to add - Pre-internet sources are fine. Just cite the publication information, such as the name of the newspaper, the title of the article, the date of publication, and the page number. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- In addition, some people may be able to track down the newspaper articles online, especially with the help of The Wikipedia Library. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 19:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Just to add - Pre-internet sources are fine. Just cite the publication information, such as the name of the newspaper, the title of the article, the date of publication, and the page number. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Colorful recent changes
Hello! So due to phab:T290113 (which apparently only I experience), my recent changes filters occasionally remove the filters related to the faith of the user's edit. I recently added goodfaith=likelybad&
back to the URL when it's gone. Upon doing so my recent changes page became very colorful and looked very different. Instead of having all my filters it just had the likely bad faith and very likely bad faith filters applied, and all of the entries on the page were highlighted in a reddish color, with orange dots next to the filters applied. ANyone know what caused this to happen? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- The removal of filters happens to me too, but no idea on the color thing. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 14:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oh really? Well that's good to know that I"m not the only one. Could I add you to the phab case since you also experience it? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Edits I made did not seem to last a month
On 5 August 2021 - I made - as the History shows a change to Roger Hammer's biblio. at his request. I see the on 31 August 2021 - the word "reverted" appears in the history. Two questions are relevant here: 1) did I fail to do something reference-wise to make the change permanent and 2) how can I (or anyone) make a change to a person's bibliographic info without said person's OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BotanikmanUSA (talk • contribs) 14:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- @BotanikmanUSA: Anyone can edit any unprotected article with or without anyone's OK. You did fail to do things reference-wise; you actually removed all the sources (I assume that was accidental as you probably just rewrote the entire thing?), and you added more information without any citations. Please see the Verifiability, No original research, and Referencing for beginners policies for more info on that topic.
- Also, please read the guidelines at WP:COI for how to handle writing on topics you may be personally connected to. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
2022 Pro Bowl
Can you please upload the 2022 Pro Bowl Logo please. 98.186.54.177 (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- This request is best made at Talk:2022 Pro Bowl. The best way to see something done is to do it yourself- see Files for upload. 331dot (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi there! If you make the request there, be sure to provide the URL of a website that contains the logo. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Dj cool Herc did not invent hiphop he was JUST a dj
He was just a dj while a major movement called locking had already begun on the west coast.. this is false uneducated information.. please change this Cool Herc Never rose to international fame he was JUST a dj. Not anything else — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.201.170 (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Please discuss any concerns with a specific article on its talk page. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say, so if those sources are not being correctly summarized, please describe the specific errors. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Courtesy link: DJ Kool Herc GoingBatty (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Help
Please please help me to restore the previous version of Jigjiga maps and images. Too intricated. Thanks 196.188.240.90 (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi there! Are you referring to the Jijiga article? You can click the "View history" tab and revert an edit (or series of edits) to restore a previous version. If you would like some assistance with this particular article, I suggest you post a more specific request on the article's talk page: Talk:Jijiga. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Help
Please, help me. I want to change my user name.--Edegouges.olymp (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
How do we add a Notable alumni to a High School page?
Looking to add a Graduate who played professional soccer to a High school site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:D101:AA90:4888:CF7:CA19:2A56 (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- The alumni first should have an article. If they do, you may simply edit the article's alumni section to add them. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Hello, if the person passes the criteria at WP:NFOOTY, I.e. has played in a fully professional league (see that page for more about whch leagues qualify), then an article can be created about them (if one does not already exist). Once an article exists, the name (linked to the article) can be added to the list of notable alumni. Eagleash (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Standard procedure for Talk Page vandalism?
Hi, I recently came across an obvious talk page vandalism, see Talk:Swami Vivekananda § Djdkdkdksskeoeoslslsosslfkkfkfkdkakd. C. C. C. C c d c. V d s f. F d x c x s. Xc d d c. F c d c d c d d x s. D z. D. D z. D a a s s a z z. S s a a a. A.. Should I leave it as it is for the bot to auto-archive it? Revert the edit manually (because undo won't work)? If I revert it, what is the appropriate notice/warning to be given to the user? Thanks! ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 20:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- CX Zoom, just revert the nonsense with a very brief edit summary. Give a vandalism warning if you wish. Cullen328 (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- CX Zoom I reverted the edit manually and posted a warning for the editor. GoingBatty (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you again GoingBatty. Thanks Cullen328. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 00:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- CX Zoom I reverted the edit manually and posted a warning for the editor. GoingBatty (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Please help with Did You Know
I was trying to submit a new page that I wrote to WP:DYK. Somehow a colon was inserted into the title of the page. I tried to correct it by moving pages but I'm not sure I did it right. The page is John Wayne Bobbitt Uncut. Thank you. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Polycarpa aurata, you seem to have fixed the problem by moving the page. TSventon (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
January 15
Why was my edit removed?
This was my first attempt at using the software to edit a page. I rewrote the page entitled A Course in Miracles -- a three day project. My revision was up for a short time and then deleted. I would appreciate knowing why.David_A_Scott (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- You seem to have fundamentally misunderstood the purpose of the article, and of Wikipedia. The author of A Course in Miracles may very well claim that Jesus, via 'an inner voice' is responsible for the content of her work. Wikipedia, however will do no such thing. And nor will it fill the remainder of the article with credulous waffle taking the author's word as, well, gospel, and promoting the book accordingly. Beyond that obvious issue, there are multiple problems with formatting, referencing etc, which could of course be rectified - but frankly, I'd advise you not to bother trying to learn how to do such things until you have figured out what Wikipedia is actually for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Also, while the current article is not necessarily exemplary, if you look at the citations you'll notice that they are independent from the book or author(s). This is on purpose: WP articles are a tertiary source and written about the topic, summarizing independent secondary sources. The book is considered a primary source and to avoid original research editors should avoid interpreting it directly themselves. The purpose of the article is not to persuade readers with the book's arguments and should instead reflect how others perceived those arguments. —PaleoNeonate – 12:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation hatnote consistency between all entries for people with the same or a close name
As I'm writing this, all people named Margaret Hamilton with Wikipedia entries (and one named Maggie Hamilton also listed in the disambiguation page) have hatnotes linking back to the disambiguation page, except Margaret Hamilton (software_engineer). (Not all did initially, but Margaret Hamilton (publisher) did, and I added them to all others for consistency. My addition to Margaret Hamilton (software engineer) was first reverted with an edit summary that led me to think the wording of my hatnote was the reason, so I changed all hatnotes (including putting in a revised version of the reverted one) to what I thought was the better wording. That was reverted as well, and my question about the reasons for the inconsistency still has no answer after 2.5 weeks, so I decided to ask here: what difference do people see between this Margaret Hamilton and the others I changed in the same way (none of which were reverted), that justifies the exception ywp other editors seem to be insisting on? If my impression that all such pages should be consistently hatnoted (all or none) which is it, and does it need to be discussed on Talk:Margaret Hamilton (publisher) since that page had one before I started this?
Subsidiary question: do I (or someone) need to link to here from my initial question? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- @PauAmma: The reversions were correct and linked WP:NAMB to explain them. You should have removed the hatnote on Margaret Hamilton (publisher) to get consistency, not add hatnotes to a bunch of other articles. Activity on different articles vary greatly and it's just a coincidence that your oher hatnotes haven't been removed yet. You quoted WP:NAMB: "There are cases where some editors strongly believe that such hatnotes should be included, such as the various articles about treaties called Treaty of Paris." Margaret Hamilton (software engineer) is not such a case since the other people at Margaret Hamilton are in completely different fields. Treaty of Paris has dozens of treaties which are only disambiguated by the year. Lots of readers will not know the exact year of a treaty they are looking for so they easily end up on the wrong page. Maggie is a common nickname for Margaret so I would keep a hatnote on Maggie Hamilton but remove the rest. Hatnotes are generally for cases where readers may see an article name and incorrectly think that's the article they want. There will probably be a few readers who have no idea of the occupation of the Margaret Hamilton they are searching for but it's rare compared to not knowing whether a treaty is from 1810, 1812, 1814 or 1815. Hatnotes are a distraction to readers who are already on the right page so we rarely use them when the article name is not easily confused. It would be appropriate to link this discussion from Talk:Margaret Hamilton (software engineer)#Why no disambiguation link for just this Margaret Hamilton? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- The revert included WP:NAMB in the edit summary. That is a link to the guideline that says
It is usually preferable not to have a hatnote when the name of the article is not ambiguous.
It explains why it is unnecessary. It goes on to explain that this is only a guideline, not a policy that has to be followed in all cases - which explains the inconsistency you noticed. MB 15:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Combined answer to both: you both say, if I understand you right, that the removal from Margaret Hamilton (software engineer) is how it should be. One then goes on to address consistency by saying other hatnotes should be removed as well, the other doesn't address consistency. My conclusion is twofold: 1- I have invested all the time and energy on this that I could afford to and justify to myself, so whoever straightens this out, it won't be me; 2- removing that hatnote made Wikipedia a tiny bit less useful to me as a mostly reader (if you check my contributions, you'll see they're overwhelmingly correcting typos, grammar, and red links) and removing the other hatnotes would take it further in that direction; I'm starting to think that editors, or some of them, are treating policies as an end in itself and not a mean to the end of usefulness to readers. I believe that whichever Margaret Hamilton a search engine takes me to, being able to tell this isn't the one I want is only part of the problem hatnotes solve, and a small one at that. The more important part is letting readers know there are other homonymous entries and provide an easy way to navigate to them. But as I said, whether that hatnote is restored and whatever becomes of the other hatnotes is no longer a worry of mine. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- @PauAmma: Based on [1] you made the external search https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Margaret+Hamilton to find a nurse and clicked on a link saying "Margaret Hamilton (software engineer) - Wikipedia", knowing it was the wrong person but hoping to find easy navigation to a Wikipedia article about the nurse. I don't know how common that scenario is. I assume you wouldn't have clicked the NASA link to look for a NASA article about the nurse. If people want to find a Wikipedia article and not another website then why not search Wikipedia itself? A search here goes straight to Margaret Hamilton where the nurse is listed first. Has Wikipedia become so ubiquitous that people commonly choose a Wikipedia article in external search results even though they know it's the wrong topic? I would have guessed that if people use an external search engine and don't get the wanted topic in the hits then they refine the search. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Margaret+Hamilton+nurse has Margaret Hamilton (nurse) as the top result. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I can't remember at this point whether I noticed the (software engineer) bit and still clicked hoping for a hatnote that would lead me to the right article or a disambiguation page (because a lot of entries, of those I've visited, have such a hatnote), or didn't notice it, so to answer your question, maybe. Also, consider the following scenario, variants of which have happened to me: news item: "Margaret Hamilton has a new book coming." someone: *thinks* "Who's Margaret Hamilton"? *uses DDG to find out*, and note that the Margaret Hamilton this is about may just as well be the book publisher, the software engineer, or someone with that name but no Wikipedia entry, so it's not at all obvious which entry would be the correct one, or even that there is a single correct entry. Being led to the software engineer's Wikipedia entry and not finding either mentions of a new book coming or a path to entries for the homonymous people could very easily lead to thinking Wikipedia has no information about that book. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with the OP that the hatnote would improve the usability for the reader. @PauAmma: it's not only external searches that are used this way. I have looked over a reader's shoulder as they typed "Epping" into the WP search bar. This pops up a list of hits to choose from. They were looking for the Epping in New South Wales, Australia, and that is clearly marked a few entries down - but they ignored it and picked the first one. When I asked why, they were confused by the question, and said something like "this is the first article about Epping so it's the best one." I'm sure some users are very sophisticated in their use of search engines etc. And some are not. We should cater for both.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- A hatnote is a significant help for readers who are looking for an article it leads to, while it's only a small annoyance to skip for readers who aren't. But there are probably far more readers of the latter type when the page name cannot be mistaken for the other subjects. The first Google hit on "Donald" is Donald Trump. Should it have a hatnote to Donald for readers who were looking for other Donald's (not called Trump)? Probably not. Should American Idol (season 8) use a hatnote for easier navigation to other seasons? Probably not. Other seasons are already fairly easy to find by clicking links in the article. The question is where to draw the line. We usually (not always) omit hatnotes on people if a disambiguation in parentheses doesn't apply to other subjects with Wikipedia articles. I think it varies more whether place names like Liverpool, Texas have a hatnote for subjects which aren't in Texas. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with the OP that the hatnote would improve the usability for the reader. @PauAmma: it's not only external searches that are used this way. I have looked over a reader's shoulder as they typed "Epping" into the WP search bar. This pops up a list of hits to choose from. They were looking for the Epping in New South Wales, Australia, and that is clearly marked a few entries down - but they ignored it and picked the first one. When I asked why, they were confused by the question, and said something like "this is the first article about Epping so it's the best one." I'm sure some users are very sophisticated in their use of search engines etc. And some are not. We should cater for both.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I can't remember at this point whether I noticed the (software engineer) bit and still clicked hoping for a hatnote that would lead me to the right article or a disambiguation page (because a lot of entries, of those I've visited, have such a hatnote), or didn't notice it, so to answer your question, maybe. Also, consider the following scenario, variants of which have happened to me: news item: "Margaret Hamilton has a new book coming." someone: *thinks* "Who's Margaret Hamilton"? *uses DDG to find out*, and note that the Margaret Hamilton this is about may just as well be the book publisher, the software engineer, or someone with that name but no Wikipedia entry, so it's not at all obvious which entry would be the correct one, or even that there is a single correct entry. Being led to the software engineer's Wikipedia entry and not finding either mentions of a new book coming or a path to entries for the homonymous people could very easily lead to thinking Wikipedia has no information about that book. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- @PauAmma: Based on [1] you made the external search https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Margaret+Hamilton to find a nurse and clicked on a link saying "Margaret Hamilton (software engineer) - Wikipedia", knowing it was the wrong person but hoping to find easy navigation to a Wikipedia article about the nurse. I don't know how common that scenario is. I assume you wouldn't have clicked the NASA link to look for a NASA article about the nurse. If people want to find a Wikipedia article and not another website then why not search Wikipedia itself? A search here goes straight to Margaret Hamilton where the nurse is listed first. Has Wikipedia become so ubiquitous that people commonly choose a Wikipedia article in external search results even though they know it's the wrong topic? I would have guessed that if people use an external search engine and don't get the wanted topic in the hits then they refine the search. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Margaret+Hamilton+nurse has Margaret Hamilton (nurse) as the top result. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Combined answer to both: you both say, if I understand you right, that the removal from Margaret Hamilton (software engineer) is how it should be. One then goes on to address consistency by saying other hatnotes should be removed as well, the other doesn't address consistency. My conclusion is twofold: 1- I have invested all the time and energy on this that I could afford to and justify to myself, so whoever straightens this out, it won't be me; 2- removing that hatnote made Wikipedia a tiny bit less useful to me as a mostly reader (if you check my contributions, you'll see they're overwhelmingly correcting typos, grammar, and red links) and removing the other hatnotes would take it further in that direction; I'm starting to think that editors, or some of them, are treating policies as an end in itself and not a mean to the end of usefulness to readers. I believe that whichever Margaret Hamilton a search engine takes me to, being able to tell this isn't the one I want is only part of the problem hatnotes solve, and a small one at that. The more important part is letting readers know there are other homonymous entries and provide an easy way to navigate to them. But as I said, whether that hatnote is restored and whatever becomes of the other hatnotes is no longer a worry of mine. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Michael Fidler
I refer to your comments below.
Hello, I'm Serols. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Michael Fidler, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Serols (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Michael Fidler. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Serols (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Please note that I have registered as an Editor and regarding the article on Michael Fidler – my late Father-in-Law - all the information was taken from the book ‘Michael Fidler – A Study in Leadership’ which was written by the historian Bill Williams. This source was provided at the end of the article. It is therefore unclear to me why my updated version is being rejected by Wikipedia.
I look forward to finding out how I can rectify the situation.
Yigal Levine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yigeolev (talk • contribs) 11:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Yigeolev: if the source is a book, you need to use {{cite book}} to reference it. Mjroots (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Yigeolev, welcome to Wikipedia! After a brief look, I can see several problems. Some, in no particular order:
- This version [2] has no inline references whatsoever. Neither did the previous version [3] but note what you removed from that version, that is not improvement. A WP-bio is meant to be a summary of WP:RS independent of the topic, so several references is wanted. If you want to make significant edits to WP. you need to learn how to add inline citations here, see WP:TUTORIAL, and include pagenumbers etc.
- Don't refer to the subject by first name in a WP-bio.
- Language like "Michael was a good and quick learner", "A forceful and eloquent speaker, he..." and "He had lived a full and meaningful life, on the local, national and international stage in both the Jewish Community and the political world. He was a lifelong Zionist, he would have been pleased to know that his 2 children now both live in Israel, as do 5 of his 6 grandchildren and 17 of his 19 great grandchildren." does not fit on WP, see WP:NEUTRAL and WP:FLOWERY.
- Your source [4] may have been selfpublished, see WP:SPS, and may be problematic because of that. If you have WP:COPYPASTEd text from the book, don't do that.
- Also, see WP:BRD and WP:Conflict of interest. Pinging @Serols. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Clarification on self-published sources in BLPs
I have a question about the interpretation of WP:BLPSPS, which says not to use self-published sources as sources of material about a living person. If a person is on the board of an organization (whether it be a company or a charity), often the only record of that will be on the organization's web site or in their Annual Report - both of which are self-published by the organization. Nevertheless, it seems to me they are reliable sources about that particular information. So does this guideline forbid the use of those sources, and hence most board roles in articles?--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- IMO, yes, the org website (at least if it's a notable org) can be an RS for the fact, BUT. It doesn't help the argument for WP:N, and, if the org is the only source that bothered to notice, it can be argued that inclusion fails WP:PROPORTION. If the board-ship matters, shouldn't an independent source have noticed? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Gråbergs Gråa Sång:Sorry if I wasn't clear - I'm not talking about using this to contribute to notability. I'm just trying to give a complete picture of the main aspects of the person, and it seems to me that a board membership should be included. I don't know that I have ever seen media sources which listed who sits on a board, so if that is required then board service would be left out of Wikipedia articles, to their detriment.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, but the board of what? Government Office for Science or a local charity? "Organization" covers a lot, and I would not be ok with a primary source in all cases. As an example, I thought this [5] was a reasonable edit. To me a "board of an organization" in a bio seems similar to an award or selfpublished book, secondary sources is preferable, existing is not enough. But if the award is a pulitzer or the board is The Trump Organization, primary source will probably do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Gråbergs Gråa Sång:Sorry if I wasn't clear - I'm not talking about using this to contribute to notability. I'm just trying to give a complete picture of the main aspects of the person, and it seems to me that a board membership should be included. I don't know that I have ever seen media sources which listed who sits on a board, so if that is required then board service would be left out of Wikipedia articles, to their detriment.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Lfstevens deleted 25% of Applications of artificial intelligence
User:Lfstevens deleted 25% of Applications of artificial intelligence this needs a review... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Done Looks like Lfstevens improved the flow of the writing, removed a lot of promotional guff, and generally improved the article. I'm going to go and give them a barnstar. Girth Summit (blether) 17:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- But, more generally, 0mtwb9gd5wx, if you disagree with edits that an editor has made to an article, the proper course of action is to open a discussion with that editor, preferably on the article's talk page: see WP:BRD. Reviewing changes is not the function of the Help Desk (though Girth Summit has chosen to do so), and talking about an editor without discussing it with them first is certainly bad manners. --ColinFine (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am justly (if very mildly) rebuked. Yes, I realise that reviewing changes is not the function of this noticeboard; I suppose I was just trying to make the point that sometimes articles need some aggressive pruning to get them into decent shape. This particular one was bloated with citespam, promotional editorialising and the like - I'm genuinely grateful to Lfstevens for tackling it. Girth Summit (blether) 18:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- But, more generally, 0mtwb9gd5wx, if you disagree with edits that an editor has made to an article, the proper course of action is to open a discussion with that editor, preferably on the article's talk page: see WP:BRD. Reviewing changes is not the function of the Help Desk (though Girth Summit has chosen to do so), and talking about an editor without discussing it with them first is certainly bad manners. --ColinFine (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Archiving noticeboard topics
This sounds like a bit of a newbie question, but what is the custom/convention for archiving noticeboard topics? Sometimes I will see a noticeboard discussion that has been resolved (for example, I know of one at WP:COIN). Are non-admins permitted to do this? Does it differ between noticeboards? Just curious... thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- WP:COIN is automatically archived by a bot that runs daily, and the same applies to most other busy noticeboards. You can find the archiving parameters at the top of the page's wikitext. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Editing mistake
Hi I think I've made a mistake in trying to correct something which didn't look right, for which I do apologise and please could you fix the problem it said in the squad tab that christian eriksens name appeared I tried just removing the name. Apologies again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.173.132 (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I cant publish a translated article
Hi, I have translated this article User:SimonLuzuriaga/Golden sun from La Tolita but i can not publish it. I guess its because I do not have enough edits on english wikipedia. But I have heard that it is possible for someone else to publish it for me. It that right? and if that is the case, could someone do it please? — Preceding undated comment added 23:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, SimonLuzuriaga. You are correct that your account needs to be at least four days old and have made at least ten edits in order to publish an article. Please see WP:AUTOCONFIRMED. It is unlikely that any other editor will move your draft to main space unless they are reasonably fluent in Spanish and have an interest and competence in the topic area. So, I suggest that you spend the next three days improving your draft and improving other articles here on the English Wikipedia, and then move the draft to the main space of the encyclopedia when you are eligible to do so. Cullen328 (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
January 16
Article: Suit
Hi!, this is a question for User:Andethyst
Thank you for having informed me that you reverted my change. But I insist :-) that the man's tie on that photo is not long enough - the ending is above his belt so that there is a gap, showing the shirt. A tie's ending should go down to the trousers rather than showing that gap. I think it is appropriate to say "notice that the tie is not long enough", given the fact that folks need help how to dress properly. Thanks for listening, Aristobulus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.0.115.169 (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- If you want to talk to the specific user, the place to do so is User talk:Andethyst. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- ...or, per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you could post on Talk:Suit, and {{ping}} Andethyst to join the conversation. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- When you try to persuade Andethyst, or anyone else, of such an assertion as "A tie's ending should go down to the trousers rather than showing that gap", you'll need to cite a reliable source for it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Category help
Hi Folks!! I've forgotten howto categories. It's been a while. I created Alina Anisimova and I've created Category:Kyrgyzstan women engineers but it is not showing up in Category:Women engineers by nationality I added the base categories into Category:Kyrgyzstan women engineers, but nothig is showing. I've missed something? scope_creepTalk 10:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I've tweaked your question to show the links to the categories. It will then make it easier to answer your question--David Biddulph (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- You should have put Category:Kyrgyzstan women engineers into Category:Women engineers by nationality, and not put Alina Anisimova into the latter as she is in the former. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- You might usefully look at a few of the other nationality entries in Category:Women engineers by nationality to see what are appropriate parent categories for Category:Kyrgyzstan women engineers. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- @David Biddulph: I really did. I'll do it. scope_creepTalk 11:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- @David Biddulph: That worked. scope_creepTalk 11:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Help needed in a dispute
I need help in finding the appropriate place for reporting problems I am encountering in a disagreement with another editor. The issue is the validity of a source for verifying a significant claim in a fairly prominent article (1 million annual views). I had posted an accuracy dispute template to the section where the source was being used and explained my concerns on the article's talk page. I then had a short exchange with the editor in question who without providing what I thought was a satisfactory response removed the template. I was reluctant to reapply it, but after a lengthier discussion, it appeared my original questions were valid or at least needed a closer look. So I informed the editor I was going to post the template again and respectfully asked that he allow it to stand until other editors could provide input. He ignored that request and removed the template. It is highly unlikely that any further discussions will resolve the matter. This is the first time I have experienced a situation like this, and I'm not able to find exactly where I should post a request for assistance. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, Alfreet. Dispute resolution lays out the appropriate steps. --ColinFine (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Titanic sinking
Is this footage real or fake?
https :// youtu. be/ v2p9A2bVCBw
--37.116.102.74 (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi there! The Wikipedia Help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. You could try submitting the URL to Snopes or Captain Disillusion for them to investigate. GoingBatty (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)