I'm trying to get the columns on my userpage under the "Recommended Reading" heading to render so that all three headings are next to each other, with the last column directly next to the infobox. The current version is as close as I've gotten, and you can see a couple failed attempts in the page history, but if you look you'll see that its forcing the headings down so that they all render underneath the infobox instead of next to it. Any tips here? ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 04:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As a note, please don't judge the reading - I'm gonna get around the updating it eventually but I think its been there since 2016! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 04:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habiru has both BC and BCE, sometimes in the same sentence; in one of them BCE was changed to to BC recently. From a quick look at Teahouse archives I get the impression that the policy is to to use BCE rather than BC in articles like this. Is there a general policy about the use of BCE and CE rather than BC and AD? Presumably use should be consistent in all articles. I've read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Era_style but it doesn't really answer my question apart from the consistency point.

Would it be better to ask at Village Pump? Mcljlm (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcljlm: Check out WP:BCE. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Templeton: Mcljim says they have already checked that page. ColinFine (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that article now consistently "BCE"? I fixed it a few days ago: see its recent edit history. Feline Hymnic (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Feline Hymnic: thanks, it is OK now; I hope it stays that way. I originally posted this at Teahouse before your edit and should have checked before posting here. (BTW I'm a male).

Generally, is it WP policy to use BCE in all articles about non-Christian cultures (together with CE when relevant)? Mcljlm (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be summed up in a single sentence. It's more complex and nuanced than that, which is why we have the section to which the link WP:BCE takes you. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The who is paid should be just who it is. Not who is black or who is the first black or the first Italian for example the prima ballerina is Misty Copeland the fact that she’s black is secondary. Please get your pages together. 2601:201:300:7C50:D586:1B95:37E7:C4C (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Get your argument together first; this is word salad and nonsensical. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being a little kinder than Jeske - I am struggling to understand what you are saying, but I think you are objecting to people being characterized as "the first Italian to..." or "the first Black person to...". It would be helpful if you would give specific examples of what you are talking about. But if I have your meaning right, the answer (as usual) lies in the sources. If a reliable independent source describes somebody as "the first Italian to ..." then that information may go into an article about the person. It doesn't have to: this is a matter of editorial discretion, usually settled by discussion on the article's talk page. If there isn't a source that says this, then it should not go into the article, and any editor may remove it (including you - but make sure you give an edit summary explaining why you are removing it). ColinFine (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Misty Copeland   Maproom (talk) 07:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading Wikipedia to research Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN). In Wikipedia it is described as a “misinformation” organization. Because an organization questions the efficacy of a medical procedure does not mean they are spreading “misinformation”. In fact who determines what information is “misinformation”? I would like to have corrected the article but I do not know how to do so and I do not believe that the information provided by Wikipedia should be subject to capricious editing by readers. Octogenarian grandma (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Octogenarian grandma Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a topic. If the preponderance of reliable sources describe an organization as spreading misinformation, Wikipedia does too. If the sources in the article are not being accurately summarized, please go to Talk:Informed Consent Action Network and detail the specific errors. If you have additional sources that provide different perspectives, please offer them there, though that will not mean other sources will be outright removed. If you just disagree with what the sources say, but they are accurately summarized, you will have to discuss that with the sources. 331dot (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I wrote the first draft of this article with a different title. I was notified (in Nov 2021) that there was a discussion about the title. It seemed that a decision was made to change the title to CA-SCR-117 --- even though editors thought that no one would ever look it up this way or find it this way. I am wondering how to petition for a change or to edit it-- for a title that is more user accessible such as "The Scotts Valley site" or the Scotts Valley Pleistocene Lake site." Would you let me know? Thank you for your help. RkOLOGUY (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: CA-SCR-177

If you dont think anyone will object, you can just move the page yourself. Otherwise, see Wikipedia:Requested moves. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative approach is to leave it where it is and add The Scotts Valley Site (for example) as a WP:redirect. The question really is what the sources call it: see WP:COMMONNAME. ColinFine (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Jiu Jitsu Black Belt Mathiasluna21 (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We recommend NOT writing about yourself on Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 22:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I forget where to fix this, so am asking one of you fine folks to do it.

When I search on mobile for Iga Świątek, the suggested results tell me that she is a football player and boxer. Is this maybe Wiki Data?

Thanks, †dismas†|^(talk) 00:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was just regular vandalism. Reverted. —Wasell^(T) 🌻🇺🇦 05:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like more clarity regarding the usage of Wikipedia:Non-free content, specifically multiple logos in list style Wikipedia articles. Examples include Apple worker organizations#United States, most political party lists e.g. List of political parties in the United States which all use multiple fair use images, some of which are available in standalone articles. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All the ones in List of political parties in the United States that I looked at claim either public domain or a CC licence. The apple article does hae two fair use ones that don't have their own articles. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 07:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushugah: Non-free content is generally not allowed to be used in stand-alone list articles or embeded lists within other articles per WP:NFLISTS because such non-free use is almost always considered to be WP:DECORATIVE and thus not satisfying non-free content use criterion #1 (WP:FREER) and non-free content use criterion #8 (WP:NFC#CS). There can also be non-free content use criterion #3a and non-free content use criterion #10c issues associated with such types of non-free use because the same logo sometimes ends up being used multiple times in the same article. Instead, simply linking to (either by WP:WIKILINK or WP:HATNOTE) the primary stand-alone articles about the individual entries tends to be considered more than a sufficient alternative to non-free use. Moreover, the use of logos (free or non-free) is, in general, also discourage in lists and tables per MOS:LOGO if the logo's primary function is a sort of "decoration" and not contextual. However, freely licensed or PD content is not subject to the same restrictions as non-free content, and thus you often find such logos used in articles like "List of political parties in the United States". As for the non-free use of logos in articles like "Apple worker organizations", it too is typically not allowed even though the article may not seem like a true list article. Generally, non-free logos are fine to use for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles about the entity they represent, but uses in other articles or in other ways tends to be be much harder to justify per WP:NFCCP. Often such logos start out being used in stand-alone articles, but these articles end up subsequently being merged into a parent article for some reason (e.g. lack of notability); since the non-free logo was originally being used in accordance with relevant policy, it often is mistakenly assumed that the justification for that particular non-free use is automatically just as valid for the way the logo is now used after the merge. Of course, this almost never the case, but it's not really something those merging the text content give much thought. Unless there's specific sourced critical commentary related to the logo itself (not what the logo represents), such non-free use is almost never considered OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Upattinas School and Resource Center, there is a link to the former school's website. The link now leads to a spammy site of unknown purpose. Should I remove the link, mark it as dead, or do something else? Thanks! Physeters^✉ 02:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Physeters. Look for a current working URL and substitute it if you find one. Do not leave the bad URL, that is clearly dicey. Cullen328 (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the original site archived anywhere (Wayback Machine, archive.today, etc)? If so then for any references that use it, if the article is using a Citation Style 1/2 template set the |archive-url= parameter to the archive URL, |archive-date= to the date the site was archived, and set |url-status= to "usurped" or "unfit". If the article is not using a CS1/2 citation template, then you may want to either convert the article to that citation style (if there's only a couple of references), or use the {{webarchive}} template.

If the URL is in the Infobox or the external links though, I'd probably just remove it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th, the url is in the infobox, but has but the site it links to has been extensively archived. Should I not insert an archive link and just fake the original's appearance? Physeters^✉ 02:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELDEAD suggests that it can be acceptable to use an archive link in the external links section, and I'd probably extend that to cover the website parameter in an infobox. So yeah, I think that'd be OK. Just make sure to add in your edit summary why you're doing this so that other editors know why the links in the article have changed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, Thanks! Physeters^✉ 03:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussion tools enabled. Six days ago I added User:Mr.Z-man/badimages.js to my common.js. Ever since then I"ve been having issues with discussion tools' source mode like being unable to enter after clicking on the text box until I switch to visual and back again or click on mention and delete the @, being unable to do newlines unless I just use <br>, etc. Is that script really causing all these issues? If so, which part of it? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu You seem to have commented about the script at User_talk:Mr.Z-man/badimages, which is probably the best venue for sorting this out. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull: @Mr.Z-man hasn’t edited in over 2 years, so a fix from him is likely not coming. lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 03:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am reporting the page "Val Kalende." 209.6.155.52 (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Val Kalende ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we'll need a bit more information that just "the page is defamatory". Is there inaccurate information in the article, or do you have another complaint? (As an aside, using words like "defamation" is not a good idea here as it could be interpreted as a legal threat, which are not allowed on Wikipedia.) ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Val Kalende seems to be passably well written. See WP:AUTOPROB if there are specific concerns.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just sent a contribution to Wikipedia. However, when I got to the employer box, I entered N/A. As I clicked on the send box, I saw at the last minute that your checking mechanism changed that to the name of some company. I do not care, you still get my shekels. However, depending on how the back end is structured, that company will probably not match my contribution. Bottom line, it annoyed me, so I am mentioning it. Beyond that, it is unlikely to change the fate of nations. AkivaPI (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, us on the English Wikipedia have nothing to do with the donation process, which is handled by the Wikimedia Foundation. Questions about donations should be sent to donate@wikimedia.org. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather puzzled by this as the Wikipedia Foundation should not be requesting personal information like that. I just filled out the form myself and there was no request for the name of my employer. Are you sure this was the genuine form? (You might also be interested to read about Wikipedia finances if you haven't already.) Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should I be able to access Jahrbuch zur Liberalismus-Forschung, specifically an article in 28. Jahrgang 2016, via the Wikipedia Library? Searching the Library 2 volumes appear in the results list but not 28 and not the article.

Is there a more appropriate place to post the issue? Mcljlm (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mcljlm, an internet search suggests that Jahrbuch zur Liberalismus-Forschung is available via Nomos. I accessed Nomos via Wikipedia Library, searched for Jahrbuch zur Liberalismus-Forschung, filtered for 2016 and was able to access the issue. TSventon (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TSventon. I'm now reading the article. 02:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC) Mcljlm (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a guideline or suggestion for the archival of Talk subpages? Talk subpages are used from time to time for a number of things; see for example, Talk:The Buddha/Tertiary sources, which was created in connection with the recently closed RM on the Talk page. I have two concerns:

• should we archive the subpage when the RM is archived? It may have some additional value on its own, beyond the topic of the RM.
• if we do archive it with the RM discussion, what would be the PAGENAME? "Talk:The Budda/Archive nn/Tertiary sources"?

My question is actually about the general case, not just about the one illustration above; I'm wondering if we have guidance on what to do about Talk subpages in general. I can't find anything about this at the relevant Help or project pages about this. This is hardly the only Talk subpage, and they are not all used for the same kind of thing, so probably more examples would be helpful; I don't have any handy at the moment, but probably a clever advanced search or maybe a Petscan could find some more. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think if the subpage isn't being actively edited, there's no need to archive it; closing it should be enough. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to deal with a complex case of suspected WP:UPE that involves private information. Is paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org still monitored? Or would it be better to contact a functionary/ArbCom directly? Thanks for the help! —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811 Advice at WP:PAID#Reporting undisclosed paid editors suggests that email address is still monitored. However, the section also gives alternative ways to proceed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malik_Siraj_Akbar 2603:8000:A445:2D7A:B141:D89B:139F:26EA (talk) 05:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

so fix it! lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 07:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Team,

We are the Digital Team from stc telecom company Kuwait. We would like to know what is process & procedures to create a wikipedia page for our company. Please do let us know.

Thank you, regards, 94.128.5.14 (talk) 06:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking. The simple if probably unwelcome advice is: "Don't". But if you're intent on an article, please digest Wikipedia:Ownership of content, Help:Your first article, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Sounds like a lot? Yes, it is! So again, my advice is: "Don't". -- Hoary (talk) 09:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I need some help changing the main photo on Stefflon Don's page. I've tried uploading and cannot continue onto the next stage of the upload. Can anyone help me change it if I provide the photo?

Thanks in advance! AbirH94 (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AbirH94 I agree that the current photo on Stefflon Don's article is poor as the microphone obscures her face. You should be able to upload a new photograph to Wikimedia Commons using the wizard at commons:Special:UploadWizard and following the instructions. Is that what you tried? Note that you must personally have taken the photo with your own camera and hence be able as copyright holder, to release it with a suitable Creative Commons license. If you run in to problems, please specify in detail what they are. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A little background information: On October 10th or so, I made this account at my school since I liked Wikipedia and wanted to contribute. However, I noticed that the school laptop had some settings on it that tracked browser activity and was afraid that my account didn't feel secure. So a few days later, I made User:Serenbliss, for at-home use in accordance with the alternate account policy. Looking back, I was overreacting a bit and didn't really need two accounts. I also ended up making nearly no mainspace edits with that account (the 70-something edits are mainly from an excessively long talkpage discussion). So, is it possible to delete that account? If so, how would I go about doing it?

Any help is much appreciated. - Coolman2917 (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't possible to delete an account. However, I'd be happy to block it if you want - you'll need to log into that account and post a request from that account. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I'll log into it as soon as I get home. Coolman2917 (talk) 11:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The account can't be deleted, as the information is needed for attribution, but you can retire if you wish. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find the page for requested moves too complicated and so I'm asking someone here to do it for me: I want Kobe Jones (American football) to be requested to be moved to Kobe Jones with the following reason: "It makes more sense to have the American football player, whose name is spelled that way, to be the topic at "Kobe Jones," considering that the soccer player (Cobi Jones) doesn't appear to have ever had his name spelled that way." Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst creating an RM is usually the right move, it seems unlikely that this would be a disputed move as the name itself is a natural disambig and the hatnote should be enough to sort out the disambig issues. I'm happy to just move this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody find their computers or other devices go slow when using the HotCat for changing/adding/deleting categories or is that just normal for this feature? SarahTHunter (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin please delete the redirect Jalen Dalton so I could move my draft to mainspace? Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Please go ahead, BeanieFan11. -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was cleaning up Muhammad Zahid Wakhshi, and when I previewed it it showed the familiar cite error, which doesn't show you in red which cite is wrong or what's missing. In this case, it's a cite journal error, and none of the cites appear to be cite journal. Anyone know what's going on? TechnoTalk (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnoTalk, {{cite document}} doesn't actually exist - it's a redirect to {{cite journal}}. That's likely the one throwing errors. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way of finding which revision added a given sentence of an article? checking every edit one by one would eventually work but... y'know Mignof (talk | contribs) 22:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mignof, on the page history, under external tools, select "Find addition/removal" ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Been working on an article about a subject expert and just wanted to know if I could these sources [1] [2] [3] Thanks. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 02:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, and no. The first is selling the guys book, the second is his own website, and the third is a press release. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I make an edit to a page, and another user disagrees with my edit. They normally revert it pretty quickly, citing WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, or something else. I am prompted by them to establish consensus on the talk page. When I post on the talk page and ping this user, I get no response, and therefore, I cannot establish consensus with the one person who disagrees. After getting no response, guidelines, or advice to reach consensus, I invite the user to make a version of my edit that fits their standards. I am then told that the WP:ONUS is on the editor trying to establish consensus. This is a never-ending loop and it has become very frustrating. I want to collaborate with this user, rather than getting reverted, sent to the talk page, and then getting ignored. It's hard to establish consensus with someone who is not willing to add anything to the main page or tweak anything that is added to the main page. If possible, I would like to keep the other user out of this, so I kindly ask you not to dig into my history. I'm just looking for advice on how to collaborate with a user like this. GeorgeBailey (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GeorgeBailey: If they don’t respond to a good faith effort to start a discussion on the talk page, you’re welcome to revert to change back to your original version. If they revert again, you can revert them and start another discussion. Just don’t revert more than three times in 24 hours. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 03:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]