I don't know if this is the right place to do this, just let me know if I'm doing something wrong.

I'm confused about Wikipedia's canvassing rules, I've been pinging a lot of people on discussions just to get responses, and people have been saying that I've been canvassing, I read Wikipedia's canvassing rules and it said nothing about pinging a lot of people, I have done this in a lot of discussions [1], [2]. I want to know if this is okay cuz I don't want to get blocked. I just want a tutorial, can you tell me if I'm doing right or wrong, and if there's any other incidences were people who did canvassing get blocked, cuz I feel like I'm breaking a rule I don't know, I really want to be taught it, just so I can learn from my mistakes, cuz I don't want to be blocked. 4me689 (talk) 03:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, pinging many people on a discussion goes against the "Spamming" rule of canvassing. This is seen as a way to get more people to vote/decide in said discussion, thus being favored to you since you were the one who mentioned them. It's made even worse if the people you pinged are not involved in the discussion. You said you are pinging people just to get responses, and this is why it's bad: because you're using it to get responses and not to start a thoughtful discussion. Also, it can be viewed as annoying. To avoid being seen as a canvassing rulebreaker, ping less people. I hope this helps. - 𝘾𝙤𝙤𝙡𝙢𝙖𝙣2917 (talkpage) 11:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't have an issue with this - I find it to be better than pinging specific people who you know a certain viewpoint. Pinging people at random is a bit of a pain - usually people don't mind so much if you ping people who have already taken part of a discussion or a parallel discussion. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks. I was planning to create a help request. If your looking for "input", for intellectual discussion, for example on a talk page or an RFC, then pinging lots of folks is ok. But if your looking to ping lots of folk where you looking for "support" for a particular action, or for a particular political point your trying to make, for example at Afd or an RFC, then that would be canvassing. Your going around asking for help to push in a particular direction, is not cool. scope_creep^Talk 12:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof that We Bare Bears 2 is happening because it is a fake, because the references are from three years ago for announcements for We Bare Bears: The Movie in production and We Baby Bears in development, and there is no way that Crunchyroll ever teams up with Cartoon Network. 2600:4040:5BE1:3300:F9FC:D1F4:AE41:D7DE (talk) 04:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the culprit here. I restore the above editor's removal of the We Bear Bears 2 addition to List of Cartoon Network Studios productions. I was mislead by the pseudo-sources. My apologies! Cheers Adakiko (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New section links are broken with Javascript off. Elephas X. Maximus (talk) 08:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elephas X. Maximus: If you have JavaScript off then disable "Enable quick topic adding" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't donate to you because you are not partial in your publishing. When posting something like "they shared false information" but don't post any proof of that, you lose credibility. See the notes under Kari Lake for reference. Garbage reporting. Get better and I'll support your cause. 199.96.122.147 (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If sources in the Kari Lake article are not being summarized accurately, please detail the specific errors on Talk:Kari Lake. If the sources are summarized accurately, but you disagree with what they say, you will need to take that up with the sources themselves.

Donating or withholding donations has no impact on article content, as donations are collected by the Wikimedia Foundation, that operates the computers Wikipedia is on. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to discover when a word/phrase/sentence was deleted if key words don't appear in the Edit summary? Mcljlm (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcljlm you can use Wikiblame for this purpose. – robertsky (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I posted here after using Wikiblame but getting "0 versions found". I searched twice, at first ticking/checking "Look for removal of text (binary only)", "Ignore minor changes (experimental)" and "Force searching for wikitext" and then without "Ignore minor changes (experimental)". Should I have searched in a different way?

Why is that the tool's name? Mcljlm (talk) 12:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcljlm It's called Wikiblame because it is often used to find out which editor made a particular change. For the purpose you want, I would suggest using just the less-common words from the phrase you want to check and take the default options. Since you are looking for removal of those words, you do need to use the "Look for removal of text (binary only)" option. If you still have no luck, please specify the article and the phrase whose removal you are trying to find so we can help further. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few times someone has given https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jibril_Rajoub as the source for Rajoub having an account at Bank Leumi. Since the current text doesn't include the word leumi (or any other bank account) it must have been deleted, assuming it was once there. Mcljlm (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcljlm, there are several possibilities. Someone could be incorrectly giving Jibril Rajoub as the source for Rajoub having an account at Bank Leumi. The content could have been added, then removed and the revisions could have been hidden (showing as a struck through date and time in the edit history). Finally, the information could have been added and removed, but not detected by the tool. I think the last scenario is the least likely. TSventon (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any certain way of finding it? Mcljlm (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In scenario three you could check all 180 edits, except the hidden ones. Obviously if the information was never added or has been hidden, you would not find it. TSventon (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this can be quite a job, but it's still less than going through all edits. What I've done before: I go to the last edit on the first page. If the edit I want is already there, I go to the next page and check the last one there. When I finally get to one that DOESN'T show the edit I want to find, I go about half way up the page and look. If the edit is there, I go about half way down the bottom half of the page; if it isn't I go about half way up the top half. Keep subdividing, and at some point (to be decided by you) it becomes easier to start checking next or previous edits. Uporządnicki (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcljlm: Binary search doesn't examine all revisions. If it ever finds both a revision with and without the text then it tracks down the removal by repeatedly halving the possible interval. But if it never finds the text then it doesn't try every revision to see if it was added and removed quickly somewhere in a long page history. Linear search examines each revision in an interval but the tool limits the interval size to 50 revisions for performance reasons, and search for removal doesn't allow linear search at all. You could use linear to search 50 revisions at a time for addition of the text but it's harder to make separate searches and it's a way to circumvent a performance limit on the server making the searches. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcljlm Having read the background, I think the most likely explanation is that Wikipedia never had such information and even if it did WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a bit of a mess of Golden Jubilee of Queen Victoria#21 June - I added a load of wikilinks and now the blockquote template markup appears. Are the wikilinks the problem or have I done something else wrong? Alansplodge (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you forgot to close one of the wikilinks, which caused this. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 14:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marvellous! Thank you most kindly. Alansplodge (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Hi there my name is Richard Price a uk actor I do a lot of work on a uk show called Doctor Who I have a verified Twitter @richard_price2 and also on IMDb I have no clue when it comes to Wikipedia as to how it works and wondered how you get a page on the site?

Can anyone help? Or does anyone write submissions etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:83A2:BD01:1063:7341:AFB:694E (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have pages, we have articles, typically written by independent editors unconnected with the subject in any way. If you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable actor or a notable person, someone will eventually take note of your career and choose to write about you. That is how the vast majority of articles are created- trying to force the issue is not usually successful. Please read about how an article is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked you up just now! You are indeed a Cyberman; I'm impressed (truly!).

That said, yes, IMDb does sound impressive; it did to me for a long time. But now I'm on IMDb, too. I had a secondary, but significant, recurring, speaking role in an independent movie. I play a one of a race of multi-colored, humanoid beings; I'm a member of a tribe that believes in going around completely naked. As far as I know, the movie only ever appeared on Vimeo.com. It was there for a few years, and then just a short time ago, Vimeo yanked it and the site on which it appeared--presumably because I was running around naked too much.

Facetiousness aside, other people who answer are probably going to explain why IMDb is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. Uporządnicki (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IMDB explains it fairly well. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard. Given how many articles Wikipedia has on Doctor Who, including The Power of the Doctor in which you are mentioned as part of the cast, it is probably only a matter of time until someone writes an article about you, especially if your contributions are mentioned in reliable secondary sources. You are allowed to create a draft if you wish and can be bothered to learn how to do so: use the WP:AFC process (explained at that link) but beware that writing acceptable articles is quite tough, particularly the need to meet Wikipedia's specialist definition of a notable actor! Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of solid actors, whether legit, TV or film, work for a lifetime without ever becoming high-profile enough to merit an article in a global encyclopedia such as this one. (And yes, I too have an IMDb entry; big deal.) --Orange Mike | Talk 00:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed that someone copied a Wikipedia article into Draft:Sandbox without proper attribution. Could this be considered a copyvio or no? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you policing a sandbox? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really. However I do know that certain policies do still apply to the sandbox so I just wanted to know if it was something that was allowed or not. I don't exactly remember how I came across the page again (I removed it from my watchlist for a while and then I probably reverted something there for a valid reason and it got added back) but I wanted to make sure as copyright still applies to the sandbox per WP:NOCOPYRIGHT (which is on WP:BADSAND) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sandbox is cleared automatically. Nothing is going to stay there long. If someone copies a Wikipedia article there, so what? The warning on WP:BADSAND presumably refers to content copy-pasted from external sources. Unattributed copying of Wikipedia content only becomes an issue if it is either in article space, or is liable to remain in other spaces for some time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah alright sounds good. I'm not all that familiar with how copyright works regarding copying stuff from Wikipedia within Wikipedia itself. I guess really the only harm would be the sandbox getting categorized into categories it doesn't belong to but most of the time as you said that's not a big issue. (really the only time I think it would be an issue would be if it gets placed in a category that tells the cleaner bot to ignore the page, and even then editors themselves can still undo that) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking the question, I'm not on the same page as AndyTheGrump. As a regular at CopyPatrol, reports of issues requiring investigation show up involving the sandbox regularly. It is not uncommon that edits to that page include copyright violations. I am aware that the sandbox is cleared automatically, but when I note a copyright violation, I typically perform an RD1. Per WP:BEANS, I don't plan to elaborate. That said, copying an existing article is less serious because it is simply an attribution problem, and that is likely to go away, but I don't want anyone left with the impression that copyright issues in the sandbox can simply be ignored. Thanks for asking the question, I'm sorry the response was so dismissive. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia seems to take a more lenient view, suggesting that such internal copy-pasting can be dealt with via nothing more dramatic that an edit summery added after the fact: "pages that contain unattributed text do not normally need to be deleted". And that applies even to stuff that isn't being deleted every few hours, at maximum. If there is even a technical violation of copyright involved in the sandbox edit, it seems too minor to be worth bothering about, in my opinion. Nobody is going to court over such trivia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She should be a famous person listed for the town of she is from in the state of Washington, USA. 70.57.201.221 (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does she have an article? If not then this won't happen unless a consensus is reached among editors to include her in the article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She does have an article (as you could easily have verified). I've added her to the list at Burns, Oregon.   Maproom (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there’s a bug I’ve found on a few pages which is present in the page I’ve just created, 2023 British Touring Car Championship. This bug means that all sections of the page are grouped under the first section, and I can see no issue in the source code and no way of resolving it. Does anyone know how to fix this? DRYT.Motorsport (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DRYT.Motorsport, are you saying that the article doesn't have a table of contents? That's not a bug - TOCs don't show up until an article has at least four headings. (WP:TOC) 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@199.208.172.35, No, is it not an issue on the page for you? There are multiple sections, titled Teams and drivers, Race calendar, References and External links, yet the latter three don’t show up as expandable sections on their own, the first section has to be expanded in order to view the others, which shouldn’t be the case. I’ll add that I am using the mobile version, it is not apparent on the desktop version. DRYT.Motorsport (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. One of the tables in the first named section wasn't closed properly. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Wiki page for the English drum and bass record producer "dBridge". But in "Category:English_drum_and_bass_musicians" he appears as "DBridge". This causes my app to include two entries for the same person. I cannot find the source of "DBridge" to correct it. Where is it? Thanks! Ron (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vossron: Interesting question. I don't think it can be fixed. All articles start with a capital letter, but there is a trick that lets some display it as lower case, such as on IPhone and DBridge. But, the article actually does start with upper case, so thats what appears in the category. The same way that Category:Mobile_phones_introduced_in_2007 lists IPhone and not iPhone. RudolfRed (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vossron: RudolfRed is right. DBridge contains {{lowercase title}} to display dBridge on the article itself but it cannot be displayed in other places like categories and search results. It's the same for all 4000 articles using {{lowercase title}}, and others which don't use this specific template. What does "my app" refer to? PrimeHunter (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vossron:, @PrimeHunter:, @RudolfRed: Now, this IS interesting! I'm not sure how relevant this is, but it hearkens back to my earliest days here, when I was doing massive edits as an IP user (YEARS ago). I was almost exclusively reorganizing Category pages, mostly for lists of species within a genus. In those days, Category pages used to alphabetize capital and lower case letters in separate alphabets on the page; for reasons I won't take time here to explain, that made some particularly large categories much easier to navigate. And something I read suggested that the system was designed that way. But then one day, all my beautiful Category pages started interfiling capital and lower case entries. I inquired everywhere I could find. But some answers I got seemed to say that this thing that I saw as a neat and useful feature was regarded by others as a glitch that had finally been fixed. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“my app” is an iOS app I am writing based on Wikipedia data. Ron (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, our company has a wikipedia page which we did not create. Can we update the page and correct inaccuracies directly? 2001:8F8:1129:DD42:B710:93DC:6B34:B9DE (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid the answer is no. First, it is Wikipedia's article about your company, not "a Wikipedia page". Second, Wikipedia's Terms of Service mandate that Paid contributions must be disclosed. Third, editing the article about a Company you are a staff member of triggers what we call a Conflict of interest. Therefore, you are generally discouraged from editing the article directly and are asked to submit edit requests instead. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Yes you can. You can update facts (not opinions) directly, using a reliable source. Using a company page may require recognizing the source as the company and not a third party. You must also say you are paid by the company to edit the article.

If there is an issue, for example highlighting your failures too much or inaccurate style, make an edit request instead. For the full policy see WP:COI. Sungodtemple (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sungodtemple It is highly preferred that COI editors not directly edit articles in most cases. They should make edit requests. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of red text saying that a parameter is wrong. Is this a problem with the wikidata formatting? How could I solve it? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Liu, I took a crack at it. It appears to be an issue with Wikidata. When the page Template:Latest stable software release/Material Design, transcluded onto Material Design, was created, there was only one stable release of the software listed on Wikidata. The template took release dates from Wikidata using Template:Wikidata, and that was fine at the time with only one stable release. However, more updates have been released since then, so the article now lists multiple dates.

Template:Latest stable software release/Material Design uses Template:Start date and age, which parses a date and calculates how long ago it was. The use of Template:Wikidata returned multiple dates, as there were multiple stable releases, so Template:Start date and age broke, not being able to parse multiple dates.

I don't know how to fix this, presumably by separating the releases into different sections. The original creator appears to be taking a Wikibreak. Sungodtemple (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to fix it.

It appears that the issue was actually with the wikidata entries. There was a bot that automatically added releases from GitHub to the wikidata page. The repositories were also specified on the wikidata page. However, even though each repository's platform was specified, the bot didn't add them to the releases entries. The issue was fixed after I added the platform to releases. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How come at Bertelsmann#External links, the corresponding template is still rendered collapsed, even though |state=expanded is set? Hildeoc (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hildeoc: Some templates falsely claim to support a state parameter. The claim is made by adding {{collapsible option}} but the parameter also has to actually be coded. Гармонический Мир removed it [3] when changing the default. I have restored it.[4] PrimeHunter (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear PrimeHunter! Thank you so much – once again! You're always a great help. All the best, Hildeoc (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Folks, I have just researched what is being said about a company I am involved with. I came across a site named WiKifx and assumed it would be upfront and unbiased and connected to this site. However that was not my experience! They are a scamming company giving false reviews on companies that do not pay them to give reviews or vice versa. Not only that, they offer a paid service to resolve any issues you may think you have and with th company I am involved in, NovaTechfx there are no issues that the company do not and can not resolve. This is clearly a scamming site operating under the pretext of being affiliated to WiKipedia. 92.1.219.162 (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can't do anything here in this forum about scammers, unfortunately. You might want to contact the Wikimedia Foundation's legal department (I believe you want the first address there). Remember, scammers prey on those who are desperate for Wikipedia articles and haven't considered the consequences of having one. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A wiki is a type of website with collaborative editing. The concept is older than Wikipedia and lots of unrelated websites have "wiki" in their name. I'm not sure WikiFX actually has a wiki but it's their chosen name and nothing the Wikimedia Foundation can do something about unless they claim or imply to be affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That website does not make any claims that it is affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. Their logo is completely different and the appearance of the website is different. "Wiki" is not a trademark and anyone is free to use it. Wikileaks, for example, is a well-known website that is not affiliated with Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the term is technically copyrightable/trademarkable either since it's a general use term (I think it's why Google does not want you to say that you "googled something") ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to develop a timeline (1920-1970) for events that could effect Education (K-12) in the United States. So I need to identify WW1 and WW2 Korean War Viet Nam Wars but also innovations such as computers or digitization of education. So I would appreciate any assistance to get me in the right direction. Dr Paul Hollandsworth 2600:8805:3200:110:6D76:59D7:B14F:990C (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're better off asking at the reference desks, Dr. Hollandsworth. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Events that could "effect education"? Where did you get your doctorate, Paul? --Orange Mike | Talk 03:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Woke U, where thinking is regarded as an immoral waste of time! Uporządnicki (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My comment above was uncalled for; I apologize. I myself have gone back to things I've written, and discovered to my horror that in a moment of brain short circuit, I wrote some blatant illiteracy.

https://www.tmz.com/2022/10/26/jerry-lee-lewis-not-dead/ 72.17.81.138 (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TMZ says "Most editors consider TMZ a low-quality source and prefer more reliable sources when available." Dentsinhere43 is a new Wikipedian. 01:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and also this was published before the official announcement of his death that's currently cited in Lewis's article. —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule we do not cite scandal rags, and this includes TMZ. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 01:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are users allowed to publically declare that they plan to commit suicide in the future on their user page? —VersaceSpace 🌃 02:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Follow the advice at Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm and contact emergency@wikimedia.org immediately. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to make Ethiopia eligible for Good Articles. What text should be changed in the article? SpyridisioAnnis (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Ethiopia#GA Review. The assessment suggests that substantial work is needed - it isn't a matter of changing a few words of text, and will very likely need revision by someone both familiar with the topic, and with writing Wikipedia content according to relevant policies and guidelines. Not something I'd recommend for a newcomer to the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Not New To Wikipedia SpyridisioAnnis (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I'm not sure how Andy would know that, considering you have made 137 edits and are asking how to improve an article you haven't edited. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your five months at Wikipedia (SpyridisioAnnis (talk · contribs)) have not been completely smooth sailing. Bazza (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK! I will fix it... SpyridisioAnnis (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I retired a few months ago and requested my account's rights to be lowered as well. I have finally decided that I am going to contribute to Wikipedia again, can you please reinstate the rights of my account? Thankyou. zoglophie 13:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will write this request in appropriate page which I just found. Thanks zoglophie 14:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a place to put a wanted ad on this site? IE I am looking for someone to fix my car. 2001:569:F015:8D00:78E7:F02:518C:2821 (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No is the short answer. I'm not sure if this has ever been asked before.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Craigslist or similar sites are probably what you're looking for. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is an encyclopedia, not a jobs wanted website. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Try Yelp if it is available where you live. Cullen328 (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to search registered usernames using a regular expression? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is a way, at least not on Wikipedia. The closest thing I am aware off is this API query, which tells you for a given username wether it is able to be registered, and if not, why (including, but not limited to, usernames blocked by the antispoof extension). Victor Schmidt (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I'm asking because in the past weeks I've seen several usernames in the form "location + political party" and thought it'd be interesting to see how many like that there are. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They would be inappropriate as implying shared use rather than identifying an individual. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 22:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know that and report them when they crop up, just wondered whether I could enumerate all of them. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maddy from Celeste Not regex but / it does have regex works well for querying usernames: global user search —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 23:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! From what I can tell there's no pattern with these obvious accounts, at least when it comes to the US parties. Very useful tool in any case. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 23:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not really helpful but, you can search user space for titles that contain the word 'party'. This simple search finds about 580 User talk pages that contain the word. I chose User talk because User space is more likely to have sandboxen etc with the word as a legitimate part of the subpage title. Here is a search for 'republican party' (~12 user talk pages), for 'democratic party' (19 user pages), and for independent party (1 user page).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maddy from Celeste: This API query should be enough to write a script. RAN1 (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missed the regex comment. RAN1 (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All,

I have created a draft wiki page Draft:Mark Keil, a professor in the field of Information systems. I am planning to submit it for review. Can you please take a look at it and suggest any things to do before submitting it for review? I am not sure if there are any specific steps to be followed before submitting it for review. Thank you. Vamsy Alapati (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vamsy Alapati You have lots of sources but I think the structure of the article is a bit wrong. WP:LEAD says that the first section (before the contents box that gets added automatically) should summarise the main part of the article. Hence I'm always a bit concerned when sources quoted in the lead are not used anywhere else. I suggest you move some of the material from the current lead into the body text. Some excellent articles don't mention sources at all in the lead. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to use the Wikipedia:Content translation tool but it says it is limited to extended confirmed editors which are “editors who have been registered for at least 30 days and have made at least 500 edits to the English Wikipedia”. I believe my account meets that criteria as I have well over 500 edits and have had this account for at least 2 years, yet I’m still unable to use the tool. Can someone advise on this problem? I’d like to use it to translate an article for English Wikipedia.

Thank you! CMD007 (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CMD007, where do you have a problem? What happens when you click on ”Wikipedia:Content translation tool” and then on ”Go to Special:ContentTranslation”? TSventon (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, when I follow those prompts I can select the foreign language article I want to translate, but after I press translate it just disappears. The caption “On the English Wikipedia machine translation is disabled for all users and this tool is limited to extended confirmed editors (see WP:CXT).” is on the page the entire time. I guess that makes sense if all users aren’t able to translate, but then why have the tool? CMD007 (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CMD007: I found this summary. RAN1 (talk) 02:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time. CMD007 (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CMD007, when I select a Swedish article for translation and click “start translation“, I get a page with two columns, Swedish with the original article and English, which is blank. When hovering over the English column I see “+ Add translation“, which adds the Swedish text to the English column. I can then overtype the Swedish text with my own translation. What language are you trying to translate from and what do you get when you select a foreign-language article for translation? TSventon (talk) 08:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: Hello, I’m trying to translate a Spanish article, Imperial Order of Saint Charles [es], an imperial order. I can select the article, but When I push Start Translation, it just disappears and nothing is there. CMD007 (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CMD007, I get the same two columns for that article as for the Swedish ones. You could try asking at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Content_translation if you don't get an answer here. TSventon (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ TSventon: Interesting, I must have to check my settings or something. Ok, thanks for the help! CMD007 (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CMD007, in my experience most of the work in translating an article is not the translation of the text, but making sure the article is suitable for en Wikipedia, see Help:Your first article. For example your article on the Imperial Order of the Mexican Eagle has been tagged with “Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable“ and “This article relies largely or entirely on a single source“. Also, it appears to be a translation of the es Wikipedia article and that should be mentioned in an edit summary, see Help:Translation. TSventon (talk) 09:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ TSventon: I did omit that it was a translation in the creation summary, it was an overlook. I have added more references/sources since that labeling and plan to add more soon. I believe it is as suitable as any other article on Italian, French, or German royal orders, but more work needs to be done as far as references. In fact, an article like Military Order of Savoy has zero sources/references that I can find. We’ll have to work on that, Thank you. CMD007 (talk) 09:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CMD007, I have added a credit for the es Wikipedia source as that can be done retrospectively. I also added some categories and a link to the es Wikipedia article in the Languages section via “Edit links“. I think that the tags added by the New Page Patroller meant that the article was generally suitable, but that more work needed to be done on the references. Wikipedia prefers journalistic and academic sources over sites which sell products, see WP:VENDOR. All the references so far are just urls, it is better to use citation templates or a manual equivalent, so important information like a book's title and author can be displayed, see Help:Referencing for beginners. Military Order of Savoy was created ten years ago, so it is possible that standards were different then. TSventon (talk) 11:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to know if this edit [5] by an editor was actually constructive? I can name millions of article that include FIRST NAMES of the family. Yet what they BLP policy mentions is to avoid using FULL NAMES in such cases. Should I re-add them back? Also since the article subject is already dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejoy2003 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He is, but they're not. But yeah first names of children are published sometimes, sometimes not, there's no rule. But since the names were just added recently, and since an editor objected, WP:BRD is in play I think, so you should not restore them, but rather go to the talk page and hash it out. If it was me I'd let it go. It's not really a BLP violation to include the first names, but the spirit of BLP is to err on the side of privacy if possible, and there's little reason to include the names I don't think.Herostratus (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPNAME says The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects.... Names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced. So it seems to me that the children's names should not be included unless there are reliable sources for them, and probably not even then unless the children's names somehow helps the reader understand the subject of the article. I don't understand the distinction the OP is making between full names and first names, given that the family name is known. CodeTalker (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with CodeTalker. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We include children's names in some circumstances if they have been widely discussed in reliable sources. In this case, the cited source is Goan Voice UK, which bills itself as a newsletter, and seems to be a one man project run by Eddie Fernandes. He aggregates news published by other outlets that is of interest to people from Goa. If you look at that newsletter, I think that it is obvious that he is not doing independent fact checking. Therefore, the reliability of the original source is what matters and that source should be cited, not the news aggregator. The original source of this information is an obituary and it is a dead link. Obituaries written by professional journalists are reliable sources, while obituaries written by family members are not. At this time, we have no way of determining whether this obituary is reliable, and therefore, the names should be excluded, in my opinion. Cullen328 (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Rejoy2003. Cullen328 (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Without naming any names, I'm concerned that I have come across a few editors who are tag-teaming on a bunch of articles and propagating a biased perspective which I think violates WP:NPOV. There's a general topic which I have some cause to believe is not very well represented on the English Wikipedia, for a whole set of social and cultural reasons which perhaps may be complicated for "outsiders" to understand. However, this is also in a very significant topic and in this case, what is on Wikipedia can also have outsized effects off-Wikipedia too. I've been on Wikipedia for more than a decade and I think I have a fair amount of awareness of Wikipedia policies, but I'm not an active editor and don't have much experience. Does someone have any advice? I'm happy to go into much more detail (including names) privately, but I'd rather not name anyone or anything publicly yet. Arceus775 (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arceus775. Have you tried discussing your concerns with these editors on the relevant article talk pages? That's probably the first thing you should try and do. If they respond positively, then perhaps together you can cleanup whatever NPOV issues you think need to be cleaned up. If they don't respond positively, you can work your way through WP:DR and try other things. You might also want to take a look at WP:RGW for reference because it's possible (based upon the for a whole set of social and cultural reasons which perhaps may be complicated for "outsiders" to understand part of your original post and the small number of edits you have made so far with this account) that there might be some things about Wikipedia that you don't quite understand. It's hard to say which is which without you providing more specifics; however, in general, content disputes are expected, for the most part, to be resolved through article talk page discussion, whereas behavioral issues sometimes end up needing administrator involvement to be resolved. In either case, there's really no way to avoid naming names and providing proof (either of the inappropriate behavior of others or in support of your position) in order to resolve such disagreements since the vast majority of Wikipedia-related issues need to be resolved on Wikipedia at some point for transparency purposes and to make it easier for other members of the Wikipedia community to participate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thanks for making the effort to not bite. I'm being cagey intentionally, but I'm quite certain discussing directly with the relevant editors on talk pages is not going to be productive. Anyway, if there's anyone out there who's willing to do a reasonably quick sanity check and let me know if they think it's worth it for me to pursue this, please reach out. I've just created u/burner20221106 on Reddit. Arceus775 (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arceus775, does this concern this thread? Quisqualis (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A disruptive editor is vandalizing a wiki page Joshkabab (talk) 08:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joshkabab Vandalism, efforts to deface an article(preferred term instead of the broader "page"), may be reported to WP:AIV. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to assume Assume good faith before you try to report them. A vandal is someone who purposely tries to deface an article. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing Jason Brown. 75.63.50.14 (talk) 12:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link(s) to the article(s) concerned. Also, depending on the criteria involved, it may be a case where a list would only contain 'notable' persons; which would mean only those whom Wikipedia have an article about. Eagleash (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing where he is missing. Jason Brown (figure skater) is included in List of Jews in sports#Figure skating. I haven't found other relevant lists. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can i create a wikipedia page for a media company . When i try to create i got always rejected even i show the government proof . JANAKKAFLE121 (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JANAKKAFLE121 A government has no role in the presence of a Wikipedia article(the proper term, instead of "page"). Not every company merits a Wikipedia article. A company merits an article if it receives significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Press releases, interviews, brief mentions, announcements of routine business activities, and the like do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I quite recently discovered a WikiProject of interest that I like; but I'm very badly stuck on how to join it and become a member, and start contributing. How do I become the member of the WikiProject? Wikipedian10282 (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian10282 I don't know which project you refer to, but for most if not all of them, you just say you're a member. Some projects have member lists you can just add your name to. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that narrows it down. I initially thought that there were some requirements on how to join, but I'd never imagined that it was this easy. I really appreciate your quick and informative response. Wikipedian10282 (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is the right place to raise the issue, but I discovered that I'm suspected to be a sockpuppet. What can I do to prove that I'm not? -- Lucretius (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI in question was ten years ago, and I will quote from it: CU is one hell of a mess[.] I believe the CUs opted not to block you because of just how tangled the CU results were. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 22:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That SPI does not appear to pertain to this user. The user it pertained to is now at Lucretius~enwiki after SUL unification. THIS Lucretrius registered 4 years after the SPI. -- ferret (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that would explain things. Apologies, Lucretius. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 03:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucretius, perhaps you could ask at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations if WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Lucretius/Archive can be updated to say that it relates to Lucretius~enwiki. TSventon (talk) 09:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TSventon, thanks for the hint! I'll try. -- Lucretius (talk) 09:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to respectfully propose an section for young inventor, Prisha Shroff https://www.linkedin.com/in/prishashroff/ Romishshroff (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean an article, Romishshroff, and if Prisha Shroff can be shown to be notable according to Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and if you can base your draft for an article on what Wikipedia understands to be reliable sources, then click on Draft:Prisha Shroff and create a draft. I notice that your user name includes "shroff": please read and digest Wikipedia's simplified guide to conflict of interest. -- Hoary (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I’d like to link Marianne (magazine, 1932–1940) to the fr:Marianne (journal, 1932-1940). Could someone help me? Thanks. 2A02:A420:10:2F9:FD51:BCF8:CBE0:A22E (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP 2A02:A420:10:2F9:FD51:BCF8:CBE0:A22E. Go to the left side bar of Marianne (magazine, 1932–1940) and look for "Add links" in the "Languages" section. Click on that and follow the guidance in the pop-up window. That should link the two articles together. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and Romanian tagged along. This is done under "Languages" to the left on the article (as seen on a laptop or in desktop view), but I don't know if unregistered editors can do it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is Kigen Brian, Wikipedia account name is HottestHost254. I have been trying to create an edit for the University Page Contact which is wrongly cited as Phone: 0702 140074 whereas the true university contact should be Phone: 0709 153000

Kindly help.

Regards. HottestHost254 (talk) 09:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, Wikipedia articles do not give contact phone numbers. What is the page involved here?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Kenya University HottestHost254 (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently has no phone number I can see, but links to the university's own website. That's how it should be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Mount Kenya University --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you HottestHost254 (talk) 11:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you HottestHost254 (talk) 11:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition of a phone number to Mount Kenya University was disallowed by filters. That is as it should be. Wikipedia is not a directory. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HottestHost254 (talk) 11:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Is my sandbox (the one where I conduct tests on), visible or editable to other people? I want it to be completely private, since I do not want other people to see content that I personally test with. Is there a way to make it private? Wikipedian10282 (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikipedian10282 No there isn't, everything you can edit on WP can be seen by anyone who knows where to look. So there is absolutely stuff you shouldn't do as as tests/practise even in your sandbox, like copypasting copyrighted text into WP, WP:BLP-violations etc. For complete privacy, don't use WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That sums it up, thank you! Wikipedian10282 (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering, why does wikipedia have so many HyperText and links? Wikipedian10282 (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "Hypertext"? (Is it this? Or is it this?) Bazza (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. Yes, I meant wikilinks - Wikilinks Wikipedian10282 (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are used for the reason we've been (mostly) using them — to provide easy access to further information when the reader may not completely understand what has been written. Bazza (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It helps that it's very easy to make wikilinks, e.g. changing example to [[example]] where HTML would be <a href="/wiki/Example">example</a>. But we do have limits at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#What generally should not be linked. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Wikipedian10282 (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikipedian10282: you can think of it as a core technical policy of Wikipedia, embedded in the "wiki" part of name, and they are a defining feature. When Wikipedia started in 2002, it was not as obvious as is in now that hypertext links were such a powerful tool. -Arch dude (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

На этой странице (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamer_of_Tigers#Supporting_roles_and_substitutions)

размещена статья "Укротитель тигров" о фильме "Укротительница тигров" (???).
В описании сюжета фильма три повтора (одни и те же строки повторяются три раза). Данную статью нужно либо поправить, либо удалить.

Статья "Укротительница тигров" тоже есть в Википедии, там ошибок нет. 2A01:540:2:97EA:74CE:86DE:85BC:A46F (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on updating lists of state ballot measures for a while now and am dead-set on fleshing out all 50 states. I am wondering what the process is to create a template - I have a basic template set up in my sandbox that I would like to eventually put on each article once I get more than 50% of them done. To do that would I just copy/paste the source into a page titled Template:Ballot measures footer or is there a different process to follow? ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 16:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia desktop version in English has a bad visualization, as the text compasses the whole screen, unlike other websites whre the text is more centralized in order to provide a better and a more pleasant reading. I entered wikipedia in Portuguese (usually I only use it in English) and it has this visualisation which is better for reading. Why not in English? 177.133.140.98 (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]