Jump to content

Wikipedia:Help desk

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:HELPDESK)
    ↑ To top of page
    Shortcuts
    Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)
    • For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
    • Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
    • If your question is about a Wikipedia article, draft article, or other page on Wikipedia, tell us what it is!
    • Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
    • For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
    • New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).
    Ask a question
    Skip to top
    Skip to bottom

    January 25

    Deactivated account error - I'm still here!

    Why am I suddenly being told my page doesn't exist? It's EXISTED for MANY YEARS! Of course, I do NOT know whatinthebloody hell this is all about. I would think, considering that I have donated in the past, that my account would NOT be arbitrarily deactivated with no clear explanation (donations were under my name, John Hjort). Bilsebub (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bilsebub can you be more specific about which page you are talking about? It looks like you’ve had that account since 2011 and first edited in 2012 and during that time have edited multiple pages but only created one page which was your user page which has alway been blank. There is no history indicating that it was deleted. Perhaps you have also used another account beside this one? But generally as long as you were not a disruptive user who has blocked, it is very unlikely anyone would delete your user page, and there is no indication that was ever done. TiggerJay (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The only thing that I can think of is that perhaps you never noticed that your user page was blank and just now noticed the warning, but your account itself is clearly still intact and working, and no indication of being deactivated. TiggerJay (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's optional for users to create a user page. Your user account works fine without it. If an account doesn't exist like User:User986 then it displays a message at top which isn't shown when the account exists like User:User985. I see you created a blank user page User:Bilsebub after posting here. See Wikipedia:User pages for what you can use it for. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't accidentally mix up your user page here with your your talk page here, did you? That would be an easy mistake to make, especially if you've not been in the habit of visiting both and thinking of them as separate places. I accidentally go to the wrong one sometimes. Musiconeologist (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Bilsebub, you asked a a similar question back in 2017 and got a similar answer. The Wikimedia Foundation that accepts your monetary donations (thank you for them) has no way to connect your real world identity and financial institutions with your Wikipedia username as a content volunteer. If they could make that connection, it would be unethical. Content is completely separate from money. Elon Musk has repeatedly offered US $1 billion to influence our content and our answer is always NO. Cullen328 (talk) 10:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Error in signature

    I tried “Koshuri (グ)” but it says Invalid raw signature. Check HTML tags, Can anyone fix it for me? Koshuri Sultan (talk) 11:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "@Koshuri Sultan: You were missing a quotation mark after the second bold;. I fixed it above. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you!!! Koshuri (グ) 14:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Koshuri Sultan, I use Wikipedia with the dark mode gadget enabled, and your signature is nearly invisible on my device. I can barely make out the "Koshuri" (and even that only because it is bolded or semibolded), and whatever follows is totally invisible. Do you think you could do me and other dark mode readers a favour and recolour your sig to comply with MOS:CONTRAST? Folly Mox (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not that legible in whatever the opposite of dark mode is called either. So, yes please , check the requirements of MOS:CONTRAST. Bazza 7 (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Using the "sfn template" in citation work

    I'm working on the Saccidananda Ashoram article, and in the process discovered that all the previous citations were made with something called the sfn template {{sfn}}. I never heard of this method of doing citations before a couple of days ago. It seems that in order to add any new citations in this article, I'm going to have to follow suit and use the sfn template for them, rather than the normal way I'd do it in the Visual editor ...

    ... and I did try with the sfn template, but didn't succeed. Here's what happened. I used the template to add what should have become citation #4 because it came after three previous citations. But no, it became an alternative #1, not a repeated #1:

    [1][2][3][1]

    Interestingly, this misnumbering is exactly what happened when I tried to add a new citation the normal way in the Visual editor. What's going on?

    Augnablik (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Augnablik: as far as I can see, you didn't publish your edit. Can you confirm what code you added and where? TSventon (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, I didn't publish my new citation because I was worried that if it misnumbered — as I assumed it would— any readers who noticed would be confused. Now that I see @Koshuri Sultan's message just below, though, I will try that and see if the citation number does change after all. Augnablik (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Augnablik It could be because you're seeing it from the visual mode, Try publishing the edit and check citation number after publishing the edit. Koshuri (グ) 17:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, will do as soon as I reply to @Musiconeologist's reply just below. Augnablik (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From a quick look at the article, I can see three instances of [1], and they all refer to page 31 of the same book—which to me seems seems correct for this footnote method. They cite the same thing and have the same number. Were you trying to cite something else? Musiconeologist (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was trying to cite something else — that's what I was trying to say in my original message but perhaps wasn't successful in doing. Augnablik (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    An alternative hypothesis is that I didn't read carefully enough, of course, and I've a nasty feeling it's probably the right one . . . (NB that ellipsis isn't in Wikipedia style, which is "..." )
    I don't use the visual editor and haven't used {{sfn}}s either, but I'm used to seeing a similar issue in the editors I do use. I think it's because the editor only knows about the section you're editing, so can't attempt to show the correct numbers in the preview. Anyway you already know not to trust it, I think! Musiconeologist (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of stating the obvious, Help:Shortened footnotes is the documentation. If you add a shortened citation with the same content of an existing one, they will be numbered identically, like reusing a named reference. Folly Mox (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But I was trying to add a new citation. However, I didn't publish it, as @TSventon noticed, and for the reason I noted in replying to him. Now, as soon as I finish my about-to-be-delivered meal, I will try publishing the new citation and see what happens. Augnablik (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, @TSventon, @Koshuri Sultan, @Musiconeologist, and @Folly Mox, here's an update. I successfully used the sfn template — in the Visual editor, I might add, because for awhile I thought I'd have to use the Source editor, which I dread — and created a new citation that correctly published as [7]. But during my editing, it looked just as it had in my original post to this thread: [1]. That's why I had assumed there was a problem. What else would a novice editor assume, unless aware of this anomaly?
    — From my experience just now trying to use sfn, I could see one major drawback with it: I'd planned to use a different citation source that had no individual author, just a website, but sfn seems to require having one. So I chose a different citation than I was going to use, just so I could see if the numbering changed when I published. I wonder what to do about adding websites with sfn. At any rate, my newly added citation with sfnoccurs at the end of paragraph 2. The complete publishing information that needs to go in the Reference List is this: Oldmeadow, Harry (2004). "Jules Monchanin, Henri Le Saux/Abhishiktananda and the Hindu-Christian Encounter." Australian Religion Studies Review, 17:2.
    — Then too, a reference list seems not to be automatically created when using sfn, as I was expecting from my previous experience adding citations in Visual the usual way. I figured out that to I'd have to edit the article's existing one — manually — by using a template called reflist. It seemed a rather klutzy way to do it, but I started out, moving down the list to where my new citation should have gone, but I couldn't get a new form (new form, that is, within the reflist template) to appear. If I had tried to add the new one, I'd have overwritten the reference that was already there.

    I'm tempted to agree with whoever wrote the Citation templates are evil essay, but I'll hold off for awhile to hear words of wisdom otherwise from the four of you who've responded to my original plea for help, or others who'd like to jump in. Augnablik (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    As I mentioned in my talk page discussion, just because an article uses sfn templates, all the cites don't have to be done that way (as with e.g. Abraham Lincoln). I added the full citation to the Oldmeadow journal article as a {{cite journal}}. If you were going to use that same journal article multiple times, you would place the main entry (without page numbers) among the others in the list at the end and then refer to it using multiple sfn, each with their relevant page numbers. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As another illustration, I have converted Mike Turnbull's full reference into a sfn plus a full reference in the references section. However, a full citation is better than an incomplete sfn. TSventon (talk) 12:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:REFVAR, a WP-article should pick a citation method and stick with it. If an article is done ref-tag, people shouldn't start adding sfn refs and vice versa. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Gråbergs Gråa Sång I am aware that new references should follow the existing method, but I think it is better to add complete reference details in the wrong format than to add an incomplete sfn reference that means that the reader has to guess what source the reference refers to. TSventon (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @TSventon Quite agree! [1] But I have been in discussions like Talk:Jill_Ovens#WP:CITESTYLE which IMO should not have been that hard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ... and today's featured article Telephone (song) has both sfn and ref-tags. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Usually FA people deals with that, I think. But FA =/= perfect. Spot checking the 2 first sources under "Cited sources", they are books, used for one page. That they are not in ref-tag style doesn't help anyone, it's just messy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That particular article only has 24 sfn tags, out of over 200 references, so I guess that its "established style" is actually ref--tags. I doubt that many readers care. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Mike and all other kind respondents: wow, my original question seems to have stirred up quite a debate. Every time I'd start to reply to you and TSventon five or six messages above, a new message arrived and I'd have to delete the one I'd started or it would be out of sequence to what I was replying to!
    When you all come to a conclusion, please let me know. 😂 Augnablik (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not readers, no, but you know how we Wikipedians can be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Augnablik: I think this is largely resolved as you have made your edit and it has been fixed.
    Next time you need to ask about a particular edit I suggest publishing it and reverting it if necessary as that helpers can then respond to your actual problem rather than having to guess what the problem is.
    There are advantages and disadvantages to using citation templates and manual references, otherwise there would be a consensus for one or the other. I prefer using templates as they prompt me to add the required information without having to memorise a citation format, the author of Wikipedia:Citation templates are evil evidently doesn't. TSventon (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @TSventon: Or didn't prefer, in fact—the essay is by Spinningspark, an administrator who I was sad to discover yesterday died in 2023. Musiconeologist (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, @TSventon, I did not “make my edit” — you and @Michael D. Turnbull, did! 🙂
    Actually, you did, it just wasn't complete because you had the sfn but not the rest of the information. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    😗 Augnablik (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was hoping the two of you and @Gråbergs Gråa Sång would resolve your differences about whether editors should or should not be free to use whatever citation format they prefer, so I’d know what advice to follow before going on to ask exactly how to use the reflist template to add a new citation to an existing reference list, as this same situation may come up again for me.
    I just don’t see those steps in the reflist documentation that I read. I tried and tried to figure it out on my own but couldn’t. Neither could I figure how to add the citation my usual way instead of reflist — that is, in a case where an existing reference list has been created with reflist. Augnablik (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Augnablik If you look at the documentation for {{sfn}}, or {{harvard citation}} (the less-used citation methods), you'll see that they both need the template {{reflist}} to be included in the article somewhere and that's where their output will appear to the reader. You can't add citations instead of reflist: if you accidentally miss the reflist template off the end of an article, the Wiki software will dump all the citations at the very end. You can experiment in your sandbox to see how this all works. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha. I thought I'd seen a reference list automatically created in an article I'd been working on in my sandbox after I, rather than someone else, entered all the citations. I must have been thinking of what happened when I added citations to a previously created article in which a reference list had been set up.
    I do at least understand — from many years of word processing — the concept of creating a reference list at a certain place in the document. Now I just need to understand how to do it in Wikipedia, in both the Visual editor and the Source editor. I'm sure it will be easier in the Visual editor ... but as my mentor proclaimed recently, "Some editors get very wedded to their favourite style but serious editors have to be able to recognise all the varieties and use them as appropriate." ☺️ Augnablik (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Augnablik: Gråbergs Gråa Sång and I agree that editors should follow existing reference convention in an article, explained in WP:REFVAR. I think the simplest advice for what to do if you don't know how to follow the existing convention is ask here.
    I will try to explain how to use visual editor to add a citation template to a references section on your talk page. TSventon (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @TSventon (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC):[reply]
    "I think the simplest advice for what to do if you don't know how to follow the existing convention is ask here" — I did.
    — Pretty please, help me learn how to insert the following website as a source to the reference list in the Saccidanandam Ashram article, using the existing reflist template: Griffiths, Bede, O.S.B. "Shantivanam: The Forest of Peace" (first published in The Tablet, February 8, 1969). https://bedegriffithssangha.org.uk/shantivanam-the-forest-of-peace/ Bede Griffiths Sangha
    — I really wasn't sure how to handle this source using the sfn template because it seems to expect a page number — but of course a website doesn't have one.
    — Nor was I quite sure how to handle the source in the reflist template, because the source had been previously published elsewhere. Augnablik (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Augnablik: I have added the source to the references section. The page number can be left out, as you already noticed. {{cite web}} recommends "|date=n.d." for undated websites, so I added that. I also added "|orig-date=First published 1969" also based on {{cite web}}. TSventon (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, @TSventon. I thought there must be a template for adding a website, but I didn't have it in whatever documentation I was using.
    Thanks especially for the steps to add a new citation to a reflist template that you wrote out for me on my Talk page. I'll go over them extensively and try them out. If only we toddler editors could have more of this sort of thing for the complex procedures we have to learn — what the training world calls "job aids" ...! Augnablik (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Augnablik Here's how you cite a stone-tablet: [2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I never would have thought citation templates might be so inclusive as to include stone tablets. Augnablik (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Page on enwiki: Content from Wikimedia

    I would like my user page on enwiki to display the content of mw:User:Matutinho. I have deleted the content on my user page on enwiki. How do I do this? Thanks for help. Matutinho (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Matutinho, you need to delete the page rather than blanking it. Add {{Db-author}} and an admin should do a speedy deletion for you under WP:G7.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TSventon (talk • contribs)
    I've taken the liberty of going ahead with the deletion. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Extremely tremendously not important: {{u1}} is more "fitting" for one's own userspace—more usefully, also easier to remember. Speaking of easier, for tagging of pages like this you may wish to give Twinkle a spin. --Slowking Man (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Slowking Man I find {{Db-author}} easier to remember as I can use it for any page I create in error, not just pages in my userspace. TSventon (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Would you check configuration of MiszaBot?

    Would one of you smart people see if MiszaBot configuration looks correct on Talk:Led Zeppelin?

    My edit description explains the issue: "add back archive bot ... hoping this is not a mistake, but this talk page has not been archived in 5 years or so and has over 20 topics; I found the previous archive bot configuration from 2019 but it looked very complicated - maybe that's why it was deleted? ... fingers crossed"

    This is what I added to the talk page:

    {{User:MiszaBot/config | algo = old(60d) | archive = Talk:Led Zeppelin/Archive %(counter)d | counter = 9 | maxarchivesize = 150K | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | minthreadsleft = 4 }}

    Please correct if I made an error or I am happy to do it.

    Thank you! -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 20:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks good to me @Markworthen Ultraodan (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 03:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Accessing the Digital Oxford Dictionary of National Biography

    Hey, y'all. It's been a while since I've tried to access the digital Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Does anyone remember how I can gain access to it using my Wikipedia login? Thanks. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Just go to Wikipedia Library, scroll down to that resource, and click Access collection. Schazjmd (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    January 26

    Please help me verify my artist profile

    User:Johannes9343 Please help me verify my artist bio. Thank you Johannes9343 (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    There's no such thing as an artist profile in Wikipedia, only encyclopedic articles about notable artists, which the page you linked to can not be classified as. Please delete the contents in your user page, otherwise it will be tagged for deletion. Consider taking some time to read WP:NOT and WP:GNG before creating any article in Wikipedia, including your own user page. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sample: "Whether commanding the piano or crafting beats in the studio, Johannes Tavdgiridze is an artist redefining musical boundaries and inspiring audiences across the globe." Where does one start to describe what's wrong here? -- Hoary (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there an independant source saying this ? [[...] Johannes Tavdgiridze is an artist redefining musical boundaries and inspiring audiences across the globe. [...] Anatole-berthe (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Information from books

    Header added by ColinFine (talk) 11:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, how are you? I would like to include information from books in Wikipedia articles, that is, from reliable sources. Can information from books be a reliable source? Thank you. (VVWiki8 (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]
    @VVWiki8 If the book is a reliable, independent and secondary source, absolutely. Ultraodan (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. (VVWiki8 (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]
    @VVWiki8 For general help on citing sources, see Help:Referencing for beginners. We normally use the template {{cite book}} for books and that link gives the full documentation. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank (VVWiki8 (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]

    Deleted

    Deletion My Wikipedia page was deleted. Can I make any changes to the content and have it restored? The page name was Philip Krejcarek Pkrejc (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Pkrejc Your article had no meaningful content, that is why it was deleted. Unless you have much experience in creating articles, it is highly recommended that you use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft for review by another editor. Please read Your First Article.
    Writing about yourself is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pkrejc, you originally created the article with your surname in lower case. It was later moved to Philip Krejcarek, and then deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Krejcarek. Cullen328 (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Size of photo too big

    onWikipedia, the support mug shot on this page came out way too big. We need help to make it the standard size. We are not technically skilled and could use assistance. To see problem, go to Tom Stienstra If you know how, feel free to fix size. Waymeister (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It's fixed. Schazjmd (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    January 27

    Editing protocol in absence of consensus

     Courtesy link: Alison Weir (activist)

    Is it permissible to delete text from a Wikipedia page that is is extended-confirmed-protected without first discussing the edit on the Talk page, not to mention seeking consensus for it? Kenfree (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I mean, as long as it's a reasonable edit in good faith (which is presumed unless there's a glaring problem), of course it is, per WP:BOLD and WP:EDITCONSENSUS. You don't need to seek pre-approval for every individual edit - it might be a good idea if the edit is obviously going to be controversial, but it's still not required. The hard part is what happens after someone objects, but generally the thing to do then is to follow WP:BRD and seek consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well in my opinion this was not a good faith edit, but here's the problem: I can't revert it because it is a protected page and I haven't made enough edits to qualify as a "confirmed-extended" editor. The text in question was introduced at my request using the edit request protocol, and this other editor, with no advance discussion, just swoops in out of the blue and deletes important parts of it. How do I, lacking the power to revert, object to this? Kenfree (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You can start a discussion on the talk page, notifying the editor about it. And remember to assume good faith because the edit I assume you're talking about is 100% good faith Ultraodan (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? Truncating a direct quote from a citation because an editor, with no citation or other justification, or any prior discussion on the talk page, considers it too laudatory, and leaves awkward grammar and inappropriate punctuation behind , is "good faith"? Kenfree (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Kenfree, you must assume that the other editor is acting in good faith unless you have powerful evidence to the contrary. Discuss the matter with the other editor involved a non-confrontational way, and if that does not work, there are various forms of Dispute resolution available to you. Cullen328 (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your reply. Kenfree (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    In asking Help Desk questions, it helps responders help you if you link the actual article and edit(s) in question; namely:

    So your question appears to be about whether this recent edit by Scratchinghead (talk · contribs) removing some of the content previously added on your behalf by Ultraodan (talk · contribs) in response to your ER of 11 Jan. was justifiable or not. I have no reason to doubt their good faith, as reasons were given in the edit summary. Of possible additional relevance: some of the references included in the content added per your ER are under discussion at the Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Please explain this to me: if a direct quote is provided from a secondary source , that fits the criteria you yourself referenced in the talk page. You expressly wrote there that the personal opinion of Wikipedia editors is NOT a valid source for determining the validity of a claim about a living person. And yet here User:Scratchinghead deletes the bulk of the quote because he personally considers it too laudatory. How does this not violate the very protocol you were insisting on? Kenfree (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just looking at they edit and what was removed seems to be simply WP:puffery which is not appropriate. It doesn’t matter if it is a reliable, secondary source or not. Now there is a secondary question if Middle East is appropriate versus PI which was also removed. You are not powerless, as you’ve already demonstrated here and the talk page. The reason for the protection on the page is to protect it from various threats and while it can get in the way of well intentioned editors, it does more good than harm. Also, because it would protect you from making a bad revert as a newer editor. Generally speaking, even if you could change it back, you should not, but instead take it to the talk page, which you are already fully able to do. See WP:BRD for more details. TiggerJay (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do I have to take things to the talk page first, whereas User:Scratchinghead does not? That editor makes changes without consulting anyone. I'm sorry to say that I am inclined to agree with the seasoned WP editor who opined that template protocols constitute newbie biting... all editors are equal, but some are more equal than others, it seems..... Kenfree (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They do, when it reaches that part of WP:BRD. You with your edit request did a bold edit, Scratchinghead partially reverted/altered it. Now since you disagree with their edits you both need to discuss it on the talk page.
    You needing to go to the talk page first is not because of BRD, but because of the protection. Many contentious pages are protected to avoid edit warring in sanctioned topics. Ultraodan (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well then the policy fails in that regard,because what it really means is that only extended-confirmed editors can edit war, and all others need not enter the fray, because they are prohibited from doing so. The discussion on the Talk page of Alison Weir regarding the validity of this book review as a citation source had a rough consensus that it was viable. Yet User:Scratchinghead, who did not participate in at all, ignores this assessment and determines with no other authority than his own personal opinion that it is not credible and guts the quote from it, leaving the quotation marks which now make it seem that the source was not calling her a Middle East expert, but rather a QUOTE Middle East expert...as if these are air quotes by the source. I really don't see how such autocratic editing can be defended at Wikipedia ....It flies in the face of editorial consensus building. Kenfree (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand corrected: the Wikipedia:BRD policy does not fail, rather you, User:Ultraodan, fail to understand the policy. The policy states very clearly that BRD fails when the page is protected. The Alison Weir (activist) page is protected. Ergo, the use of BRD on that page as an editorial tactic is out of the question. If you think about it, you will recognize why this must be so. The only reason a bold edit can be countenanced in the first place is that all interested or potentially interested editors have the power to revert it if they find it, shall we say, too bold! So the Wikipedia:BRD policy has no relevance at all here....it simply doesn't apply. Kenfree (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    History merge?

    I received a talk page message that Vitalstatistix (disambiguation) that I created is under proposed deletion. Now I have nothing against "Vitalstatistix (disambiguation)" being deleted, I agree with the nominator that there is no need for such a disambiguation page. But I didn't create it as a disambiguation page, I created it as a stand-alone article at Vitalstatistix and later changed it into a redirect to List of Asterix characters. Someone else later moved it to Vitalstatistix (disambiguation) and created another page at Vitalstatistix. I want to preserve the attribution history by merging the histories of these pages together so my original edits won't get lost when Vitalstatistix (disambiguation) is deleted. How can I do that? JIP | Talk 07:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @JIP: If the early edits of Vitalstatistix (disambiguation) are history merged to List of Asterix characters then it will get a confusing edit history which starts as Vitalstatistix and suddenly changes to [3] with an edit summary saying "created list of recurring characters". I suggest to instead history merge to Vitalstatistix (character) which is one of many character redirects to the list.[4] Is that OK? History merges can be tricky if you aren't experienced. Can I do it? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @PrimeHunter: I don't want to history merge Vitalstatistix (disambiguation) to List of Asterix characters. I want to history merge Vitalstatistix (disambiguation) into Vitalstatistix and then the proposed deletion of the disambiguation page can go ahead. JIP | Talk 12:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JIP: That also works. Wikipedia:History merging has general instructions. If you do it then exclude the 2022 edit. Special:MergeHistory will suggest to include it. Later edits will automatically be excluded because they are newer than the oldest edit at the target. I'm happy to do it but don't know whether you want to try the process yourself. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @PrimeHunter: I have now history merged Vitalstatistix (disambiguation) into Vitalstatistix. The disambiguation page can now be deleted. I think it's best to wait until 2 February when the proposed deletion period expires and the page will be deleted if there are no objections. In the case there are objections I can nominate it for deletion myself. JIP | Talk 13:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JIP: The merge looks good and I agree to wait. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    What do the text arrows in Visual Editor mean

    I was editing Lakeside MRT station and there's this annoying issue in the Station Details section where if I try to make another paragraph, it just automatically merges with the previous one. There's two arrows that indicate it. There was a similar issue for Eunos MRT station as well but it was resolved. Would appreciate some help, it's been annoying me for a while now. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 11:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Icepinner: Fixed by placing image code on its own line.[5] PrimeHunter (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! :) Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 12:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Correct revert?

    I just reverted User:Abade.bio.ambiental as their edit was not in English. I wasn't sure which category the revert fell under, so I just selected 'Manual of Style' issues on the Ultraviolet menu. I'm pretty sure that probably wasn't the right choice, so could someone tell me the correct category please? TNM101 (chat) 15:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think there's a "correct" category in this case, as Ultraviolet did not seem to have defined the criteria for each of the revert options. In my opinion, both "Manual of Style issues" and "Non-constructive edit" can be applied. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like an edit that would have been constructive if it hadn't been in Portuguese—it's a list of pollinators, with a source for the information. I'll copy the text to the article talk page if nobody objects. It needs someone who reads Portuguese to check the source and write an English version, I think. (I don't know Portuguese and simply pasted it in Google Translate to get the gist.)
    Edit: there's an English-language version of the cited article available at the source URL Musiconeologist (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Now done. Musiconeologist (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't use Ultraviolet, but the appropriate warning template would probably be {{uw-lang-noteng}} or {{uw-notenglishedit}}. There is also {{uw-lang-pt}} specifically for Portuguese, if you think the user is not able to read English. CodeTalker (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that it's their only edit, and that assuming the reference is OK they've potentially doubled the amount of information in the article, I'm not sure a template warning is appropriate—it at least needs to be a personalised message recognising that, in my opinion. Though of course it might just be someone citing their own research paper. Musiconeologist (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, my local courthouse has portraits of historical local lawyers/elected officials. What is the statute of limitations with regard to copyright on painted portraits in the United States and uploading to Wikimedia Commons? --Engineerchange (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Engineerchange. Copyright can be very complex, but the general rule of thumb in the US is 95 years since publication and being placed on display in a public place for people to photograph is considered publication. So, if the painting has been displayed since 1929 or before, it is highly likely to be in the public domain. Release into the public domain is an annual event each January 1, so 1930 publications will be in the public domain next New Year's Day. Cullen328 (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See Public Domain Day for what has become an annual observance for those of us who care about such things. Cullen328 (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the note. I think I can use old newspapers to determine when the portraits were placed in public display to confirm the public domain piece. Appreciate it! --Engineerchange (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If a newspaper published a photo of the painting back then, that would be powerful evidence of its public domain status. Cullen328 (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At least in my area (mid-atlantic), it was common for a local judge and/or politician to get their portrait added to a local courthouse as a type of "key to the city" kind of accolade in their career. Most newspaper mentions are just a short blurb saying "a portrait was added to x courthouse of y judge". I imagine this is the best I can do to prove public domain as an employee likely won't know when it was hung 20 years ago, let alone 95 years ago. --Engineerchange (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Engineerchange, if public domain status cannot be established, low resolution non-free images of people who have died can be uploaded here on English Wikipedia for use only in their biographies. The strict standards can be found at WP:NFCI. Cullen328 (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Engineerchange, any published mention at all that indicates its age should suffice. This is not a rigorous proof of it's being in the public domain, but it supports a good-faith assumption that it is. If some theoretical copyright holder objects, they can inform us and we will take it down. -Arch dude (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Cullen328 and Arch dude: Thanks, I looked into a bit yesterday. I believe posts like this and this would suffice, but I'm unsure about posts like this and this, where there is some vague procurement and "presentation", but no clear mention of it being "hung". I imagine it's enough for good-faith, though? Thoughts? Did find this fun tidbit about the practice, if anyone was curious - don't see anywhere where this "trend" could fit in an article, though, but I generally veer away from the art side of Wikipedia. --Engineerchange (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Argument supporting free content

    Is there any help page, user essay, or external site that makes a convincing argument why content should be free (i.e., commercial-use allowed)? Why do we reject non-commercial image licences even though we are a non-commercial project? What's the issue with non-commercial licences, what exactly is our justification? I don't need to be convinced about this, I am just looking for something that I can show to new users, and I am surprised that I can't find something easily. Thanks! Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Jens Lallensack, from its very beginning, Wikipedia has been dedicated to Free content and Wikipedia:Non-free content is probably the best place to point to, since it discusses the general principle in the context of explaining the limited exceptions. That policy begins by saying Wikipedia's goal is to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially. So, it is the free re-use by other entities that is the issue. It is well established that commercial search engines such as Google can excerpt our free content and that commercial book publishers can include free Wikipedia content as long as they attribute it. My own photos that I have freely licensed on Wikimedia Commons have been re-used in several newspapers, magazines, books and websites published by commercial entities and I see that as a good thing. I would not have freely licensed them if I did not want them used that way. Cullen328 (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I think that [6], which is linked in the pages you provided, is a good page to point to. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Jens Lallensack, that is fine as long as you understand that is not a Wikipedia/Wikimedia website. Cullen328 (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    January 28

    Marlborough College

    I have added a "Marlborough College, c.1891" (this should be the caption) file which is WAAAAAY too big. Please repair. Also, Ref number 28 is connected/ close to a line which has the word "circa" - a link - which goes nowhere. Please place the correct link for "circa" if you are able. Thanks. Srbernadette (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added |thumb |Marlborough College, c.1891 to the file link, to make the image thumbnail-size and add the caption. I'll leave any further tweaks to someone else who's more familiar with details of the syntax. Musiconeologist (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Relief on City Pushpin Maps?

    Hello all,

    I have been trying to keep the relief on the pushpin map on my home city Wikipedia page along with for example the capital of Port-au-Prince but someone says relief is not to be used and reverts my changes on both relief I add.

    Please help. Thank you all. Just want to do my best editing Wiki’s.

    I did read the Wikipedia help guide regarding relief and pushpin maps & it even shows pushpin maps with relief. NightExplorer96 (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @NightExplorer96 It may be that the other editor knows of some long-standing convention for how to show these maps in infoboxes but you can certainly ask them to justify their reversions: that's the basis of our normal bold, revert, discuss cycle. The best place to do that is on the Talk Page of the relevant article, with a ping to inform them you want to have the discussion there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Directionality in the Visual Editor's source editor

    In the old editors (2003, 2010), a key combination like Ctrl-Shift-X (in Firefox) switches the directionality of the text in the editor itself (independent of the directionality of the text that will be displayed when the page is saved). This also works in the search bar. It does not work in the source editor of the Visual Editor. How does one change the directionality of the text there without changing any of the source text/markup? (IOW, I'm not talking about setting the directionality using "div" or "span" tags. I just want to change the direction of the text I am looking at when I first open the editor on a page or section.) - dcljr (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, @Dcljr. You may have more chance of an answer at WP:VPT. I don't use the VE myself, but I understand that it has limitations, and this could be one of them. ColinFine (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=1272417851"