Jump to content

Wikipedia:Help desk

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?)
    Ask a question
    Skip to top
    Skip to bottom


    July 5[edit]

    How is it possible that a topic (an article) disappears within less than 24hrs?!?[edit]

    It's just not building much trust, if Wikipedia displays information on origin, definition and message of the "Wolfsgruß" and how it developed among turkic people, when such an article VANISHES from major search engines within less than 24 hrs. Actually, to me it looks as if there are only 2 possible answers, how this situation could develop: 1. Someone tried to publish a badly researched and inaccurately prepared areticle (only to generate attention for wikipedia), OR 2. plenty of mighty (and [dangerously] despotic) media outlets (and/or political lobbying communities) accumulated enough pressure to have this article CENSORED! Either way, Wikipedia doesn't appear reliable and trustworthy to everyone who noticed that! - And let me add something personal - both possible intents which resulted in vanishing of the article are equally frightful to anyone honoring democracy and freedom of speech. JamesTaggart304 (talk) 03:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    From what I can tell there has never been an article titled Wolfsgruß. There is Wolf salute if that's what you mean? RudolfRed (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    JamesTaggart304, here is a friendly suggestion: Refrain from breathless hyperbole and from spinning conspiracy theories until you actually understand something. Cullen328 (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On German-language Wikipedia, "Wolfsgruß" is a redirect to Graue Wölfe. English-language Wikipedia has an article Grey Wolves (organization).   Maproom (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wolfsgruß is the German name for a Turkish gesture called Wolf salute in English. As you can see by clicking the link, we have an article about it. This is the English Wikipedia. There is no reason for us to have an article with a title using the German name for a Turkish topic. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, the hand configuration is similar and sometimes identical to the "horns" salute frequently used by Heavy metal fans and musicians. This was introduced (or at least popularised by) the singer Ronnie James Dio, based on a gesture to ward off the Evil eye learned from his Italian grandmother. Many fans and others may also associate it with the 'Horned god' of pagan mythologies (as I myself do, being a Wiccan), and Japanese fans to the Kitsune (spirit fox). In these contexts it has no connection to the Wolf salute. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.226.178 (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We have an article on that, too: 🤘🏽 Folly Mox (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Topics[edit]

    What are topics and how to create them? I am talking about the types of topics related to Featured topics and Good topics.

    Thanks, TheNuggeteer (talk) 04:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A featured topic is a collection of featured articles that, as determined via discussion on the Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates page, is about a particular topic and merits publicizing. A good topic is a collection of good (or featured) articles that, as determined via discussion on the Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates page, is about a particular topic and merits publicizing. I think that very few editors can be said to create topics; this might be a rare example. -- Hoary (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC) My description of featured topics is mistaken; see Wikipedia:Featured and good topic criteria. -- Hoary (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm talking about the regular topics, I see some topics which are not either Featured or Good topics, what are these? v TheNuggeteer (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where do you see these? -- Hoary (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Saw it in a user page, forgot the name. TheNuggeteer (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't use the term "topic" below good and featured topics. They are not promoted from lesser topics. There are different ways to group related articles in general. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Or rather, we can and do use the term topic. Editing Wikipedia we (usually) use English; topic is a good English word; no surprise then that we use this English word pretty much as it's normally used outside Wikipedia (cf paragraph, or keyboard). As PrimeHunter suggests, we don't assign any special meaning to it. Thus "Category:Configurable area-topic templates", whose reference is no surprise. (The intended or actual difference between "configurable area-topic templates" and plain "configurable area templates" isn't obvious to me.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Mediawiki software that Wikipedia runs on also supports a search key articletopic:, which can be used in advanced searching and the Suggested Edits feature available from Special:Homepage, but articletopic: is not surfaced anywhere in an actual article, and is determined by machine learning algorithms, rather than being set or configured by editors. Folly Mox (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but can you explain it a bit more? I'm a bit confused. TheNuggeteer (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See Help:Searching#articletopic:. It has nothing to do with featured or good topics. It was just an example of many uses of the general word "topic". When I said we don't use the term "topic" below good and featured topics, I meant in a similar meaning for a group of related articles. Wikipedia:Content assessment shows many classifications for individual articles including good and featured, but only those two are used for topics. A nomination for a good topic is articles grouped specifically for that nomination and not a pre-existing grouping. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Page in English Language[edit]

    Hi Wiki. I’m Willy. May i ask a question? Why this https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asmara_Abigail page don’t have the page in English language as the others? Any solution about this? Thank you. 2400:9800:100:913E:81B4:A15B:27D6:2E46 (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Because nobody has created or translated that article into English yet. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia languages are edited independently. Lots of Indonesian articles have no English version, probably especially about Indonesian topics like Asmara Abigail. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Willy. Note that you could try to create a draft article about her for the English Wikipedia. However, it won't be sufficient to list the films she has appeared in. You will need to demonstrate she is wikinotable in the way we define that here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ADD PHOTO[edit]

    I have just posted my first a short item and I would like to add a photo of the person and a booklet. How do I do this, please? Paul Whyatt (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Paula Whyatt, and welcome to Wikipedia.
    You have create a user sandbox, which is not yet a Wikipedia article: I have added a header to it which will allow you to submit it for review when it is ready, which it is not yet.
    Successfully creating a Wikipedia article is one of the most challenging tasks there is for a new editor, and most who try it before they have spent time learning how Wikipedia works have a frustrating and dispiriting experience.
    I always advise new users to not even think about creating a new article until they have spent at least several weeks making improvements to existing articles and learning about key concepts such as verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and notability. Then they can study your first article, and give it a try.
    Your draft does not cite a single source. How can a reader tell whether it is accurate? (Note that, even if you're sure, the nature of Wikipedia is that next week or next month or next year, somebody could come along and change what you've written; without sources a reader cannot check whether it is correct).
    Since it does not cite any sources, it does nothing to demonstrate that Karslake meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, without which no article is possible.
    You can add an image by uploading it to Wikimedia Commons and then inserting it into the draft (see Help:Upload - I'm assuming that any image of Karslake will be in the public domain by reason of age, and so copyright considerations will not arise). But there is no point in doing so before you have found the sources necessary to establish that he is notable. ColinFine (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am very grateful to you for responding so quickly as I will not waste any more time. The person concerned was a former head of an office in the Inland Revenue in which I worked (I joined the Estate Duty Office in 1969). I have found some sources eg Called to the bar, made a QC and Knighted. BUT I doubt that he, like me in 100 years, will not be regarded as 'notable'!
    Thanks again,
    Paul Paul Whyatt (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello again, Paul (apologies for mistyping your name above).
    I hope this won't put you off contributing to Wikipedia. There is a lot to learn, particularly if you want to create new articles.
    My grandfather was a Senior Principal Inspector of Taxes, and was eventually called to the bar, though I don't believe he was ever in practice. ColinFine (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being knighted seems like a fairly good indication that he's notable; the problem here is a lack of any cited sources to back the information up and show that he does indeed meet our notability standards. 57.140.16.8 (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    template:current in an extended-confirmed-article[edit]

    Feel free to try it out: Log out (so be an IP editor), choose the page Keir Starmer, and click the link "(Feel free to) improve this article". You get the notification that you are not free to improve this article. This experience may/might make some people feel a little puzzled. The combination of template:current and extended-confirmed-protection is not uncommon in en Wiki. Dear native speakers of English (i am en-2, de-N) and experts on Wikipedia templates, do you have an idea how to improve this template? (Please don't forget to log in again before answering ;-) ) Thanks in advance --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC) (i know, i am extended-confirmed in en Wikipedia)[reply]

    I suggest raising it at Template talk:Current. That template is not protected, and I was going to edit it, but I couldn't see what wording would work best. ColinFine (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Big "mistake" on someone local's name[edit]

    Under the heading of Santa Barbara News-Press, the name of the second co-publisher is supposed to be Arthur von Wiesenberger. Someone who must have had some kind of disagreement with him changed his name in the article to Arthur von Cheesenburger. Can someone correct this, please? I don't know how to do it. Thank you. Patricia Matsumaru 47.142.157.206 (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reverted the vandalism. Thanks for pointing it out. DanCherek (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Autobiography[edit]

    I want to contribute to "wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." I could not find the "link" which enable me "to upload" my own biography, which is ready for publication.' I kindly request you to send me the "relevant link" so that I can publish it. 

         I am looking forward to hearing from you.  

          With kind regards 
      Eshete Gemeda, PhD (Dr. Phil)
      
       Denmark Eoromo09 (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Euromo09, and welcome to Wikipedia. There is no "link to upload a biography" because creating an article is not something you can do quickly and easily. Most new editors who try to create an article without spending several weeks or months first, learning how Wikipedia works, have a miserable and frustrating time.
    In addition, writing about yourself on Wikipedia is very strongly discouraged, and nearly always fails, because few people are capable of writing about themselves in a sufficiently neutral way. Unless you have made a deep study of Wikipedia's requirements, I can tell you without seeing it that your biography is completely unsuitable for publication on Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your userpage link is reserved for that purpose--but what you put in there should relate to your WP activity/goals &c. in some way. Anything else is reserved for other avenues. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A little question re: WP:ONECLICK[edit]

    Minutes ago, I tested out Elli's OneClickArchiver on my talk page (almost immediately after script-installing it), but running it created an unintended link to User talk:Slgrandson/Archive 1. Is there any way I can configure it so that the messages get sent to User talk:Slgrandson/Archive/2024 instead?

    Keep in mind, this is coming from a user who has been manually archiving dozens of messages over the years--at the expense of page size (and during ~2020-2022, decreasing device-storage capacity on my Galaxy Tab A). --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 16:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Slgrandson: I've been meaning to implement more flexibility in the script but I haven't yet (not yet sure of the best way to implement it, and I've been somewhat busy in my personal life). Elli (talk | contribs) 17:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    July 6[edit]

    use of multiple sandboxes in my account[edit]

    I received this notice from JBW. "Why do you have three copies of an article in userspace pages? JBW (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)"[reply]

    Is there some restriction regarding the number of sandboxes I can use in the userspace? I replied to JBW and explained why all three were not copies. I got no reply after 2 days.

    I used the userpage sandbox as a backup at the point of organized with photos, references, and text formated 90%-complete-article, sandbox/2 as a last minute backup of the 100%-completed-article, I used sandbox/3 as a copy of the complete article just before publishing the completed article into namespace.

    I don't see why anyone needs to know why I am using a tried an true method for me. MikeMARS52


    MikeMARS52 (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    While everything on Wikipedia is public, sandboxes are for you to do nearly anything you want, so I don't see a problem here at all and don't know why @JBW: felt the need to inquire about it, but maybe they were just curious. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MikeMARS52, there's no need to save alternate versions of the same article as separate pages during your work. Any changes you make are saved as a separate revision each time you tap "Publish", so you can retrieve any version you like if you want to undo some changes. Folly Mox (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See more at Help:Page history. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MikeMARS52: We all have our own ways of doing things. Regardless of the helpful information from @Folly Mox and @PrimeHunter, if you have a method which works for you and results in a good improvement to an article, then stick to it. Bazza 7 (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Feedback on my first article[edit]

    ZenSunflower (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I would like to request feedback on my first wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ZenSunflower/sandbox1 ZenSunflower (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Brief feedback: precisely zero possibility of it being accepted in article space. Read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and the section entitled 'Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion' in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not really your first article. For about two years now, you have done nothing but attempt to advertise this person, their place of worship/teaching, their beliefs, etc. This was blatant advertisement, as usual, and has been deleted as such. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This single purpose spam account hasn't responded to a COI request either, so I've indeffed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This page seems REALLY biased - think it should be reviewed[edit]

    United States Department of Justice 71.114.36.29 (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If you can usefully explain why you think it is biased, I suggest you start a thread on the article talk page: but read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view carefully first. 'Bias' can only really be measured in comparison to something else, and we are fairly specific as to what we use for comparison... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Are inline blocks allowed in signatures?[edit]

    According to signature guidelines, it seems that CSS block elements are not allowed in signatures, but are inline-blocks allowed in signatures? I used them in case the rainbow gradient did not work. RainbowLover334148 ¦ speak up 03:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RainbowLover334148, your rainbow gradient using the css background-image property works for me, although as a Dark Mode editor I don't think I'd characterise it as the consensus rainbow. Does it not display in your browser? Folly Mox (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Folly Mox, it does work in my browser, as it is clearly up to date. Consensus rainbow? The problem is, I want to keep it as an strictly accurate transcluent hue gradient. I don't want to make it opaque otherwise some parts of the username will dip in legibility. I could change the text color, but I cannot find a fitting tone for the text, as the background is rainbow. If I leave the color blank, it will be blue as if it was a link, ergo making it too illegible. I don't know any class names to make it match the body text color. I didn't even think about dark mode in the first place when making the signature. Anyways. RainbowLover334148 ¦ speak up 03:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you enable the Dark mode toggle and the "Core styling for dark mode gadget" at the bottom of the same page, you can experience the gradient as something other than what we would typically call a rainbow (there's a useful legend to how the colours map in the community dark mode gadget at {{Text color templates see also}}). The WMF dark mode available from Special:MobileOptions just dims the colours, so your signature <span> looks like a standard rainbow gradient.
    Your username texts renders in white for me with the dark mode gadget, and in black with the new official dark mode, where there is a dip in legibility around substring r3. I'm no longer competent enough with CSS to be of further technical assistance. Folly Mox (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Folly Mox How about we move on into classes that are bundled with MediaWiki, for example the ones that start with mw-, or it could have a completely different format. Not sure if I could use mw-body, I feel like it might contain undesirable traits not for inline signatures. It's not that gruesome, maybe browse through some styling-related pages in the Wikipedia: or MediaWiki: namespaces. This might help you find it? RainbowLover334148 ¦ speak up 01:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    RainbowLover334148, I'm afraid we've reached the limits of my technical competence and time to devote to this question. I must defer to more technically competent editors. (PrimeHunter – apologies for the ping – often frequents this board and is one of our most technically competent editors. Perhaps he can follow up here.)
    If no one else here provides you a way forward before the thread is archived, you may get a response at WP:VPT, although the topic is not really fit for purpose at that venue. Best to all and back to work, Folly Mox (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also forgot to mention I'm already tightly close to the 255-character signature restriction. RainbowLover334148 ¦ speak up 01:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ed Harris[edit]

    Where Ed Harris was born? I found multiple sources that say he was born in Englewood, while others say he was born in Tenafly. What's the right statement? 2A02:B027:F05:E37E:961C:175B:750C:B6CF (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The place to ask this is Talk:Ed Harris. I recommend that when you bring up the matter you link to two or three of what you regard as the most authoritative sources for the one place, and likewise for the other place. -- Hoary (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but we would have to resolve the issue to come to a conclusion for our Wikipedia entry. So I ask you if you can help me with this research and answer the question 2A02:B027:F05:E37E:961C:175B:750C:B6CF (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IP editor. You say you have "found multiple sources". To avoid wasting other volunteers' time, you should state what these are so no-one needs to repeat your searches and can verify what you provide. The correct place to do that is on the Talk Page of the article, which has 224 watchers and should rapidly get to the truth. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Michael D. Turnbull Thanks, I did it. I hope someone will reply to my question. 2A02:B027:F05:E37E:961C:175B:750C:B6CF (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you get no response, then you as a fully-authorized Wikipedia editor should modify the article yourself, using reliable sources. In this case, with multiple contradictory sources, the article should mention that there are conflicting sources. -Arch dude (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Global watchlist?[edit]

    Is there anything like a 'global watchlist', where I can see edits made to pages I've watchlisted on all projects? Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    CanonNi, there is, though you'll have to go to meta for it: m:Special:GlobalWatchlist; more information at mw:Extension:GlobalWatchlist. Rummskartoffel 14:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk Page for article on UK politics[edit]

    I notice this page Talk:Politics of the United Kingdom has an RFC where all the talk seems to be happening. Do I make comment/suggestion on the Talk Page or at the RFC? Gottitzer (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Gottitzer the RfC was opened back in 2022 and is definitely not happening. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So where does the talk happen? Because there is close to none on the main page? (Im sure its obvious I'm brand spanking new here...) Gottitzer (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like the message says, the RfC was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. I'm not sure where exactly the original discussion is located as there are 15 RfCs in the archives, so you'll have to do a bit of digging yourself. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not understand your replies. Probably you do not understand my question. Anyway I'll figger it out. Thanks Gottitzer (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gottitzer: An RFC is a discussion about something specific, in this case Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 15#RfC: Infobox "appointer" parameter consistency. The RFC is inactive. It affected many articles so it was placed on a central page instead of a specific article talk page. Talk:Politics of the United Kingdom is the correct page to discuss the content of the article Politics of the United Kingdom. The talk page has low activity like lots of talk pages. It's a coincidence that the latest post is currently a notification of an RFC from 2022. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Smiley emoji ... Thanks!!! Wow, little talk on such an important page... Interesting. Thanks Gottitzer (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Movie Poster help[edit]

    So I uploaded the poster for The Last Screenwriter under fair use, used solely for the infobox as per usual. I thought that DatBot would immediately come and reduce the file size, as I uploaded the full size poster. After a while, I figured this wouldn't happen and reduced the size myself. Problem is, the previous full-size version is still on Wikipedia. I had some back and forth with reverting it, thinking DatBot would come and do the work for me and I didn't want the smaller poster to get reduced to the point of unrecognition, but nothing has happened. Right now, the version on the article is the correct size and shouldn't infringe on the commercial value of the poster, but what should I do about the previous versions?

    Also, what should I do next time I need to upload a film poster? All the posters I see follow some template for their non-free use rationale, which I couldn't find when uploading the poster. Dunkahoop (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unused previous versions of non-free files will be deleted automatically, but it doesn't happen straight away. Please give it a few days.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    India illegal word information[edit]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    This is not a help desk question but rather a propsal to alter site policy. WP:VPP would be a more appropriate venue. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Article 17, Constitution of India 1950“Untouchability” is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any disability arising out of “Untouchability” shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.

    the word untouchable is forbidden in india.

    I want to know does wikipedia is aware about it or not? If aware of it then hope you will remove word from below article.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasi_(caste) 2405:201:300B:390E:14C4:2D38:7E6D:B15A (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Indian courts have no jurisdiction regarding Wikipedia content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your response. While I understand that Indian courts have no jurisdiction over Wikipedia content, I would like to highlight that Wikipedia, as a global platform, has a responsibility to ensure that its content adheres to ethical standards and respects the laws and sensitivities of different cultures and nations.
    Article 17 of the Constitution of India explicitly abolishes the practice of 'untouchability' and criminalizes any enforcement of disabilities arising out of it. The use of the term 'untouchable' is deeply offensive and historically rooted in discrimination and oppression.
    I respectfully request that Wikipedia review its content to ensure that it does not perpetuate discriminatory language. Instead of using the term 'untouchable', more appropriate and respectful terminology should be employed to discuss this aspect of India's history and social structure.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    2405:201:300B:390E:14C4:2D38:7E6D:B15A (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You say, the institution of untouchability is abolished, and its practice is forbidden, etc. To me, that doesn't say that the mention of it is forbidden. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if it's in the history books. Slavery has been outlawed in the United States, but we read about it and hear about it all the time. Uporządnicki (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your clarification. I understand that mentioning 'untouchability' in a historical context is important for educational purposes. However, my concern is with the contemporary use of the term 'untouchable' when referring to individuals or communities.
    Many people, not just myself, are advocating for the respectful representation of historically marginalized communities. In line with Article 17 of the Constitution of India, which abolishes the practice of 'untouchability,' we believe Wikipedia should avoid using the term in a contemporary context and instead use more appropriate terminology.
    Updating Wikipedia's guidelines and content to reflect this sensitivity would be a significant step towards promoting respect and understanding. Thank you for your consideration 2405:201:300B:390E:14C4:2D38:7E6D:B15A (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your clarification. I understand that mentioning 'untouchability' in a historical context is important for educational purposes. However, my concern is with the contemporary use of the term 'untouchable' when referring to individuals or communities.
    Many people, not just myself, are advocating for the respectful representation of historically marginalized communities. In line with Article 17 of the Constitution of India, which abolishes the practice of 'untouchability,' we believe Wikipedia should avoid using the term in a contemporary context and instead use more appropriate terminology.
    Updating Wikipedia's guidelines and content to reflect this sensitivity would be a significant step towards promoting respect and understanding. Thank you for your consideration
    2405:201:300B:390E:14C4:2D38:7E6D:B15A (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not an issue for Help desk. Referred elsewhere.
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    FfD - I seem to be doing this wrong[edit]

    See Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 July 6 - can anyone clue me in on how to fix the formatting and not break it in the first place? I would appreciate it. I have several others to list. Please ping. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    [edit clash] Jonteemil has already fixed this, Elinruby. (Incidentally, if you know that your edit is a test edit, why not do it on your own computer, with GIMP?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hoary: because the other editors on the page can't see the proposed change on my computer, that's why. There have been disputes about label placement on the map, mostly with respect to Morocco and the Western Sahara. I think those are resolved. Etc. There are some other images that were about whether it was possible to make the sky less orange and still look natural. That's why.

    Is there a better place to bring these things for deletion? Because there are a few more. These are locally uploaded files for use on the talk page. Commons helpdesk said just make sure it's a unique filename. Elinruby (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    July 7[edit]

    Hiding TfD notifications[edit]

    My saved links page looks awful at the moment because of TfD notifications about one of the templates I've used on it. What would I have to put in my CSS to hide these notifications? Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 00:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Suntooooth: I have hidden it on the page itself.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! :] Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 01:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Chinese premiers[edit]

    Hi, recently a editor named User:Utoppiaa575 caught my attention. They seemed to number every single premiers in China, but User:The_Account_2 kept reverting them. I'm here to ask do we need to number them? Martintalk(sign) 04:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No. Please don't. HiLo48 (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you help me tell him? Because i don't know why. Martintalk(sign) 04:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pages needing cleanup question[edit]

    Lorna Patterson's birth date[edit]

    just trying to figure out how to bring to someone's attention that this article about Lorna Patterson has info that conflicts with all other sites I've visited. It's listed as Oct. 1,1956 in Wikipedia but is listed as July 1,1956 on all other sites I've visited. Just wanted to alert someone so that info can be verified/ confirmed to be valid. 2603:800C:3D06:D0EB:1599:5E71:1FC7:EA80 (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Go to Talk:Lorna Patterson, and there point out that she was born on July 1, 1956 according to two reliable sources that seem to be independent of each other. (Specify the sources, of course.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The date of birth was changed from July 1,1956 by an IP editor without explanation in 2017 so I have changed it back and added (what looks like) a reliable source. The editor also changed the date of birth of Abby Elliott, but that had already been reverted. TSventon (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a policy about using the quote parameter in a cite tag?[edit]

    When adding or editing a ref using one of the cite tags, one parameter is the quote attribute which is for including "Relevant text quoted from the source".

    I'm not finding any guidelines about when or how to use this parameter other than that. I prefer to include a brief sentence or clause via the quote parameter so that anyone can hover over the cite and see that it supports the referenced material. Of course, it needs to be short enough to not violate copyright, but other than that I'm not seeing any guidance.

    Another editor on a page I watch is "fixing" cites and the quotes are being removed. I'm not sure if this is due to some policy, or it's an artifact of the visual editor (which has some issues with dealing with references). So, before I say "Hey, let's restore all these quotes in the citations" I'd like to know if I'm on solid ground. Thanks Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Citations never require quotes, and many editors see them as unnecessary clutter. I'm not sure where the guidance on this is located, but I think the idea is that an editor can write whatever they want in the |quote= parameter, so the only real way to verify a citation supports a claim is to inspect the original source. In practice, quotes inside citation templates have a tendency to duplicate the text citing them. Folly Mox (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A pox on |quote= which causes way too much clutter. For the record, I am not the editor who is removing quotations from articles on OP's watchlist. If the quotation is necessary for the article, place the quotation in the article and cite it. Quotations require citations; citations do not require quotations.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, it seems like there is varying opinion about whether to include this parameter, but no consensus or policy one way or another. Is this a correct reading?
    Seems to me that when citing a long article (or a book) a concise excerpt means someone trying to validate the citation doesn't have to hunt for it. But this is just my opinion, and I didn't start this thread to solicit opinion, I'm looking for policy or some other guidance ala the MOS. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No pox from me! In principle, a citation asserts that the cited source contains text to support the claim. The challenge is how to verify which portion of the text actually supports the claim ... and when there are multiple claims/sources involved, you don't even know which claim is supported by which source. Providing a quote means that you're making very clear what content you feel supports the pertinent claims. Having the precise text enables the reader to determine if the claim actually is supported by the text. That's a lot easier than reading through perhaps a chapter of text and wondering which content presumably supports a given claim. Fabrickator (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly we are going to disagree. But could you clarify? You wrote and when there are multiple claims/sources involved, you don't even know which claim is supported by which source. What? Each claim should be paired with its own citation so that the claim/source pairing is clear. If the condition you describe refers to a bundle of citations (WP:BUNDLING), it is better unbundle so that each claim is independently sourced and cited. If that is not what you mean, please explain.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I've found WP:FQ which says
    A footnote may also contain a relevant quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible. However, caution should be exercised, as always, to avoid copyright violations.
    So, it's not required but may be "especially helpful" or "useful". Basically, it's the editors' call in any specific instance. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This feels like cherry picking. The first sentence of Wikipedia:Citing sources § Additional annotation reads:
    In most cases it is sufficient for a citation footnote simply to identify the source (as described in the sections above); readers can then consult the source to see how it supports the information in the article.
    Taken as a whole, I read the WP:FQ guidance to mean: quote when necessary else leave the quotations out.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how I read it. A cite is sufficient without a comment, which implies comments are not a requirement. But they may be "useful" or "helpful" and I don't see anything that implies they should be included only when necessary. That seems to be making things up. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably those who hew to may be "useful" or "helpful" see the inclusion of quotations as necessary to some degree. I'm pretty sure that I never said only when necessary. (emphasis mine). I do not believe that may be "useful" or "helpful" should be used by editors as a 'carte blanche' to insert quotations into references that they create.
    Yes, my personal view is that quotations are rarely necessary in any sense of that word. I believe that lifting a quotation out of its source deprives the quoted text of its context. Without context, the meaning of a quotation gets fuzzy. Nothing at en.wiki is permanent so quoted text is subject to the same 'improvements' that are applied to regular article text (spelling, punctuation, etc) which can alter a quotation's meaning; I have seen quotation text that has been altered by (perhaps well meaning) editors modernizing archaic language, for example. An already fuzzy quotation becomes fuzzier. Quotations are fragile. For these reasons, I do not accept that quotations ensure that the reader can see precisely what we claim is supported by the source. Let the readers themselves decide what the source actually says.
    The only necessary use for |quote= that comes to mind is as an in-source locator when the cited text lacks any other form of in-source locator (page number, section number, etc); this is an issue that arises when citing certain ebooks. For these cases, a brief incipit of minimal length that can be used as a search string is sufficient to help the reader locate the text that our editor claims will support our article's text.
    Yeah, I know, you didn't want opinion but there it is anyway.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    my account[edit]

    I recently created an account and the same day, I got a message saying one of my recent edits were undone. I did not make an edit and I was wondering if this has ever happened before; if it was a mistake, if someone else used my account or if something else happened. Thanks, P — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peetzareea (talk • contribs) 17:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Peetzareea: Contributions by your username can be found at Special:Contributions/Peetzareea, which you can also access via the "user contributions" item in the "tools" menu. If you did not make these contributions, then someone else is making edits under your user name. Change your password and log out, and always log out when you leave your computer from now on. -Arch dude (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peetzareea: The first edit [2] claiming Catherine Eddowes had 18 children was made 2 minutes after you created the account. Considering the speed, if it wasn't you then it was probably somebody using the device you created the account with. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My Bitcoin address: what is my IP[edit]

    string/ HTTPS in the world 🌎 🌍 🌍 2600:1700:5060:32B0:ED:4B42:5A8F:752B (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    5060:32B0:ED:4B42752B:5A8F:752B 2600:1700:5060:32B0:ED:4B42:5A8F:752B (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the Help Desk for editing Wikipedia- we cannot help with bitcoin. Qcne (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Appointment Mohammad Rasool Mohammadi[edit]

    Respected Sir/Ma'am

    Greetings! Hope this email reaches you well.

    I am Mohammad Rasool Mohammadi an Afghan National, i worked in different capacity to backed GOIRA (Government of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan) for bringing peace and stability in Afghanistan, and i also did the social activities especially in women empowerment, Human right and etc. As now GOIRA ( Government of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan) collapsed and the coalition forces are pulled out from Afghanistan, now due to my previous activities my personal safety became under tremendous threats, therefore I'm requesting to apply for the international protection act to find a safe haven for myself. I'm looking forward to hearing from you.

    Sincerely Mohammad Rasool Mohammadi 119.59.87.104 (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. This is a forum for getting help editing Wikipedia, and we are unable to help with other matters. We have no affiliation with any national governments or international organisations. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    strange sentence in Myxococcus[edit]

    Hello,

    I just found this sentence: "Myxococcus is a single celled predatory bacteria that are facultative bacteria." Some sense can be guessed but it looks rather strange to me. In particular, what does "facultative bacteria" mean? A bacteria is not "facultatively" a bacteria - it's one or it's not - even though it can form colonies acting like a single organism that does not resemble bacteria at first glance. 176.159.12.72 (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Facultative bacteria is a redirect to Facultative anaerobic organism, so I assume that article describes what is meant by "facultative" in the usage in question. Deor (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We have a topic page Facultative. It might be intended to refer to their Quorum sensing abilities, but that article does not use the term, nor do the three references cited in the relevant paragraph, so I think that usage would be dubious and certainly in need of clarification. Is there a Microbiologist in the house? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.226.178 (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you ask for clarification on the talk page of that article. Shantavira|feed me 08:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    July 8[edit]

    Where do I give feedback on the Talk page software?[edit]

    Greetings and felicitations. Where do I give feedback on the software used on Talk pages such this very one—the software I am using right now? —DocWatson42 (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    See "How to report a bug" (which covers suggestions as well as complaints). -- Hoary (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah—thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DocWatson42: There is often a more specific place for something. There is different software to edit this page. The "New topic" tag in your edit summary [3] indicates "Enable quick topic adding" is enabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. When you use it there should be a "Share feedback about this feature" link at the bottom going to mw:Talk:Talk pages project/New discussion. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you the pointer. The problem is finding where that place is. :-/ I did check my preferences before posting, but did not locate anything that seemed relevant. —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Atty. Claire Castro[edit]

    Who is Atty. Claire Castro? 2600:1700:7430:5C80:295B:3913:DE37:1FC3 (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this a question about the use of Wikipedia? -- Hoary (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    copying a Wikipedia page into my sandbox[edit]

    I can't see how to copy a Wikipedia page into a sandbox and edit it there. I felt that I should because when In tried to edit the real page I got an error message when previewing it and everything I tried warned that my edits might be lost. PedantJFH (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Your description of what you want to do isn't entirely clear, PedantJFH, but it does sound very similar to what Robert McClenon warned you not to attempt eight years ago. Robert McClenon described ways by which you might succeed in achieving your aims. Did he misunderstand you? Or do I misunderstand you when I infer that you're still trying to do what he warned you not to attempt? -- Hoary (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing prevents you working on specific portions of text of an existing article in a sandbox like User:PedantJFH/sandbox, if that's what you mean. WP:COPYPASTE may be of relevance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the name for this practice on Wikipedia?[edit]

    I remember reading (on the Wikipedia namespace) about a particular practice where a page is moved from Title A to Title B (and the two titles have no relationship to each other) and its contents completely changed from that of Title A to that of Title B. I noticed that this particular practice isn't even listed on the Vandalism page. What is the name of this practice, and on which WP namespace article(s) has this practice been documented? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.100.178 (talk) 06:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps there's a reason you don't know. -- Hoary (talk) 06:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Article hijack Meters (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two good answers from Hoary and Meters, which are concise for good reason. WP:DENY is also worth reading. Cullen328 (talk)

    How early on is an article able to be AfD'd?[edit]

    This is a question that has been on the tip of my tongue until about 5 minutes ago, when an article which needs a pronto deletion was created. It doesn't meet the WP:SPEEDYDELETE criteria, but meets other criteria for deletion. So my question is, do I have to wait to AfD an article, or can I just go ahead with it? Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 06:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There is literally no minimum time and if the article clearly does not comply with policies and guidelines, you can nominate it at AfD immediately. However, if the article is being actively edited to improve it in the period right after creation, I would recommend waiting until the article stabilizes before nominating it for deletion, and only after a good faith search for sources demonstrating notability, as described at WP:BEFORE. Editors perceived as aggressive deletionists who have not done their notability homework in advance may receive an unfriendly response. Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, okay. This is an article topic that has already been quasi-deleted before (creator moved it back to draftspace because of an immediate AfD), and the WikiProject it falls under have specific WP:TOOSOON rules. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 07:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Eastern Suburbs Rugby Union Football Club[edit]

    Having an issue with an editor Peejay.

    Vandalizing the site by removing notability.

    Changing the page name from the legal name registered with ASIC.

    I have seen this behaviour before as it this is the first steps that editors go through to then recommend a page for deletion.

    This usually occurs from people with some affiliation with NSW rugby.

    I have asked him to cease and desist from making changes. But he is going way to far.

    He has even threatened me. 13:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC) Mmunji1 (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mmunji1 for the page name, we use the name that most people call it, so it is easier to look up the article. The legal name is in the first sentence.
    The majority of the #Premierships and #Eightball sections are unreferenced, and honestly they should mostly be removed, with the most important ones remaining there, to balance the article out so it isn't just listing a bunch of awards.
    Since you have a conflict of interest with Eastern Suburbs RUFC (Tasmania) you should really avoid editing the article directly to avoid making the article too promotional. If you are paid to do so you have to disclose your relationship (see link).
    Peejay saying If you revert again, I will escalate this discussion to the admins. is too far in my opinion. But he is right that you need to talk it out, and that you should not automatically assume that he has an agenda against the football club. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not have a conflict of interest. I am not an officer of the club. I am not paid to do anything at all. Mmunji1 (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Your statement on my talk page where you said "We have issues with NSW and persons from that state trying to take ownership of the name" suggested you did have some sort of official involvement with the club. If that is not the case, I apologise, but being paid is not the only thing that creates a conflict of interests, it just means you are required to declare it; even if you are just a member of the club, that is a conflict of interests that means you should be discouraged from editing this article. Nevertheless, I have noted that much of the content of the article was lifted directly from the club's website. This is not allowed due to copyright law. The content on the club's website belongs to them and cannot be reproduced here verbatim. I've been looking very carefully at this article, and to be honest, I'm struggling to see how the club satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines; however, I don't care enough to start the deletion procedure. If someone else wants to, I would probably support it, but it's not worth my time to lead the discussion. I'll also point out that the only person to have made any meaningful contribution to this article is Mmunji1 themself. Read into that what you will, Sungodtemple. – PeeJay 14:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Notability has been proven and should not be removed. The majority of sporting pages refer to premierships and Australian representation. Mmunji1 (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edoardo[edit]

    Please check reference number 1 - it is in red. thank you 175.38.37.197 (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems the edit adding a reference was reverted. You may want to ask the reverting editor why. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Appropriate statements on user page[edit]

    Is it OK to reveal my political opinions on my user page? If so, is it advised? Thank you. YoPienso (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=1233355179"