Wikipedia:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The Wikipedia help desk is a place where you can ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia. For other types of questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
  • For other types of questions, see Help:Contents and Are you in the right place? If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
  • Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
  • We are all volunteers, so sometimes replies can take some time. Please be patient. Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
  • If you need real-time help, you can join our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
  • If you are a new editor, you might prefer to ask your question at the Teahouse, an area specifically for new users to get help with editing, article creation and general Wikipedia use, in a friendly environment.
  • Remember to sign your post by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. Alternatively, you can click on the signature icon (Wikipedia edit toolbar signature icon) on the edit toolbar.

September 26[edit]

How to cite an anthology with a compiler instead of an editor[edit]


I'm trying to cite an Anthology work which has a "compiled by" instead of an "editor". How do I do that?

I tried this:

Heiki Jr., Robert Debs; Heinl, Nancy Gordon (December 1978), "The Marine Corps Gazette article The American Occupation of Haiti: Problems and Programs, 1920-1928", in Evans, USMCR, Col. Stephen S. (ed.), U.S. Marines and Irregular Warfare, 1898-2007: Anthology and Selected Bibliography, Quantico, VA: Marine Corps University (published 2008)

but it's clearly not right, it lists the compilers name before the name of the anthology and adds "(ed.)".

Please advise, Thanks, Gecko G (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You could use the 'others' parameter, like this: Heiki Jr., Robert Debs; Heinl, Nancy Gordon (December 1978), "The American Occupation of Haiti: Problems and Programs, 1920-1928", U.S. Marines and Irregular Warfare, 1898-2007: Anthology and Selected Bibliography, Compiled by Col. Stephen S. Evans, USMCR, Quantico, VA: Marine Corps University (published 2008) Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Gecko G. In this context, I believe that a human compiler is pretty much synonymous with a human editor. Comparing the meanings of the words is complicated by the fact that both words are also used in a computer software context. Cullen328 (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict)I could've sworn I had tried that exact same thing and it gave me an "ignore" error message, but yeah, that works (I guess I must have had a typo or something), thanks Firefangledfeathers, that will work if there's not a proper way to cite an anthology!
Cullen328-I suppose there is some overlap, but the source specifically labels him as a compiler, not an editor so I want to list him as such.
to any/all- Given that this is an article originally from a magazine, collected into an anthology work, what's the best way to list the three titles (article title, original magazine title, and anthology title)? Is there no anthology specific citation templates? I tried to find the original magazine but I'm not finding any of that years Marine Corps Gazettes in my usual online sources, let alone that particular issue. Gecko G (talk) 02:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You don't. You cite the source that you consulted. cs1|2 or other forms of citation are not compliations of a source's publication history. If you consulted the magazine then:
{{cite magazine |mode=cs2 |last1=Heiki |first1=Robert Debs Jr |last2=Heinl |first2=Nancy Gordon |date=December 1978 |title=The American Occupation of Haiti: Problems and Programs, 1920-1928 |magazine=The Marine Corps Gazette}}
Heiki, Robert Debs Jr; Heinl, Nancy Gordon (December 1978). "The American Occupation of Haiti: Problems and Programs, 1920-1928". The Marine Corps Gazette.
Compiler/editor for the purposes of a citation are synonymous. While |others= 'works', |editor= is the better choice. Omit Evans' rank and affiliation; name only.
{{citation |last1=Heiki |first1=Robert Debs Jr |last2=Heinl |first2=Nancy Gordon |chapter=The American Occupation of Haiti: Problems and Programs, 1920-1928 |editor-last=Evans |editor-first=Stephen S. |title=U.S. Marines and Irregular Warfare, 1898-2007: Anthology and Selected Bibliography |publisher=Marine Corps University |date=2008 |location=Quantico, VA}}
Heiki, Robert Debs Jr; Heinl, Nancy Gordon (2008), "The American Occupation of Haiti: Problems and Programs, 1920-1928", in Evans, Stephen S. (ed.), U.S. Marines and Irregular Warfare, 1898-2007: Anthology and Selected Bibliography, Quantico, VA: Marine Corps University
Also, see MOS:JR.
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trappist the monk Thanks!
(and especially thanks for the link about "Jr", as I'm never sure how to properly do that).
Though- then when would you use |publication-date= if not here? Doesn't not using it make it look like the article is 30 years newer than it actually is? Gecko G (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are citing the compilation, the proper date is the publication date (|date=) of the compilation. The purpose of a citation is to help the reader of articles locate a copy of the source that you used when writing the article. The unique weirdnesses of |publication-date= and |publication-place= don't really aid the reader in their search for the source. I hope to see both parameters go away.
Trappist the monk (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not trying to be difficult, but that really doesn't seem correct to me. Are you sure? I'm only planning on one quote, but if there was a subsequent quote with a reference list wouldn't that have to then be listed as Heiki (2008), even though Heiki wrote in 1978, vs. Evans (2008)? Wouldn't that make it harder for a reader to find a copy, not easier? How do those 2 parameters not help to clarify? Perhaps I'm not understanding or missing something... Gecko G (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you wanted the year the magazine article was initially published you could use |orig-date=1978 which will have that year in square brackets (showing it has been added and is not strictly speaking part of the citation where you got it) in addition to |year=2008.
{{citation |last1=Heiki |first1=Robert Debs Jr |last2=Heinl |first2=Nancy Gordon |chapter=The American Occupation of Haiti: Problems and Programs, 1920-1928 |editor-last=Evans |editor-first=Stephen S. |title=U.S. Marines and Irregular Warfare, 1898-2007: Anthology and Selected Bibliography |publisher=Marine Corps University |date=2008 |orig-date=1978 |location=Quantico, VA}}
Heiki, Robert Debs Jr; Heinl, Nancy Gordon (2008) [1978], "The American Occupation of Haiti: Problems and Programs, 1920-1928", in Evans, Stephen S. (ed.), U.S. Marines and Irregular Warfare, 1898-2007: Anthology and Selected Bibliography, Quantico, VA: Marine Corps University
Umimmak (talk) 05:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I'm sure. You are citing Heiki & Heinl in Evans 2008. You won't find Evans 1978 in a library catalog. You will find Evans 2008 so 2008 is the correct value for |date=. Using |orig-date=1978 implies that there is a 1978 edition of Evans. Even were there an Evans 1978, don't imply that you have consulted Evans 1978 if you have not.
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Using |orig-date=1978 implies that there is a 1978 edition of Evans., not all that does is say that the text of the Heiki & Keinl article was originally published that year; this is standard citation practice. CMoS provides the example Du Bois, W. E. B. (1903) 2016. “Of the Coming of John.” In The Making of the American Essay, edited by John D’Agata, 253–68. Minneapolis: Graywolf Press.; MLA provides Franklin, Benjamin. "Emigration to America." 1782. The Faber Book of America, edited by Christopher Ricks and William L. Vance, Faber and Faber, 1992, pp. 24-26. Both of these have a year for the original publication date of the chapter, not of the entire anthology. Umimmak (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought I remembered that was how a citation normally would be. Unfortunately the wikipedia citation template puts the dates next to each other if using |orig-date= so It seems to either need further explanation (building upon your originaly idea, like in my example "A" below) or one needs to use the |publication-date= (like in my example "B", also below). Personally I lean towards favoring B, but A works too. Gecko G (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both of these have a year for the original publication date of the chapter, not of the entire anthology. What? Of course both of those have dates for the anthologies: 2016 for D'Agata and 1992 for Ricks & Vance. I stand unpersuaded. Too many dates is too many dates. It is not necessary to know when Du Bois or Franklin wrote their contributions to the anthologies. Presuming that you consulted D'Agata 2016 and Ricks & Vance 1992, knowing Du Bois 1903 and Franklin 1782 won't help a reader find the sources that you consulted.
Trappist the monk (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It gives the researcher the option to find either the original OR the anthology, i.e. they can try to locate either Du Bois 1903 or D'Agata 2016, and it doesn't send them looking for a nonexistent Du Bois 2016 or Franklin 1992 Gecko G (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But this is Wikipedia. At Wikipedia, WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT applies; identify the source that you consulted when you wrote whatever article. You have said that you consulted Heinl & Heinl in Evans 2008 so that is the date that you should use because it is the date of the enclosing work. Here is the Library of Congress page for The Making of the American Essay. Note the date there: 2016. Du Bois is mentioned in the contents section without a date. Look up the ISBN at WorldCat; note the date. The publication date of the enclosing work is the date that should be used; any other date is extraneous and likely to be confusing.
Trappist the monk (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was relying on Umimmak's "Chicago style" citation, as it's a format I don't use. After a brief research it in fact doesn't look like that is how Chicago style is normally cited with regard to the year.
Yes, I got it from Evans 2008, but placing the year of Evans publication immediately after the names of the authors implies the original authors work was of that year. It also does not match any normal citation style I am aware of: MLA, APA, Chicago. If the output of the template was something like:
Heinl, Robert Debs Jr; Heinl, Nancy Gordon, "The American Occupation of Haiti: Problems and Programs, 1920-1928", U.S. Marines and Irregular Warfare, 1898-2007: Anthology and Selected Bibliography, Marine Corps University, 2008
that could work and I would view that as correct, (though it seems odd to deliberately leave out information that could aid a researcher in locating it -namely that it's from the Dec. 1978 issue of the Marine Corps Gazette), but as soon as 2008 gets placed immediately after the article author names it implies the authors wrote in 2008, and I believe would be confusing to readers. Anyway, Umimmak below found the original issue of the Marine Corps Gazette online, I so I can just use that and avoid the whole issue. Gecko G (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you think that cs1|2 handles dates incorrectly, start a discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1.
Trappist the monk (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict)
But I fear your citation would cause the reader to search a library catalog for Heiki & Heinl 2008. It seems there's one of 2 possibly correct ways to do this (if there's no anthology specific citation template). Either:
A) incorporate Umimmak@'s suggestion of using |orig-date= but including explanation, thusly:
{{citation | last1= Heiki | first1= Robert Debs Jr | last2= Heinl | first2= Nancy Gordon | chapter= The American Occupation of Haiti: Problems and Programs, 1920-1928 | editor-last= Evans | editor-first= Stephen S. | title= U.S. Marines and Irregular Warfare, 1898-2007: Anthology and Selected Bibliography | publisher = Marine Corps University | date= 2008 | orig-date= Original article December 1978 | location = Quantico, VA }}
Heiki, Robert Debs Jr; Heinl, Nancy Gordon (2008) [Original article December 1978], "The American Occupation of Haiti: Problems and Programs, 1920-1928", in Evans, Stephen S. (ed.), U.S. Marines and Irregular Warfare, 1898-2007: Anthology and Selected Bibliography, Quantico, VA: Marine Corps University
or B) keep closer to your idea but keeping 2008 in the |publication-date= parameter, thusly:
{{citation | last1= Heiki | first1= Robert Debs Jr | last2= Heinl | first2= Nancy Gordon | date= December 1978 | chapter= The American Occupation of Haiti: Problems and Programs, 1920-1928 | editor-last= Evans | editor-first= Stephen S. | title= U.S. Marines and Irregular Warfare, 1898-2007: Anthology and Selected Bibliography | publisher = Marine Corps University | publication-date= 2008 | publication-place = Quantico, VA }}
Heiki, Robert Debs Jr; Heinl, Nancy Gordon (December 1978), "The American Occupation of Haiti: Problems and Programs, 1920-1928", in Evans, Stephen S. (ed.), U.S. Marines and Irregular Warfare, 1898-2007: Anthology and Selected Bibliography, Quantico, VA: Marine Corps University (published 2008)
Thoughts? Thanks. Gecko G (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gecko G: But I fear your citation would cause the reader to search a library catalog for Heiki & Heinl 2008. no the reader will see those are the authors of just one chapter so they'll go to look up the 2008 book edited by Evans. There's no need to have extraneous information like "Original article" because having square brackets around the date says that already.
Another suggestion is just have both full citations, have something like [Reprint of Marine Corps Gazette, vol. 62, no. 12, pp. 46–56, December 1978] following the citation of the 2008 book where you got it.
Note that the surname is not Heiki as I actually check the sources (and also obviously you should have |pages=89–99 somewhere in your citation for the 2008 book). Umimmak (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
re: first 2 sentences- That was in reference to Trappists original suggestion of the 26th, not yours.
re: third sentence- At this point, yeah it might be easier to just ditch the wikipedia specific citation template.
re: fourth sentence- looks it up... wow. You're absolutely right, they are both surnamed Heinl. I must of made a sloppy typo in jotting down my notes during research.
Gecko G (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) I was planning on citing only 1 specific point and so would have the specific page number for that part, but now I'm thinking I might include more from that source, in which case I'll give the page range. Thanks. Gecko G (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that Heiki is not the surname; see "The American Occupation of Haiti: Problems and Programs, 1920-1928" (p. 103)
If you are going to argue that it is necessary to include the date of the magazine article, are you also going to argue that it is necessary to include the page numbers where the article appears in the magazine? It is much of a muchness. Extraneous information should be left out.
Trappist the monk (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The surname was an error on my part.
The best outcome would be if I could find the original Marine Corps Gazette then I could just reference Heinl & Heinl 1978. Failing that, and having to cite the anthology, using the template as you suggest would be implying a Heinl & Heinl 2008. It looks like it's a failing in the citation templates ability to handle an Anthology since it matches none of the normal citation styles I'm familiar with (i.e. MLA). Short of finding the original magazine, it seems the best is just to not use the wikipedia specific citation template at all and just put a normal plain text citation (like an MLA stlye one) inside a ref tag. Thanks Gecko G (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that citing Marine Corps Gazette would be best. I disagree that |date=2008 implies Heinl & Heinl 2008; it does no such thing. Readers must read the whole citation not just the first couple of elements. You can, of course, create a manual citation within the limits of WP:CITESTYLE. cs1|2 is a good general purpose system that has been found to be adequate for millions of articles at and many other wikis. cs1|2, I think, handles the Evans 2008 anthology correctly so I do not see any failure there.
Trappist the monk (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gecko G: I mean the original article is available via Google Books if you want to just cite that?
I agree with Trappist the monk that just having the information for where you got it is sufficient, so just having 2008 as the date and only including information about the book you’re reading is fine and won’t lead readers astray. (I just also think it’s sometimes useful to provide information about when the paper was originally published or even the full citation details for that as well — there is precedent for including those in a variety of citation styles.) Umimmak (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's the original Marine Corps Gazette, excellent, I can just use that and avoid the whole kerfluffel. Thank you! Gecko G (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Labelling as 'false claims' news articles that had been corrected or retracted[edit]

It is my understanding that news publishers sometimes make corrections or retractions, with or without notice, and that it is routine practice in the industry. I came across the article The Raw Story which has a long list of entries (18) under the heading "False claims". Every one which I have looked into was about an article which had been quickly corrected or retracted within a reasonably short period of time. Some of these articles had relied on news agency or syndicated articles which were even cited/linked in the published article. I have searched other Wikipedia articles on news organizations that published/corrected/retracted the same material and yet I do not find similar content in their Wikipedia articles, nor do I find any similar sections or lists for 'false claims'.

Some of the language in the Wikipedia article The Raw Story is exaggerated, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE or based on exaggerated or twisted claims by the cited articles. I have tried to remove some of the entries and have put my reasoning on the talk page, but one particular editor (who was a major contributor to content on the page and I believe who added this list) reverts and insists that the content is well sourced and NPOV. But it isn't. Regardless of what I write to explain my edit, this editor uses very strong and aggressive language to discourage me from continuing. I have tried to search for specific Wikipedia guidelines about this type of content, but have only been able to find NPOV, SYNTH, UNDUE and, frankly, WP:COMMONSENSE.

If any of the 26 citations in The Raw Story were actually alleging that Raw Story routinely and repeatedly publishes false claims and is negligent about retractions, then that would be a different story, but there are no sources covering that concept. Instead, the majority of these citations are Snopes-like in that they mention some issue that made the rounds of the internet which they found to be untrue or unlikely and they happen to mention that Raw Story as well as others had published it.

I am unsure how to proceed. The article is a wreck and even though I have only a limited amount of time to spend on Wikipedia, I don't want to abandon it to this "owner". Is there a more specific guideline or policy that covers this sort of content? Or does anyone have any advice or direction that can unstick this impasse with another editor? Grorp (talk) 04:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This seems like a conversation you and Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d need to have on Talk:The Raw Story before EITHER of you revert again. I do see you have posted detailed reasoning for your changes on the talk page and Dr. Swag Lord has responded, but I can see how you might think his response (basically your explanation is TL:DR and to "Stop removing well-sourced content.") is less than productive. I think the two of you need to have a good faith conversation about if that material is being given due weight or not. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Grorp As I explained on the talk page, please try your best to express your arguments in a succinct manner and avoid WP:WALLSOFTEXT. It's very difficult for editors to respond in more detail to thousands and thousands of bytes of arguments. This especially rings true when the article has been ransacked by sock-puppets, declared & undeclared COIs for the last few years. Thank you very much. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: I am not responsible for the earlier history of the article, nor your fatigue over it. Please talk with me... and not with the "ghosts of edits past". Grorp (talk) 03:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Severe problem with routine addition of content[edit]

Hello, I'm having severe problems with routine addition of content, succeeding only on 5th or 7th try after 15-20 mins:

Can anyone please investigate it and explain why? Is there any problem with editing at the moment in general? Or any problem with this IP addr or range so it triggers some internal protection (I usually get assigned IP from a different range, this one is a very rare occurrence).

This is infuriating, as I wanted to do one more edit of the page, and it keeps failing with "Error, something unexpected happened upon loading the preview. Please close and try again." reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC) P.S. in case such questions should be asked elsewhere, please let me know. (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Making note here that it's definitely not an abuse filter issue (I checked and they haven't triggered any abuse filters). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It might be just general internet problems. In case you hadn't noticed, IP, there is an ongoing war in Europe, and both sides (in the broadest sense) are doubtless making cyberattacks on each others' internet services. {the poster formerly known as} (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would make sense considering the IP is from Russia according to WhoIs. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears the problem was entirely on my end: shortly after my futile edit attempts I noticed I couldn't watch YouTube vids even at min quality; YouTube-reported bitrate fell to 50-80 kbps – numbers I don't recall seeing before. The fact that I easily posted here, but couldn't edit the article, is probably explained by its big size – perhaps something in MediaWiki is sensitive to very low connection speed. Now the speed is back, and I edited the article as usual, without a hitch.

So thanks to all who reached out to help, and apologies for the alert folks, if it occurred to me that I should have checked my connection, I would have done it. Case closed it seems (except someone here is brave enough to go ahead and fix that MediaWiki "feature" for the good of all editors sitting on flaky connections). (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think that would be a MediaWiki issue but probably just a website issue. Usually if your connection isn't very good certain things won't work on websites because your internet isn't strong enough. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Censorship and propaganda.[edit]

If Wikipedia wishes to remain a legitimate source of knowledgeable information, it should refrain from locking pages with politically biased information subject to propaganda laws and attributes to support narratives through emotion and remain factual and logical. Example: Fascism - Wikipedia States "far-right" and locked in Talk as: The lead of the article says that "Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy that rose to prominence in early 20th-century Europe." This statement is the result of a very long process of discussion and debate and has strong consensus acceptance within the Wikipedia community, based on the consensus of political scientists, historians, and other reliable sources that Fascism is a (far) "right-wing" ideology and not a "left-wing" one. This has been discussed numerous times. Please see this FAQ and read the talk page archives." When in fact no discussion was had. I do not know, though I suspect government meddling, was the source cause of this. I have plenty of biased propaganda sources such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube for these kinds of content, and hope Wikipedia can return itself to normalcy while remaining unbiased in word definitions. The above example of "Fascism" is neither right nor left as described and outlined in the remainder of the article as well as its source references. This and other similar source information meddling is the reason I no longer monetarily support the Wikipedia foundation, see also redefinition of “Vaccine” as other source. ELXaber (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ELXaber: Talk:Fascism has a "Search archives" field. A search of left-wing shows many discussions. Some American conservatives and others are trying to redefine the term but until they convince the World at large, Wikipedia will probably continue to use the normal international meaning. I don't know where you are from but if you mainly follow conservative American media then you don't get a proper impression of how the term is normally used. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and tries to avoid special terminology used by limited groups. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ELXaber, the Wikimedia Foundation has massive cash reserves and will not miss your donations. Experienced Wikipedia editors pay no attention whatsoever to anyone's comments about withholding donations. Cullen328 (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ELXaber This is a help desk for answering questions about editing. In the future please feel free to voice your concerns by starting a discussion on the relevant article talk page. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edits using bot[edit]

Hi, I need to find a talk page (or project) or a user who knows how to operate a bot (I've seen these edits before, but can't remember who made them). I don't edit English Wikipedia, so don't know where to ask my question exactly. Thank you RiniX (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds like you're looking for Wikipedia:Bot requests, or possibly Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard, depending on the nature of your question. —Cryptic 19:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


User:ItsKesha makes unexplained deletes. User:ItsKesha also makes additions to Professional wrestling and association football articles. .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are you saying this here, 0mtw etc? You do not appear to have made any edits to User talk:ItsKesha or any other talk page in the last four days. Those are where you should start any discussion with or about the other user. ColinFine (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Main Page[edit]

Is there a way to receieve a daily email link to the Main page. I've found that I simply can't remember everyday to go there but an email (which I check regularly) would be a helpful reminder. (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think Wikipedia can do that. The Google search daily email reminders gives many services. I don't know what else they may do with your email address. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could subscribe to the daily featured article email list? (talk) 08:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 27[edit]

Talk page archives[edit]

I tried using OneClickArchiver on my talk page, but it won't work. I'm trying to figure it out but there must be something I'm missing. —VersaceSpace 🌃 02:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@VersaceSpace: It seems to be some sort of script problem. I see that you're using the version by Equazcion, which is unmaintained. Perhaps try switching to one of the versions listed at Wikipedia:One click archiving that are still maintained. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dug a little deeper, and it seems like the RegExp in line 47 is the immediate problem. I am by no means an expert at RegExp, but it seems like the Regex expects the line with the count variable to be present as |count = number, allowing only for differential insofar as that the spaces I gave a red background can be ommited. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good practice would be to make the spaces explicit, and variable in length: \s* Bazza (talk) 09:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SPI with IPs[edit]

Where can I report sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry involving IPs? Is this still appropriate at SPI, given the sensitive nature of the issue, or should I email somebody? Duonaut (talk | contribs) 10:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Duonaut You can report sockpupperty with IP's at SPI, but checkusers will not connect IP's with accounts - any blocks will have to be based on behavioural evidence alone. (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good to know. Thanks! Duonaut (talk | contribs) 10:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2022 Uganda Ebola outbreak[edit]

hi, I did this edit which moved text from one article to another,(and gave attribution) and I noticed I got this, what do I do??--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ozzie10aaaa you asked Diannaa about this 20 minutes earlier, so I would suggest waiting for her response. She will not always be able to respond immediately as she will sometimes be busy, or asleep. Please do not ask the same question on different pages as it wastes volunteer time. TSventon (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC) ‎Reply[reply]
ok, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikidata problem[edit]

Hi--can any of you figure out why Lycée Lamartine links to the wrong article in the French wiki? When I click the French link, it goes to another lycee. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed it. There were some interlanguage links being interpreted as pre-wikidata interwikis. Madeline (part of me) 20:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should work now. Ruslik_Zero 20:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. For future reference, if you want to link inline to an article in another edition of Wikipedia, you need to start with a colon, so [[:fr:Lycée Jules-Ferry (Paris)|Lycée Jules-Ferry]] displays as Lycée Jules-Ferry, and links to the French article. But a better approach is to use the template {{Ill}}. So {{Ill|Lycée Jules-Ferry (Paris)|fr|lt=Lycée Jules-Ferry}} displays as Lycée Jules-Ferry because there actually is an article in English, but if there weren't it would link to the French article with a little "{fr}" by it to warn the reader that it was in a different language. ColinFine (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, all of you! Drmies (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dark mode[edit]

Is there a dark mode to using wikippedia? Ebbedlila (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ebbedlila: Yes but actually no. There is a gadget that enables a "dark mode" on Wikipedia, however it's really just a color inverter. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 22:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To try it out, click "preferences" at the top of the page, then "gadgets", then look under "appearance" - Arjayay (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 28[edit]

Reference quoting[edit]

Hi There,

I want to add a reference to a publishing or an article or newspaper article in my new page. But I don't have the web reference to it however I have a pdf version of it with me. What needs to be done in these cases? Can I still use that as a reference in the article? Can I create a web item using the pdf I have and quote it? Vamsy Alapati (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Referencing a page does not generally involve quoting it. You would only need to provide enough information to look the source up in a library or archive, using {{cite news}} (we need the publication name, publication date, source title, source byline (i.e. who wrote it), and page(s) the source's on). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I just have some softcopy of the item or scanned copy of an old publication in newspaper. What can I do to use that in the reference? Can I use the archive or such to create a web item and reference to that? If yes, Can you help me on how to do that? Vamsy Alapati (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I invite you to re-read what I just wrote. None of it involves what you're intending to do. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The source for a citation doesn't need to be currently available online as explained in WP:PUBLISHED as long as it's considered to be a reliable source, published and reasonably accessible and used in proper context. Being available online of course typically makes assessing source reliability and context much easier, but it's not required. So, if the soft copies you have are from an old newspaper that is considered to be a reliable source for which archived copies exist in some form (e.g. microfilm) that someone can go and check (even if they have to travel at their own expense to do so), then it can still possibly be cited as a source. If the soft copies that you possess are the only copies of the old paper in existence anywhere in the world and access is granted to only certain people determined by you (e.g. a private collection), then the source probably isn't OK for Wikipedia's purposes. In the case of old newspapers, there may be old archived versions found online via sites like and you may have to pay to access the source, but that's still OK per WP:PAYWALL as long as the source is considered reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. Quoting a source often can be helpful when dealing with offline sources because it can aid in establish the context in which the source is used; you don't need to quote the entire source, but rather only the sentence which directly relates to why the source is being used. You don't need to do this, but you should be ready to clarify the source if querried about it by another user. I wouldn't recommended uploading your copies of the source to some website and then linking to that because there could be copyright related matters involved per WP:CONVENIENCE that are separate from whether the source is reliable in the first place. There could also be concerns raised as to whether your version is a true version or has been modified in some way. Finally, content is not automatically OK to add to articles just because it can be supported by a citation to a reliable source as explained in WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Often its encyclopedic relevance and weight need to be separately assessed even when reliably sourced; an extraordinary claim or some kind may be much easier to discuss and sort out when it can be readily assessed by viewing online sources, and some editors may be opposed to using offline sources in such situations unless the source itself is really quite extraordinary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC); [Note: Posted edited by Marchjuly to add the missing "not" referred to below. -- 13:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)]Reply[reply]
I think there's a "not" missing in your sentence Finally, content is automatically OK to add to articles..., Marchjuly. ColinFine (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, there was. Thank you for catching that ColinFine. My apologies for any confusion the missing "not" may have caused anyone. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rosamund Pike[edit]

Rosamund Pike is originally born on January 27, 1979. (talk) 09:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possibly. But we need a reliable source (see WP:V) before it can be added to the article. - X201 (talk) 09:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Was she also born at other times after that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did a quick search but didn't find anything that looked original that sourced the date. If the date is wrong in one place, it's sometimes lazily copied to other crowdsourced sites and takes on a life of its own. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to Rosamund Pike § Notes reference [1] that is not her actual birthday, just her 'internet birthday'??? -- Verbarson  talkedits 08:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to Birth, Death and Marriage records, her birth was registered in the first quarter of 1979. Which brings in the possibility of "Internet birthday" being a double bluff. - X201 (talk) 10:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leeds School of Medicine[edit]

Ref number 1 is all wrong - please fix if able. Thank you (talk) 11:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Sungodtemple (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

can i merge accounts[edit]

i have 3 accounts ( intercity225, 2006toyotacorrola and northamptontown) and i want to merege them so i'm not accused of sockpuppeting is this possible 2006toyotacorrola (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, merging accounts is not possible. Tropicalkitty (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2006toyotacorrola To avoid accusations of sock puppetry, you may either abandon your other accounts and stick to your current one, or clearly identify the other accounts as yours on their user pages(and on your current user page identify the other accounts you have). 331dot (talk) 11:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i've forgotten the passwords for the other two so i might do so 2006toyotacorrola (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are sandbox pages public?[edit]

Hi, I'm using my sandbox page to write a draft for a wiki page I might upload later, I just wanted to know if sandbox pages were public? - Reeealllkeyyss — Preceding undated comment added 21:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Reeealllkeyyss, yes, they are, though they're obviously less visible than other areas of Wikipedia. They are invisible to search engines by default. (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reeealllkeyyss There are no completely private areas on Wikipedia, though some areas are harder to find than others. If you don't want anyone to see what you write, don't put it on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay thank you! - Reeealllkeyyss — Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply with a bullet point to things like AfDs with Discussion Tools[edit]

I'd like to be able to reply to an afd with the reply in discussion tools. Is there a way to do this? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Aaron Liu: as far as i know, you cannot. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 03:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They're working on it. See T259865. It's a bit difficult from a technical perspective, unfortunately. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had been contemplating filing a phab ticket for just this. Thanks Enterprisey for linking the phab ticket. CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 06:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 29[edit]

James Middleton[edit]

Reference number 35 should have the quote written the correct way. Can you please do this? We cannot. Sorry and thanks (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi IP 175! Could you give us some more specifics? I see you added a citation with a quote. The quote looks like an accurate duplication of the source's text. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The source (number 35) is the exact same as number 42 - maybe the quote is OK as you seem to suggest - but surely these two refs should be doubled up and we leave the quote in? (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point! You can see how I fixed it here, and the steps for doing so are listed at WP:REFNAME. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article Draft declined[edit]

My first draft was declined for sounding too promotional and for not having enough supporting resources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afomaa (talkcontribs) 08:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correct. Do you have a question? You have been given sound advice on your talk page. Shantavira|feed me 09:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am searching for various quotes and want to know if they are copyright for use in school text books please. (talk) 09:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you mean that you want to put quotes or text from WP in school textbooks, see Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. And perhaps Wikipedia:General disclaimer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

British Colonial Era records and consensuses[edit]

Are British Colonial Era records and books not to be mentioned as sources in Wikipedia articles if not supported by Modern sources?

How concencuses are made in Wikipedia community and how to know if a concencus is already made on a certain topic? MrHyperForEver (talk) 10:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For your first question, it depends. British colonial records might be reliable sources in certain contexts, but not in others. Probably yes for the boundaries between colonial administration entities. Maybe for general demographic data. Probably not for subtle statistics of caste self-identification. What is your use case?
Newer sources are generally preferred over older sources when reliable sources conflict, but an old scholarly paper is better than a new pop-magazine speculative article (related: Betteridge's law of headlines). TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 12:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

multiple user pages[edit]

how do i make multiple user pages 2006toyotacorrola (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You shouldn't be doing that. To make user subpages simply type the user subpage you want to create into the search bar, which will popup a link to create the page. Sungodtemple (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i mean subpages 2006toyotacorrola (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then see the comment I put above. Sungodtemple (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can also put something like [[/This is a subpage]] on your user page and then follow the red link that it creates. Note the slash at the start. - X201 (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Setting footnote in Infobox country in ISO 3166 field (for Kosovo)[edit]

The infobox country in the article Kosovo lists XK as ISO 3166 code and .xk as proposed internet TLD. In the latter case, there is a footnote set that XK is not yet an official ISO 3166 code. This footnote logically belongs to the ISO 3166 field. However, it is not set there, as the template automatically links the "XK" entry to ISO 3166-2:XK, which then is a redirect to XK (user assigned code). You can't set the footnote there without ruining this link. But I guess there is a way for those who know how to?! --KnightMove (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please help me ( Urgent)[edit]

Hello, someone named Storchy has recommended deleting my Wiki Page National Scholarship Portal.

Can an admin check the page and tell me the reason for this action. How can I inprove the page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoworNever007 (talkcontribs) 12:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! The discussion about the reasoning to delete your page is here. You can participate in the discussion, and you can try to find what can you improve in the deletion discussion. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]