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.

May 17[edit]

Birth date and age template[edit]

Hello. Will the birth date and age template automatically update the age. I have seen multiple infoboxes without an updated age. Cherrell410 (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it calculates the age automatically. Infoboxes without an updated age are probably not using a template but instead just put in the age at the time as text. MB 03:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cherrell410:If you think you have seen a problem then please always give an example. The English Wikipedia uses UTC so the age changes at midnight UTC on the birthday, not local time of the subject. Pages are cached so if the page is not edited or purged, it may show the old age for a while. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK problem[edit]

I recently nominated an article about Enkeli-Elisa for WP:DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Enkeli-Elisa, about a story of a 15-year-old girl who committed suicide because she had been bullied at school, which turned out to be a hoax, but the DYK process ran into problems. What do I need to do next to make the DYK process complete? JIP | Talk 01:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the nomination was created, but just not listed at Template talk:Did you know. I have added it there manually. Wikipedia talk:Did you know is the place for DYK discussions. I would recommend using it in the future if you have more DYK questions. MB 03:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This new photo of Commandant Patrick Denis is way too big - also ref number 7 is all wrong. Please fix if you have the time. I cannot (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done some fixes at Commandant.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

my 1st article just not approved[edit]

hi how are you everyone.

    i write a new article about education i am new here and try to learn .


the above link is my draft article which is not approved i just copy past things from website in start then i remove that things now i didn't find any link that support this article so i want to known should i stop doing thing on Wikipedia. and if i see some other article that have same links newspaper but they are approved so why this things happen . see below example — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creativewriting498 (talkcontribs) 05:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Creativewriting498, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. Please don't stop editing Wikipedia - new editors are always welcome. But, as the English saying goes, "don't run before you can walk". Creating a new article is one of the hardest jobs there is, especially for a new editor. I remember when I was a new editor, 17 years ago, how I desperately wanted to find a subject I could write an article about, to "make my mark". Now I know that, not only is creating a new article difficult, but there are far far far more valuable ways to help improve Wikipedia. We have over six million articles: thousands and thousands of them are terrible, and could be improved by any editor who takes the time and trouble.
My recommendation is that you put aside the idea of creating an article for at least a few months, and work on learning how Wikipedia works, by finding articles that interest you and making small improvements. If you can't think of any, have a look at the WP:task center.
When you are ready to have another go at creating an article, please start by reading your first article. Note that you must not copy material from another website or publication, and that Wikipedia is not intereste in what the subject of an article, or their associates, say about them, but only in what people unconnected with the subject have published about them. Happy editing! ColinFine (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thank for give some motivations what the point why this article is approved what reference in this are natural Creativewriting498 (talk) 11:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Wakeman saxophonist entry[edit]


I have tried to edit this entry for a minor change: Mr. Wakeman's domain name has changed recently. The new domain name is:

However, when I changed it, the entire profile box with the picture disappeared. I would be grateful for help on this matter.

With many thanks, Angela Jianu — Preceding unsigned comment added by AWAJsax (talkcontribs) 06:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, AWAJsax, I fixed the official website link as clicking the old link made it clear the link was now directing to a different website. The reason the infobox disappeared when you first edited was because you accidently removed the closing markup for the infobox. By closing markup, I'm referring to the brackets at the bottom of section. Cmr08 (talk) 07:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AWAJsax I also updated the official website at Wakeman's Wikidata entry. GoingBatty (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It did not existed. We have a very large numbers of readers from Romania, a country extremely religious[edit]


I am trying to add our website to Wiki but I don't want to spam the website due to my inability to create the page.(LongCovid)

The website is named Click Romania - the link is

We are a Romanian/European/British publishing organization online (we don't print anymore)

Thank you in advance, and when I get better, I will help editing articles about the Romanian history and architecture. Sorry for my Oxford comma :)

Regards A.M — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClickRomaniaUK (talkcontribs) 06:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ClickRomaniaUK. Since you seem quite new to Wikipedia, you might be misunderstanding some important things about Wikipedia. Please take a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for some general information about the kind of content deemed appropriate to write about on Wikipedia. You also appear to have been adding content about your organization to some Wikipedia articles. For this reason, I suggest that you take a close look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Finally, there is a problem with your choice of user name since names which are seen to represent a company, organization, group, wesbite, etc. are not allowed for the reasons given here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a parameter to a template[edit]

{{Infobox windmill}} currently does not support alt text for images. This is something I'd like to rectify. I've tried editing the template documentation without success but it hasn't worked. Assistance in this matter is welcome. Mjroots (talk) 07:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots as that template is protected, you'd need to ask at Template talk:Infobox windmill. You can add {{Edit template-protected}} to the top of the request you make there, so it'll be picked up more quickly. I agree that alt text should be used in all infoboxes including this one. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302:, if the template was unprotected, could you make the change? I can temporarily unprotect it if that is the case. Mjroots (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Help desk
A windmill at the help desk
This windmill has alt text
@Mjroots and Joseph2302: Looking at the code, the template has supported an alt text parameter named "alt" since 2014. If you're happy with that parameter name, it's just a matter of adding it to the documentation. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@John of Reading and Joseph2302: If this edit has worked, there should now be alt text at the image of Pitstone Windmill. Mjroots (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: Editing the template documentation cannot change the function of the template. But this version of Pitstone Windmill sets the "alt" parameter, matching the name of the one in the template code, and it does have alt text. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@John of Reading:, so the current version of the article has working alt text? I'm not getting anything when I hover the mouse over the image (that is what is supposed to happen, isn't it?). Mjroots (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: Yes, the current version has alt text. The effect of that depends on your browser and your Wikipedia gadgets. I have popups enabled, and hovering over the image shows me load of information, including the alt text. Or, I can ask my browser to show me the HTML source of the page and search within it for the expected alt text. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: No, that isn't what's meant to happen. Browsers used to display alt text as a tooltip, but newer ones seem not to. That's not surprising as that's not what alt text is for. If you want some explanatory text with an image, it should be included as a caption. If you want to see if an image has alt text, some browsers will let you right-click any part of a web page to Inspect it. Bazza (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello and Greetings,

I have a question on citations, I am trying to make references as to where i can not make sfn's and book citations together with web citations or links on headings for wiki articles. Can you help me try to resolve this?

Best Regards, Surix321 (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surix321, can you clarify what you mean? Sungodtemple (talk) 13:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, So basically. I am trying to make a references heading on a Wikipedia page with a few sub headings. One for sfns in a subheading separately in reflist for example and for other citations in a separate sub heading. Lastly the final subheading with cite books which I already know how to do.I’m trying to separate sfns and link citations. Surix321 (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technical request: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drew Russell[edit]


any ideas what ran amok here? I thought it was the brackets in tq, but switching to itals didn't fix it,nor did manually replacing page name with the article title. Should I CSD the AfD and renom? Thanks for any tech insight. Star Mississippi 13:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: Looking at the page, it seems like the {{tq}} templates, which were wrongly formatted, messed up with the substituted afd template, which led it to missing the "pg" argument. Hopefully, it's been fixed now. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 13:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, thanks so much @Isabelle Belato. I either need more coffee or to not use tq within twinkle. Probably the former. Star Mississippi 13:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tree chart trouble[edit]

To whoever reads this, I have been having trouble with the creation of tree charts in my sandbox as a select few of them have refused to process, such as this one: file:///home/chronos/u-3821fcbfa6971ad4feffb304246101848acb7580/MyFiles/Downloads/Screenshot%202022-05-17%209.45.05%20AM.png, and I would like it to be resolved if possible. Is it because there is a limited amount of space I can add to my sandbox or is it an error in the code? I have been searching for quite some time and I haven't found I solution to a problem as specific as mine. Any help would be greatly appreciated! (talk) 10:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GOMUL13: You have reached a template limit. Also, URL's starting with file:// point to files residing on your local computer and only work for you. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help! Sorry about the file.png, I wasn't sure about that and I'm sorry for any confusion! GOMUL13 (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Captcha over and over again[edit]

Hello, please help! I have been trying to update an article, I edit a paragraph, cite it thoroughly, click “publish changes”, describe the changes, and then get stuck in a captcha loop where it asks me to do the captcha, I do it, and it just gives me a new one…over and over again until I give up. Can you help me understand what is going on and how to move forward with my edits, which I have retyped about 5 or 6 times now? Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3goatfarm (talkcontribs) 15:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 3goatfarm. I'm not 100% certain, but I think that you are getting the Captcha because 1) your account is not yet WP:autoconfirmed and 2) you are trying to add external links (or perhaps save something that already has external links) that Wikipedia thinks might be spam. The immediate answer is to remove the suspect external links - though as I say, they may already be there in the material you are editing. If so, you can still remove them, if you are able to identify them. If you are not introducing external links yourself, then I suggest editing individual sections and see if that helps.
In three days and two more edits, you will be autoconfirmed, and I think it won't trouble you thereafter.
However - I see that you edited an archived post on WP:Help desk/Archives/2012 December 27 - please don't do this, ever! The person you were responding to will probably never see your question anyway. If you want to reopen an archived post, please make a new post on the appropriate page (here, WP:Help desk) and link to the archived post you are referencing (as WP:Help desk/Archives/2012 December 27#CAPTCHA/Updating James H Fetzer). ColinFine (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, 3goatfarm! You might be making the same error I did when I first encountered Wikipedia's CAPTCHA system. After you have entered the requested text, you then have to scroll down to the "Publish" button and click it. Do not click the "Refresh" button next to the CAPTCHA box! That requests a different CAPTCHA target because you couldn't read the previous one. Hope this helps! {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cite book issues[edit]

Hi. Are there any workarounds to the {{cite book}} template not being able to use the |title-link and |url parameters at the same time? Thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. When you use both |url= and |title-link= you are asking the template to link one parameter, |title=, to two different targets. Because cs1|2 can't do that, it defaults to linking |title= with |url= and emits the error message:
{{cite book |title=Title |url=// |title-link=Title}}
Title. {{cite book}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)
If you can link to a chapter or section then you can do this:
{{cite book |chapter=Chapter |title=Title |chapter-url=// |title-link=Title}}
"Chapter". Title.
Trappist the monk (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the chapter solution is workable. Thanks! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a list of articles with templates like "more references needed" at the top?[edit]

Do the various tags which say things like "this article is terrible, there are multiple things wrong with it, it's written wrong and it's biased and one of the sources is bad" cause the articles needing attention to accumulate on a list somewhere?  Card Zero  (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they generally automatically add the article to certain hidden categories. For example {{More citations needed}} says This template adds the article to Category:Articles needing additional references from May 2022, and Category:All articles needing additional references, both hidden categories. ColinFine (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow. OK. I just did a quick survey by pressing "random article" until I'd accumulated a data set of 10, and the average age of these tags seems to be six years, and I think something should be done. So I'm going to attack that list and fix them all single-handedly, maybe.  Card Zero  (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suggest you open a new user account: User:Sisyphus or perhaps User:Wikiphus. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I do one every waking hour, it should only take me 72 years, and then I can move on to Category:articles that may contain original research. I guess the trend here in practical reality is that they only get removed from articles which some editor notices, and cares about at least a little, and every unloved article will eventually be decorated with some tag or other which will stay there forever.  Card Zero  (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Duty calls! --Orange Mike | Talk 12:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 18[edit]

special interest making edits[edit]

I have added my patent information to a section regarding secure passive optical network, no different as you have Thomas Edison as the inventor of the light bulb. It was even cited the US Patent number and a link to such patent ( Unfortunately you have a industry bot Zac67 who is removing content in so called good faith but allowing marketing material for industry companies promoting this technology. It is clear that (he/him/she/her/them) is not acting in good faith but as an industry operative. This clearly diminishes the view of wikipedia as a source for un bias content and information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbadinelli (talkcontribs) 15:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbadinelli: If you are indeed the patent owner, you shouldn't be editing the article directly as you have a conflict of interest (which should be disclosed), and I support Zac67's actions. Please discuss this on the article's talk page and don't edit war. As it stands right now this looks like self-promotion. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Zac67 has been a Wikipedia editor for nearly 17 years and has made significant contributions to information technology articles. Zac67 has never been blocked. Accusing them of not acting in good faith but as an industry operative without evidence is a violation of Wikipedia's behavioral guideline Assume good faith. I have page blocked Cbadinelli from editing Passive optical network, although they can make well-referenced Edit requests on the article talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you honestly think it matter that he has been editing for 17 years, post publicly what company he works for in his profile. Cbadinelli (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where Zac67 posted where he works on his user page. The most I see are userboxes that describe what he does. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where precisely does Zac67 disclose their employer on Wikipedia? Provide a link. Cullen328 (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read that as Cbadinelli's (intrusive and unreasonable) demand that Zac67 out himself. --ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should be important to your readers and content providers be aware of any conflict of interest. It's fine to bean expert, but in the context of whimsically removing content as "good faith" deserves explanation. Or only some inventors being removed as "self promotion" even with collaborating documentation and others not puts into question and the legitimacy and accuracy of the content of wikipedia. So i don't find it to be unreasonable if say the person editing works for one of the Companies that are also listed in this content "It is marketed to the US military by companies such as Telos Corporation.and the 4 others cited as "marketing". Cbadinelli (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's any consolation, the article could benefit from a cleanup. Some stuff does come off as promotional and the citations seem more primary than reliably secondary, but adding your own content doesn't help the issue. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cbadinelli@ I don't have to disclose anything here, apart from WP:COI. I'm not working anywhere near of what you are alleging, nor do I have any affiliation in that direction. I'm fine with disclosing any such information to WP admins if need be, but see no reason doing so openly. Please take a step back, sleep on it for a night, study the linked policies and guidelines, and try to find reason. If you add substantial, reasonable, notable and sourced edit requests to the talk page I'll do my best integrating them, at my discretion. --Zac67 (talk)

YT Link in External Link section[edit]

In Château Rouge I found a YT Link in the external links section of this article. I've been told that Wikipedia articles can't use YT links as references, but are YT links allowed to be in the External links section? Toad40 (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be copyrighted material per WP:YOUTUBE, and the video probably isn't. It should also be interesting and informative enough to meet WP:EL, and it probably is. So it seems OK.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Toad40, it's not quite that simple, for example CNN:s YT channel is as reliable as CNN elswhere. YT can be WP:ABOUTSELF, like Twitter and FB, it depends. See WP:RSPYT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the material on YouTube is infringing copyright, and may not be linked to. Much else on YouTube is not reliably published, and should not be linked to. But there is not a blanket ban. See WP:YOUTUBE. ColinFine (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like the rest of the internet. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above, it's not as simple as "YouTube links are allowed" or "YouTube links are not allowed". YouTube is a platform, not a source. It does not make content, it is a platform where content creators post their content. The appropriateness of any one YouTube video needs to be assessed on its own, per WP:RS, WP:ELYES, and other Wikipedia policies. The simplest way to think of it is this: If the YouTube video is posted by an account that would indicate that it's appropriate for Wikipedia, then it's appropriate for Wikipedia. If it's posted by an account run by some rando that no one knows about, then that's not appropriate. Don't link copyvios, don't link unreliable bullshit, but if a reliable source is publishing on YouTube, you can link that YouTube video. --Jayron32 17:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For example, I used a YT video as a source in Barack Obama. But of course YT wasn't the source, Associated Press was the source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. YouTube has become the default place for all sources to publish video material, and many hundreds of reliable sources (news sources, scientific organizations, etc. etc.) all use it as such. YouTube videos published by those sources on their own official YT accounts are probably valid. Also would be WP:ABOUTSELF-type citations to the confirmed accounts of the subjects of articles. --Jayron32 18:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query on when to use a primary source[edit]

The Global Accessibility Awareness Day article states that the idea for the event was sparked by a blog post, and this is backed up by the official website. Currently there isn't a source that references that statement, but I was wondering if it would be appropriate to site the post mentioned in this case, even though using primary sources isn't usually done. Neither the blog or the post in question is written by me.

Also, when I tried to do this earlier, it triggered an edit filter, which is fair enough since it's a blog, so I assume I could just ignore that?

I'm asking here instead of the article talk page as it's not exactly the most active. KaraLG84 (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KaraLG84 Since the blog is on the GAAD website at this URL, that looks to me like a perfectly good secondary source for the blog in a cite web style of citation, which won't trigger an edit filter. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull: Thanks. I'll use that then. KaraLG84 (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull: someone else has added the blog post as a citation. Not sure if to leave it as is or use the GAAD about page as you suggested. I don't want to inadvertently start an edit war. KaraLG84 (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And we should probably move this to the talk page. KaraLG84 (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would be controversial to use both the blog post and the GAAD citation in the article, since they are complementary and both relevant. Just make the change and only discuss on that TP if someone objects. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull: done. KaraLG84 (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Israel in the Eurovision[edit]

In the 'Commentators and spokespersons' section, the period of 1985-2017 should have the 'No commentator' once, and centered, but I don't know how to edit it without ruining the table. Can someone please assist me? KobiNew (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KobiNew  Done by changing the 1985 rowspan value (12 rows + 1 row + 20 rows = 33) and removing the redundancy from the other rows. GoingBatty (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I report Editor Abuses[edit]

The following discussion 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.

I am reporting Editors Alabama and Blaze Wolf

They removed posts on opposing views of black holes.

Pointing out things like use of blurry photos when Hubble and James Web telescope is available and black hole fanatics picking out blurry photos and claiming it as proof.

I have Special Contributor status. They seem to be fanatical about black holes and threatened vandalism for pointed these flaws out. (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC) Tae Hyun Song (Special Contributor)[reply]

I'm not familiar with what "Special Contributor" is or what it confers upon you. I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this post, you should read WP:FRINGE. If you continue pushing the idea that black holes are fake, you will be blocked for vandalism. That's not abuse, that's us having standards (which include summarizing professionally-published mainstream sources) and not letting you break them. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only proof a black hole is a blurry photo. That's not proof. Pointing this out is not vandalism. Nobody responded to how to report editors or moderators for abuse. (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is an online encyclopaedia. Content is based on published reliable sources, not on the uninformed opinions of random nobodies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blurry photo is not reliable source. You clearly don't don't know difference, anyway. (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The procedures you are looking for are described in this guideline: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Rmhermen (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DNFTT. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have pageblocked the IP from Black hole and its talk page, and warned the IP that they will be blocked sitewide if their disruptive editing continues elsewhere. Cullen328 (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I offer proof the moderators and editors are abusing their authority. They called it "disruptive editing" when I edited nothing. I made post about they need a better photo in the Talk section (Improve Article) and then proceeded to block my IP address, because I don't follow their black hole religion. That's not science, that's censorship.
You can verify this by checking that I only stated they needed better photo. All they have is a blurry photo. Hubble telescope has been around for decades. Every time they get a clear photo, it turns out to be not to be a black hole. Watch when they never produce a clear photo.
There is no clear photo because there isn't one. They picked out a blurred image (which in their mind looks like a black hole) from stock photo. (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC) Tae Hyun Song[reply]
If the conspiracymongering does not stop, I'll drag you to Enforcement myself. You have been formally alerted to WP:ARBPS sanctions. Any admin may now, at their discretion, opt to take harsher measures than merely pageblocking you. We have no tolerance for fringe bullshit or anti-intellectualism masquerading as robust review. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 07:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know if ARBPS really applies - AFAIK there aren’t a whole bunch of black-hole-deniers out there, so the black hole page is not really "related to pseudoscience and fringe science". Of course, if the IP really believes that "blurry photo = no real proof", they should be blocked not only from black hole, but also from atom, quark and everything else below the diffraction limit of visible light. At that point, it becomes a standard WP:NOTHERE block, rather than arbitration enforcement. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 08:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A WP:NOTHERE block is almost inevitable, given that the IP posted at the administrators' noticeboard in this OID (quickly reverted by -Alabama- as "unconstructive") before they posted here. That posting also challenged at least two other well-established concepts. Incidentally, the User talk:Tae Hyun Song is informative. Mike Turnbull (talk) 08:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Entry for Sir William Allen, Lord Mayor of London[edit]

I have written an entry for Sir William Allen, one of the few lord mayors who doesn't have a wiki entry. It is labled draft, but I would like to publish it and cannot figure out how to do it.

Janice Hill Janicehill225 (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Janicehill225: Your references are malformed. It's <ref>(details for source being cited)</ref>. The sourcing in general is lacking, as well. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Janicehill225. I have added a header to your draft, which will allow you to submit it for review once it is ready. Unfortunately, it is nowhere near ready. The main problem is that there are almost no references. Where did you get the information you have put in the draft? You should be citing your sources. It is also not properly formatted, but that is a minor problem that can be addressed at any time. If you haven't already read your first article, I strongly recommend that you do so. ColinFine (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Janicehill225: Just looking at your article, it appears to come from some older compendium of biographies (not the original DNB, I see). Those are usually excellent sources. Please provide the name of this source. If that source's copyright has lapsed, you are free to actually copy entire sentences and paragraphs from it, but you must attribute the source, not just reference it. "Attribute" means your citation must include the phrase "some text copied from..." or some such. If your source is still in copyright, you are not permitted to copy directly from it: you must instead convey the information in your own words. -Arch dude (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Arch Dude, Thank you for replying. This is very helpful. Computers don't talk to me much and I didn't know what to do. For someone like my, I'd say that wiki doesn't have the most user-friendly interface. Sir William Allen is my 13 X great grandfather. I have been painstakingly researching him for several months. I can certainly add references for every fact. It's not from a compendium. I wrote it myself. I don't trust compendiums to be completely accurate anyway. What style do you want? MLA, APA, Chicago? Janicehill225 (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Janicehill225: the Wikipedia reference formats are similar to but not identical to those paper-based standards. If you want to try, please read Help:Referencing for beginners and experiment with it. If this is too intimidating, just stick the references in any format on the article's talk page (Draft talk:Sir William Allen (c.1520-1586): Lord Mayor of London, 1571) and I can tidy them up. We also have some other cleanup to do: see the talk page. Arch dude (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do those things. Thank you for your help. 2601:486:101:2C50:8AF:E495:38DA:574C (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 19[edit]

Delete uploaded image[edit]

How does one either delete or submit an image for deletion (similar to an AfD)? This image was just uploaded and added to the article Radetzky March and I'm quite sure it is not as the uploading contributor states: "Own work"; but more an image still under copyright. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maineartists, on the left side in "Tools" section, there is a link named "Nominate for deletion". You can use it to nominate the image for deletion. Lightbluerain (Talk💬 Contribs✏️) 03:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Lightbluerain. Maineartists (talk) 03:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph uploading[edit]

Morning all

I have a couple of issues. 1) I am trying to upload a photo to our FTAdviser page. I am the editor of FTAdviser and my boss has asked me to create a Wiki page. However the algorithms won't allow me to upload either a screenshot of our home page or our logo, claiming that it does not meet your policies. I'm not sure how to circumvent this. Might you please help?

2) I can't get the references to work for me - I've put 3 so far and only one seems to work. Might you please help?

Thanks 11:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FTAdviser (talkcontribs)

Welcome to Wikipedia. You have not made any other edits while logged in to this account, and you haven't linked to the article or draft that you're working on, so I can't diagnose any specific issues. However, the policies and guidelines you must read before going further relate to conflict of interest, usernames implying shared use, and ownership of content. In short, no company or organisation can "own" an article about them on Wikipedia, but if other Wikipedians independently decide that your company warrants an article, you can (using an individual account) request edits/changes to the article. Please don't try to "circumvent" our policies – they have been established to ensure that we remain independent and neutral. ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 11:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FTAdviser: Please also see the suggestions in Wikipedia:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia. GoingBatty (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This user is now blocked. --The Tips of Apmh 14:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting - apparently The Financial Times requires all its titles (such as Investor's Chronicle) to create and curate a Wikipedia entry., according to a post on the OP's talk page. Fortunately I didn't notice any recent, obvious COI curating on the articles mentioned (Financial Times and Investors Chronicle). (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ClaudineChionh: The attempts to upload images can still be found in the commonswiki abuse filter log, they got stopped by an abuse filter trying to heuristically determine files which most likely are copyvios from the internet. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USF2000 Page Edit[edit]

Dear Wikipedia,

I wanted to bring to your attention some errors on your site.

This is the page I am referencing...

You have the Team title winner for Christian Rasmussen in 2020 driving for the Team Cape Motorsports, but it was Jay Howard Driver Development. Also the years 2017, 2018 and 2019 say the winner was Pabst Racing, this is also not accurate, it was Cape Motorsports.

If you could please edit this, it would be very much appreciated.

Best regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1015:B0EB:C5C2:8CF1:5436:F372:5ED1 (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The best place to discuss this is the talk page of the relevant article, which is Talk:U.S. F2000 National Championship. If you have a reliable source for your changes, you can edit the article yourself. ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 22:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

publish article[edit]

Peter11145 (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)I have submitted an article and edited it last month. It seems to have been accepted but it does not appear under its title " Depressive Personality" the only category that appears is Depressive Personality Disorder which is different[reply]

@Peter11145: Your content is found at User:Peter11145/sandbox, which is not in the article mainspace. It is "published" in the sense that it is publicly viewable if someone knows to look for it, but it's not part of the encyclopedia proper. I suggest taking a look at Easy referencing for beginners to learn how to properly cite on the site. When you think it's ready, please add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page so that a reviewer can look at it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
how do I get it printed
peter magaro PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter11145 (talkcontribs)
@Peter11145: (Please sign your comments by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end.) As the advice at the top of the "pending review" box states, drafts are reviewed in no particular order and there is a huge backlog of drafts to review. However, your draft is unlikely to be accepted in its current state. Please read Writing better articles (which includes salient points from of our Manual of style); and also Citing sources, which describes Wikipedia's in-house citation style — similar to well-established academic citation styles but tailored for Wikipedia's software. Finally, if you are the author of the works cited in your draft, please read our guidelines on citing yourself and decide whether you need to disclose a conflict of interest. ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 23:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Mogg (British Army officer)[edit]

ref number 8 is all over the place.please repair. Thanks (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This one looks trickier - the archived copies are also bad links so I can't determine the original title. You might fine more informed editors to help at the article talk page or military history project. ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 23:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the bad archived link and tagged the original URL as a dead link. Chiltern1913 added the archive URL in this edit, so maybe they can be of some assistance. GoingBatty (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newnham College, Cambridge[edit]

ref 4 is incorrectly done. Please fix if you have the time. I cannot. (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the missing https prefix. ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 23:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 20[edit]