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.

November 28[edit]

Question about citation[edit]


I was just wondering if someone could help me with this citation (or send me to the right place for help):

Layton, Brandon (February 2016). "Indian Country to Slave

Country: The Transformation of Natchez during the American

Revolution". The Journal of Southern History. 82 (1): 27-58 - via

JSTOR.{{cite journal}}: line feed character in |title= at position 63 (help)

The end part after JSTOR in red and I'm not sure how to fix that.

Thank you! Eschmidt18 (talk) 08:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Eschmidt18. Did you click on the "help" button? Doing so takes you to Help:CS1 errors#invisible char which explains why you're seeing this error. The software is telling you that there's a problematic character at the 63 position of the citation. I'm not sure which article this citation is being used in, but what you'll need to do is go to said article, open the editing window, find the code for the problematic citation, and then just start counting characters until you hit 63. Once you find the bad character you can either replace it or remove it as needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've fixed the error for you. There was a line break between the words "Natchez" and "during" that was causing the problem. There were some other things that needed clean up as well. I also noticed that one of your classmates moved to this directly in the mainspace. That's not a problem per se, but generally new users are encourage to work on WP:DRAFTS first and then submit them for review to WP:AFC. You copied-and-pasted content from Google Docs, but that can introduce some minor syntax errors because Docs doesn't use WP:WIKITEXT for formatting. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editing project pages[edit]

Hi, I was wondering, am I permitted to edit Wikipedia project pages, like I would to a normal article? Not to make drastic changes to them, but to maybe slightly reword somethings? The pages aren’t protected and I am an extended confirmed user so I have the ability but am I actually allowed? If not, no worries. Many thanks, Blanchey (talk) 09:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Blanchey. In principle, yes you can be WP:BOLD; in practice, however, it might be best to be WP:CAUTIOUS unless it's something so obvious that nobody is likely going to complain. WikiProject pages aren't articles which means they don't need to be kept to the same quality standards as an article. A WikiProject page might be something that was worked on by multiple members over the years and the formatting and content might have been determined through extended discussions. So, the WikiProject's members might not appreciate someone showing up out of the blue in and rearranging things, particularly if it's a very active WikiProject with lots of members. You lose nothing by proposing any changes you think need to be made on the WikiProject's talk page, and you might also help yourself avoid problems with the WikiProject's members. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My article in a sandbox[edit]

Hi, I have an artivle on my sandbox and would like to publish it. How can this be done? (I cannot find buttons or anything to move it as it should be usually done) Is it possible for you to help me?

Thanks Lorenzo patrese (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lorenzo patrese New users cannot directly create articles and must use Articles for Creation to submit drafts for review by other editors. What you wrote is wholly unsourced; Wikipedia article summarize what independent reliable sources say about topics that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Also note that writing about yourself is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. If you still wish to proceed, I would suggest learning more about Wikipedia first, by reading Your First Article and using the new user tutorial. You may then go to AFC to create a draft with proper sources. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah this does not help a lot honestly... Lorenzo patrese (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Every 10 words there is a source basically. Please do not ask me to check the notability section haha, I know I'm in the standards as driver less important than me are on wikipedia. There are also tuns of autobiographies on Wiki Lorenzo patrese (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your draft cites no sources. It will not be accepted as an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not only is there not a single reference on the page, there is not even a single source--except for your own website, which doesn't count (I can prove this point: I said it right here in my website!) There ARE a fair number of weasel words (more prestigious; judging yourself as "mature"). Tidy up your use of tense a bit (a lot), and your "article" might pass for a CV in a resume. Oh, and can you back up your assertion that there are "tuns" (?) of autobiographies on Wiki? Uporządnicki (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First of all, come down! I see no reason to write and this way, and secondly: guess I'm an athlete who does something else instead of writing wikipedia articles. Anyways thanks for the tips. Lorenzo patrese (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
calm* Lorenzo patrese (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
in this way* Lorenzo patrese (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think most of us do other things besides writing Wikipedia. And your youthful self-importance, as shown both here and in your "resume" needed a bit of bursting. Uporządnicki (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lorenzo patrese, It is not normal that a notable person must write his own Wikipedia article. It's usual that one random person says, "I read about this person a lot in the news/books/etc. They are famous enough to have an article on Wikipedia, and I will try to write a good one." I wish you well in your quest for notability. Quisqualis (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lorenzo patrese As for your seeing no reason, it does not surprise me that you do not see it, but it's there. You've been told what the problems are, and why your piece is NOT going to be an article as it stands, and likely never will be, but your answers have basically amounted to, you can't be bothered to pay attention to it because you're too good to have to, and you're sure it should just go in anyway. Uporządnicki (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not say its good enough, I just said you editors or whatever should calm down, as you're just attacking people. Anyways, i will not spend the rest of my time discussing with people as you. And anyway, I understand the sources, but its not an autobiography? I mean Im talking about facts. Nicola Marinangeli this one does not seem better, a part from the final sources, but anyway I will add them. Lorenzo patrese (talk) 08:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lorenzo patrese Writing about yourself is an autobiography. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Lorenzo patrese: I am afraid that your bold assertion of Please do not ask me to check the notability section haha, I know I'm in the standards set people off. That is the Wikipedia equivalent of me saying that I could drive as well as you since after all I have had a driving license for a long time. There is no shame in not driving well (or not driving at all), and there is no shame in not being a long-time Wikipedia editor intimately familiar with article requirements; but claiming that it all does not matter makes people angry.
Because of that, the wall of text hides the most important information, so here we go again. If you want your draft to be accepted, you need to show that you satisfy Wikipedia’s definition of "notability". "Notable" does not mean "important" or "prestigious" or whatever usual meaning the term has.
That means finding multiple sources (multiple: 2 is the bare minimum but 3 are usually required) that simultaneously (1) speak/write at length about you, (2) are independent, (3) are reliable. In 99% of cases for biographies, such sources are newspaper articles, possibly in the specialized press - but beware that "profiles" (= interviews) are not independent, and neither are churnalism pieces (i.e. press releases lightly repackaged to pretend it is independent - those are very easy to detect once you know they exist).
If you cannot find such sources, then there is no point in working on the draft any further, it will not help.
If you can, then you can move on to the next problem - you need sources for every statement (every race participation and place, etc.). Usually the sources identified in the previous step will cover most of it, but additional sources that only satisfy (3) can be used.
There are also some issues of formatting and promotional wording, but those are rather minor and can be easily solved. Notability is the big hurdle that you need to clear. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 10:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, thanks for the clearing of ideas. Yes, I understood the lack of sources on the article, its just I did still not add them. I will now.
Thanks again for helping me and explaining how things go around here Patlor643 (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, I don't get it. Facts aren't autobiography, or autobiography isn't fact? Which is it? In any case, the last time I looked, your "facts" included some pretty lofty self-assessments. Uporządnicki (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, I think Tigraan cleared my ideas, there is no need to add Patlor643 (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, a lot could very well be added. But in this instance, I now see I misread the comment I was addressing; I'll give you that. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Ugh. I moved User:Valereee/Kim-Joy Hewlett to Kim-Joy Hewlett over a redirect using the move tool because the various reams of directions at various pages seemed to be telling me that if I was "using the move tool" this would merge the histories, but it didn't. And now I can't figure out how to fix it.

Is there a "Moving over a redirect" for dummies somewhere? If there isn't, can someone explain in a few steps what I need to do in such a case? WP:MOVEREDIRECT just tells me why what I just did wasn't helpful, not what I should have done.

What should I do now? I went to Special:MergeHistory but it wants two different pages.

I'm suspecting what I should have done was something like:

  1. move the redirect to some temporary page
  2. move the draft to the old redirect
  3. use mergehistory
  4. delete the old redirect from the temporary page

Thanks for any help. Valereee (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Valereee: There were four old edits in the page history of the redirect. If you wanted to history merge them with your new draft then you could have:
  1. Use MergeHistory to history merge the redirect into your draft
  2. Move the draft to the old redirect
This achieves the same as your 4 steps without involving a temporary page. It's too late to use MergeHistory now when the revisions are deleted under the same page name but you can just undelete them. That's all, no need for MergeHistory, they will automatically be part of the same page history. Redirects don't require attribution so it's common to just delete them and keep them deleted when you move over a redirect. You don't have to do anything. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, thank you! After all this time I still am attempting to learn much of how some things are best accomplished. Very annoying of me, but somehow I doubt I'm actually going to get much better at this kind of thing. Valereee (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When a subject of an article changes its name ...[edit]

When the subject of an article changes its name, what is the preferred way to mention and link (or not link) the two names? Is there a policy other than wp:notbroken?

What I am wondering about is, is it preferred to this:

'graduated from Ryerson University (now Toronto Metropolitan University)'


'graduated from Ryerson University (now Toronto Metropolitan University)'

Seems a small point, but in this case Ryerson University is a redirect to Toronto Metropolitan University, so linking both would be duplicate wlinks in effect. Alaney2k (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this case, I would type Ryerson University (now Toronto Metropolitan University). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, although that sure seems like a long wlink. (a lot of blue) Alaney2k (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Alaney2k conversely, you may want to use "Ryerson University", keeping the link shorter. Quisqualis (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General question regarding concert tour articles[edit]

Looking at drafts that are deemed as "tribute tours", being that they have no reliable sources that are verifiable, would it violate a part of WP:NOT regarding it being original research? I do suspect self-promotion is an issue regarding it. HorrorLover555 (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, HorrorLover555. If a concert tour has not received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, then it is not eligible for a Wikipedia article. You are correct that Wikipedia is not a place to promote anything. Cullen328 (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am Lisa parker[edit]

how do I get added on here Willow Norman Smith (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If someone without a conflict of interest decides that you satisfy Wikipedia's criteria of notability, they could write an article or a draft. Note that Wikipedia does not recommend autobiography. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

camp wood military base[edit]

I have obituary notices stating camp wood named after Joseph E Wood Cellarratt (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For context, see this help desk post. (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 29[edit]


It is very difficult when it comes to multiply Can you help me with it — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We will not do your coursework for you. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 07:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tables with Conditional Formatting? Perform Math? Collapse?[edit]

1) Is there a way to create a table with conditional formatting (cells change color, etc. based on the value)?

2) Is there a way to create a table that automatically averages, sums, etc. values in a given column, for example?

3) Is there a way to add a feature that automatically collapses certain sections of say a table or paragraph? Superb Owl (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Superb Owl: 1) and 2) are only possible if the table is made by calling a template or module with the cell values as parameters. It's complicated. I don't think 3) is possible. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the info - do you know where I can find a template that I could adapt? Superb Owl (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Superb Owl: 2) is so complicated that it's rarely done, and it makes it more difficult to edit the table afterwards. I suggest you don't attempt it unless you are an advanced template coder or Lua coder. It's more common to manually copy the values to a formula in the cell where you want the sum or average. See mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions##expr for how to make formulas. They cannot pick values from a table cell. 1) is often done with a row template which formats a whole row of a specific table or type of table. See Help:Table#Row template. There are also templates which format a single cell. See e.g. Template:Table cell templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks @PrimeHunter for clarifying - I'll just wait until these features become accessible before adding/updating these articles Superb Owl (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feature consideration for adding dark mode[edit]

Wasn't sure where to reach about bringing this to attention, so that's why I put it here. Apologies if doing so was wrong. Thought having dark mode for wikipedia would be sweet. It's already pretty common in many websites, and I'm sure a lot of people would appreciate the addition, including myself. So, please do consider adding this feature. Thanks. (talk) 06:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's already present - provided you have an account. (I'm using it as I type this.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 07:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you looked at Wikipedia:Dark mode? - David Biddulph (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft deletion?[edit]

Hey, I've come across some pages such as these, currently in AfC reviewing. Would it be best to tag it with a CSD, move on, or do some other action? Thanks. Silikonz (alt)💬 08:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nevermind; it seems CSD was correct for that one. Silikonz (alt)💬 08:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wanna write one[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.

My turn. Stupid hackers (fingers crossing) oh im so silly. You live me? Grandma? is that u? i have civilized humman rights so let ME LIVE IN PEACES! let ME LIVE IN PEACES! let ME LIVE IN PEACES! let ME LIVE IN PEACES! let ME LIVE IN PEACES! let ME LIVE IN PEACES! (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

is there anyway to label questions as not meant to be answered or something. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just ignore the vandal, who has already been blocked. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.

Resetting a password for an old account w/ no email attached to it[edit]

Hello (and apologies for asking this in the live IRC channel and posting here)! I'm looking for help resetting a password for an account that doesn't have an email attached to it. Per it says to navigate to Special:Preferences to attach an email to a previously created account. However, one needs to log in to access Special:Preferences which I cannot do as I don't recall my password - I seem to be in a bit of a catch-22, so was wondering if there was some alternative path for help! (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I received some help in the IRC channel (pointed me to, but I don't have wikitech/developer account, so I'm not sure I have a path there via ssh keys (etc). This isn't urgent, so I'm hoping a post here in Teahouse will find other options! (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you're SOL at this point... You need to be logged in to set an email address, and if you have an old account with no email address set AND you have lost the password, there is literally nothing that can be done for you. As noted at Help:Logging in, "Otherwise you will have to create a new account under a different username. After doing this, it is advisable to explain the situation on the user page of the new account, to avoid sockpuppetry concerns." Sorry! --Jayron32 16:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! I'm assuming there's no path forward to "delete" the old account such that I can re-use that username? I don't have a strong preference for the edits/content under the account (, but I do have a preference to keep/use the username since it's what I use broadly across other platforms / social media. :) (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello IP! You can't delete the account, however you can take over the username of that account by creating a new account and filing a request at the linked page. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That only applies for accounts for which there is no significant activity. If the account has made edits on Wikipedia already (and since SUL became a thing, on any linked Wikimedia project anywhere), then account usurpation is not available. Usurpation basically only applies to unused accounts that were created but never did anything. If the account in question was a formerly active account, there's no real way to usurp it unless the owner can log in and grant permission to usurp the old username. For a lost password, this is impossible. --Jayron32 17:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really? I was not aware of that. I swear I've seen accounts with some edits get usurped but maybe I'm not remembering things correctly. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AFAIK, the only way that happens is if you log in to the old account, make an edit that confirms your identity and granting permission to the new account to usurp it, etc. I could be wrong though. The bureaucrats do sometimes grant extreme exceptions when usurping old accounts, though I don't believe the standard "I lost my password" reason usually applies; if it was that easy to usurp an old account, it could create major attribution issues... --Jayron32 17:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aww - bummer. I have some sporadic edits / work under the old account, and can't access it, so I think I'm stuck with the new account :( Acedriven1 (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll still submit a request and see what happens Acedriven1 (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Go for it. They can only say "no". --Jayron32 17:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jayron32 You are incorrect here. "The user has made no edits" is only one of the criteria for usurpation. Per Wikipedia:Changing username/Guidelines#Additional guidelines for usurpation requests usurpation requests will also be approved in other situations, e.g. both people agree to the rename, or both accounts can be proven to belong to the same person. Showing that Acedriven1 is Acedriven might be a bit tricky, given the older account hasn't edited in a decade. (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How strange of you to say that I am wrong, and then basically paraphrase all of the things I said. Why would you do that? When I said "if you log in to the old account, make an edit that confirms your identity and granting permission to the new account to usurp it" what I actually meant was "if you log in to the old account, make an edit that confirms your identity and granting permission to the new account to usurp it" I'm not sure why that required you to restate the same thing in slightly different words, such as when you said "e.g. both people agree to the rename, or both accounts can be proven to belong to the same person". If you're going to call me wrong, it would be useful if you actually disagreed with me. --Jayron32 17:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would a CU be something that could be done to prove both accounts are the same person? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even if they were allowed to do so, CU data is not preserved for that long. There's no way to access CU data from an account that hasn't been used in years. --Jayron32 17:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's a CU? Acedriven1 (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Short for Check User, see the link for more detail. Jayron32 Ah you are correct, I forget that CU data gets stale. I figured if the user hadn't moved sicne they created their previous account (or hadn't gotten a new IP which is unlikely given dynamic IPs) a CU could see if the IPs are the same (or maybe this isn't even how CU works), but I see now that it's not possible to do. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Showing that Acedriven1 is Acedriven might be a bit tricky, given the older account hasn't edited in a decade."
I agree this is going to be hard, but can hopfully point out that the contributions Acedriven has made as likely only being made by me (:fingers-crossed:)! Acedriven1 (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The best option I can offer (if WP:USURP is a dead end) is to simply note on your userpage for Acedriven1 that you used to use the account Acedriven, but have long since forgotten the password. --Jayron32 17:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean, I'm sure there are some ways to get your password back (altho I don't think any of them are legal) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

atxzz11 attribution search per recent Diannaa (@ nuts240) TalkPage request[edit]

@Diannaa: I'm searching for a since-archived HelpDesk item that was in front of what I was being helped. The reason is that it, not my discussion but the one in front of mine, contains items which, for attribution, I'd need to refer. To describe the needle I need, it was about the outcry of Mamazeke, Modu's widow, and it ended with a helpdesk volunteer stating that a new draft could be made, and he gave two citations. I realize that a proper citation should refer to both the discussion and the citations contained therein. I've tried, but it seems that helpdesk entries are not archived in the order in which they originally appeared. Thanks in advance. Nuts240 (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears to be WP:Help desk/Archives/2022 November 17#locating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

/* atxzz11 attribution search per recent Diannaa (@ nuts240) TalkPage request */

See Here, which lists the contributions you made from this account to the Wikipedia help desk. That may give you the dates when you asked your question, so you can find it in the archives. The Help desk archives are here and are organized by the date when the question was asked. --Jayron32 17:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Timothy Syndrome page[edit]

how can I edit the Specialty box on this page? it says Neurology. Can I add other specialties or change this one?


Andy AndyG322 (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The information is pulled from Wikidata, according to the documentation at {{Infobox medical condition}}. I've never used Wikidata myself, so I am not sure how to use it to correct errors. Perhaps someone who is more familiar with its operation can speak to how to do so. --Jayron32 19:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the corresponding Wikidata item you'll see a field called "health specialty" which you can change or add to. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fundraising meta-question: a Groundhog Day feeling[edit]

Well... I don’t think the Help Desk is the right place to ask that, but I do not know what the right place would be. So here goes, feel free to tell me where to move it.

Here’s a bit of context (if you need it, you probably cannot answer the question...): this year, the en-Wikipedia community had the strongest complaint to date about the yearly fundraising, with an RfC that concluded that the WMF’s proposed fundraising banners should not run. (I am not asking whether it is possible, or desirable to block WMF banners from running, and I am not asking whether the WMF’s budget / use of funds is reasonable: I am decently aware of the various thought currents of the community on those questions.)

Why does this happen every year?

The yearly fundraising discussions follow the same exact pattern. Each time, the community objects to Evil Banners because they’re evil. (Today’s "evil" is "donate or we’re going to die"; yesterday’s was "donate or we’re going to have to put up subscriptions"; before that we had "donate or we’re going to have to put up ads"; and I assume there were more and more before and in-between those. The community’s definition of "evil" can be more or less reasonable depending on the years.) After that, some poor WMF spokesperson(s) is/are sent to placate the mob, by convincing them the banners are not so evil, but if you insist we will change that next year. The discussion dies down after the campaign. The next year, the mob comes back complaining about a different kind of evil; rinse and repeat.

I assumed that the reason for that kabuki dance was that each time, the fundraising team had internal data to show that evil banners are effective. I believed the WMF had said something to that effect (in polished language: "we have to take into account effectiveness when designing banners etc."), but I have just spent half an hour searching for that and not finding it. If that is true, then the WMF behavior is entirely understandable - it is not possible to convince the mob, but running non-evil banners would make a large gap in the finances, so let’s run the evil ones and hunker down.

Well, this year, the WMF has proposed new banners. In particular, banner #2 entirely backtracks on this year’s evilness, and goes quite far in the opposite direction. I do not think the WMF was quite forced to propose that, and in fact banners #1, #3, #4 have been well-received (so far), while being much milder in their messaging.

That seems to forcefully disprove my hypothesis of "evil is efficient, let’s do that". But then, what is the alternative explanation? TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 19:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • So here's my take; do with it what you will. Fundraising needs to be regular to be effective. Annual pledge drives are necessary not because WMF (or any other organization that runs on donations) are broke; rather there needs to be a regular, dependable stream of income that allows the budgeting and planning process to work efficiently. It's a rather short-sighted (and stupid, IMHO) way to run an organization to only seek income when they are on the verge of bankruptcy; living "paycheck to paycheck" is a bad way for individuals to survive, and doubly so for complex organizations. It doesn't matter how much money the organization has in savings, or how much it spends, it matters that income is regular and predictable. Running savings down to near zero, and then asking for a handout is not the way any organization should run. Fundraising is not done because WMF needs money NOW, it is done because WMF needs money in a predictable manner so as to be able to plan and organize and budget and all of that. The specific wording of the banners aside, much of the anger and vitriol towards WMF seems to be that they are fundraising at all, most of it is centered on the notion that WMF is "swimming in cash" (irrelevant to the need for steady income as a good organizational practice) or that they aren't spending the money they have wisely (which may be a reason to not donate one's self, but seems like rather rude to extend that into blocking the organization from getting any income). It would be helpful to separate the discussions so that we can get the difference between "I don't like the wordings of these banners and think we need to change them" and "I don't think WMF should be seeking donations". The former is a reasonable discussion to have. The latter is unreasonable. --Jayron32 19:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
: @Tigraan: Did you see the post "Banners and changes at the Wikimedia Foundation" at WP:VPM? changes are coming, according to the Wikimedia CEO. RudolfRed (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose the best folks to ask why Evil Banners appear if Evil Banners are not, in fact, particularly effective, would be the fundraising team, who I assume are the ones writing banners and evaluating effectiveness. There's a post on the talk page of this very help desk from JBrungs (WMF) who (as of 6 Oct this year) is/was the Community Relations person at the WMF Advancement Department which includes the fundraising team. They also said, perhaps incautiously, Generally speaking, you can ping me with anything fundraising related and I will come and help!. (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wasn't the campaign supposed to start today? I haven't seen a single banner. Hmm. (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi all,
Thanks for the thoughts here, I think Maryana's post that was pointed out by @RudolfRed if a useful one to look at, and as @Tigraan mentioned, the foundation is looking for banner messaging ideas on wiki as well, please feel free to participate. And yes, as mentioned when I shared the Donation Template on the talk page, I will come and help or find answers when needed, just ping me. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External link[edit]

I added an external link to Hiroshi H. Miyamura that was reverted by a bot (here). I've read the relevant guidelines, and believe the link to be relevant, important and reliably sourced (Congressional Medal of Honor Society of the United States of America). I'm tempted to revert deletion, but am seeking advice instead. (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your edit was reverted by a bot, apparently because it linked to Vimeo, and most targets there are not reliable. But yours may be acceptable. Please see User:XLinkBot for how to proceed if you think the Bot has a false positive. ColinFine (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 30[edit]

Semi protected page edit request[edit]

I've requested for edit days before here. But till there is no response. Can anybody do it? (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are 40 other request at CAT:ESP, just be patient. RudolfRed (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone saying they edit one of my client's page[edit]

Someone who says they are in charge of editing one of my clients page has reached out to her personally through Instagram. He is asking for photos and information on her to add to the page, birthday date etc. I think this is odd that someone would reach out directly. I think his name is John Mateer. I think this is wrong but wanted to reach out to you to find out what your rules are about editors contacting the subject of which they are supposedly covering. Also he may just be lying to get her to talk to him. Just looking out for my client. Thanks, let me know your thoughts on this. RedGuruBoss (talk) 02:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which 'client' are you referring to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RedGuruBoss, please read the mandatory Paid contributions disclosure, and comply with it in your next edit. This is non-negotiable. You have not provided enough information for us to evaluate whether or not the contact you describe was appropriate. We would need to know the precise name of your client's Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the wrist slapping. a bit harsh since i don't use this site much and wanted to just protect a person. but your additional comments were helpful so i thank you for that RedGuruBoss (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(A) Nobody is "in charge" of any article on Wikipedia: you might like to read the Policy page WP:OWN, which will make clear why such a "someone" would likely be lying.
(B) All content in all Wikipedia articles must be verifiable by citing information to published sources, preferably Reliable ones that are independent of the subject of the article, though trivial facts (such as the current CEO of an organisation) can be cited to non-independent sources (like that organisation's website). This means that if personal facts about a subject are published, there is no need to approach the subject for them, and if they are not, they are not eligible for inclusion even if the subject personally provides them.
(C) Given your account's previous lack of activity and your User page declaration, you had better read the Policy WP:PAID, the Essay Wikipedia:Paid editing (essay) and the Guideline Wikipedia:Paid editing (guideline) asap. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RedGuruBoss: (You're a new user, and unfamiliar with Wikipedia's many policies. You've already taken more flak than you deserve for that. I'll stick to trying to answer your question.)
  • For an editor to reach out to the subject of an article is unusual, but not forbidden; I've done that maybe three times in 15 years of editing. If they say they're "in charge" of the client's page, that's wrong, no-one here is in charge of any article. Maybe they said something like "I'm revising and improving Wikipedia's article about you ...", and this was misinterpreted by your client.
  • Another possibility is that this person hopes to charge your client money in return for changes in the article. Wikipedia strongly disapproves of such "paid editors". Many are dishonest, or even outright scammers; many are incompetent. They operate in many different ways.
  • A third possibility is that this is someone who wants to open a personal conversation with your client, because they're a fan, or a stalker; and they just happen to be a Wikipedia editor. Maproom (talk) 09:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. this is incredibly helpful RedGuruBoss (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk page has unrelated content[edit]

Is it appropriate for me to delete the material at Talk:Seb_Castro that's not related to the article? It has been there since 2014, apparently. David10244 (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep. go ahead. The relevant guidelines are WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, thanks. David10244 (talk) 10:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link check[edit]

Hi, is it possible to check if templates field is pure external link or it is enclosed in single square brackets with link text. Matroxko (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your question is unclear. Wikipedia templates are enclosed within double curly brackets. They are not external links. You will find more information at Wikipedia:Templates. Shantavira|feed me 09:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Matroxko: Do you mean a template is called with a parameter like |link=.... and you want the template to test the link? You could use {{delink}} and compare to the original parameter with mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions##ifeq. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am George Hardy[edit]

how do I get added on here. Willow Norman Smith.

If someone without a conflict of interest decides that you satisfy Wikipedia's criteria of notability, they could write an article or a draft. Note that Wikipedia does not recommend. Hardy-george (talk) 08:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hardy-george: Why are you adding these spam link on here? Removed. scope_creepTalk 09:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citation help[edit]

Hi Folks!!, is there any way to differentiate between short sfn citations that have the same year. For example

  • {{sfn|Lister|1858}} For the "On the Cutaneous Pigmentary System of the Frog" paper
  • {{sfn|Lister|1858}} For the "On the early stages of inflammation" paper.

Is it possible to put a month, or is there some other way to differentiate them. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 09:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Scope creep: Put a letter after the year, e.g., (Lister 1858a) (Lister 1858b)
  • Lister (1858a). On the Cutaneous Pigmentary System of the Frog.
  • Lister (1858b). On the early stages of inflammation.
Umimmak (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Scope creep, try Template:Sfn#More_than_one_work_in_a_year. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That solved it very quick. @Umimmak:, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I didnt know about this.Two excellent choices. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 09:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reusing a reference in an article when the first use is in an infobox[edit]

I just edited Cobalt to cite the OED (after "so named because they were poor in known metals, and gave poisonous arsenic-containing fumes when smelted"). Now this is reference 4. It's the same as reference 1, so this is less than ideal. The proper thing to do is to give reference 1 a name, and say <ref name=whatever /> when using it the second time.

However, the first reference is buried in an infobox! It comes from Template:Infobox_element/symbol-to-pronunciation, where Template:Cite_OED2 is used. What should I do? I can't figure out whether it's automatically generated a name for the reference. In theory it might be named Reference-OED2-cobalt, but I tried <ref name=Reference-OED2-cobalt /> and that didn't work in previews.  Card Zero  (talk) 11:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it's possible. It's one of the reasons why it is unwise to transclude templates with references like this. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Card Zero: There are no ref names in Template:Infobox element/symbol-to-pronunciation. It just says <ref>{{cite OED2|cobalt}}</ref>. It could be edited to add a ref name but the reference might change later. I suggest you just keep it duplicated. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Communicating with an IPv6 anon[edit]

I've asked on WP:ANI for guidance about this here with followup here about an anon using IPv6 addresses, frequently randomized in the lower 64, to make a series (85 to date throughout November) of edits that aren't vandalism, exactly, but amount to "tinkering" with no new content, while introducing minor grammar errors, removing link markup, etc etc. Almost all of them have been reverted (mostly by me; yes, I'm technically stalking) but I'm not even sure they amount to requiring a rangeblock. The problem, which can't be new, is that it's futile to put warnings or other help/chat on their talk page because of the address randomization, so I can't meet the AIV criteria anyway. I tried putting a message on my page but to no avail. Surely this issue of communication with what is clearly the same person (2804:D4B:A387:E400::/64) has come up before. What to do? Am I missing a "message to /64 range" feature? David Brooks (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David Brooks, I think AN/I should be able to advise on this. Possibly the anon will be given a block and asked to communicate on a talk page before the block is removed. TSventon (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the quick response, but as I suggested above my AN/I call for help two days ago has no responses. And I'm sure my "talk page for randomized IPv6" issue can't be new. David Brooks (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DavidBrooks, yes, it has come up before (in fact I remember seeing a conversation about it very recently; unfortunately I can't find it again) - it's come up enough to be noted at the bottom of this page and to have a phabricator ticket. So far no one seems to have come up with a solution. (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, thanks for the pointer. That addresses my generic point. I'm still left with whether to AIV this user who isn't a classic vandal, just a persistent AGF maker of small mistakes. Although I notice they have been quiet for almost 48 hours. David Brooks (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can't help you there, but I did finally find the recent conversation I was remembering: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive347#Contacting IPv6 users. (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I nominated myself for adminship. Now what? Elijah Wilder (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With zero useful edits you have zero chance of being accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's likely that it won't go very far because you need to be at the bare minimum extended confirmed. And precedent in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/President-Wiki-Man means that even a few thousand edits isn't enough. RPI2026F1 (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While the official page does say the only actual requirement is having an account, the fact that you cannot transclude your proposal to the main page speaks volumes. RPI2026F1 (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have asked Elijah Wilder if he would like me to delete the RFA page he created, as it is malformed and as it is too soon for an RFA to have any chance.~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I created Draft:Mike Caron, is is currently awaiting approval, but am I able to just move it to the main space? I was able to gather enough info, so I think it is ready to go. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are able to just move it to main space if you'd prefer not to wait for review from AFC. That said, I've made some changes to it; and I'm concerned about some instances of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing that I found. I would recommend that, before you move it to mainspace, you read through it once more with an eye to rephrasing anything that is very close to distinctive phrases from your sources. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are autoconfirmed you can create pages in mainspace, but it's always a good idea to continue using drafts for a while. RPI2026F1 (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I will look into issue. It seems to be a bit harder as I would of said something similar to what was in the articles myself. Will look into rewording for the best outcome.Magical Golden Whip (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i dont understand what going on[edit]

i want to be added to Wikipedia how can the happen? I just want to add my company. How dose this work? i dont understand whatbyou mean by edit. Myneika (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory. You don't get to just add a person or a company or a club to Wikipedia. If and when your company even becomes notable, then somebody other than you, with a better grasp of English, will create an article about your company, over which you will have no control. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Do not reply to posts intentionally written to be inflammatory. They're not talking to us, but at us. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

WIKI is nothing more than opinions. Far from unbiased. There are plenty of misinformation portals that saturate our society without making donations to yet another one such as WIKI.

"To all our readers in the U.S., Please don’t skip this 1 minute read. This Wednesday your support is requested by the nonprofit that hosts Wikipedia and twelve other free knowledge projects. If these resources have given you $2 worth of knowledge this year, please join the readers who donate. Donations support the technology that makes our projects possible, and help us provide resources to the groups of contributors to create our millions of articles and images. They also help us advocate for public policy to advance the cause of free knowledge and defend information access in countries struggling with censorship. Today, we invite you to donate $2 or whatever seems right to you. Show the world that access to independent and unbiased information matters. Thank you." (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free not to donate. The volunteers at this help desk have virtually no control over the fundraising banners. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you do not want to donate, do not donate. If you do not want to see the fundraising banners, then register an account and you can turn off the banners in your account preferences. Cullen328 (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Finding original upload date of image.[edit]

Hi - I need to find the original upload date on enwiki for this image on Wikipedia to check if disclaimers of the image apply. Any help would be appreciated! Please ping me via {{ping|Matr1x-101}} if you have an answer. Thanks! {userpage! | talk!} 19:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Matr1x-101 August 21, 2004. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ONUnicoin: can you please tell me where you got this information? Or is it only accessible to sysops? Thanks, {userpage! | talk!} 22:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Matr1x-101:I think it's only available to sysops. When I look at the image description page here on enwiki, I see (in small text) "View or undelete 5 deleted edits? (view logs for this page | view filter log)" at the very top of the page. You would not see that. I would expect a non-sysop to see a link to the deletion log (can someone who is not an admin confirm that they see a link to the deletion log?) The deletion log only includes the deletion however, not the page creation. However the 5 deleted edits viewable by admins includes the creation. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 22:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ONUnicorn for filenames which exist on Commons non-admins don't see any of that on the description page itself (however, some skins have a link to the page logs in the tools navbar). File description pages for locally deleted files which don't exist on Commons either behave like any other deleted page. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question on paid editing.[edit]

What if I want to pay someone to edit Wikipedia articles but not in a way related to me or a company or something like that but rather in a philantropic way ? (For example, paying someone to edit a random place like Moleneiland just to help others.) Am I allowed to do that ? Maxime12346 (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Maxime12346: You may pay them, but they must disclose it. See WP:PAID. It does not matter the reason you are paying them. RudolfRed (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 1[edit]

Article page name editing[edit]

Could you edit article’s name? 2601:244:4081:500:172:43E7:CA34:B014 (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article name changes are done by moving the article. See WP:MOVE for more info. RudolfRed (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The process for changing an article's name is at WP:Moving a page. - David Biddulph (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You need to be logged in and autoconfirmed to move a page. RPI2026F1 (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point. Requests can be posted to WP:RM RudolfRed (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User Talk Page Editing[edit]

My user talk page has become cluttered with outdated comments. I'm embarrassed to say so, but I've forgotten how to get rid of them. Help! Lou Sander (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lou Sander: You may delete the comments on your user talk page if you want to, or you can archive the page using one of the methods at Help:Archiving_a_talk_page RudolfRed (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]