Epstein Files Full PDF

Hi, I started editing Wikipedia about two days ago. I’m reading the guidelines and trying to learn properly. I’m also a digital artwork creator and have uploaded some of my creative work to Wikimedia Commons. As a new editor, can I help by improving articles or giving feedback, and is it possible to become a page reviewer later? ButterflyCat (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thank you so much, and welcome to the community! You absolutely can improve articles. You don't have to be a page reviewer to do that, such as by formatting pages per the manual of style, adding citations, or copyediting. You can also give feedback on talk pages of articles or drafts, or talk pages of users who create them. If you have a good track record for this, you can request the permission so you can "patrol" pages so they are indexed on search engines like Google! There are many things to do on Wikipedia, feel free to see the Dashboard for some tasks you can help out with. jolielover♥talk 11:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I’ll focus on improving articles and learning the process first. ButterflyCat (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ButterflyCat When you upload any work to Commons, you are agreeing to license that work under one of the Creative Commons licenses. I believe that allows anyone to reuse your work for any purpose (with attribution). There are other details (that I'm not too familiar with); if you are OK with this, then great. If not -- you may want to take your work down.

If I have misstated any of this, I'm sure another helpful editor can clarify. David10244 (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. I will review the licensing terms again to ensure I am comfortable with the reuse permissions. ButterflyCat (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page reviewers review pages and edits; however they may edit. You don't have to be one, @ButterflyCat. What you are doing right now (editing, I assume?) is good enough. If you want to be extended confirmed later, then that's entirely different! Purplemaker (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are non-administrators allowed to make public comments on ANI? And if so, how should it be formatted? (I hope I'm asking the question at the right place) TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 16:16, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer, but this is certainly a good place to be asking. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you have a relevant point to make, @TheClocksAlwaysTurn. I just use "Reply" as on any other talk page. ColinFine (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. Just make a normally-formatted comment, like any other contributor to the discussion. Some people like to add '(Non-administrator comment)' or similar to their posts, but this is neither required, nor in my opinion particularly helpful. WP:AN and WP:ANI are for discussion of topics where admin intervention may prove necessary (i.e. to impose blocks etc). They are not places where admins alone determine for themselves how issues should be dealt with. Admins are given their tools to assist the community with ensuring the proper functioning of the project, but it is down to the community as a whole to determine, after discussion, what action may be required.

If you do post on the admin noticeboards, try to be concise and on topic, and to provide diffs etc when necessary. It helps a lot to get your posts taken seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You may find {{Non-admin comment}} useful, in particular its documentation, as well as try to study the norms of the page. Wikipedia:ANI advice does not apply to this question, but may be informative. Do note that excessive interest in ANI is rarely found to be a positive. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an adminstrator who has been active at WP:ANI for many years, I want to say that productive comments by non-administrators are always welcome. Productive comments are those that analyze the actual evidence or present new evidence, that are based on a solid understanding of policies, guidelines and behavioral norms, and that encourage de-escalation of disputes and reasonable solutions, instead of inflaming matters. Cullen328 (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking as a non-administrator who's been about on Wikipedia for a fair old time too, I'd have to suggest that we generally prefer comments by admins that 'analyze the actual evidence or present new evidence, that are based on a solid understanding of policies, guidelines and behavioral norms'... etc, though we don't always get them. I don't consider it particularly helpful to imply that admins are somehow immune from some of the problematic behaviour we see at WP:AN/WP:ANI. We really don't need 'us and them' distinctions on noticeboards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump, I did not intend to imply that administrators never engage in inappropriate behavior there. Some of us ocasionally miss the mark. The question was about non-administrators commenting and that is what I tried to address, but your clarification is appreciated. Cullen328 (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask, why would you want to? ANI, otherwise known as the WP:CESSPIT, is a time-sucking drama board. I try to ignore it as much as I can but occasionally get pulled in against my will when necessary. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, digging into dreary nuts and bolts of problems and trying to be help make sense of things is something I find quite appealing. So it is certainly possible! And I like to believe I may have even been useful at times, though I can't deny the possibility it's just that I've never been quite objectionable enough to warn or sanction. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some people just like drama :shrug: (It's me, I'm people) mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 18:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I done edits on James Dean's page using p.m. because I thought it was preferred in American English but someone reverted it and said MOS:PUNCT and I can't see what they're referring to there as many pages use p.m. it isn't as common in British English but the page I done was American English any clarity on this would be helpful or if someone could explain what he was pointing out to me. Thank you ItsShandog (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:TIME doesn't specifically mention it, but its acceptable examples show both a.m./p.m. and am/pm.

That said, MOS:RETAIN applies here; i.e., there's generally no need to make these kinds of stylistic changes to the form of English used if one style has already been established in the article. Athanelar (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand thank you. ItsShandog (talk) 09:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I always was curious why not just use 24 hour time like the rest of the world? Most Americans understand it too, as far as I can tell. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 09:37, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Americans with military experience are accustomed to it, but other Americans often stop reading at that point to decipher the "real" time. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"If you're lost, subtract 12" seems simple, but when I've "helpfully" said that, I've seen mostly blank stares in return. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:54, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, many Americans don't (or pretend not to) or complain about the use of what they call "military time". How much of this is genuine and how much is rage baiting I'm not sure. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've never experienced it as rage baiting. I've seen total incomprehension, and I've seen un-ironic "why bother learning fancy tricks when I'm already using the system everyone knows". But this is from Canadians, who are (at least by stereotype) less inclined toward rage baiting.

(Note: Canadians whose daily language is French use 24-hour time, both habitually and officially.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:05, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agree wit TMF. It's genuine. I got used to 24-hour time elsewhere, and when living in the U.S. (or communicating with Americans) I would get blank looks when using 24-hour expressions. Mathglot (talk) 08:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do think 12 hour should be the default for articles that have ties to US/Canada, seeing as they (outside the military) almost exclusively use that. Its common in the UK where my phone says 17,00 and the shop sign saying that it closes at 4,30 pm on Sundays. Its a normal life in the UK using both systems simultaneously, just like having to deal with mph and metres. And times are said in the 12 hour format (even when reading form 24 hour) except in the context of railways. JuniperChill (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm visiting Singapore at the moment, and noticed that while everything is metric, residential real estate is still referenced in square feet. They also use 24-hour or AM/PM simultaneously.

I disagree that 12 hour should be the default for US/Canada articles. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:TIME first bullet-point does specifically mention that either with or without periods is acceptable. I think MOS:STYLERET is the more specifically relevant guideline about not changing from one to another acceptable style without good reason, and MOS:DATEVAR is good precedent too for being consistent within any one specific article. DMacks (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I put a request in the abortion article talk page for a change in the paraphrasing which I believe is most consistant with the rules. Someone replied with an essay which I believe wasn't relevant, so I explained that. However, other than this there hasn't been a reply. Abortion is a very prominent topic, and I'm sure many people are watching that page, so how come there haven't really been any replies to this? And how should I proceed? Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I commented. The lack of positive responses to your idea could be for different reasons, but it's certain that you don't currently have the option to go ahead. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:17, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I chimed in, for what it's worth. You should still leave it to consensus in this case and it is currently against you. I would advise maybe contributing somewhere else since that article is hell on earth to manage and we tend to be extra protective of it because people with agendas like to very subtly change things to fit an agenda, and this is arguably one of the most important articles to keep free from that mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 18:27, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind helping out with the article, however, I assume only the top sources are required for such an article, and I'm not sure if I'll have access to those.

Also, do you have evidence that a large amount of people are secretly manipulating the article on purpose for an agenda?

Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is such wrong remark about Mohammad Reza the Hing Of Iran. it is important that you a fat check - the intnerview with Oriana Fallaci that it is referred to in the wikipedia .

the interview about women was as follow, not what you allowed to be read here - nothing about dispicable claim of sex object. pleaser correct .

During a 1973 interview with Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, she challenged him directly on his comments about women. In that interview, he made statements suggesting that women had not produced major creative or political achievements comparable to men. Fallaci strongly objected and confronted him. ~2026-99083-6 (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~2026-99083-6, That is already in the article, or words to that effect, in section Mohammad Reza Pahlavi § Onset of the Cold War. Mathglot (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: I think what they mean is they object to the preceding bit Mohammad Reza often spoke of women as sexual objects who existed only to gratify him because they interpreted it as being what she vehemently objected to his attitudes towards women refers to.

However, I'm unsure whether that's the intended interpretation. It may be that the reference cited mentions both that he objectified women and that he was confronted in an interview about his attitudes towards women, but not that he necessarily objectified women in the interview itself or that Fallaci confronted him about objectification, rather than about asserting that women had not produced major creative or political achievements comparable to men.

I don't have access to the reference so can't check which interpretation is closest to what it states, nor if it provides the extra detail about the nature of his statements in the interview provided by 2026-99083-6. – Scyrme (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Plausible. Let's wait and see if they clarify. Mathglot (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OP, please note that we do not refer to anyone as a "Great King" in discussions among Wikipedia editors. This Pahlavi's title was "Shah" in reliable English language sources. Cullen328 (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weeeeell, if someone wants to call Mohammad Reza Pahlavi "Great King" on a WP-talkpage, I can't think of a guideline etc against it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It would be advised against though since it very clearly states your lack of neutrality mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 18:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I might start calling all articles I talk about as "Great King". Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Encyclopedia Britannica's list of abortion laws by state changing all mentions of "woman" to "pregnant person": https://www.britannica.com/science/US-abortion-rights-by-state-2236312

I heard an editor started replacing the phrase "pregnant person" with "pregnant woman" in almost every instance, while repeatedly saying "standing for the truth" in edit summaries. They were then given a 31 hour block: Special:Contributions/Oifwejiofwje

Aside from WP:NOTACTIVISM applying to this specific case, what are the guidelines on Wikipedia for using these terms? ~2026-10030-84 (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As someone else mentioned at the TH; we simply use whatever the reliable sources discussing the topic use. Athanelar (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As Athanelar said, we should go with what the source says. In this case, I think at least some of the edits were appropriate (I haven't check all of them), but it was clear they were making these edits willy-nilly in a WP:RGW sense, not because they had checked the original source in each one of those cases. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to all at Wikipedia and thank you so much much for creating the Thomas Edison Film Festival page. I am deeply grateful!!! My name is Jane Steuerwald, the TEFF Director/Executive Director of the Thomas A. Edison Media Arts Consortium. Today I tried to create an account so I could either add to or verify information on the Thomas Edison Film Festival page. I hope I did this correctly, but honestly I am not sure. Is there anyone there who can assist me? BTW - On a personal note, I have been a monthly supporter of Wikipedia for a number of years, and am a huge fan of what you do. I am deeply honored that this page was created. With sincere gratitude, Jane Steuerwald TEFF Director (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TEFF Director I'm going to post some information on your user talk page about your username. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TEFF Director: The "View history" tab on Thomas Edison Film Festival shows it was created by User:Djflem in 2023. There are other contributors but Djflem wrote nearly all the current content and can be contacted at User talk:Djflem. They have over 100,000 edits and I don't know whether they are still interested in this article but that's what I would try if you want to discuss the content. If you have more general questions about editing then you can ask here. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit the article directly, but make suggestions for changes, with supporting sources, on its talk page, as advised in our WP:COI and Paid editing policies. You may use this tool to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apology. I didn't understand this. I was just making a correction to the site - TEFF does not accept feature films - only shorts. I also have read in a number of comments that since I am the director of TEFF I should not be making any changes. Again, I am so sorry - my only agenda was to correct some minor errors in our policies. FYI - we have a page on FilmFreeway too in case anyone is looking for accurate information about the history, mission, and practices of TEFF. Last question - should I change my user name? I created an account with a user name of TEFF Director. I assumed that that would be desirable as I am not pretending to be someone "neutral." One thing is certain - I will completely refrain from making any direct corrections to the site, and once again, I really am grateful that the page has been created. We are a modest non-profit arts organization with lots of heart - no red carpet aspirations. And I want to keep it that way. Thank you for listening and for your help. Jane Steuerwald, TEFF Director. TEFF Director (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary; you're new here and came and asked for advice. There's nothing wrong with that.

Yes, you should change your user name; see the links on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Do you have any recommendations for a user name? Do people use their "real" names or something made up? My approach is always to be honest about who I am but if the is not advised, I can adjust. Your advice is appreciated! Jane TEFF Director (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It can be your actual name (first, or last, or both, or a nickname), a made-up name, a goofy phrase, etc. And it can include your affiliation along with your name (or whatever else you make up). But it can't just be an organization-name or job-title (a shared "WP:ROLE" account) because the policy is that each account is tied to one person. In the future, someone else from the same organization or with the same job-title might want to edit here. DMacks (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. I just changed it to Jane Steuerwald. May I keep my same PW? TEFF Director (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be advisable to keep it (unless it's insecure or otherwise rendered useless). Does the film festival have a website where it states that it only accepts shorts? I'm pretty sure that would fall under our "about self" exception and be usable as a source mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 18:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT HAPPENED TO WIKIPEDIA??? For years I have used AND CONTRIBUTED to Wikipedia. Now I click on my favorite link to Wikipedia and I am taken to a news page but no option to look up info. I use Wikipedia several times a week and consider it a treasure of information. After ½ hr of searching and clicking links I can not find the "old" Wikipedia. What happened? Where is it? Do I need to descend to google search again for info?

Geoff Kloster Gck80 (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the question mark at the top and you are prompted for search terms, just as always. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your favorite link was, or how long ago you used it last. Do you mean that something drastically changed in the last few days? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Gck80: Depending on circumstances like screen size, you may have to click a magnifying glass icon to get a search box. If the change was in 2023 then you can get back to the old Wikipedia when you are logged in by selecting "Vector legacy" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. Please post a link to the page your favorite link leads to. The English Wikipedia is at https://en.wikipedia.org. That link says en.wikipedia.org in case something outside Wikipedia changes the url for you. Many other websites show our content but sometimes close or change. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

try wikipedia.org instead of en.wikipedia.org mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 18:35, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I would like to add the birth year for a living person.

Caveat: I realize none of the following are acceptable, but sharing to let you know what I know. Their state's voter reg rolls are public and it lists the actual birth date. Their wedding announcement in the NY Times lists the age of the person (which I realize only marks their age on that day, and doesn't reliably narrow down the birth year). Their college lists their graduating year (again: not reliable). Their Public Facebook Page lists their college and graduation year as well as high school and graduation year (and there's a photo saying "Me at 18 in 1980"). Also, a Facebook post by them corroborates their wedding anniversary and age at that time. And every year on the same date they acknowledge birthday greetings on Facebook--which is the same date on the voter reg rolls.

Again: I understand none of those meet your standards. But what would? If the wedding announcement in the NY Times says the person was 25 in May 2005, would I have to find articles referencing them and their age as 24 in, say, January--and then 25 in April? Or what would be sufficient documentation? Thank you. Limeginger (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Converting simple things like this into abstract theoretical questions makes them more difficult to answer, and might reduce your chance of success. Please start by saying exactly who you're talking about. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:04, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to me that Limeginger has asked any "abstract theoretical questions". I don't have any opinion on the (non-) issue and am disinclined to research it. I'd tend toward ignoring the matter of birth date, guessing that if it interested other editors then some of them would unearth more precise facts, eventually. However, a date span seems possible -- and it could be explained in a Template:Efn. (Does some issue hinge on this person's birth date?) -- Hoary (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If this is for the infobox, I'd just use {{Age as of date}}, based on the NYT source. If you wanted an exact birth date, you could do a routine WP:CALCULATION if the Facebook posts are from a verified profile (per WP:ABOUTSELF) and give you a birthday. So if they say on FB their birthday is (e.g.) 1 April, and you know from NYT they were 25 when they got married in May 2005, then it's a pretty routine calculation to say they were born 1 April 1980. Nil🥝 00:33, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bundy standoff says directing Bundy to pay over $1 million in withheld grazing fees but in reality the grazing fees themselves were like 40-50k and the rest was penalties and interest accumulated over the years. “The fees themselves are probably only about $40,000 to $50,000,” Whipple said. “But then of course it keeps doubling, then with the IRS and the government entities, you’re talking about an entirely different figure.”[2] The $1m number makes the government seem unreasonable when he actually had to pay a far more manageable sum but refused for decades. Polygnotus (talk) 05:25, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Polygnotus. What is your question regarding Wikipedia? ColinFine (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Polygnotus

If you have an idea for how to improve a Wikipedia article, the best thing you can do is edit it yourself. The second best thing you can do is raise your concerns on the article's talk page. In this case, you would want to make a new topic over at Talk:Bundy standoff.

I have trouble writing with a smartphone too, although I've never tried editing Wikipedia on one. If you have a personal computer of any sort, try editing Wikipedia on that device instead. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 22:36, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus you have made over 41,000 edits over the last 3.5 years, and since you are a fairly experienced editor, I don't understand why you are repeatedly posting this off-topic content here. You have asked no question in what you posted. What are you hoping will happen? CodeTalker (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is the film Aelita truly the primary topic, given the existence of Alexey Tolstoy's Aelita (novel), from which the film was adapted? ~2026-10162-66 (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The primary topic is not necessarily the original; it's the one that the majority of people are looking for when they search on that name. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-10162-66 Good question. Some guidance at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can any admin provide me a copy of old page of Paul van Rietvelde please if possible? I want to copy content from it to the current article. zglph^•talk• 16:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:REFUND. Polygnotus (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message regarding my recent edit to the Samastipur page. I understand that my addition of the "Digital Media" section regarding Samastipur News was reverted. I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia and my intention was to add relevant local information, not to spam or vandalize. Could you please guide me on why this specific addition was considered non-constructive? Was it a lack of reliable citations (references)? Or is it an issue with the notability of the media outlet? I would appreciate your advice on how I can improve the content to meet Wikipedia's standards, or if I should provide third-party sources (like major newspapers) to verify the information before adding it again. Thanks for your help. Samastipurnewsedit (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One major problem is that you cut out very large chunks of the existing article and gave false edit summaries (not slightly-mistaken ones, but giving a completely wrong impression of what you were really doing). TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1338557529

You can help me sort it. Thank you. Or maybe send a guide on how to.

Thanks, Obinna Tony (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Obinna Tony.

For Ref 29 (which you added), {{cite web}} needs a title. You need to specify the title, | title = "Dr. Nkiru Balonwu, a social entrepreneur passionate about improving the realities of women and girls in Africa"|

For 14 and 16 (which I don't think you just added) the problem is that the author's last name is given as "editor", which is not satisfactory. Ref 14 has author "Vanessa Obioha", so it should say |last = Obioha |first = Vanessa". Ref 16 has no author credited, so the last argument should be left blank. ColinFine (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Colin Fine. I will start working on it. Obinna Tony (talk) 07:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one of your references:

refinedng.com https://refinedng.com/dr-nkiru-balonwu-a-social-entrepreneur-passionate-about-improving-the-realities-of-women-and-girls-in-africa/. Retrieved 2026-02-15. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

You've omitted the title. You need to add |title=Dr. Nkiru Balonwu, a social entrepreneur passionate about improving the realities of women and girls in Africa

(And the website is "RefinedNG".)

Incidentally, this source alarms me. It tells us for example: Balonwu is a strategic communication and stakeholder engagement specialist. This means nothing to me and I can't help wondering if it's intended just to obfuscate and impress. If it does mean something, then what? -- Hoary (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On the surface, it appears to mean that Balonwu's job is to talk to customers on the phone. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:55, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

talk to customers on the phone: This is the English language as I know it! Thank you, TooManyFingers. -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seemed more plausible than "Army radio operator who is also a highly-skilled matchmaker among vampire hunters", even though to my mind vampire hunters are the true stakeholders. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing obfuscate and impress. Hahaha.

I will be implementing your suggestion now. Thank you. Obinna Tony (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: I've replaced your use of {{Blue}} with {{Para}}, which incudes semantic "code" markup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Andy Mabbett, {{Blue}} is poor markup: it's semantically vapid; and on top of that, fiddling with just one of color and background-color and ignoring the other is very poor practice. -- Hoary (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think History of the United States (1980–1991) should not be start-class anymore. Is it good enough to qualify for C-class? If not, what is it missing? Lucevium (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to upgrade it to C, Lucevium. -- Hoary (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you so much! Lucevium (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For future occasions, the tool WP:RATER is very good for recommending, adding or changing ratings, among other things. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Friends have a local business that used to be affiliated in part with a national chain. Some time ago, they split ways. The national chain posted on a wiki page and on Yelp that the store was permanently closed, which is blatantly untrue. Can I go in and re-write the malicious disinformation? Dlewis925 (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlewis925: There's a conflict of interest issue here, so you should instead use Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard/COI to request an edit to the article. It would help if you could provide independent sources for any information you want added or changed. However, if the article currently states that the store was closed but does not provide any sources about that, then you wouldn't need a source to request that claim simply be deleted from the article. Additionally, if you definitely know it was someone affiliated with the chain that has been editing the article, then they should have declared a conflict of interest. It would help if you could link the article here so other editors could investigate. – Scyrme (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlewis925 It would be helpful if you'd let us know which Wiki article you're talking about. Athanelar (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If it's blatantly untrue then you can fix it, regardless of CoI (which should still be declared, on your edit summary or on the article's talk page).

Anyone who challenges you for doing so may be directed to WP:COISELF, which says "An exception to not editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "untrue statement" cited to some published source? If not, it seems easily removeable by anyone, even COI. If it's cited, then an alternate cite is required to dispute it. DMacks (talk) 12:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at template:infobox person#Parameters template and it says that height should be noted if it's "relevant" to a person. What do they mean to what specific people? TyronesEditsPages (talk) 06:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Only use it when a person's exact height is important to what is said about them in the article. If they're an actor, saying "he was very tall" in the article is already enough - we don't care about the exact number. If they're a boxer or a basketball player, knowing that they're 6' 7½" can matter a lot. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So in this case, athletes, models, and other special cases that height is needed in a infobox then. Thus basically means that some infoboxes don't need to have their height listed if it's not useful like a chef or a singer for example. TyronesEditsPages (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

can you assist me for above mentioned sub ~2026-10358-64 (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You would presumably have to contact the school in question. There's not much Wikipedia can do about this. This is generally for help with Wikipedia issues. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This page is for people who need help editing wikipedia. You might have better luck with a search engine like Google or DuckDuckGo. If you still want help from a Wikipedian, then the reference desk could prove helpful! mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, everyone! Just a minute ago, I published a draft of an English-language translation for the Spanish-language article on the Virgin of Urkupiña, es:Virgen de Urkupiña. But it looks like I can't publish it, because publishing is limited to extended confirmed editors. How can I get the translation published? Thank you !! Duffmorton (talk) 08:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work on this, Duffmorton, but I suggest that you do a lot more work on it before proposing it as an article. As an example, Draft:Virgen_de_Urkupiña#Feast currently lacks any clear referencing. Why should the reader believe what it says? -- Hoary (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Once you have fixed the issue described above, submit your draft article for review using the process outlined at WP:AFC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Duffmorton.

One of the reasons (the main reason, I think) that the translation tool is not available to inexperienced editors is that many, perhaps most, articles in other Wikipedias are not referenced adequately for a new article in the English Wikipedia. (English Wikipedia is one of the strictest - perhaps the strictest - about this).

Consequently, only experienced editors (who in theory should understand the criteria for notability, reliable sources, and verifiability) are allowed to use the tool, and anybody else needs to put their version through review at articles for creation.

Unfortunately if the source article is not satisfactorily sourced, then that generally means that it has been written backwards, and needs to be rewritten from scratch to make it acceptable to English Wikipedia.

I have added a header to your draft which will allow you to submit it for review when it is ready.

I notice that the draft begins with a template from Spanish Wikipedia which does not exist in English Wikipedia. You'll need to investigate whether or not there is a corresponding template in English Wikipedia, and if so change its name and arguments appropriately. ColinFine (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect Template:Infobox Catholic apparition is the closest equivalent here for es:Plantilla:Ficha de virgen. Opus 113 (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much to everyone for your guidance... hopefully, I can get some of this straightened up! Duffmorton (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the guidance! Right now, I'm trying to put in more sources and other changes. Is there a way for me to use (for now) only a few well-cited sections of the original Spanish-language article as the basis for the translated English-language article? And if I do this, can I save the rest of the translation somewhere? My hope, here, would be to set things up so that I or others can return later to obtain sources for the remaining sections of the article and eventually get them into the published English-language article. Duffmorton (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:CulverHist's only contribution to Wikipedia is to add citations to their website chrisbungostudios.com, a user-generated directory of film and video filming locations (with some commercial aspects). I'm not sure if this is appropriate. Any advice? Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else has already warned them (since your post). If they persists after that, either WP:AIV (which covers spamming that is in-progress) or WP:COIN (for more long-term issues). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1338648327

I am not able to fully comprehend your directions.

Thanks, Endofworld123 (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC) Kindly help.[reply]

@Endofworld123: See https://teknopedia.ac.id/w/index.php?title=Himanta_Biswa_Sarma&diff=1338657327&oldid=1338654886 Polygnotus (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello experts, I'm bewildered by the advice in Help:Table and Template:Table alignment concerning how to specify the alignment of text in a column when you want it to differ from the default that has been specified. In my case, narrative text in the table is left-aligned by default but in 5 columns I want to apply "text-align: center;". None of the advice has worked for me – on past record, almost certainly because of me! I would be grateful if someone could visit User:SCHolar44/Yinkanie and advise or correct – also on any other poor coding that's evident (I'm an eager learner). Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 12:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SCHolar44 See https://teknopedia.ac.id/w/index.php?title=User%3ASCHolar44%2FYinkanie&diff=1338657736&oldid=1338649779 Polygnotus (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Marvellous, @Polygnotus!! I had no idea. I hugely appreciate your generosity in sharing your skills. Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 23:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why can I no longer find the link to each day of the month's list of quotes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-10479-36 (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @~2026-10479-36. Wikiquote is a separate project from Wikipedia.

You'd do better asking at q:Wikiquote:Village pump. ColinFine (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Featured Article, Abraham Lincoln, has an ImageMap in the Emancipation Proclamation section with poly lines identifying the people depicted in a portrait. One of those people is Lincoln himself, and it seems like there is a dilemma here: If we make Lincoln's name at the end of the relevant line a wikilink, it will be a circular link, but if not, the ImageMap extension throws an error reading "Error: No valid link was found at the end of line 6." @SchroCat removed the circular link ([3] - revision shows the error message), and I reinstated it to avoid the error ([4]), but I'm wondering if there is anything that can be done to avoid both these problems in the case where an ImageMap depicts the subject of the article it's being used in. Opus 113 (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Opus 113 You can use a section anchor link, like [[Abraham Lincoln#Emancipation Proclamation|Abraham Lincoln]], or link to [[Emancipation Proclamation|Abraham Lincoln]] (he is holding it). Polygnotus (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. The first one at least has the advantage that readers who click the link won't lose their place in the article - if there isn't a technical way around this issue, maybe that is the thing to do. Opus 113 (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My teacher tells me I need to join their class on wikipedia? RatsAreTheBestNMSR (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The teacher should have provided you with a link or the name of the class. 331dot (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question, RatsAreTheBestNMSR? -- Hoary (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@RatsAreTheBestNMSR: Maybe you can find it at Wikipedia:School and university projects or a page linked there. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that current events articles often get a lot of !keep votes right after they happen, and then eventually progress into !delete or !redirect. I have made the mistake of WP:RAPIDly nominating articles for deletion before, and know that when this happens, it's more likely they'll be kept than anything else. About where is the time an article no longer meets WP:LASTING, if it stops? Cutlass^Ciera 00:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hard-and-fast rule, but wait until the rate of editing does down. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:17, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was editing article (1) Roundhay, which includes a section Roundhay#Oldest surviving film, describing a film shot there which "is believed to be the oldest surviving film in existence", with a link to article (2) Roundhay Garden Scene. Another user has repeatedly marked the statement in article (1) as needing a source. However, article (2) contains several sources for the statement and, in my opinion, a source does need to be shown in article (1).

Is there a general rule on this? If every article which linked to a second article had to re-cite the sources from the second article, then WP would rapidly be swamped by excessive citations. The opening paragraph of the WP:Citation overkill article says "If a page features citations that are mirror pages of others, or which simply parrot the other sources, they contribute nothing to the article's reliability and are detrimental to its readability." Masato.harada (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Masato.harada: You don't need to cite every source from the second article, you just need to provide suitable citations for the claims made in the current article. While readability of an article is a valid concern, the reader is no more obliged to read the list of citations than they are to actually read the cited sources. If you decide to apply your logic and ignore the requirements for providing cited sources, you will be likely to find your edits being reverted. Fabrickator (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ksa ~2026-10683-57 (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[Google translation: "How long will this change of topics continue?"]

Which change of topics? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

مرحبًا! هذه هي الويكيبيديا الإنجليزية، يجب أن تسأل عن الويكيبيديا العربية (كن أكثر وضوحًا بعض الشيء، على الرغم من أنني أشك في أن كون سؤالك باللغة العربية يجعله أكثر تحديدًا) (أعتذر عن اللغة العربية السيئة، فأنا أستخدم ترجمة جوجل) mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 19:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am Deaglán de Bréadún and I want to update the information on my Wikipedia profile/description. How can I get access to my Wikipedia profile in order to make a change? Tagairt (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You were clearly logged in as User:Tagairt when you asked that question. Please see Wikipedia:About you. You should not edit the article about yourself; you can request changes to it using our Edit Request Wizard. Please be sure to give a reliable source for each change you request. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note for @Tagairt and anyone else seeing this that I have nominated that article for deletion as the subject does not seem to be sufficiently notable for inclusion. Athanelar (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

H ~2026-10749-52 (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about a Wikipedia/ Wikimedia scholarship (if so, for what), or something else?

We can only help with Wikipedia/Wikimedia matters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

how to donate ~2026-10761-62 (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-10761-62 Thank you for wanting to donate. This is the link that tells you how to donate, but you may want to read up on Wikipedia finances first. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i have found this user at new pages and it doesn't like fine user page for me. User:Alloyofallmagic. Soothingalgae (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, a user page should be a place to tell others about yourself, so it seems to be okay. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 18:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

okay thanks for the reply! Soothingalgae (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USERBIO tells us userpages should not contain Inappropriate or excessive personal information unrelated to Wikipedia. While it is, in my opinion, completely unnecessary and superfluous to use one's userpage as a list of identity labels, I would say it's neither 'inappropriate' nor 'excessive' and so nothing needs to be done about it. Athanelar (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

okay! Soothingalgae (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

how do i close my question? Soothingalgae (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No need to. Athanelar (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you Please Fix an error i made please Super Bowl Fan (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you could be bothered to specify it, Super Bowl Fan, then it would be a lot more likely that another editor would be bothered to fix it. (I could, however, revert the entire set of your edits. Shall I do that?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The 35-word, large-red-text error message at the foot of the page was a handy clue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can Wikipedia assist in contacting the author(s) of this Scientific journal?

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF00054033.pdf

I would like to clarify what the authors are referring to when they mentioned the "Eastern Hathor Basin" (page 43/ PDF page 9/19). Looking at the map of Ganymede, and based on the latitude and longitude given of 69° S, 265° W, I think what they are calling "Eastern Hathor Basin" is actually Hathor Basin itself, and they mislabeled the crater. Therefore, the correct name of the subject should have been called "Eastern Teshub Basin". (see map below)

The authors names are Pierre G. Thomas | Olivier P. Forni | Philippe L. Masson.

Thank you. IapetusCallistus (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IapetusCallistus. "Wikipedia" is a a collaborative editing project made up of WP:VOLUNTEERs from all over the world; so, there's really no "central office" per se which could aid you in contacting the authors of this paper. One of the volunteer editor's could, I guess, decide to try and help you out (I guess), but you're probably better off trying to contact these people yourself via the Laboratoire de Geologie Dynamique Interne, UniversitP de Paris XI, Orsay, France. Given that the paper was published in 1984, there's no way to know for sure whether any of the authors are still at that university or even whether they're still alive. You could try googling their names to see whether you getting any hits; you might get lucky and find more recent information about one or more of them which contain more current contact info. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Université de Paris XI was subsumed into Paris-Saclay University in 2019, so the original laboratory and the department it belonged to no longer exist. I think the equivalent department today is the Paris-Saclay Geosciences Laboratory, which now occupies the same buildings (Bâtiment 504 et 509) of the Orsay campus, but based on the staff listed the original authors no longer work there. I doubt anyone would have any luck in contacting the current staff about this. If the original authors are still active with another institution, even if their contact info were publicly available, it's unlikely they remember much about this after over 40 years. – Scyrme (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the detailed explanation. Awwww.. bummer. I guess I'll have to wait until 2031 before ESA Juice mission arrives at Ganymede for more information. IapetusCallistus (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. IapetusCallistus (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Try asking your question about the name of the feature at WP:REFDESK/Science. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion. I will try that now. Best regards IapetusCallistus (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How yo make a wiki page of someone ~2026-10829-59 (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

After a considerable search for reliable, secondary, in-depth sources independent of the person. And after a lot of thinking. Who are you thinking of writing up? (Your boss? Yourself?) -- Hoary (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary is correct that finding (and citing) significant coverage in reliable, independent sources is by far the most important step in writing an acceptable Wikipedia article. Once you have those sources, pretty much all you have to do is neutrally summarize what they say. Please read the help page Your first article for additional advice. Cullen328 (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Very carefully if they're dead, extremely carefully if not. mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I want to propose splitting a stub article across 2 different articles and then deleting the original page. The page is First XI, which I would propose splitting between Glossary of cricket terms & Glossary of association football terms. I'm not sure this warrants a full article on its own & it cites no sources.

Is there a standard practice for doing this, both a split & request for deletion? Also, how should redirects be handled? Most links to First XI come from sports-related pages so can be redirected to their corresponding sports glossary, but some redirects are neutral between sports (see most here [5]). As I type this maybe this is evidence against the split.

Thanks! Timmeh (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First: your terminology is off, to 'split' an article is to create a new article from a section of an existing article. Combining one or more articles together is called a 'merge'.

Second, there's no need here for any complex procedure. You're free to boldly WP:BLAR (BLank And Redirect) the First XI article if you think it's sensible; if someone disagrees they can just revert.

Personally, I would probably merge the content and point the redirect at Starting lineup rather than one of those glossary articles. Athanelar (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

India won the match. while, its wrongly mentioned as Pakistan in the Wikipedia. Kindly correct it ~2026-10936-23 (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

T20 ICC Mens World cup ~2026-10936-23 (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please raise your concern on Talk:Men's T20 World Cup, and offer any sources you have there. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm trying to set up a page for my client, Event Concept. I don't work there and added in loads of links but I'm not sure they are taking.

Could you help please? Thanks Lizzie Elkin (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzie Elkin First, as you are editing about a client, the Terms of Use require you to comply with the paid editing policy and make a formal disclosure on your user page.

The trouble you are having is that you are telling us what you want the world to know about your client, like its activities and offerings. That is the wrong approach. You need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is usually critical analysis and commentary as to what sources view as important/significant/influential about the topic, not what it views as its own importance. Most companies on Earth actually do not meet the criteria to merit a Wikipedia article, just as most people do not.

Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your client; this explains why it is very unlikely you will succeed at what you are attempting, especially as a new user without prior editing experience. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform here, and it's harder with a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So I was looking at my list of pages and I noticed someone had attempted to tag a link as dead on the article Some Kind of Wonderful (film).

It is for a fansite devoted to the film and has a lot of information on the movie. It also appears to have been added a LONG time ago to the article.

The website appears to be permanently down, however I found a mostly intact copy on the Wayback machine.

How can I edit this into the page without going against the RFC about the Archive, if it pertains to this instance?

Thanks,

Urbanracer34 (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Urbanracer34.

I'm sorry, but if the deadlink was to a fansite, it was almost certainly not a reliable source, and should not have been cited in the first place. The citation, and any information in the article which depends only on that citation, should be removed. ColinFine (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine Hello! It is in the external links section and wasn't cited in the main article as far as I can see. How do I change the link from a dead link to an archived one? Urbanracer34 (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Urbanracer34.

By changing the parameter url-status in the citataion to url-status=dead. If there is an archive-url parameter pointing to the archive, this will cause the citation to show that link as "archived at". ColinFine (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine Hello! I think we're getting our wires crossed. I want to make the link under "external links" point to an archived copy. How exactly do I do this step-by-step? I don't recall doing this before. Thanks! Urbanracer34 (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, @Urbanracer34, so it's just an external link, not a citation. My answer related to a citation template such as {{cite web}}.

Simply replace the URL with the URL of the archived copy. If you like, you can make the display text (after the pipe) explain that this is an archived copy, but I don't think there's much need. ColinFine (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine I got it fixed! Thank you for the guidance! Urbanracer34 (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Urbanracer34, generally WP:ELDEAD ==External links== should be removed, not redirected to an archived copy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Urbanracer34: The RFC is not about archive.org or the Wayback Machine (web.archive.org), but rather about archive.today - an unrelated website operated by a different owner (which has several mirror sites including archive.is). You can continue to use the Wayback Machine freely without issues. – Scyrme (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Scyrme Thanks for the clarification. I thought they were linked somehow. Urbanracer34 (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since one year now, i am trying to add an infobox to the article of "Angeln", the region where the name of England and the English language ultimately derives from, and therefore, although pretty small, a very important region. The infobox includes four pictures, and summarizes the main geographical facts about Angeln. It can be seen in the previous version of "Angeln". However, everytime i insert it, it is being deleted again. What can be done about that? Greetings Ephesos21 (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ephesos21: you asked a similar question last year, you could refer to the answers at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archive 67#Expansions to the article "Angeln". TSventon (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but back then I asked about all the changes in general. This time I'm only asking about the infobox. The only way I can add content to the article is by discussing everything individually, so I'm asking specifically about the infobox for now. The infobox only contains four images and summarizes the obvious facts about the peninsula. Is there any justification for deleting an infobox if someone adds one to an article? Ephesos21 (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You asked about the infobox last year and the answer was, please follow the process at WP:DR. Note that the use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article, see MOS:INFOBOXUSE. TSventon (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but it's strange that none of this seems to bother you. As a regular user, you could also support my changes. You can compare my version with the current one, and it's quite obvious that my version is a significant improvement. Generally speaking, it's odd that someone would try to delete an infobox, because nothing is more informative than such a box. It's absolutely baffling why anyone would find my version worse than the current one, unless they're deliberately trying to make the region look as bad as possible. Ephesos21 (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the other person what their arguments against an infobox were, but I haven't received a reply. How long do I have to wait before I can insert the infobox? Ephesos21 (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would say about 24 hours. Nononsense101 (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ephesos21, instead of worrying about an infobox, you should work on improving the referencing of the article in compliance with the core content policy Verifiability. That article is in terrible shape and any editor would be perfectly justified in removing vast quantities of unreferenced content. Once the article is properly referenced and complies with core content policies, then you can think about optional things like infoboxes. Cullen328 (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone add hatnotes at the top of the article Juan de Mena pointing to Juan de Mena, Paraguay, Juan Castañón de Mena, Juan Pascual de Mena, and Juan Mena, or create a disambiguation page? ~2026-11013-81 (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes added. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:33, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

University Press of New England's website has been usurped. In cases like this, what should be done with the "official website" in the infobox? I can put |url=none, but is it incorrect to say that they don't have a website when they previously did? Placeholderer (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholderer You could try using Template:Website defunct? Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 01:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That template still makes a link. If it was usurped rather than just becoming a defunct/dead link, it may not be safe to keep the link. – Scyrme (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Website defunct for now, but I do think it would make sense to have a distinct template for usurped urls, such as could warn users who click on them before continuing to the site (speaking as someone who clicked on the UPNE link). I see there's Template:Usurped but that's explicitly for archive urls so not applicable here Placeholderer (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to search through our notifications—like for the name of a sender or key words in a topic—when we’re working on our phone rather than our computer?

If so, is it done differently on a Macintosh than an Android? Augnablik (talk) 10:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Augnablik. For information on using the Wikipedia apps, see mw:Wikimedia Apps/Android FAQ and mw:Wikimedia Apps/IOS FAQ. If those don't answer your question, I suggest asking at WP:VPT. ColinFine (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Colin … small problem for us Mac users, though, as there’s nothing at the Macintosh link!

Off to VPT. Augnablik (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to turn on desktop version, is the only way. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am unable to add a note to an already existing page. Maybe my settings are not well configured. May you give me full & detailed instructions? Thanks. Settignano (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Settignano: Some pages a protected but I cannot tell from your post whether that's the issue here. Please always give the exact title or URL of any page you want help with. Also say where in the page you want to add the note. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer.

Associated Airways Joint Committee chapter in https://teknopedia.ac.id/wiki/National_Air_Communications#Associated_Airways_Joint_Committee page is the chapter where I would like to add a note. Settignano (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Settignano. In what sense are you unable to add a note. What are you doing, and what happens when you do it? ColinFine (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1339191280

I would really appreciate if sone would fix for me.

Thanks, Doug Weller talk 12:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: The diff in Peter Parnall shows you removed the title and the reference error says "Missing or empty |title=". Do you really just want help to restore the title you removed? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,unless there is something else I missed in adding the archive link, the original link was a 404. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:20, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have restored the title.[6] PrimeHunter (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was editing Mass media in Vietnam when I found some words that have been translated from Vietnamese to English, but they seem like literal more than contextual translations. Should I keep them in Vietnamese or English? EmperorChesser 13:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@EmperorChesser: can you give an example? The article was tagged as a rough translation on 10 June 2022, so you are not alone in thinking that the language needs improvement. TSventon (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, in the article's History section, there's this sentence: That year, during an international reception, Ho Chi Minh asked cinematographer Phan Thế Hùng: "When will you let our people watch television?"

The original quote was Bao giờ các chú cho nhân dân ta được xem truyền hình?. I just found the translation really unnatural. EmperorChesser 14:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What would be a better translation? TSventon (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

After I re-reviewed the translation, I think it may be a good translation already. To be honest, the original speech is difficult to be translated into another language, but I came up with "When can our people watch television?", which isn't really close to the literal translation; it will be better if both the original and the translated version are displayed. EmperorChesser 15:21, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@EmperorChesser: I don't think that sentence is particularly important, so a slightly imperfect translation is probably OK. Obviously English and Vietnamese are very different so there will often be more than one way to translate a sentence. I wouldn't add the Vietnamese version as 99% (made up statistic) of en Wikipedia readers will not understand it. However there are likely to be worse examples of machine translation, so if you can improve those you will improve the article. And if you (have time to) fix the major problems you could remove the rough translation tag. TSventon (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've got it. Thank you! EmperorChesser 06:37, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't the bot archiving my talk page? Perhaps it was the irregular page numbers, but the size is now approaching half a meg, which is causing performance issues. JayCubby 14:57, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that you didn't set up a bot to archive your talk page, you just have the box with the links to previously archived content? See Help:Archiving a talk page for information on how you can set up a bot. DonIago (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I misremembered the procedure earlier. Many thanks. JayCubby 15:26, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that there is a discussion going on about the image of Nancy Guthrie and whether the image is fair use. I was under the impression, from lots of other missing‑person pages, that it is fair use to use an image to identify them under:

"This work is copyrighted (or assumed to be copyrighted) and unlicensed. It does not fall into one of the blanket acceptable non‑free content categories listed at Wikipedia:Non‑free content § Images or Wikipedia:Non‑free content § Audio clips, and it is not covered by a more specific non‑free content licence listed at Category:Wikipedia non‑free file copyright templates. However, it is believed that the use of this work:

• To illustrate the subject in question
• Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information
• On the English‑language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non‑profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non‑free content and Wikipedia:Copyrights."

Lots of other missing‑person pages use this, even Featured ones, so I just want to get clarity on this. Do they have to be missing for an extended period of time before it is fair use? I am assuming that is the issue for the discussion. Otherwise, how are other missing‑person pages allowed to use fair‑use images? ItsShandog (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ItsShandog. We can use non-free images of people who have died, but the hope is that Nancy Guthrie is still alive. The relevant policy language can be found at Non-free content- images. If you mention specific other articles, we can address the reasoning for other images. Sometimes an image of a missing person is released free of copyright, removing any obstacle to its use on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at several missing‑person articles — for example Natalee Holloway, which is a Featured Article, and Maura Murray, which is a Good Article — both use fair‑use images. One case involves a subject who is now presumed dead, while the other involves a subject who is not, yet both articles use the same non‑free rationale — the same one I quoted earlier. This is the standard approach across missing‑person articles, including the examples I mentioned and many others, a lot of whom have never been declared dead or have no proof of death and remain missing in the same way as Nancy. ItsShandog (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Natalee Holloway and Maura Murray have been missing so long that they can be presumed dead. The same does not apply to Nancy Guthrie. Cullen328 (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But that’s exactly what I was asking in the previous question — do the subjects have to be missing for a certain amount of time before a fair‑use image is allowed? Even in cases where someone is presumed dead, many of those individuals are not legally declared dead, so the situation is the same as any other long‑term missing person. So what would the time frame be — two years, three years, four years? How long does someone have to be missing before a fair‑use image becomes acceptable under that interpretation? ItsShandog (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Laws vary by country, but in the US, seven years missing leads to a legal presumption that the person is dead. At that point, their estate can be distributed to heirs. The time is shorter based on circumstances like shipwrecks. Cullen328 (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So any person who has been missing for more than seven years is allowed to have a fair‑use image, but anyone missing for less than that would not be allowed one unless they were legally declared dead or confirmed dead? That makes sense if that is the rule, but this is exactly why I was asking for clarity — I was confused about whether there is actually a time requirement.

There is also the FBI poster on the page. I know the poster itself is in the public domain, but the photograph of Nancy that appears inside the poster would not be. So what happens in that situation, since the overall poster is public domain but the embedded image is not? ItsShandog (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ItsShandog, you seem to be asking for an easy, hard-and-fast rule. But copyright law is very complex and each contested image needs to be evaluated on its own merits. It is clear that a person who has been missing for a few weeks is in a different category than a person who has been missing for several decades without proof of life. As for the FBI poster, keep in mind that photos taken by employees of the US federal government as part of their job duties are copyright free and in the public domain. But copyrighted photos distributed by the US government do not lose their copyright status. I encourage you to think in different terms than a missing person "is allowed to have" a photo. The question is about the suitability of specific photos, not missing people. One photo may be acceptable and another one not acceptable. When a photo is contested, a convincing policy based argument must be given to keep that specific photo. "Similar articles have similar photos" is a weak, unconvincing argument. Cullen328 (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you’re saying, and I’m not trying to create a hard‑and‑fast rule. The reason I’ve been asking these questions is because I’m trying to understand how NFCC is actually being applied in practice. NFCC doesn’t contain any time‑based requirement, yet the concern being raised here seems to rely on the idea that Nancy hasn’t been missing long enough. That’s why I’ve been looking at comparable articles — not to say “other articles do it”, but to understand what the actual distinction is meant to be.

I’ve also found new examples of recent missing‑person cases that use fair‑use images, which makes the time‑based argument even harder to follow. For instance, Gus Lamont has only been missing since September last year, and Sudiksha Konanki has been missing since March last year. Both of those cases are very recent, neither involves a legal presumption of death, and both use fair‑use images under the same type of rationale. Their images were uploaded around the same time the disappearances happened — exactly the same situation as Nancy’s.

I’m assuming there is some kind of review process for these images, so if they were unsuitable under NFCC I would expect them to be flagged for deletion as well. That’s why I’m struggling with the rationale being given here. I understand your point about each image being evaluated individually, but at the same time the explanation doesn’t make sense when you look at how similar cases are handled. If every case is judged on the specific image rather than the fact that the person is missing, then I’m trying to understand what the actual difference is between those photos and Nancy’s, because the circumstances are extremely similar other than the fact she is presumed kidnapped. ItsShandog (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We now have a discussion going on in two places, which is sub-optimal. Your assumption that there is some kind of "central approval authority" that OKs these photos is incorrect. That does not exist. It is done by individual volunteer editors on a case by case basis, as is taking place here and at Files for discussion, which is the appropriate place to make a decision about this specific image. If no volunteer notices that an image is erroneously licensed, then nothing will be done about it. In the case of Sudiksha Konanki, her parents have asked that she be declared legally dead. That is a major difference from the Guthrie case. As for Gus Lamont, perhaps there is an aspect of Australian copyright law that I do not know about. My hunch is that this image should probably be deleted but I am not going to nominate it myself because I do not know enough about the specific circumstances. Cullen328 (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Brothers and Sisters,

It has been almost 10 years since I have contributed to Wikipedia.

My interest has been and continues to be Native American History.

Unfortunately, I am not up to date on any protocols for contributors.

I would like to start again after these many years.

I recently noticed that the article I wrote on Major Israel McCreight is missing or deleted.

When I hit the button to go to the article on McCreight I am directed automatically to the one on American Horse.

2. The article I wrote on Chief Blue Horse has been deleted.

Brothers and Sisters, I would like to respectfully request that the articles on Chief Blue Horse and Major Israel McCreight be restored.

Can you please help me? Thank you.

Respectfully,

Rich Levine Richlevine00 (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles seem to have been deleted over copyright concerns: see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20141020. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Richlevine00. Chief Blue Horse was renamed Blue Horse (Lakota leader) because we do not use honorific titles in article names. It was then discovered that the article contained copyright violations and it was deleted in 2019 for that reason. Copyright compliance is very important. Please read all of the messages on your talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why is an incorrect picture of a Griffith 400 posted in the article? I presently own Griffith 4006055 which was originally used as the Griffith 400 picture. The posted picture is NOT a Griffith 400 due to its incorrect hood. How does a "CORRECT" picture of a Griffith 400 get posted? ~2026-11202-73 (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @~2026-11202-73.

The picture File:TVR Griffith 400 (1966) 003.jpg is in the article TVR Griffith 400 because a volunteer editor placed it there and no volunteer editor since has objected or removed it.

Specifically, in 2022 an editor called Prova MO (who hasn't edited now since the middle of 2024) replaced the image that was there before

by the current one, saying "Better quality image". The current image was taken from a Flickr picture (here) which is identified as "TVR Griffith 400 (1966)".

If you think the image is wrong, you are welcome to replace it. I think you are saying that the image originally in the article was correct. If that is so, it is easy to replace: you just edit the article and replace File:TVR Griffith 400 (1966) 003.jpg by File:1966Griffith400.JPG. Make sure you explain in the edit summary why you are changing the image, so people won't think this is vandalism. ColinFine (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So i have 2 goals of being here

Helping editing

and

learning more and more.

But i don't know how to help. I already signed up for the website and helping thing but what do i do now? PitaVR (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first of your (so far) two edits. Your edit summary: "this is my first fixing thingy so i don't really know but i changed a misspelling". You changed an instance of ⟨millimetres⟩ to ⟨millimeters⟩.

The article "Millimetre" starts:

The millimetre (SI symbol: mm; international spelling) or millimeter (American spelling) is a unit of length in the International System of Units (SI), equal to one thousandth of a metre, the SI base unit of length.

So ⟨millimetres⟩ is hardly a misspelling. However, the spelling might be undesirable all the same, if the article Switchblade is -- quotations, etc, aside -- in US English. (See National varieties of English.) So, does the article appear to be in US or in UK English?

But what's a far bigger problem is that "Single action OTF knives" is completely unreferenced. Do you happen to have access to reliable information about switchblades? If not (and of course most people don't), then is there some subject area about which you do have good, reliable, published information? -- Hoary (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Response above written when far too sleepy. And so: If a spelling is unfamiliar, don't assume that it's mistaken. Do not attempt to convert what's written in "British" (non-US) English into US (non-British) English, or of course vice versa. Misspellings and the like are rarely as important as referencing. See how referencing works in good articles and improve it in not-so-good articles. Don't think of using "artificial intelligence" to help you or Wikipedia: it's nowhere near as "intelligent" as many of its users assume. HTH! -- Hoary (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hello I want my profile on Wikipedia, how do I go about it ~2026-11313-11 (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not host social media style profiles where people tell about themselves. This is an encyclopedia of articles, which are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject. Those articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability- such as a notable person.

Please see the autobiography policy. While not forbidden, writing about yourself is discouraged. However, if independent sources have written about you and what makes you notable, and you think you can set aside what you know about yourself, only summarizing the sources, you may use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft. 331dot (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can create a account and make a user page instead. Versions111 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Versions111: please do not give misleading information. User pages are not provided as a means to create 'profiles'. Contributors who usefully participate in the project, e.g. by making a significant number of edits to subjects with which they have no connection, are permitted to post limited autobiographical content, per Wikipedia:User pages guidelines. Signing up and then doing nothing but create a promotional userpage is unacceptable: the page is very likely to be deleted, and the contributor risks being blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I meant by normal user pages, such as interests, editing info, etc. Versions111 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to edit as someone has prevented me from doing it. Please help. ~2026-11382-95 (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to edit where? And how are you 'prevented'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This IP address is not currently blocked, but you may not be able to edit certain articles, for example if they are semi-protected. Could you say what you are unable to edit?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Joerg Dietz

Dietz appears at first to be a notable academic with an impressive background. In reality, he considers his wikipedia bio to be his personal play space, has edited it multiple times, and largely ignores his talk page.

His content and reference list are promotional Linked-in style content, and the references are all papers he has co-authored. I am seeking advice as to how to deal with this very common sort of content. To be quite frank, I would reduce his bio to

Joerg Dietz is a German professor at HEC Lausanne. He has co-authored several papers.

That is a little bit exaggerated, in the interests of wry humor. However, the question remains sincere! Thank you for your time Reechard (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Joerg Dietz is an excellent example of why people should not control their own Wikipedia articles. The impression it gives, at least to the undersigned, is "Joerg Dietz writes papers about vacuous bullshit such as 'contextual antecedents'. He's good at getting them published, but there's no evidence that anyone ever reads them." Maproom (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for a start I've tagged the article for G11 (unambiguous promotion) speedy deletion. We'll see if whichever admin sees it agrees, if not I think it's an open-and-shut AfD candidate. Athanelar (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just had to laugh. There is an old joke about behavioral psychologists having unruly dogs. Well, this fellow specializes in "organizational behavior"... And no comment on how he behaves. If there is an Afd please let me know. The page deserves deletion. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to everybody. I am not getting an answer to my previous question.

I will put it straight: how to add a note (number, etc.) to the text of an already existing page?

Last year I contributed to WP in another European language where everything was much more at hand (tools etc.) Settignano (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Settignano If you mean a reference/cite/source, see WP:TUTORIAL. We also have something called Help:Explanatory notes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:56, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Settignano I understand you want to add a reference to National Air Communications. If you want to reference a book you could follow the format of an existing reference. Reference 5 uses the following code

<ref>{{harvp|Bluffield||2009|page=205}}</ref> in the Activation and dispersal section

*{{cite book |last=Bluffield |first=Robert |date=2009 |title=Imperial Airways – The Birth of the British Airline Industry 1914-1940 |publisher=Ian Allan |isbn=978-1-906537-07-4}} in the references section

If you want to cite another kind of source you could use the Wikipedia:RefToolbar and then ask here how to make the new reference match the existing ones. TSventon (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Settignano: The "Notes" section in National Air Communications uses a reference system described at Template:Harvard citation year brackets. You have to edit the section where the note is used. You can edit National Air Communications#Pre-war preparations to see examples. If the note uses a source which is not already listed at National Air Communications#References then you have to add both the note and the source. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In some pages, after the notes (see above), there is a list of books and other written/printed documents to delve deeper into the topic. Headlines are both "References" or "Bibliography". Which is the correct one? Settignano (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are several correct ones, more at WP:CITESTYLE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The usual heading, if I'm understanding you correctly (and if the "books and other written/printed documents" are in addition to the works cited in the article), is "Further reading". See MOS:FURTHER. Deor (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per User talk:WhatamIdoing#Amazement I have a potential "used to know them" issue, so do not want to do anything. How does one get to show that the person who wrote the software and sent the first internet message deserve a page? Ideas and comments will be appreciated. Thanks Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Yesterday, all my dreams...

As with any Wikipedia article the answer is:

1. Find sources where people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject at some length, in a reliable publication (see WP:42 for more detail).
2. If you cannot find the sources, the subject is not notable (as Wikipedia uses the word) and you should go and do something else.
3. If you can find several such sources, then an article is possible. "Forget" everything that you know about the subject, and write a neutral summary of what the sources say - even those that you disagree with.

Unpublished information cannot be used; and nothing you personally know about the subject can be used unless it has been reliably published. ColinFine (talk) 10:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am familiar with the criteria but whatever I do myself will by definition be biased, given that I used to know him. There is WP:RSN but no equivalent for notability. I was hoping to get some others to build the page. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The COI seems slight, but you can err on the side of caution by using the WP:AFC process and declaring your connection to the subject. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. After thinking about it more, and the review process, I think I will just make a redirect to the history of the internet and move on. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This user Dangermanmeetz seems to have a problem with me, with following proper sources content and misinterpretation. We've had an issue with edit warring, and I called helpful voices to the Akwete cloth talk page. His edits were by and large declared wrong and my alarm on his false sourcing and original research was correct. I gave sources on the talk page even to appeal to all concensus on other motifs, all to be fair. I reverted to the version that goes with what the talk page concensus was. After the talk page discussions in which his sources were debunked, which he barely contributed in, he only reappears to make an edit while chastising me for his perceived wrong.

He says that the akwete cloth wasnt only inspired/ copied from ikaki designs from aso olona. Well, that is not what the statement says, because the sources say "main", "most popular" etc, but he seems to have some problems with that. That is what he specifically tweaks while chastising me rudely, also he doesnt reverted to his previous "common" motif version and edits it to" a motif" which isnt how the source presents it, because the sources are pretty clear cut on the level of importance of the ikaki/ikakibite motif.

This isn't even like in the main paragraph of the article even if it deserves to be, but to keep peace it is placed and has been placed in the motifs section. But that isn't enough for him, he has to diminish facts.

Here is what he said when he made his edit

"Again, Dolpina continues to misrepresent history despite the fact that another user explained in clear detail that there are OTHER designs that were not gotten from Aso Olona. The user has learned absolutely nothing."

What exactly am I to do here with someone who seems hellbound on picking a fight, and not accepting reality of sourced concensus. I find his behaviour off-putting and his tone suggesting he is more interested in edit warring again. Dolpina (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the process described at WP:Dispute resolution (you may have already done the first stage or two). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

... as you were both told by several people more than a week ago, @Dolpina and @Dangermanmeetz. You both need to stop fighting, or you both risk being blocked.

And this isn't about being right or wrong (I haven't even looked at your arguments). It's about behaviour: it takes two to fight. ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. This might not be the right place to talk about this, but anyway... Why are Total Drama, 6Teen and Stoked in the list of adult animation of the 2000s? All three aired on a kids channel (Teletoon) and also on Cartoon network, even if they were censored there. Canadian rules are just less strict. ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is Dark Justice more softcore or Hardcore? The list says softcore, the article on Dark Justice itself says hardcore. Unfortunately, this might not get answered, considering how obscure Dark Justice Is.~2026-24671-3 (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @~2026-24671-3.

The answer to a question about why something is in a particular article is nearly always because some editor decided it was appropriate to put it in, and nobody has since decided to take it out.

It is possible that there has been a discussion about it, but I would expect to find that on the talk page Talk:List of adult animated television series of the 2000s, and there is nothing there.

I suggest you post an item on that talk page, saying something like: "I don't believe ... belong in the list because ..., and I would like to remove them".

Then either somebody will come and argue the matter with you, or if nobody objects in, say, a week, you can remove them from the list yourself. As always, especially when removing material from an article, be sure to give a brief explanation in your edit summary. ColinFine (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I had a draft deleted a few months back, and I want to get retrieve it and see whether it's worth working on. Who can I ask to undelete it? Blackballnz (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Any admin can undelete. The typical place to ask is WP:REFUND, assuming the reason it wasn't deleted didn't involve a full discussion. Are you talking about Draft:Tourist Hotel Corporation (New Zealand)? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:59, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the one. Blackballnz (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have undeleted it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:14, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Blackballnz (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]