Interested in finding out what articles related to Project Australia are causing problems. Thank-you Wakelamp (talk) d[@-@]b 09:45, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Wakelamp You should be able to do this using PetScan. You could find the intersection of Category:WikiProject Australia articles and Category:Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected pages, for example. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I am having difficulties as it is returning 0 values

WikiProject Australia articles, Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected pages Wakelamp (talk) d[@-@]b 09:17, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m a small donor and use you quite frequently. You used to say the subjects age as well as date of birth, (but I’m quite awful at math) and having to figure out someone’s age spoils my enjoyment. I’m 79 and although that’s not an excuse, I’d love if you could calculate someone’s age like you used to. Thank you so much Cherrill Faruzzi ~2026-64869-5 (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you specify a certain article where this is an issue? 331dot (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-64869-5: We usually state the age if the article has an infobox. We haven't changed practice so I guess you just happened to recently see some articles which never stated the age. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that do this (eg. Stephen Fry) often use a template, {{birth date and age}}, to automatically calculate the age from the date so it stays up to date as time passes. However, the template has to be manually added to each article; sometimes editors neglect to include it. – Scyrme (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you happen to read on a mac, you can press command+space to bring up a search bar that also works as a calculator. I'm bad at math too, it's a life saver mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 23:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I want to get another opinion on notability before I get into making an article on Mary Garfield Stanley-Brown (wikidata:Q75766697; the daughter of James A. Garfield, wife of Joseph Stanley-Brown, and mother of Margaret Stanley-Brown). Besides mentions in biographies of her father, I found:

• A profile on the US National Park Service website: https://www.nps.gov/people/mary-mollie-garfield.htm
• One paragraph on the Smithsonian website: https://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/mollie-garfield-papers-8174/biographical-note
• An article in the Archives of American Art Journal: doi:10.1086/aaa.45.1_2.25435100
• A book: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Mollie_Garfield_in_the_White_House/utYEAQAAIAAJ

Normally I'd say the book would bring it over the line, but it was written by her own daughter. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:49, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: hi, if you don't get an answer here you could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. More sources would be useful, have you done (or asked somebody to do) a newspapers.com search? TSventon (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are mentions of her in newspapers, but the only secondary coverage is in obituaries, which is still routine. And I've found that WiR is more concerned about the number of articles created than the quality of sourcing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion, for what little it's worth, is that she is not wiki-notable enough to be worthy of an article in her own right. What did she do beyond being somebody's daughter/wife/mother and collecting some autographs? Chuntuk (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I prepared an articleen english on the "history of Compitese", an area in the province of Lucca, Italy, where many Italian immigrants to the United States originate. It has now become an area popular with English and Northern European tourists seeking relaxation and peace. I also wrote the Compitese entry in the Italian Wikipedia. Who should I submit it to in order to obtain a publication authorization?Romualdo Giovannoni (talk) 09:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Romualdo Giovannoni.

I have added a header to User:Romualdo Giovannoni/sandbox which allows you to submit it for review. ColinFine (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

txRomualdo Giovannoni (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Romualdo Giovannoni How did you produce this translation? Your writing style in this comment is clearly different than that in your draft. If you used an AI tool or translator to produce the translation, you should know that machine-translated articles without proper human review are generally not allowed. "Wikipedia consensus is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing."

I suspect that this is the case because I see phrases like It should be noted before any narrative which, other than being inappropriate in tone (see WP:NOTED) sounds just clunky enough that it could be a direct translation from Italian. Athanelar (talk) 10:54, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I had to adjust the tone to match the basic knowledge of English speakers, so I simplified it a lot. I’ll try to correct the form and present it again, but whom can I present it to? I didn’t use an AI translator — I studied English for eight years, perhaps badly — so if you point out the parts of the translation that sound awkward to you, I’ll be able to fix them more quickly.Tx. Romualdo Giovannoni (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote an article in English on Compitese( Lucca). Who should I send it to? It's the translation of my similar entry in Italian.Romualdo Giovannoni (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Articles for creation has instructions on how to submit a draft for review. – Scyrme (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Recent updates made by user ~2026-672111-2 appear as a political opinion labeling a public news person by using inflammatory descriptions. The update was made by a user who newly created an account and has made a single update making it look like they are anonymous. Wolfgan20 (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wolfgan20, I think there's a small typo in the username and you probably meant this edit here. It was indeed problematic and I reverted it. – NJD-DE (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those are our new temporary accounts. The WMF thought exposing non-logged in editors IPs was a privacy issue so they implemented them a few months ago mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 23:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope its a proper place to ask about that I'm trying to ask.

I had read Wikipedia:No original research twice, but still failing to understand how it should work in some cases. I have some hypothetical example that should be easy to clarify some of them if explained.

Suppose there is some rather old (lets say early 90s) and obscure video game, let call it A. Reasoning for choosing a video game as a theme for the example: i) while being of low importance, such articles are still obviously exists in Wikipedia; ii) they are reasonably easy to be accessed by somebody, who want to actually verify something about them, unlike some other possible examples of a similar kind. To clarify: I don't have some particular game in mind, and I could try to reformulate my question using some other, non-game related example if it would be of more help.

So there is some hypothetical Wikipedia article about that game A. That article contain some description of it, including, for example, amount of levels in it; suppose it say A have 40 levels (levels here are merely for example, if it matter, they could be changed to amount of playable characters there, or amount of types of weapons player could use there, etc; while I think that amount of something is a good example for this question, again, if it for some reasons not good, I could try to think about some other example). This claim about 40 levels is supported by citing a some publication printed about the time of the game release in some game-dedicated magazine, one that is count as a reliable_source. The game A's manual doesn't contain the information about amount of levels in it at all (maybe it very short overall, or developers thought its not a something to reveal to a player outright, etc.). But the game A itself actually contain 30 levels only, something that could be verified by playing it, and, to make it more reliable, by some people who reverse-engineered it (optional). Erroneous info in printed magazine could be due to mere error of their own, some misunderstanding in communication with a game developing company, difference of final released version of game with some demo sent to a magazine, etc. Still its very unlikely the source in question would bother with retraction of false info of so low importance after so long time passed, even if would get some request for.

The question is then: there is a factually incorrect data in an article, supported by a reliable source, and there are ways to verify that the data in question is erroneous, but how to prove it? Game A is obscure, and other reliable sources didn't bothered to write about amount of levels there in their articles about it (or picked up the same wrong amount), so there is no way to put a correct reliable citation about it; its manual also provide no needed info. Anybody could play game A and then write down amount of levels there, but as I understand it would be precisely that "original research", that shouldn't happen. There is possibility that information about real amount of levels is present on some internet forums/blogs/some_other_social_media dedicated to old games, but as I understand it would fail reliable_source requirement, and in any way could be the same "original research", because somebody could just play the game A, verify the actual amount of levels there, write it down in some forum, then cite themself.

So the case is: i) there is a reliable source with the wrong information; ii) there is no reliable source with the correct information; iii) its trivial to show that information in a cited reliable source is wrong by doing original research. As latter is very discouraged, do I understand it right that article in Wikipedia would have to contain a verifiable wrong information, as long that information was published in reliable source and wasn't retracted, and no other reliable source bothered to publish a correct information? (and in this case there would be a conflict of 2 equally good sources then, additionally complicating it?) And even the fact that the correct information could be easily acquired is of no help at all, unless it somehow would find a way into a whitelisted source pool (that is unlikely for obscure old info to do without really dedicated effort by somebody). The case I used for a question I think is also very different from examples in Wikipedia:No original research regarding Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, because, unlike them, it is about obscure information, that could be reasonably easy verified on its own with some effort, but had nobody "reliable", who published it yet.

It would be really weird to have an official guideline preferring to have an article with an actually wrong, but backed by a technically reliable source information, versus an article with an actually correct information; so there should be some workaround for it, just not clearly explained in Wikipedia:No original research, so if somebody would spare some time clarifying it, would be really appreciated.

Sorry, it turned out to be way more wordy than I planned, as I tried to write it clear and precise; if I missed something of importance in example still, I would try to clarify if needed. If its not proper place to ask such question, please, redirect me to a better one (I thought about Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, but it looks like as a place for a real, not hypothetical cases).

Thanks in advance. ~2026-67684-5 (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to come up with hypothetical questions, making them concise is more likely to get a response. Trying to disentangle that though, WP:NOR says we can't put original research into articles. What it doesn't say however is that we can't omit something from an article because we have reasonable grounds to suspect that though the source may be generally reliable, it is quite likely wrong for this specific thing. And note that WP:OR "does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources", meaning we can, and commonly do, engage in WP:OR when evaluating sources to see if they are reliable for specific content - this is an essential part of the editorial process, and not something that can be farmed out to WP:RS, since they aren't engaged in making evaluations according to Wikipedia's policies etc. If we don't have a reliable source for something, we simply don't mention it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for response.

I tried to write short version first, but it kept looking too abstract and vague for me no matter I tried without detailed example provided (I'm not so good in English), so I worried it would result in numerous clarifying questions in attempt to understand what is I'm about.

Do I understand you right, that in this example it would be possible to "omit" (thus remove) from the article the mention of 40 levels present in game A (but not add correct info about 30), despite it supported by a cited reliable source, because " we have reasonable grounds to suspect that though the source may be generally reliable, it is quite likely wrong for this specific thing"? This is what I'm asking about, because to show it we could only provide an "original research", that wouldn't be discouraged then? Precisely: one cannot use original research to add something to an article, but could use it to remove something from an article, even if it backed with reliable source? I thought it would seen as very disruptive action, so, probably I got it wrong now?

Not sure I understand part about evaluating right too. I understand that it would be possible to discuss it with others in Talk pages; I'm not sure how would it help in this example, unless somebody would be able to publish a correct info in reliable source as result of this communication. As I understand, even if somebody would show in Talk page that their original research is more correct than published source to others, it wouldn't make that research less original.

"If we don't have a reliable source for something, we simply don't mention it." < To clarify, because maybe I still failed to ask a question I'm about despite being wordy: I'm asking "What is a way to deal with a reliable source, that is put in a good faith, but turned out to be wrong, if it obscure enough to not have a good sources published that would disprove it, while it possible to disprove it with some simple check of actual object the article is about." So there is reliable source, its already mentioned, but its factually wrong; its too late to "simply not mention it" already. ~2026-67684-5 (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-67684-5 Perhaps the essay WP:When sources are wrong will help you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I replied to a wrong user below. ~2026-67684-5 (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You've probably heard of "cherry picking", in which someone quotes only the little parts of a source that support their idea, hoping everyone will ignore the fact that most of that source, and everything in the other sources, doesn't support their idea.

Well ... "reverse cherry picking", ignoring little parts of one source because they might be wrong (but the source is generally reliable and the rest of it is good), can be OK. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:55, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, this article is definitely answer some questions I had about conflicting sources, but not much in scope of this one, sadly, other that the thing you summarized as "hoping everyone will ignore". So recommended way is to fix information to a correct one, and hope that as its about obscure thing, it would go without scrutiny, and in case it happen to bring attention, convince administrator to close eyes on it, by proving that the change is actually to a better, even if achieved not permitted way.

Some extra attempt to formulate it (I don't like that I had to use game as example, my point was to emphase on an "obscure and unimportant" part, but something what I tried to ask could been lost in it):

There is a Wikipedia article about some landmark X located in public accessible place at Y, again, one obscure enough, backed on a some article from reliable source from years ago about its existence. Later, but years ago, that landmark was destroyed, its not exist anymore ("later" is not recently, I understand there is special routine about recent events, I'm not about it), but as its obscure, nobody bothered to make any article about its destruction in reliable source. But, anybody could go to the place that landmark was, and verify its not exist anymore (and somebody even did it, but places they are published it is not reliable enough). Wikipedia:When sources are wrong still have no good explanation how to change "there is X located at Y [1]" to "there was X, located at Y, but not anymore" without an external source confirming it, despite its trivial to produce such source by themselves; it only account a cases of new, conflicting to original source [1], new source [2], updating it with correct information.

If that question not too concise enough for the place, or inappropriate for some other reason, tell, please. I'm very curious about it, but its not worthy of any possible nuisance at all. ~2026-67684-5 (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't waste people's time with hypothetical questions if you are looking for answers to a real one. And if you have a question regarding a real article tell us what article you are referring to. We are volunteers here, and are only likely to respond positively if you make some effort to get to the point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NOR doesn't mean "never research anything," it means "don't include your own research in Wikipedia articles." Looking for sources in the first place is technically 'original research'.

Excluding information from a particular source because your research leads you to believe that the source is unreliable about that particular piece of information is not a NOR issue.

NOR applies to situations like "I went out and interviewed the subject of this article about their life and want to include that information" or "I measured that building myself and it's this size." The point of NOR is that information like this is difficult to verify, because the only way anyone could check it would be to interview that person themselves or measure the building or what have you. That's why things have to be sourced to reliable, secondary sources: because then anyone can verify it by just checking whether the source says what you claim it does. Athanelar (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to stop with it, but will dare to answer to clarify still. If it is wrong, tell, please.

I tried to precisely create examples that are essentially not about case of "information like this is difficult to verify", but about "information that is relatively easy to verify, but not important enough to have a source about it already, while have a source that is wrong about it very same time" instead.

Again, you really mean by "Excluding information from a particular source because your research leads you to believe that the source is unreliable about that particular piece of information is not a NOR issue." that one cannot add new information, that have no backing from a non-NOR source, but removal of some information backed by a reliable source that is in article merely basing on own original research is fine? Other user wrote something along that line, but not confirmed I got it right. ~2026-71679-5 (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I am quite familiar with film articles, however, I am bit confused about future not released films.

If a film is covered in some reliable sources and not having a confirmed release date, is it eligible for an article? Because even the principal photography completed, some won’t get close to a release due to post production issues and other circumstances.

so If a film not having a release date and no notable production, is it eligible for a standalone Article ?

If yes/No why? Or exceptions whhat?

Thanks for your time to respond my query! AlphaCore talk 16:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Am I reading your question correctly, can you create an article about a film if it doesn't meet the relevant notability requirements? Cabayi (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi My answer was and is No. I just need to clarify it. My question was if a film has done its principal photography but the release is not confirmed is it eligible to have a standalone article at that phase ? AlphaCore talk 17:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your question did not make it clear that you were asking for confirmation of your own judgement, It looked to me as if you were asking about an article you intended to create.

As well as the points raised by TooManyFingers I'd also consider the number of films which remain unreleased, either as a tax write-off or as a consequence of realising that if the film were released its actual value would not match its notional value in the production company's accounts forcing the producers to take an accounting loss. Cabayi (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If an unreleased film has major coverage - big long stories that actually tell a lot of material about it, not announcements, not hype, not interviews - then it might be possible. For example if the shooting of it had highly publicized major events. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:01, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TooManyFingers Perfect, thats what I wanted. Because I was bit confused of Koragajja (film) AlphaCore talk 17:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to dive in because I'm no expert, but unfortunately the entertainment industry in that part of the world has built a huge sub-industry of hype and lies. It can be hard to tell what's really going on and what to report. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:17, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(In other words, almost always no.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:06, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually sometimes yes. See, for example, Category:Unreleased films and Category:Upcoming films, as well as Category:Cancelled films and Category:Unfinished films. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@AlphaCore: Koragajja has been draftified once, so the next step if you think it is not notable would be an AFD nomination, which has just been done. TSventon (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

American Heart Association's 2025 Update for TM for High Blood pressure

I want to ask you first before editing the following. The American Heart Association updated its recommendation in 2025, from 2017, for Transcendental Meditation for high blood pressure. The current reference Wikipedia has under Transcendental Meditation from the AHA is from 2017. It is therefore out of date.

I propose under Wikipedia: "Transcendental Meditation," after references [9] [10], to add the following:

The American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology have updated their 2025 High Blood Pressure Guideline — and they recognize the Transcendental Meditation (TM) technique as an evidence-based method for lowering blood pressure.

This is the first time any meditation technique has been included in an AHA/ACC hypertension guideline. TM may now be recommended alongside lifestyle changes and medical therapy.

The TM technique is the only meditation procedure cited, with evidence rated moderate to high quality. Other meditation and mindfulness practices were not included due to weaker data.

This AHA/ACC guideline represents the nation’s most authoritative high blood pressure treatment recommendations.

Reference:^[1]

JACC Journals › JACC › Archives › Vol. 86 No. 18  14 August 2025

2025 AHA/ACC/AANP/AAPA/ABC/ACCP/ACPM/AGS/AMA/ASPC/NMA/PCNA/SGIM Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

If I have your permission or further guidelines for refinement, I will make the edit.

Sincerely,

Will Davis Will M Davis (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Will M Davis, if you want to propose a change to the article Transcendental Meditation, then go ahead and propose it, at the foot of Talk:Transcendental Meditation. -- Hoary (talk) 07:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From your reply, I edited with my update. Will M Davis (talk) 06:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've got this article I'm working on (Spelling Reform 1) and in it, there are named references sourced by PDFs. These PDFs are very long, and so per WP:Footquote, I'm wanting to add quotations to the references.

In a recent edit, I split the citations up to add these quotes, but DuplicateReferences doesn't like it and anyway, for each new reference created I'm having to repeat all the same information other than the quote and page number, which isn't ideal.

How can I go about this properly, like keep the named references as a single reference, but add different page numbers and quotations for each instance where the reference is used? Newbzy (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One solution would be to put the quotes in footnotes (for example using {{efn}}).

You could use {{rp}} to show the page number, and put the {{efn}} inside that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into the future, this is a great use-case for the sub-referencing feature currently being developed. DMacks (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of twin teammates in sports this seems like a really niche article, more like something that a kids book would have, does Twin teammates in sport qualify for a list in itself? Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Like any article, the notability criteria for lists is whether the list represents a category/concept which has been discussed in secondary sources already; so the answer is whether you can find any sources discussing the phenomenon of twin teammates in sports. If not, deletion is appropriate. Athanelar (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did do a simple search and some articles talk about the phenomenon, not many but some, the articles unfortunately doesn’t list any sources at present. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is based on whether sources exist, not whether they are included in the article at present. If there are enough sources to, in your judgement, substantiate the topic, then there's no grounds for deletion. Athanelar (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good to know Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read sports much, but I've never seen that topic covered. I have seen a probably-notable amount of coverage of one set of twins who had a good and quite long career playing next to each other on the same NHL team, and I expect that any relatively successful set of twins in any sport is likely to be covered as well, but seeing different sets of twins covered separately like that doesn't support this topic.

If there are books or major articles (reliable ones) called "Twins in Professional Sports" or whatever, where they write about this as a general phenomenon, then yes. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some sort of templated message I can send to new users about creating an article draft as their userpage?

Hi all,

As you can see over at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, it would appear it's a pretty regular occurrence for new users create article drafts on their own userpage.

This message (along with this image) pops up when someone tries to do that:

Please do not draft new articles here—to do that, create a userspace draft.

This is your user page, a place to introduce yourself to other editors to help them understand your contributions. It is not a personal website, and may be deleted if used inappropriately. Please be mindful of your privacy when deciding what to share here.

Rather that re-type "Hello, User talk:Example, when you created User:Example you would have noticed that this message appeared..."

Please do not draft new articles here—to do that, create a userspace draft.

This is your user page, a place to introduce yourself to other editors to help them understand your contributions. It is not a personal website, and may be deleted if used inappropriately. Please be mindful of your privacy when deciding what to share here.

... is there an existing template-y (and hopefully non-WP:BITE-y) sort of message that could be sent in this sort of thing happens? I've looked at Wikipedia:Template index, and can't find one. (Admittedly, my search may have not been as thorough as I'd like to think it was.)

Thanks!

Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's always {{uw-userpage}}, but it's true that this template isn't directly specific to your case. However, the fact that userpages are not encyclopaedia articles or article drafts are the first two items addressed in the bulleted list, so if I didn't know better I'd say this template is your best bet (it's intended for talk pages of course). Newbzy (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of a user-talk message to send them about it, but {{Userspace draft}} might be a good tag to put on the userpage itself. DMacks (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Newbzy and DMacks: thank you both! And also thank you to this helpdesk - this now answered question was made by an admin with ~60,000 edits and ~1,000 articles created. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know that in the Source editor, we use colons to indent text the equivalent of one tab stop, but I prefer to work in the Visual editor and haven't yet figured out how to do it there. Guidance, please—also the associated short cut, if there is one. Augnablik (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From my knowledge, that is not possible in visual editor, unless you use spaces. AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 21:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@AdmiralCarl Do you mean that leading spaces have a special function in Visual, or do you mean just adding spaces by hand on each line?

Different screens or windows have different line lengths, so adding spaces by hand isn't really useful unless all your paragraphs happen to be very very short. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:54, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, as in just pressing the spacebar repeatedly.... AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 22:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Like they said, adding repeated spaces at the start of a line doesn't work if the text is long enough to wrap around to a new line. I also think it would get on other editor's nerves if you did that in ordinary text. Usually padding things out with spaces is only done in templates in the source code to make them easier to read. I know if I found an article that started a sentence with repeated spaces I would just delete the spaces or revert the edit as unhelpful. (Edit: I'm also not sure how that would actually look in the source code - what would the visual editor convert it to?) – Scyrme (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik: I gave the visual editor a try while logged out and it seems you can indent text in the same menu at the top that you use to add a bulleted list. The icon looks like three stacked lines with bullet points on the left. It only appears when editing articles, not in Talk page replies. That same menu also lists the keyboard shortcuts as Tab or Ctrl+] to add indentation and Tab+Shift or Ctrl+[ to remove indentation.

However, on my end those options were greyed out and I couldn't actually use them. I don't know why. Maybe those options are only available to logged in editors or have to be enabled in preferences? I honestly don't know. I don't personally use the visual editor when logged in. (In fact I don't even know how to switch to it; I can't find the option, so I suspect I disabled it in my user preferences at some point. When I click "edit" it goes directly to the source editor for me.)

Maybe Tab or the options in the bullet point menu work on your end? If they're also greyed out on your end and no-one here knows why, maybe the editors over at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) might have an idea as to why they're listed but not enabled. – Scyrme (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Going directly to the source mode is done through the preferences; I enabled it but I don't remember where... AdmiralCarl (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I found the relevant preferences. Turns out you have to both check the option to "enable the visual editor" and also set the "editing mode" menu to "show both editor tabs" (I had it on "remember my last editor").

Situation on my end in the visual editor in is the same when I'm logged in. The options are listed, including shortcuts, but they're greyed out and I can't actually use them. – Scyrme (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You found them, nice, and thank you, now I can change that option. AdmiralCarl (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking up at several points on my question, Scyme. I'll address your comments from several messages at the same time here.

— I noticed that the bulleted icon you mentioned occurs at the top left only in Source edit mode, whereas in Visual it appears in the Tool bar. Could it be that the indentation tool was once operative but no more? That seems counterintuitive.

— And when I did use the icon, like you I found the two options greyed out as you did.

— As for using the Tab key, that wouldn't indent an entire paragraph, only its first line. This reminds me, though, that some months ago I had a somewhat similar conversation as this one with my mentor, although he rarely uses the Visual editor; and what he suggested was to use the Block feature among the Paragraph tools. That indents the paragraph from both the left and the right, however, not just from the left. It's not quite what I'm looking for.

Still hoping, so now I'll follow your advice and go with my question to VP-T. Augnablik (talk) 07:10, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just minding why on a recent video, I can see on the stats analytics the fact that some views are from Wikipedia.

Could you please explain how this is working? Perhaps here's the title « Le VRAI problème chez Anyme (Racisme)"

I would like to know why I see some views from Wikipedia here, and I don't see my creation on the website on the Anyme023's page.

Thanks! -Kaiko ~2026-71409-3 (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There was a similar question recently at Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archive 77#Youtube views coming from wikipedia? Cryptic suggested that, if your analytics give the exact urls people are going to, or at least prefixes of them, you can find [an answer] very efficiently with Special:Linksearch. TSventon (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I searched the title at YouTube and found the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZacmi-ykRc. I cannot find any links to it in the English or French Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In 2005 I began editing at Wikipedia using my IP Address as my username. Having just changed my broadband supplier I discover that my username is no longer recognised to login here. Who can help, please, to let me change my username and retrieve those past edits? - CLOFM ~2026-71910-2 (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which 'username' are you referring to? I don't think it has ever been possible to register an IP address as a username. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well when I joined Wiki in 2005 it certainly let me use my 12-digit number and plenty of people did do that back then. There's only one slot for entering our "username" when we login - unless you know otherwise! - clofm ~2026-71910-2 (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Andy, you can still see plenty of IP numbers as usernames when you view the history of an article. OK maybe not as many as once upon a time, but my username is still visible in plenty of histories. clofm ~2026-71910-2 (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell us what username you have been using. We aren't mind readers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those IP numbers aren't usernames. It was never possible to use an IP as a username on Wikipedia; that was explicitly not allowed. Instead, if you edited without logging in to an account, it would use your IP like a 'temporary username' of sorts.

I think it is quite possible that you were editing logged out the whole time you thought you were using your IP as a username. In any case, it would be helpful if you'd tell us what that IP address was, so we can find your contributions. Athanelar (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think this person may have asked this question already, either here or Teahouse, within the past month(ish), and never answered that time either. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Presiously, if you did not create an account, your edits were attributed to your IP, which was assigned by your ISP. All those edits still exist and are still attributed to those IPs in article histories; if you know the IP, you can see the list of all if its edits. However, they could never be transferred to another attribution--neither a different IP if your IP changed nor an actual account if you created one. If your IP changed your contributions list did not follow you. Retaining "all your edits" even as you change IPs was one of the advantages of creating an account.

Now we have "temporary accounts" that are automatically created if you make an edit without creating a regular account. Like IP non-accounts, TA edits cannot be transferred, so if your TA changes, your previous edits do not follow you. Like IP edits, TA edits do not transfer if you change TA (but like IP you can always look up those old edits if you know the TA name). Unlike IPs, TA identity is designed to automatically live with your device, so if you switch IPs your TA stays the same and your history is intact. However, TA accounts automatically and non-optionally expire in 90 days, and might also change if you switch browsers or delete your cookies. If you make an edit afer that, you get a new TA with no contributions history.

Overall, the only way to retain beyond 90 days is now to create an account. And from that account, you can add a note that you previously edited using IP... and TA... so others can see that history of yours. DMacks (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-71910-2 What EXACTLY was your user name? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A random sequence of twelve numbers. What's the point, anyway, it's not like the edit history can be retrieved somehow? JustARandomSquid (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JustARandomSquid With the IP, something like [2] can be found, and the OP might be a little happier. See also my comment below. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This person claims to have specific knowledge of the numbers they were using. If they have the numbers, I want to help them. If in fact they don't have the numbers, I want to expose their lie. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JustARandomSquid No, it wasn't a random sequence of 12 numbers; it was a specific sequence of 12 numbers, which was apparently a fixed IP address for this user. David10244 (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-71910-2 Find an article you know you edited. Look at the edit history, and find an edit you made. The edits you made with that IP are linked from there. If you made edits with several IP:s, repeat as necessary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Thanks to everybody who has replied. I see now how my own memory has played a trick. As DMacks says: it wasn’t so much me *entering* my IP number as username in 2005 but simply starting to edit and by default my IP number became the index for my edits like a temporary account today. And thanks to Athanelar for your clarification and to Gråbergs Gråa Sång for the hint for reaching my history… I’ve been lucky to have the same IP address for 20 years, until now, but clearly I now must create a named account… As for AndyTheGrump (living his name to the hilt) and TooManyFingers, I have not mentioned that IP address of mine because the rules, published at the top of this column, say explicitly: “Do not provide your email address or any other contact information.” On balance, job done, so thanks all round. ~2026-71910-2 (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-71910-2 If you want, when/if you make a named account, you can note on your userpage something like "My previous edits can be seen at [3]." It's up to you, and as you say, revealing ones IP can have some unwanted effects, that's why we now have the WP:TA thing instead. Then again, your IP has been in the open for 20 years on WP, and still is, if one knows where to look. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-71910-2: I've found your old IP (which is unusually static), but I don't want to reveal it here, even though I didn't use TAIV directly to obtain it. Registering an account at Special:CreateAccount will give you a persistent account that'll last for as long as Wikipedia exists, even if your IP changes. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jewish Organizations

I've recently created the sidebar (seen to the right) of Jewish organizations, and I want to add this onto some relevant articles. However, there are dozens or even hundreds of articles in some of its sections, which I don't want to add manually. Is there a way to use a tool or a bot to automatically have it added to every article that's within a specific category? Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why a sidebar and not a template to go, far less distractingly, at the foot (like for example Template:Restaurants in the City of New York, as seen at the foot of, for example, The Coffee Shop (New York City))? -- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The lists here do seem excessively long for a sidebar. Sidebars have to share space with images and other templates, but expanding the "American" section, would likely displace most them from their intended location on the page. Usually sidebars are selective in what they include, rather than comprehensively trying to replicate the contents of a category.

Many sidebars link to a relevant category for a more comprehensive list of relevant articles (eg. {{Philosophy sidebar}} or {{Taoism}}, which have an explicit links to their main categories in the "above" or "below" links, or {{Human history}} which links to its main category in the "part of a series on" preamble at the top). This helps avoid the problem of trying to include everything.

If the intention is to have a comprehensive list organised by topic or region (as opposed to just an alphabetical listing in a category page), you can also make a "List of..." or "Outline of..." article and link to that in a prominent position in the sidebar/navbox, like {{Philosophy sidebar}} (sidebar) or {{Geography topics}} (navbox) do. – Scyrme (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's far too big and loosely connected for a sidebar. It has 411 links! Some of it could be split into multiple navboxes. Don't use header markup ==...== in templates. The sections are added to the table of contents so I removed the transclusion from this page. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are precedents for large/complex navboxes. For example, {{philosophy topics}} has full, large collapsible subsections organised by branch/topic, era/history, and region/geography. I know many editors prefer smaller navboxes too, but at least when navboxes get too large it's less intrusive than an overlong sidebar. Nothing on the page gets displaced far from where it's intended to be. In general, navboxes are less prone to causing arguments over what warrants inclusion in the template and what articles should use the template. Might be the way to go if Wikieditor662 is very adamant about not cutting the links down much. – Scyrme (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be both, where a navbox has more items, while the sidebar has only the most notable ones? Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's basically the current situation with {{Philosophy sidebar}} vs the navbox {{Philosophy topics}}. That said, sometimes if a sidebar and navbox are very similar an editor may list it at WP:TFD arguing that one of them should be deleted. – Scyrme (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I added it, as can be seen in Template:List of Jewish organizations, however, now I have the same problem: how am I going to add the navbox to all of these articles? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You would probably need a bot or script to do it. I doubt there's a ready made, public bot available, since an automatic way for any editor to flood a whole category with a template is something that could easily be abused.

There may be a way to use WP:AWB with a script or something to speed up the job of doing it manually, but I've never used it so I could be wrong.

If no one else here knows of a way, you may have better luck asking at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). – Scyrme (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing a lot of articles with this. For example, Leonid Chernovetskyi, has a citation to https://www.facebook.com/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fchernovetskiy

Should this be deleted or moved to the External links section or marked as citation needed ? Meltedrock (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook and other social media accounts do belong in External links. Facebook as a reference can be used sparingly, for example, "John Jones announced his candidacy for mayor of Swan Lake on Facebook." The sentence "John Jones is active on Facebook" might be true when the sentence was inserted, but it might not be true later, so I'm not crazy about using a Facebook page to support the article saying someone is active on Facebook, as Leonid Chernovetskyi does, sloppily, viz "Leonid Chernoverskiy belongs [sic] remains active on social media, including Facebook". The External link should be templated, viz:

* {{Facebook|Fchernovetskiy}}

which on Leonid Chernovetskyi will display as

• Leonid Chernovetskyi on Facebook

Anomalocaris (talk) 06:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

However, in this case, that shouldn't be added to Leonid_Chernovetskyi#External_links per WP:ELMIN. His official website would be enough even if it didn't link his FB, which it does. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thanks @Gråbergs Gråa Sång and @Anomalocaris Meltedrock (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Meltedrock: I believe WP:ELMIN is saying that ordinarily there should be only one official website. I don't think it's deprecating the listing of social media sites in External links. We might not want to list the Facebook page just because the subject of an article has a Facebook page, but if the article specifically notes that the individual is active on Facebook, it seems to me that it's fine to include their Facebook page in External links. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Normally, only one official link is included. ... However, Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website. Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites."

If there is no firstnamelastname.com website, then it's fine to pick one social media, FB, insta, whatever, to do the WP:ELOFFICIAL job. Raegan_Revord#External_links and Johnathon_Schaech#External_links are examples. If the EL-section has a list of several subject social media, it's time for weeding. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see WP:NOSOCIAL - Arjayay (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which is under the heading "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to:" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the article Leonid Chernovetskyi indicates that he is notable mainly as a politician and businessman, and the article does not suggest that he is notable as a social media influencer or that his Facebook page has any significance, so I agree that External links should not include his Facebook page. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1336159518

When will Citation Bot be online?

Thanks, Ahri Boy (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What displays as laodong.vn https://laodong.vn/van-hoa-giai-tri/anh-trai-say-hi-chieu-lien-tiep-2-tap-trong-tuan-1380475.ldo. Retrieved 2026-02-02 lacks a title. Every cite template requires specification of a title. Also, it gives "laodong.vn" as the author. But a domain name can't be an author. There are other examples here too of generic names being presented as authors. If a web page doesn't specify one or more human authors, then simply skip the "first", "last", and "author" attributes. -- Hoary (talk) 08:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I keep getting pop-ups about watchlist labels, but these have no explanation as to what they are meant to be used for, or links to where further information is available. They are not mentioned in Help:Watchlist, so where is there any information about them? - Arjayay (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think these were deployed across various wikis literally within the last 24 hours or less, and I guess the local documentation hasn't caught up yet. It looks like mw:Help:Watchlist labels is the place to start. Ping @Samwalton9 (WMF) who I think has been working on this. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 12:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Thanks ClaudineChionh - although that page states "This page is currently a draft." and doesn't explain why you might wish to label things. - Arjayay (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yep, I'm happy to help if you have questions with this. It's a Community Tech project but I've been working with them on it. Claudine has linked the relevant help page, which we've been keeping up to date, so feel free to copy over text to the local help page. If you have any questions, bugs, or feature requests feel free to let me know here and I can get those documented and passed on to the team! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Samwalton9 (WMF) As I posted above in an edit-conflict, that page states "This page is currently a draft." It also doesn't explain what the idea behind it was nor what it can be used for - please provide some examples. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjayay Good point! We hadn't got to finalising the page yet. I've just updated it, added images, and removed that Draft template. Is it clearer now? Is there anything there that you think could still be improved? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Samwalton9 (WMF) that is a lot clearer - but is it now linked from the pop-up? (I can't tell, as i dismissed them) - it is still not linked from Help:Watchlist, nor upon clicking the "Labels" link on my watchlist page - so how is a user supposed to find out about it? - Arjayay (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjayay When you're on Special:WatchlistLabels there is a Help link in the top right which points to this help page. As a local help page, I'll leave Help:Watchlist to be updated by local editors to include information about this feature or point to the MediaWiki help page. We might want to update the Help icon at Special:Watchlist to point to a more generic help page than the one that it currently links to, so I've filed T416179. We should also update mw:Help:Watching pages to point to our new help page too, we'll do that soon. Thanks for chatting this through - making sure new features are well documented can be hard! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Making sure new features are well documented is an item to put on every development project's predeployment checklist. Why would a developer push something live with a documentation page that literally states that it is in draft form? Please adjust the WMF's basic development deployment checklists; that, at least, should not be hard. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Samwalton9 (WMF) How would someone know to "be" at Special:watchlist labels when they see the pop-up? The doc should be linked from the pop-up, and that should have certainly been step 1 of the implementation and tezting. If what I read here is true, it's incredible that this step was missed! David10244 (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Samwalton9 (WMF) I suspect that whatever bugs it might have, they're probably less important than this: whoever was dragging their feet complaining that this shouldn't be released yet, they must immediately (and permanently) be given the power to overrule the ones who decided to push ahead anyway. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TooManyFingers Could you elaborate on this a little? Do you mean that the feature should not have been released in its current state? I'd love to know why you think this if so! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjayay I think my pop-up had a "next" button or something, and it disappeared after I had followed that to the end, like 2-3 clicks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Yes Gråbergs Gråa Sång it did have a "next" and then a second screen - neither of which linked to, or explained, anything - and the only way to stop it popping up every time I went to my watchlist, was to click the "Got it" button - even though the only thing I had "got" was annoyed at the unhelpful pop-ups. - Arjayay (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Samwalton9 (WMF) - For awareness, there's at least one other community talkpage that was wondering about the new feature: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Manage labels. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it currently doesn't read "Got it" as "don't show me this tutorial again". Can't imagine it won't get patched soon. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The large box covers up or obscures Watchlist notices. Failed experiment or WMF make-work project? Better gone than present. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Click the button like it says. Two clicks and it goes away. The idea is that you could (for example) make a label called "socks" and add it to pages on your watchlist that you want to occasionally check to see if a particular sock has returned. Then you can choose to view only the pages with that label. Johnuniq (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Did that before I posted here. Please think of the tens of thousands of users who won't know to keep on clicking, and who will have to clear this needless box every time they look at their watchlist. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  "Click the button like it says. Two clicks and it goes away. The idea is that you could (for example) make a label called "socks" and add it to pages on your watchlist that you want to occasionally check to see if a particular sock has returned. Then you can choose to view only the pages with that label."

  So you've added a feature without documentation, that I am never likely to use, and which obscures my Watchlist every time I try to look at it, and which I have to click twice to make it go away, because you know better than me what I "may" want to use? Have I summarised it correctly? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz Are you seeing the popup every time you visit your Watchlist? It should only displayed once - after you click 'Got It' they won't be shown again. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  If it's helpful Sam, I had this pop up on five occasions whilst on mobile, each time clicking the prompt. Looks to have stopped now. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Samwalton9 (WMF) Why was this implemented without community discussion? David10244 (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• See also discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § A new feature added, without community consent. A prominent announcement of this new feature before going live might have prevented some complaints/confusion. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 23:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm trying to request a new article, about myself and to say that I'm confused, is an understatement. For instance, there is no such button as "Publish changes" only "Publish page". Hoping someone can help. Echo-Reverb (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Publish" in our context simply means "save and make public", as all edits are public.

Are you attempting to create an article about yourself, or just request one? 331dot (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Request one, preferably. Echo-Reverb (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can request one at Requested Articles(if you're not there already)- but it is backlogged to the point of uselessness; any request you make will not be acted on for some time, if ever(and that's assuming you meet the relevant criteria for inclusion).

If you truly feel that you meet the relevant notability criteria(like musician or writer or academic or just a person) you are free to attempt to create an article about yourself, though its inadvisable; please see the autobiography policy. You would need to set aside everything that you know about yourself and limit yourself to summarizing what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about you. Most people have great difficulty doing that about themselves, especially without prior Wikipedia editing experience. But, if you want to try nevertheless, you may create and submit a draft via the Article Wizard. It is rare for people to succeed in writing about themselves, but it does happen.

Be advised that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily a good thing. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That's helpful. Yes, I meant the criteria and it would be helpful to have everything in one place. Echo-Reverb (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, the best place for you to have all information about yourself in one place is a personal website or social media account that you own and control. You will not have exclusive control over any Wikipedia article about you, and it may say things that you might prefer not be said as long as they appear in an independent reliable source and are not defamatory. Most people fail in attempting to write about themselves, but you are free to attempt to submit a draft as I advise. I might suggest that you use the new user tutorial first. 331dot (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll sleep on it. Thanks. Echo-Reverb (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Meet, I meant to say (no pun). Echo-Reverb (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that almost everyone who comes here for help is quite confident that they meet the criteria, and yet they very often don't meet them - often not even close to meeting them. The usual problem is Wikipedia:Notability. Within that category, common problems are

• sources that don't tell the subject's entire history
• sources that are influenced by the subject

We have to stick very close to being only a restatement of what's already in the sources. For example, the subject is allowed to fill in for themselves "My birthdate is February 2", but not allowed to fill in "I'm a well-known painter". For that reason, we need sources that truly speak for themselves - we have to be confident that if we just plopped the three best sources onto a table, readers would have the full story just from that.

And while sources that appear to have possibly been influenced by the subject (or their publicist or associates) are not completely useless, they are much closer to useless than subjects usually expect. They can't be used at all when it comes to telling your story - they can't be one of those "three best sources" mentioned in the previous paragraph. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m pleased to say that a colleague has stepped in and will now be taking up the challenge. He’s set up a few pages previously and although we discussed it many years ago, I didn’t want to burden him, however, he thought I’d never ask. Bless him. ~2026-73285-7 (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that if the person writing about you also works about you, they will have a Conflict of interest. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, however, Sean doesn’t work for or with me, he’s a fan, but it just feels more comfortable to say colleague. I generally refer to individuals as “my good friend and colleague”. It works for me. ~2026-73285-7 (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He will still have a conflict of interest. Editors have no need to contact the subject of an article. Theroadislong (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And, @~2026-73285-7, Sean will still have the challenge of

• finding the independent reliable sources about you that are required to establish that you meet Wikipedia's criterai for notability (most of us don't); and if he cannot find them, telling you so, and not spending any more time on this project;
• setting aside everything that he knows about you except from those sources
• making sure that almost everything in the article is verifiable from a reliable published source that is wholly independent of you: not only not written or published by you, but not based on an interview or press release from you or your associates or organisations. (Some limited information may come from non-independent published sources: see primary)
• fairly summarising what those sources say, even if he disagrees with them or knows that you will disagree with them.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you had got someone who had never heard of you, AND was happy to write for free, AND you provided them absolutely no information but just left them to look it up for themselves, your sense of relief would be justified. But the situation you've described is, from Wikipedia's point of view, really no different from having you do it yourself (or only barely different). TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes in user creation logs, you'll see that it states that a user created another user account. How does the log know that? Does one not need to sign out in order to create another account? thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 18:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Users with the WP:Account creator user group are able to make accounts without needing to sign out, which the log knows and logs. I hope this answers your question! dot.py (alt) 18:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's it. The log in question I saw was a blocked user creating other accounts (which were later blocked as socks). thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 18:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Normal users can make up to 6 accounts per 24 hour period via Special:CreateAccount. Account creator allows users to make more than that. Skynxnex (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked, it looks like you don't actually need the account creator user group, you would just need to go to Special:CreateAccount. Account creators just aren't limited to the 6 accounts/day limit. dot.py (alt) 18:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) Logged in users can create accounts using Special:CreateAccount, and it will be logged that they created a new account from their account. Typically used for creating bot accounts or for ACC purposes. Tenshi! (Talk page) 18:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is also done by some of our less sophisticated sockmasters. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can create a new account while being signed in. Account creators can bypass the 6 account/IP/day limit. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago I hired a wiki writing firm to assist with a biography of my Father. They were supposed to submit it to Wikipedia for review. They never did that and now they are not able to be contacted. I believe I was scammed and I REALLY wanted to speak with one of your representatives. I am not real computer literate but I have spent so much time and money on this project, I do not want to scrap it. Help, please. ~2026-72700-6 (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common scam. See Wikipedia:Scam warning. Sugar Tax (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As you suspect, you were scammed. Please read the scam warning. In that regard, there's not much we can do to help you. You can contact your bank and have the charge declared fraudulent. You could contact your local authorities but there's probably not much they can do.

We can't do much to write the article for you; this is a volunteer effort, not a business. Writing a new article is challenging, but you can try by using the Article Wizard. I'd suggest using the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The overwhelmingly important detail is that whomever you hired has no actual affiliation with Wikipedia itself. It's a third party that is totally independent, and you'd have to work with them directly (or with whatever other financial or legal services are relevant). So that's why we can't do anything...not because we aren't sympathetic or frustrated by this sort of situation. DMacks (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have a copy of the biography. Where can I submit it for Wikipedia review and suggestions? KANINGRYTA (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@KANINGRYTA Visit WP:AFC , which is a submission vehicle an inexperienced or inexpert user will often use. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You may use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft. However, you should first formally disclose your conflict of interest on your user page(User:KANINGRYTA) You should make sure that the draft is a summary of what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about your father, and that it has no personal knowledge. You need to show that your father is a notable person(there are also narrower criteria for certain fields, like musicians) 331dot (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-72700-6@KANINGRYTA In addition to what others have said, please forward your entire conversation with this 'wiki writing firm' to the reporting address at paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org so appropriate action can be taken against these scammers. Athanelar (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just a caution: when sending your entire conversation, do not omit, edit, or redact anything. Send every bit of it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to add an animation to an article. I have since reverted this edit, since the GIF was not animated unless you click on it. I have seen animations work without enlarging them on other articles. How can I make the GIF play all the time? Emgram (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The File:Homotopy lifting gif.gif file on commons has a comment "Note: Due to technical limitations, thumbnails of high resolution GIF images such as this one will not be animated. The limit on Wikimedia Commons is width × height × number of frames ≤ 100 million." DMacks (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Emgram (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have a time zone preference set, but there are timestamps displayed that the preference doesn't affect. I don't like Wikipedia showing some converted and some non-converted times - I'd prefer them all to act the same. Consistency and reliability over convenience.

But convenience is nice too. I've seen at least one Wikipedia user script that says it will change Wikipedia's UTC to local time in places where that normally isn't done, but I'm not convinced it would be free of unintended consequences. I'd rather just switch off my time zone preference, see all of Wikipedia in UTC, and be certain Wikipedia is working right - unless there's some kind of indication like "Oh, tons of people use that script, it works great for me, never had a problem".

I'm not even sure I could identify all the possible pitfalls of messing with time display, let alone knowing how to check whether such a script deals with them correctly, and I figure there must be a good reason why Wikipedia doesn't show everything in everyone's local time by default.

Note: I have intentionally not linked to the script, because if I get much "Really? Never heard of that - where did you see it?" then I already know it's not for me. I don't want this to become an in-depth discussion of the particulars of running a time-display script and how to know where and whether it's behaving correctly; I just want to know if it's already in wide problem-free use. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So what essentially do you want help with (summarise the 4 paragraphs above) ? AdmiralCarl (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know whether numerous people who each have many years of experience on Wikipedia use such a script. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You mean scrips that change UTC time to the time of the user (I've seen those on user pages and their talk)? AdmiralCarl (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The time zone setting at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering is part of MediaWiki and only affects times shown in MediaWiki logs like page histories, wathclist, user contributions. Signatures have the time stamp hard coded as page text like 22:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC). The English Wikipedia has the user-made gadget (a script) "Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time (documentation)" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. It's disabled by default but you can try it without editing your common JavaScript. I tried it once but disabled it for several reasons. It uses am/pm (could be changed with a user js setting), it changes the displayed time after the page has already loaded, it makes it harder to refer to a post by its time (always use the original UTC for that), and also harder (at least for me when I was inexperienced with it) to work out what else the user was doing at the time. Special:GadgetUsage says 22,848 users (1,025 active users) have enabled it. It works correctly as far as I know but not everybody will like it. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll just switch my preference to UTC and be done with it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Can you please give me a brief list of things that a experienced user should know? Anya2025 11:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PRIMER for a good introduction.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make an article via the sandbox and it got reset even after I published it. PLease help me. Calvinnnn5 (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: [4]. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Calvinnnn5.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

Starting writing an article in any other way than finding sources which each meet all the criteria in WP:42 is usually a waste of time.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Calvinnnn. In addition to ColinFine's excellent advice above, please read the following linked subsection of a larger topic: WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which includes a decision Wikipedia determined in 2017: "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist."

There are around 15,000 Middle Schools (so named) in the USA alone, and probably more than 100,000 Middle Schools or their equivalent Worldwide.

(Some countries have few or any because they structure their education system differently.)

Very few Middle Schools merit an article in a global encyclopedia like Wikipedia, and when they do it's usually because of something exceptional about them. Ordinary Middle Schools have no reason for Wikipedia to include them, and your article, now a Draft, does not suggest that your School is any different. Sorry, but it's very unlikely that an acceptable article about it is possible. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF

Hello! Ive recently been working on the backlog of COI edit requests where I frequently encounter paid editors. I was wondering what yall's thoughts were concerning paid editors and assuming good faith. Do you think the "barrier" to assuming bad faith is lower? Thanks! - Otherwise (Talk?) 17:33, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Where is an example that made you ask this question?

It says "assume good faith", but it does NOT say "assume good work". Bad work is bad work. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A disclosed paid editor from the Expedia Group requested removal of a section of an article regarding a scandal saying it was not related to the Expedia Group, only a particular subgroup of it. They claimed they reviewed the sources of the relevant section and that "Expedia Group is only mentioned in passing in two sources as a part owner of Trivago". When I examined the same sources, it clearly stated that the Expedia Group as a whole was involved.

In my initial response, I will admit I assumed bad faith and was passive aggresive. I since revised my reply to be more civil. I was just wondering what yall's thoughts were on this. - Otherwise (Talk?) 19:11, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend working on some of the more recent COI edit requests, if you're starting to feel a bit frustrated due to the creativity of the older requests. If ERs are just sitting there, there's a decent chance its bc the request is in some way deficient. One or more of long, biased, or poorly formatted.   MetalBreaksAndBends   (talk) (contribs) 17:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TMF, @Mustbeotherwise. Paid editors who are new to Wikipedia (which many of them are) generally simply don't understand our policies on promotion, advertising, NPOV etc, and are here in good faith, trying to do something that they don't know might be impossible or forbidden. ColinFine (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've assumed good faith for all paid editors unless I have a reason not to. I feel like I should've worded my question a different way. I guess my question is, is it reasonable to have a lower threshold to assume bad faith for paid editors compared to non-paid editors? - Otherwise (Talk?) 19:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The "official" answer is that it's the same as for anybody else: assume good faith until proven otherwise, and remember that people can do a lot of unproductive things in good faith.

My personal stance on the matter is that we have to remember what we ought to mean by 'good faith.' The usual way people seem to mean it is that anybody acting without disruptive or vandalistic intent is acting in 'good faith'. For me, though, 'good faith' means a good faith attempt to contribute to the encyclopedia: which means doing the necessary due diligence to familiarise oneself with our rules and standards to at least some extent before jumping headlong into editing, article creation, etc.

In my experience, paid editors most often are here with a singleminded intent to get their edits/draft published, and have absolutely no intent or desire to contribute to the encyclopedia outside of that. If it were up to most of them, they would happily create the most appalling, shoddily sourced, non-NPOV article you've ever seen and call it a day, because their goal is to publicise their company/employer/self, not to build an encyclopedia. They only care about meeting Wikipedia's standards because it is a barrier between them and getting their edits published. That, for me, is antithetical to 'good faith.'

If someone showed up to volunteer at a soup kitchen so they could record themselves doing it for internet clout, and as a result their food hygiene practices were subpar, they weren't interacting properly with the people coming in to get fed, etc, would anyone suggest they are acting 'in good faith?' In the Wikipedia sense of the word, they arguably would be, considering they aren't actively trying to sabotage the operation. But would anyone really think they're genuinely there to contribute to the operation? Of course not. Athanelar (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Well, I guess a better question would be, when is good faith proven otherwise? If an paid editor makes a false statement to support their change, do I still assume good faith? - Otherwise (Talk?) 19:48, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you can treat the false material as 100% false while assuming it wasn't their fault, sure. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:38, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(However, I'm conflicted about this, because assuming good faith where it's clear none exists is IMO counterproductive and dishonest.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:31, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't know to what end It's reasonable to assume good faith... A recent example, involving you actually, is this COI edit request. So many of their claims were misleading. - Otherwise (Talk?) 08:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith doesn't mean assuming they're right.

Maybe AGF should quote Hanlon's razor directly, if it doesn't already - i.e. if stupidity is enough to cover someone's actions, then there's no point in accusing them of malice. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:11, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AGF is not how to edit, it's part of how to not get in a fight when you could have avoided it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:14, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see anything on WP:AGF which exempts certain classes of people from its scope? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Can I change my username to have a space between DUOS and Global? I'm trying to create a page for my company, but it's not allowing me to publish a page without the corresponding name.

~~~~ DUOSGLOBAL (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please see User talk:DUOSGLOBAL for important information. Your username needs to represent you as the account operator, not your company. Drafts are created via the Article Wizard. 331dot (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you're trying to create a draft about a company called Duos Global, do it at Draft:Duos Global not on your userpage.

But moreover heed 331dot's notice about changing your username. As it stands, you may be blocked from editing because your username is inappropriate.

Also thoroughly read WP:COI, WP:PAID and WP:BOSS before you think about creating a draft for your company. Athanelar (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DUOSGLOBAL: There is an even more fundamental question: is this company notable by our definition? See WP:NCORP there are perhaps 100 million companies in the world. Less than 100,000 of them are likely to meet our criteria for inclusion. Notability is the only absolute criterion for inclusion, and if the company is not notable, it does not matter which other rules, guidelines, or practices you follow: the company cannot have an article and if an article somehow sneaks in, it will be deleted. -Arch dude (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hello

what is different between [WP] and [MOS] ??( i have seen in summery of edits)

where can i use them ??

should i memorize them??

i don't know how to use them please help me to know about how to use . Anya2025 20:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Anything listed as WP: is those in Wikipedia space. This is a redirect to something like WP:NOT being Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

MOS stands for Manual of Style, so the style guide. These generally link to pages within our Manual of style, which is the prefix Wikipedia:Manual of Style. For instance, MOS:CAPS links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters.

In general, these links being sent to you are to show policies and guidelines that apply to Wikipedia. There are a lot, but you should try and follow them as best you can. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:11, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much 🌹 Anya2025 20:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:" and "Wikipedia:" are prefixes for the Wikipedia namespace. You can see a list of all the namespaces and more information about them at Wikipedia:Namespace. – Scyrme (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

These namespaces are a kind of categories. When you use one of them, you should memorize that it exists - for example, now you know that WP: and MOS: both exist. And knowing they exist, it's also good to get to know what kind of stuff is in them, so that when you want to look for something you'll know where to start.

But don't try to memorize all the items that each one of them contains - your head would explode! :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much 🌺 Anya2025 06:41, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

what constitutes an AI, more specifically can we use text editors such as grammerly Ducklan (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to one of Wikipedia's biggest ongoing debates.

Consensus as it stands is that AI chatbots like ChatGPT should not be used to generate entirely new articles. Using them to generate comments in discussions is also heavily discouraged and a ban is being discussed.

Grammarly does utilise large language models and so should be used with caution, as it's been known to overcorrect and change the meaning of text.

For full guidance, please read WP:LLM Athanelar (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would much rather read someone's bad grammar. Not everyone is at the highest level in English, and that's fine. If people get your meaning almost all the time, then it's probably enough. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They're extremely strongly discouraged, because there is no need to let them corrupt your writing. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 01:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just joined Wikipedia for the first time. Any tips on making and editing articles? Also what should I first do as a new member on Wikipedia? NoriAndris (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First tip is don't even think about creating new articles until you've grasped the basics, and got a bit more familiar with how the place works. Beyond that, see Help:Introduction, and Help:Editing, and then find yourself something that suits your skills and interests. Take a look at articles on subjects you know something about. Could the wording be improved? Are there grammatical errors? If you are reasonably confident in your English-language skills, it isn't hard to find articles that could do with a bit of copy-editing. Or maybe the article needs more (or better) sources: this is a bit trickier, since we have fairly strict rules about what we will cite in articles - see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Getting a firm grasp of our sourcing policy takes a bit of time, but it is an essential skill if you want to contribute new content. More generally though, my advice is to find something that interests you, work on that, and don't let yourself get bored. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you want suggestions for ways you can contribute, Wikipedia:Task Center may be helpful. – Scyrme (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have left some useful introductory links on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft talk:Wiknic

An unknown reviewer said "Even for events hosted by the English Wikipedia, the English Wikipedia is not a reliable source." even though the subject of the article isn't hosted by English Wikipedia, but instead Wikimedia. Also why did they say it's not a reliable source? This person is incorrect. Jaxx99 (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They are not incorrect, and this is official policy, as the English Wikipedia indeed is not a reliable source and must not be used as one, see Wikipedia:Circular. AdmiralCarl (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Wiknic

@Jaxx99: Wikipedia is not a reliable source - even for incidents involving itself - and if it does directly involve Wikipedia/-media, Wikipedia would be a primary source with regards to it. Your draft also cites nothing what-so-ever, which would doom any article regardless of topic. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To add, please do not put a section for the References if there are no references. AdmiralCarl (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It would also fail to meet Wikipedia:Notability criteria unless discussed in depth in independent reliable sources - which seems unlikely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry as this was my first draft I made. I will fix it because I'm a beginner to Wikipedia articles and didn't know this obscure rule. Jaxx99 (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, no one knows everything. AdmiralCarl (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jaxx99, and welcome to Wikipedia.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely why we consider it inadvisable for newcomers to dive right into article creation. Get some experience editing for a while first and you'll understand the obscure rules much better. Athanelar (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

where do i write a article Casosos (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:YFA and then WP:Article wizard. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 01:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note it is not recommended that new users attempt to create a new article. Please get familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before attempting. AdmiralCarl (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is not always the case. Many editors, including myself, spent some of their first edits drafting and submitting articles. I don't think we should be too down on people enthusiastic to give it a whirl. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 01:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. At the least, be familiar with Wikipedia:Notability. AdmiralCarl (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being understanding.

I have researched some Generals of the First World War.

I have come across a SPINKS sale catalogue when his property was sold after his death.

The catalogue contains much more info about his life than is currently published.

How do I go about having it included?

Would someone be interested in helping?

This is not my work, I simply discovered it. Attribution will be the SPINKS the Auction House

SPINKS AUCTION DECEMBER 2020

Auction: 20003 - Orders, Decorations and Medals

Lot: 2

Sold by Order of a Direct Descendant

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL

SIR CHARLES MacPHERSON DOBELL KCB CMG DSO ADC FRGS

(1869-1954)

Charles Dobell's collection of Orders, Decorations, Medals and archival memorabilia represents a comprehensive memorial to a soldier whose place among his peers was recognised by his inclusion in John Singer Sargent's group portrait 'Some Generals of the Great War'. The extraordinary collection offered here, amassed by an inveterate souvenir collector who - it is evident - rarely threw anything away, encapsulates a world long departed in a way guaranteed to make those with an interest in it reflect upon his long career.

Apprenticeship

Dobell was raised in the family home, the palatial Villa Beauvoir in Sillery, Quebec; his father had emigrated from Liverpool and become rich in the lumber trade. After preliminary education in Quebec, Dobell went to Charterhouse School in England in 1883 for two years.

Returning to Canada, he entered the Royal Military College, Kingston, in September 1886 as Cadet No. 221 and was placed in B Company. In 1890, Dobell graduated with Honours, his conduct being noted as 'Very Good'. He was marked 'Distinguished' in seven out of thirteen obligatory subjects, with the same mark in four voluntary subjects. He was Company Sergeant Major of his company and wore a proficiency badge for Artillery Practice with another for being top of his class in Equitation. He was awarded three 'subject' prizes, received the Lord Stanley prize, graduated fourth of his intake and was one of only four cadets recommended in 1890 for commissions in the British army.

In August 1890, he was commissioned into 1st Bn. Royal Welsh Fusiliers, then stationed in Lucknow but warned for duty on the North-West Frontier. The battalion arrived in Peshawar early in December 1890, by which time Dobell had joined and assumed command of F Company. Early in 1891, he accompanied the battalion on an expedition to punish recalcitrant tribes in the Black Mountains of Hazara: it was a short-lived but effective campaign that earned him his first campaign Medal.

Late in 1891, aged 22, he was ensign for the Regimental Colour at a parade in Peshawar. Just a few months before his death, aged 85, in July 1954, he was present as that same Colour was marched off parade for the last time, to be laid up in St David's Cathedral, Pembrokeshire, after seventy-four years' service. In so many ways, that Colour - now preserved in the Regimental Museum - characterises Dobell's loyal service to the Regiment that welcomed him in 1890.

Experience and Responsibility

Dobell remained with the 1st battalion for the next five years, living the life of a British subaltern stationed in northern India: he learned how to command men; he rode; he shot; he probably fished. He had been a member of Kingston's Gymnastics Class and had left the college marked as 'Distinguished' in Drills and Exercises; an accomplished horseman, he was clearly a very fit young officer. Having achieved a First Class mark in Gymnastics at Lucknow in June 1892, he returned to his battalion to become regimental gymnastics instructor in April 1893. Concurrently, he passed both lower and higher standard Hindustani and obtained qualifications in Transport and Musketry in 1894. Promotion to lieutenant came in November 1892 and was accompanied by the duties of acting adjutant in May 1893; during the same period, he changed companies three times, thus obtaining wide experience of the men of his battalion. He also took leave - no doubt to go shooting - and caught his fair share of the illnesses associated with life in India. The battalion remained in northern India until embarking for Aden in October 1896. Dobell continued on to Malta to join the 2nd battalion and become its adjutant. No sooner had he settled into the appointment with his new battalion than a crisis emerged that set him on course for advancement.

Tipped for Stardom

Crete's Greek population had long resented Turkish rule. Early in 1897, this resentment became sectarian violence: the Cretans proclaimed union with Greece and rose in rebellion against the Turks; the Turks responded, bloodily. An international force from the 'Great Powers' was assembled and deployed to Crete to control the situation; as part of that force, 2nd Bn. The Royal Welsh Fusiliers disembarked at Candia early in April 1897. Working with allies attempting to separate warring factions, while also exercising objectivity and military discipline, has become commonplace for British soldiers in the post-1945 world but was relatively new in 1897. The senior officers of 2nd Royal Welsh Fusiliers were very good at it and three brevet promotions were awarded in recognition. One was to Dobell, who was to be made brevet major when promoted to captain: the promotion and thus the brevet happened almost immediately and simultaneously in 1899.

The crisis in Crete being resolved in 1898, the battalion embarked for Hong Kong and arrived in January 1899. War broke out in South Africa in October 1899 and Dobell began firing off telegrams asking for permission to join any unit, anywhere, on leave if necessary: anything to be involved. Eventually, his persistence (and his father's influence) triumphed and by late December 1899 he was attached to the staff of 2nd (Special Service) Bn., Royal Canadian Regiment. In February 1900, he was given command of 2nd Mounted Infantry battalion and exercised it with such success as to be mentioned in dispatches and created a Companion of the Distinguished Service Order (DSO) in 1901.

In July 1900, long before his DSO was gazetted, he was recalled from South Africa to China to resume the adjutancy of the 2nd battalion, then engaged in suppressing the 'Boxer Rebellion'. Once again, Dobell served in an international force created by the 'Great Powers' for a peace-keeping role. Relinquishing the adjutancy late in 1900, he continued to serve in Peking until the final withdrawal of British forces from that city in 1901. In 1902, he passed the examination for entry to the Staff College, entering the College in January 1903. Thus, as a captain and brevet major, aged 33, with a DSO, three campaign medals and experience of both administration and field command, Dobell joined an elite cadre of future staff and general officers.

The Staff Officer

A photograph of the Staff College students in the intake of 1903, contained in one of Dobell's photograph albums, is an evocative image of a departed age. Sir Henry Rawlinson, later Field Marshal Lord Rawlinson, was the commandant; few officers are without campaign medals, many have DSOs and two have VCs; all are in their regiment's full dress uniform.

Leaving Staff College in 1904, Dobell was appointed temporary lieutenant-colonel to command 1st Bn. the Northern Nigeria Regiment, West African Frontier Force, in 1905. He commanded that unit in the Northern Nigeria campaign of 1906, being mentioned in dispatches twice and awarded the brevet of Lieutenant-Colonel, concomitant upon his being promoted major; he also added basic Hausa to his various linguistic skills.

Promoted substantive Major and thus brevet Lieutenant-Colonel in 1907, he returned to England to enter the War Office as General Staff Officer grade 3, to be promoted GSO2 in 1909, to be appointed ADC to King George V and brevet Colonel in 1910, to relinquish his War Office appointment in 1911 and to be promoted substantive Lieutenant-Colonel commanding 2nd Bn. The Bedfordshire Regiment in 1912, then stationed in South Africa. In time of peace, such rapid advancement was unusual and must reflect not only Dobell's innate talent but also his ambition, professionalism and connections. Command of 2nd Bedfordshires was short-lived: he was promoted substantive Colonel and temporary Brigadier-General in September 1913 and given the post of Inspector-General of the West African Frontier Force.

During his rapid rise in the Army in the decade 1904-14, he found time to marry, in March 1908: his wife was a widow with two daughters and would present him with a daughter, Judith, in South Africa in 1912. Earlier in 1908, he had saved one R.E. Ford from drowning in the lake at Stoke Park, Buckinghamshire, and received a Testimonial from the Royal Humane Society as a result: as with so many other papers relevant to his long career, this Testimonial is pasted into his scrapbook.

The outbreak of war in August 1914 found Dobell home on leave. Since it was evident that Germany's two West African colonies of Togoland and the Cameroons were vulnerable to attack, Dobell's advice was sought on how best to capture them.

Success in the Cameroons

Britain's principal targets were the colonies' wireless stations and the ports: the one able to report movements of British shipping in the Bights of Benin and Biafra to German surface raiders, the other able to shelter and re-provision the surface raiders. In addition, capture of the ports would enable a blockade to be established that ought to starve the colonies of Togoland and the Cameroons into submission, thus minimising the need for extensive land operations in an unfavourable terrain and climate. Thus Dobell advised, specifying that naval support of ground troops would be necessary.

Given command of British forces, and ultimately Allied forces, for the expedition, Dobell sailed with his staff for West Africa in S.S.Appam on 31st August 1914. By the time he arrived off the Cameroons port of Duala, on 25th September, events had overtaken planning and Togoland had already, effectively, fallen to British and French troops. Duala was briefly bombarded by H.M.S. Challenger and, increasingly encircled by British and French ground troops, surrendered, the German forces having already evacuated the port and retreated inland. However, although the coastal strip had been secured, a sizeable German presence remained in the interior. German tactics throughout the ensuing campaign reflected their strategy of holding ground and denying Allied forces overall victory in order to retain the colony as a bargaining tool for the end of the war.

German defence was stubborn and protracted: despite severe limitations in materièl and in Intelligence, its unity of purpose contrasted significantly with that of the Allies, all three of whom - British, French and Belgian - pursued their own nationally inspired aims and consequently failed effectively to work together. Dobell's experience, in Crete and in China, was unable to counteract that. The longer the campaign continued, the more attenuated through casualties the Allied forces became; there were limitations in the number and quality of reinforcements available. The campaign became one of attrition, largely fought by black infantry on both sides, until eventually German forces escaped into the neutral Spanish colony of Muni. Dobell could only direct the campaign to a limited extent, so diverse were the Allied forces engaged and so limited the communications, but his role in the eventual Allied victory, when it came in February 1916, was undeniably significant. It was recognised too: by the KCB and the Commander's Cross of the Légion d'Honneur in 1916, coming after the CMG in the New Year Honours of 1915 and promotion to major general in June 1915. By 1916, so stagnant had the campaign in France and Flanders become, any success of Allied arms had to be celebrated, rewarded and publicised and so it was for Dobell in West Africa.

Disappointment in Palestine

The logic of taking a General fresh from success in a torpid campaign in tropical Africa and appointing him to command a desert-based force in the Middle East may escape those equipped with 20:20 hindsight but, in mid-1916, that is what the War Cabinet did with Dobell. His first role in that theatre was as Commander Western Frontier Force in June 1916. He was then appointed Commander of troops on the Suez Canal and Eastern Frontier Force in October 1916, following promotion to temporary Lieutenant-General in September. In that role, he and his superior, Sir Archibald Murray, have been held responsible for the failure of the first two battles of Gaza in 1917. While not a wholly unfair judgment, it has been made in hindsight and with little appreciation of the circumstances, among which the evident chaos of the Middle Eastern Force's command structure, inadequate staff work and Intelligence and reasonable concerns about the Force's logistics, especially in relation to the wellbeing of its horses, loom large. The first two attacks on Gaza were certainly badly handled and the second disastrously bloody. However, small recognition has been given to the immense and successful preparation work executed by Dobell and Murray before their replacement by Chetwode (his Field Marshal's Baton sold in these rooms) and Allenby that led to the eventual capture of Gaza and then Palestine. That said, it was certainly not Dobell's finest hour: perhaps too much was expected of him by the politicians in London, always hungry for favourable headlines and expecting miracles.

Redemption in India

Despite the modern condemnation of Dobell for his part in the failure to take Gaza after two attempts in 1917, he cannot have been wholly damned in the opinion of the British War Cabinet since no sooner had he returned home than it sent him abroad again, this time to Command 2nd (Rawalpindi) Division in India. He remained there until 1920, serving during the 3rd Afghan War of 1919 and being mentioned in dispatches twice. Briefly officiating as G.O.C. Northern Command India in 1920, he returned home to go on half pay in that year and in 1923 retired as an honorary Lieutenant-General. In 1926, he was appointed Colonel of The Royal Welch Fusiliers and retained that post until 1938, being noted as a particularly active and attentive Colonel. Even after relinquishing the Colonelcy, he retained his links with the Regiment, throughout the Second World War and until a few months before his death. Paul Whyatt (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Whyatt - are you the same person as @Casosos?

In any case, this is not an acceptable place to put this kind of material. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No I’m NOT the same person as Casosos, what would be the point? I thought the information I had discovered might be worthy of adding to existing material. ~2026-84066-3 (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion then - I didn't see why you'd be responding to Casosos's question by adding what you added. Your material might be able to be added to the appropriate article, but only if you remove all statements that look as if they could be your opinion or speculation. Every little detail needs to be credited to an independent reliable source. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

does anyone happen to know why the wikilink in the caption of this photo on Armin Mueller-Stahl’s wikipage is displayed in a smaller font size?

(Safari, iPhone 12 Pro, iOS 26.2.1)

Greetings, Molekularbiologe (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The thumb caption of images is smaller in size, but I myself have no idea why. AdmiralCarl (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. It's not smaller on my end, though I'm viewing it on a desktop computer. I tried viewing the page on "mobile view" too, but it was still the usual size. I checked the history of the article to see if anyone edited to fix it, but no one had edited it after you posted. I checked the source code of the article Armin Mueller-Stahl, but there's nothing unusual about the caption. The link highlighted in your screenshot only has the typical Wiki formatting for italics.

Perhaps it's an issue with Safari or iOS?

If it's still smaller on your end, maybe someone at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) might know what's going on here. – Scyrme (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The entire caption is already smaller of course, but then the italic link is extra small. I suspect Safari, but can't prove it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I keep trying to submit and I write the exact words on the CAPTCHA and it keeps rejecting me and not letting me publish, this is literally an assignment for one of my courses and it simply just making my life more complicated for no reason. Ivy2020uw (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When you have entered the word, do you then click the 'Publish' button some way further down (which is the correct procedure) or do you click the 'Refresh' button next to the CAPTCHA box (which is incorrect)? The latter is a common mistake which I have made myself before now; the 'Refresh' is for asking for a new CAPTCHA challenge because you could not read the previous one. Hope this helps, but if not ask again with more details, like exactly what you're trying to do. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 06:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If your teacher has set you an assignment involving editing Wikipedia, please instruct them to reach out to WP:WikiEd if they haven't already, as WikiEd actively works with schools to design sensible coursework involving Wikipedia. Athanelar (talk) 12:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Stephen L. Hurst

Hi there, I created an article and was given feedback that the article didn't meet Wikipedia guidelines. I redid the article and some comments were made but I can't tell exactly where things stand and what to do now. Is there anyone or some place I can turn to for help? Many thanks. Nico Tenpasten (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

At the beginning, you say Hurst is a biopharmaceutical executive, attorney, and venture capitalist. Who has published those facts about him? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:14, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your reply and questions/instructions! I like your name too. I thought this information could be inferred from Mr. Hurst's documented background, but if it can't I've listed a few resources that can corroborate these facts.

1. biopharmaceutical executive--> he co-founded Mind Medicine (MindMed), Inc. a biopharmaceutical company, served as Executive Vice President of Operations and General Counsel at Inhale Therapeutic Systems.

Potential sources:

https://people.equilar.com/bio/person/stephen-hurst-definium-therapeutics-inc/451761

https://psychedelicreview.com/person/stephen-hurst/

https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/person/21578203?embedded-checkout=true (PAYWALL)

2. attorney--> received a Juris Doctor from Golden Gate University School of Law in 1984, is a registered patent attorney.

Potential sources:

https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/114975

3. venture capitalist--> Hurst is a General Partner at 1864 Fund, a seed-stage venture capital fund in Nevada.

Potential sources:

https://pitchbook.com/profiles/person/208414-72P. (PAYWALL, but I have a PDF of this page). Tenpasten (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Paywalls are fine, but Pitchbook is not independently written - the information comes from the subject himself (or from his staff), and is therefore inadmissible on Wikipedia. At least that's my understanding of how Pitchbook operates - please correct me if I'm wrong. All these things need to come from independent sources, not influenced by the subject or his associates. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All of what I've said is related to Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Notability - plus an excellent summary at WP:42. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Tenpasten

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Later on, you say:

During his tenure, he played a role in raising over $700 million in investment capital and helped out-license multiple clinical development projects.

But as a citation you give Hurst's own advertising. Wikipedia requires independent published confirmation of every salient fact. We can't take Hurst's word for any of his accomplishments. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ... Draft:Stephen L. Hurst TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Things that are not accepted on Wikipedia, except in support of mundane statistics such as date of birth:

• Material that appears to have originated with the subject or his associates, regardless of who ultimately publishes it
  • This means anything that seems to come from a CV, a media bio, a press release, an interview, an industry/trade publication, social media, blogs, a corporate or personal website, or a service for business such as LinkedIn or similar
• Material for which a published source is not cited

TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I want to start an AfD (Articles for Deletion) discussion for the article École d'Informatique d'Électronique et d'Expertise comptable but the AfD discussion page link doesn’t seem to exist, and search returns no results. What to do? Weichan123 (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Weichan123 To fix the discussion page link please see full guide @ Afd footer CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 06:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Weichan123 The easiest way to start an AfD is to use WP:TWINKLE, which handles all of the relevant filing and tagging in a single button press. Athanelar (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Weichan123, the discussion is up and I have contributed. It is a good idea to search for reliable sources when you nominate for AFD per WP:BEFORE, I couldn't find much. TSventon (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a definition somewhere of what counts as a "revert"? So far I've found detailed lists of n "exceptions" without much detail about what DOES count as a revert.

How closely does it need to resemble the previous version?

Does just removing something count as a "revert" to before it was added?

Late Night Coffee (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We have Wikipedia:Reverting..I find it rather comprehensive. Lectonar (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Any method that successfully gets rid of (more or less all of) someone's previous edit, counts as a revert. But "editing their edit", so it's still there but you changed it some, is not a revert. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, just removing something that got added is definitely a revert. (But again, not if you only changed a certain part of it.)

Equally, adding back something that they removed is also a revert. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@LateNightCoffee I think, if any of this came to a dispute resolution, they would look at the pattern of how the person acted. If it looks like Person A really intended to undo whatever Person B had done, they would probably call it a revert, no matter how it was accomplished. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TooManyFingers I don't want to make a formal complaint. I just wanted to tell someone to stop removing my contributions to a page. But I wanted to check I was right about the rule first. They delete various things, often things I've added, about 3 times per day. Late Night Coffee (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's an article with a one revert rule. Late Night Coffee (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You seem (just at a glance) to be making massive and controversial changes to a very controversial article. I'm not convinced that you're really doing valuable things to that article, at least not all the time. I think, on that article, you need to back off, slow down, and make better quality smaller edits. I'm not seeing you as "the good guy" at all in those conflicts; I'd be reverting a lot of it too. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if the current citation at MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility Valley units and Courtyard units is placed properly. All the information in the Valley units and Courtyard units are supposed to be under the 3rd reference, but I'm not sure if it currently reflects that. AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't edit in this area, so I've not changed anything, but I'd put the reference immediately after "the Valley/Courtyard units are:" rather than against one or all of the items in the bullet lists. That's what's done where you have a single source for who somebody's children are and you list them out in a bullet list (that's what's done by me, anyway) and this is a similar case. Chuntuk (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone with access to The Times (British newspaper) please verify the claims referenced to it in the article Husain Al-Musallam? I want to make sure the claims are correct. Thanks. Janhrach (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I tried The Wikipedia Library, but unfortunately that only gives access up to 2014, and the references queried are from 2017. TSventon (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Janhrach. Please ask questions like this at the resource exchange. ColinFine (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The next time, I will. Is it okay (from the copyright standpoint) to request several articles from a well-known newspaper? Janhrach (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can, but editors will probably object if they think you are over-doing it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all

This is a slightly odd question but is there a way to search all of my contributions on English Wikipedia for a specific word, phrase or set of words?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiblame lets you search one page for exactly which edit introduced a word or phrase to that page.

You can do an edit summary search on yourself, for what you wrote in those.

But I don't know how to search all of Wikipedia at once. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:18, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cummings I wrote "word or phrase" above, but searching for one word is probably a bad idea - it would find too many false positives. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TooManyFingers (great user name), thanks very much for your reply, unfortunately this hasn't worked. The edit summary tool didn't pick up pages I knew I had used the word on and Wikiblame isn't really the right tool since I want to look across all pages I've contributed to over 15+ years. If you have any other ideas or places I could ask please let me know :) John Cummings (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one else has responded here, I suggest taking your question to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). That gets looked at by people more knowledgeable than I am. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:37, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am making changes to a professor's page, whom I personally know. Why are the changes being changed back. I am making corrections. Brendaskent (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Because the changes you made aren't corrections at all, and you didn't tell the truth about what you were putting. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Brendaskent Please familiarise yourself with the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. When someone reverts a bold edit you made, your next course of action should be to discuss with them why they reverted you, not to continue to try to push your changes through; doing so is called edit warring. Athanelar (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I recently made an edit to a page and used a court filing PDF as a source. But I'm getting an error: "Missing or empty |title". I'm not quite sure how to fix that since there isn't really a "title" for this PDF. I really wanna learn to do this the right way, so any help would be appreciated. The edit in question occured at 22:26, 4 February 2026 on this page: https://teknopedia.ac.id/w/index.php?title=Anna%27s_Archive&action=history

Thank you in advance. Charliefish (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see at Template:Cite web under Usage, if there is no credited author, you can put |author=<! -- not stated --> for it's parameter, and, after testing in my sandbox, turns out you cannot do the same for the title parameter unfortunately. Therefore, I think a title must be there if you want that error message to not appear, I'm not certain though. AdmiralCarl (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've given it a title - could also be "NVIDIA’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT" if that's more suitable. Not having an obvious title means we should try our best with what is there. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:56, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

is there a function or gadget that can automatically set incoming links and transclusions to be hidden for that option, to leave only redirects? consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 14:02, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Consarn: "Page information" under "Tools" has a link on "Number of redirects to this page". That may be a little easier than starting with what links here and then hide transclucions and links. If you want then I could make a script to add "Redirects" above "What links here" so you have both options. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

huh, it seems i've... actually missed out on that option due to moremenu. whoops. if you don't know of any such gadget or script that already does that, i would appreciate the alternate solution consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 15:17, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Consarn: Add this to your common JavaScript:

$( document ).ready( function() {
  mw.util.addPortletLink(
    'p-tb',
    mw.util.getUrl('Special:WhatLinksHere/') + mw.config.get('wgPageName') + '?hidetrans=1&hidelinks=1',
    'Redirects', 't-redirects', 'Show redirects to this page', null, '#t-whatlinkshere'
  );
});

PrimeHunter (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

that'll do. danke, herr doktor consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 10:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have two accounts: bizdata-usa and peter lyons hall. Please REPLACE and consolidate the content for bizdata-usa with Peter Lyons Hall. Thank you. Bizdata-usa (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way for us to do that. The best thing for you to do would be to put a notice on the userpage of both accounts explaining that each one is linked to the other. Athanelar (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Need help as many of Estonias notable people birthplaces are changed to USSR even though we were not recognized as a ussr state worldwide! Can there be a autobot or autobanner on people who change them to be born there? ~2026-79894-5 (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ~2026-79894-5. There was a discussion and a consensus to put the birthplaces as the Soviet Union during the occupation years. You are free to join discussions on this, but please do not continue changing the birthplaces. See: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RFC: Baltic states birth infoboxes Thanks. LordCollaboration (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In this argument about people's place of birth in Baltic countries at that time, both sides always lose the argument. There is no way either side can ever win it, because the other side always has a perfectly good response to everything. So on Wikipedia we have to shut down the argument and forbid continuing it, make some decision that's reasonable, and stick with it. Which is what we've done our best to do. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:06, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi
Years ago I created Category 2 and published it under GFL. It's a valuable example in the subject of Category theory. My page will be lost when the Web site is gone. So I think of contributing as an article here. Any consideration or objection before I start?
Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The big consideration is that Wikipedia doesn't accept original work of any kind. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not original work; only documentation. For a mathematician, a simple example. The cited page notes "... suggested by Fred Linton in the first message to the Categories List on the day of 2008-02-15." Category 2 is just a simpler example parallel to category Set under the heading Category_theory#Examples. The heading is Examples but currently there's only one. Category Set is a more difficult example for a novice. If you object to 2, can you suggest another example simpler than Set? PeterEasthope (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably look at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets - it has suggestions of other places to publish your material. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterEasthope Also, especially considering the fact that it isn't very long, make sure that some paper copies exist. Websites disappear, hard drives fail, but you can't switch off a piece of paper. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PeterEasthope, you say My page will be lost when the Web site is gone. Is there something inadequate about this and the other Wayback scrapes? -- Hoary (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess Category_theory#Examples can cite the page at Wayback. Similarly, many other external pages can be cited rather than be in Wikipedia. Thx, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a tool similar to Special:RandomInCategory but for a random article in a specific portal? Zatoicy (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am wondering what the little image next to an article when you search something up is called? CharlieRidesRollerCoasters (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CharlieRidesRollerCoasters, I think you mean the lead image (MOS:LEADIMAGE). TSventon (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CharlieRidesRollerCoasters: It's called the page image. See mw:Extension:PageImages. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's me again. I added the Tamil script and pronunciation of a subject in this edit. Is this MOS-compliant? I couldn't find any info in it for putting text in the original script like that. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 05:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the MOS in my head the way some people do, but I like the way you've done it and I see nothing wrong at all. MOS:FULLNAME is what governs this, as far as I know. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:54, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the bad example they give for Gaddafi's name is not being criticized for using a non-English writing system, but criticized for being a huge unreadable mess. Yours is simple and well done. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the Manual of Style states: Avoid the use of Indic scripts in lead sections or infoboxes. Instead, use International Phonetic Alphabet pronunciation guides, which are more international. Exceptions are articles on the script itself, articles on a language that uses the script, and articles on texts originally written in a particular script. I think this is an okay exception as it is a biography about someone from Tamil Nadu, who speaks Tamil, and likely has an accepted Tamil spelling of her name. -- Reconrabbit 15:50, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify this, as per WP:INDICSCRIPT the Tamil script is not acceptable, but the Tamil IPA is. - Arjayay (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that makes sense. -- Reconrabbit 16:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I never knew that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, thank you all for the advice. I will add only the IPA to Indian subjects going forward. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 18:13, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The page Val d'Or station exists, but unfortunately neither Saint-Cloud station nor Template:Transilien Line L are picking up the link. Could someone help? Thanks! PalleyCov2030 (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I created a WP:REDIRECT from Le Val d'Or station, which has fixed the issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have just submitted a proposed (self-biographical) article and been given a temporary account reference number. But how will the decision on this submission be communicated: I haven't provided aby contact details. ~2026-82364-2 (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It would be posted on the talk page of your temporary account. Your draft is currently significantly malformed however and has no chance of becoming an article: I would suggest you create an account and read up on our article standards before trying again; namely WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, WP:PROUD and Help:Your first article. Athanelar (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the article "Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station", under the heading "Environmental protests", when clicking on the image labelled "Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station, from the east, with a train of coal being unloaded as it passes at walking pace through the building at middle right" an error message is now displayed "Sorry the file cannot be displayed". This never used to happen up to about a month ago, there does not appear to be an edit to cause this, and I do not know why it is happening. How can this be corrected, please? MaltaGC (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Works just fine on my end, maybe ask at WP:VPT Athanelar (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I have just tried using the Microsoft Edge browser instead of Avast Secure Browser where the problem was occurring and it is OK! So I went back to Avast Secure Browser which has been giving this problem and again it displayed "Sorry the file cannot be displayed" so I hit <ctrl>F5 to reload it and the error message disappeared with the image now being displayed correctly. It is now OK and works every time. MaltaGC (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do I DELETE my account? Joncheatwood (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts cannot be deleted, but only vanished, as every edit must be attributed to a user. ArthurPlummer (talk | contribs) 16:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Deleting an account is not possible for legal reasons, as all edits must be attributable. But you can request a vanishing, see WP:VANISH- however, you have no edits other than here. Just stop using and abandon your account. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to delete your account because you want a new username, you can have your existing account renamed. See WP:CHU for more information. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my name is Issa Boulos. There is a Wikipedia page about me but it has a lot of discrepancies and wrong information. How can I correct this? Iboulos (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the edit request wizard to propose changes to the article about you. 331dot (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Iboulos, first please read, digest, and think about Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects. Then respond to User talk:Iboulos#February 2026. If you are successful, then declare your "conflict of interest" on at least one (preferably both) of User:Iboulos and Talk:Issa Boulos. And finally do what 331dot suggests immediately above. -- Hoary (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:School the World

Hi: We had an intern help us try to submit a page on behalf of our non-profit last semester. She did it under her personal account which I don't know and has stopped responding so we can't get her help in deleting the submission. Can you help. The submission was for School the World, an education NGO based in Boston.

Thank you! Lara.hoyem (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts are automatically deleted if they haven't been edited in over 6 months, so there's no need to do anything. Athanelar (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that because it's at the draft stage, the public is not going to be finding it anyway. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:05, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Lara.hoyem Given what your intern wroteon 4 December, she had a very poor understanding of what conflict of interest means. Interns are paid editors if writing about the organisation they work for and are required to make a formal declaration of that status. However, if you have no intention of taking the draft forward, there is nothing you need to do now. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, Mike. We understand the conflict of interest issue now and won’t be taking that draft forward.

Just to confirm procedurally: does the existing draft need to be deleted or otherwise closed before any unrelated editor could create a new draft in the future, or can it simply remain until it expires? Appreciate the guidance. Lara.hoyem (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It can remain until it expires. After it expires, it can be resurrected for further improvement by making a request at WP:REFUND. Or it can be created anew. If you want to delete it to start afresh, let me or another administrator know the situation and we can easily delete it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, everyone's edits must be under their own account. It is not permitted to share accounts or have a "role" account that is passed on to whoever has a certain position over time. DMacks (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I want to delete the redirect page Canon PowerShot SX280 HS. Can someone check if I did it the right way?

I know the procedure in the german wiki, but here I am a bit overwhelmed how to do this. Skranon (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What you've done is fine, but WP:RM/TM is the best location. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a redirect page, and would not be deleted. You are likely thinking of a different page that is actually a redirect to that one. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Im using a tablet from T Mobile but couldn't get into Simple English or the Regular English Wikipedia even while I'm using a strong password nobody else knows and I'm always with every day. Making matters worse, the systems wouldn't allow me to even change my password into a stronger code. Can somebody please help me with these situation problems here? Angela Kate Maureen Pears 20:54, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What exact message are you receiving on your screen, when it doesn't work? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The login system kept telling me the username and password were incorrect when they were not. Furthermore, the login system also wouldn't let me change my password to a stronger one. For some unknown reason I cannot log into my own actual account even though my password was correct. Angela Kate Maureen Pears 21:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So you can't log in, Tropical Storm Angela. That is indeed a problem. I hope somebody has a suggestion. (It's not something simple, like accidentally having CapsLock on when it should be off?) But the systems wouldn't allow me to even change my password into a stronger code.... Furthermore, the login system also wouldn't let me change my password to a stronger one. That's reassuring. Or rather: of course. The ability to change somebody's password when they're not logged in could have disastrous consequences. -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tropical Storm Angela You are clearly logged in at present since your posts here are correctly identified with your account. So is the real problem that your tablet device doesn't let you log in while the device you are using currently does? If so, the issue is with the tablet, not Wikipedia. If you really want to change your password, you should be able to do so now in this session and then go back to the tablet to ensure it stores the correct credentials. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How does one insert a picture as an avatar? Mospeada11 (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are no avatars or profile pictures here on Wikipedia. Athanelar (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am the General Manager of the Jarrett House. We are coming close to completing our renovation and I was recently made aware of our presence here on Wikipedia. While we are extremely excited to see this, it is somewhat disturbing to see the statement listed in the article about the tragic death of one of our beloved workers and local resident. I would ask that this statement be removed as it not only is disturbing to the staff, but mainly to be respectful to the surviving family members. The statement is not really anything that should be listed on Wikipedia, as other historic hotels do not have such information posted on their descriptions. Thank you for your attention to this. Your cooperation would be most appreciated by many people here. ~2026-84651-3 (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]