Epstein Files Full PDF

Joerg Dietz

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't know if you saw, but it was removed with a note to "take it to AFD if you think the subject not notable". diff: https://teknopedia.ac.id/w/index.php?title=Joerg_Dietz&diff=1339429470&oldid=1339418628 Tampering Ides (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did, I'm just too lazy to do the BEFORE on an AfD submission right now. Athanelar (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Reechard But sentences like "In research on diversity-related issues, Dietz has the interplay of contextual and individual factors" are so informative! David10244 (talk) 06:41, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you mean by a note? ScholarlyTome (talk) 09:33, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why https://teknopedia.ac.id/wiki/Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article and https://teknopedia.ac.id/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article pages are not the same for unauthorized users (like in incognito browser mode without logging)? Petsernik (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now are equal, but it wasn't Petsernik (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Caching? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:54, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a local cache issue, because the differences arose when I accessed the contents of these pages through a Python script. What exactly do you mean by cache? Incidentally, these pages are now different again in incognito mode (but I think they'll start matching again, then diverge again, and so on, with some frequency). However, for authorized users, these pages always match. Petsernik (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Cache; or the cache in your browser. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting fact: when I go to "https://teknopedia.ac.id/wiki/Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article?action=purge" (according to Help:Purge) and choose Yes for action "Clear the cache of this page? (Purging a page clears the cache and forces the most current revision to appear. For pages with random components, it also forces a new random selection)", it redirects me to "https://teknopedia.ac.id/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article" and not updates the "https://teknopedia.ac.id/wiki/Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article" actually (now it is not the most current revision to appear for unauthorized users). Petsernik (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"or the cache in your browser" it cannot be in this case, because I wrote - I use the Python script to check, not the browser. It is not local cache issue. Petsernik (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also mean that https://teknopedia.ac.id/wiki/Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article and https://teknopedia.ac.id/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article should be the same, because ' and %27 it is the same characters, but for some reason it is not the same. Petsernik (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:Karen Anderer/sandbox

I created a wikipedia article/page for Robert Allen Nelson (Artist) per the request of his wife. This artist is extremely renowned and it has become problematic that I can not get this published. Can anyone help? Karen Anderer (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have not submitted it for review. To do so, place {{subst:submit}} at the top. Nononsense101 (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! Karen Anderer (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is now at Draft:Robert Allen Nelson. Draft space is the preferred location for draft submission and can be accessed via the Article Wizard. Please see your user talk page for important information. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Karen Anderer.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

Essentially nothing that you know about Nelson, and nothing that his wife has told you, belongs in the article unless it is verifiable from a reliable published source (and, in most cases, a source wholly independent of Nelson). - see WP:golden rule.

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. (I know you created your account more than six years ago, but you never made any edits until you created this draft) ColinFine (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You’ll have to find a couple of more sources, and it needs to read more like an article (it can be challenging to write a user article so Wp:first article might help) The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We read: I created a wikipedia article/page for Robert Allen Nelson (Artist) per the request of his wife. So, Karen Anderer, you have what we call a conflict of interest. Please read and digest Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. This artist is extremely renowned -- This surprises me. (The renown of an extremely renowned person would have reached me, no?) -- and it has become problematic that I can not get this published. Where's the problem? Wikipedia is in no rush. ¶ An actual problem here is that little effort has been put into formatting this right. So a reviewer can (a) decline it; (b) accept it and ignore the fact that it's a mess; (c) reformat it themselves. Given these three choices, I'd unhesitatingly plump for (a). A second actual problem is the uninformativeness and unhelpfulness of what I presume are intended as references. Three among these are, verbatim: (School of Art mourns passing of Dr. Robert Nelson, former instructor and artist, 2021) and "Untitled" by Robert A. Nelson, n.d.) and (Faculty News, 1997). Precisely what is each of these? How may an energetic researcher locate and consult each of these (either in a research library or on the web)? -- Hoary (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Referencing for beginners—your draft is mostly lacking citations, which are needed before it can be published. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to force a full stop to stay with a sentence when the sentence ends with a symbol? The fourth paragraph of the "Quantum Mechanics" section of the "Bra-Ket Notation" entry has a full stop that is first on the next line, when it should be hard tied to the prior character, in this case a |.

Never mind. I just moved it inside the </math> tag, and it fixed it. Hooya27 (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{nowrap}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm trying to finish a translation cleanup at Béla Rákosi, but got stuck at the Works section. The first three books are translations that I can't find the original titles or language of. I found sources that name the original authors, including scans of the title pages of the translated books in online antique book shops, but none of those sources list the original titles or language. How would I note this in the list in the article? Also, would it be worth providing an English translation of the titles (the originals are probably in German). Then there's the fourth book, which upon further research turned out to be a 22-page booklet published as an issue of a periodical which had each of its issues written by a different legal scholar. These were later collected into volumes, with the one that contains Rákosi's issue being available online at [1]. Can I even keep calling that a "book"? Should it stay in the list or, alternatively, should the list itself even be there in the first place? Some insight would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Drake178 (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Drake178 as a start, I have translated the first three titles into German, done an internet search and put my suggestions onto the talk page. For a format, you could look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works#Books in languages other than English. TSventon (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon thank you. Unfortunately, I've read that before coming here. All the examples there involve situations where English is one of the languages, and they don't match my context. There is one list item in the linked Nabokov bibliography that is French to Russian, but as my luck would have it the book itself has an enwiki article and is linked instead of listing the original title. I also thought about going over the bibliographies of the German authors to find the matching works, but I thought it would be original research to do that without citing a source that makes the connections. However, if that is actually acceptable, then I'll gladly give that a shot. Drake178 (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Drake178 as to the (possible) original titles, I thought that they might help you find evidence which would confirm my conjectures, but that was probably optimistic. I agree with Mathglot that the original titles are not vital.

The MOS examples are Russian titles with English translations and it should be possible to use the same format (without the Romanisation) for Hungarian titles with translations into English. TSventon (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon that is very helpful, thank you! Drake178 (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Drake178, the original language is not required, just a nice-to-have. If the book you are using to source facts in a Wikipedia article is a reliable source, it is irrelevant what language it was translated from. The governing policy here is Wikipedia:Verifiability: given enough time and energy and your citation, could another editor locate that exact book and see that what you wrote at Wikipedia really is supported on page 379? If yes, then just cite the book you used: author, date, title, publisher, language, and page number. If you can, add isbn or oclc, title translated into English, edition, and url if available. You don't have to mention that it is a translation, but you can if you want. If you don't know that information, then leave it out; it is not required. Mathglot (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot I guess I'll take that first sentence and roll with it. The rest of your reply, unfortunately, has no relevance for my questions. I'll concede that I probably wasn't clear enough (in my defense, it's a rather nuanced issue). Thank you anyway! Drake178 (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

should be simple, if a little on the long side, though i'm not sure if this shouldn't be on commons instead

if the owner of a visual work (like a game or series) allows the use of or skips the middle man and uploads an image of it (like a frame of gameplay or of an episode) for a pre-existing article, that still has to be under a compatible license. that much is clear. however, i'm bad at finding more specific info, so i'll take it here for safety's sake

• what would be the compatible license(s)?
• of those, assuming that that's at least one but not all of them, which would allow for the image to be unaltered (that is, uncompressed)?
• does it need to be specified that the license only applies to what it's applied to, or does that just come with the license(s)?
• would this be any different for the work's cover aside from maybe having to switch some nouns around in a license or two?
• would it even be a good idea to do that unless an editor asks?
• would it even be a good idea for an editor to ask?
• if it's unavoidable, would the compression be necessary if the resolution and/or image "quality" are respectively low or grainy enough that it wouldn't change anything?

i haven't specified that this is purely theoretical because i don't actually know if it is this time (。﹏*) consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 02:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Consarn.

Copyright is complicated, and Wikipedia's approach to it is also complicated.

Rather than trying to answer your questions one by one, I'll try and lay out the issues, and see if that helps.

One of the fundamental goals of the Wikipedia approach is to provide a freely reusable resource; so almost all of the text and many of the images in English Wikipedia are licensed under the license CC-BY-SA - which allows the material to be freely used, reproduced, and altered, by anybody, for any purpose (commercial or not), without requiring permission, as long as certain conditions (mostly about attribution) are met. Some of the images are actually in the public domain - which means that nobody has any copyright in them and they can be used freely without even requiring attribution.

Wikimedia's repository of resources - Wikimedia Commons - requires that anything uploaded to it is free to use in that way. When a copyright holder chooses to upload their work - and is willing for it to be licensed in that way - they can upload it (eg using the Upload wizard) and release it under CC-BY-SA as they do so. Alternatively, they can send an email releasing an image that somebody else is uploading: see donating copyright materials. And material that is already publicly licensed appropriately can be uploaded to Commons by anybody. (For example, some images on Flickr explicitly bear the CC-BY-SA licence; and the US government has decreed that all images published by the federal government and its agencies are in the Public Domain).

Notice that there is nothing about compression or resolution about this.

Ideally according to Wikimedia's principles, there would be nothing more to say; and for some Wikimedia Projects (eg German Wikipedia), there is no more to say: they allow only freely reusable materials.

But English Wikipedia (and many other Wikipedias), in order to allow more articles to be illustrated, made a decision to apply a form of the doctrine of Fair use, and permit non-free images to be used in certain circumstances. This is an entirely separate process from the normal only-freely-licensed use, and does not require permission from the copyright holder. Images to be used in this way must be uploaded to English (or whichever) Wikipedia, not to Commons; and their uploading, format, and use are strictly limited by the non-free content criteria. That is where questions of compression and resolution, and where the images are used, come in.

You can find more detail in WP:Image use policy.

Does this help? ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

oh d*ng i just realized this didn't get sent

this means this case, which is for very much still non-free content, would be relatively chill, as what would be issues here are potentially already handled

danke consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 15:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like an example of a freely-licensed screenshot of a non-free video game, I contacted the developer of Tactical Breach Wizards with a request for a freely licensed image and they uploaded it at File:Tactical-breach-wizards-screenshot.jpg. The instruction page for how to do this at commons is c:COM:VRT/CONSENT.

The default license for this sort of thing would be CC-BY-SA 4.0. It only applies to whatever they specifically agree to release under that license.

As images are freely licensed, they would not need to be compressed to be low quality to comply with fair use. ScalarFactor (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So, I was unaware of infobox parameters, which I cleaned up after a discussion about preview warning containing unnecessary infobox parameters. How is the preview really important? I was curious when I stepped into university computers. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Ahri Boy.

I don't really understand what you're asking.

"Preview" is helpful in order to check whether the edit we've made actually has the effect we intended. We don't have to use it - we could always commit our edits, and then (often, in my experience) would need to go back to correct them.

Does that answer your question, or am I missing what you're asking? ColinFine (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh... Got it. I was exhausted after cleaning up unnecessary infobox parameters, citations and replying to the parameters issue. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

sociology book s ~2026-12474-81 (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... Please read WP:NOT before answering. Your reply may be incoherent. Anyways, if you are here to edit, please read Help: Introduction. Ahri Boy (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~2026-12547-01 (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What assistance are you seeking? 331dot (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We are a group of students from the University of Art,Tehran, Iran, seeking help to create a biography for our professor "Andre Galestian". He is a prominent Iranian-Armenian pianist,musicologist and strategic economist.

Unfortunately, during the January 2026 protests in Iran (month Dey of Iranian year 1404), professor Andre Galestian was severely injured in his right hand and right shoulder by pellet guns, which has forcibly ended his career as a performer and educator. We are deeply concerned that his academic and artistic legacy is being erased due to the current situation in Iran.

He meets Wikipedia's Notability criteria through several published works and research papers on the official Art Magazine of Iran. His profile is published on Iranian most famoust scolars database "ElmNet" (ElmNet means: science network) and his academic papers are listed there. His academic works are published in Iranian- Armenian bilingual "Ani" magazine as well. You can find his profile and papers by a simple search in English or Persian or Armenian on the Internet.

The Internet connection here is very limited, unlogical censored, strictly filtered and monitored by the government, we took a risk hoping to save the memories of our professor who we have no news about him anymore. We don't know if he is alive or not. We are sending this message to you via a VPN through an Armenian server because Wikipedia is not accessible here in Tehran.

Please help us.

We are a very persecuted nation.

We are a group of girl students of the University of Art here in Tehran, trying to save the name of a dominant professors name of this country who was our professor as well and did much for this country (search his name on the Internet please).

Thank you very much indeed for your time and solidarity. ~2026-12322-38 (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would be better to WP:DRAFT an article. We can help finishing your draft in case you might be busy protecting yourselves. Ahri Boy (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to start drafting an article at Draft:Andre Galestian. You must cite a reliable source (which need not be in English) for each statement made there, and the subject must meet the criteria at WP:42.

But we do recommend that you gain experience by editing existing articles first. I have left some introductory links on your talk page Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:22, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-12322-38 also please read WP:COI CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 18:35, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you very much for your time and solidarity.

Here you will find the biographies of the most well-known Iranian Armenian musicians (in English), including professor "Andre Galestian" and even a clip of an interview of professor Andre Galestian (and professor Vartan Sahakian) with Iranian National Television (live broadcast, some years ago, with English subtitles), and also there is another clip at the end of the article that shows the place of birth and date of birth of most famous and dominant Iranian Armenian musicians (in English) including professor Andre Galestian, the article is published by the website of Iranian Database of Conferences:

https://payameconference.ir/?p=5168

Here is another interview with professor "Andre Galestian" as a well-known university professor and scholar (and professor Rasoul Moradi) in English, by the official and government-run news agency of Iran, which is the biggest news agency of the country:

https://en.irna.ir/news/84330051

Above mentioned interview is published by MMN ("Media Monitors Network" which is located in California, USA) as well:

https://mediamonitors.net/shahnameh-maintains-backbone-of-iranian-culture

Here is an article (in English) published in Art Magazine of Iran by professor Andre Galestian (the author is professor Andre Galestian):

https://artmag.ir/en/3102/role-of-armenians-in-the-development-of-iranian-music

You can find 41 articles of professor Andre Galestian here (it is the website of Iranian Science Network):

https://elmnet.ir/author/%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AF%D8%B1%D9%87-%DA%AF%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%AA%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%86?pn=2

Also, you can find 5 articles here (it is the website of a well known database of Persian articles published in Iranian magazines):

https://www.magiran.com/author/profile/449727/%D8%A2%D9%86%D8%AF%D8%B1%D9%87-%DA%AF%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%AA%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%86

Here are two of the many podcasts of professor Andre Galestian in the major of commerce, economics and international imoprt/export (first one is the website of a well-known school of business in Tehran and the second one is the website of a well-known Iranian scientific journal (the meaning of the name of the journal is: Electronic Journalism):

https://hamyartp.com/%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%87%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%B9%D9%87-%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B7-%D8%AA%D8%AC%D8%A7%D8%B1%DB%8C-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%88-%D8%A7%D8%B1-3/

and

https://rooznamenegarielectronic.ir/?p=760

At the end, if you search the name of professor "Andre Galestian" in Persian or Armenian, or even in English, you can find many more, but please hurry, it seems that the Iranian government is deleting everything regarding to the people who participated in January 2026 peaceful protests in Iran and we could find a few of many of the articles and interviews of professor Andre Galestian. The Iranian regime killed at least 32,000 people, the protesters, innocent people (as the President of the United States of America said), and we took very serious risk to save the name and the valuable works of our professor, the valuable works that he made during the years of his career (we do not know if he is alive).

Professor Andre Galestian is (or was) a music historian who did much to save the names, biographies and works of many departed Iranian musicians and now it is our duty, his students, to save his name (we wish he is alive and pray for him).

You can find his biography in English via first link (website of Iranian Database of Conferences). Please watch the clips as well, they have English subtitles. You can gather much more information about him via the other links. We tried to send only the links from most reputable websites of the country.

Please be informed that the most of the websites here in tehran are banned by the government, even Wikipedia, and we are now using a VPN which connecting us to a server located in Yerevan, Armenia and we do not know when it will be disconnected too.

Thank you very much for your time and solidarity.

Please pray for us, please pray for Iran.

A group of girl students from Art University, Tehran, Iran. ~2026-12606-67 (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Archive can help archive these links you've provided. So no need to worry about content being censored. In the meantime, archive.is (see WP:ATODAY for more info) is deprecated because of a malicious code that break requests from end users. Ahri Boy (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much indeed, God bless you all.

Meantime, the links and the references which we mentioned above, contain biographies of some of the well known Iranian professors and some of the most dominant Iranian musician of the recent three centuries (19th, 20th and 21th centuries) who have the most influence on Iranian music which may be helpful for enrich or maybe complete Wkipedia's information in this regard.

Please pray for Iranians, please pray for Iran. We are livinig in one of the most critical periods of Iranian history, which is perhaps one of the most sensitive periods in the history of the whole Middle East.

God bless you.

A group of girl students of University of Art, Tehran, Iran. ~2026-12322-38 (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Ahri Boy for the draft, you are very kind, we really appreciate what you have been doing.

Thank you very much for your time and solidarity.

God bless you.

A group of girl students from Art University, Tehran, Iran. ~2026-12931-04 (talk) 08:46, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.

God bless you.

Thanks.

A group of girl students, University of Art, Tehran, Iran. ~2026-12931-04 (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you very much for your time and solidarity.

We couldn't edit it, but we can provide the following information based on the previously mentioned links and references:

Thank you very much again for your time and solidarity.

A group of students from the University of Art, Tehran, Iran. ~2026-12322-38 (talk) 12:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You say "We couldn't edit it": why not?

Your other alternative is to place a request at WP:Requested articles, but beware that the chances of a response are low. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We have no idea, maybe because we use a VPN to connect to a server in Yerevan, Armenia (because many websites are banned and censored here in Tehran by the government (including Wikipedia) and we have no direct access to many websites).

Also we are just students of Art University (Bachelor's, second and third years) and we are not experienced in editing articles.

We tried to fulfill our duty towards a prominent professor, someone who had spent his entire life trying to gather and publish the legacy of the great musicians of Iran (and spent whole his wealth for this goal). We wanted the legacy of our esteemed professor and his memory not to be forgotten (someone who severely injured during the January 2026 protests in Iran (in his right hand which means much for a pianist) and now we even have no news about him).

God bless you all, we feel we are not alone in this world. May God help us to make Iran free. All the students of different universities in Iran are protesting right now for this holy goal.

God bless you, God bless your country and God bless Iran too. ~2026-12322-38 (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you need to use a VPN to edit Wikipedia, you can set up an account (one per person, please - do not share accounts) and request "IP exemption" as described at Wikipedia:IPEXEMPT.

Obviosuly, you should not do this if you think it will compromise your safety. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:07, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

you are absolutely right, everyone needs a seperate account.

We are very scared these days because of the regime's militia, they killed more than 30,000 people and you know what they do to girls before execution.

Thank you for your guidance, hopefully everybody here will dare to have a separate Wkipedia's account soon.

Thanks again and God bless you. ~2026-12322-38 (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have alerted some people who might want to write the article.

I wish you all well. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much indeed, thank you very much, thanks, thanks, thanks. 🙏🙏🙏

You are beautiful and world is much more beautiful place with you.

God bless you. God bless you. God bless you.

I would like to thank all great people who is helping us to create this article, thank you, you are beautiful, the world is much more better place with you and God bless you all.

I am really sorry that we have no experience in editing an article on Wikipedia and for sure, what we wrote, needs much time to edit. We tried to write references for every single thing we wrote in the article, that is why the number of links are too much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

🌹🌹🌹

A group of girl students from the University of Art, Tehran, Iran. ~2026-12322-38 (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Andy Mabbett for your guidance, we wrote as much as we could on the draft page (almost what we know about Professor Andre Galestian), and tried to write references for ever paragraph and for every sentence (that is why the number of references (links) are too much).

Thank you very much indeed.

You are very kind.

God bless you.

Here the most of the universities are going to be closed (as government says: they will be shut down temporarily); they do not say the reason, but the reason is clear, that is because of continuous protests of the students of almost all universities.

Thanks again for your time and solidarity Andy Mabbett.

Thank you very much.

A group of girl students from Art University, Tehran, Iran. ~2026-12931-04 (talk) 08:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much 331dots.

Thank you for your attention.

We appreciate it very much.

Because of you, a draft is now written.

Yo are very kind, a good human being. God bless you.

Thank you very much indeed.

God bless you, God bless your country, and God bless Iran too.

A group of girl students from Art University, Tehran, Iran. ~2026-12931-04 (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, we found this as well (in this regard):

https://hamsoonews.ir/?p=18247

It's the website of a famouse club of experienced journalists, here in Iran, the website has published an article about most famous Iranian Armenian musicians of all time and there is a good biography of Professor Andre Galestian there.

Thank you very much for your attention.

God bless you.

A group of girl students from the University of Art, Tehran, Iran. ~2026-12931-04 (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If someone creates an account with their email address as user name, shall that account be blocked and oversighted? Xzkdeng (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Policy in that area does not allow email addresses as usernames that do not identify a specific person, but they don't need to be oversighted. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1340397717

Thanks, Tellmethetruth555 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tellmethetruth555, reference 8 has an error "External link in |website= " because you put |website=https://www.oneindia.com rather than |website=www.oneindia.com.

reference 10 has an error "|last= has generic name" because you put |first=D. C.|last=Correspondent. First and last should be used for human first and last names, information like D.C. Correspondent can be omitted. TSventon (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The former should be |website=OneIndia (or whatever the website is actually called); not a partial URL. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've been making good‑faith edits to help improve the Disappearance of Lisa Dorrian article, but another editor has been reverting or changing anything I do without providing any explanation in edit summaries or on the talk page. We previously discussed some edits to the lead on the talk page, where I explained that I was simply trying to help improve the article, but they didn't seem interested in discussing any changes. Eventually I gave up on that discussion because they were essentially insisting that I should not change anything. Since then, they have continued reverting or altering certain things I do, and from their pattern of behaviour it appears they do not want any changes made to the page because they originally created it.

It's very difficult to have any discussion or build consensus with someone who seems to want to control everything about the page. I understand that per WP:OWN, no editor "owns" an article, regardless of who started it, and all pages are collaboratively maintained. I'm trying to contribute constructively, but the lack of any explanation for the reversions makes it impossible to understand their objections or move forward collaboratively. I have actually checked their talk page and it seems another editor has these concerns also and has said it to them but they don't seem to have made a difference.

Could someone advise on the best way to handle this situation and what the appropriate next steps are in terms of dispute resolution?

Thanks for any help. ItsShandog (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to a message left on my talk page from the OP. I don't think @WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker is acting in bad faith, however I would urge them to provide rationales for any reversions they make (which they failed to do here). 11WB (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that exact reversion, it would appear as though they reverted it because I initially missed a word, which I then added in a follow‑up edit — but as you can see, they reverted that as well. ItsShandog (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ItsShandog this seems to be covered by Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Follow the normal protocol. If I WP:AGF on both sides, you have copy edited the page and think your edit was an improvement, WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker reverted your edit and presumably doesn't agree. You could start a discussion on the article talk page and explain why your edit was an improvement, then the other editor should explain if they disagree. TSventon (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We are having a discussion about it now, but as I've said, this isn't the first time. We already had a discussion about the lead before on the article talk page, where I explained my reasoning, and there wasn't really any proper discussion from their side other and it ended with "leave it as it is". ItsShandog (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@11WB i reverted edits as they just had "ce" instead of a summary of changes and only difference was words deleted (i.e.) removed info without explanation WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see this as "kicking up a fuss". This isn't something that's happened once — it's been several times now where any edit I make to try and improve the article is changed or reverted. I've only ever been trying to help the page read more encyclopaedically. When I put "ce" in the summary, it was because I was copyediting the wording across the article. Yes, I could have been clearer, but it wouldn't have made much difference because the edits would still have been reverted. That's how it comes across: when you make changes, they're fine, but when anyone else tries to improve the prose, it's treated as wrong. From my perspective, it feels like it has to be your way or no way, and that makes it difficult for other editors to contribute constructively.

And if you were genuinely concerned about the lack of detail in my "ce" summary, I don't understand why you didn't mention that in your own revert summary. Your revert didn't say anything about missing reasoning — it just undid the edit. That makes it hard to believe the issue was the summary rather than simply not liking the changes.

This also isn't the first time we've had this issue. We already discussed the lead before, and I explained why the article title "Disappearance of Lisa Dorrian" means the lead should follow the standard event-based structure used across disappearance articles. That wasn't a personal preference — it was based on advice from an experienced editor who works and creates these types of pages. Your response then was that "40,000 people viewed it without issue", which isn't how article improvement works. Editors are supposed to collaborate to improve pages, not keep them frozen because they were the original creator. ItsShandog (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsShandog looking at the McNally article you have essentially tweaked the grammar slightly ? is that what the "ce" changes are about ? if so you are not really improving the Lisa Dorrian article by adding more info but just want it written in the grammatical style you prefer, and as grammar style is subjective with no right or wrong i have no idea why such a fuss is being kicked up ? WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article had a template saying the wording needed to be improved because it read like a news report, so I carried out copyediting across the article to fix that. The changes were to make the prose more encyclopaedic and clearer, not to enforce a personal grammatical style. All the information was kept; the wording was simply improved in line with what the template was asking for. ItsShandog (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsShandog no no thats cool, but what needs changing on Lisa Dorrian ? cant understand why random bits of text deleted ? WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My involvement has personally ended. All I'll add here, as a neutral party, is that @ItsShandog was only copy-editing, which is almost always non-controversial. Unsure why those edits specifically needed reverting as only a single word was changed. I think this may have caused @ItsShandog to perceive this as a continuation of the previous OWN issues that were previously highlighted. I don't think anybody acted in bad faith, and this could be easily resolved with improved communication through the use of edit summaries and article talk pages. 11WB (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're looking at the edit revisions but not actually reading the article text itself. Nothing was deleted at random. All the information is still there — the dates, the age, the suspects, the searches, the lines of inquiry, and the fact she is considered missing, presumed dead. The only thing that changed was the wording, because the original sentences were long, repetitive, and written in a news‑report style. My edits were standard copyediting to make the prose clearer and more encyclopaedic. The facts are identical; the sentences are just cleaner and easier to read. That's why it's important to look at the actual article, not just the revisions, because they makes small wording changes look like big removals when the meaning hasn't changed at all. The reason I changed the wording is because the original text genuinely read like a news report. It used phrases like "in her vanishing", "interrogated", "no trace was ever found", and very long, layered sentences with multiple "being" clauses. That's the tone and structure you see in journalism, not in an encyclopaedia. My edits were simply to remove that news‑style phrasing and make the prose more neutral and concise. No information was removed — just the way it was written was improved. ItsShandog (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsShandog, @WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker. I've moved the discussion from my talk page to here, as this is the more appropriate of the two venues to have this discussion. Thanks. 11WB (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ItsShandog (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsShandog fair enough but the page has been reviewed by others without issues being raised at all regarding the style of writing so we can agree we have a difference of opinion regarding grammatical styles and leave it at that WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So how do we actually resolve this and get consensus on what the edit should be? ItsShandog (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsShandog edit it and if i dont object we can leave as is, now i understand your reasoning i doubt we will have any issues going forwards WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker: Hi,

For clarification: "ce" is a common shorthand for copy-editing in edit summaries, and is almost always sufficient to explain those sorts of edits.

"No-one else is complaining about this issue" is not a very strong rationale to revert such edits. See WP:SILENCE: if you have a notion that a particular wording is fine based on the fact that nobody has objected to it yet, then that notion dissolves once an editor decides to reword it. If you wish to revert such edits, you'll want to provide a stronger justification than "nobody objected to it" for why the former version is better than the latter version in your edit summary. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 22:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker I agree with what @MEN KISSING said. Readers don't always "raise issues" when the wording in an article is not structured well. That isnot a reason to avoid improving the prose. David10244 (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Station WDAE has such a logo displayed on the WDAE wikipedia page. The station simulcasts (runs identical programming 24/7) on co-owned WDAE-FM. I (and another wikipedia user) have attempted to add the WDAE logo to the WDAE-FM page. It has been removed several times by a compliance bot, with this violation: "No valid non-free use rationale for this page." Here is the logo: File:Wdae957logo.webp As you can see the logo includes both 95.7 FM and 620 FM, so it is appropriate to be used on both WDAE and WDAE-FM wikipedia pages. Can you please insert this logo in the "| logo = " place in the "Infobox Radio Station" section of the WDAE-FM wikipedia page? Amos1001 (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wdae957logo.webp is not a freely available file, Amos1001. As there is, I quote, "No valid non-free use rationale for [WDAE-FM]", the file may not be used within WDAE-FM. (And if you keep attempting to add it anyway, without a good-faith attempt to follow the necessarily strict rules for using a non-free file within an additional article, then you risk getting in trouble for disruptive editing.) If, however, you believe that you have a valid non-free use rationale for its use within WDAE-FM, then you are free to write this rationale and to append it to the content of File:Wdae957logo.webp. Once you have done this satisfactorily, you may use the file within WDAE-FM. -- Hoary (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that i did this correctly. If not, feel free to delete my additions. Amos1001 (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

please let me know if i did it right. i'm apparently too stupid to understand how this works, but i've attempted to give the non-free use rationale for WDAE-FM, just below the use for WDAE. Is there something more I should have done? Amos1001 (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, but I don't understand the matter of dates. Example: "Logo of WDAE 95.7 that will be used on February 25th." Given that we're now in late February, I'd guess that this means Feb 25, 2026 (which where I happen to be typing was yesterday) ... but do you need any of this material about dates? (I don't think that the non-free use rationale for this film ad or this portrait mentions date(s)of appearance(s) on Wikipedia.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WDAE started using the logo on Feb 23, 2026 when they changed their FM from 95.3 (which was a low power, 250 watt translator station) to 95.7 (which is a full, 100,000 watt station).

FYI: iheart (the owner of the stations in question) changed the call letters of WRUB to WDAE-FM on Feb 23. At the same time they moved the format from low power W237CW (95.3) to WDAE-FM (95.7)

and created a new logo with the image 95.7 to replace the old logo with the image 95.3.

I put the date as Feb 25th because that is today's date, and the date I'm attempting to add the logo to the WDAE-FM page. It's already on the WDAE page, started on Feb 23.

Yes, today is still Feb 23 here in USA Eastern standard time (GMT -5).

I don't guess any dates were needed. Is it ok as it stands?

Thank you for your help. Amos1001 (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• February 25, 2006 here. typo

Amos1001 (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't immediately see anything wrong with it, Amos1001. Keep it on your watchlist for a time, so if anyone raises an objection, you'll know of it and can respond quickly. -- Hoary (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo. I would like to go to the mobile version. Problem is that i just... Can't. Even if i'm using a phone and having the opinion to use computer layout set to no! What could be causing this and how to finally go back? ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Check at the bottom of the screen, where there's the links 'Privacy policy', 'About Wikipedia' etc. At the end of that is a button to swap view. If you're on desktop view, the button will say 'Mobile view.' This button overrides your browser's desktop mode setting. Athanelar (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The current article under the title of "Ungrading" is about a book which covers information on the topic about Ungrading. I want to create a article on the general topic of Ungrading instead of just this book. I feel like the title of "Ungrading" deserves to be about the overall subject and not a specific book. How should I go about changing the title of the current article so that I can create a new article with the title of "Ungrading". Jacksonkeil (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd reword that, Jacksonkeil. I'd say that the article Ungrading is ostensibly about a particular book, titled Ungrading, that is itself about ungrading. It cites the book -- but to say nothing. It cites a review of the book -- but, again, to say nothing. Here's the nugget in question: Multiple books [which unfortunately go unspecified] have discussed this concept. In Ungrading: Why Rating Students Undermines Learning (and What to Do Instead) Susan D. Blum, a professor of anthropology at the University of Notre Dame^[2][3] writes about this concept. That's it! So the editor (and/or primary author) of Ungrading writes in it about ungrading -- well well! Is "ungrading" a synonym of a term that already gets an article that isn't as uninformative as this one? If so, tell us the synonym. If not, is there substantive, secondary material from reliable sources about what is sometimes or often called "ungrading"? If so, I warmly recommend converting the stub about the book to a decent article about the concept. -- Hoary (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is somewhat of a synonym called "Alternative grading" but I also believe there is plenty of secondary sources about the topic of ungrading itself. If you also believe that this topic is notabile/substantial enough based off of these sources, how should I go about converting this stub? Should I completely just remove the information about the book and replace it with the knowledge of the topic? The book the article is currently on is also one of the sources I have but below I will list a couple of the main sources I have.

Jacksonkeil (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason the sourecs I pasted in did not show up when I posted the reply so I will try again here.

Zugschwert, Laura C. Fostering Equity, Ownership, and a Community of Care: Alternative Grading in the Secondary Classroom. Diss. University of St. Thomas, 2025.

Stansberry, Susan L.; Thompson, Penny; Brown, Toby (2025). "Adventures in Ungrading: Sharing Strategies and Experiences". The Journal of Applied Instructional Design. 14 (2). doi:10.59668/2222.21279

Schinske, Jeffrey; Tanner, Kimberly (2014). "Teaching More by Grading Less (or Differently)". CBE life sciences education. 13 (2): 159–166. doi:10.1187/cbe.cbe-14-03-0054. ISSN 1931-7913. PMC 4041495. PMID 26086649.

Bailey, Austin; Wilkinson, Caroline (2023). "Ungrading the Composition Classroom: Affect, Metacognition, and Qualitative Learning". Journal of Basic Writing. 42 (2): 6–34. doi:10.37514/JBW-J.2023.42.2.02. ISSN 0147-1635. Jacksonkeil (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1338363676

Reference help requested.

what is error regarding date?

Thanks, Prathyushanindian (talk) 10:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

| access-date={{CURRENTDATE}}? No, Prathyushanindian, the access date is instead the latest date on which you accessed the page and verified that yes, it supports the claim(s) that its citation implies that it supports. -- Hoary (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

I'm editing Physella acuta and two of my references (Camargo & Alonso 2017; Bal, Kumar & Nugegoda 2017) are used once when referring to a specific page within the paper (because there's a specific information mentioned that I'm referring to) and once when referring to the paper as a whole (because I use them as examples of studies done on P. acuta, so there's no specific page to refer to). How do I format the SFNs in this case?

At the moment, the citations referring to a specific page have the SFN, and the citations referring to the whole paper have the standard citation formatting. To avoid the duplicated SFN error, I don't put the citation under the reference list. So the Notes section has both the SFN and the complete literature citation. Is this the correct procedure? Or should the "general" reference (no specific page) cite the pages that encompass the entire paper in an SFN?

Barbalalaika 🐌 12:43, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Does this not work? (here, replacing {{sfn}} with {{harvnb}} for the sake of simplicity)

In the main body of the article:

{{harvnb|Camargo|Alonso|2017|p=15668}} → Camargo & Alonso 2017, p. 15668 – when referring to a specific page within the paper

{{harvnb|Camargo|Alonso|2017}} → Camargo & Alonso 2017 – when referring to the paper as a whole

and in §References:

{{Cite journal |last=Camargo |first=J. A. |last2=Alonso |first2=A. |date=2017 |title=Ecotoxicological assessment of the impact of fluoride (F−) and turbidity on the freshwater snail ''Physella acuta'' in a polluted river receiving an industrial effluent |journal=Environmental Science and Pollution Research |language=en |volume=24 |issue=18 |pages=15667–15677 |doi=10.1007/s11356-017-9208-x}}

Camargo, J. A.; Alonso, A. (2017). "Ecotoxicological assessment of the impact of fluoride (F−) and turbidity on the freshwater snail Physella acuta in a polluted river receiving an industrial effluent". Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 24 (18): 15667–15677. doi:10.1007/s11356-017-9208-x.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh I hadn't thought of this possibility! Thank you, implemented :) Barbalalaika 🐌 15:42, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that my mom has a Wikipedia article -- Carol_Walker. I also don't remember whether an obit hosted on the web site of a funeral home counts as a reliable source for the date of her passing. The article doesn't yet list that date for obvious reasons... she passed away early yesterday morning. We kids haven't written her obit yet, but when we do, it will almost certainly be posted on the funeral home's web site.

Will that be reliable enough to make an edit request (I have an obvious COI) for the date of her passing? Thanks. David10244 (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

David10244, for obvious reasons, obits aren't always appropriate, but for something as basic as a date, should be fine Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for your loss. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:21, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing, @Jimfbleak Thanks to you both. I'll make an edit request after we write the obit. David10244 (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bankruptcy of FTX says Sam Bankman-Fried took to X on February 10, 2026, to state that the now-defunct FTX exchange was never bankrupt. He claimed that it was the legal firm Sullivan & Cromwell’s lawyers who forced the bankruptcy filing—not him—in order to gain control of the assets.[18][19] and the refs [18][19] are just text. Someone should take a look at that please thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus definitely AI slop I reverted it and warned the TA. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 17:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Polygnotus (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a dropdown to move my page from the sandbox to the mainspace. Can someone help with figure out what I'm doing wrong? Clarity CBT & DBT Center (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Clarity CBT & DBT Center. Your account is too new to be autoconfirmed, and so does not yet have access to the move function.

In any case, new accounts are very very strongly advised to put drafts of new articles through the articles for creation process, rather than moving them to main space directly, as the chances of a brand new account creating something that is anywhere near an acceptable draft are very small.

Your sandbox was moved to Draft:Erica Rozmid, and then deleted as unambiguous advertising.

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) 17:46, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

can i add my website name here Sure tips today (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, as Wikipedia is not a mere database of information. There are criteria for inclusion, written at WP:NWEB. You should also see conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"an art dude who scribbles around" Wafflecat5000 (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Wafflecat5000 That isn't a question or a plea for help. Do you have one? Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

no? Wafflecat5000 (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this relates to Draft:JasonTheArtKid, which is Wafflecat5000's autobiography, per the CoI declaration. If so, it stands zero chance of being accepted as an article as it stands. Go away and do something that independent reliable sources consider worthy of in-depth discussion, and maybe you'll merit an article in a few years. At which point someone without a conflict of interest might consider writing about you more objectively. This is not a platform for free publicity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you write about me lies on wikipedia can someone contact me!!! Donnyh33 (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you mean that somebody has written lies about you on Wikipedia. Well, which article do they appear in, and which are the lies? -- Hoary (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

About me Donny Huijsen

The whole subject vida privada is NOT true. And I don't understand you put lies on this platform. Donnyh33 (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Donnyh33: Is it about the article Dean Huijsen? The terms "vida" and "privada" don't appear in it and don't sound English. This is a help desk for the English Wikipedia. If it's about an article in another language then please link it so we can tell you where you might get help. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the article mentioned is on Spanish Wikipedia, es:Donny Huijsen. It has a "Vida privada" section TSventon (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If es:Donny Huijsen contains lies, you'd best bring up the matter at Spanish-language Wikipedia. But if you're not fluent in Spanish, then you can bring up the matter in Dutch or in English. -- Hoary (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes correct and that Is a lie ~2026-12861-43 (talk) 05:38, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No it’s donny huijsen

my page

snd you have vida privada what is wrong and a lie ~2026-12861-43 (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

English-language Wikipedia doesn't have an article titled Donny Huijsen. Can you give a link to the article you're complaining about? Maproom (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom Since they mentioned Vida privada it is safe to assume they mean eswiki. See also es:Especial:Contribuciones/Donnyh33 which is probably why they ended up here. And since this is the only somewhat decent source, and it says he was first convicted but then acquitted on appeal, OP is probably correct that it shouldn't be mentioned in a BLP. Even though acquitted doesn't necessarily mean innocent.[2] But I do not know if eswiki has an equivalent of WP:BLPCRIME. Polygnotus (talk) 09:00, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is es:WP:BPV which has sections similar to enwiki on privacy of "non-public figures". -- Reconrabbit 21:34, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not the right place but there doesn't seem to be an obvious place. I went to create a new archaeological site starter article (technically a "lost city" article as it is still unlocated) in the Ancient Near East project and it wouldn't let me do it because it was on some sort of title blacklist. The article name was "Gu’abba" which was the name of a 3rd Millennium BC Sumerian city. I've done a few of these and this is the first time I have had an issue like this. I am confused. :-) In case one is curious the text is User:Ploversegg/proto. Plan B is to try and create it without the apostrophe which is not correct but one does what one must.Thanks! Ploversegg (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ploversegg I think the problem is that "Gu’abba" has a curly apostrophe, "Gu'abba" with a straight apostrophe should work. TSventon (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good eyes!! Thanks, that fixed it. :-) Ploversegg (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) 2x

Did you really mean to use a curly quote character. If that character has special meaning like {{Ayin}}, {{Saltillo}}, {{Hamza}} (ʽ) have in some transliterations of Arabic, or {{Okina}} has in Polynesian languages, then use the character appropriate to the language/transliteration. If the character does not have special meaning, perhaps use the generic typewriter apostrophe (').

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah ... that worked. In the literature you see both straight and curly quotes for the name. In fact without noticing I had some of each in the article depending on the source I was using at the time. Maybe I need a bigger monitor. :-) I made them all straight quotes and life is good. Thanks. Ploversegg (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ploversegg Hello fellow ancient history enjoyer 👋 The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i wanted to make the cute lil Globy character appear,but even enabling it,it dosent work! ~2026-12831-30 (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-12831-30: It only appears on some articles like Wikipedia. Do you see it there? https://wikimediafoundation.org/wikipedia25/wikipedia-mascot has a video with more hints about where it appears. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

wait, does it means baby globe only appears on the top of the page? tbh i tought he was going to be walking trough the page like in the trailer they made for it lol ~2026-12831-30 (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just edited Cybersecurity in Space to de-Deadend it and found it also has 0 incoming links from other articles. Does just hang a {{Orphan}} works? It seems that this does not add it into the orphan category.

Also this article says Neil Armstrong is the ONLY man walked on moon and Germany launched the world's first rocket into orbit in 1949, which doesn't seem very true at least to me. I edited former as it is too obvious but left the latter as is for I really cannot find some sources to prove or disprove it. I guess germans never launched any V-2s after their surrender but I may be wrong. ~2026-12709-79 (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe the Germans got the V2 into lower space, (correct me if I’m wrong), as for the Neil Armstrong one that is definitely wrong. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The 1949 claim (which the reference used does not support) is probably a misunderstanding of the US Army's 1949–50 Bumper program, which launched several rockets with V2s (captured/taken from Germany in/after WW2) as their first stage into space (i.e. above 100km altitude), but not into orbit. The US Naval Research Laboratory also launched an ionospheric probe NRL Ionosphere 1 on a V2 in 1949.

Germany launched a V2 (then called an A4) beyond 100km altitude in 1944. The first German launch to orbit was Azur in 1969. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the 1944 one, didn’t know the Americans used it in 1949, but that makes sense with NASA using Werner Von Braun. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your first paragraph: Orphan tags put articles into hidden categories, so only Wikipedia accounts that have their preferences set to "Show hidden categories" will see them. I see the categories "Orphaned articles from February 2026" and "All orphaned articles" in that article. Deor (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the article on Monica Lionheart and believe it does not meet notability guidelines. There is no evidence that she is a notable figure in music. The content is promotional, and the editing history suggests it may have been created by someone closely associated with her. How do I request deletion? WafflesBaconAndPuppies (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Deletion process * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:05, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I swear I read H:S and tried really hard to figure this out myself first but I'm stuck. Let's say I want to search for every page that cites a scientific journal called "Genetics" but NOT "Genetics and Molecular Biology" or "Genetics Research" or anything else. I'm inputting insource:"journal=genetics" and I've tried adding a space or | or ! after the word 'genetics' inside the double quotes but it's still returning results citing any journal whose title begins with "genetics". What am I missing? Thanks in advance for any assistance. elchupacabra (talk) 06:35, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MacabreChupacabra: Non-alphanumeric characters are ignored in a normal insource search. See the regexp part at H:INSOURCE. I suggest splitting it in two searches. insource:"journal=Genetics (journal)" looks for links to Genetics (journal). insource:"journal=Genetics" insource:/journal *= *Genetics *[\|\}\n]/ looks for Genetics followed by a pipe, curly end bracket or newline, and allows spaces. It starts with a non-regexp search for efficiency. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much that's extremely helpful!! elchupacabra (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MacabreChupacabra: You may also be interested in linksto:"Genetics (journal)" insource:"Genetics (journal)" -insource:"journal=Genetics (journal)". It includes some citation templates with periodical, publisher or work instead of journal. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get transitive venus deleted? I had a go with the prod template and got the message "please do not use prod on redirects". Which method is preferred, then?  Card Zero  (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 07:35, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.  Card Zero  (talk) 07:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to delete it? It's a plausible mishearing of "Transit of Venus" (technically an "eggcorn") which someone might search on. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 12:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sending me down a WP:RABBITHOLE related to typographic mistakes! DMacks (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1340778246

Hi I am not able to find the change that Qwerfjkl is asking me to make. Every change I made should have sources cited next to them. Please advise

Thanks, Sstefanski2 (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In reference 37, you have |last=editor |first=Rob Schlotterbeck Daily Sun

Those values do not appear to be correct. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:22, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

...and in reference 45, you have |website=panhandle.newschannelnebraska.com, a URL, where you should have a prose name, presumably "News Channel Nebraska". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:25, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok good to know. The exact fix it had was for a generic name but I will go back and fix those too Sstefanski2 (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening everyone. Can an account be blocked without any edits? ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can it? Yes. There's loads of reasons why an account (or temporary account) might be blocked. Generally, non-edit accounts that get blocked are usually due to rangeblocks, or from sockpuppetry investigations.

You might find that on certain IPs you can be blocked without ever doing anything. VPN ranges, some schools, troublesome ips etc are blocked. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What schools are blocked and why? ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is a specific list, but schools are often the source of extensive vandalism. I'm wondering if something in particular has prompted your questions? 331dot (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An account without edits can be blocked if the username is overtly racist, hateful, deeply profane, threatens violence or attacks a person. We wait for edits in borderline cases. Cullen328 (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: John Balbach

I tried to leave a message using "talk" but first it was blocked because I gave my email, and then it was blocked for a reason I don't understand. I'm 79, and not used to using Wikipedia. I am a descendant of John Balbach and wanted to give the article's writer information and pictures that I have. If he or she is a relative, I'd like to be in touch. Is there a way you can contact the person who posted the article and tell them how to get in touch with me? I don't think I can give you my email address here either, but my name is Tennise Broeck Morse. TBMorse (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TBMorse, thank you for not posting your email address. Wikipedia articles can only be based on published information. Much of the material described in Talk:John Balbach#John Balbach: info and pictures is not published and thus is unusable. Photographs -- if old enough to have fallen into the public domain, as these would be -- are a different matter; but NB Wikipedia does not attempt to be a genealogical or similar resource. Even for somebody as eminent as Einstein, Wikipedia does not provide photographs of adult descendants. (Wikipedia does provide them for descendants of Freud, but this is because Clement Freud, Lucian Freud etc are demonstrably notable in their own right.) The history of the article John Balbach shows that most of the work of assembling it was done by GreenC; you can write to GreenC either on User talk:GreenC or (probably better) on Talk:John Balbach. -- Hoary (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

what is the meaning of John chapter 17 verse 20 to 21 ~2026-13024-14 (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question about the use of Wikipedia? (That's what this page is for.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't what this help desk is for, but Wikipedia does have information about those verses at John 17 § Verse 20 and That they all may be one. – Scyrme (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, when I was reading Sailor Moon articles, I've seen Sailor Moon templates was cluttered by newly uploaded Sailor Senshi Flags besides Sailor Moon flags, which were created to look akin to File:Flag_of_Sailor_Moon.svg with representing symbols of other Sailor Senshis with different color schemes. They are found to be used in userboxes associated with Sailor Moon as well as the main navigation template Template:Sailor Moon. How should I do with them, or any thoughts regarding this?

Link(s) for your reference:

• 1
• 2

Corsadent56709 (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I had created them because Sailor Moon is not the only Senshi. I had created them for other users who liked other Senshi. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If they are your own creations, then per Wikipedia:No original research they don't belong anywhere in article space. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really "original research". It's fan art. Still shouldn't be used in articles/navboxes, as readers may mistakenly assume they're canonical. – Scyrme (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even if these WERE the flags directly from the series... What is the point of them existing within {{Sailor Moon}}? Looks like pointless decoration to me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:43, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I've gone ahead and removed them from that template. Clutters it unecessarily and aren't needed in mainspace. CoconutOctopus talk 14:14, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You left File:Flag of Sailor Moon.svg in, but I'm unsure whether it's any more canonical than these others. Its description makes it plausibly sound like it's derived directly from the franchise, but looking closer it mentions that it's a scalable vector replacement for a raster .png file which was originally uploaded directly to Wikipedia before being moved to Commons. Looking at the source fields of both files, none cite anything officially associated with the franchise, like an episode where it appears or an official website. It may be that this flag is also fanart. The description of the .png seems to say it was originally intended just for {{User smfan}}, and the "source" listed is identical with its author, Denelson83. – Scyrme (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I left that one in because it was on the template for a while now, unlike the other which were added last week. I have absolutely no issues with someone else removing it, though. CoconutOctopus talk 14:48, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have done. There's no need for such a flag. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:05, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Im less worried about them existing in userspace. You can have whatever image you like provided it doesn't break copyright. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For WP:TRADE in regards to establishing notability[3]; Do I understand this policy right? It means feature stories from leading trade magazines can be cautiously used, esp if their independence is clear. The presumption against them is cautionary, not absolute, and can be overridden if the source is substantial, independent and reliable. If the source is being disputed by others - matter needs to be worked through at RS noticeboard to determine whether it can be used for establishing notability. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

JaredMcKenzie, that is guideline language, not policy language. Policies are more authoritative than guidelines. It happens to be a subsection of WP:NCORP, a guideline that enjoys widespread support. The language that you should keep in mind is there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability. Also, that guideline says If a source's independence is in any doubt, it is better to exercise caution and exclude it from determining quality sources for the purposes of establishing notability. You are correct that the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is the proper place to develop consensus about whether or not a contested source is appropriate to use. Sometimes a source does not help establish the notability of a topic, but is acceptable to verify a factual assertion when notabilityhas been established by better sources. Cullen328 (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This developer is not me ~2026-13191-29 (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which developer? How is this a matter of concern? Do you have a question about using Wikipedia? -- Hoary (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Does fixing WP:BLPCRIME get a 1RR exemption?

Late Night Coffee (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Late Night Coffee possibly. WP:1RR says it follows WP:3RR and There may also be a requirement to discuss each reversion on the talk page. 3RR has a BLP exemption, but What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. TSventon (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In Edit mode I've been used to citing Papers Past items by clicking the Cite link at the top of the page and using Add a citation - Automatic. It now shows the error message "We couldn't make a citation for you. Try another source or create one manually." Is there a way to avoid having to create a Papers Past citation manually please? Johnragla (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I tried a few different links and, curiously, the other newspapers I tried worked. It seems the problem is with specific papers (or, at least, this specific paper) not the site as a whole. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to figure out what was different. – Scyrme (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying. On the same Papers Past website it seems to work for Parliamentary papers, but not for Books, Letters, or Magazines. Johnragla (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I tried to make an account using the WP:RAC process, and it was denied for having a too similar username to a user (I don't want to give names, I'm willing to give more information upon request) that was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet and an unauthorized bot, however it has more than 15 edits, which means that due to the guide, my request was denied. Are there any account creators/admins that would be willing to make the account for me? dot.py 03:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Dot.py According to WP:USURPNAME only Stewarts on Meta can handle such requests. But best to read the linked policies beforehand. --Maresa63 ^Talk 21:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are there templates for making references? (i.e {{cite book |last=“last name” |first=“first name” |…etc.}}) DeadHeat16 (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at Template:Cite book? DonIago (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You made no mention that George Zimmerman that shot & killed Trayvon had called the police and was explicitly told to stop pursuing Trayvon! George Zimmerman did not do what the police had instructed him to do. Instead he kept following Trayvon. Which at night a teenager alone having some adult man following you has to be unnerving! Had Zimmerman stopped as directed by the police Trayvon would probably still be alive! Why isn’t any mention of this on his Wikipedia page? Seriously a 17 yr old kid who was walking back from the convenient store with a bag of skittles VS a 28 yr old (wannabe police officer) in actuality a neighborhood watch with a gun! ~2026-13298-52 (talk) 06:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Raising your concerns at the article's Talk page is more likely to yield results than raising them here. DonIago (talk) 07:15, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-13298-52 Wikipedia articles are based solely on reliable sources. You will need to provide a reliable source for your assertion. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a full article on the shooting itself, which quotes what the dispatcher said, and has a full timeline of the shooting. The narrative of the shooting in the Trayvon Martin article is only a couple paragraphs, and is simply a basic retelling of the known facts. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

how do I do this? Ashtdog88 09:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean your Watchlisted articles (Help:Watchlist)? If you login to Wikipedia on your laptop they'll be where they usually are, as they're linked to the account not the device. Or do you mean something else? – Scyrme (talk) 11:41, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean a list that the mobile App allows you to create, then I'm afraid you can't. The mobile apps are really separate developments (see m:Wikimedia Apps and the pages linked from there): the developers decided to put a reading list in, but has never been made available in the desktop version.

One way to create your own portable reading list is to create a WP:user subpage, and populate it with Wikilinks to articles you want to go back to. But that is certainly more work. ColinFine (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I am working on a planned revision of the article Digital rhetoric - I am wondering if there is a convention for ordering a history of an academic field from oldest to newest (or if the reverse order) might be acceptable (e.g. beginning with more recent research/developments and then going backwards chronologically)?

Thank you,

Matthewvetter (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In general, history/background sections are normally ordered chronologically starting from the oldest history to the newest. Athanelar (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lists ordered chronologically from newest at the top to oldest some way below are rare in Wikipedia. (They have a few uses other than in articles, e.g. "decline" notices and comments on drafts.) Avoid them. If you encounter such a list, the "sort" function of a spreadsheet makes inverting it easy. -- Hoary (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Help me understand the Why about this Wikipedia approved violation policy...

I thought Wikipedia is suppose to be NEUTRAL!

Yet, I read that its absolutely OKAY to not be Neutral concerning things of the strange, or little green men, In other words, the Fringe. I am skeptical, but I also believe everyone has a right to their opinion, and a right to be Judged or assessed in a neutral way. To me, this weird policy looks like Wikipedia said, "We decided to discriminate against anything considered Fringe, and against any authors who write about it, even to the point of declaring them "Not to be an Author".

Please help me understand the WHY of this. I don't believe everything I hear, but I mean, even I consider this policy unfair. (Please do not respond with a kindergarten response "Policy: Wikipedia is not fair". )

I am MagnummSerpentinee (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reality has little to do with 'fairness'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not neutral. What neutral point of view means is that all significant views on an issue, published by reliable sources, are represented fairly and proportionately. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Neutral" means we (WP content) do not pass judgement ourselves, but instead follow cited sources. Being 50/50 on mainstream vs minority vs fringe vs total crackpot is WP:FALSEBALANCE. WP:UNDUE weight is actually a form of non-neutrality. DMacks (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MagnummSerpentinee, can you give a couple of examples or authors of whom it seems that Wikipedia declared, or declares, that they are not authors? -- Hoary (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine I decide, just for fun, to tell people that small doses of death cap mushrooms can cure cancer. I start a website about this, get a few hundred followers, and criticize the mainstream media for not taking my death cap theory seriously. One of my followers edits the Wikipedia article about death caps to say it cures cancer. Should Wikipedia keep that edit, so it can stay neutral for the people who I tricked into believing this? Now replace "death caps cure cancer" with any other fringe theory. The full process for situations like this can be found at the page Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One could actually write plausible scientific woo based on doi:10.1089/acm.2010.0035 and credulous readers could easily be fooled. DMacks (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have a question about how to represent someone's birth year correctly when the sources are contradicting. In short, Marie Salmon's birth year is disputed across several sources: either 1754, 1760, or 1763. The 1754 year (based on alleged baptismal records that are cited by a journal but I have not personally verified) and the 1760 year (based on a legal brief from her lawyer, which I have personally verified & cited directly) seem like the most likely.

So far what I've done is use "circa 1760" for her birth year and then added a footnote explaining the different dates (with citations).

Is this what you all would recommend? I just want to be as accurate as possible, given the circumstances. I think it's best to trust her lawyer's date (1760) for the article, as I have seen his document & am able to cite it directly? But that 1754 date alleges to be based on baptismal records... Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 20:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Chao Garden: I like your approach. The inline "circa" conveys the uncertainty. The details are available to an interested reader in the footnote without distracting a casual reader. Your decision to choose 1760 comes down to editorial judgement, and you are the editor. Arch dude (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:APPROXDATE is a relevant guideline, and your approach is what it recommends. DMacks (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chao Garden, Arch dude's comment seconded. Well done. But unfortunately the article has many birth-unrelated problems, throwing up -- at least as I view the page -- numerous messages such as "Harv error: link from CITEREFHardy doesn't point to any citation" (in "Citations"); and "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBinetPatas1786" (in "References"). A tip for you: User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors. -- Hoary (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thank you, there are a lot of harvid errors! I think I've addressed them all now... though it was confusing at first, because the "Show preview" seems to throw the "multiple targets (2x)" error. Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 00:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the feedback! I really appreciate it. Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 00:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chao Garden, consider a reference: {{Cite book |last=Fournel |first=Jean-François |author-link=Jean-François Fournel |url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/r4VSc1f3XLoC?hl=en&gbpv=0 |title=Consultation pour une jeune fille condamnée à être brûlée |trans-title=Consultation for a young girl condemned to be burned at the stake |date=1786 |publisher=[[André-Charles Cailleau|Cailleau]] |publication-place=Paris |language=fr |via=[[Google Books]] |ref={{harvid|Fournel|1786}}}}. Within that (at its end), what is |ref={{harvid|Fournel|1786}} doing? Or, what is lost if you simply delete it? -- Hoary (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

oh yeah, I see your point. Admitted, I got pretty scared by all the errors earlier & went overboard. I just removed the unnecessary harvids from books and journals. Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 02:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do I create a Redirect page?

Xavier Newcombe (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All redirects can be created and edited like any other article, and all share the same opening format: #REDIRECT followed by a blue wikilink to the intended destination article.

For example: pasting #REDIRECT[[Wikipedia]] into the first line of a new article page would create a redirect to the article Wikipedia,

There is more guidance with examples at Help:Redirects.

It also helps if you categorise new redirects when you make them. The process for categorising redirects is different than the one for articles. When categorising an article you would add a category link at the bottom like [[:Category:Wikipedia articles]]. For redirects you instead insert templates, which you can find listed in Category:Redirect templates. – Scyrme (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

According to Help:Redirect. -- Hoary (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Often on this site, there are news citations that are dead accompanied by archived links. Instead of simply marking them as dead, however, the story will have been reposted on the publication's website, but the newer URL for the old story will not have been archived. In circumstances such as these, can the newer URL replace the original URL whilst keeping the archived version of the original? JPHC2003 (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I only hazily understand, JPHC2003. (I may be able to guess what you mean, but my guess could well be wrong.) Please provide an example of what you have in mind. -- Hoary (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a citation: Howell, Peter (March 20, 2009). "Polytechnique: Silent witness". The Star. Toronto. Archived from the original on March 23, 2009. Retrieved May 22, 2010.. The URL has been deviated, and another editor has included an archived link. I found this version of the page that is still online. Should the first URL be replaced with the URL I found whilst keeping the archived link? JPHC2003 (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, JPHC2003. Howell, Peter (March 20, 2009). "Polytechnique: Silent witness". The Star. Toronto. Archived from the original on March 23, 2009. Retrieved May 22, 2010. Fine so far. The Wayback Machine did take its time serving me its March 2009 scrape, but the delay was only mildly annoying. The newer (but undated) page ("...com/news/...") lacks this minor annoyance but has no other advantage that's obvious to me. Updating the link so that it points to this could be held to require checking either that the texts of each page are identical or that its use (summary, quotation) reflects the newer one -- though for a page such as this, such a demand seems pedantic. Let's for a moment consider the apocalypse: the Internet Archive collapses (perhaps bought by a billionaire who reorients it in some billionaire-friendlier direction). We'd then be very grateful for the newer URL, of course. When a linked source seems of particular importance to a WP article and is available at two or three places, I do on occasion note these alternative URLs on the article's talk page. All in all I wouldn't replace the older link (via Wayback) with the newer one -- but am (sleepily) open to being told I'm missing something important here. -- Hoary (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Submit the new URL to the Wayback Machine (or other archive, if preferred). Then update the citation with both the new link and the new archive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've just edited White_hole#See_also and noted that it was a long list - so was going to add {{div col}} to neaten it up - but I noticed it's already there. Doesn't seem to be working though? Why should that be? The only thing I can think of is that it's a list of wikilinks, as opposed to plaintext but those don't seem to be proscribed in the documentation: Template:Div_col#Limitation

I think that the list could perhaps be trimmed anyway and reduced, but I'm more interested in why {{div col}} isn't working. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC) [reply]

Never mind - seems to be working now. I'll assume a cache issue. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would a user who was topic banned from infoboxes be prohibited from altering infoboxes on their own userpage?

I ask because a topic ban from infoboxes is being considered for an editor over at AnI, and I noticed they have an infobox on their own userpage. It feels like it would be rather punitive to prevent them from modifying it, given nearly zero risk of improper behaviour, so I'd like to think the answer is 'no, of course not'. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 09:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's something you should raise in the ANI discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Many info boxes have a person's age, either current or when they died. I would like to suggest that someone add some completely general code to the info box template to make the age (i.e. time duration) appear in units of days, after the age in years of course. If this seems like it would have too narrow an appeal, we could allow readers to choose in the Preferences that it appear or not appear. Can I get this suggestion through appropriate channels? Peter Jedicke (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pjedicke: Aside from "how might that improve the encyclopedia?", it could be a bit tricky for some dates. And what does "day" mean in your proposal, particularly in respect of the days of birth and death? The template {{Age in days}}, for example, calculates that there are 30 days from 1 Mar 2026 to 31 Mar 2026; some people will argue this should be 31. Bazza 7 (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Richardson image was deleted from her page. How do I request it back?

Ronald Sexton (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The image was deleted at Commons for having no permission; if you believe that was incorrect you'll need to ask over on Commons, it's not anything to do with us here. CoconutOctopus talk 15:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is already discussion of this issue at:

• c:User talk:Ronald Sexton#File tagging File:DLR December2025.jpg
• c:Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/archive/2026#VRT ticket is ticket:2025081310007167
• c:Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/archive/2026#image on Dame Louise Richardson's Wikipedia page
• c:Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/archive/2026#undeleting image of Dame Louise Richardson
• Talk:Louise Richardson#updated image of Dame Louise Richardson

(all but the last on Wikimedia Commons). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon. It's golden hour! I wanted to ask if on the Reference Desk, can there be question like guess the year (this was taken)? ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @~2026-24671-3. Absolutely not. The WP:Reference desk is not for guessing anything, and not for games. Asking questions to which you already know the answer would be disruptive editing. ColinFine (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An editor who popped up for about a month has added a lengthy tirade to Talk:Llangollen Canal, arguing that much of the content I added to the article in 2020 (I actually added it in 2018, but facts don't seem to matter) was inappropriate. He uses comments like This level of ignorance is staggering, This is what amateurish editing gets you. A completely distorted and incorrect article. and I am so frustrated I have to even point this out. Wikipedia is messing up history because AI reads this. Is it alright to remove the tirade? I posted a reasoned response at the time, but if this was a biography of a living person, the content would be deleted immediately. This sort of abuse of other editors does not appear to enhance Wikipedia. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

around last year october i was reading on nefertiti and someone put in an edit that she can be compared to alix of hesse, the romanov. I need help finding when and where that edit was made and when it was extracted. When describing Nefertiti's tactics of punishing peoplr, someone added in that it can be compared to Alix of Hesse which is not factual at all seeming there are not stories of the Empress doing such things. So i need help finding when that edit was made and when it was extracted because i no longer see it. Please and thank you its vrry important ~2026-13648-92 (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If the false information was already removed, why is it very important to find when it was removed? It sounds like someone already dealt with the problem. Or am I missing something? – Scyrme (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]