Latest comment: 2 months ago7 comments6 people in discussion
For several years I have tried to have my page upload it to wikipedia.org and it has been very confusing, to lsay the least...so many different times in the past but, my students did not understand how to do use Wikipedia, I do not understand how to use lit. It is not as easy as it may seem to be. I paid a company called Wiki proficiency to create and upload my Wiki page and Although I did most of the proofreading and updating, they led me on and scammed me. Though, I did keep the updated page with links to different articles done, they never uploaded the page as promised. I would truly appreciate to have a volunteer be able to upload it to Wikipedia.org 47.148.121.67 (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Paid editing is generally unfavorably viewed on wikipedia. In addition there are general guidelines on what Wikipedia is, and isn't. It's also generally discouraged to write about yourself as it can lead to a myriad of other issues. Generally, if you're notable enough to meet the criteria for inclusion, someone will write a page about you. If you need help with editing Wikipedia, the Teahouse is a good place to start. QTC03:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am Sorry if I was not clear but I was not paying for editing I was paying a company called WIKI proficiency to create and upload a Wikipedia page for me. They found me to be noble when they were working with Wikipedia And I satisfied the criteria for inclusion and they were writing the page for me but, they did not finish uploading the page as promised. If you are not able to upload the page I would truly be grateful for you to ask someone who can because starting again with guidelines are very confusing to me and I do not know how to do this...Thank you! 47.148.121.67 (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
We strongly discourage anybody paying anybody to edit Wikipedia; that's the very definition of paid editing. You were scammed by crooks. You won't find a lot of sympathy from many of us, because you should never pay to get an article about yourself in Wikipedia. There is no good reason for such a thing. Indeed, we advise that it may be sometimes be a bad thing to have an article here about yourself. --Orange Mike | Talk03:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi IP 47.147.121.67. It does sound like you got scammed, especially if the company was telling you they were working with Wikipedia in some way since there are no companies offering paid editing services that are "officially recognized" by the Wikimedia Foundation. These companies are no different from you, me and anyone else in that they need to comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines if they want to create/edit Wikipedia content. I'm afraid that the company either knew what they were doing from the get-go and knowingly scammed you, or they promised you something that they thought they could deliver but found out later that they couldn't do. Anyway, I strongly suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before trying to proceed further. If after ready those pages you feel that (1) you clearly meet one of Wikipedia's notability guidelines and (2) you understand that you'll have no real editorial control over what's written about you on Wikipedia as long as what's written complies with relevant policies and guidelines and (3) you still want to have a Wikipedia article written about you, you can try working on a Wikipedia:Draft that you can submit to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review once you think it's ready. An AfC reviewer will assess the draft and decide whether it satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. That's about the only thing anyone can surely say with respect to someone creating a Wikipedia article about you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
IP editor: if you want to have a biography here, you obviously are happy to be named. If you post here your real full name (and affiliation if referring to "students" means you are an academic), then experienced editors will be able to advise whether you are likely to be notable in the way we define that for academics and hence how to proceed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Uploading a picture
Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
@Muhammad92786 You can't upload pictures into articles by drag-and-drop like you might do into an email program. Picture upload (usually as a file stored at our sister project Wikimedia Commons) is the first step, followed by incorporation of the file's name into the text of the article. See Help:Pictures for full details. You can ask back here if you need further advice. Note that it is simplest if the picture you want to use is your own work: something you took with your own camera. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I purposing took my entire name out - and it's been out for 4 days or so without bottleofchocmilk putting it back. So, why is he so cincerned with editing it when it's there to describe me as he sees fit to do? EarthChoice2016 (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! I understood you need to make at least 10 edits and wait about 4 days until the account can be confirmed. How do I participate to make further edits? Thanks again! Phollypurcell (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
"Confirmed" is the status you need to upload files and make changes to some protected pages. You can make edits on any of the hundreds of thousands of articles without being autoconfirmed. Reconrabbit14:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
And relatedly, you have yourself to actively create your User page, until which your signature will remain red. Of course, you don't have to: some account holders choose never do so; others like myself have been editing for years (around 20 in my case) without an account at all. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.145.123 (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion
By any chance, does this rule apply to the status of a name? Someone said, "To have North Korea as the title of a document is to treat 'North Korea' as if it were on par with the fact that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is an official country name, which violates the Wikipedia talk: Fringe theories"
It's a question I left in the talk in this article, but I'm forced to leave it here because there's no answer. Mamiamauwy (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Mamiamauwy: I get no search results on your quote. It would be odd to say "violates the Wikipedia talk: Fringe theories" and not "violates Wikipedia:Fringe theories" so I wonder whether the quote is real. Your description isn't enough to judge. If it's about something at the English Wikipedia then please link it. If it's about another Wikipedia language then we have no authority over them and they may have other policies than us. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago8 comments4 people in discussion
Is it acceptable to cite a criminal court case, even though it's a primary source? I was working on updating List of incidents at Walt Disney World, and wanted to add the results of a criminal case that hadn't been reported on anywhere else, so I just cited the court directly. This is Florida where court records are public record and easily accessible. –DMartin15:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Court records are considered primary sources. If it's not being reported on, how do you know about it? If independent reliable sources are not reporting on a matter, it really shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all. Does the case have Disney as a party, or did the incident at issue merely occur there? 331dot (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The case had been reported on when charges were filed, but no updates on the case had been published, which is why I chose to cite the court directly. It seemed unethical(or at least unfair) to report that someone had been accused, but not state that they had plead not guilty and maintained their innocence. –DMartin16:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Is there a "Dark Mode" setting on Wikipedia's site? All my other applications, including Google, have this feature. I may be missing it. I've searched the site, which I believe should display this option. However, I'm not finding it, and even a Google search was unsuccessful. I'm confident I'm just overlooking it.
If you could point me in the right direction, I would greatly appreciate it. When I use other programs in "Dark Mode" and then switch to Wikipedia, it takes me several seconds to adjust to the bright white background. It's quite straining on my eyes, and I'm sure many others feel the same. This is why many sites are now offering this feature.
Adjusting my computer's "brightness" setting affects everything, which is not what I want.
Disable editor help panel when copyediting from newcomer homepage
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Even though I am an experienced editor, I still use the newcomer homepage as a page to suggest edits to be. However, when I open an article to copyedit that it suggests, it still tells me how to copyedit, even when I have the editor help panel disabled in settings. How can I get rid of this help panel, it's annoying? thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/$17:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sudden flags on my entry about previously accepted content
Latest comment: 2 months ago23 comments7 people in discussion
Greetings,
I am an award-winning journalist and nationally syndicated columnist. I hired an experienced Wikipedia writer to create a biographical entry about me in 2017, supplying him with my biographical information. The entry was reviewed by Wikipedia, approved, and posted in mid-2017. Since then, I have made minor edits -- mainly to add new major publications that had published my columns. These edits were immediately accepted and added without question. HOWEVER: A few days ago, I made a very simple addition to my entry, noting that the Boston Globe had also published one of my columns. I was shocked the next day to see two warning messages in huge letters: 1) "This biographical article is written like a resume; and 2) "a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject."
I dispute both these claims: 1) Having helped many people write their resumes and having reviewed many more job applicants' resumes as an editor, I know for certain that this article bears little resemblance to a resume. I have received major awards as a writer and a journalist, and I can accurately assess the writing in this article. It is written like a news article that describes a subject's past, providing many more details and much more important context than a resume; 2) Adding the name of one newspaper does not make me "a major contributor." And reading several forums of Wikipedia users/writers, I see no prohibition against contributing to -- or even writing -- an autobiographical article.
Is simply adding one more newspaper to a list of newspapers that have published my articles considered an edit? Would it help if I link to my article as published in that newspaper? This is completely factual, completely noncontroversial, and involves no conflict of interest. Blueboy567 (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Blueboy567, please stop adding additional items to that list, unless the item is particularly noteworthy in some way. This is one reason we ask article subjects not to edit their own articles. Please make edit requests on the talk page. 57.140.16.57 (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Re "unless the item is particularly noteworthy in some way:" Yes, the item WAS particularly noteworthy. It was my first column in the Boston Globe, a preeminent newspaper widely respected by journalists and others....To be candid, the notion that there is some of conflict in me simply adding that newspaper's name to an existing list of other newspapers is === absurd. It also raises the question of why similar additions I made previously === adding other newspapers' names === were not flagged. Whoever flagged this -- especially saying "MAJOR ISSUES" -- is overzealous and almost certainly misinterpreting Wikipedia's rules. But reading through all the back and forth over this one small issue, I can understand why the rules might be interpreted differently by different people. They are incredibly complex and, at points, contradictory. This whole experience really changes my opinion of Wikipedia. A close friend of mine is a federal judge. He has a Wikipedia entry. So here's a multiple choice question about it: Who properly should have written that entry? A) The judge himself; B) One of his clerks or other employees; C) An outside professional writer; D) Someone else (please explain who if so)...Re my entry, although an outside writer wrote the initial entry, I provided ALL documentation and sourcing for the information it contained, and there was/is a lot of sourcing. I truly don't understand what more Wikipedia would want. Blueboy567 (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) @Blueboy567: Every time someone adds/changes/removes something from an article and clicks the "Publish changes" button, that's considered an edit. Adding information to an article about you, even if completely factual and non-controversial, can be considered a conflict of interest. Best to make an WP:Edit request on the talk page with a published reliable source. GoingBatty (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing) - I am curious to know why you thought the tags were inappropriate? Since 2020, the edit summaries clearly state "I added my work..." Does that not make the article subject to wp:COI scrutiny? Does continuously adding your own achievements to the article not render it unlike a CV?
In this post, @Blueboy567 says "I hired an experienced Wikipedia writer to create a biographical entry about me." Is that not wp:paid? Personally, when an article is written, and when the subject of the article is continuously editing it and hired someone to contribute/create it, do readers and editors not deserve to know "a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject"?
All my tags were meant to do was create awareness and start a discussion on the talk page on the appropriate steps needed to correct the issue at hand. Would Template:Autobiography been more appropriate? The specific problems are difficult to discern because the article is mainly composed by a potentially a paid editor and subject.
I know you are powerful editor on the project and I trust your judgement. I don't think paid editing should be tolerated and its important to create records to document when it happens. When there is COI/UPE and the like, I want to make others aware. Without tagging this article we may have never known that this article was a product of paid editing. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me.20:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm amused at the thought of being a "powerful editor". As noted above, the article reads northing like a resume. As for {{COI}}, my edit summary has already invited you to read its documentation, which says in part "This tag is not generally used to notify readers that an article appears to be partially or wholly autobiographical... if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start [such] a discussion, any editor will be justified in removing the tag without warning." and "In order to be tagged, the article should have a specific, articulatable, fixable problem. Do not apply this tag simply because you suspect COI editing, or because there is or was a COI editor. COI editors can be added to the talk page using the template {{Connected contributor}}. ". I note that the latter is already in place. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits20:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Pigsonthewing, again, we would have never known outright that this article was a product paid editing without addressing the COI issues directly. I think there is value in that. I can appreciate that there needs to be a specific problem. But when there is years of COI editing across multiple IP accounts and a created account(s) purporting the be the subject, the specific, articulatable, fixable problem is the COI issues. The best I can do is start a discussion with the tag and in doing so alert other editors to help seek out solutions to look through the edits/article.
{{Connected contributor}}, doesn't negate the issues happening within the article itself, especially when the COI is mainly/lately through IP addresses. I appreciate you inviting me to read the COI documentation. You are much more well versed in the letter of law here, but I hope you can see I am acting in good faith and trying to improve the project. Happy to have more guidance in the future.
Looking at User talk:Isingness#July 2020 and the subsequent discussion after they were blocked, seems very likely to me (they're specifically tied to WikiExperts). I suppose the bright side here is that they weren't outright scamming folks, unlike several others brought up on the help desk recently. 57.140.16.57 (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
As you say, Isingness is blocked - indefinitely so. Blueboy567 - who came here to ask for our help - has been given good guidance and has agreed to use the talk page in future. Multiple editors are reviewing the article and discussing it on its talk page. What else are you hoping to achieve? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits21:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Blueboy567: Looking at these statistics on the article, I see that the #1 author is the "experienced Wikipedia writer" you hired, with 81% percent. It seems that all the 2600/2601 IP addresses are edits by you, which total over 9%. It appears to me that you are in fact "a major contributor" to the article. GoingBatty (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I disagree that 9% of the IP addresses makes me a major contributor. By definition, that's a minor contributor. Furthermore: Where is the conflict in me being a contributor, major or minor, to an article about me? Especially one that is extremely well sourced and documents. Blueboy567 (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think the fact that you're the first person to flag any of these issues for an entry that's been posted since 2017 and edited with small changes many times since then -- this show that the problem is with you. Blueboy567 (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Blueboy567: I am not the first person to flag the COI issues in this conversation. I have not flagged the COI issues at all on the article or the article's talk page or your user talk page. You can confirm that by reviewing the edit history for each page. GoingBatty (talk) 04:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't know about how it is in the US, but where I am, the regulations and policies cover actual and percieved conflicts of interest. What this means is that if you have any external relation, even if you are fully correct that you have actual no conflict of interest whatsoever when writing something, you should familiarise yourself and follow the guidelines we have regarding conflicts of interest, even if to you they seem unnecessary, even if they seem purely pro forma. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK, let's put this in a context you might be more familiar with. You're a professional journalist, you've written for NPR, they also have conflict of interest guidelines. Let's say, hypothetically, you're involved in some newsworthy event and, NPR have asked you to write a story about it. You don't think your involvement forms any actual conflict of interest. What do you do? Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Cross-wiki article queries
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Is there a way to generate a list of Wikidata items (or corresponding Wikipedia articles) where the article on one Wikipedia is in a particular category and the article on another Wikipedia is in another particular category? Kk.urban (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
External links should almost never occur inside the text of an article, unless they are in citations: see WP:EL.
Citations should contain bibliographical information, such as title, author, publisher, page, date: if there is a URL available that links to a legal copy of the source, then it is a good idea to include the link as an aid to a reader or reviewer; but in most cases, a link is not an essential part of a citation.
The purpose of a citation is to identify a reliable source for a specific piece of information in the article: nothing else. If a paper directly support a claim in the article, then cite that paper; but in any other case, don't.
COI edit request backlog, and access paywalled financial publications
Latest comment: 2 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I'm helping clear the connected edit request backlog, and am starting to get pinged on my talk page as the backlog continues to grow. If anyone want to help, we can use it. I'm working on an essay with syntax tips for connected editors on how to make successful edit requests, based on rejections I've seen from other editors. Comments and suggestions are welcome. The latest ping request requires access to paywalled Bloomberg and Financial Times articles. I just signed up for JSTOR access to get some academic journals and books, but wonder if there's something similar for editors to use to access Bloomberg and the Financial Times? STEMinfo (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@GoingBatty: Thanks for the tip and help. Searching this archive is new to me. I just went to the Internet Archive to try to find the first article listed as a source. A few hits came up with archived time stamps, but the result only shows the first two paragraphs, which is similar to what shows as the text gets fuzzy on the live paywalled page. It looks like the archive can't get past the paywall either. Are there any free library type subscriptions qualified editors can use? STEMinfo (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@STEMinfo Archive.is website sometimes has stuff others don't. The Bloomberg article there is this URL but it may not be very helpful as the extra amount turns out to have little content. You could try for the FT there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I've found errors in an important template, which is composed of transcluded elements that go many levels deep. I tried to make my way all the way down the rabbit hole, but I've hit a dead end. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how to edit the actual data in the template. I could draw attention to the errors in the talk page, but then I wouldn't learn anything. I'd appreciate it if someone with advanced template editing knowledge could walk me through the process of finding the right page to edit so that I won't need to ask for help in the future. It would be extra appreciated if this wonderful person, to whom I would be most grateful, could have a live conversation with me at a mutually agreeable time. DOSGuy (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, I added 2 movies on the page in the "In Popular Culture" section... a 1992 TV movie and a 2021 movie. I got an error message that I was trying to add images, which I didn't do. I published my changes and, as a result, many pre-existing images are no longer displaying. Claudemlalande (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Claudemlalande: Hi there! Looks like your edit changed the punctuation in the image file names (e.g. Te lawrence.jpg to Te lawrence‧jpg). I reverted your edit to restore the images. When you redo the edit, please don't add external links (especially to IMDb) in the article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Claudemlalande:This shows your edit which changed many periods in file names to the Unicode character U+2027‧HYPHENATION POINT. Did you copy the text to another program like a word processor and copy it back before saving? Some programs can make automatic unwanted changes. A text editor (e.g. Notepad) is safer than a word processor (e.g. Word). PrimeHunter (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Washington Monument has been tagged with "section blanking"
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Washington Monument article has been tagged with "section blanking." I'm not familiar enough with the Washington Monument to assess the extent of the person's edits. I reported it on the talk page with no response yet. Can someone please advise what to do? Thanks. AceSeeker (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
How do i change the Alphabetical order of Sub-categories in a category page?
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The page Category:Ethnic groups in Afghanistan by province is solely made up of sub-categories, two of these sub-categories are Category:Ethnic groups in Kabul Province and Category:Ethnic groups in Parwan Province which are made by me. Problem is you can see the other categories have a normal Alphabetical order, while the two that I made are listed under the letter "E" despite the fact that every single sub-category there starts with E. I want the two categories to be like the others and be ordered by the name of the province, letters K and P. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, i wanted to add a citation in the sfn format from a book. But the book seems to not show or have any Page numbers. So should i leave the page number blank or add chapter name in location?
Just like this [1], If not kindly guide me.
The Book:-
Hello @Rahim231: using the loc parameter is perfectly acceptable. Using [2]. You can also see if you can get a paper copy of the book from a library. That way, you will be able to find the page number, which Google Books often omits. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Actually i have that books in pdf but just like this one but it does not contain book number so it makes things a little confusing, Thanks for helping out:-) Rahim231 (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
References
^Brown 2014, Chapter number 3:The gathering storm. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBrown2014 (help)
^Brown 2014, Chapter 3: The Gathering Storm. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBrown2014 (help)
Error in Spelling
Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion
The confusing terms brought me here. I'm here to report a spelling error on this page. (Nazareth) The second line says jargest instead of largest. I'm unaware if this is the place to report this but I can't understand specific term in which place to go for this. Greencryer (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello, Greencryer. Thank you for pointing this out, but I cannot find that the article Nazareth has ever contained the word "jargest" instead of "largest", so I'm puzzled what you were looking at and on what device.
In general, if you do find a spelling error, in most cases you can correct it (but make sure it isn't just an alternative spelling in a different variety of English - see ENGVAR). However, Nazareth is protected against newer editors being able to change it (see the padlock symbol at the top), so the correct thing to do here would be to raise an edit request on its talk page - see the edit request wizard.
Right, it correctly says "largest" with l (el), not "jargest" with j (jay). @Greencryer: Maybe your screen has a defect or smudge in that place. If it still appears to say "jargest" after scrolling and you really are talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth then maybe you have a browser extension which changes text although it would be an odd change. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I am currently trying to clean up IBM Rational Rose, but many references to it are no longer valid. Additionally, since those links were added, the software has been taken off the market. The only "proof" of that, however, is that there is no proof (i.e. all market/storefront pages have been removed from the internet). Would it be advisable to cite a source for its removal, and if so, how would one do that? (For example, adding a reference to a search engine and its lack of content?) Thanks, Alpha2 5232 (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, not only are they no longer accessible, but the problem is that their existence used to prove that it is on the market. Without the links, one can reasonably assume that the product is no longer for sale. My question is not "How to deal with dead links", but "how can one cite those dead links as evidence that the product no longer exists". Alpha2 5232 (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
{{Star Trek}} has a "Films" section, with a "television film" subsection. Currently there is only one article that would go there. Is it correct to use "television film" then, or should it be "Television films" anyway? Cambalachero (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Cambalachero: My personal inclination would be to use "films" even though there is only one of them (so far). Note that we are advised to use the heading "External links" in articles even if only one link is present. Deor (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Pres. Marcos was not a commie.
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I need some clarification on news in WP articles. A few years ago I was advised that WP is not a news outlet, after I mentioned an event in a particular article, but now I see an article on 2024 Bondi Junction stabbings. So when is a current affairs event a valid item and when is it not? Sardaka (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
HiSardaka. The primary guideline to determine whether an event is suitable for a Wikipedia article is Wikipedia:Notability (events). As it says in the nutshell, An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope.Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Sardaka Wikipedia's mainpage has a section for "In the news", which often does a better job of informing readers than any one newspaper or broadcaster would do. That's because we wait until other published sources report on a topic and only then create the article here. Also, as our editors are from all around the world, we tend to have a broader perspective than any individual source and we should write neutrally. Hence I find that, a few days after any event, Wikipedia is an excellent place to read about something. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Sardaka, one of the reasons Wikipedia avoids calling itself a news outlet/source is that it does not cover current events comprehensively. It cannot do this because all material is contributed only by volunteers, so there is no 'staff' tasked with the responsibility of ensuring comprehensive coverage.
I advised User: Kawrno Baba to post here and after trying they told me "I wen there and clicked both 'Ask question' and 'Add a topic' buttons, both times there was a popup written 'Unable to stash Parsoid HTML.'" Doug Wellertalk12:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I had the same issue. It seems from a quick Google search that there is no documentation of this issue anywhere else before today. Mapgenius (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm having the same issue. I get the "Unable to stash Parsoid HTML." on Chrome on Windows 11. Logging out and logging in is not a workaround. On Android, I get a different error.
I'm also having this issue. However, these things still work for me:
Undoing edits
Adding comments to Talk pages
Creating pages
Earlier, I logged out to see if the visual editor would load and it was normal. I didn't publish anything.
I've also found out that after making one of the "allowed" edits, then I'm able to click on the "edit" button once without issues. After clicking the button, I'm able to edit a page and then publish changes. However, if I click the button a second time for a different page, the visual editor doesn't work again until I make another edit that doesn't use the visual editor. That Tired TarantulaBurrow14:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
County of UK birthplace for people born before boundary changes
Latest comment: 2 months ago7 comments5 people in discussion
I'm aware that UK counties are a contentious issue. An anon user and I are in danger of edit-warring over the birthplace of Kevin Rowland, who was born in Wednesfield in 1953. At that time, Wednesfield was officially in Staffordshire but it's currently in the City of Wolverhampton. Which should be quoted in the lede and infobox? I tried MOS:BIRTHPLACE but there was no guidance. I imagine this crops up a lot but I couldn't find a definitive guideline anywhere. I don't have much time for county traditionalists so if only one polity is quoted I think it should be the current one, but I can see the justification for formations like "Wednesfield, Wolverhampton (then Staffordshire)" or "Wednesfield, Staffordshire (now Wolverhampton)". Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've implemented your second suggestion. One of the two is the only way forward, and I would suggest that the county at the time of birth is the one to mention about hist birth, followed by the current one to help our readers find it. Given the way governments have been reorganising counties over the last few decades, it does make for an easier change when they decide to carve up Wolverhampton! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
As a broader rule of thumb, what a place was called on the date of their birth has to come first. I get this with American immigrants all the time:『Friedrik Veeblefetzer was born in Glauschreik, Silesia, Kingdom of Prussia (now Gliŝrik, Poland)』is the way it's usually done. "The current one" is a form of recentism, ignoring the context within which the subject lived their life. --Orange Mike | Talk16:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Template:Infobox person has quite a lot to say about this, although specifically relating to infoboxes. The 2 most relevant sentences seem to be "Use the name of the birthplace at the time of birth, e.g.: Saigon (prior to 1976) or Ho Chi Minh City (post-1976)." and "What the place may correspond to on a modern map is a matter for an article's main text." - Arjayay (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I was doing research on Julia sets when I saw that all of the math displays, even Pi, are broken and show as the wikitext underneath. Is this a known glitch? Is there a fix? PLMMJ (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I just checked Julia set and wasn't able to verify this on desktop or mobile versions. How are you viewing Wikipedia? Are there any user scripts installed or other changes to the way you view the site that changes how it is displayed? Reconrabbit18:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Using the Android app, some of the maths displays have abnormally huge font sizes on my end, but everything appears readable, at least. I haven't yet investigated further. Rummskartoffel21:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't have any user scripts that I know of unless Adblock Plus is one. I'm on Vector Legacy 2010 if that helps. Reloading the page multiple times and leaving and returning to it has done nothing. What I see is along the lines of "These sets $ F_{i} $ are the Fatou domains of $ f(z) $, and their union is the Fatou set $ \operatorname {F} (f) $ of $ f(z) $. Each of the Fatou domains contains at least one critical point of $ f(z) $, that is, a (finite) point z satisfying $ f'(z)=0 $, or $ f(z)=\infty $ if the degree of the numerator $ p(z) $ is at least two larger than the degree of the denominator $ q(z) $, or if $ f(z)=1/g(z)+c $ for some c and a rational function $ g(z) $ satisfying this condition." PLMMJ (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's also broken on other pages, including Mandelbrot set ("...whether the sequence $ f_{c}(0),f_{c}(f_{c}(0)),\dotsc $ goes to infinity. Treating the real and imaginary parts of $ c $ as image coordinates on the complex plane, pixels may then be colored according to how soon the sequence $ |f_{c}(0)|,|f_{c}(f_{c}(0))|,\dotsc $ crosses an arbitrarily chosen threshold...") and Pi ("For example, one may directly compute the arc length of the top half of the unit circle, given in Cartesian coordinates by the equation $ {\textstyle x^{2}+y^{2}=1} $, as the integral:
An integral such as this was adopted as the definition of π by Karl Weierstrass, who defined it directly as an integral in 1841.") Some symbols are showing, like the F for function and the symbol for Pi, but only outside of math sections. I should have put that in the other comment. PLMMJ (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Closure requests
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 2 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hello. In recently uploaded articles, I have noticed that apostrophes have been turned into... whatever this -> ' is called.
I have two queries: Are apostrophes not allowed? If not, what is the best way to put them in, instead of apostrophes? I write in Word and then copy and paste into the create box, so there are apostrophes all over the place.
(I use '' when I am doing italics and ''' when bold, it's just in the middle of words that's the issue)
@Cullen328 thank you for pointing that out. I had no idea about the contractions. I'm (haha) not sure I used too many contractions previously but will go back and check now! BJCHK (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Maybe I'm seeing this wrong?
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Did Hitler's mustache really look like that? I thought it was a solid block? I'm wondering if there was vandalism? I'm not supporting the guy, but it just seems strange. Maybe I'm seeing things or I'm wrong and that's how it was supposed to look?
75.142.254.3 (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I did an image search, it really did look like that sometimes I guess because I don't think it could have been vandalized in all those pics. So I guess no need for further action. 75.142.254.3 (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
There are some red words further down the bottom of this article - - "Matibla the Musical" - this should be removed I think, but I cannot do it. Thank you for assisting. 58.171.152.120 (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
It depends what you mean by "hyperlink". Articles should not have external links put into the body of the text, only in the External Links section at the bottom. See WP:EL.
You can link to other articles by using a WP:WIKILINK.
Courtesy link: James Rosen (author) - 57.140.16.57 (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply