Wikipedia:Help desk

Hi, I've written a contribution on the talk page of the "J/Psi meson", namely "Theoretical interpretation of the J/Psi meson" on Febr.20, 2026. No other contributions or comments on this argument have been added. My question is simply when this contribution will be moved to the main page of the article. Thanks a lot. Mario Mario Tom Greco (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Tom Greco, you could move it to the article yourself, but if you do so as it stands, it will be reverted since it's pretty non-compliant and looks LLM-written. You will need to write in coherent sentences with properly formatted in-line references. What looks like just notes won't be accepted without you making it compliant and consistent with the rest of the article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:53, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you have a conflict of interest, so you shouldn't in fact move it yourself. Clean it up and ping me when you think it's compliant, and I'll take a look Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:05, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer, but what you mean by "looks LLM-written."? Mario Tom Greco (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Tom Greco, the style seems more chatbot than human, it's written as a series of notes using only primary sources, it has a promotional tone with all those "breakthroughs" and successes, and provides "interpretations" which are not that. Anyway, regardless of whether it's human- or bot-written, it needs a lot of work Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:54, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimfbleak, thanks for your suggestion. Actually I wrote my contribution in a very schematic style, as I tell this historical piece of science to my phD students, who like very concise statements, much easier to remember. Please notice that the three papers I mentioned led to the same interpretation of the experimental discovery, namely a bound state of charm-anticharm quarks. I will try to modify my text and I'll be back to you. Mario Tom Greco (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mario Tom Greco You said "My question is simply when this contribution will be moved to the main page of the article". Things you add to the talk page of an article do not magically get moved to the article itself. I haven't checked, but unless you asked, at the talk page, for any interested editor to please add the info to the article for you -- for example, if you just added a bunch of info to the talk page -- then it will just stay only on the talk page. If you have properly sourced information that you think should be in the article, generally, you should add it to the article yourself. Plus, what Jimfbleak said. David10244 (talk) 07:15, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mario Tom Greco Now that I checked the talk page, it is not at all clear from what you wrote there, that you expected the info to migrate into the article. David10244 (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to link to pages in https://archive.org/details/latinpunctuation0000wing/page/16/mode/1up using {{cite book}}. The thing about a non-free book link on archive.org is that it will let you see a page or two at a time, but there is no way to see the full text; you can't subscribe to be able to do this, unlike for some websites. Google books is often like this as well. I don't think any of the possible values for the url-access param express this source properly. The closest one is "limited", but it still says "subscription normally required". What param value should I use here? Or, should we make a new one? Dingolover6969 (talk) 10:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is the value of providing a URL that does not allow verification of the statement for which the cite is provided? DMacks (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with DMacks; assuming this is for a ref, unless the info you're pointing to is specifically on one of the 'free' pages, I wouldn't include a URL. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well assuming it is on the free page, what would you do? Dingolover6969 (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I too would agree with DMacks. However.... I clicked on the link. The Internet Archive (IA) showed me page 16 of a book. (And page 17. I didn't venture beyond this.) I thus was shown a brief discussion of the interpunct. As you, Dingolover6969, have recently been editing the article "Interpunct", I suppose it's this discussion that you are citing (or want to cite). And so you are indeed pointing to "free" pages, and providing a link to the first of these rather than to the book's title page or front cover is helpful. However, I can't answer your question about the appropriate value for "url-access"; and therefore I'm hereby pinging Trappist the monk for comment. (Moreover, I'm not certain that pages made available to all within "Borrow unavailable" books remain available to all.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's the situation. As I understand it, they'll show you the 2-page spread you directly link to, but no more. Dingolover6969 (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your artical only starts in 1976, but in fact theAGENT IN california was atrted by Larry Lewis that formed a company in 1966 by the aopted name Arcoletric Switch Company USA. I oewned the company 100% and incorporatedinm1976 to Arcoletric Corporation. If intertested in further details. My contact number [REDACTED] THANK YOU. ~2026-31354-00 (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. Athanelar (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates § Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing (Japan) - Qualification

Raised this a week back on the Featured List page, but I figured it'd be best to bring this question to a wider audience.

I've been working on the Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing (Japan) article for a bit, and I'd like to get it to Featured status at some point over the next few months. Thing is, I'm not sure if it falls under a Featured List or Featured Article at this point. When starting the page it was fairly obviously a list entry (few sentences in the lede, and then the table of Crown winning horses), but the page has had some expansion since then. There is now a high amount of prose (1500 words) since there's five Crown types to cover. Each one of these invidividually doesn't make sense to split off since there isn't _that_ much to say about them as concepts (they're either fairly static or only recently established); the Spring and Autumn Crowns would struggle to ever be more than stubs. At the same time, the main reason I imagine people would visit this page is for either the list of 17 horses that have won a Crown or the list of individual race results included. Every FL I have seen has far less prose in it though...

I was wondering if someone could give some guidance on this; in cases like this, what's the line between list and article? When ready, should this be targetting the FL or FA route? Is there a better way to handle this page? I thought potentially the individual races could be split into a standalone article, but if so I'd be keen to get that to FL too and worry about potential issues with prose crossover in the lede.

Either way, any thoughts on this are greatly welcomed! :) RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I'm working on an article right now and am having some trouble deciding how best to cite one of my sources. The source in question is this NPR article giving an overview of important Southern hip-hop songs/albums from different periods in the genre's history. The article is split across six different webpages covering different parts of the retrospective; however, all of the articles have the same metadata (title, authors, publication date), so there's not really a clear way to cite one page of the article in a way that's separate from the others.

The approach I've been taking thus far is to just treat the article as a single unit, link to its first page, and cite that whenever I add material sourced to any part of the article. This feels a little odd when citing material from other pages of the article, though, since the underlying claim isn't supported by anything in the specific URL that I'm pointing people to. I've also considered using Template:Reference page, but that has a few drawbacks that are making me hesitate (the source's pages aren't numbered, and I think the template would look ungainly when juxtaposed against my usage of shortened footnotes elsewhere in the article). Are there any specific standards for the best way to handle this type of situation? ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ModernDayTrilobite: By the six different pages, do you mean the year ranges? Why not distinguish them the same way the website does (by including the range of years in the title)? eg. |title=The South Got Something To Say: A Celebration Of Southern Rap (2000-2004), |title=The South Got Something To Say: A Celebration Of Southern Rap (2005-2009), etc.

For the {{sfn}} references, I would label the different sources by setting |date= in each citation to 2020a, 2020b, etc. using that to cite the specific page (eg. {{sfn|NPR|2020a}}). – Scyrme (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If it's unclear what I mean, I can demonstrate if you link the article where you need to cite these articles. – Scyrme (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand what you mean, thank you! The year ranges are indeed what I was referring to. I like the idea of appending the ranges to the title; I'd been hesitant about that since the source itself only includes that disambiguation in the URLs rather than its display titles, but it does seem like the cleanest way of separating the sections, so I probably will follow your suggestion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:57, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ModernDayTrilobite: Only in the URLs? On my end, the range is also included in the displayed title on the page itself for all the pages except 1989-1994. – Scyrme (talk) 04:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I just checked again and you're right – I must have only checked the displayed page title for 1989–1994 up until now lol. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to modify the password to my account - but don't see where I can do that ~2026-31442-20 (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you logged out of your account either to ask this question or inadvertently; your password is changed in your account preferences, under the preference tab, see "account security". 331dot (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-31442-20: Click the user icon at top right when you are logged in and then "Preferences". Or go directly to Special:ChangePassword. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I tried to update Sumayya Vally's page with better citations. However, when I update them, it came up with large red texts referring to these citations as bad. Can you confirm if my account has been flagged with something? This is my first time experiencing this and require an explanation. These are examples of the citations I used which are credible and back the information stated already:

https://www.azuremagazine.com/article/sumayya-vally/

https://www.family.style/articles/sumayva-vally-counterspace

I had around 7 new citations. Thanks. Lesanimas17 (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked from moving files and pages, Lesanimas17, but not from editing articles. I clicked on the first of the two links you provide above. It's based on an interview with Vally. An interview with an article's subject of course isn't independent of that subject; but an article must be based on sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and published. -- Hoary (talk) 02:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Lesanimas17 What, exactly, does the large red texts referring to these citations as bad say? It sounds like you're describing the citation errors that show up if you, for example, include a nonexistent parameter in the citation template. If you let us know what error you were getting, we can help you better. Athanelar (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you confirm why I am blocked from moving pages and files? Can you confirm what 'files'? I haven't uploaded any files or do you mean 'articles '?There are a few articles that I created that I'm yet to hear anything about. One Wiki person started accusing me of accepting money or myself now not being reliable on the details I find. I actually find this offensive and very biased. I don't even know who this person is to start accusing me of things like this. I didn't realise Wikipedia was like this at all. This is not normal behaviour. I thought Wikipedia was about writing collaborative articles, not starting some kind of bullying tactic or smere campaign on an individual that is making factual edits and contributing.

Citation wise, I searched for specific documentation that backed some of the article. There's a notice confirming that the page is written like a CV. So I've started searching through details online to verify and make it more neutral. I am confirming some of the texts that past wikipeople have communicated. It just stated the code for reference with it stating it was bad in big bold letters. It then stated that this could only be corrected via source. This individual is a notable person. The page itself is flagged for requiring a high level of citations, which I find to be very odd since Vally's work is well documented in factual and neutral documentation. Can someone confirm why this article in particular requires only high-level citations? Gaining this understanding is important because only two citations were accepted. Past citations are all neutral and well researched, so I'm confused why they are referenced as bad automatically. Lesanimas17 (talk) 09:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misunderstanding the message. The error you encountered seems to be a technical error, not a warning that your citations are somehow informationally insufficient. Please let me know exactly what the text of the warning that stat[ed] it was bad in big bold letters. was so I can help you better. Athanelar (talk) 09:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you confirm why I am blocked from moving pages and files? Please see User talk:Lesanimas17#May 2026. Can you confirm what 'files'? Any files: image files, sound files, video files. (See the notice near the top of Special:Contributions/Lesanimas17.) I haven't uploaded any files or do you mean 'articles '? "Articles" are included in "pages". "Moving" doesn't mean "uploading". (Instead, it's close to renaming.) ¶ It seems that you believe your (partial) block was and is unfair. Complaining about the block will be ineffective. Instead, please read Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- Hoary (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Lesanimas17 (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is the red text you are seeing this: {{BLP editnotice}}? If so it is generic notice shown on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, not specific for any particular source. MKFI (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've now started adding more citations and none of the red alert text is coming through at the moment. If it happens again, I will flag this up. Lesanimas17 (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:RickyCourtney this is related to spreading limited information or specific information regarding various topics related to hong kong figuers & hong kong history. as result mislead. missing facts that may support specific agenda. Biggiebeil (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Biggiebeil: You seem to be making more of a statement about a particular user (like you did at User talk:RickyCourtney) than asking a question about Wikipedia. The Help Desk is really a place for asking questions about things related to Wikipedia; it's not really a general forum for discussing specific users or your disagreements with them. I suggest you continue trying to resolve your issues with RickyCourtney on their user talk page and don't try to start multiple discussion about the same thing on other pages. You should also be careful when making accusations about others for the reasons given in WP:NPA. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It might be misunderstood our end about the usagage of the helpdesk, regardless so we only highlighting an issue with the user and the user's input, not personal.

Best Biggiebeil (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask who "we" is? Asking largely because it's giving the implication of a WP:SHAREDACCOUNT. - Purplewowies (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just a Figurative, this is individual account and not a group.

Thanks, Biggiebeil (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Biggiebeil.

When you have a disagreement with another user, dispute resolution describes the steps you should be taking to resolve the disagreement. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and collaboration is fundamental to its working. Starting from the assumption that you are right and somebody else is wrong does not easily lead to cooperation. ColinFine (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to block a specific word or phrase from being added to a specific page? preferably in a way that only shows if / when someone tries to add it? It's related to the biographies of living persons rules. Something similar to the error message that shows when I try to add Archive.today links, but only for a few specific pages. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 07:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it is. Is it just one editor doing this. We admins have tools to deal with that. What is the word and article please? Mjroots (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It only seems possible with an edit filter which uses resources by running on all edits but only does something for certain page names. We want to limit the number of edit filters. Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested says:

• Filters are applied to all edits on all pages. Problematic changes that apply to a single page are likely not suitable for an edit filter. Page protection may be more appropriate in such cases.

PrimeHunter (talk) 10:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reference help requested. Hello! What do I do when an older paper doesn't have a full date listed, only the month and year? i think that's why my citations was flagged. Thank you! Thanks, SapriaHimalayana (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed See Help:Citation Style 1#Dates. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 12:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just list the month and year, like this: October 2025, or in your case she'll be June 1996. ^[apples?]

Also, someone fixed it 5 minutes after this discussion was made.

Cheers! ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 12:51, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have an article on the church musician Leon C. Roberts. Roberts (1950 - 1999) introduced the Black gospel music into the traditional catholic liturgy in the U.S. Presently, there is no article on Leon Roberts in the Wikipedia. What do I have to do to have it accepted by Wikipedia? Wilhelm Otto Deutsch (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking about Draft:Leon C. Roberts (1950 - 1999), you need to click the Submit the draft for review! button in the box near the top of the page. DMacks (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTABLEPEOPLE and WP:GNG and check if Leon himself is notable. There's also the golden rule.

Also, I see there's already a Draft:Leon C. Roberts (1950 - 1999) as @DMacks said. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 13:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the draft, I have a strong suspicion this is LLM-generated per the first revision.

Some examples for reference:

Have a great day, or cheers. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 14:08, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Wilhelm Otto Deutsch. Draft:Leon C. Roberts (1950 - 1999) cites no sources at all, and is therefore nowhere near acceptable as a Wikipedia article.

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

The fact that it has been written citing no references suggests that it has probably been written backwards. If this is so, the task of adding suitable citations and editing the text to summarise what those cited sources say is probably greater than starting from scratch - like trying to make a house secure that has been built entirely without foundations.

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) 13:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as the General notability guideline goes, Your draft and/or potential article does not have enough notability, please make sure to read Your first Article throughly. If not:

Does the Article have Verifiability

Have you Submit the Draft for review

Is the article written on a Neutral point of view

enjoy editing. ✦ CatPencil ✦ (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. My account has crossed 500 edits and is older than 30 days, but I have not yet received extended confirmed rights. Can I request to became an EC? 𝙒𝙞𝙠𝙞.𝙘𝙤𝙬𝙗𝙤𝙮𝙮𝙮 🦬 16:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has extended confirmed rights. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 16:30, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You become extended-confirmed automatically, just as you became autoconfirmed automatically. So you already have extended-confirmed rights. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 16:31, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can check here. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 16:47, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have been contacted by someone claiming to be an editor. He wants to do a page about me. How do I verify that he is real? ~2026-31652-47 (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is almost certainly not real. See WP:SCAM. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 16:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's a scam, editors certainly don't go around asking to make pages of people. see WP:SCAM. If you're interested in what or whom can be a Wikipedia article, see General notability guideline & Golden rule of Wikipedia. Thank you. ✦ CatPencil ✦ (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do not engage any further and follow the instructions on WP:SCAM. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 16:46, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @~2026-31652-47.

If somebody determines that you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability - which mostly means that enough material about you has been independently published - there is no reason for them to contact you: they will just go ahead and create the article.

From which you may deduce that this person is a scammer. ColinFine (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~2026-31652-47, a skim-read of this "Help desk" shows that Wikipedia has plenty of editors who mean well but are rather clueless. It's imaginable (even if unlikely) that the person who contacted you is similar, honestly believing that it's a good idea (or even mandatory) to get somebody's permission before creating a draft or article about them. Thus the person contacting you might not be a scammer -- but even if they weren't, negotiating with them would still be a waste of your time. (And if they're trying to impress you with their proficiency, experience, "seniority", or similar, they certainly are a scammer.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's like.. I see where you're coming from but that seems a bit far-off, asking people to make a page about them is somewhat a common scam scenerio. But I'd like to believe that as well haha :D ✦ CatPencil ✦ (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not as in someone resolving it, but revoking it due to either it being wrong or in the wrong spot. I can’t find a button that does it and I did make a mistake in a note. MarbleMax (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MarbleMax. You seem to have asked the same thing on another Wikipedia talk page (Talk:Main page#How do you remove a note on OSM?) and were mistakenly directed to ask the same thing here. The Wikipedia Help Desk is really intended to only be a place for asking questions about Wikipedia; it's not a general help desk to ask about other things. If your having problems using something called "OSM", you might want to try contacting OSM's support. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I assume OSM is OpenStreetMap, which is a Wiki, but not a Wikimedia project. Hopefully you can find a talk page on the OSM site to ask your question. TSventon (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand. You need an account to comment on Open Street Map, which I don’t have. I assumed that since Open Street Map is a Wiki Project, people here could answer my question. And before you ask, yes I did try to make one, but it wouldn’t let me for some reason. Anyways, sorry for wasting your time. MarbleMax (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Odeh (Palestinian militant)

Under death place, can the citation be properly converted into a reference? BradyBunchFan (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@BradyBunchFan I'm not sure what you think is wrong, so please make an WP:edit request at Talk:Mohammed Odeh (Palestinian militant), with full details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull, I will, thank you. BradyBunchFan (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what is the story with loading Gnu free images? This ancient computer image [1] would be good to have. Ideas please. Thanks Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't get a good reply here, try Commons Help desk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the license status. That typically means knowing at a minimum what year the photo was taken (or sometimes what approximate range, based on certain cut-off ages) and who took the actual photo. But it also depends on the use-case. For a single photo of a unique object that no longer exists (and will not reasonably exist again), such as the BCC-500 computer, the rules of what is allowed are sometimes slightly relaxed, but the requirements for what details are known about the photo might be increased so proper credit can be given. DMacks (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the general issues. But I am still not sure if I should load it. I am certain that the computer had been dismantled by 1981, because I met Wayne Lichtenberger that year in the bay area. He had been keeping the machine alive in Hawaii and felt sorry they had dismantled it after he left. But I have no source for that. So I guess I will have to move on unless another suggestion is made. Thanks Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I googled around and see it in a few places but never with a credited photographer or other origination info. The computer was likely built around 1969–1971 and was one-of-a-kind, so we know the timeframe when the photo was taken. More importantly, I can't find the date of the first publication (or posting, etc.) of the photo. That means we can't really know whether it is free for use. But! I'm sure the image qualifies for non-free fair use because it is likely irreplaceable and it displays the topic of a substantive section of a WP article. Could you take a look around and see if you can find any site that has photographer or other original-publication details? That can help when filling out the form to allow its use here. DMacks (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your assessment is correct. It started in 1968-69 in Berkeley, then they left in 69 to start the company. But they relied on a single funding source and when that source suddenly had its own unrelated problems the funding stopped. It was a setback for the computer industry, because it was a clever design that would have had followers. Unfortunately Gio Wiederhold is no longer with us, so we can not ask. He was one of the group as well although the page does not say that. The photo I linked to was loaded in April 2022, but that may not help. I searched but can see no other one. If you want to load it please do. I do not know what else I can do. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reference help requested.

Thanks, NorthBCSingh (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NorthBCSingh, delete | last=Bureau | first=US Census, as "Bureau" and "US Census" are not, respectively, the surname and forename(s) of a person. -- Hoary (talk) 08:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you please approve my page?

Draft:SUPERSONIC Food

Thanks in advance. If it's missing any points in the article, please let me know, so I can improve this text. Creativmind1 (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Your first article. This draft has a range of common problems and will not be accepted in its current form.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:41, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What are the current problems? I read this page. This page is not promoting or advertising a company. External articles are added as sources. Creativmind1 (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a wider range of sourcing than what is currently there. Also, the text of the article is based on describing the products and services offered by the company, which leads to problems with WP:NCORP. There are many companies, but they are not all notable by Wikipedia's standards.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:57, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't describe products, only overall description about products, but this is something that you can find in this articles and other sources. So should I remove overall product description (which is just a description of what company is doing - what kind of products they have).

Wider range od sourcing - this is probably the maximum that I found. So it should be 2x 3x more what's currently there? Creativmind1 (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is your relationship to this company?

There needs to be sources summarized that offer critical analysis and commentary as to what is viewed as important/significant/influential about the company, not just a description of its activities and offerings.

Please see other stuff exists. There are likely many articles that should not exist, but do- we just haven't removed them yet. This is why we judge each article or draft individually on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate. 331dot (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Creativmind1

I have added a template to the article that will let you submit it for review when you feel it's ready: but indeed, it currently is not. A few things you should know;

If you are being paid by this company for your writing, you must disclose this immediately; read WP:PAID. If you are otherwise affiliated with them in any way, you must also disclose that; see WP:COI

Secondly, A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. When it comes to companies, you should also be aware that most coverage about companies is what we call routine coverage and does not show us that the company is notable (i.e., meets our requirements for articles). Athanelar (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Creativmind1, f I'm right in guessing that the "super" in "SUPERSONIC" is pronounced like that in "Superman", and the "sonic" is pronounced like that in "Sonic the Hedgehog", then we'd write it "Supersonic". Although other problems (pointed out above) are greater. -- Hoary (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reference help requested.

Hello, I'm new to contributing, can you tell me what I did wrong?

Thanks, Histrueandfalse1 (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't have a day in your date, fixed now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Histrueandfalse1 (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hello team wikipedia my username is Kishor Salvi My account is 2017 block please unblock my ip and username Soon as possible thanks ~2026-31914-03 (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-31914-03 Whether global (below) or local, posting here is WP:block evasion See WP:Guide to appealing blocks for the correct procedure, presumably for your account User:Kishor salvi. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hello team wikipedia my username is blocked please solve my problem soon as possible thanks my wikipedia account name kishor salvi ~2026-31914-03 (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-31914-03 Posting here is WP:block evasion See WP:Guide to appealing blocks for the correct procedure, presumably for your account User:Kishor salvi. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am Dušica Labović and I want to ask you if you can change the information about me and my work. You can delete me from Wikipedia (https://sr.wikipedia.org/sr-ec/Du%C5%A1ica_Labovi%C4%87) or use the correct inforamtion from my website: www.dusicalabovic.com ~2026-31655-56 (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but we cannot help you here as Admins at English Wikipedia has no authority over at Russian Wikipedia.  Untamed1910 (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Untamed1910: The prefix ('sr') indicates Serbian language, nor Russian (that would be 'ru'). --CiaPan (talk) 12:32, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian Wikipedia has a policy on biographies of living people with a section for article subjects sr:Википедија:Биографије живих особа#Чланци који говоре о вама. I think Serbian: ВП:АТ means administrators' noticeboard sr:Википедија:Администраторска табла. TSventon (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A similar query has now been posted at sr:Википедија:Трг/Помоћ so hopefully the poster will get help there. TSventon (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

and I converted to Desktop view on Wikipedia, not my browser, but now it is stuck and I don't know how to revert it back, come someone help? F1fan00 (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you try going back to this link? If this doesn't work, try clearing the browser's cache.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:09, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Down at the bottom of the screen should be a link to mobile mode, alongside all the links to the privacy policy and whatnot. Athanelar (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

it worked, thanks @Athanelar F1fan00 (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Curious, F1fan00, what do you mean "not my browser"? How would you access Wikipedia without a browser? I almost never access Wikipedia on a phone — either my web-enabled flip phone or my wife's smartphone — but I've always done it through a browser, since the books process was shut down several years ago for technical reasons. Nyttend (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think what they meant is that they had switched from mobile view to desktop view on Wikipedia itself, rather than in their browser settings. In solidarity, nil ^nz 12:45, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly @Nil NZ F1fan00 (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reference help requested. How do I properly cite a source? I tried to make an edit but apparently it's missing even though I pasted the link

Thanks, ~2026-31667-56 (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:~2026-31667-56. I see you gave a URL, which means it's easy for someone to follow the link to the source you are citing. What's missing is the title—what you see in the title-bar or top of the browser window when you go to that URL. DMacks (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way for me to add my wiki userpage on discord link connections as a domain? (If anybody knows how that works, let me know!) ✦ CatPencil ✦ (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The domain connection on Discord is designed for domain names (e.g. example.com) and won't accept pages (e.g. example.com/profile). It's also only for domains that you own. Unfortunately the only options are to /auth in any Wikimedia servers, or add it the old fashioned way by adding it as a link in you profile description. In solidarity, nil ^nz 12:55, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Burgundian State

Looks like someone has edited this page and inserted a load of Nazi crap ~2026-31823-93 (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism already reverted. TSventon (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Links: Hopewell Ceremonial Earthworks, Hopewell tradition

The Hopewell write up mentions “Hopewell traditions”, But Hopewell isn’t the name of the ancient tribes. It is the name of the owner of the property. ~2026-32066-45 (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Hopewell tradition" seems (from the lists of "Further reading" and "References" within the article Hopewell tradition) to be an established term. That doesn't mean that it's the only established term, or the best one. You are free to argue for renaming ("moving") the article; if you'd like to do this, then Talk:Hopewell tradition is where to do it. ¶ Incidentally, I notice at least one junk reference cited in the article: "Free Essays-Hopewell Indian Culture". Archived from the original on 2008-08-27. Retrieved 2008-09-11. -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:COMMONNAME. We refer to things by how the preponderance of sources refer to them, which is not always the same as the native name for things. That's why we have an article on Germany rather than Deutschland, for example. Athanelar (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the ancient tribes is "Hopewell"; they were named for the property owner. If you disagree, what other names have you heard? You can find the magazine Ohio archaeologist online for free (example issue); I don't think you'll find other names for them. Nyttend (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have created an entry - a biography but cannot see how to post it. I think that it is still in my sandbox. Help please. Wikipedia has become very confusing, even to post this! Noosagent (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to Draft:Art career of J Edward Smith? That's a WP:DRAFT, not an article in your sandbox. I highly suggest you take a look at Help:Your first article, which covers a lot of the prerequisites the biography you've created will need to satisfy before it can be published as a proper article. The first thing that jumped out at me is that your references are not formatted as proper citations. I'm not an expert at article creation, but I'll try to help out further if I can, if you have additional questions. DonIago (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Draft:J Edward Smith Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:55, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Noosagent A good start would probably be to read a couple of Wikipedia articles and familiarise yourself with the sort of style we hold to here. John Edward (Ted) Smith was a gentle and considerate man who was liked by all who knew him. is the sort of line that typically opens an obituary, not an article in an encyclopedia. Athanelar (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Noosagent.

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

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) 09:37, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Noosagent: You said on the draft's talk page that you are the subject's son. This means you have a conflict of interest, which you are required to declare. Please see WP:COI. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 16:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

a wiki account linked to an official team from Codependents Anonymous UK was blocked on the basis the 'account name inferred the amends were made by an official Codependents Anonymous team member.

Im advised I can request the account has been permantly blocked, but a request can be posted to as why / request it to be unblocked.

I cant find the mechanism to 'request unblocking' on Wikipedia. Can anyone help please?

I am now using an account linked to Codependents Anonymous in Oxford, UK.

Kate F Oxford CoDA meeting (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please read WP:ISU. We do not permit shared accounts, or usernames that imply shared accounts. Any account must be used by a single individual only. As for requesting blocking or unblocking, which account are you referring to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've soft-blocked this account, same reason Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Oxford CoDA meeting.

First, as explained, your user name is not acceptable. Every Wikipedia account must be personal (i.e. used by only one person), and may not have a name that suggests either that it might be used by several people, or that it represents an organisation. A name like "Kate from Oxford CoDA" would be acceptable, though perhaps a little unwieldy.

So first, you should rename your account (see CHU) - or, since you have only made two edits, it's probably easier to abandon it and create a new one.

Secondly, if another account has been blocked, it matters very much why. If it is simply a matter of the name, like your account, they can rename or abandon the account just as you can. But if they were blocked for other reasons (eg undeclared paid editing or promotion), then they must not edit from any account (or none) until the block has been lifted: they should read guide to appealing blocks.

Thirdly, any of you that are connected with CoDA should be aware of the restrictions on editing with a conflict of interest - basically, you should almost never directly edit the articles with which you are associated, but should make edit requests instead. Further, if any of you are employed by CoDA - including as interns or volunteers - Wikipedia regards you as paid editors, and you must make a formal declaration of your status. See that link for how to do so.

Finally, please note that 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. ColinFine (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The photo on the Killing of Austin Metcalf page is not Austin. The photo is of his identical twin brother, Hunter Metcalf. Hunter's football number was 12. Austin's was #11. ~2026-32093-37 (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, pic here [2] seems to agree with you. Uncut pic at [3] doesn't say clearly which is which. @R. G. Checkers, you uploaded File:Austin Metcalf.png, do you wish to comment? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The El Niño article was renamed some years back to El Niño Southern Oscillation. The Archive pages however were simply set up as redirects from the original name to the new name, so, archive page one for the El Niño Southern Oscillation talk page redirects to Talk:El_Niño/Archive 1 and likewise archive page two goes to Talk:El_Niño/Archive 2.

A problem occurred today when an editor used the One Click Archiver to move a bunch of old threads to the archives - and the text was appended to the redirect page itself, rather than to the redirect destination. I suppose this might be considered an error in the oneclick archiver, but it seems to me the true proximate issue is that instead of moving the archive pages to be coherent with the new article name/talk page name - which seems to me to be the right way to do it - they were set up as redirects, which the oneclick archive simply didn't 'understand'.

So, at the moment, we have El Niño Archive 1, El Niño Archive 2, and a 'new' El Niño Southern Oscillation Archive 1 at the redirect page.

At this point, my head is already spinning trying to clearly spell this out - imagine if I were to attempt to actually untangle the situation myself!

So, I'm hoping there's an editor out there who has 'mad skilz' when it comes to article/talk/archive page moves, undoing redirects, renaming archives, etc. - if the existing archives can be moved appropriately, and the redirect deleted, that may be all that's needed - the recent archiving can simply be redone after the fact (my preference would be to set up auto-archiving by date rather than manual archiving - simply less labor intensive).

Any help would be greatly appreciated. If this isn't the right venue to look for an expert willing to take this on, advice on the right place would be appreciated. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On it... DMacks (talk) 09:12, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:31, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you search for three tildes, the only result is the Double tilde disambiguation page. Why doesn't it find the Tilde Tilde Tilde article? MediaWiki limitations prevent the article from being at the correct title, ~~~, but the three-tilde form is used ten times in the article; I can't imagine why the search can find another tilde page but not this one. Nyttend (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nyttend! I am, in no way, an expert on this topic, but visiting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WalnutBloom (talk) comes up with an invalid magic tilde sequence with a link tohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NCTR#Three_or_more_consecutive_tildes, explaining that ~~~ generates an undated signature and therefore can't be used.

This might not be 100% accurate but this is my experience.

WalnutBloom (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, the 3 tildes where actually converted into my signature...

I guess that proves my point!

In the URL bar, replace my undated signature with 3 tildes and you should hopefully see the same Bad title error?

WalnutBloom (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For further clarification, I think that the 3~ page can't be created (as a redirect) due to these limitations.

And, the instances of 3~ can be used in the article due to <nowiki> tags, preventing the undated signature, but likely can't be used in titles.

WalnutBloom (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See phab:T371746 * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 21:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I understand the title issue — I'd never heard of Tilde Tilde Tilde before noticing a link to it from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions). (I assumed that [[~~~]] would be treated as plaintext, like [[:]] and [[Talk:Special:Project]] and other impossible links, but actually it becomes links with superfluous brackets, [[Nyttend (talk)]].) But here I'm questioning the non-appearance in the search results. Pppery, thank you; a search for four tildes finds Tilde Tilde Tilde as expected, and ignores the disambiguation. Nyttend (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tech employees at the Wikimedia Foundation (paid staff behind Wikipedia and other projects) announced publicly their union drive Wiki Workers United back in February 2026. One week ago, the Wikimedia Foundation announced without any transition plan, the shuttering of the Community Tech team, which included publicly vocal union supporters. ~2026-32105-72 (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is already being discussed. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 21:56, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reference help requested. Hello, I do not understand what’s the problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-31985-56 (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the problem:

|last=Wintour |first=Patrick |last2=editor |first2=Patrick Wintour Diplomatic

The first author's name is Patrick Wintour, which looks fine to me. But look at the second author. Is his last name "editor" and his first name "Patrick Wintour Diplomatic"? That looks like stray copy–paste or a mistake in some referencing tool. DMacks (talk) 09:04, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it (and made a few other improvements too) with this edit. Your edit also added a duplicate cite to an existing one (the New York Times was already there, and then a second copy with bad formatting got inserted), so I removed it. DMacks (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

لماذا أوقفتم حسابي ~2026-32367-55 (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

translation

ما سبب توقف حسابي؟ What is the reason my account was suspended?

لماذا أوقفتم حسابي؟ Why did you suspend my account?

What is the name of your account on English-language wikipedia? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:31, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

'Hello FantasticWikiUser! Everything i have adjusted in recent wikipedia pages is validly written to align with British language standards I have gotten rid of words which are viewed as 'Americanisms' and not to used in British English such the 'ize' suffix's and replaced with the British standee 'ise' for all British English used pages I have also gone ahead and removed double quotation marks due to them being used in improper ways as British English only ever establishes their usage when its within double quotes (a quote within a quote) the de facto style to be used for ordinary quotes is ' not " I have alsoused the correct British spelling for 'mediaeval' as well as it being the more historical accurate spelling used for the words the Wikipedia pages are about. Can you please explain why you have reversed valid changes not invalid changes but valid changes' I tried contacting him but nothing why is this? Kingdoms gg (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Wikipedia articles are written in British English. Some are, especially if they have a British lineage, but we don't have one defined setup of rules for language variables Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also say that mediaeval is a very old British term, it's certainly not the spelling used in modern Britain. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:50, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's the spelling I preferentially use when not accommodating myself to American readers, but I admit to being borderline elderly. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is not acceptable to change the actual title of published works purely for ENGVAR of our article that cites them. DMacks (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and sorry for not seeing your earlier attempts to contact me. If I recall correctly, I didn't think that the spelling mediaeval was ever used for English, and I wouldn't have reverted if I had known it was ever in use in English, meaning I thought it was some sort of accidental edit that added a typo, so that's my fault. In solidarity, FantasticWikiUser_{(Ts and Cs)} 16:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling is A Thing, but it is rather archaic. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 17:06, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jéské Couriano, here's The (Rather Archaic) Thing: ⟨mediæval⟩. -- Hoary (talk) 05:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:ENGVAR. Wikipedia does not have "correct spellings" and articles can be written in different variants of national English.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:57, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: FantasticWikiUser 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 16:07, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdoms gg, if you are saying that ⟨recognize⟩, ⟨realize⟩, etc, are somehow unBritish, I suggest a reading of the article Oxford spelling. (To confirm what it says about The Oxford English Dictionary, take a look therein for ⟨euthanize⟩ or whatever: although the meat of the OED is behind a paywall, viewing the choices of headword spellings costs nothing.) See also Template:Use Oxford spelling. -- Hoary (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I want to edit Sumayya Vally and Harriet Harriss' page, so it's less like a resume and in support of what has been flagged on both pages. Could you provide guidance on what sticks out the most, that needs to be changed? Also on Harriet Harriss' page, it has '(ARB, RIBA, (Assoc.)AIA, PFHEA, FRSA, Ph.D.)', should I remove?

I've edited Harriet Harriss' first few paragraphs significantly, as it was a lot in the introduction.

Thank you. Lesanimas17 (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that my internet is a bit spotty so I've had trouble taking a proper look at the pages - I noticed you haven't had a reply yet & figured I'd try to give you what little advice I can until it's sorted out.

Here are a few tips off the top of my head, they're pretty generic so you can apply them to any article:

• I find it helpful to start by thinking about the purpose of a resume (make the subject look good, promote them to the reader, list their achievements) vs. the purpose of Wikipedia (presenting neutral information about notable subjects, increase a reader's knowledge without promoting the subject) and cast a critical eye over parts that don't look like they belong on an encyclopedia.
• Look at articles about similar subjects (ideally look for GA's & FA's) for an idea of what your end result should look like. It isn't reasonable for you to match a GA or FA, but they will show you what the best Wikipedia articles look like and vastly reduce the risk of you accidentally picking a bad article as a baseline.
• Vet the article section-by-section and edit in relatively small, workable steps; this way you won't get overwhelmed and it'll be easier for you or another editor to find and correct any mistakes that may occur.
• Check each citation as you go, you will probably be able to re-use sources in other places (or find that out shouldn't be there in the first place).
• Don't be afraid to get rid of entire sections or even most of the article if you think it'll be easier to start from scratch - sometimes that will save a lot of time and effort in the long run (see WP:TNT).
• You will have an individual mentor assigned to you, so if you need one-on-one support make sure they're your first point of contact. See this page if you aren't sure how to find them.

Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 22:05, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is super helpful. Also thanks for flagging the assigned mentor, I didn't realise this. Lesanimas17 (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to change the name of this article David Gordon Allen d'Aldecamb Lumsden to David Lumsden. Can I do this myself, or do I have to ask somewhere? Thanks. Blackballnz (talk) 01:45, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What sources do you have to support the shorter name? Also, the name would need to be disambiguated to David Lumsden (businessman). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 01:48, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like every source the article cites says David Lumsden. @Blackballnz: if you would like to, you can move it yourself. There should be a button near the top of the page that says "Move". 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 02:32, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @JohnLaurens333 Uh ha! I have spotted the Move button (I thought it was something much more complicated). I'll do it myself. Blackballnz (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I also thought it was a way more complicated process :) 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 03:00, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I marked some sections as Resolved on Talk:Brüno Gehard, I assume I should also set up the archive? Not sure how to do it. It should only archive sections marked as resolved after 7 (or 30) days. TigerFromEarth (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/bsb00000006/images/index.html?nativeno=336

I have a photograph I would like to use for Anna Zammert but I am not sure where to find information about the copyright. There is a link at the top saying that it is under copyright but that use cases are specified on the site. Can anyone help me figure out where the use cases are listed? Thank you! Mismeander (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so, it looks like the work was created by "Deutsches Reich. Reichstag" in 1932. While it's marked as under copyright by the database, I think that just means it doesn't have a copyleft license on it, not that it can't fall under public domain. The first page of the book says it was "published by the Office of the Reichstag, printed and published by the Reich Printing Office." It does not list an author. That would indicate (I think) that this is a work "published in Germany before the Law on Copyrights and Neighboring Rights (UrhG) came into effect on January 1, 1966 [and] does not indicate its author and was published by a legal entity under public law." Per the documentation of Template:PD-Germany-§134-KUG on Commons, that means it would fall under public domain. So you should be able to upload the image to Commons using the linked template, and then link the image on Wikipedia. Does that make sense? SomeoneDreaming (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I have uploaded it and added that template to the file page on Wikimedia Commons. I hope I did it right. Mismeander (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given its age, it might be now public domain, but in any case, since the subject has been dead since 1982, you may also be able to argue its use under the Non-Free Use Rationale as an upload directly to en.Wikipedia (not Wikimedia Commons) for use in this article only. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this idea as well, I went with the template idea from @SomeoneDreaming because it seemed the easiest and most clear. In the future I'll keep this in mind though! Mismeander (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that profiles often identify individuals as Jewish or of Jewish origin, while this is rarely the case for individuals of other religions or ethnic groups? Are there any policies regarding inclusion of such information? ~2026-32332-54 (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2026 (UTC) David J. Fleischmann[reply]

See MOS:ETHNICITY, and the essay Wikipedia:Jew-tagging. There are clearly sometimes legitimate reasons to comment on someone's ethnicity and/or religion in a biography - i.e. when it is actually relevant to their notability, but there is no question that it has been emphasised to excess in articles on Jewish people, and we are aware of the issue. I'd like to say we are taking steps to fix it, but the reality is that it involves a lot of donkey-work, and removal of such content sometimes meets well-meaning resistance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to put two tables (e.g Lake Tauca#Alternative estimates) side-by-side? Unrelated: Does WP:MOS have anything about side-by-side tables? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: See Help:Advanced table features#Side by side tables. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In Safari on iPad: can't insert links in Visual Editor or in Source Editor. After the link choice is entered, the link button is red. What should I do? Hunzu (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Normally the link button is red because the link is to a page that doesn't exist; see WP:redlink. Does that answer your question? SomeoneDreaming (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hunzu: Can you link to the page you're talking about? 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 00:34, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You will not allow me to log in to my account because I do not have access to the account email address. Since I cannot login and use the service. How can I stop my monthly donation of $52.00.

My username is jpprice47. ~2026-32492-24 (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Donations are not tied to Wikipedia usernames. (The two systems are very much separate.) In any event, any questions about donations should be sent to donate[at]wikimedia.org. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 22:40, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

jpprice47 shows that the account last edited in 2016, and had relatively few edits. The best thing to do would be to create a new account and to note that you previously edited under this name. If you really wanted to revive this account, you could write to cawikimedia.org to explain the problem.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]