Since twostep verification I cannot login to my account anymore because of an old deleted email adress.I have a lot of saved Wikipedia lemmas in my account and I am a regular donator of Wikipedia. 1. Can somebody please help me to change the emailadress from my ald deleted to my present preferred email adress? 2. Can somebody please help me to keep my old account with samed lemmas and regular financial donation?Baljuw (talk)09:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I translated and improved this articleMaría Dolores de Pablos from eswiki. I'm having second thoughts on this article about of her notability. Theastrology side ispseudoscience of course, but she has some legit poetry published. Can you review it if it is worth of a proposal for deletion? I'm currently banned of prod use and afraid of doing the nomination for myself just in case, even though I'm not banned on nominating AfD and opening the discussion. Could someone else do it if you find it suitable, please?Aldorwyn of Rivendell (talk)20:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh I see. But I was wrong, that's not the only issue. I mean, there's the two sides of her personality: her pseudoscience side and her poetry side. Plus being cofounder of a literary salon where *other* poets gained more fame, it seems. So I doubt on her notability and balancing that two public sides of her life in the article or if the pseudoscience side "wins" and merits the article a deletion?Aldorwyn of Rivendell (talk)20:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's more than a stub, and appears to be well referenced. I can't easily assess the references since I have almost no Spanish, but if they areWikipedia:Reliable sources, comply withWP:42 and support all of what is in the article, then by definition the subject isWP:Notable.
Astrology may be a pseudoscience (which I as an astronomer would agree with) but the fact that many people believe it means that it and its practitioners are significant factors in society and as deserving of inclusion as any other. A person could say much the same of any religion other than their own. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}94.1.208.246 (talk)02:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to review the article I translated/improved from eswiki. Thanks for the comparative, you are right. It's hard to assess to me on where to “put the limit” on what someone believes: I mean in terms of astrology, traditional religion, UFO science,flat earthers,nibiru'ers and stuff like that. For instance, there are still somehollow earth'ers,fake moon (artificial moon) believers etc., but I guess that could go in the conspiracy theories article. And worth of an article if the conspiracy is so elaborated and sustained in time to produce stuff like notable meetings etc. Oh, when adding links I found that all of that articles and concepts I mentioned are already in the wiki, great!Aldorwyn of Rivendell (talk)14:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Outdated profile information of our company profile
Hello, we are the communications team of the company and would like to update the company profile (both EN and TC language). However, we have difficulty doing batch update. Please let me know if there's any protocol we need to follow for editing / updating? Thx.Hongkongpolyu (talk)02:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recently was browsing Wikipedia on a school-issued computer whose IP isblocked, and when I tried to purge a page it gave me the notice that I was blocked from editing, despite the fact I was not editing the page. Is there a reason? I should note that this question was previously asked by an IP but this was over a year agoon an unmonitored talk page.interstatefive03:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but there would be some technical background best explained atWP:VPT. My guess is that purging is the same as an edit as far as the servers are concerned (similar overhead on regenerating the page) and there is no reason for a blocked editor to be permitted to slow down the system with purges.Johnuniq (talk)03:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
one website is blocked, but i need to unblock it show me the way
Translation discusses translating an entire article, but it does not address the question of translating a single phrase within an English article. For example, a recent edit toGeometry changedTheorema Egregium (remarkable theorem) toTheorema Egregium ("remarkable theorem"). I have no idea which, if either, is correct, or whether there is a template that generates the approved rendering. Also, if there is an article that discusses this then there should be a hatnote template linking to it, e.g.,{{about}}.
My redirect requests, and possibly a few others, look like they have been done. But they suddenly disappeared, when older requests that also looked finished were still on the page. I already put my requests back on the page, because it looked like something had gone wrong, but I'm not sure if that was the correct thing to do, so I decided to ask for help, because I don't know what happened, or if it should have happened, or what should happen next.2405:6E00:651:F5FC:D904:ED5:248C:FE9F (talk)11:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing an article requiring a lengthy chronological list. Each item in the list should be referenced. In some cases, there are several chronological items all requiring reference A, followed by an item with reference B, then several more items all requiring reference A. For the items in a sequence requiring reference A, is there guidance on whether to 1) show reference A repeatedly after each and every relevant item (looks cluttered); or 2) show reference A only after the final item in the sequence (the preceding items appear to have no reference); or 3) some other option I've not thought of? Thanks.Masato.harada (talk)16:45, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend the former: the latter is ambiguous (does refA refer to items 1–5 or 5 only?), and in many lists, one or more further items with different references might potentially be inserted between those already present, which would entail more complications in the second format.
In practice, the blue superscript reference numbers are not perceived as 'clutter' unless there are several against one item/in the same place. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}94.1.208.246 (talk)21:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP editor. The usual answer to "Why isn'tx on Wikipedia?" is: because no volunteer editor has taken the time and effort to create an article yet. Hopefully, someday, a volunteer editor will create an article for this person if they meet our criteria for inclusion.That person could be you?qcne(talk)17:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I now see that this musician's career began several decades ago, so 'Too soon' will not be applicable. However, I have found surprisingly few references to him by websearching, and no sources suitable for basing a Wikipedia article. I would havethought he would be well-enough documented in relevant music journals, etc. of the relevant period and locality, but finding such sources might entail searching physical (or microfilmed, or scanned) archives in libraries (if not someone's cuttings collection) – sources do nothave to be online, so long as their full bibliographical details are given. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}94.1.208.246 (talk)17:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I abhor ignorant acquiescing to anything that could lead us as a society to full-scale setting aside of thorny questions and eliminating subtleties in thought and writing via AI. Can I download a correct "snap-shot/copy" of ALL of WIKI's content pre-any introduction of AI?2600:1007:B03E:BE18:0:36:3E90:8601 (talk)12:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor: seeWP:DUMPS. I'm not sure how you could be sure that AI had not been involved in some way, given even simple uses such as automatic typo correction and Wikipedia's extensive use of bots for minor edits.Mike Turnbull (talk)12:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While there is an option in desktop version about recovering the last revised code, in case the page crashes, I feel it should also be available for mobile versions. Weak internet connectivity or multitasking in a device crashes the page (or sometimes edit preview) and it makes me rewrite the code multiple times (if I have not saved it in the clipboard or backed up somewhere else).
Also, for the past few days, all the titles on the talk pages are now not opening on mobile version (maybe I have installed some wrong gadget), and instead I need to click "Latest comment: xx minutes ago" to open the title and view the prose.
I would like to read Wikipedia pages for my own personnel joy, and to get other people interested in certain topics, and post it on Youtube but i just don't wanna get copyrighted. And also what if i include the original authors name and quote the sources?Lightness616 (talk)01:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The liscencing for articles is atWP:CCBYSA. Basically, yes, as long as you link to the article and make it clear that it was written by "Wikipedia contributors" or individual author names.Ultraodan (talk)01:56, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightness616: You are absolutely free to use Wikikpedia content in just about any way you want, but you must adhere to ourCC-BY-SA license. For this, there is an easy part and and a hard part. The easy part: just provide a link to the Wikikpedia articles(s) you use, and a very short attribution. HOWEVER, there is also a hard part: you must license your work (your post on Youtube) under that same CC-BY-SA license. When you do, you are allowing anyone to use your Youtube stuff however they want to, as long as they attribute your work. Think long and hard about this. I (and the huge Opensource community) would encourage you to do this, but none of us want to deceive you into giving away your material if you do not want to do it. If you disagree, then do not use our material, but I hope you decide to join us. You are of course still free the use the same sources that our articles use without agreeing to our license. -Arch dude (talk)02:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything I would have to do in order to get the CC-BY-SA license, or is it just given to me? Also say perchance someone uses my work but does not credit me, that’s not allowed right?Lightness616 (talk)14:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You 'get' thelicence by documenting under the video that you are releasing the content under that licence (note that there are several variations of it, so be specific). And if someone re-uses your material but fails to credit you, it would be up to you to pursue them if you chose – no one would enforce the matter on your behalf (unless you paid a copyright lawyer to do so). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}94.1.208.246 (talk)17:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a photo of a carving in theBuddhism article that includes several bare-breasted women – again, not remotely objectionable in context. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}94.1.208.246 (talk)17:43, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a tool that allows to identify categories on Wikipedia with the largest number of interwikis for which there is no corresponding category in a specific language section, for example Ukrainian?Perohanych (talk)16:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear all, until a few days ago my watchlist showed entries first with a time period less than permanent, sorted by remaining days, and then the permanently watched pages in alphabetical order. Now it's alphabetical order only, the non-permanently watched pages are sorted in. How can I cange that back? Thanks and kind regards,Grueslayer07:11, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ThanksRummskartoffel. It's a bit weird that the display scheme was changed without notice, and it's sad that an established feature is scrapped because of a handfull people with 10.000+ articles on their watchlist. But c'est la vie. Kind regards,Grueslayer08:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a person has an associated website, then it is acceptable to put a link to it in the infobox or as anexternal link. Many websites have a "contact us" email address but we don't include them directly.Mike Turnbull (talk)15:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase you used "creating a page for" suggests to me that, like many people, you may a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is.
I urge you to replace "creating a page for" in your mind with "writing an encyclopaedia article about". This might seem picky (after all, you are wanting to create a page), but it might help you to remember that when you write a Wikipedia article about somebody, that article should be a summary of what people wholly unconnected with the person have chosen to publish about the person in reliably publications,not what the person themself want people to know about them. Sometimes it will be things that the person would much rather people didn't know about them - but if they've been published in reliable independent sources, then they should probably go in the article.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not eventhink 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 asverifiability,neutral point of view,reliable, independent sources, andnotability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (theBold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to readyour 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)18:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the recommended range for an auto archive setup is at least 90 days, some articles such asBack to the Future, the range is 30 days and on theAnita Sarkeesian article is at 10 days. Meanwhile, the auto archive range forRobin Williams is set at 1 year.
@Sjones23: It depends on the activity.Talk:Anita Sarkeesian was very active around 2014 and could grow above 100 kB even with fast archiving. Maybe it should be slower now. Most talk pages have never had a single discussion post. If a page actually needs archiving then 90 days is usually OK.PrimeHunter (talk)13:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PrimeHunter: Thanks. Also, given the potential bot issues in archiving older discussions especially the ones that are very old, have unsigned comments, have missing section headers and/or formatting errors on any page(s), I sometimes move them to the correct archive pages manually, as I did when I moved a very old discussion (which had a general formatting issue) on theTalk:Charles M. Schulz talk page (which has a 60 day auto archive range) to its correct archive page.
@Ijdiwjdw:The message is from 2022 and somebody who had that IP address at the time did indeed vandalize Brisbane Grammar School by changing its name to Goofy Ahh School.[1] The IP address has vandalized many other articles before and since but that's typical for IP addresses belonging to schools. If you use your own device but connect to the Internet via a school Wi-Fi then you get the IP address of the school.PrimeHunter (talk)15:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I need some kind of hint, advice, or help on how to get into the Edit preview, since I know how to get to Edit summary, but I can't get to the first one (preview). Any help would be helpful! (as I'm a little lost). SI MoonGrubisz440 (talk)17:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
wikimedia.org.PrimeHunter (talk)12:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link: Hong Kong Polytechnic University
.jpg){kind=link}