Hello, I tried to get this to work for some time but had no luck. I've asked for help elsewhere but people only seem to know wikipediaor openstreetmap, not both. Is there someone who can please help who speaks both? No matter the attempts I made I just couldn't seem to crack it.
Making a new article is one of the most challenging things to do on Wikipedia, even for experienced editors. It requires a robust understanding of policies and guidelines likenotability andneutral point of view, as well as technical skills likefinding and citing sources and formatting your article in accordance with themanual of style. It's not something we recommend new editors try to do right away.
I would strongly advise that you first spend a while (at least a couple of weeks) participating in discussions here at the Teahouse and at noticeboards, asking questions, and editing already-existing articles to build the knowledge and skills I've mentioned above, and then come back to the article creation process later.
I have been asked to create a Wikipedia page. I am an experienced website editor and spending "at least a couple of weeks" participating in discussions seems like overkill. I just want to post one page.Lkmorrisseyndu (talk)20:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then I recommend you simply readWP:BOSS and tell whoever asked you to make an article about them that it's not going to work out.
Being an 'experienced website editor' gives you no advantage here. As I said, making an article here is a complex task which requires a solid understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you've been asked to create a page about someone on their behalf, then you need to be familiar with ourconflict of interest guidelines for example. You should also be aware thatpromotional content is forbidden on Wikipedia. And that's assuming this person is evennotable enough to warrant an article about them; which 99% of the time people who commission an article about themselves are not.
You have no idea how Wikipedia works, and you'rehere to fulfill a commission rather than to build an encyclopedia. If you don't have the time to spare to learn to make an article properly, then you're not going to be successful at making an article, so you're going to end up wasting your time, your client's time, and our time for nothing.Athanelar (talk)20:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Azs0242 (ec) My advice to you is- in short- don't, at least not now. The longer version you should readWP:BOSS for, you should also readconflict of interest. It takes much effort and skill to create a new article, and diving right in to the process is not recommended, not without first spending time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, and using thenew user tutorial. Diving right in often leads to frustration and anger, which we do not want for you.331dot (talk)19:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The server at archive.is is taking too long to respond."
web.archive.org/save/ "The capture will start in ~10 minutes because our service is currently overloaded. You may close your browser window and the page will still be saved."
I saw in some media format articles includingthis featured article that is a book—I saw it in some videogames, movies and tv shows too—when they write content summary it is without citation to any source. why is this allowed in wikipedia, where everything should be cited to a trusted source?Vastmajority20025 (talk)13:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about the lead? (i.e., the part of the article above all the section headers?)
As perMOS:LEADCITE, it's normal (and acceptable) to not cite the info in the lead; because the lead should summarise the info in the rest of the article, and the claims should be sourced when they appear there. Although some discretion should be used e.g. for particularly controversial claims.The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.Athanelar (talk)14:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No @Athanelar, I'm not talking about lead section, I know what you said about lead. In articles about books, movies and tv shows, even those that are featured ones—like Synopsis section ofthis, that is a featured article—editors write the content summary of that media material, and they dont cite to any source, that's what I'm talking about.Vastmajority20025 (talk)18:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In wikipedia everything you write has to be cited to a reliable source, but in the case im talking about, this rule is just allowed to be not followed, and it's not in some articles, it's in some featured articles too—like the one i mentioned. I wanna know if this is under a specific rule in wikipedia.Vastmajority20025 (talk)19:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a specific rule that you don't cite the original book when giving a plot summary, because it's obvious that that's where the information comes from.
There is another specific rule that you don't give a citation for a fact that is merely what anyone would expect (for example, in an article about a lake, you shouldn't put any references that the lake contains water and is mainly surrounded by land).TooManyFingers (talk)04:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Gråbergs Gråa Sång! InWP:PLOTREF I found what I was looking for. It is actually allowed—for example—to just read a book chapter by chapter or watch a movie yourself, and with standards written inMOS:PLOT, write the plot section of it without citing to any source, but with below conditions noted inWP:PLOTREF:
“If the summary includes a direct quotation from the work, thenWikipedia:Verifiability requires it to have an inline citation, just like any other direct quotation. Inline citations from the primary work can also be helpful (but are not required) to source key or complex plot points. If all or most of the summary has been derived not from the work itself but from a comprehensive plot summary in a reliable secondary source, citing that source is recommended as a convenience to others”.
Yeah @TooManyFingers, but It seemed so out of place, because in here, the most obvious strict rule is cite everything you write to a reliable source, you can't just read publication informations of a book—like when it got published, place of publication, translations, etc. and dont cite to anything, or criticisms of it and not cite them to anything, but in writing plot section, I found out that this is actually allowed, and is an exception.Vastmajority20025 (talk)14:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting a sweater that calls for a #9 circular needle. In knitting the pattern it seems that the pattern is too loose so I'd like to charge to a smaller needed like a 4. If I do, do I double the number of stitches from the beginning such as originally starting with 50 stitches to 100 stitches?Freshdesign2 (talk)19:20, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for questions about editing Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at theReference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always trysearching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps.Jauerbackdude?/dude.19:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And so on, until it eventually got to the real text:
... img{max-width:none!important}This image has been created during "DensityDesign Integrated Course Final Synthesis Studio" at Politecnico di Milano, organized by DensityDesign Research Lab in 2016. Credits goes to Carola Barnaba • CC BY-SA 4.0
I don't know where the problem is coming from. Is this something that can be fixed by editing the page, or does an actual web developer need to get involved?FactoidCow (talk)00:35, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also give the exact title of the article you are trying to create. You can create most titles by just entering them in the search box and clicking a link on the resulting page.PrimeHunter (talk)01:44, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am serving as non-executive director for a company on unpaid basis, where the company has gained good attention and popularity across reputed and mainstream media's. Now, am I allowed to create a wikipedia company page for the same company thereby citing relevant online sources and references? Your opinion and comments will be appreciated.Malaya Kumar Biswal M (talk)05:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, westrongly discourage editors from creating or editing articles relating to subjects they have a connection to, especially in the case of corporations and organisations where this usually takes the form ofpaid editing. If you still wish to proceed, please thoroughly read everything below.
Warning against COI editing
First and foremost this is because conflict of interest editing often results in issues with theneutral point of view expected on Wikipedia, due to biases whether consciously or unconsciously. While you may notintend to be biased, the types of information you include or exclude from an article are likely to be skewed by your connection to the subject. It's also very common for conflicts of interest to result inpromotional writing such as advertisement-like articles for companies or resume-like articles for people. You may innocently intend to 'raise awareness' or 'correct misinformation' about the subject, but this isstill promotion, and promotion of any kind is not allowed on Wikipedia.
People with conflicts of interest tend to be very bad at gauging whether the thing they're writing about meetsWikipedia's notability guidelines. In order for a subject to have a Wikipedia article it needs to be 'notable,' which is a word that has a particular and slightly unintuitive meaning here on Wikipedia. There are a number of different criteria for notability depending on the subject, such asthe 'general' notability guidelines, theguidelines for notability of companies or organisations, thenotability of creative professionals etc.The vast majority of people and companies are not notable in the Wikipedia sense, and do not warrant a Wikipedia article about them. A good rule of thumb is that if a person or company is notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article, then soon enough somebody else will write it for them, and there's no need to do it yourself. So if you're here to write an article about yourself or someone or something connected to you, it's generally a good indicator that the subject does not yet meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. A special note is necessary here thatChatGPT and other AIs do not understand Wikipedia notability. It's very common for COI-writing newcomers to get themselves confused because they ask ChatGPT whether they should write an article about themselves/their company and it spits out a few trivial sources and claims that these sources constitute 'notability.' You need to thoroughly read the notability guidelines relating to the subject you want to write about and make sure you understand whether the available sources support the notability of the subject. Do not try to take shortcuts by asking an AI, it will likely be wrong.
It's very common that articles written by those connected to the subject end up being writtenbackwards. This means that you first write the article with everything you know about the subject due to your connection to it, and then try to find sources to confirm the information you've written.This is the wrong way to write a Wikipedia article. As an encyclopedia, the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarise theexisting information available about a subject inreliable, independent secondary sources. The goal is not topresent new information or tosynthesise multiple existing sources to provide new conclusions. When writing an article you mustfirst search for sources relating to the subject (appropriate sources, those meeting thegolden rule) andonly include information in the article which is written in the sources. You may well know information about the subject which is not available in any of the existing sources, but youmust not include this kind of 'original research' in your article. It is understandably frustrating to want to provide certain information and not be able to, but that is the limitation of writing for an encyclopedia, and precisely why we strongly discourage people from writing about subjects they are connected to.If the existing sources don't say it, you can't put it in an article.
You should also keep in mind that having an article about yourself, your company etc isnot always a good thing. You (or the person or company you're writing on behalf of) do not own the article, and cannot control what is in it. If you're writing about this company because you're an employee and your boss or colleagues have asked you to do it, then please thoroughly readWP:BOSS and report the information therein back to them.
If after reading all of that, you still think you can go ahead and beat the odds and create this article, then follow the steps below.
Writing a COI article
First, and most important, you need to disclose your conflict of interest. There are instructions on how to do this atWP:COI If your conflict of interest involves being paid to create this article, you should follow the instructions atWP:PAID to disclose that also.
Next, heed what I said above about not writing an article backwards. You need toforget everything you know about the subject of the article, which is obviously the most difficult part. Search Google and elsewhere for sourcesfirst. Remember that those sources need to bereliable, independent and secondary. Avoidtrivial coverage such as listicles, especially when writing about companies as this type ofday-to-day corporate coverage is very common. The sources you use need to actually prove the subject's notability (according to the most relevant guidelines) as I discussed above, which passing/trivial coverage does not. If you use ChatGPT or another AI to find sources for you (which you shouldn't), youmust double-check the sources yourself andverify that they actually say what the AI claims they do, because source-to-text inconsistencies are extremely common when using LLMs to search for sources.
Once that's done, you can extract information from the sources and write your article. For guidance on that, followHelp:Your first article and feel free to ask any more specific questions here at the Teahouse.
If none of these sources constitute significant coverage of JackSucksAtLife, or the ones thatdo only cover him in the context ofone event, then that would explain why they weren't enough to save the draft. –MrPersonHumanGuy (talk)13:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The bot's addition toWikipedia:Help desk/Archive 74 reduced the archive from showing 156 sections to 119.I've repaired it by putting nowiki tags around an unclosed ref tag. (It wasn't closed because the help request was about a cite error and quoted the error message"Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).") Would some other bot have repaired it anyway, and would it have been better if I'd left well alone?NebY (talk)15:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to give credit where credit is due, so here are two more pieces of evidence, if needed, that "eyebombing" was indeed born in Aix-en-Provence and that its creator is the French artist Do Benracassa, residing in Aix-en-Provence, and not the two Danish artists who appropriated the concept by simply changing the name to "eyebombing"! The French artist Do Benracassa created this concept in 1984, and here is the link to his website:https://www.do-benracassa.com/eyebombing-france/~2025-35834-96 (talk)18:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Youtube link is to a video, seemingly from a TV program but reaching us via the channel "la Chaine de Do Benracassa", in which Do Benracassa chats with others. Not a source independent of Benracassa (and perhaps also problematic in terms of copyright status). The Medium article is by "Nixie P", who isn't obviously a reliable source. And you link to a third source, to Do Benracassa's website.None of these three sources is both reliable and independent of Do Benracassa. So there's no point presenting them as evidence. If you do have other, sound sources, then yes,Talk:Googly eyes would be where you could use them to argue your point. --Hoary (talk)07:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Theknoledgeableperson. If you see a need for such a subject, feel free to open a discussion atWP:VPP or perhapsWP:VPI, and argue the case for why it is needed.
The very first edit toWP:BLP, back in 2005, had the edit summary "I started this due to the Daniel Brandt situation". Perhaps you want to go looking for that and find out why it was felt to be needed.ColinFine (talk)20:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is one reason, certainly. More generally though, the community seems, from the policies enacted, to recognise a moral obligation to avoid causing harm to living people, or at least to minimise the unnecessary harm that can occur with unregulated content that doesn't properly belong in something that claims to be an encyclopaedia. As to whether this worthy objective is achieved as often as it should be, opinions differ.AndyTheGrump (talk)20:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But there is aWP:BDP. It has been previously observed that BLP is just standard policy, but done with an urgency to reduce harm. Therein lies the key difference. --zzuuzz(talk)20:21, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a big part of the reason is that fewer people would benefit from lying about someone who died a long time ago. It happens, but apparently it's been kept under control well enough using the normal policies.TooManyFingers (talk)21:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,Linda Roy Walls. This is your first ever edit to the English Wikipedia. I see that you have uploaded a lot of photos of historic buildings to Wikimedia Commons, which is a separate but related project. Thanks for that. If you want to use these images in English Wikipedia articles, then you will have to link to the image files in those articles. It does not happen automatically. SeeHelp: Images.Cullen328 (talk)05:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, the uploads do eventually show up on the Historic listings page, but this month, it took much longer than usual. I assumed I was doing something wrong. I wanted to get that cleared up before I continue my photo uploads as a devoted volunteer. And thanks for all you do too!Linda Roy Walls (talk)20:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing anything inMOS:VGIMAGES orWP:SCREENSHOT that would preclude you from using an animated GIF for a gameplay screenshot. However I'm not sure how useful a non-static image would be while still keeping inside the size limits for a non-free image and within the limits on the length of an animated GIF (5 seconds perMOS:ANIMATION)Amstrad00 (talk)15:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I created an article about a well-known Irish musician, Martin McHugh, and added citations. There are three other Wikipedia articles on people named Martin McHugh, all listed on a disambiguation page. They are distinguished by parenthetical expressions following each of their names, for instance, Martin McHugh, (Gaelic Footballer). In creating the article about the musician, I followed this style practice, naming the article Martin McHugh, (traditional musician). Now that the new article has been created, however, I cannot locate it with a search unless I search for the entire name, "Martin McHugh, (traditional musician)", and the article does not appear on the disambiguation page with the others named Martin McHugh.
My question:
How to disambiguate the new article so that by searching Martin McHugh a reader will taken to the disambiguation page to see the listing for Martin McHugh (traditional musician) as well as the other three Martin McHugh articles?Ucumcoru (talk)19:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to the original question, I expect that the search didn't work because you search a cached version of the database, but the article is appearing in Wikipedia searches now. I don't know why searching for the entire name, "Martin McHugh (traditional musician)" was different.TSventon (talk)21:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you mark an article for CSD, which explicitly states in bolddo not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself., and yet the article creator still removes it, and attempts to hide it among other edits, what do you do? Should you go toWP:ANI immediately?Wikieditor662 (talk)20:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rutebega Thanks, although giving two warnings beforehand means making 2 reverts beforehand which I think is a form of edit warring, which I want to avoid.
The edit filter is automatic, but in this case it didn't catch the edit. Removing deletion tags without a valid reason isa type of vandalism so reverting it might be 3RR exempt, but either way you should at least leave some kind of note about it on the creator's talk page, which creates an opportunity to discuss and see if it's just a misunderstanding. —Rutebega (talk)04:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking more closely, CSD A10 doesn't apply to that article. If you think it should be merged, you should discuss it on the talk page. —Rutebega (talk)04:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I gave them the Template:uw-speedy1 warning. Do I still revert because they vandalized, or do I just let it be? And as for the merge, is there a more formal way to do this, or do I just have to bring it up on the talk page? Because I'm worried the talk page may not be seen by enough people.Wikieditor662 (talk)05:14, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How can i invoke {{PAGENAME}, {{#property:P345}} or anything simillar directly from a Lua Scribunto module, if even possible. Or do i have to pass the values as args in {{#invoke:module_name|___}}.
I am new to Wikipedia Lua Modules, and i would like your assistance/help.
I suppose it could be argued that a structure specifically designed to be a floating, though static, hotel is more properly a hotel than a passenger ship repurposed for this function. If the latter were admitted, we might also have to considerPrison ships (including hulks) which have been used to house people (though involuntarily) in numbers (as opposed tohouseboats) for centuries. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}~2025-31359-08 (talk)01:06, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think it is far more likely that itmay be the first floating structure specifically designed and built to be a hotel, according to some guy who tried to promote it and probably didn't spent a lot of time and effort trying to disprove that claim.
When the British left following Independence in 1947, there were fears the houseboat business would die out, but the owners re-purposed them into hotels catering to visiting Indian tourists, marketing them astutely as “floating palaces.” Then, in the 1960s, the houseboats became a popular draw for internationals travelers on the so-called “Hippie Trail,” an overland route between Europe and Southeast Asia.[3]
These floating hotels that have rested on the lakes of Kashmir since the 1800s,[4]
I may be missing something before the Click in the table step:
I was initially thinking the table might need to have been already created, so I created one at Wikipedia:Sandbox . When I click Edit on that page, I see a text representation of the table on the left and the resulting table on the right. I have tried clicking and dragging in both of these regions, and I neither saw the triangle appear nor saw any other merge option.
When I click that link, I do not notice any pencil icon. (I see an icon that looks close to a pen, but that is towards the left, and hovering over it shows "Syntax highlighting".) What should be around the pencil icon? JumpDiscont (talk)01:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do I add a photo? I was looking at the Lych Gate page which does not include the lych gate of The Church of the Transfiguration in Manhattan. I have a JPEG that I can sent to you. Sincerely, Thomas Merjanian.Oldtom99 (talk)00:55, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just created my first-ever hidden note in a Wikipedia article, but the --> at the end is still visible in the Read mode. Because it's just before the lead, it will look a little strange to readers who happen on the article before I'm finished copy editing it. I can't see anything wrong with the spacing or the coding. Please could one of you helpful Help staffers check to see whatis wrong? The article isMuhacir.Augnablik (talk)06:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Augnablik Hi! The reason you saw --> is because it was in there twice in a row. So the first one ended the hidden comment and the second one was visible. I noticed the comment contained a link to AI. Since AI is not a reliable source of information I deleted it.Polygnotus (talk)06:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fix information, Polygnotus … as for the note itself, I use AI as a diving board, so to speak, to begin further searching — never to support references — so that’s the only way I’ll be using the information in the note.Augnablik (talk)07:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is seriously easier to just skip the AI. It's like having a witness in a court case who is known for frequent lying. A good judge wouldnot try to correct their testimony and hope for the best. Throwing out that witness and ignoring their testimony is how it's done.TooManyFingers (talk)20:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All I’ve been trying to make a case for, TooManyFingers, is that AI searches can be a good starting place to get useful ideas and places to check out to delve further into a topic.
Following worldwide news every day, I find that this use of AI is increasingly pointed out as one of its best in the academic, corporate, and journalistic worlds — drawing from what you might call testimonials from an assortment of practitioners. Not overlooking AI‘s limitations but working within them, just as was eventually done when the printing press and the calculator were invented, causing apoplexy about the possibilities for misinformation, lessening of traditional authority, weakened social structures, job displacement, and more.Augnablik (talk)10:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, @Polygnotus, I went back to the hidden note to see where the duplicate --> might be, as I'd seen only one when I'd typed it in the template. The way I used your feedback was to try to type the note again, and even though I typed it just the same way I'd done before, this time there was no duplicate --> in the Read mode. Strange, but useful further discussion from @Bazza 7 and @PrimeHunter was opened up.Augnablik (talk)17:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Augnablik: But you are not the only reader of Wikipedia articles, and an article's text is not the place to be presenting such information, even if in a so-calledinvisible comment. Better would be to store such information in your own user pages; or document it on an article's talk page. The latter might give you a bonus of some engagement on your improvements from other editors.Bazza 7 (talk)10:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Augnablik: You used VisualEditor in[6]. The user isn't supposed to type code but use buttons, menus and dialogue boxes, and let VisualEditor insert the required code. I guess you started by typing<!--. Then VisualEditor guesses what you want and opens a box (which can also be opened via the "Insert" menu") to insert an invisible comment. VisualEditor automatically adds the closing--> when you close the box. I guess you wrote--> inside the box so it became duplicated.PrimeHunter (talk)17:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that’s exactly what happened! As I mentioned, this was the first time I’d ever tried working with a hidden note. Thanks, PrimeHunter. Your Wiki name fits your sleuthing skills very well.Augnablik (talk)06:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bazza 7, @PrimeHunter, okay, I see now that hidden notes/invisible comments may be less hidden than I thought of them as ... and I’ve moved the information from the controversial note to one of several “Wiki storage units” I’ve created elsewhere.
That note — to be clear — was only to keep handy till I finished the copy edit, and then I’d figure out how to make use of it. My more immediate task on the lead, of course, is to shorten it into a summary of highlights. But I also see the value of adding to the lead a little information about other related uses of the termMuhacir, to give readers a more complete picture; and that's where some of the information in that note will come in ... just to draw from when I include that idea (not the AI note) in my list of follow-up suggestions on the article's Talk page.Augnablik (talk)17:06, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vastmajority20025: That can happen when you are not reverting the latest edit and a later edit has changed the content you want to revert. The usual solution is to make a manual edit to sort it out. If you want to revert a series of consecutive edits which includes the latest then you can revert all of them at the same time. If you post a link to the edits you want to revert then we can say more.PrimeHunter (talk)14:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vastmajority20025: You could have reverted it normally when it was the latest edit but you made another small edit afterwards. Now you can revert both edits at the same time withHelp:Reverting#Restoring a past version in the desktop version. If the later edit had a change which should be preserved (doesn't look relevant here) then you would have to do it manually after restoring the old version.PrimeHunter (talk)15:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Asked, and answered. Please do not keep asking the same question, as the response will remain the same each time. Find a policy-compliant source.AndyTheGrump (talk)18:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Hello, @EditingWizard125. As @IsCat said in their edit comment, some technical features of the edit suggest that you used a LLM (I suspect they mean the garbage "date" parameter - that's not an error I can image many humans making) and, much more important, that you cited a personal blog as your source.Blogs are almost never regarded as reliable sources.
As a procedural matter, when another editor reverts your edit, it means the other editor disagrees that your edit is an improvement. If you disagree with them, the first thing to do is to discuss it with that editor, usually on the article's talk page. SeeWP:BRD.ColinFine (talk)17:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i added the quote where it was written from. I'm simply trying to add the actress' accomplishments from this year. So, blog articles can't be used at all even If I included the reference, url, and name and access date?EditingWizard125 (talk)17:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, you can't cite the blog/website/whatever it is because it doesn't meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines. Please READ what you have been asked to.AndyTheGrump (talk)18:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @AndyTheGrump. It says "Showtones: Bill Eisenring speaks on the next generation of the arts."
The link provided is the article written by Bill Eisenring. Are there any conditions that will allow a quotation from the site? I'm also learning what is acceptable, so please, the information I'm asking for is helpful but I don't need to be "scolded" about what i can post and can not. it's a simple quote that is about an actress and it's from a reliable source.EditingWizard125 (talk)18:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Vastmajority20025. It sounds from your last question that you may be thinking that because it is lacking the things you mention it is somehow not subject to copyright. That's not the case. Anything you find published - in a book, in a newspaper, on the web, on YouTube, in a game, in a video, in a film, on a CD - anything, is copyright unless you can find a positive reason why it is not.ColinFine (talk)18:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @ColinFine. No, I don't think like that. Let me explain with an example: we can directly quote one or two short sentences from a book, journal, or magazine article without asking the author(s) or getting their permission—like inthis featured article's reception section. I wanted to see if I can do the same with a gameplay video too or not? Because it seems like I'm allowed to do that. (About the direct quote, if it's otherwise, say so).Vastmajority20025 (talk)18:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have authored a new political economic system over the past 15 years. There is a free 700-page online reference at LandBasedCapitalism.org. During the spring and fall semesters a student consulting group, FACES, at the University of Illinois, studied the ideas and implemented a game based on the economic principles. I desperately need an investor to make implement the ideas. A set of Wikipedia pages (Land-based capitalism, the AFFEERCE business plan, the Elsie, and Trebling (optional)) would be invaluable. There are problems: 1) I am the author 2) The primary reference is the 700-page document, as this is a seminal work (although the document itself has many references, I doubt the Wikipedia page would get into such detail). The business plan is discussed on Facebook and to a lesser extent on X. I would be willing to donate up to $1,000 to Wikipedia to get these pages published. Perhaps a volunteer at Wikipedia can write the pages, giving an impartial account. I am open to any suggestions.Jeffgrau (talk)19:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Until your work has been analyzed at length in reliable publications that have no personal or working connections to you, Wikipedia is not the place for it.TooManyFingers (talk)19:37, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit Conflict] I'm afraid this idea is a non-starter, at least for the present.
(1) Wikipedia forbids its being used for any form ofPromotion.
(3) Wikipedia does not employanypaid editors; we are all volunteers andnever ask for or accept payment. (There is no system making this possible – donations to TheWikimedia Foundation, though indirectly supporting Wikipedia, are completely insulated from editing activities.) "Professional" editors exist, but they haveless standing than volunteer editors, their work is treated with great suspicion, and the large majority have proved to be incompetent and dishonest, promising (or threatening) things they have no power to enact. Doubtless your query here will attract some offers, butPLEASE readWP:Scam warning.
Wikipedia articles are (or should be) for the most partonly summaries of what has beenpublished about a subjectat some length in multipleReliable sources whollyindependent of the subject (seeWP:42).
Only such sources (which have to becited) can be used to demonstrate the fundamental requirement ofNotability. ("Lesser" sources can be used to a limited extent to corroborate minor uncontrovertial dataonly.)
Your work can only be described in Wikipedia, in neutral, non-promotional terms, based on what appears in published Reliablesecondary sources as described, notprimary sources or those directly connected to you. Until enough of such sources are published, it is probablyWP:Too soon for your ideas to appear here, and in any case Wikipedia can in no way help you to attract sponsorship as you propose. I hope this clarifies and helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}~2025-31359-08 (talk)19:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffgrau The Wikimedia Foundation would be grateful if you gave them $1000, but it would have exactly zero impact on whether or not your content is accepted. We editors don't see the money.331dot (talk)20:26, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Being an experienced website editor is not necesarily of much help: it's like if you said "I'm an experienced automotive engineer, and I'm going to build a house". Your experience will help you in some ways, potentially hinder you in others, and you will be no more aware of some of the essential skills (eg surveying, compliance with building regs) than the general public.ColinFine (talk)21:42, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That task is one of those that I run every year or two if/when I remember to do it. I'll see about getting it running in the next few weeks if I get time.Primefac (talk)18:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you provide an email when creating your account? Did you check your email spam folder? Have you waited five minutes - an hour? Otherwise, just create a new free Wikipedia account and state on your User Page you used to go by [x] username but lost access.qcne(talk)21:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple references using "[[]]" in the same page to the same page
I just finished readingMiddleware, it had multiple "operating systems" (3 or 4) along the page, I edited and deleted them to make it left only one. Am I right by doing that? I just come to theEmbedded system page and I just saw 4Linux, since sometimes some external disambiguation pages link to a specific part of a certain page, I assume if this redundancy is intentional, it is to make someone that comes from those disambiguation or redirects to be less confused, but I'm not sure~2025-36508-74 (talk)05:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"ORB" appears once (in "object request brokers (ORBs)"). It's a term that could well be unfamiliar to many readers of that article; therefore if it appeared again, in a different section, it could be worth linking to again. (A second link wouldn't be redundant, and would be worthwhile.) By contrast, it's hard for me to imagine that readers of the article wouldn't have at least some understanding of "Linux", so a second link to it would I think be redundant and not worthwhile. On the other hand, additional links to "Linux" cost few characters in "source" and not many bytes in HTML, so a few redundant links are harmless.Justdon'tgooverboardwiththem. --Hoary (talk)07:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The general rule of thumb is to link something at its first appearance and then not again; but as Hoary has said, if it's a particularly obscure concept or something it might be worth re-linking if it doesn't appear again until much further down in the article, just to save people having to try to scroll up and find the first mention.Athanelar (talk)00:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm merely restating the perfectly good answers you already received:
Links that legitimately help readers are good. Links that don't legitimately help (because they explain the obvious, they're clearly redundant, or they link to the wrong thing) are always bad. If there are far too many links (even good ones), it's distracting.
Hey, I'm enrolled in theanti vandalism academy, and in it I need to find two articles to correctly mark forCSD. However, I'm having trouble, as the vast majority of new articles seem to be fine. Does anyone have any advice on how I can best find articles to mark for CSD?Wikieditor662 (talk)06:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no hurry to get it done. Head on recent changes patrol and set your filters to only show you page creations and you'll no doubt catch something soon enough.Athanelar (talk)00:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, I've tried multiple times scrolling for long periods of time, and the only ones I found were "eh" cases, and most if not all of these CSD requests ended up rejected.Wikieditor662 (talk)01:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've never found the article specific CSDs to be particularly worthwhile. Its usually better to draftify them, rather than CSDing them, in my experience. I would recommend looking for speedy deletions within the general category, especiallyG11, which can usually be found in userspace.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)05:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I wouldn't classify that as fitting G11. Its misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost (something that would formerly be underWP:U5), but I don't personally think it fits G11. For one, what is it actually promoting? G11 requires pages toonly (exist) to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, but this doesn't appear to be promoting anything in particular.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)05:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well, turns out the page was deleted (even though if it wasn't per my reasoning), but the talk page still existed so I was able to mark it for CSD per G8! Does that work?Wikieditor662 (talk)16:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No? The page was deleted per G11 (though I personally wouldn't have nominated it).Wikieditor662, user talk pages are explicitly excluded under G8, are are really only ever going to be deleted under one of the other general CSDs (G11, G3).45dogs (they/them)(talk page)16:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my bad.... Well, in the academy can I still include G11 since it was deleted under that reason? Or should I find a different article to mark under G11?Wikieditor662 (talk)16:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. Is there a page on Wikipedia that when given a category will spit out a random article from that category or one of its subcategories?Rockfang (talk)07:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I’m working on improving Wikipedia articles about travel destinations and want to ensure the sources I use are considered reliable. I runAustralia City Guide, which provides information on cities, attractions, and travel tips. My question is: what criteria should I follow to cite a travel website properly without it being removed, and how can I ensure the content meets Wikipedia’s notability and reliability standards?~2025-36491-67 (talk)08:18, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@~2025-36491-67: There are no realistic circumstances where it would be acceptable to cite this source, and any efforts to do so would be treated as a form ofspamming.Self-published websites are generally not considered reliable sources, especially not those that invite businesses to promote themselves. You are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia if you completely avoid citing or linking to your website.Helpful Raccoon (talk)08:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If your site is the only one available to support a statement, you can post anedit request on the talk page of the relevant article, stating that you are the publisher of the website, and ask whether others would like to include the citation. But if that is all you are doing, or if you persistently do so when other suitable sources are available, you are likely to be blocked as a spammer. See alsoWP:CITESELF.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits13:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
my email was hacked and I can no longer log in with it, i.e. I no longer have access to the content I created as the user hskoppek. What can I do? Do I just leave it and potentially allow somebody else to take over my account? What is the Wikipedia policy on this?~2025-36511-01 (talk)08:44, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And for your other questions, you're free to create a new Wikipedia account, with a new email of course. In your new account user page, it'll probably be best to say something like "I've lost access to my former account User:hskoppok, so this is my new account". Therefore, you're linking the two accounts.Hacked (Talk|Contribs)08:52, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @~2025-36511-01 To add to the other comments: youdo still have access to the content you created. All material in Wikipedia (even user pages) is fully public and anybody can read it. In most cases it is also open to editing by anyone. Editing other people's user pages is not normally considered good practice, but there can be no objection to your editing a user page of your own account that you can no longer login to.ColinFine (talk)14:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I go to foreign-language wikis, I am usually offered the option to translate them into English. I assume this is a Wikipedia service, yes?If so, I may have come across anEaster Egg this morning while translatinga Danish page.
The Danish page has a "Kilder" section heading which the translater translates as "Sources". But in the Table of Contents in the Sidebar, it seems to be translated as "Clitoris".
@Fob.schools: Wikipedia has no such translation service. It's a feature in your browser, maybe a browser extension like Google Translate. I'm Danish. "Kilder" has multiple meanings in Danish including sources, springs (as in water) and tickler. It can be slang for clitoris. Machine translations try to guess from context.PrimeHunter (talk)12:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning, regarding my contribution on the “shell companies” page—in the paragraph on the European Union—a label has appeared indicating possible citations using artificial intelligence. I have resolved the issue and corrected the URLs. There is no reference to artificial intelligence in the current version, and all citations refer to sources that actually exist. I would just like to know if the situation is now in order.This is the link to the reference page:Shell corporation#European Union. Thanks,Ioiods (talk)14:30, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ioiods:I don't think that your linked edit relates to artificial intelligence. It is improving a{{Cite web}} reference, however it is still incomplete and shows an error message that it has no title. A more complete reference, including {{cite web |last= |first= |date= |title= |url= |trans-title= |website= |language= |access-date=}}, would help the reader and help guard against link rot.TSventon (talk)16:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dharmendra is not a hindu he is a punjabi sikh whose name is kewal kishan Singh Deol not Krishan Singh Deol some Hindu Editing Troll Has Done This On Purpose.~2025-32615-04 (talk)14:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please seeTalk:Dharmendra#Full Name/Birth Name. Note that, if you wish to participate in that discussion, you must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days).
Note also that you are required toassume good faith regarding other Wikipedia contributors.
This matter does not belong at the "help desk". QuotingAnachronist (below): "If there are behavioral issues, write up a case atWP:ANI. For dispute resolution, the first step is to discuss on the article talk page. SeeWP:DR for other processes in case of an impasse." --Hoary (talk)08:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It looks like a few days ago a user, Patrick Stoica, made some edits to this page about me:
He made up some citations (28, 29, 20) and then made up a blog post (citation 18) that you can easily verify do not link to any official source (broken links to make it look official) and self referencing links from his blog as a source of truth. I discovered out about this from his linkedin post where he said "I updated wikipedia for you...I will flood you with bad press and SEO hijacking" (I have the screenshot but the system is not letting me upload it).
I am not sure the process, but I created a Wikipedia account, deleted the made up content and fake references (URLs that lead to 404 pages, as they are made up URLs). I still see the page live so not sure the process of review, but this editor, Patrick Stoica, publicly admitted he is using Wikipedia to SEO hijack. I assume that is against your code of conduct.
I am the editor referenced in this discussion. I would like to provide context and address the claims made bySashaorloff:
Timeline correction: I edited the LendUp page on November 7, 16, and 17, 2025 - not "a few days ago" as claimed. Mr. Orloff blocked me on LinkedIn on October 28, 2025, yet admits he is still monitoring my posts ("I discovered this from his LinkedIn post").
Regarding citations: I acknowledge I had an incorrect URL for one CFPB document. The correct link ishttps://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_lendup_proposed-stip-final-jdmt-and-order_2021-12.pdf - this is the Stipulated Final Judgment and Order (Case No. 3:21-cv-06945-JSC), publicly available on a federal government website. The order permanently bans LendUp and its officers, agents, and all persons in active concert with them from consumer lending activities. Mr. Orloff was CEO during the 2016 CFPB consent order violations that led to this 2021 final judgment.
The other citations Mr. Orloff claims are "made up" include:
UniCourt PDFs of Rolling Loud v. Ahead Financials - actual court records with signed affidavits, made publicly available on my thoroughly documented and sourced website
Regarding "broken links": Another Wikipedia editor (BrandNewSaint) already verified "none of the links were dead."
Regarding the quote attributed to me: Mr. Orloff claims I wrote "I will flood you with bad press and SEO hijacking." I have no trace of this statement anywhere. He claims to have a screenshot but "the system is not letting me upload it."
What Mr. Orloff actually removed from the article:
Entire "CEO permanent ban" section documenting the CFPB Stipulated Final Judgment and Order (Case No. 3:21-cv-06945-JSC)
Section V prohibitions listing what LendUp officers are permanently banned from doing
His subsequent activities including founding Puzzle Financial
Theorem/Pagaya investment connection with Y Combinator and Altman Family LLC
SEC filing citation from Pagaya Technologies
He is not fixing "broken links." He is removing documented federal enforcement actions from Wikipedia.
Conflict of interest: Mr. Orloff is the subject of this article and is editing to remove federal enforcement documentation. This is aWP:COI violation.
For full context: I am a federal whistleblower with 5 SEC complaints, a California State Bar complaint (Case No. 25-O-30894), and a California Board of Accountancy complaint (Case No. A-2026-1047) filed regarding Mr. Orloff and related entities.
I am still learning the platform so not sure where to post. This user Patrick Stoica, "Pretzelseveryday" has declared that he was going to use Wikipedia to "SEO Hijack" me.
The links used to go to a generic government website, not a real lawsuit
The lawsuit linked does not "ban" or allege "fraud" yet his edits claim "ban" and "fraud" (easily verifiable with a simple search)
He has added anti-semitic claims that have nothing to do with LendUp (this page)
He has added links to investments that are not related to with LendUp (this page)
I first posted this on the conflict of interest page. But this author continues to add it back, with links that do not source or support the information he is adding.Sashaorloff (talk)05:20, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Orloff has now uploaded his screenshot. **I am a former Puzzle Financial employee and federal whistleblower.** This is his first public acknowledgment of me in 2.5 years - he refers to me as "this user Patrick Stoica" and "this author," avoiding direct engagement despite blocking me on LinkedIn October 28, 2025 (and 2 years ago; I had to make a new LinkedIn) and monitoring my posts in silence for 27+ months.
The full quote from my LinkedIn post (from 2023, two years ago) is: "i will flood you with more bad press and SEO hijacking if you keep fiddling around with your twitter garbage. YOU NEED TO OWN UP TO ALL THE LIVES YOU'VE GRAVELY AFFECTED."
This was written after the CFPB permanently banned him from consumer lending for defrauding 140,000 consumers. I told him to take accountability. That is his "evidence" against me.
Addressing his new claims:
1. "Generic government website, not a real lawsuit" - consumerfinance.gov is the official website of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Case No. 3:21-cv-06945-JSC is a real federal case, verifiable in PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records). Orloff has previously referred to the CFPB as "bullsh*t branding."
2. "Does not ban or allege fraud" - I encourage any editor to read Section I of the Stipulated Final Judgment, which states LendUp is "permanently restrained from advertising, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, selling, or providing any extension of credit." The CFPB found LendUp deceived 140,000+ consumers, resulting in $40M restitution. The word "fraud" accurately describes this conduct.
3. "Anti-semitic claims" - The James Petras article from March 2015 documents political donations to Israeli causes. The full quote identifies "Sasha Orloff and Jacob Rosenberg founders of Lendup" among "Netanyahu's financial backers" who "lent to millions of borrowers at extortionate rates" and "used part of their ill-gotten gains...by donating millions to Israeli and US jewish causes." Documenting a public figure's political contributions is standard biographical information, not antisemitism. This article was published one year BEFORE LendUp's first CFPB violation and predates my involvement by a decade.
4. "Investments not related to LendUp" - The Pagaya SEC filing directly names Sasha Orloff, Y Combinator, and Altman Family LLC as co-investors in Theorem Technology, a consumer credit asset management firm. This documents his continued involvement in consumer lending post-ban and is directly relevant.
Mr. Orloff's screenshot proves I have been publicly demanding accountability for two years. The "bad press" is federal court documents. The "SEO hijacking" is those documents appearing in Google search results.
The article is protected now so that neither of you can edit it. This page is the wrong forum for resolving disputes. Both of you have a conflict of interest with this topic, it seems, and should not be editing the article directly.
Go toWP:Edit Request Wizard, which walks you through the steps to use the talk page to propose edit requests (one incremental change at a time, not wholesale rewrites) in the form "change X to Y" or "add X after Y" or "delete X" with reliable sources cited and include a rationale for the change.
After the protection lifts, continued disruption of the article will result in extended protection and/or blocking your accounts from editing the article. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)06:20, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As stated by the editor above (Pretzelseveryday) he is acknowledging he is making up edits to the page and linking to documents that are real, but not related to the edits or the page, it is personal harassment and defamation. You posted that you were going to use Wikipedia for "SEO Hijacking", which you bragged you were going to do. And now are doing it. Here is your post on LinkedIn:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1M4JJ--KrtpiuoLattCFhD0BQN3r9XaNn/view?usp=sharing
I am not sure the Wikipedia process, but at some point there must be a Wikipedia moderator or editor that will read this, see you are abusing Wikipedia's process and terms of service by misleading users, posting false information, and attacking people.
For avoidance of the doubt, some of the edits were left untouched. The ones that were edited:
The link to the lawsuit is accurate. The claims about the lawsuit are not. There is no ban of people, and no people were named in the lawsuit, and the lawsuit had nothing to do with Sasha (former CEO, no longer at the company). You can click the link and search for "ban" or "sasha" to easily verify.
The link to the shares (not an investment) in Pagaya are accurate. They are not related to LendUp, nor are they are investment.
The James Petras link is accurate. The claim on the link of investments or support of Netanyahu is not true, and you can easily see the blog is not sourced or cited.
The link to the lawsuit is accurate. But claims of fraud" the lawsuit are not. The author acknowledges the lawsuit does not claim fraud, but wants it to be fraud. You can verify the lawsuit by searching the link for "fraud" and you will not find that word.
Again, this page is the wrong venue for resolving disputes. If there are behavioral issues, write up a case atWP:ANI. For dispute resolution, the first step is to discuss on the article talk page. SeeWP:DR for other processes in case of an impasse. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)06:31, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
transferring a page from German version to the English version
I have a page already up and running on the German version.de:Steve Elson
I would love to have a page on the English version as well. Is there an easy way to do this, or is it starting from the beginning on the English Wikipedia site? Thanks for any info you can provide.~2025-36599-36 (talk)20:31, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a page about Steve Elson in nl:Wikipedia too. What you write above can be read in different ways; but are you saying that you are Elson? ¶ That important question aside, the German-language article cites two sources. One isthis from allaboutjazz.com; it's a gushy little PR piece. The other is on Fandom and is simply unacceptable. An English translation of the German-language article would be unpublishable here. --Hoary (talk)23:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, we typically discourage 'translation' type articles from one wiki to another. It's much better to rewrite the article from scratch using the same sources, because non-English-language sources are allowed on Wikipedia.
Please be aware though that the different language Wikipedias are entirely independent projects that have very different content standards, and English Wikipedia, to my knowledge, has the strictest standards; so an article that is acceptable on German or Dutch Wikipedia may not be acceptable on English Wikipedia with the same sources/prose.Athanelar (talk)00:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid ambiguity: A fresh English article based on the two sources that are cited for the German-language article would be unpublishable here. --Hoary (talk)00:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to ask, why would you "love to have a page on the English version as well"? Vanity? Publicity? SEO? Those are all prohibited reasons for an article to exist here.
That said, if you know of at least three sources about you that meet all the criteria inWP:Golden Rule, you can try writing an article from scratch viaWP:AFC and submit it for review. The German translation wouldn't be acceptable. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)05:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! This was very kind and a quick response. Sorry to waste your time but I was doing some limit testing for a course im in for school and Wikipedia happens to be my test subject haha. Thank you anyways! I am going to be deleting this question momentarily. Take care :)Kowalskc15 (talk)20:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure precisely what you mean by 'limit testing,' but if you mean that you're trying to deliberately disrupt Wikipedia in order to test its response or something to that effect, please be aware we call that variouslya 'breaching experiment' ordisrupting Wikipedia to make a point and it isn't allowed here and could result in your account being blocked from editing. If that's not what you meant, well; disregard.Athanelar (talk)00:40, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No of course i dont mean that, limit testing is a very broad term. Outside of this simple question that I never actually wanted a response to, I had no intention of ever editing or creating anything lol. Which is exactly why I said I was going to take down the post at the start if you are able to read that far up you will see that. Anyways tho, thanks for the heads up!Kowalskc15 (talk)00:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone help me with howPangli is notable to have an article? not offensive, I am a bit confused. The above village is inChipwi Township, and the villages and towns listed in this articleChipwi Township have independent articles. So are all they notable to have separate article?. They all mostly single-line articles.
@AlphaCore: articles on English Wikipedia will not always meet current notability guideline, particulary articles which are as old asPangli, created in 2008 . I believe that the relevant guideline isWP:GEOLAND, which beginsPopulated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. I don't know if Pangli is legally recognised, so I don't know if it is notable. There is a current discussion on the guidance atWikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)/workshop.TSventon (talk)23:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the dreaded geostub. As perWP:NGEOWP:GEOLAND pretty much any town or village is notable enough for here, but 99% of these articles are forever one sentence stubs. There are many such examples for Iran and Germany.GarethBaloney (talk)23:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AlphaCore I'm guessing that the discussion over "Who, and what, is notable?" must have been one of the biggest discussions in Wikipedia's history. And I'm guessing again, that no reasonable cut-off was found for declaring a place non-notable.
I myself come from a place that in my opinion is truly non-notable, and has no Wikipedia article. There is another place near it, even less notable, thatdoes have an article, consisting of two sentences and a "citation needed" tag. Both sentences are boring.TooManyFingers (talk)04:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: this edit was reverted. I have reinstated it, because it is a plea for help. Translation:
Why was my IP banned? Hello, I have been banned until the 11th month of 2026. Can I find out why I have been banned? I have no interaction on Wikipedia.
As you are able to edit, it appears the IP address that you are using is not blocked. IP addresses can be shared among many people, and they can be frequently reassigned to other people. As you've not interacted with Wikipedia before, then it's likely the IP address is used by other people, and it's likely they've caused some disruption. The reason for the block is almost always stated in the block message. You can also look it up atSpecial:BlockList. If you need help interpreting the block message, I'm sure we can help with that. --zzuuzz(talk)11:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked for a source similar toWorldCat but for video games—reliable, not user-based, and that includes information about video games, especially their release dates—but I didn't find any. Can you tell me if you know some?Vastmajority20025 (talk)16:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone look atEarly Dynastic Period (Egypt)? There's a small circle overlapping the text at the left side of the introduction, and I can't clear this area. Mousing over it demonstrates that it'sFile:Red circle 50%.svg, which appears just once in the article — in the middle of an image caption from the article's final text section! And when I remove it, I get template parameter code {{{3}}} that I can't remove at all. Although it's on a very small scale, something's gone badly wrong, and I can't figure out how to resolve it.Nyttend (talk)18:03, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS, the template parameter appears at the same "elevation"; it's not associated with the introduction. Compare its location in[8] (diff of removing the circle) and[9] (revision with circle removed); the diff has much more top-of-page vertical content because it shows the changes, but the code is near the top of both.Nyttend (talk)18:06, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A friend asked me recently how many people have read an article I've written. I had no idea other than going through them and checking views...is there some xtool or something that I can figure out my most-read articles? Thanks for any help! And Happy Turkey Day to those who celebrate. I'm in a brief period between juggling things in and out of the oven.Valereee (talk)19:03, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean who contributed to our articleThe Last Judgment (Michelangelo)? - so far there have been 1,064 edits by 448 different editors. In order to see the full details you need to create an account and then look at the Page statistics at the Revision history of the page - best wishes -Arjayay (talk)22:31, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm working on a draft article about Benjamin Franklin Plumbing (User:Andy_MarCom/sandbox) that has been declined, most recently with the explanation that sources don't meet the four criteria: in-depth, reliable, secondary, and strictly independent.
I believe I have sources that DO meet these criteria, and I'm seeking input on whether the reviewer's assessment is correct or if I should continue pursuing this article.
This is a ~2,000-word analytical article by journalist Clint Carter examining franchise brands with exceptional growth. It provides substantial coverage of Benjamin Franklin Plumbing including:
Specific revenue growth ($500M to $940M, 2019-2023)
Strategic details of the post-acquisition turnaround
Business metrics (43 new locations added, $1.1M average unit volume)
Direct quotes from CEO Mark Dawson about the strategic plan
MY ASSESSMENT OF THE FOUR CRITERIA:
✓ In-depth: Multiple paragraphs of substantive analysis, not just a brief mention
✓ Reliable: Entrepreneur Magazine (established 1977) is a major business publication with editorial oversight
✓ Secondary: Journalist analyzing business strategy, not a press release or company announcement
✓ Independent: Editorial content by Clint Carter, not company-produced or sponsored
The most recent reviewer (Bobby Cohn) stated the sources don't show the subject qualifies, needing sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and strictly independent.
MY QUESTIONS:
Does the Entrepreneur Magazine article meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for corporations (WP:NCORP)?
If not, which of the four criteria does it fail, and why?
Is it problematic that the article covers three brands together rather than focusing solely on Benjamin Franklin Plumbing?
What additional sourcing would be needed to establish notability?
The company has:
260+ locations across North America
$196M in systemwide sales (per Franchise Times)
24+ years of operation (founded 2000)
Was part of a $300M acquisition covered by business press
I want to make sure I'm interpreting Wikipedia's standards correctly before continuing. Thank you for any guidance you can provide.
The link intended ishttps://www.entrepreneur.com/franchises/these-5-brands-are-conquering-the-franchise-industry-at/467126 (note the "26" at the end). The introduction to the page informs us:every year, we reach out to the companies with some of the biggest growth stories to ask one question: “How’d you do it?” So it comes as no surprise that what the article says about Benjamin Franklin Plumbing is on the say-so of Mark Dawson, described as CEO of the company.
Does the Entrepreneur Magazine article meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for corporations (WP:NCORP)? WP:NCORP is a requirement for article subjects (as evidenced via reliable sources), rather than a requirement for article sources. But toward this end, it does say what's required for sources. And no, the article does not meet these.
If not, which of the four criteria does it fail, and why? It's not independent; and, obviously, it's not -- it can't be -- multiple.
Is it problematic that the article covers three brands together rather than focusing solely on Benjamin Franklin Plumbing? In the section "How These 3 Brands Jumped a Collective 548 Spots", the article deals with three companies/brands. (The article as a whole deals with more than three.) Yes, it's problematic, as it's not clear how the claimed achievements are shared among "Benjamin Franklin Plumbing, One Hour Heating & Air Conditioning, and Mister Sparky (an electrical company)".
What additional sourcing would be needed to establish notability? I am unfamiliar with this subject area (one reason why I normally wouldn't presume to review the draft) and lack the time and energy to click on the links in the numerous references that you provide. However, if you'd care to nominate the two best among the sources, then somebody here (perhaps myself) will look at them and comment on them.
Andy MarCom, two other points. First,User:Andy MarCom/sandbox, which you created on 11 November, is about the same subject asDraft:Benjamin Franklin Plumbing, which you created on 6 November. We can't have two drafts on the same subject. May I delete the earlier one (or do you want to salvage something from it before it's deleted)? Secondly, I notice that all your edits so far have been about Benjamin Franklin Plumbing. This suggests to me that you are related to the company. Please read, digest, and promptly implement what's prescribed in thePlain and simple conflict of interest guide. --Hoary (talk)23:30, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(My comment is a little off-topic, but there are far too many situations on Wikipedia that would benefit from the words "read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest".) :)TooManyFingers (talk)03:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for help with Wikipedia, not for help with language. It's possible that Wiktionary people may have something to say about it - I don't know.
Are there any centralised places to discuss which categories templates should sort to? Was looking at the various monthly cats in Accuracy disputes, butCategory:Accuracy disputes from February 2012 is pretty flooded from uses of{{Rayment}}, and it's an impediment to anyone trying to work on any non-Rayment "accuracy disputes". I would like to request it be sorted into some other category, either an existing one or a new one of its own, but I don't have specific opinions as to where (other than "not here") and would like to get other people to comment.Alpha3031 (t •c)08:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As long as that other editor identified by a number really was you, then you have successfully deleted what you wrote and everything is as it should be.
I didn't look, but if the material you deleted contained legally sensitive matter such as someone's name and address, then you'd need administrative help to wipe away all traces. If it was only a mistaken or useless message, it's already done and nothing to worry about.TooManyFingers (talk)16:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Anyone who intentionally searches the history log of that discussion will be able to see that you wrote and deleted something, and they can go and see what you wrote if they intentionally click on it, but people using the discussion in the ordinary way see nothing.)TooManyFingers (talk)16:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I was trying to log into my Wikipedia account the other day, I realized that apparently the password I thought was the correct one was not the correct one. I tried a few different versions of the password, but none of them were correct. I then went through the process of resetting my password. I entered my username and email into their respective boxes before clicking the button which should've sent an email to me to reset my password. I never got that email. I checked all my folders, including spam, and didn't find it anywhere. I tried again the next day. No email. I tried one final time today and still got no email. This is why I came here as a last resort. Hopefully somebody can help. Thank you in advance to whoever can!~2025-37113-08 (talk)18:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear sir, I am 77 years old and approaching death. Some years ago I invented an electronic circuit entirely on my own. It is a high voltage generator useful to High Voltage (many kilovolt) Physicists. I find I must pay page charges to get it published. I do not have funds to do this. (I hold a PhD in Electrical Engineering ) I simply want to get it into the public domain, with my name on it as the inventor. It is quite fundamental in nature. I simply want credit for it as the inventor. Nothing more. CAN I PUBLISH ON WIKIPEDIA?? It seems logical. However you have all sorts of COI comments which I CANNOT FOLLOW.Please comment. I have a 2 page pdf of the device, a Marx Bank of a special design. Very novel, solving some fundamental design problems.
This page is for questions about editing Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at theReference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always trysearching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps.Jauerbackdude?/dude.19:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
wikimedia.org. Don't reveal the password.PrimeHunter (talk)12:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]