In 2005 I began editing at Wikipedia using my IP Address as my username. Having just changed my broadband supplier I discover that my username is no longer recognised to login here. Who can help, please, to let me change my username and retrieve those past edits? - CLOFM~2026-71910-2 (talk)23:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well when I joined Wiki in 2005 it certainly let me use my 12-digit number and plenty of people did do that back then. There's only one slot for entering our "username" when we login - unless you know otherwise! - clofm~2026-71910-2 (talk)00:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
PS - Andy, you can still see plenty of IP numbers as usernames when you view the history of an article. OK maybe not as many as once upon a time, but my username is still visible in plenty of histories. clofm~2026-71910-2 (talk)00:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Those IP numbers aren't usernames. It was never possible to use an IP as a username on Wikipedia; that was explicitly not allowed. Instead, if you edited without logging in to an account, it would use your IP like a 'temporary username' of sorts.
I think it is quite possible that you were editing logged out the whole time you thought you were using your IP as a username. In any case, it would be helpful if you'd tell us what that IP address was, so we can find your contributions.Athanelar (talk)01:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Presiously, if you did not create an account, your edits were attributed to your IP, which was assigned by your ISP. All those edits still exist and are still attributed to those IPs in article histories; if you know the IP, you can see the list of all if its edits. However, they could never be transferred to another attribution--neither a different IP if your IP changed nor an actual account if you created one. If your IP changed your contributions list did not follow you. Retaining "all your edits" even as you change IPs was one of the advantages of creating an account.
Now we have "temporary accounts" that are automatically created if you make an edit without creating a regular account. Like IP non-accounts, TA edits cannot be transferred, so if your TA changes, your previous edits do not follow you. Like IP edits, TA edits do not transfer if you change TA (but like IP you can always look up those old edits if you know the TA name). Unlike IPs, TA identity is designed to automatically live with your device, so if you switch IPs your TA stays the same and your history is intact. However, TA accounts automatically and non-optionally expire in 90 days, and might also change if you switch browsers or delete your cookies. If you make an edit afer that, you get a new TA with no contributions history.
Overall, the only way to retain beyond 90 days is now to create an account. And from that account, you can add a note that you previously edited using IP... and TA... so others can see that history of yours.DMacks (talk)01:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This person claims to have specific knowledge of the numbers they were using. If they have the numbers, I want to help them. If in fact they don't have the numbers, I want to expose their lie.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)08:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@~2026-71910-2 Find an article you know you edited. Look at the edit history, and find an edit you made. The edits you made with that IP are linked from there. If you made edits with several IP:s, repeat as necessary.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)07:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Thanks to everybody who has replied. I see now how my own memory has played a trick. As DMacks says: it wasn’t so much me *entering* my IP number as username in 2005 but simply starting to edit and by default my IP number became the index for my edits like a temporary account today. And thanks toAthanelar for your clarification and toGråbergs Gråa Sång for the hint for reaching my history… I’ve been lucky to have the same IP address for 20 years, until now, but clearly I now must create a named account… As forAndyTheGrump (living his name to the hilt) andTooManyFingers, I have not mentioned that IP address of mine because the rules, published at the top of this column, say explicitly: “Donot provide your email address or any other contact information.” On balance, job done, so thanks all round.~2026-71910-2 (talk)12:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@~2026-71910-2 If youwant, when/if you make a named account, you can note on your userpage something like "My previous edits can be seen at[2]." It's up to you, and as you say, revealing ones IP can have some unwanted effects, that's why we now have theWP:TA thing instead. Then again, your IP has been in the open for 20 years on WP, and still is, if one knows where to look.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)12:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is not always the case. Many editors, including myself, spent some of their first edits drafting and submitting articles. I don't think we should be too down on people enthusiastic to give it a whirl.Cremastra (talk·contribs)01:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have researched some Generals of the First World War.
I have come across a SPINKS sale catalogue when his property was sold after his death.
The catalogue contains much more info about his life than is currently published.
How do I go about having it included?
Would someone be interested in helping?
This is not my work, I simply discovered it. Attribution will be the SPINKS the Auction House
Draft article
SPINKS AUCTION DECEMBER 2020
Auction: 20003 - Orders, Decorations and Medals
Lot: 2
Sold by Order of a Direct Descendant
LIEUTENANT-GENERAL
SIR CHARLES MacPHERSON DOBELL KCB CMG DSO ADC FRGS
(1869-1954)
Charles Dobell's collection of Orders, Decorations, Medals and archival memorabilia represents a comprehensive memorial to a soldier whose place among his peers was recognised by his inclusion in John Singer Sargent's group portrait 'Some Generals of the Great War'. The extraordinary collection offered here, amassed by an inveterate souvenir collector who - it is evident - rarely threw anything away, encapsulates a world long departed in a way guaranteed to make those with an interest in it reflect upon his long career.
Apprenticeship
Dobell was raised in the family home, the palatial Villa Beauvoir in Sillery, Quebec; his father had emigrated from Liverpool and become rich in the lumber trade. After preliminary education in Quebec, Dobell went to Charterhouse School in England in 1883 for two years.
Returning to Canada, he entered the Royal Military College, Kingston, in September 1886 as Cadet No. 221 and was placed in B Company. In 1890, Dobell graduated with Honours, his conduct being noted as 'Very Good'. He was marked 'Distinguished' in seven out of thirteen obligatory subjects, with the same mark in four voluntary subjects. He was Company Sergeant Major of his company and wore a proficiency badge for Artillery Practice with another for being top of his class in Equitation. He was awarded three 'subject' prizes, received the Lord Stanley prize, graduated fourth of his intake and was one of only four cadets recommended in 1890 for commissions in the British army.
In August 1890, he was commissioned into 1st Bn. Royal Welsh Fusiliers, then stationed in Lucknow but warned for duty on the North-West Frontier. The battalion arrived in Peshawar early in December 1890, by which time Dobell had joined and assumed command of F Company. Early in 1891, he accompanied the battalion on an expedition to punish recalcitrant tribes in the Black Mountains of Hazara: it was a short-lived but effective campaign that earned him his first campaign Medal.
Late in 1891, aged 22, he was ensign for the Regimental Colour at a parade in Peshawar. Just a few months before his death, aged 85, in July 1954, he was present as that same Colour was marched off parade for the last time, to be laid up in St David's Cathedral, Pembrokeshire, after seventy-four years' service. In so many ways, that Colour - now preserved in the Regimental Museum - characterises Dobell's loyal service to the Regiment that welcomed him in 1890.
Experience and Responsibility
Dobell remained with the 1st battalion for the next five years, living the life of a British subaltern stationed in northern India: he learned how to command men; he rode; he shot; he probably fished. He had been a member of Kingston's Gymnastics Class and had left the college marked as 'Distinguished' in Drills and Exercises; an accomplished horseman, he was clearly a very fit young officer. Having achieved a First Class mark in Gymnastics at Lucknow in June 1892, he returned to his battalion to become regimental gymnastics instructor in April 1893. Concurrently, he passed both lower and higher standard Hindustani and obtained qualifications in Transport and Musketry in 1894. Promotion to lieutenant came in November 1892 and was accompanied by the duties of acting adjutant in May 1893; during the same period, he changed companies three times, thus obtaining wide experience of the men of his battalion. He also took leave - no doubt to go shooting - and caught his fair share of the illnesses associated with life in India. The battalion remained in northern India until embarking for Aden in October 1896. Dobell continued on to Malta to join the 2nd battalion and become its adjutant. No sooner had he settled into the appointment with his new battalion than a crisis emerged that set him on course for advancement.
Tipped for Stardom
Crete's Greek population had long resented Turkish rule. Early in 1897, this resentment became sectarian violence: the Cretans proclaimed union with Greece and rose in rebellion against the Turks; the Turks responded, bloodily. An international force from the 'Great Powers' was assembled and deployed to Crete to control the situation; as part of that force, 2nd Bn. The Royal Welsh Fusiliers disembarked at Candia early in April 1897. Working with allies attempting to separate warring factions, while also exercising objectivity and military discipline, has become commonplace for British soldiers in the post-1945 world but was relatively new in 1897. The senior officers of 2nd Royal Welsh Fusiliers were very good at it and three brevet promotions were awarded in recognition. One was to Dobell, who was to be made brevet major when promoted to captain: the promotion and thus the brevet happened almost immediately and simultaneously in 1899.
The crisis in Crete being resolved in 1898, the battalion embarked for Hong Kong and arrived in January 1899. War broke out in South Africa in October 1899 and Dobell began firing off telegrams asking for permission to join any unit, anywhere, on leave if necessary: anything to be involved. Eventually, his persistence (and his father's influence) triumphed and by late December 1899 he was attached to the staff of 2nd (Special Service) Bn., Royal Canadian Regiment. In February 1900, he was given command of 2nd Mounted Infantry battalion and exercised it with such success as to be mentioned in dispatches and created a Companion of the Distinguished Service Order (DSO) in 1901.
In July 1900, long before his DSO was gazetted, he was recalled from South Africa to China to resume the adjutancy of the 2nd battalion, then engaged in suppressing the 'Boxer Rebellion'. Once again, Dobell served in an international force created by the 'Great Powers' for a peace-keeping role. Relinquishing the adjutancy late in 1900, he continued to serve in Peking until the final withdrawal of British forces from that city in 1901. In 1902, he passed the examination for entry to the Staff College, entering the College in January 1903. Thus, as a captain and brevet major, aged 33, with a DSO, three campaign medals and experience of both administration and field command, Dobell joined an elite cadre of future staff and general officers.
The Staff Officer
A photograph of the Staff College students in the intake of 1903, contained in one of Dobell's photograph albums, is an evocative image of a departed age. Sir Henry Rawlinson, later Field Marshal Lord Rawlinson, was the commandant; few officers are without campaign medals, many have DSOs and two have VCs; all are in their regiment's full dress uniform.
Leaving Staff College in 1904, Dobell was appointed temporary lieutenant-colonel to command 1st Bn. the Northern Nigeria Regiment, West African Frontier Force, in 1905. He commanded that unit in the Northern Nigeria campaign of 1906, being mentioned in dispatches twice and awarded the brevet of Lieutenant-Colonel, concomitant upon his being promoted major; he also added basic Hausa to his various linguistic skills.
Promoted substantive Major and thus brevet Lieutenant-Colonel in 1907, he returned to England to enter the War Office as General Staff Officer grade 3, to be promoted GSO2 in 1909, to be appointed ADC to King George V and brevet Colonel in 1910, to relinquish his War Office appointment in 1911 and to be promoted substantive Lieutenant-Colonel commanding 2nd Bn. The Bedfordshire Regiment in 1912, then stationed in South Africa. In time of peace, such rapid advancement was unusual and must reflect not only Dobell's innate talent but also his ambition, professionalism and connections. Command of 2nd Bedfordshires was short-lived: he was promoted substantive Colonel and temporary Brigadier-General in September 1913 and given the post of Inspector-General of the West African Frontier Force.
During his rapid rise in the Army in the decade 1904-14, he found time to marry, in March 1908: his wife was a widow with two daughters and would present him with a daughter, Judith, in South Africa in 1912. Earlier in 1908, he had saved one R.E. Ford from drowning in the lake at Stoke Park, Buckinghamshire, and received a Testimonial from the Royal Humane Society as a result: as with so many other papers relevant to his long career, this Testimonial is pasted into his scrapbook.
The outbreak of war in August 1914 found Dobell home on leave. Since it was evident that Germany's two West African colonies of Togoland and the Cameroons were vulnerable to attack, Dobell's advice was sought on how best to capture them.
Success in the Cameroons
Britain's principal targets were the colonies' wireless stations and the ports: the one able to report movements of British shipping in the Bights of Benin and Biafra to German surface raiders, the other able to shelter and re-provision the surface raiders. In addition, capture of the ports would enable a blockade to be established that ought to starve the colonies of Togoland and the Cameroons into submission, thus minimising the need for extensive land operations in an unfavourable terrain and climate. Thus Dobell advised, specifying that naval support of ground troops would be necessary.
Given command of British forces, and ultimately Allied forces, for the expedition, Dobell sailed with his staff for West Africa in S.S.Appam on 31st August 1914. By the time he arrived off the Cameroons port of Duala, on 25th September, events had overtaken planning and Togoland had already, effectively, fallen to British and French troops. Duala was briefly bombarded by H.M.S. Challenger and, increasingly encircled by British and French ground troops, surrendered, the German forces having already evacuated the port and retreated inland. However, although the coastal strip had been secured, a sizeable German presence remained in the interior. German tactics throughout the ensuing campaign reflected their strategy of holding ground and denying Allied forces overall victory in order to retain the colony as a bargaining tool for the end of the war.
German defence was stubborn and protracted: despite severe limitations in materièl and in Intelligence, its unity of purpose contrasted significantly with that of the Allies, all three of whom - British, French and Belgian - pursued their own nationally inspired aims and consequently failed effectively to work together. Dobell's experience, in Crete and in China, was unable to counteract that. The longer the campaign continued, the more attenuated through casualties the Allied forces became; there were limitations in the number and quality of reinforcements available. The campaign became one of attrition, largely fought by black infantry on both sides, until eventually German forces escaped into the neutral Spanish colony of Muni. Dobell could only direct the campaign to a limited extent, so diverse were the Allied forces engaged and so limited the communications, but his role in the eventual Allied victory, when it came in February 1916, was undeniably significant. It was recognised too: by the KCB and the Commander's Cross of the Légion d'Honneur in 1916, coming after the CMG in the New Year Honours of 1915 and promotion to major general in June 1915. By 1916, so stagnant had the campaign in France and Flanders become, any success of Allied arms had to be celebrated, rewarded and publicised and so it was for Dobell in West Africa.
Disappointment in Palestine
The logic of taking a General fresh from success in a torpid campaign in tropical Africa and appointing him to command a desert-based force in the Middle East may escape those equipped with 20:20 hindsight but, in mid-1916, that is what the War Cabinet did with Dobell. His first role in that theatre was as Commander Western Frontier Force in June 1916. He was then appointed Commander of troops on the Suez Canal and Eastern Frontier Force in October 1916, following promotion to temporary Lieutenant-General in September. In that role, he and his superior, Sir Archibald Murray, have been held responsible for the failure of the first two battles of Gaza in 1917. While not a wholly unfair judgment, it has been made in hindsight and with little appreciation of the circumstances, among which the evident chaos of the Middle Eastern Force's command structure, inadequate staff work and Intelligence and reasonable concerns about the Force's logistics, especially in relation to the wellbeing of its horses, loom large. The first two attacks on Gaza were certainly badly handled and the second disastrously bloody. However, small recognition has been given to the immense and successful preparation work executed by Dobell and Murray before their replacement by Chetwode (his Field Marshal's Baton sold in these rooms) and Allenby that led to the eventual capture of Gaza and then Palestine. That said, it was certainly not Dobell's finest hour: perhaps too much was expected of him by the politicians in London, always hungry for favourable headlines and expecting miracles.
Redemption in India
Despite the modern condemnation of Dobell for his part in the failure to take Gaza after two attempts in 1917, he cannot have been wholly damned in the opinion of the British War Cabinet since no sooner had he returned home than it sent him abroad again, this time to Command 2nd (Rawalpindi) Division in India. He remained there until 1920, serving during the 3rd Afghan War of 1919 and being mentioned in dispatches twice. Briefly officiating as G.O.C. Northern Command India in 1920, he returned home to go on half pay in that year and in 1923 retired as an honorary Lieutenant-General. In 1926, he was appointed Colonel of The Royal Welch Fusiliers and retained that post until 1938, being noted as a particularly active and attentive Colonel. Even after relinquishing the Colonelcy, he retained his links with the Regiment, throughout the Second World War and until a few months before his death.
No I’m NOT the same person as Casosos, what would be the point? I thought the information I had discovered might be worthy of adding to existing material.~2026-84066-3 (talk)21:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion then - I didn't see why you'd be responding to Casosos's question by adding what you added. Your material might be able to be added to the appropriate article,but only if you remove all statements that look as if they could be your opinion or speculation. Every little detail needs to be credited to an independent reliable source.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)23:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that way often when I'm down in the weeds with something on Wikipedia.
Please remember to sign in when you edit. When you sign out, you become a temporary account, as seen by your signature in your last comment. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)07:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a definition somewhere of what counts as a "revert"? So far I've found detailed lists of n "exceptions" without much detail about what DOES count as a revert.
How closely does it need to resemble the previous version?
Does just removing something count as a "revert" to before it was added?
Any method that successfully gets rid of (more or less all of) someone's previous edit, counts as a revert. But "editing their edit", so it's still there but you changed it some, is not a revert.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)18:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, just removing something that got added is definitely a revert. (But again, not if you only changed a certain part of it.)
@LateNightCoffee I think, if any of this came to a dispute resolution, they would look at the pattern of how the person acted. If it looks like Person A really intended to undo whatever Person B had done, they would probably call it a revert, no matter how it was accomplished.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)19:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TooManyFingers I don't want to make a formal complaint. I just wanted to tell someone to stop removing my contributions to a page. But I wanted to check I was right about the rule first. They delete various things, often things I've added, about 3 times per day.Late Night Coffee (talk)06:08, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You seem (just at a glance) to be making massive and controversial changes to a very controversial article. I'm not convinced that you're really doing valuable things to that article, at least not all the time. I think, on that article, you need to back off, slow down, and make better quality smaller edits. I'm not seeing you as "the good guy" at all in those conflicts; I'd be reverting a lot of it too.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)06:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If what you're adding is being reverted, the proper approach is to start a discussion about including it, not forcing it back in after the revert. The purpose ofWP:1RR is to prevent edit warring, not to give first-mover advantage to someone wanting to include disputed content, which would flipWP:ONUS over.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)16:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I started editing Wikipedia about two days ago. I’m reading the guidelines and trying to learn properly.I’m also a digital artwork creator and have uploaded some of my creative work toWikimedia Commons. As a new editor, can I help by improving articles or giving feedback, and is it possible to become a page reviewer later?ButterflyCat (talk)09:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, thank you so much, and welcome to the community! You absolutely can improve articles. You don't have to be a page reviewer to do that, such as by formatting pages per themanual of style, adding citations, or copyediting. You can also give feedback on talk pages of articles or drafts, or talk pages of users who create them. If you have a good track record for this, you can request the permission so you can "patrol" pages so they are indexed on search engines like Google! There are many things to do on Wikipedia, feel free to seethe Dashboard for some tasks you can help out with.jolielover♥talk11:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@ButterflyCat When you upload any work to Commons, you are agreeing to license that work under one of the Creative Commons licenses. I believe that allows anyone to reuse your work for any purpose (with attribution). There are other details (that I'm not too familiar with); if you are OK with this, then great. If not -- you may want to take your work down.
Why was our page deleted? We were told to fix the references,so we were working on those. Some brand new ediotor deleted the page. We submitted a couple of days ago and were still workng on the draft and a brand new editor (this is what it says on his page). How can we get this fixed.
The editor was This page does not exist. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference.
MPGuy2824 isn't a 'brand new editor'. He is a 'new page reviewer'(someone who reviews new pages) and an admin (hence being able to delete articles/drafts). As for why the draft was deleted, you have already been told - 'obvious LLM'. If you are unhappy with this, I suggest you discuss it with MPGuy2824.AndyTheGrump (talk)15:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Isthis article definitely compliant with the requirements? Specifically, is it not original research? I don’t see any sources among the ones cited that periodize USSR history according to the reigns of Lenin, Stalin, Brezhnev and so on.Senya48 (talk)16:13, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the sources cited in the article deal with the history of the USSR, but none of their authors identify or treat the period from 1927 to 1953 separately as the era of Stalinism. These are merely a selection of works on Soviet history that cover various specific aspects. The notion of a distinct “Stalinism period” is not articulated or established in any of the provided sources. Maybe I’m wrong, but when a concept or period is only mentioned in passing in the sources and not actually presented or named as such by them, that amounts to original research. At present, none of the existing citations/references is headed or described as “History of the USSR (1927–1953)” or uses any similar periodization label.Senya48 (talk)17:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly speaking, my concerns apply to the article as a whole, rather than to specific sections. Historians likely do not periodize the history of the USSR into distinct eras according to the last names of state leaders, as I have been unable to find any source on the internet that asserts the opposite.Senya48 (talk)17:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Senya48, unsurprisingly, we have a well-referenced articleStalinism which beginsStalinism is the means of governing and Marxist–Leninist policies implemented in the Soviet Union (USSR) from 1927 to 1953 by Joseph Stalin. Perhaps some of those references could be added to the article in question or you could do your own search of the massive historical literature on this era.Cullen328 (talk)00:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If anotable critic publishes their review on their YouTube channel, is their review considered self-published and therefore ineligible for use on Wikipedia? Or does this not pose an issue under Wikipedia's policies?Vastmajority20025 (talk)21:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yyou could say "Critic so-and-so noted on his YouTube channel that...." if so-and-so is notable enough to have a standalone Wikipedia article that you can link to, and provided that the video is just an extension of the critic's primary profession. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)23:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
...provided that it's in the video creator's area of expertise. A Nobel laureate in physics making a video about election fraud wouldn't be considered a reliable source on that topic regardless of theNobel Prize effect. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)01:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
John Duncan (artist), we're told, is "an American multi-platform artist". The multiplicity of platforms isn't described as including canvas, walls, or other paintable surfaces. "His events and installations are a form of existential research, often confrontational in nature", whatever that means ... well, it's an article created twenty years ago by an SPA, so no great surprise that it contains many gems, just one of which isBus Ride sexually stimulated unsuspecting passengers on a city bus with a liquid poured into the ventilation system in order to observe the results; the premise -- that there exists a liquid which if poured into a ventilation system sexually stimulates those who are ventilated -- is, I humbly suggest, bollocks. The work ofJohn Duncan (painter) isn't obviously confrontational in nature or anything else, but his last work "was completed in spite of the critical antagonisms Duncan was facing at the time", in which the "critical antagonisms" go unexplained. These two people are effectively distinguished by the combination of (A)artist/painter and (B) a hatnote onJohn Duncan (artist). Their respective titles aside, the articleJohn Duncan (painter) is in moderate need of improvement and the articleJohn Duncan (artist) in acute need of same. --Hoary (talk)22:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't heard ofOrgazmo,Anachronist; what I read reminds me ofFlesh Gordon, or what little I saw of it before I dozed off. But back to the articleJohn Duncan (artist): its lead describes the man's "existential research" etc in the present tense, yet it's sourced to something published in 2001. I'm so ancient that 2001 doesn't seem so long ago, but even I couldn't perpetrate the present tense here with a straight face. And yet people (especially at the teahouse) routinely claim to have trouble finding articles that need improvement. Strange. --Hoary (talk)00:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Orgazmo wasn't pornographic, it wasabout making pornographic films, and featured a device that you could aim at innocent passersby to give them instant orgasms. Your mentioningBus Ride reminded me of that. But you're right, both articles can use cleanup. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)01:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes,Anachronist, I'd understood. (Incidentally, I foundFlesh Gordon far less pornographic than soporific.) A difference betweenOrgazmo andBus Ride is that the former is presented as amusing fiction, whereas Wikipedia uncritically recycles a credulous account of the latter (sourced toJohn Duncan: Work 1975-2005, a book by John Duncan). --Hoary (talk)02:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The only article you have created recently is rather old and has contributions from many editors, so it cannot be deleted by request. You moved it to a new name, leaving a redirect behind, which is the correct situation because the article may be found by searching for either name. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)23:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I got this error and don't quite understand where it was introduced. I would like to fix it, and it would be great to get some help on this.
A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)
You have "date=2015-09",SCSHI. I don't think this is permissible. By contrast, either "date=2015-09-27" or "date=September 2015" would be, I think. (My choice of "27" is of course meaningless, other than to illustrate a date format.) --Hoary (talk)08:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've just written an article onBertrand Pierre Castex, which has been assessed against B-class criteria byMilHistBot. It comes up good for all areas except "Referencing and citation". The article is liberally peppered with references, all to RS, so I don't really see what more I need to do to get across the line to B-ness. I'd ask the reviewer, but it's a bot.Chuntuk (talk)14:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all, I just createdBythinella conica and the species is being shown asB. c. - this was my first try at building a taxobox. Why's the specie being shown like that and how can I make the whole name show up? Cheers!Barbalalaika 🐌20:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Barbalalaika: It appears the first words intaxon are automatically abbreviated to a letter. There was a space before the ref so it probably thought the ref was a word and abbreviated the first two words. I have removed the space and now only the first word is abbreviated. Is that OK? I don't know the practice in the field.PrimeHunter (talk)21:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your page isn't complete as there's no mention of the song "Andy Gump" from 1923. I own a player piano roll for this song from that year whose lyrics are based on many of the characters in the comic strip. If you want, I could transcribe the lyrics and forward along with a copy of the roll box label. Thank-you. - Mark.~2026-90579-5 (talk)20:10, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The piano roll and lyrics prove that the song exists, but they don't prove that neutral reporters were interested enough in that song to write about it. If you can find discussions of this particular song in newspapers, magazines, or other reliable reporting, that would be great. (Mere mentions don't count.) But just showing that the song exists is not enough to get it included.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)21:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Notability would be required for an article about that song and/or that piano roll. Notability is not separately required for each part of an article about a notable subject. Inclusion of this song in theThe Gumps is a matter of editorial judgement. -Arch dude (talk)21:56, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You could transcribe and put it on Commons, butWikisource is actually a more appropriate location. I'm not sure of the best way to establish the provenance. But an image of the roll box label is a start. Where are the lyrics? on the roll itself? if so, it may be awkward to add images of the original. Since it's from 1923, it's now in the public domain and you are not violating any copyright, wherever you choose to put it. After it's on Wikisource, you can reference it from the Wikipedia article. You are actually referencing the roll, not your transcription, and your transcription is a courtesy copy. -Arch dude (talk)21:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On suburbs near Paris, it states that they are suburbs of Paris, when they should say they are suburbs near Paris in order to prevent people from thinking they are actually part of Paris. The reason I am asking for this to be done for me rather than doing it myself is because there are a ton of articles like this.HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk)22:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In English, a 'suburb' is an outlying, generally residential, area considered part of a larger city, and thus it wouldn't make sense to suggest that there were 'suburbs'on the perimeter of Paris that weren't suburbsof Paris - where else would they be suburbs of? Note that this is an unofficial designation, and depending on relevant legislation, the suburb may have its own local government, rather than being legislatively part of the larger city. Whether Wikipedia should describe a specific locale as a suburb of another would depend on what sources cited say.AndyTheGrump (talk)22:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what? 'Part of Paris' in what sense? As I've stated above, whether an area is described as a suburb or not has nothing to do with legislation, and instead depends on how sources characterise it.AndyTheGrump (talk)01:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know if this is an English variation issue, but in American English, the word "suburb" is never (or extremely rarely) applied to an area within the city limits of the large city. It is applied to smaller cities and towns and villages or possibly unincorporated communities that surround that core city but are not formally part of it.Cullen328 (talk)02:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If that is true, then presumably sources won't be found to characterise areas within US city limits as suburbs ('City Limits' in non-US contexts can be a rather amorphous concept: see e.g.London, which has an inner 'City' - the 'Square Mile' - and a larger area administered by theGreater London Authority which is (approximately) what most people would be referring to most of the time when describing something (e.g. The houses of Parliament) as being in 'London'. In some contexts, for some people, even the GLA area isn't considered the outer limit of 'London', taking instead the M25 as the border) If we follow sources, the issue doesn't arise. If articles are characterising areas as suburbs without such sources, they probably shouldn't be, but they need to be looked at in context - we can't generalise, and shouldn't be deciding for ourselves.AndyTheGrump (talk)02:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That clearly isn't answering the question I asked. At no point did the OP suggest that Paris was a suburb of Paris. You stated earlier thatIf theywere actually part of Paris, they couldn't be called suburbs! Justify that with a citation, or at least with a clear explanation. Are you attempting to apply preferred terminology in one context (e.g. Cullen's description of how it works in the US), rather than the broader terminology applied elsewhere (see my remarks on London)?. If so, that isn't how we do it - we go by sources.AndyTheGrump (talk)02:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the real takeaway here is that 'suburb' is a functional description (of a peripheral locale providing residential accommodation for a larger city or conurbation) rather than a legislative one, and that the way this description is generally applied may well vary considerably from one country to another. As a functional description, it is essentially opinion (I've not seen a formal definition, and there are obviously going to be edge cases), though one that probably doesn't merit wording as such if sources are clear. I'd argue for example that it is entirely reasonable to describeSurbiton as a 'London suburb' in Wikipedia's voice, given that it is not only widely described as such, but actually serves as the archetype for 'leafy London suburbs'.AndyTheGrump (talk)03:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
HamzaTheGreat2007, the correct expression in English issuburbs of Paris. Suburbs of New York are never part of New York, and suburbs of Paris are never part of Paris. French does it just like we do, and even uses the same preposition,of. The French prepositionde(lit: 'of') in the expression,une/la banlieue de Paris means "a/the suburb/s of Paris", so they exclude parts of the city when usingbanlieue just like we do in English withsuburb.Mathglot (talk)10:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised no one mentionedÎle-de-France. Its pretty much the term used to mean Paris and its suburbs. As others said, it might be best to add 'Suburbs of Paris' or 'Paris region' since everyone knows Paris but may not have an idea of what Île-de-France is about (or may think it means a random region of France).JuniperChill (talk)19:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This help desk is solely for answering questions regarding using Wikipedia. Even if we knew what a 'sqau' was (it doesn't appear to be a word in the English language) we wouldn't answer it here.AndyTheGrump (talk)04:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For different types of English used in quite a few articles, we often use "'s" for singular nouns such as "Charles's" (which I've added to) fromRise of the Planet of the Apes (since this is an American film, for reference, one of the plot section quotes readsCharles's condition returns as his immune system becomes resistant to ALZ-112.).
That is an apostrophe, not a comma. Its placement is decided by how the possessive is pronounced as well as the variety of English in use. TheOxford Manual of Style saysUS English is more likely to support ... genitive possessives ... with British English tending instead to transpose the words and insert "of": e.g. "the effects of the catharsis" rather than "the catharsis' effects". There is more information theapostrophe article.Shantavira|feed me09:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For the plural of a surname when it'snot possessive, there must not be any apostrophe, and an s must be added even if there already was one - if the name already ends in s, stick in an e for padding. "The Burnses were here yesterday, but the Flintstones, the Joneses, and the Smiths were not".
For the possessive/genitive singular, isn't the norm for most names ending in -s to just use an apostrophe by itself? That is,Charles' notCharles's. –Scyrme (talk)01:47, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know Wikipedia uses the MOS, I just don't have every guideline and shortcut memorised. Looks like the MOS recommends that in cases where the final S would be omitted, the text should instead be rephrased so the suffix isn't necessary, though you're right that it doesn't omit the S when the suffixis used rather than avoided. Strange that the only exception is for abstract nouns preceding the word "sake", rather than just abstract nouns consistently.(I know it's to preserve common idioms; I still think it's strange.) –Scyrme (talk)21:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Romanian grammar:Romanian grammar has a set of links to external web resources under it's 'References' section. Unfortunately, one of the links directs to a website that apparently displays pornographic material. The link is found under reference no. 11 (an article by Maria Aldea in Romanian).~2026-91452-2 (talk)10:48, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Due to work reasons, my IP address keeps jumping repeatedly. I registered an extra account and want to deactivate it. I hereby declare that I did not intend to do soБегарьІс (talk)10:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Following your guidance on WP:VANISH, I hereby formally request the vanishing/closing of my two accidentally created alternate accounts, as I will only use my main accountUser:БегарьІс.The accounts to vanish/close are:1. 温室雏菊2. BiekeaersiReason: They were created unintentionally due to frequent IP changes from my work network. I have ceased using them and declared this on my user page.Please proceed with vanishing or renaming these accounts to a closed state. Thank you.БегарьІс (talk)12:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I want to change the title of my article. It should be capitalized instead of lowercase and I don't know how to do it. Can anyone help me? It says Temo re and should be Temo Re.
Or perhaps they have paid money to a scam merchant in the belief that they are paying it to somebody connected with Wikipedia. If that is the case, @~2026-90844-7, I'm afraid there's nothing we can do. Please readWP:SCAM.ColinFine (talk)15:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say you need to do anything to remove the banner, but you probably shouldn't remove it if you created the article. However, please note that while you may have created the article, now that it is in mainspace it isn't "your" article. At this point anyone can edit it, including removing the banner. As having the banner there doesn't harm the article in any way, and may in fact may lead to improvement, I wouldn't worry about it.DonIago (talk)15:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Nanita2008 Just a note: one citation was included exactly the same twice in a row for the same item; another citation was used twice in different places. I gave those citations names, and removed the duplicates. The result is neater and easier, and nothing was lost or changed except the unnecessary copying.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)16:13, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I just closed the pageTemplate:Verizon 200 at the Brickyard with the result of delete, but it has come up with speedy delete on there. There were options for like tags review, ready to delete, ETC. I am a Non Admin and am aware I should be careful with these things. To avoid any scrutiny for non admin closures in the futures, I just want to ask, what should I tag it with when doing a non admin closure for template deletion? It was still in use on some pages, but none in mainspace. As a non admin, I am very careful with what I close in discussions. I generally only close discussions where there is clear consensus, or re list when it is pretty clear there is no consensus, and I probably would be like this if I was an admin anyways. So what are some instructions anyone, particularly admins would give me when handling this situation? Or any situation of template deletion, as it is the only one I am pretty sure where non admins can close discussions as delete. Any instructions, tips suggestions, or just anything I should learn around this?Servite et contribuere (talk)18:10, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, non-admins should never close a discussion where the result of that discussion will require admin tools; such as closing to delete. To my knowledge, templates are no exception.
Athanelar Well I've seen other non admins close discussions that have resulted in delete. It might be this way because some templates require removal before deletion. And a lot of the time, the closing admin is different to the deleting admin.Servite et contribuere (talk)20:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In general non-admins aren't supposed to close as delete when they can't delete, but templates & categories are a bit different, since they need to be removed from pages before they get deleted anyways, is my understanding. Those are the two listed exceptions I see atWP:NACD.ScalarFactor (talk)02:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reference help requested.InChandragupta II, I added a reference (reference number 75) but it displayed error in red, because the authors' names were only written in the first name category. However the issue is, I am unaware of how to add more than one author names for the source (for the first and second names' categories). I would greatly appreciate if someone could fix it for me. Thank you.Thanks,Pinkish Flowers (talk)18:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,Pinkish Flowers. Please read the documentation atTemplate: Cite book. I suggest that you try to solve this problem yourself. Currently, three editor names are shoehorned into the parameter for the author's first name. That generates an error message. You can see that you can add editor parameters to the template, as explained in the documentation. Lots of extra parameters are not included in the basic, stripped down version of citation templates, but can be added on a case by case basis. This is such a case.Cullen328 (talk)19:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How do those with accounts bookmark or save pages for easy retrieval later?
How do those with accounts bookmark or save pages for easy retrieval later?I have created an account several years ago. I would like to be able to save or bookmark certain pages for quick retrieval at a later date. How's a brother do that? :)LansingMike (talk)19:32, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If just bookmarking it with your browser doesn't work for you (eg. you need to access the page from a computer that isn't yours, so you need it to be saved to your account), you can add it to your "watchlist" (Help:Watchlist) by clicking the star icon next to the "View history" link at the top right.The star icon
Note, when you add something to your watchlist there will be a little popup with a drop down menu. If you want you want save the page permanently, rather than for a limited time, make sure it's set to "Permanent". (I think it's permanent by default, but you should check to make sure.)
Any pages you add to your watchlist will be listed on your "Edit watchlist" page. You can find that page by first going to your watchlist then clicking the link near the title of the page labelled "Edit watchlist".
You can find the main page for the watchlist by clicking on the icon at the top right that looks like a menu (three horizontal lines stacked) with a little star in one corner. It's next to the icon that looks like a symbol of a person. If you can't find the icon, it might be because you scrolled down the page. Scroll to the top, it should be there. –Scyrme (talk)20:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So you know you've found the right page, here are links that will take you to the pages I'm talking about directly:
Better yet, if you improve the article, it's not only added to your watchlist by default, but you (or anyone knowing your username) can find that article in your contributions.Doug butler (talk)22:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely true - though using this as a bookmarking system certainly wouldn't be for everyone. I've made little edits on many things that I'm not interested in saving for later.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)22:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's true if there's only a few, though if there's lot it may be easier to just click the star than to go to the user page and edit it manually each time.
@LansingMike: If you'd rather make a short list on your user page, but are unsure how to make one, just click this link:Special:MyPage. You can edit it like a normal article, and you can then find it again later by clicking your username in the menu with the person-shaped symbol in the top right. For more information about user pages, seeHelp:User pages. –Scyrme (talk)00:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is that Ezra Tucker is not on Wikipedia because no one has written a Wikipedia article about Ezra Tucker. That doesn't mean that someone shouldn't write about Ezra Tucker, just that they haven't yet. I just did a quick Google search, and it seems like there may be sources that could be used to write about him, if someone was interested.
Hello, my article about the georgian writer and actor Temo Rekhviashvili has been deleted several times. Due to the lack of sources, I deleted the article completely and started over. In my opinion, I have cited enough sources in this version of the article to confirm his popularity. Do you think I am wrong and should it be deleted again?Nanita2008 (talk)23:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Nanita2008: Taking aquick look, it seems like the references you have are for his works rather than him as an individual. I thought thePublishing Perspectives reference might be about him, but it only lists his name once in passing as one of the guests, mentioning which award he won but nothing else. These references may work for establishing notability for his works, but not necessarily for a biography about him as a person. It may help to include some more biographical details with references which are about him as the subject, not only works he has written or starred in. I don't think this means you need to delete and start over, just that it would help to add more. –Scyrme (talk)00:02, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Nanita2008 Please note that having more sources is not the goal - the goal isbetter sources. If you had only three sources but all of them were excellent, it would be enough. But if your sources are not good, even having 100 of them doesn't help.
Hi, I need to make some updates to my wiki page. Is it appropriate for me to do that myself or should that be done by someone else? it. Please advise. Many thanks!PamPam Sheyne (talk)23:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
HiPam Sheyne. I've added some general information to your user talk page intended to help editors like yourself. The information contains (blue) links to more detailed Wikipedia pages that contain information you should find helpful. You might also want to take a look atWikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia because it also pertains to your situation. It's important to understand that even though there exists a Wikipedia article about you,it isn't really your Wiki page per se in the sense that you have any editorial control over it. So, any changes made to the page by not just you but anyone are going to need to be done in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Finally,Wikipedia:Username policy#Real names andWikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world. Users are allowed to use their real names as the username when editing Wikipedia; however, every edit they make with their account will be publicly visible. Because of this, accounts for users whose username is the same as that of a specific identifiable person (e.g., someone with a Wikipedia article written about them) are sometimes blocked as a precaution against damaging impersonation. If this happens in your case, don't worry; you'll be given guidance on things you can do to have your account reinstated in good standing. It looks like another account namedPamela Sheyne was once used to add a photo to the article; so, now there are essentially two accounts claiming to be you who have or who are trying to edit the article. Such a thing isn't an ideal situation for Wikipedia and is probably going become an issue if the other older account shows up again and tries to edit the article. --Marchjuly (talk)03:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note for @Pam Sheyne and indeed everyone else here that I have taken the liberty of draftifying the article toDraft:Pam Sheyne. The article was entirely lacking inline citations, which of course is a majorWP:BLP issue, so rather than blanking the unsourced content (read: the entire article) I have draftified it for Pam or anyone else to improve the sourcing and submit the article through AfC.
It would almost be better, if every Wikipedia article about a person was renamed. Instead of calling the articles "Firstname Lastname", they'd all become "Summary of the Significant Coverage of Firstname Lastname by Reliable Independent Reporters, With No Material From Firstname Lastname or Their Supporters".
Hi I am Pam Sheyne. I have some issues and additions needed on my page (which has been put into draft by an editor) and wondering who can do that for me as I don't believe I am able to do that for myself. Please advise, thank you!Pam Sheyne (talk)18:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The page that was here last week was deleted, when the material from it was turned into a draft so that you could edit it. (Unless you mean there's yet another page here somewhere.)
What I'm about to say is not strictly true, and it's not a Wikipedia rule either - but I have a feeling that it would help, so here goes: I think that from your point of view, the only things allowed to go into your article are whatyou would call "All the things that have been said about me in the presswithout my knowledge and without my cooperation".TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)22:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an in-text citation (#42) for the "Ecosystem service" page, but it is saying there's a referencing issue because of the dates. I believe it is because the journal article I'm using does not include a specific day, so the in-text citation/reference also does not have a specific day. What would be the best way to rectify this?
i used to be able to click on coordinates and it would open a new tab where i could click on google maps. that feature no longer seems to work.please advise.....i really liked that feature...mechmike12 (talk)00:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
GeoHack pages were down for a day or two, until sometime yesterday I think. (Well, not down exactly, but one was shown a page lacking the usual links to various online maps.) It still looks somewhat wonky to me, but it seems to be working now.Deor (talk)12:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Adding easily checked statements to a Wikipedia article
Hi. I would like to add the following sentence to the Wikipedia article on the song "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You":
The main repeating bass line in the Led Zeppelin version uses the same sequence of relative note intervals and relative note durations as the main repeating bass line at the start of the verse of the 1966Summer in the City (song) byThe Lovin' Spoonful.
To my mind, just listening to the first 7 seconds of Led Zeppelin's version of "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" and the first 14 seconds of The Lovin' Spoonful's "Summer in the City" makes it very clear that the above statement is true. But I'm not allowed to just state that?
I found a Facebook post by some guy 3 years ago who made the same point (using less precise wording than my statement uses). So if I just included a link to that less precisely worded Facebook post, then I could add my above sentence to the Wikipedia article on the song "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You"?
We generally do not include random facts in Wikipedia articles simply because they are true. The question is not whether someone can verify that fact by listening to the song, but rather why we should mention such a random piece of trivia at all?
The need for reliable sources is twofold; firstly to verify the information, but also to demonstrate to us that the information is significant enough for reliable sources to have commented on it. For example, you'll notice that Wikipedia biographies don't tend to make a point of mentioning peoples' hair or eye colour even if these things are easily 'verifiable' merely by looking at their photos.
To my mind, the first time that a particular bass line which ends up being a major part of three major rock hits (Summer in the City, Led Zeppelin's Babe I'm Gonna Leave You, and Chicago's "25 or 6 to 4", in chronological order of release) is a significant piece of information. This is because whoever "first" came up with that bass line should perhaps get a little extra "credit", since it's probably more likely that they initially composed that bass line, and probably more likely that subsequent uses of it were due to those later musicians having heard the initial "hit" that used it (in this case, the number one hit "Summer in the City"), and then incorporated it into their own song later. (I realize that this may not have been true for Jimmy Page.) Thanks to Cullen328 below, I now have a reference for what I was saying. Now I just need to find a reference that also discusses "25 or 6 to 4" using that same bass line (in a very major way, even)!Bjdpc (talk)07:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
'Significance' is not our criteria for inclusion but rather 'notability,' i.e., whether a subject and information about that subject has been discussed in reliable sources. Notability generally should follow from significance; if a piece of information is truly significant, then one should expect that somebody would have written about it, as in this case.Athanelar (talk)09:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N dictates we can only create articles about subjects that are covered by RS, by summarising the information available in those RS. QED, facts included in existing articles can essentially only consist of those things that are covered by the same RS that demonstrate the subject's notability (aside from the limitedWP:ABOUTSELF case, but that doesn't apply here.) Any claim of a fact's 'significance' must necessarily be supported by a secondary RS, which is also part of the subject's notability.Athanelar (talk)10:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you still have it wrong. While your first sentence is correct, the next one (starting QED) is false. Sources in an article by no means have to be among those that establish its notability; that is just wildly off base.Mathglot (talk)22:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find where well-known reporters from trusted publications thought this was important, like it got serious coverage in a Rolling Stone article or whatever, then there would be more of a chance of putting it in.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)17:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bjdpc, I found a 2016 book calledExperiencing the Rolling Stones: A Listener's Companion that also discusses other songs of that era. Take a look atNote 19 that makes a comparison of these two performances similar to the one you made.Cullen328 (talk)05:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, Cullen328. I really appreciate you finding that reference. Now I just need to learn how to insert that reference in my statement. (Sorry - I'm almost completely new to editing Wikipedia.) Is it trivial to do that? If so, could let me know what I should insert in my listing, and if not, could give me a link to the part of the Help section that discusses that. If so, thanks a lot. And thanks again for the reference.Bjdpc (talk)07:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Refer toHelp:Citing sources. Based on what the articleBabe I'm Gonna Leave You already uses, you should use a template like{{cite book}}. So you would add something like<ref>{{cite book |last= |first= |title= |publisher= |year= |page=}}</ref>, with the relevant information after each equals sign (last and first are respectively the author's last and first name), after the statement that you want this source to support.-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)08:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn’t made up of “profiles” like LinkedIN, Wikipedia biographies of living people are about people who have enough secondary and reliable sources to be written about (and must be notable enough), holding a public office can demonstrate notability but you’ll have to hold the public office first, and then you would also have to state your conflict of interest as the subject, meaning you can only put verifiable information on the article (which you can make viaAFC although autobiographies aren’t advised).The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk)11:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Profile ("A summary or collection of information, especially about a person") is a perfectly ordinary word for someone to use about a Wikipedia biography.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edit
"Profile" has more than one meaning. One of them certainly is something like (off the top of my head) "a collection of information about a person, often but not necessarily including their photograph, curated and maintained by that person or their representatives, to be displayed to the public". I didn't look at Wiktionary, but if one of its definitions isn't recognizably similar to that, then it's only because no one has added it yet. Absence from Wiktionary isn't conclusive.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk) 23:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even if someone did add that definition to Wiktionary (feel free to try that), it still won't invalidate my statements and it won't demonstrate that that was what was meant in this case.WP:AGF has not yet been rescinded.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits 23:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m just stating what I have seen others say about the word “Profile“ it seems the original use of the word profile would fit, but what the word has turned into wouldn’t exactly (the meaning of “profile” in the public conscious appears different to the meaning in actual dictionaries, which does happen from time to time).The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The word has not "turned into" anything and it's original meaning remains valid.
What you apparently misunderstand the word to exclusively now mean is not "the meaning of 'profile' in the public conscious", but one of several meanings, and far from the usual or commonest one.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits 10:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t misunderstand the word, I understand the meaning, but words do change in meaning, look at the French words which are slightly different in English, Sympathique isn’t the same as Sympathetic despite the latter coming from the former, among other words. I was just pointing out that profile can put a different idea into someone’s head, mainly due to internet profiles which have somewhat changed how we perceive the word “profile”.The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do not assume that the negative idea the word put into your head is the one meant by the enquirer, when other reasonable and positive interpretations are reasonably possible.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits 10:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not a negative idea, profiles work in certain places. Perhaps the user instead wants a picture of the side of their head on Wikipedia. We simply don’t know until they clarify.The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You have repeatedly insisted, without a shred of evidence, that the enquirer wishes to do things which would be in breach our policies. Of course that's a negative interpretation of what they actually saidAndy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits 11:50, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was bad they wanted a profile, just that it isn’t really what Wikipedia is made of, I wasn’t taking them to be negatively wanting to do something, just correcting them that Wikipedia isn’t a form of LinkedIN which is a common misconception.The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
By indicating they are a US Senate candidate, they strongly suggest they want a "profile" here to enhance their campaign, not improve Wikipedia. AGF hasn't been violated here.
You may be correct about the dictionary definitions of the word, but that is not how many people use the word in my many years of experience here. Many people equate "Wikipedia article" to "social media profile". This may be incorrect, but it happens nevertheless. By describing this we're trying to steer people towards knowing what exactly articles are- summaries of what has been written about them, not necessarily what they want to say about themselves.331dot (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The reason they want to be included in Wikipedia may be what you suggest, but even if so it does not mean that they want something "made to be about the person in a promotional way" or "curated and maintained by that person or their representatives", and it is an egregious failure to AGF to assume that they do when they have said or done nothing to that effect.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits 10:46, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All very interesting, but not useful for resolving the user question. Collapsed.Mathglot (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article on a politician can only be drawn from how reliable independent publications have analyzed their career in politics. A candidate has no career in politics (yet). Wikipedia's article about any person is to document what the public already knew about their career. (Using myself as an example, the public knows nothing of my career, so there couldn't be an article about me. It's not a platform for me to tell about myself.)TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)17:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This articleChinese independent high school is solely about independent Chinese high schools in Malaysia. The title right now is too generic and I've added Malaysia in brackets to the title however a boy keeps reverting it. The boy is Singaporean Chinese so he does not understand the topic but keeps on reverting all my edits. I do not know how to proceed, please help me! Thank you.N niyaz (talk)12:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not refer to contributors as 'boys', or make assumptions based on ethnicity. As for your attempt to rename the article, you omitted a closing bracket, for a start, which was clearly inappropriate. I suggest you start acivil discussion on the talk page, and if that doesn't reach consensus, seekdispute resolution.AndyTheGrump (talk)12:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've never looked at{{Excerpt}} before, but I see that certain templates are excluded by default, and I suspect it is somehow not treating{{multiple image}} correctly. But I haven't looked closely.
Are you perhaps seeing the warning note that says that only autoconfirmed users can edit it, and thinking that that is telling you you cannot edit it?ColinFine (talk)17:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi how can i add the translation of this page in german in englih ? I don't think i have the editor right or how can i submit it to be translated ? thank youJojoraebbit (talk)19:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The German articlede:Alex Márquez (Filmeditor) is not sourced adequately for an English Wikipedia article, so a direct translation will not be acceptable. The one existing sourcemay be usable, but it is presumably a tertiary source: we generally require at least three reliable secondary sources, each meeting all the criteria inWP:golden rule.
So in order to create an English article on Marquez, it will be essential to find at least two more sources which meet all the criteria, and then write an article basedentirely on those reliable independent sources. It may be possible to translate parts of the German text, but if that includes information which is not in those reliable independent sources, those parts should not be in the English text; so it is likely to be more effective to treat the English article as a new article, and useArticles for creation.ColinFine (talk)20:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've very badly misunderstood what's needed, to write an article like this. You have barely anything worthwhile to say about Van Neistat, because hardly any of your references are even about him. To write a Van Neistat article, you need large major sources that are literally about Van Neistat - not about his brother, not about their iPods, butabout him. Where there's no interview, and the reporter goes on and on for multiple paragraphs telling about Van Neistat's entire career (not just one event in his career).TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)01:41, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
HodgeBrad, remove all references that are interviews. Remove all references that are brief passing mentions. Remove all references to YouTube videos unless they are from the official channels of major media outlets. Remove all references that focus on his brother. Remove all content verified only by the references you just removed. Only keep references that devote significant, in-depth coverage to Van Neistat as a person. Is there much left?Cullen328 (talk)01:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
wikimedia.org is creating user pages on other language wikis
Apologies, but I am not quite following. 5 different language user pages were created. I remember resetting my preferences about then .Wakelamp (talk)d[@-@]b15:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only guessing (but I think it's a good enough guess) that some action you did was counted by the wiki software as an edit. Some wikis are set to send an automatic Welcome message on a person's first edit.
As mentioned above, and as proved by your reaction, many users find these automatic welcomes confusing, pointless, rude, or whatever, and there's a proposal in the works to make the wikis stop doing it, or at least to do it more reasonably. (And one of the main complaints is that what they're classifying as an "edit" currently includes a number of things that aren't ordinarily thought of as editing.)TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)16:51, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, just to wrap up an issue quickly, on theAkwete_cloth page, user:Dolpina, is continuously editing and deleting citations from sourced material I had posted, and claims I “made up the sources, and content” despite having clearly linked the citations in detail. Would an admin be able to look over this?
Yep, on the talk section of said page, but they continually delete my sourced content saying I’m making it up, which is hilarious, so now it’s an issue only a mod could solve, really.Dangermanmeetz (talk)05:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I did consider it a person attack because that person didnt hear my side of things and just believed the person interested in POV editing.Dolpina (talk)11:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please how am I a vandal for pointing out original research? That isn't what was said in the sources and I called it out. I tagged 3rd parties for help and he quickly reverted the page before it was locked. He/she is the one interested in POV editing.Dolpina (talk)11:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Dangermanmeetz: It looks both of you were reverting each other back and forth, which isn't really look good for either you ofDolpina in the eyes of a typical Wikipedia administrator. If content you add to an article is disputed by another user (even content supported by citations), and they give a policy- or guideline-based reason why (e.g., they feel the content isn't not supported by the sources cited), thenthe burden falls the person wanting to add/re-add the disputed content to go to the article's talk and start a discussion explaining why doing so is in accordance with relevant policies and guideline, including even seeking a consensus to re-add the content. Disagreements over a content and sources isn'treally considered vandalism per se, particularly when the other person seems to at least be giving policy- or guideline-based reasons for reverting. You both now have, also, started competing threads on the article's talk page, which also isn't a really good idea. Perhaps the best thing for you both to do would be to take a break, let things cool down a bit, and then go back to the article's talk page to see if you can resolve your differences in accordance withWP:DR. If you both keep on going as you have been going, an administrator is likely to step in, but neither of you may like the outcome of that happening. --Marchjuly (talk)05:41, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the response, though I would say the issue is moreso that the objections by the other user is not in line with what is actually occurring. By claiming I’m “making my own content” and saying what I’m citing and writing are different with no proof (I’ve also linked the book and page I cited a couple times), it just seems deliberately dishonest, especially when we get into the ethnic framing of it (if you’re familiar with Nigerian ethnic tensions) which take place on the site all the time.Dangermanmeetz (talk)05:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how right you are or how wrong you think the other person is, you just don't keep reverting back and forth to your preferred version, which look like is exactly what you both were doing. There'sno exemption forWP:3RR when it comes to a content dispute or disagreement over sources; moreover, if the subject matter is as contentious as you state, then maybe evenWP:1RR could be a problem. You both should, in principle, be followingWP:DISPUTERESOLUTION process in trying to resolve this. There are various steps to that process; so, if one doesn't yield any positive results, move to the next one.Arguing back and forth via edit summaries, including threats of getting each other banned, doesn't typically move things in a positive direction at all. In my opinion, the best thing you could do to diffuse the situation would be to self-revert the disputed content as a show of good faith and then seek a consensus to re-add it through discussion on the article's talk page. --Marchjuly (talk)06:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer the version of the article be reverted to the pre edit warring stage then we start from there. I feel more neutral people be involved and check the sources and the subject matter. I have tagged random 3rd parties. It feels unfair that his is left up for a week. It should be about accuracy and truth, and non POV pushing,rather than fastest fingers.Dolpina (talk)11:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you, @Dolpina and @Dangermanmeetz need to get off your "I am right and they are wrong" kick. At this point what matters is that you both do your very best to reach consensus - which starts by really listening to the other person's point of view. Repeated reversion doesn't do it, nor does insisting that you are right and they are wrong, and nor does appealing to some "authority" to rule.
I've been open to it, but they don't seem to be. Not much I can do with someone insisting on making his own conclusions, not made in a source while separately accusing me of vandalizing another unrelated page, because I reverted vandalism/POV. I am still open to it but at some point whether or not I intervened, anyone who cares enough about the topic will see the discrepancies. Anyone who cares enough about the subject should feel free to contribute before it is equivalent to a personal blog post.Dolpina (talk)17:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You can't control what others are going to do, but you should be fine as long as you're discussing things in good faith andlimit your comments to the content being discussed and not the other person, you should be fine. A user can't ignore aWP:CONSENSUS; so, focus on establishing a consensus by showing how your concerns about the content and cited sources are in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If a consensus is established that you're correct, the content will be removed; if the other user tries re-add it despite consensus, they will find out from a Wikipedia administrator that such a thing isn't allowed. If they persist even at beyond that point, they will learn thatthey can't win by most likely ending up being blocked. --Marchjuly (talk)07:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Its not very standard across articles though, and if someone were to add a source that was primary, and not tag it, it would suggest to the reader that it wasn't primary.
Hi I'm happy if you want to keep the text the same - all I did was change it to the description we currently use on our website home page. But the logo/image is our old one and needs to be changedChiva75863 (talk)14:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiva75863 As the logo you added does not appear anywhere on the charity's website (ie with the strapline), I have uploaded the updated logo as found on the website. I have also moved the article to the charity's current name, and reverted the odd change you made to add a "display title" to a redirect - but things like redirects are obviously complicated and difficult for a completely new editor to understand. I think the charity now has the correct incoming redirects - from the old/long name, and from the CAPS version. I note that the Charity commission still uses the long form of name, and does not even mention "Chiva" as a "working name" as is done for many other charities.PamD15:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiva75863 And the text you added was copied from the charity's home page but not sourced to anywhere. Theoriginal version of the page, which I created around the time of that long-ago royal wedding, listed the "aims" and directly cited the charity's "aims and objectives" page. Over the years various edits had managed to separate those bullet points from any sourcing, and indeed they seem to have disappeared from the website, being replaced by the two paragraphs you copied. I've now replaced your paragraphs in the article, but showing clearly that the text is quoted verbatim and showing its source, the home page.PamD15:16, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You sayour charity page. You have two misunderstandings. Firstly, it is not "yours"; it is a Wikipedia article about a topic (in this case, some charity). Secondly, it an article, not a page.
"Pages" are things on websites and social media. If that website and media are yours, then they are "your page". But that's not Wikipedia. Indeed, if you are closely associated with the topic that needs editing then, although others may edit the article, you probably should avoid editing it directly yourself, but instead make well-sourced edit requests at the talk page. SeeWP:COI andWP:PAID. Hope that helps clear things up.Feline Hymnic (talk)16:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
AsAndy Mabbett has pointed out,Feline Hymnic, even according to Wikipedia's own terminology a Wikipedia article is a page. And, as you concede,"Pages" are things on websites and social media; so since Wikipedia's articles are things on on the website wikipedia.org, for Wikipedia to call them pages is hardly surprising. As for the claim that a page/article about some organization is not theirs, this would fly in the face of the Standard English use of thegenitive. My page/article isn't the page about me, but this is ruled out simply because you have no reason to think that such a page exists. But it could be the page/article to which I recently devoted much time, the page I'm complaining about, the page I seem to be obsessed with, the page I'm helping push to FA. And if it did turn out that there was a page about me, "my page" could mean that too.WP:BLPN currently has mentions of "Siddiqui's article" (i.e.Aafia Siddiqui's article; en:Wikipedia's article onAafia Siddiqui) and this subject's article" (i.e.Jamie Shea's article; en:Wikipedia's article onJamie Shea); I'm happy to report that nobody has yet popped up to trumpet any delusion about some implication that Siddiqui/Shea "possesses" the respective article. --Hoary (talk)00:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Pam D for updating it for me, and for everyone's advice. As a small charity I just wanted to make sure the information was up to date to benefit our support users. I apologise I am not very clued up about Wikipedia - I didn't mean to cause any offense to anyone or break any rules. I'm happy to close my account on here now the "article" is up to date. Have a great day everyone.Chiva75863 (talk)09:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiva75863 Please stay around and if there is news about Chiva, or changes needed to the article, comment on its talk page giving references so that someone else can update the article/page. And now that you've dipped a toe into editing, perhaps see if there are other articles which you could improve or update, backed up withreliable independent published sources: perhaps your home town, interests, or HIV topics?PamD16:40, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely. Just make a normally-formatted comment, like any other contributor to the discussion. Some people like to add '(Non-administrator comment)' or similar to their posts, but this is neither required, nor in my opinion particularly helpful. WP:AN and WP:ANI are for discussion of topics where admin intervention may prove necessary (i.e. to impose blocks etc). They arenot places where admins alone determine for themselves how issues should be dealt with. Admins are given their tools to assist the community with ensuring the proper functioning of the project, but it is down to the community as a whole to determine, after discussion, what action may be required.
If you do post on the admin noticeboards, try to be concise and on topic, and to provide diffs etc when necessary. It helps a lot to get your posts taken seriously.AndyTheGrump (talk)16:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as an adminstrator who has been active atWP:ANI for many years, I want to say thatproductive comments by non-administrators are always welcome. Productive comments are those that analyze the actual evidence or present new evidence, that are based on a solid understanding of policies, guidelines and behavioral norms, and that encourage de-escalation of disputes and reasonable solutions, instead of inflaming matters.Cullen328 (talk)19:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And speaking as a non-administrator who's been about on Wikipedia for a fair old time too, I'd have to suggest that we generally prefer commentsby admins that 'analyze the actual evidence or present new evidence, that are based on a solid understanding of policies, guidelines and behavioral norms'... etc, though we don't always get them. I don't consider it particularly helpful to imply that admins are somehow immune from some of the problematic behaviour we see at WP:AN/WP:ANI. We really don't need 'us and them' distinctions on noticeboards.AndyTheGrump (talk)00:37, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
AndyTheGrump, I did not intend to imply that administrators never engage in inappropriate behavior there. Some of us ocasionally miss the mark. The question was about non-administrators commenting and that is what I tried to address, but your clarification is appreciated.Cullen328 (talk)03:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have to ask, why would you want to? ANI, otherwise known as theWP:CESSPIT, is a time-sucking drama board. I try to ignore it as much as I can but occasionally get pulled in against my will when necessary. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)09:42, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, digging into dreary nuts and bolts of problems and trying to be help make sense of things is something I find quite appealing. So it is certainly possible! And I like to believe I may have even been useful at times, though I can't deny the possibility it's just that I've never been quite objectionable enough to warn or sanction.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)16:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I also can't get the map to update to the address I loaded, and now see a citation which goes to a different link than what I thought I pasted in. Under Enrollment, I pasted in an updated source, but that URL links to a citation number which goes to a different URL.
Can I get some pointers? Sorry to have misfired on all this.
Hello,IterantFocus. According to the cited website, an appropriate title for the first reference is "School Name: Horace Mann School For The Deaf Hard Of Hearing". That should be placed in the "title" field of the citation template. You should fill as many fields as is practical. Some fields can be left blank such as the author fields for an unsigned article or the date field for an undated article, but the title is considered so important that the template generates an error message if the title field is left blank.Cullen328 (talk)20:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the direction! Ultimately when I looked in code instead of the visual editor I saw what I must have dropped out when I made my edits.
Is there any chance you can help me with why the map doesn't agree with the address? I don't see anything suggesting how it's pulling a dated address. Could it just be a caching issue?IterantFocus (talk)21:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It was pulling the location from the "coord" template at the bottom of the page. I moved the coord template up into the infobox (not necessary, but it's easier to find) and changed the coordinates to match the address.Andrew Jameson (talk)13:40, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I looked atWP:Namespace and it only listsDraft: andTemplate:, but not something likeTemplate draft:. I'm unsure what the appropriate namespace is for an experimental template, particularly one which may otherwise get automatically categorised into a maintenance category as having errors due to its being incomplete.
I know I can sketch things out in a user sandbox, but it's difficult to experiment & troubleshoot without being about to insert the template into a user page to test if it works properly and responds to parameters as intended. –Scyrme (talk)20:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that suggestion is for if you want to try out the examples/markup used by that help page, rather than if you want to work on a new template. The template sandbox is good for short experimentation, but I was looking for something suitable for longer term project. (The sandbox is shared, so isn't reserved for a single project and gets wiped every 12 hours.) –Scyrme (talk)21:51, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't understand your point aboutdifficult to experiment & troubleshoot . I test templates all the time that are in my user space; what difficulty are you having, exactly? You can create a test cases page with a range of tests, and refresh the page every time you tweak your test template, and see if that broke or fixed anything. Is that what you mean?Mathglot (talk)20:06, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: How would I insert the template into a test page? Usually to insert a template you would add{{TEMPLATENAME|parameter1=some|parameter2=thing}}, but since the template isn't in the template namespace that doesn't work. –Scyrme (talk)20:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Scyrme, just as you showed above, with the full pagename including namespace and full path where you wrote TEMPLATENAME. The software only looks for a template in template space by default when you do not provide a namespace, but when you do provide one, then it looks there. Here's one in my user space:
I done edits onJames Dean's page using p.m. because I thought it was preferred in American English but someone reverted it and saidMOS:PUNCT and I can't see what they're referring to there as many pages use p.m. it isn't as common in British English but the page I done was American English any clarity on this would be helpful or if someone could explain what he was pointing out to me. Thank youItsShandog (talk)08:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:TIME doesn't specifically mention it, but its acceptable examples show both a.m./p.m. and am/pm.
That said,MOS:RETAIN applies here; i.e., there's generally no need to make these kinds of stylistic changes to the form of English used if one style has already been established in the article.Athanelar (talk)09:15, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I always was curious why not just use 24 hour time like the rest of the world? Most Americans understand it too, as far as I can tell. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)09:37, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, many Americans don't (or pretend not to) or complain about the use of what they call "military time". How much of this is genuine and how much is rage baiting I'm not sure. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}~2026-76101-8 (talk)17:47, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've never experienced it as rage baiting. I've seen total incomprehension, and I've seen un-ironic "why bother learning fancy tricks when I'm already using the system everyone knows". But this is from Canadians, who are (at least by stereotype) less inclined toward rage baiting.
Agree wit TMF. It's genuine. I got used to 24-hour time elsewhere, and when living in the U.S. (or communicating with Americans) I would get blank looks when using 24-hour expressions.Mathglot (talk)08:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. I've been having long-time problems with a user using multiple IP addresses. Theirmost recent edits regard Bosnian footballerErmin Bičakčić. They have removed relevant content (contract info about him signing for a new club, an image, as well as a separate part about his new club because the "club is not relevant enough and [he] is nearing the end of his career", which is an incredibly subjective and illogic reason). He has also changed the access-date and language format which is currently in use in the vast majority of articles on wikipedia. They have done this to multiple former Bosnian national team players' articles. Evidently their main account has been blocked due to some reasons, and for years they've been evading furhter blocks by using multiple IP addresses. I do not intend to edit war with them, while trying to discuss anything with them on any players' talk page is, unfortunately, not going to work (I've tried before). They are just incredibly stubborn, and their edits are not contributing to anything. What should I do?Bakir123 (talk)09:36, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Bakir123 The sequence of edits, all from different temporary accounts, suggests that if this is a single individual they are "clever" in having their device(s) associated with different accounts. The simplest thing to do is to request page protection atWP:RPP. The somewhat more complicated thing would be to take it toWP:ANI but I don't think that would help much in this instance given how many accounts are involved.Mike Turnbull (talk)10:09, 13 February 2026 (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.ColinFine (talk)16:47, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Today I noticed an edit on a page where the reference had '?utm_source=chatgpt.com' at the end of the URL. This makes me wonder how many contributors are using AI chatbots as ways to collate information and sources for Wikipedia.
Does anyone know of any studies on this?
Is there any way to search the raw wikitext of Wikipedia to see how many times URLs with some kind of sign the source was suggested by AI? Eg ?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Are there any bots on Wikipedia which would remove these signs eg removing ?utm_source=chatgpt.com from the reference URLs?
2. User:Gnomingstuff has lots of great tricks for scraping for AI-generated content. I think they have pings off but you could ask at their talk page.
3. No, nor would we want one; AI editing is discouraged and under steadily-increasing restrictions, and fingerprints like this are important tools to catch it.
@ROLEXMEENA: Could you provide more information? Like at least linking to what you mean by "Hindi Wikipedia articles"? We're on the English-language Wikipedia so there are no articles in the Hindi language here. Are you talking about the Hindi-language Wikipedia? Or do you mean something else? –Scyrme (talk)18:41, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. However, the titleOrne (river) is still inherently ambiguous, sinceOrne (Moselle) is also a river, and the disambiguator "river" does not distinguish between them. Hatnotes and the disambiguation page help navigation, but a more specific disambiguator in the title would be clearer.~2026-98545-5 (talk)21:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I puta request in the abortion article talk page for a change in the paraphrasing which I believe is most consistant with the rules. Someone replied with an essay which I believe wasn't relevant, so I explained that. However, other than this there hasn't been a reply. Abortion is a very prominent topic, and I'm sure many people are watching that page, so how come there haven't really been any replies to this? And how should I proceed?Wikieditor662 (talk)20:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Help, I attempted several times to login using my User Name: "GSR Soc" and password without success. I requested a "forgot password reset" expecting advice sent to my email but received nothing. I checked 24 hours later - still nothing. Please can you assist? Many thanks :)~2026-99853-4 (talk)23:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is such wrong remark about Mohammad Reza the Hing Of Iran. it is important that you a fat check - the intnerview with Oriana Fallaci that it is referred to in the wikipedia .
the interview about women was as follow, not what you allowed to be read here - nothing about dispicable claim of sex object. pleaser correct .
During a 1973 interview with Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, she challenged him directly on his comments about women. In that interview, he made statements suggesting that women had not produced major creative or political achievements comparable to men. Fallaci strongly objected and confronted him.~2026-99083-6 (talk)01:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: Ithink what they mean is they object to the preceding bitMohammad Reza often spoke of women as sexual objects who existed only to gratify him because they interpreted it as being whatshe vehemently objected to his attitudes towards women refers to.
However, I'm unsure whether that's the intended interpretation. It may be that the reference cited mentions both that he objectified women and that he was confronted in an interview about his attitudes towards women, but not that he necessarily objectified women in the interview itself or that Fallaci confronted him about objectification, rather than about assertingthat women had not produced major creative or political achievements comparable to men.
I don't have access to the reference so can't check which interpretation is closest to what it states, nor if it provides the extra detail about the nature of his statements in the interview provided by 2026-99083-6. –Scyrme (talk)04:02, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OP, please note that we do not refer to anyone as a "Great King" in discussions among Wikipedia editors. This Pahlavi's title was "Shah" in reliable English language sources.Cullen328 (talk)07:54, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done Full Clean up. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk08:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
