Latest comment: 3 days ago6 comments4 people in discussion
I signed up to edit my entry, as there were several small errors. I just looked at it and another editor had over-ridden my corrections—even removing my correction of the spelling of my late husband's name. He (clearly a he) said my corrections were not properly sourced. How do I do that? Is my say-so sufficient or do I have to, for instance, find my husband's birth certificate? Msfarnsworth (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Can you link to the article at issue? Your account has no edits other than this one, so you must have edited before creating your account. 331dot (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hello, @Msfarnsworth. I'm afraid the answer is No, your say-so is not sufficient, and nor do we want a birth certificate. What we require is a reliable published source, so that anybody reading Wikipedia anywhere in the world can, at least, in principle, verify the information. See Verifiability.
The problem is twofold. First, we have no way of knowing if you are who you say you are. Anybody could create themselves an account with a similar name, and claim to be your husband's wife.
Secondly, even if you put the correct information in, somebody else could come along and change it, either by mistake, or in error, or maliciously. A reader would have no basis for checking the information, or (if they noticed it had been changed) deciding which was the correct information. ColinFine (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much; this makes good sense.
Finding printed sources is more work than I care to do, given the other things on my plate, as the items I contest are way in the past, pre-Internet days. Is there a way I can just mark them as contested? For some reason, what bothers me most is the misspelling of my late (1982, thus pre-internet)husband's name. I can live with being called an economist rather than demographer. Msfarnsworth (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I looked at ru:Байбуртян, Армен Ваганович, Highlanderharis. Its referencing would be gravely inadequate for English-language Wikipedia. An English translation would therefore be unpublishable. (There are other problems as well.) If you have enabled email, you may receive offers to publish an English translation, for a fee. The people making such offers are incompetent, dishonest, or both. Ignore such offers. -- Hoary (talk) 07:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hello, @Highlanderharis. I'm afraid that, unless the other-language article meets English Wikipedia's criteria for sourcing, the operation of translating is really to create a new article. But English Wikipedia very strongly discourages anybody from trying to create an article about themselves. See autobiography. ColinFine (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Autobiographies aren't allowed here. From what I've seen, the article likely won't pass any notability guideline to not be deleted, given a lack of reliable sources. Go D. Usopp(talk)05:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 days ago13 comments4 people in discussion
I lost my password etc. So had to create a new account. The directions for moving the info from my old account to my new account seem to direct me to non-existent links. I see no 'move' and can find no link to an administrator (as suggested) How do I move my old account data to my new account. (I've made approximately 500 + posts or corrections to Wikipedia.) My old account name was Nug Brenec; my new account name is Nugbrenec. Thank you for any help - Nugbrenec Nugbrenec (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Logging_in : Well ... copy and paste seems to be nixed, but scroll down to the sub-heading "What if I forgot the password or user name" and start reading at "You will have to create a new account ..." "move function" ?? "Contact an administrator... " ... which administrator?? and how? - Kind regards, Nugbrenec Nugbrenec (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Special:Contributions/Nug_Brenec tells us: "Nug Brenec" is not registered on this wiki. That matter aside, I suggest not suggesting that people who've forgotten their passwords should contact stewards, unless perhaps the particular user ID has made an unusually valuable set of contributions (articles, not moolah) to Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 09:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't think that's the point, this person is inquiring about more than password recovery (which obviously isn't something the stewards would do). Electricmemory (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Electricmemory is correct : I was not asking about the process of creating an account or retrieving a password. I knew the password, but the system refused to accept it, and since the email for the old account was no longer active, I created a new account (and am seeming to be only recognized as a new user, instead of someone who has been contributing data for years. I am trying to make some sort of connection from my old account to my new account. The directions printed on the Wikipedia site to do this are confusing, and leave me still wondering how to do that. I certainly do not want to bother persons who do not handle such things (stewards). Also I never said "Nug Brenec is not registered on this Wiki" I am signed in as my new account Nugbrenec. Thank you - Nugbrenec Nugbrenec (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Nugbrenec I suggest doing what TSventon stated below. If your old account had any special permissions you may be able to request those permissions for your new account, on the basis you had them on your old one. Electricmemory (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
The CAPTCHA has blocked me indefinitely. No matter how many I do, all that happens is that the anti-bot measures occasionally stop me from submitting more for some time. I've tried signing on Incognito, refrshing cookies, all that. It doesn't work. Weirdly, when I tried to add the edits to my sandbox to try to save them in a last ditch effort, it somehow worked. I think some automated system thinks I'm attempting to vandalize the article. I am also being constantly rate-limited for any post (though no CAPTCHA except for the article), even this one.
Latest comment: 5 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I'm a big NFL history buff, and I'd like to let wikipedia know about a slight error.
Under Reidel Anthony's page, it says he was and still is the second youngest player to score a touchdown reception. I don't know that either of those are true.
I believe he was, at the time of 1997, the youngest player to have a touchdown reception at 20 years 11 months. Since then, however, JuJu Smith Schuster and Braelon Allen have both scored receiving touchdowns at younger ages, JuJu was 20 years 10 months and Braelon Allen was 20 years 7 months. 75.145.80.193 (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'd recommend raising your concern at the article's Talk page, where those with an interest in Anthony can see your concerns and weigh in. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there i try to edit some cd albums because i have them and i know website to prove it that is existing but sometimes just someone remove my edit. How i can do it to be approved thats happened with onlh few ow them and i got mesaage abaut wandalizm or editing war thats not true i just want to anyone had chance fo check own version or buy bettee one 31.20.3.50 (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
You need to discuss changes you wish to make with others when they object. Instead, you're choosing to edit war, by trying to force your desired changes into article. Many of the sources you're using are inappropriate. For example, Discogs is considered generally unreliable as the site is user generated and Qobuz is a digital store. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion
So I was updating a RO lang version of a page (ro:Focus Sat) and it has the "slogan" area in the infobox:company + when you click on slogan you get redirected to Motto.
And I was trying to add the same thing (the "slogan"/"motto") to the EN version infobox:company of the page, and I can't seem to find the correct key value from "slogan" as it doesn't show up, 'motto' doesn't work neither.
hi @ColinFine thank you for your answer, indeed there is no argument, but on the RO version it is accepted and it is displayed fine + it is linked to a Motto page, that is why I asked if there is an EN version of it. Vlad.flavius.paun (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
The Romanian infobox ro:Format:Infocaseta Companie was created from the English Template:Infobox company in 2006. Parameter company-slogan appears to have been added to the English infobox on 2006-11-19, and slogan was added to the Romanian infobox on 2015-08-31.
The parameter was removed most recently from the English infobox on 2016-10-09, referencing the comment at Template talk:Infobox company/Archive 10#Slogan, which refers to a previous removal and reinstatement, but gives the reasons for removal.
So the parameter used to be in both languages, but was removed from the English infobox (more than once, but most recently) in 2016. ColinFine (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I need assistance to add a major award to my Wikipedia page (Larry D. Thomas)
Latest comment: 4 days ago6 comments5 people in discussion
I was privileged to win the 2023 Spur Award (poetry category) sponsored by Western Writers of America, and I would like to have it added to the awards section of my site. Here is the link for verification of the award: https://westernwriters.org/spur-award-winner/2023-winners/
Other experienced Wikipedia contributors may well disagree over this, but personally I'm of the opinion that with the possible exception of the most self-evidently prestigious, a biography should only note awards where third-party sourcing can be cited to establish its significance. To put it simply, you consider the award 'major'. Possibly so do the Western Writers of America (I say possibly, because merely listing an award, in a long list, with no further expansion, isn't really saying much), but does anyone else? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@331dot The Spur Award does have an article, although the notability of the poetry category is not well documented with secondary sources. If it were, I don't see why a primary source shouldn't suffice to confirm this in someone's biography. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
That article does precisely nothing to establish that the award is notable. It is referenced solely to the Western Writers of America's own website, and the external links show nothing independent of any significance. I fail to see why it needs a separate article. I'd merge it to the Western Writers of America article, if that wasn't equally lacking in third-party sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Long ago someone put a formula in Julian day using {{Block indent}}. (I linked to a stable version.) Later someone changed it from ordinary text to the <math> parser tag. Now the end of the formula is chopped off. I'm putting both versions below:
With block indent
Without block indent
I am using Windows 11 and Firefox. Any ideas why this is happening, or a better way to intent math expressions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc3s5h (talk • contribs)
Also it might help if you can upload a screenshot so we can see what you see. I am using Firefox on Pop OS (and you should too) and I see both formulas displayed in full. Polygnotus (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Jc3s5h, @Polygnotus: Those two formulas are both SVG images (created by the math parser tag), not text. With no other specification set, their styling (on my Chrome browser at least) is set to clip them if the display space they're in is not wide enough (i.e. the window is too small). The use of blockindent seems to have nothing to do with it. Converting to use {{math}} might help. Bazza 7 (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
For me both formulas show the same on large screen (Firefox on Windows, Monobook skin). If I narrow the browser window enough the block indent version will indeed clip, while the one without it will still display the full image but extends outside the window with scroll bar for the page. MKFI (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
According to WP:BUNDLE, I think that the other 70 articles should also be tagged with {{afd1}} (and they should be listed in the nomination), but as I'm involved as a participant in the AfD I don't want to make an edit like that out of turn. What would be the best practice in this case understanding that the AfD has already been in progress for a week and was relisted? Thanks, --Habst (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 day ago6 comments5 people in discussion
Gout Gout is a young Australian track sprinter. We didn't have a height recorded for him. (I'm not sure why it matters, quite frankly.) USER:271rpm found a good source (Forbes) that describes him as "6-foot", and added this to the article as 1.82 m. (Being for an Australian, the metric height should be the one to use.) My concern is that the "6-foot" in the source is one significant digit, and almost certainly an approximation. People round such things off. 1.82 m is three significant digits and, to me, far too precise figure to include in our article. Our conversion formula displays his height as 6 ft 0 in, which is very precise, and not what the source says. It does not look like the "6-foot" approximation we started with. Any thoughts? HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hello, HiLo48, speaking as a taller than average American male, in the conventional way of discussing human height in feet and inches, saying "six feet tall" means 6'-0". No one would deliberately say that someone measuring 6'-1" is "six feet tall". They might say "over six feet tall". Also worth noting is that human height reduces from morning to evening each day, and also reduces as people age. I was 6'-4" at age 20 and am 6'-3" at age 73. Cullen328 (talk) 08:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Cullen328, really? If A happens to know that B is six feet/foot one inch tall, I wouldn't be at all surprised if A, perhaps with this in mind, deliberately suppresses the inch and describes B as "six feet/foot tall". (E.g. Sue: "Hitesh will be waiting for you at the very front end of platform 3." Meg: "Great, but how will I recognize him?" Sue: "He always wears jeans and horn-rimmed glasses, he's very slim, and he's six foot tall.") -- Hoary (talk) 11:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Essentially, I have submitted quite a few times and I am being told the same thing,
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The subject is in conjuction with Youtube groups and football clubs and does not have as much on him solely however he is a content creator with a lot good viable articles
Assess your sources and remove any with trivial mentions of the subject, while adding reliable sources with sigcov. Most importantly. don't use YouTube videos as sources to back up claims, when an article can do it better. Go D. Usopp(talk)05:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion
My user page was deleted for spam with no explanation, warning or any communication except a tag - and then the user page was deleted in 30 days. I've never spammed anyone or anything. The only thing I can think of is that I had a URL to a personal page, not a hyperlink, on my page. That personal page contained writing. It was not for sale or anything else. My edits are not self-promotion. Why would I use Wikipedia to do that? I wouldn't.
I am a novice user. Although I have had an account for a while, I am still new in that I have not had time to learn the rules. I've edited where and when I can.
My user page was deleted.
Will my account be deleted? What does it mean?
The user @Air on White lists on their page that their primary activity is to patrol other pages looking for spam. I suppose this includes user pages. I've never had anything on my page that could be construed as spam. It is possible that the user has encountered some of my writing or something (freelance writing, as listed on my page, after minor edits to remove the website URL, a link to a website that never was online anyway and was only to contain my writing) and, based on that, or something, decided to delete my page. The tag was left only a few months after I joined so again, I'm unsure about why it was placed there.
It is, as I've said in my response to @Air on White, very disheartening to experience this sort of thing. But does it even matter?
All I've ever tried to do is contribute knowledge and make the lives of other people easier and better. I appreciate that it is important to remove spam. But look at my user page. Look at my contributions. Look at everything I've done. I don't understand how any of it can be perceived as spam, in any way? Promoting other organisations? Why? What? I'm totally lost.
PFNMonaghan, I've looked at the version of your user page which Air on White deleted, and I've no idea why they did that. Your account won't be deleted, indeed accounts can't be deleted. Accounts can be blocked, but I see no reason at all to justify a blocking in your case. Maproom (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you kindly, I just wanted to clear that up, I spoke to the user who deleted parts of it. I understand in part why some of it was deleted. I've also made edits to the page myself. I hope everything is all good now. Thanks again @MaproomPFNMonaghan (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Arthur Smart you are logged in. Go To Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal-email it should show the address the emails are being delivered to. Double check if below it, is says "confirmed" or "not confirmed". If it is not confirmed, you should ensure that your email address becomes confirmed. If emails are still not delivered, then they are either in your spam folder, or your provider is deleting emails without your knowledge. (Because if they were actually not 'delivered' and bouncing, then the confirmation state would flip back to being non-confirmed) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, but I was receiving other e-mails from Wikipedia. Nothing in my spam folder. The fact is, Wikipedia never sent me the verification e-mail, for neither of my attempts.
The good news is I tried again this morning, and this time it never asked me to enter the verification code (that I knew it wouldn't send), so I was able to log in. Glad that's fixed. Thanks. Art SmartChart/Heart07:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 day ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Hi, I have seen several edits on Laura Kenny in the past few months where the edit is non controversial but they are accompanied by bizarre edit summaries. Out of curiosity can anyone tell me what the editor is trying to achieve? I don't know how to link to a specific edit, but it is the most recent one on the page. Thank you. Canary757(talk)13:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I've seen this before, although it was a while ago. If it is the group I am thinking of, the group edit Wikipedia as a group concensus (their own concensus, not Wikipedia concensus), hence all the names. I've racked my brain/s and I really can't remember where they edited last so I could give an example, sorry. I struggle to remember what I ate for tea some days. Knitsey (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I created a Wikipedia account under my own name a long time ago. However, I have forgotten either the password or the email I used, and I can no longer access that email account. Now, if necessary, I am willing to verify my identity with my real documents, such as my passport or the ID card I obtained in the country where I currently live.
I would like to create a new account under my name again, but the system says that an account with this name has already been created before. As I mentioned, it has been more than 10 years since I opened that account, and I no longer use or have access to the email linked to it. Could you please help me with this issue? 2001:8F8:1A43:60F:1883:C14D:3B96:B654 (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Well, you can't create another account in your name because you already did. Typically, if a user loses access to their account by forgetting the password, that's the end of the line for that account and we encourage the user to create a new account and identify it as a successor to their old account("I am User5678, I was previously User1234 but lost access"). According to m:Steward requests/Username changes on meta, accounts with valid edits are not usurped, so if you made good edits with your original account, I think you're stuck with creating a new one. You could try contacting Trust and Safety (m:Wikimedia Foundation/Legal/Community Resilience and Sustainability/Trust and Safety) to see if they can help you regain access to your account, but I'm not certain they can. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@RafaelthegreatWikipedia:XFDcloser is for XfD discussions. Generally speaking, if you have a discussion and you piss someone off, closing the discussion might make the situation worse because people might feel you are trying to stop them from expressing their opinion. Just say "I changed my mind" or "I regret starting this discussion" and move on. I would not recommend using such scripts until you have more experience. Hope that helps, Polygnotus (talk) 23:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
You always have been able to close discussions manually. XFDcloser is just a tool that makes it faster. So yes, still follow your good judgement on whether/when to close discussions. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
If you’re the nominator, withdraw the nomination by adding a “Withdrawn by nominator” note and, if no one supported deletion, close it yourself as a speedy keep using XFDcloser. If you’re a commenter, modify your recommendation by highlighting (striking through) your original comment and adding a new one. Editor176906:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 hour ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I have been hard at work finding links to Peter Pan (a disambiguation page) and changing them to more precise page links. (Peter Pan still has the largest number of incoming links to a disambiguation page) Having discovered DisamAssist, I was even more productive.
Sadly, I misunderstood the exact mode of operation of DisamAssist, and my early checks failed to spot this. I have inadvertently added a pipe character to the beginning of the displayed text of the link, so it shows as |Peter Pan. The wikilink is correct and works normally, but the pipe character is incorrect and obtrusive. For example, see Eiluned Lewis#Early life and education.
There are about 136 articles with this sort of error; sometimes with multiple links affected. I do not know how to write a search that will identify the specific text and distinguish it from similar text in tables.
Latest comment: 12 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I tried translating an article from English to Greek. The automatic saving stopped on the 2nd day of work and I cannot publish either. The error I get states :
There should be a box labeled "edit summary" or something similar under the edit box or elsewhere on the page while you're editing. (I do not use VE and so I can't be more specific about where it is there, sorry.) That said, if you are simply creating a new section on RFPP/I with either the "new section" or the bespoke buttons there, then your edit summary will default to "(section name): New section" or "Requesting protection for (pagename)" respectively. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques00:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
It's like Jéské Couriano said above: it is created automagically when using the form provided (only 2 fields), and there's no possibility to change this edit summary it when using the form afaics. If you do every step manually, you will be able to provide an edit summary at the usual spot. I don't know what happens if you use huggle or such. Lectonar (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Nateiac7: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You can find a beginners tutorial at the tutorial page. You may also be interested in doing the The Wikipedia Adventure. They will both allow to understand the basics of editing here and how to interact with the MediaWiki software itself. If you have any other questions about editing, feel free to bring them up over at the Teahouse, the page dedicated to helping new users contribute to Wikipedia. cyberdog958Talk00:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 38 minutes ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have the right to delete discussions from my own talk page, so can I also delete redundant discussions from my talk page archives? Jako96 (talk) 10:06, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
wikimedia.org and ask to set an email address for the account. Don't reveal the password in the mail. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)