Wikipedia:Help desk

Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)

• For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
• Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
• If your question is about a Wikipedia article, draft article, or other page on Wikipedia, tell us what it is!
• Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
• For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
• New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).

Ask a question

Can't edit this page? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

Creating a new page for Dena Davida

Before beginning I would like to confirm that I am permitted to create this page, as I know this person professionally as an advisor for my artistic work. Maria Mantia Papathanasiou (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Maria Mantia Papathanasiou You should formally disclose a conflict of interest on your user page; you are permitted to create and submit a draft via Articles for Creation. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and it is even harder with a conflict of interest. It is highly recommended that you not dive right in to creating articles, and instead first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles as well as using the new user tutorial.

To succeed, you need to set aside everything you know about this person, everything their associates say about them, all materials from the person, and limit yourself to summarizing what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about them. You need to show that they meet the definition of a notable person broadly, or a notable artist narrowly. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. May I use the subject's website? Maria Mantia Papathanasiou (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, if I create an initial page that is not too elaborate, might the subject be then allowed to edit and add to it? Or is this also "not reliable"? Maria Mantia Papathanasiou (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The subject's own website is not an independent source. Please see WP:42 for a metric you may use to evaluate sources.

The person themselves should review the autobiography policy. They should avoid directly editing any article about themselves in most cases, but they may propose edits in the form of an edit request to (this so far hypothetical) article about them. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

It depends on what it's used for. If it's used to back up basic things such as name or date of birth, It's allowed as per WP:ABOUTSELF mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The subject may not be a reliable source for date of birth; there's over a century of history of cinema performers, in particular, falsifying DOB in order to fake an age. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:14, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

El Niño event renames

The renaming of the pages back to 1988-1990 La Niña event and back to 1991-1994 El Niño events, though with en dash and not with the hyphen

I'm having some serious troubles trying to prove for the fact the La Niña event that started in 1988 lasted up until the very first halves of 1990 and the fact El Niño events, three of them for exact, didn't really begin until Spring 1991 and didn't end until the late meteorological Summer in 1994-following which ENSO-Neutral periods dominated the period between Autumn 1994 until Spring 1995-at which latter time a weak La Niña event started to develop. I would rather comment on the content than the people who refuse to accept the references I was using, although they say these references are inaccurate and inappropriate (I'm talking the references I was using). These references are not only appropriate, they are very strong evidence pieces with these articles in question. Angela Kate Maureen Pears 03:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Tropical Storm Angela. Please be aware of the policy of Common name - articles are named from what the bulk of the reliable sources call them, not from their official name, or a more accurate name. ColinFine (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Pietro Antonelli

Pietro Antonelli

Reference help requested. Please help with this article to editors who are more experienced then me.Menhelicks (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC) Thanks, Menhelicks (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a bit. Looks like the {{cite DBI template}} is different between it and en. They pull a lot of fields from Wikidata, which I don't understand how to use, so for now I've just set the citation manually. Blepbob (talk) 05:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

trying to replace an infobox photo.

The infobox photo that I uploaded to Robert I. Misbim page is a selfie by Dr. Misbin, but the page keeps disappearing. I think I (the page editor) have 3 problems: 1. Something has to be sent to Dr. Misbin to verify that he took the photo as a selfie, but I don't know the procedure for that. 2. Something must be put somewhere to tell editors that we are in the process of authentifying the photo -- but I don't what this process is. 3. I erroneously listed the date of the photo as in August 2025. How do I change to the correct date, Nov. 29, 2022? Thanks in advance for answering. Wikiedit888y (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Wikiedit888y. This needs to happen on Commons, not on Wikipedia. Try C:COM:VP.

Broadly, what needs to happen is that Misbim himself must send the proper communication (or upload the image) - you can't do it for him. See donating copyright materials. ColinFine (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

See Commons:Help_desk#infobox_image_self-transformed_to_image-name.jpg_text and Commons:Help_desk#how_to_change_date_on_a_registered_photo. You can also point the article subject to WP:A picture of you. For the interested, the article is Robert I. Misbin. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Social Repose

Social Repose

Reference help requested.

None of the references are in red, indicating a missing title, and I scanned them manually, so I'm not sure where there is a title missing

Thanks, Shanthophile (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Shanthophile, your title is Referencing errors on [[Special:Diff/1295625433|Social Repose]]. It seems that you're asking not about the article as a whole but instead about a slingle diff. This adds {{cite web |url=https://www.nataliezworld.com/2014/09/blood-on-dance-floor-announces.html |website=https://www.nataliezworld.com}} which, contrary to what you seem to be saying, lacks the title attribute. (You've specified the title of the website but not that of the particular page.) As for the article as a whole, this has a vast number (currently 490) of what are presented as references, but many of which merely point to where (on Youtube, etc) one may find this or that song. It's not obvious where among these are the substantive sources on Giese ("Social Repose") himself that are reliable and also independent of him. -- Hoary (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm looking at that citation and it has a title in it, so I'm not sure what to do here?

"BLOOD ON THE DANCE FLOOR ANNOUNCES THE RECKONING TOUR". Natalie's World. 4 May 2015. Retrieved 14 June 2025.

So just to check, when I do the listing of singles, covers, etc., I can just list them and don't need anything to support that? I can pull the links if they aren't necessary to prove that it is what it is.

I appreciate the help, btw. Shanthophile (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Natalie (4 May 2015). "Blood on the Dance Floor announces The Reckoning Tour". Natalie's World. Retrieved 14 June 2025. But as for these lists, Shanthophile, I've raised a larger question about them on your talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, Shanthophile, please see "Let me check with Richie". -- Hoary (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Can I upload PlanEx image

I noticed on the Wikipedia page for Futurama that the planet express logo is not correct, and I am trying to change it. I found the correct image on fandom, but I do not know if I am allowed to change it, as it is on the fandom page and copyrighted by Fox, and the only option when uploading is "This is my image", i just would like to know if i am allowed to upload their image. TinyNny (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm assuming the logo you want to replace is the picture used on this page. Whether it is or not, you should consider this:

• There is a concept in copyright law called threshold of originality (Wikimedia Commons: c:Threshold of originality) which says that some logos are too simple to be eligible for copyright, but this threshold varies country by country. If it's below the threshold you can use a copyright tag like {{PD-ineligible}} or {{PD-textlogo}} when uploading. However, I'm not sure if the logo is below the threshold of originality, so you might be better asking at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright since the people there are more experienced with copyright.
• If it turns out to be above the threshold of originality, it has to be uploaded locally on Wikipedia under fair use, see Wikipedia:Non-free content for that, but keep in mind that requirements to upload non-free content is quite strict, and may be rejected if requirements are not met.

HyperAnd (talk) 08:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Articles about yourself/people you know

can you make articles about yourself/people you know (friends and family)/personal projects?

just asking Direct Determine FM (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia isn't for autobigraphies. DonIago (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

ok, thanks Direct Determine FM (talk) 04:43, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@Direct Determine FM You might find a more suitable site at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but only under very limited circumstances. Firstly, they need to meet our notability requirements. Then you need to declare your conflict of interest, and work through the process described at WP:AFC to make a draft article and have it reviewed by somebody independent. Be aware that the criteria are very strict, and most people who try this fail; but—contrary to the answer already given—it is neither forbidden nor impossible. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

vanishing or renaming blocked accounts

Why do you not offer vanishing or renaming for blocked accounts

What if the blocked account has real life name as username, before you say "they must appeal first" what if their appeals got rejected 49.237.38.203 (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Because blocking is for the person, not the account. I don't understand your second question. ColinFine (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Wild guess: The IP presumes that we are one of those websites (pretty common tbh) were you get a limited number of appeals (common are 1 or 1.5) after wich you are - short of being friends with the site owner or similar back door stuff - simply screwed. @IP You can always make another appeal, at least after a while and a good read of WP:GAB, wether via talkpage or WP:UTRS. And in the (AFAIK exedingly rare, if that ever happened) case that you'll get a your talkpage revoked and banned from UTRS for no good reason there is always arbcom, still. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I think that for the second question, it doesn't matter whether the username contains the editors' real name or not, they get the same response regarding where to appeal. That is unless the username match those of notable/famous people in which case, they have to follow the instructions at {{Uw-ublock-wellknown}}. Or if the username violates the username policy. JuniperChill (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

what if someone with real name got blocked for being sockpuppet of a person who vandalized Wikipedia yet that same someone got famous 223.24.191.47 (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Are you asking "What if somebody using their real name as their username [let's call this person 'SURNU'] got blocked for being a sockpuppet of a username blocked for vandalizing Wikipedia, yet SURNU then became notable?"? If so, nothing in particular. If they break Wikipedia's rules, people who get articles can be or remain blocked. If people who are blocked become famous while they're blocked, they remain blocked. But why do you ask? -- Hoary (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Im worried itd ruin their digital footprint 223.24.191.47 (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

What if somebody using their real name as their username [let's call this person 'SURNU'] got blocked for being a sockpuppet of a username blocked for vandalizing Wikipedia, yet SURNU then worked for job that made them a celebirty like musician or athlete? 223.24.191.47 (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

That would generally not impact their notability a whit. And as a general rule, userspace and user logs are noindexed, so reputable search engines wouldn't find them in the first place. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 02:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

jobs could type wikipedia.org/user:SURNU to see if they vnadalized wikipedia 223.24.191.47 (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Will you offer exceptions for not allowing blocked usernames to rename or vanish like digital footprint 223.24.191.47 (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

No. If someone doesn't want to be seen as acting a certain way, then they shouldn't act that way. There is an explicit notice about presumed permanence of all edits and giving up certain rights when publishing any text on this website. We are not in the business of helping create non-authentic reputations. DMacks (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

what if they were immature when they vnadalized, regretted vandalism, and their appeals got rejected anyways 49.237.20.174 (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

They they should live with that and move on to something else. Actions have consequences. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

if jobs found out about the wikipedia account with irl name that vandalized wikipedia they should aplogize but not appeal if their appeals got rejected? 49.237.20.174 (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I get the sense that you are talking about yourself? If so, you are evading your block by posting here and making it harder to be unblocked later. We're willing to forgive and move past immature activities, but if you have no intentions of editing again, there's no need to do anything with your account as blocks only prevent editing. Again, actions have consequences. Feel free to tell your employer/potential employers that your past immaturity does not reflect who you are now. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

im not talking about myself but will you also unblock sockpuppets

if john davis is sockpuppet of mack davis and mack davis got unblocked will you unblock john davis 49.237.20.174 (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

We don't unblock sock accounts, we unblock the original account. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Page redirected

Hi my personal page for Lazaros Kalemis is being redirected to my companies page Simpay US. I tried to find the original page to request someone to droete the redirect command. I cannot get yo the talk page to list the request. Can someone delete the redirect 100.11.17.87 (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The page was redirected by User:Curb Safe Charmer, because they felt that as a topic, you did not meet the requirements described at WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. I am inclined to agree.

If you disagree, on what basis?

Did you pay someone to write that about you? And about your company? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:00, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Erika Kirk

I could not find a place on your webpage where I could express concerns. Please forward to the appropriate persons.

I am really assuming it is fake news from the unreliable right wingers, but when I heard that Wikipedia was considering removing Erika Kirk's biography was Wikipedia, I thought that it was in extremely poor taste and utterly poor timing. If she warranted a biography before his assassination, then why remove it now? It is inflamatory, sexist, and politically motivated. I thought Wikipedia was above such things. I definitely did not agree with everything Charlie Kirk said or believed, but he was courageous to go onto college campuses to provide an alternative opinion. Colleges must be a place where diverse opinions can be discussed and considered. Erika Kirk is planning to carry on his legacy, and it is way too early for a decision to delete her. I faithfully supported Wikipedia financially. If Wikipedia stoops this low, I will have to reconsider my support and my encouragement of my friends to continue their support. If this is fake news, get in front of this distasteful attempt by right winger antagonists to discredit your important website.

Nelson Huseby San Diego, California Nelson Huseby (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Nelson Huseby. You can view the deletion discussion for the Erika Kirk article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika Kirk. From the current consensus, it looks like the article will not be deleted. Please note deletion discussions on Wikipedia are not a majority vote, but instead a nuanced discussion among Wikipedia contributors. qcne (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I really hope the right person closes that. Quite a lot of votes in there shouldn't be counted because they are mere opinions with no justification. Electricmemory (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion has obviously been canvassed off-Wiki. qcne (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying. Whoever goes and closes it eventually better be someone who knows what they're doing or a deletion review will come up, and the whole discussion will drag on for even longer. Electricmemory (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I's very likely an experienced admin will take it on. There may be challenges etc anyway, but that day, that sorrow. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Nelson Huseby: Erika Kirk's biography was started after the shooting of Charlie Kirk.[1] Special:Statistics says Wikipedia has more than 100,000 active registered users. Anyone can nominate an article for deletion and create a discussion about it. Her biography is unlikely to actually be deleted. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Donation debited twice

Greetings, I made a donation of £10.40 to Wikipedia on September 1st, but my Amex account shows that I was charged twice. I don't understand how this happened, but could you refund the second £10.40 debit, please? Thank you 2A0A:EF40:1029:8301:95F3:7B5D:4E2E:984C (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi IP editor. Please email donate@wikimedia.org; they handle all donations. qcne (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Page Update Suggested

Here is an update for Citation #11 on the "Self-Image" page: Self-image#cite note-11

This is the correct citation: Walker, Jeffrey M. (2004) "Squid-heads and Coppertops: Discursive Power in the Postmodern Filmic Dystopia"; Literature and Psychology, 49(4), 43-81 97.120.99.91 (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. You're welcome to go in and correct it yourself, if you feel able (note that the section you'll need to edit is the section where the reference is cited (Residual) not the section where it actually appears (References).

If you don't feel confident in doing that, then the article's talk page Talk:self-image is the best place to suggest it. ColinFine (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Wiki-buddy needed

I am having visual problems which make it difficult for me to edit. I can still provide text and even insert it at the correct spot. However, I would welcome a wiki-buddy to sort out problems with references and other more technical aspects of editing. I'm sure I am not the first to be in this position. Is there a mechanism for such help?

Humpster (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

You could try Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area. 331dot (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

You might also find the m:WikiBlind User Group helpful. It's not very active, but has some useful info. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

You might be interested to read What is it like to edit Wikipedia when you're blind?. MKFI (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Page Help

Hello! Is someone able to help me remove the top messages on this page: Dimitri Krainc - I have looked into it and am having trouble doing so. Thanks in advance! Clagrone123 (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Clagrone123 Well, in order for those messages to be removed, the issues must be addressed. MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 14:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I removed {{COI}}, because no issues had been identified on the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Photo shopped photos

Robert F. KENNEDY Jr.'S photo is clearly doctored. Are you allowing AI photos, or photo shopped pictures allowed? Pjtawney (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

It's flattering, but isn't necessarily photoshopped or AI. You'd be amazed by what old-school photographic lens choice, lighting and darkroom development techniques can do.

That said, I think the fact that it's (allegedly) an 'official photograph' and therefore in the public domain probably counts for a great deal in favour of its use in Wikipedia.

Incidentally, you say "Are you allowing . . .", but as an Account-registered editor of Wikipedia, you have exactly as much say in this matter as any other (and arguably more that myself, who remains accountless after 20+ years of activity) so you are free to bring this up and argue the case for disallowing it. You may want to peruse Wikipedia:Image use policy (including its Talk page) and Wikipedia:Photoshopped images.

(Personally, I'd be happy not to have to look at this . . . person . . . ever again in my life.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.153.108 (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

if i make a wikipedia acount do I get to edit, delete, create, or change any page?

if i make a wikipedia acount do I get to edit, delete, create, or change any page? 36.255.112.138 (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Among other things, pages might be protected from editing, or there might be other considerations. Your question is rather broad in scope though. DonIago (talk) 03:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Having a wikipedia account enables you to eventually be authorized to edit certain pages that you wouldn't otherwise be authorized to edit. But with or without an account, pages may only be edited in accordance with the rules. Creating a Wikipedia article, in particular, has a special set of rules, in that the subject must meet specific criteria, such as WP:Notability. Article authors also need to be aware of the conflict of interest rules. In general, I would say that if you are on some sort of mission that you are trying to accomplish on Wikipedia, I would be wary. If you're here to fix typos, improve articles, such as by verifying claims using appropriate citations, add appropriate content along with supporting citations, these are good things, but if you jump in without exercising caution, you may get burned. Fabrickator (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Only adminstrators can actually delete articles and other pages. Other editors can ask for pages to be deleted in various ways. For example, an editor blanking a page in their own userspace is interpreted as a request to delete that page. Cullen328 (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:User groups for details about what different users can do. You can already use Wikipedia:Articles for creation to submit an article for review but it's difficult for new users to make an acceptable article. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:18, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Is myheritage a reliable source?

I personally do not think so but I was just wondering. I think it was covered at WP:RSP but i typed in WP:MYHERITAGE and manually check RSP and I couldn't find any results. It is used a bunch of Wikipedia pages (usually for minor things) so it might be important to reach consensus on its reliability 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 04:53, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Easternsahara There was an earlier discussion you missed at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_231#myheritage.com pointing out that it is user-generated but sometimes mentions underlying sources that could be OK. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I've redirected WP:MYHERITAGE to that discussion, for now.We could perhaps do with a FAQ page about such sites in general. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it depends what you want to source:

"Abraham Lincoln was the first president to walk on the moon." If this is what you find on a family tree, which is user-generated, then it's not RS.

"David Lloyd George was at 10 Downing Street in June 1921, as per the 1921 census". In some cases, primary sources like the 1921 England & Wales census can be accessed via providers such as the sleeping giant myheritage, ancestry etc. The policy of The National Archives UK is to enter partnerships with these businesses, so they are the medium that provides this information digitally, from behind their paywall.

If there is acknowledgement that myheritage is the medium and not the original source, all well and good in my opinion.Keith H99 (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

In your second scenario, it is the census that is being cited, not MyHeriatge, or whichever site hosts it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:35, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I have started drafting a guideline at Wikipedia:Genealogy sources. Please feel free to chip in. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Bolding of items in navbox

Is there some guideline that states that pages in a navigation box should display as bold when selected? --Jax 0677 (talk) 06:14, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: I guess you refer to selflinks where a link to the page itself is automatically bolded but not if it links via a redirect. See the first bullet at WP:BRINT. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Timmy Woulfe

I want to research and document the life of my father Timothy(Timmy) Woulfe who made a huge contribution to the lives of people in Athea, Co. Limerick, Ireland and beyond in educational, sporting cultural and many other areas. How should I go about this and how could Wikipedia perhaps help with this? Michael Woulfe. 51.37.124.94 (talk) 06:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

You should first review conflict of interest and understand that writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia(especially without prior experience in editing); but, you are permitted to create a draft using the Article Wizard in which you summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about your father and what makes him a notable person as Wikipedia uses the word. 331dot (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Michael. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia.

Note that a lot depends on what you mean by "research and document". If your work is primarily finding information in reliable published sources, then you may well be able to do this in Wikipedia, as long as enough of the sources are also independent of him (see WP:42) to establish notability. But if your research is finding and documenting unpublished sources (eg letters) or non-reliably published sources (eg newsletters, privately published books), then your work would be original research and not accepted in Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 09:53, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

If you simply want to research your father's life and work, you might do better to ask for help at your local library. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Page Review Clarification

Hello,

I created an article recently and ensured that the article meets the Wikipedia standards. Some editors have also improved the article but it hasn't been approved till now.

What could be the cause please? Greatben001 (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

It would help to know which article you are referring to and to what approval you are seeking; I think you mean a New Pages Patroller's approval; that's an entirely volunteer run process. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am referring to a New Page Patroller's approval. Here is the article: Derrick Lui. Thank you! Greatben001 (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I see that you took a picture of him, are you associated with him in some way(in order to get access to him to take his picture)? You've also only edited about him or his work.

Yes, a Patroller will eventually review the draft, but this may not be done quickly. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

No, I am not associated with him. A colleague with whom I discussed my recent article is familiar with his short films and was the one who sent me a picture, from which I only cropped his image. My knowledge of him and his work is limited to information available from secondary sources. I would appreciate it if anyone with additional information about his life and work could improve the article. Greatben001 (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Greatben001 If you personally did not take the picture, nor your colleague(it sounds like), you must immediately without delay request deletion of the image from Commons, unless you can clearly show that the image was released with a license compatible with Wikipedia's(allowing for reuse by anyone for any purpose with attribution). You cropping it makes no difference in this regard. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Somebody has already marked the image for possible copyright violation, which I believe is not fair. I confirmed with my colleague about the issue, and he explained that he personally took the picture on the red carpet at an event. I was cautious before uploading it because I had a similar experience recently. Greatben001 (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Greatben001 We take copyright really seriously on Wikipedia: your colleague must release the photo to Commons under a compatible license. You can't just upload a photograph your colleague took just because you say he said you can. qcne (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Please, guide me on how he can do that. Should I ask him to send me a To Whom It May Concern as evidence or what? Greatben001 (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Greatben001 The easiest thing would be for him to create an account on Wikimedia Commons himself, then upload the photo. Note that by uploading the photo he is releasing it under a license that permits anyone to reuse and remix the photo for any reason, including for commercial purposes. Please see Commons:First_steps/Contributing qcne (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Greatben001 See WP:A picture of you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Greatben001 (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Greatben001 Is your colleague associated with the subject? I assume he wasn't at the "red carpet event" at random; he also seemed to have pretty good access to the event. 331dot (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

He is not associated with the subject but has good access to the event. Greatben001 (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems to be beyond what most ordinary people would have. Thank you 331dot (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I have reviewed the article in question. @Greatben001:, thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Greatben001 (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Measuring navbox use

The navboxes at the bottom of articles: Is there a way to determine how much each navbox is being used by readers? Donald Trump is approaching the WP:PEIS limit, and the easiest solution would be to remove the least-used navboxes. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:01, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Mandruss we do not have such analytics unless the link is an unique on on the page. I would suggest condensing the content on the page further as an easier way out. – robertsky (talk) 10:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree, but your suggestion has been a point of contention for years, like eight of them. I said "easiest", not "best". You're welcome to join the article on our side. Thanks for the reply. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:02, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Mandruss: you have inspired me to propose an edit to the article. Has anyone suggested splitting the article into Donald Trump, Part 1 and Donald Trump, Part 2? TSventon (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I suggested that years ago. I was joking. I don't think Wikipedia does that. Anyway, not even Donald Trump merits that much coverage in his BLP. The problem is too much detail for post-2015, and the refusal of editors to accept that fact. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 02:12, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Updating existing Wikipedia Profile

Dear Sir,

Is this the online venue to request editorial assistance in updating a profile. Thank you.

Husky84 Dccovey1 (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Dccovey1: Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are Dana Curtis Covey, then I recommend reading Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects. You can suggest edits on the article's talk page using an edit request. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Adding interwikis

I have created The Dead Girls. On Wikidata (Q135639411), I added the Spanish language version to the preexisting SV (Swedish?) version language in the alternate wiki. How do I make those show up in the language links at the top of the article.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: Add the English article to The Dead Girls (Q135639411). PrimeHunter (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

User:PrimeHunter, I assumed since the wikidata had the English name, I didn't have to. I see everything is connected now.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: you had an English label (near the top), I added a link to en Wikipedia, near the bottom. TSventon (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

AutoSuggestSitelink gadget might be helpful too, it will scan Wikidata for matching labels and then ask you if you want to connect the article to the Item (if a link doesn't exist). It will make the connection for you if prompted. - Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 10:50, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Norc (Brown University)

I wanted to update a common student reference to the North Campus of Brown University as "norc" on the Brown Wikipedia page. This feels like constructive material and important to include. 128.148.206.63 (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Google doesn't show any obvious sourcing for this, nor does the Brown Daily Herald, so it shouldn't be included. See also WP:ONEDAY. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Middleton family

Middleton family

I have just added two references and both are in red - numbers 16 and 17, please fix up if you can. Thank you 49.185.27.111 (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I've fixed them, it looks like there were typos in the year and month Sock-the-guy (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

User is now blocked. 331dot (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted these edits, made while the "puppet-master" was (and remains) blocked. (I've necessarily reverted the correction as well. I regret the waste of your time, Sock-the-guy.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Could you help one more time? A user thanked me immediately after those edits and I'm assuming is related to this, but I don't have the bandwidth to understand the SPI process. It was the "Oliver" account which has edits on that page, @Oliver34098304 Sock-the-guy (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I added it on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Srbernadette. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Before you do anything else on WP, you need to log in and deal with User talk:Srbernadette#Blocked as a sockpuppet. Otherwise, this will keep happening. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Do we really think someone who need repeated assistance with our basic referencing tools will understand what we mean "sockpuppet", "puppet-master", or anything else in that notice? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:33, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps understanding is not the issue, but the technical/mechanical side of things. But that's just me guessing. I don't know if trying to communicate via WP:VRT would be any help at all.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett, you are free to post a further explanation, or advice, to the talk page of Brrowbottom, Srbernadette, or both. -- Hoary (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

A new fossil discovery!

Chaunactis olsoni, a new demosponge fossil found in 1998 by Tom Olson, Geology For Kids owner, is a new marine invertebrate discovered in the Naco Formation,Pennsylvanian time period , central Arizona within the red chert horizon! About 46 complete specimens known so far! Published in the Brigham Young University science bulletin in 1999 by Kieth Rigby and Kelley Dillard! 107.127.25.43 (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia help desk. What help are you looking for? -- Hoary (talk) 10:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Exactly how disruptive to VisualEditor are list-defined references?

WP:LDRHOW says that LDRs are disruptive to VisualEditor users, but does that apply only to LDR via {{reflist}} or does that also apply to LDR via <references>? Hopelessrailfan (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Information to change

Hello! I would like to ask how we can change that Aleksandr Vlasenko is a hungarian figure skater not russian! He has hungarian citizenship and he compete for Hungary! Please correct it! 223.118.50.74 (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Please go to Talk:Aleksandr Vlasenko and there explain that he has Hungarian citizenship. Link to some reliable evidence for this. (Such evidence is preferably in English, but Hungarian, Russian or another language would also be acceptable.) Alternatively, edit the article Aleksandr Vlasenko directly, but if you do this then be sure to provide a reference to a reliable source. -- Hoary (talk) 10:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Prosesize problem

I have installed Prosesize, but I can't use it yet because I don't see Tools at the left of the screen —what can I do? Augnablik (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Augnablik: What is your skin at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering? "Tools" is at the top right in Vector 2022. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

My what? Augnablik (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Augnablik Did you click on the link? That will tell you your skin. Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh. It says Vector (2022). Augnablik (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Augnablik: Then "Tools" should be at the top right for you and clicking it should show a menu with "Page size". Do you see it? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

To see Page size under a Tools option, am I supposed to be on the article for which I want the word count? I thought that's where I'd see the Tools option, but I don't.

However ... at the page where I'm taken when I click the link you gave me, I do see it but with different options

Tools

General

Upload file

Printable version

Get shortened URL

Download QR code

I'm beginning to wonder if I may have missed a step in setting up Prosesize. So let me go back to what I've done so far. When I was trying to install Prosesize, I got to the correct page and clicked on a box that said "Prosesize: add a toolbox link to show the size of and number of words in a page." That's all I did because I didn't see anything else to do. I thought that was all that was needed to later display a toolbox icon I could use when I next needed a word count on an article.

Looking forward to finally getting this mystery solved! Augnablik (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Augnablik: You have to click the "Save" button after enabling "Prosesize: add a toolbox link to show the size of and number of words in a page" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. The "Tools" menu with a "Page size" option should be on all wiki pages. Click it on the page where you want the prose size. It doesn't have to be an article but it does have to be a wiki page so the "Page size" option is not at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. The "Tools" menu is not made by Prosesize and should be there whether or not Prosesize is installed. It just adds a new option to an existing menu. The options in the "Tools" menu may also be displayed permanently under a "Tools" heading. I have noticed a few of your edits are on the mobile version. When you are using the mobile version there is an icon with three vertical dots instead of the text "Tools". PrimeHunter (talk) 09:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I did save after enabling, PrimeHunter. When I just went back on my computer to the page where you do that, the Prosesize box was checked and the Save button was greyed out, showing that the page had been saved earlier ... but just to see what would happen, I unchecked Prosesize, saved again, then re-checked Prosesize and saved again. Again nothing happened; that is, I still couldn't see a Tools menu on an article I went to.

I also went to my mobile, where I don't do much editing, to see if there were a three-dot icon and no, there isn't.

What could be going on? Do you think I should take this to tekkies at the Village Pump? Augnablik (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

How do I expand pages correctly.

I found pages of what I want to edit, they are short and I want to expand them. I don't want to mess up since I'm not experienced at this. I need help, what should I do and what shouldn't I do. I have links for the page I want to expand 169.244.113.129 (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

If this is the wrong section, please redirect me to the right place to ask this. 169.244.113.129 (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, IP user.

There is no particular way you should or shouldn't do this.

But some things that are worth keeping in mind are:

• Verifiability. Every single thing in an article should be verifiable from a reliable published source, and in most cases from a source wholly independent of the subject. There is not formally a requirement that everything be cited, but reviewers of new articles, for example, generally require this; and if you're adding some information and so (necessarily) have a source for it, why wouldn't you help the reader by citing the source? - see WP:REFB for how to do this.
• Neutral point of view. An article should be a neutral summary of what the sources say, and very little else. It's not required that all sources be neutral - partisan sources are perfectly acceptable, if they are regarded as reliable - but the article should summarise what they say in a neutral way. In particular, no article should express a judgment - or even use judgmental words (see PEACOCK in Wikipedia's voice, though it is sometimes acceptable to directly quote an independent source expressing a judgment. Never put your own opinions, about anything, into an article.
• No original research: only what is in the sources, not anything you know or think apart from the sources; and you should not advance any arguments or conclusions except what is in a source.

Don't worry if you don't get it right, and somebody reverts your edit: this is a normal part of learning, and indeed of editing. See WP:BRD.

I advise you to make small edits rather than great big ones, because if somebody does disagree with one, they can revert just that one, leaving your other work intact. ColinFine (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok, got it.

Thanks! 169.244.113.129 (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I just don't want to get any warnings or/and bans. 169.244.113.129 (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

You won't get banned (or blocked) for behaving in good faith, only for repeated or egregious abuse. Likewise, any "warnings" should be expressed as friendly advice, under the same circumstances. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Might be a scam

Presumed Wikipedia Page Creation & Editing Opportunity that might be a scam

Hi, I have received an email (twice) from a certain Steve Thompsan, Wikipedia Moderator, (from a Gmail address with a user id = thompsan.wikipediaeditor). His messages start with "... My name is Steve Thompsan, and I have been part of the Wikipedia editing community for the past seven years. During this time, I have worked to support the accurate presentation of academic careers, especially those of individuals who have achieved Emeritus status". The he claims that he can help me create a "carefully maintained Wikipedia entry". His messages are suspicious; I suppose that it is a scam or a money making venture, maybe from a previous employee. Can you please confirm if he is really an employee of yours and if I can trust answering back to his messages? Thank you very much for your help, Jose 87.235.62.220 (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

IP Yes, this is a WP:SCAM and you should report it as described at the linked page. We don't have moderators but Administrators. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

bias towards murder victims

I would like to know why Wikipedia is allowing people to be bias towards murder victims?

I noticed that Melissa Hortmans Wikipedia page says she was assassinated and Charlie Kirks Wikipedia just says that he died. To me this sounds very bias. I think this is misinforming the community because certain editors don't like the Republican party. Greenbean35 (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

What to title the article about Kirk's death is under discussion. You are welcome to contribute to it at Talk:Killing of Charlie Kirk. Please don't assign motives to editors, focus on the content. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Greenbean35. Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do try to assume good faith when talking about other editors. We have editors from around the world who manage to edit Wikipedia without bias. WP:AGF.

The Charlie Kirk article and Assassination of Charlie Kirk both state assassination. Keep in mind, the article about Kirks death was created shortly after the shooting, when the motivation was unknown. Per the article talk page, it has been changed from killing to assassination. Hope this helps Knitsey (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Greenbean35: The article currently says Kirk was assassinated. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Melissa Hortman was assassinated three months ago. Charlie Kirk was assassinated just over a week ago. It is not surprising that Wikipedia's coverage of the June killing is more developed than our coverage of the September killing. It takes time to write quality content about such horrific events. Cullen328 (talk) 07:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

addition to historical information re Napoleon II

I am computer stupid. I am heavily into history. I have read a book which presents information regarding the death of Nap II, which I believe to be accurate. The book is Assassination at St Helena Revisited, Ben Weider and Sten Forshufvud, Pub. by John Wiley & Sons ISBN 0-471-12677-2 Chapter 49 pp 430-439 The authors and first book were cited under your work on Napoleon I in a somewhat speculative manner. The book is very strongly presented with descriptions and data to propose murder by poison for Nap I, and the repetition of symptoms of Nap II is equally strong for the same conclusion. I wonder if someone would refer this information to an appropriate individual for a more appropriate summation of one or both individuals. Wikipedia is frequently the first source for information on historical subjects, if not the only source. From a forensic point of view this book presents an overwhelming preponderance of evidence of blatatant murder. I believe in truth in the presentation of history. jude smith 1946judekendo (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @1946judekendo. The best way to find somebody interested in this subject is to post either on the talk page of an article about it (eg Talk:Napoleon II), or a related WikiProject, such as WT:WikiProject France.

Even if you post there, there's no guarantee that an editor will respond, but it's more likely than here. Wikipedia is entirely edited by volunteer editors like you and me, who work on what they choose: nobody assigns work to anybody.

One possibility is that you make the change yourself, or suggest it. It sounds as if you have a fairly clear idea what you would like the article(s) to say: if you post that on the relevant talk page, with a citation to where the information comes to (preferably with page numbers), then it's more likely that somebody will pick up your suggestion and add it to the article - or discuss it with you if they don't think it's exactly appropriate, so you can reach consensus as to what should be added. ColinFine (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Note that this book and theory regarding Napoleon I is also discussed in the article Sten Forshufvud, and its extension to Napoleon II has already been raised in Talk:Napoleon II#Cause of death. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.153.108 (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

American late-night talk show monologues

American late-night talk show monologues are de-facto news digests

All of Strike Force Five seem to be targets.

One could make a chronological list of news stories, on a daily basis, that they all ridiculed.

Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, Seth Meyers, and Jimmy Fallon

John Oliver is one topic weekly

Seth Meyers is next

Would a chronological list of news stories, on a daily basis, that Strike Force Five ridiculed be a Wikipedia:Encyclopedic article? (Reliability of Wikipedia)

Piñanana (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Though I've heard of the hosts, I hadn't heard of Strike Force Five till I read your question and, immediately afterwards, the article Strike Force Five. When you say "All of Strike Force Five seem to be targets", do you mean "Each of the episodes of Strike Force Five seem to have had targets"? If so, how many targets per episode? If no more than three, then the table in the current article could be augmented to show this. If five or more, then it couldn't -- but it might be called "indiscriminate information". The article shows that there were 12 episodes, no two of which appeared on consecutive days; why "on a daily basis" (above)? (And what do you mean by saying that Meyers "is next"?) NB when I say that the table could be augmented, I don't mean that this would necessarily be a good thing; rather, it would be something you could reasonably ask about in Talk:Strike Force Five. -- Hoary (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Their statement appears to be a reference to Colbert's cancellation and Kimmel's suspension, meaning they likely meant a list of stories ridiculed on the five comedians' shows. @Piñanana: As for your original question, I doubt that a list like that could be an encyclopedic article, per our policy on indiscriminate information, but it isn't impossible. If you want to try making one, feel free to start a draft. While drafting it, please keep in mind our verifiability policy and our guideline on the notability of lists. Hope this helps. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Why is the Donald Trump Page so biased?

Yusuf Michael (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Yusuf Michael If you have any questions that are not answered by WP:TRUMPRCB, then bring them up on the talk page. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Yusuf Michael Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources state about a topic. If those sources are not being accurately summarized, please detail the errors on the talk page. If the sources are accurately summarized, but you disagree with what they say, you will need to take that up with the sources themselves. Wikipedia does not claim to be the truth, only that what is presented can be verified, see WP:TRUTH. You are free to read an article and disagree with everything presented. Wikipedia does not claim to be without bias, as all sources of information have biases. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves when determining what they think about what they read. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Social media

is it wrong for wikipedia usernames to ask for social media accounts on talk pages

User talk:45dogs#Do you have a social media account

check this for more info 49.237.23.152 (talk) 08:37, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

You seem to be asking if what you did is okay- it's not unusual for editors to ask other editors about means to communicate off wiki. An editor is under no obligation to answer such inquiries, but I know of no policy categorically prohibiting them. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

so its allowed but discoraged 49.237.23.152 (talk) 08:37, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't know that it's discouraged, in the sense that there is any policy discouraging it. My experience is that most Wikipedia editors prefer communication with other editors to take place openly, on Wikipedia talk and discussion pages, unless there is a compelling reason for private communication. ColinFine (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Further, I, and I think other editors, tend to be suspicious of discussion of Wikipedia issues on media outside Wikipedia. Obviously anybody has a right to do so, but it often seems to be either inappropriate canvassing, or discussion by and for people who don't understand what Wikipedia is and how it works; or both. ColinFine (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

A lot will depend on context. If you're getting along with an editor, collaborating on articles, no-one is likely to object. If you're asking repeatedly, or as a form of harassment or hounding, or in an attempt at outing, it could lead to a block. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Hidden maintenance messages not showing up

I followed the instructions at Help:CS1 errors and added the "... .cs1-maint ..." text to my CSS page. I cleared my entire browser cache after. Since it's an older article I'm trying to edit, I also performed a null edit. According to the message box, there are two citations with maintenance messages, but they don't show up. What am I doing wrong? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 13:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Bad link

If a citation link has gone "bad", but there is an archived version already in place from WayBack machine, how should the citation get edited so that people don't follow the now-corrupt link? Problem link is cited here. I tried simply removing the URL, but that parameter is required. Should the archive link replace the original? Matt Deres (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2025 (UTC)