From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Scary user page messages[edit]


I created a user name and, I thought, page, on Wikipedia in approximately 2016; it was dormant for a while, but I've since done enough editing to qualify to create an entry. I'm creating my draft in my sandbox, which is where I thought it was supposed to go while still in drafting phase, but I've encountered notices that claim Wikipedia does not have a user page with my name. When I signed on, I opted not to fill in any details till I knew my way around. I also thought I began my wiki article on a subpage in my sandbox, using the visual editor. How could I get to a sandbox without having a user page, much less a subpage? I'm now getting a rather glaring notice in a pink box that informs me "Please do not draft new articles here — to do that, create a userspace draft." Underneath it is the earlier notice that says Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title. But the top of my page says "User:TexasEditor1." That's me!

I'm trying very hard to be respectful and learn — and follow — the rules. I've already put so much work into verifying and adding links and references and making sure my writing is factual and neutral. What do I need to do to make sure I'm creating it where and how I'm supposed to be? I'm afraid I'll lose what I have if I create a user page and it tries to tell me that user already exists. TexasEditor1 (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TexasEditor1: I'm kinda confused by what you're describing. It sounds like it'd be easiest to see if you could post up screenshots of what you're seeing, say, in imgur and give us the links.
In the meantime, though, the best way to make sure you don't lose progress is to switch to "source editor" (it's a pencil icon in the top right corner, to the left of "Publish" if you're using visual editor). Once you've got the source code stuff, just select everything, copy it, and paste it in a notepad on your computer. Save that notepad file so that even if you lose internet connection or something else happens, it'll still be saved on your computer.Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 03:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From your Contributions, looks as if your draft is now at Draft:Mark Addison. David notMD (talk) 10:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, "Publish changes" means save. You also have an empty Sandbox at User:TexasEditor1/sandbox/Mark Addison which you can ignore or delete, as you have successfully moved your content to the draft. David notMD (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks David! (and Jasonkwe
I think I wanted to work on it in the sandbox; that's where it goes when it's still in progress, right? But it seemed as if the only way to save it was to turn it into a draft. I did save copies in source code and visual editor (pasted into Word). Now I have to figure out the rest of my external refs; I have a few in paywalled newspaper archives and haven't qualified to access the Wikipedia library. My big concern is one quote I'm using from a Plain Dealer review. TexasEditor1 (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TexasEditor1 I think you can worry a little bit less than you are now. Sandbox generally keeps things safe from altering or breaking anything important. And even if you do, you can always revert changes. Submitting a draft article for review is good but not "technically" necessary. You could just make a new article like this and publish it to the world like this. I didn't do that but wikipedia can be altered by anyone and everyone (hence the tools the mods use to prevent vandalism).

I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination since Wikipedia has lots of guidelines and rules and manual of style recommendations. But those key principles do include WP:BOLD and WP:NOTPERFECT. Wikipedia is a self-correcting machine and problems get pointed out and worked on by others. Not saying it's nice or polite to throw something out completely half baked but something (if constructive and useful about a notable topic) is usually better than nothing. All articles start somewhere and many start as little stubs that get built on by others. One of the articles that's featured as "In the News" on wikipedia's front page June 2022 Afghanistan earthquake, started out as this [1]. The article for George HW Bush started out as this [2]. I definitely sympathize as I'm doing the same (quietly working on an article I plan to publish until it's ready to go) but it is a collaborative effort that no one has to do alone.

Freely accessible sources are definitely preferred but you can use sources that are stuck behind paywalls. If you have personal access and can read those articles or publications to verify they back up what you're saying in the article, that's adequate WP:SOURCELINKS. It's definitely an annoyance when a cited source isn't freely available through the internet but that's just how it is sometimes--books are a common example of this as lots of books aren't freely available online in their entirety but are often cited as sources in wiki articles. One other note, I did see a few sources in your draft are from IMDB. Generally, anything that is openly editable on the internet isn't a good source (which is why wikipedia itself isn't reliable citable source either).

Your draft on Mark Addison is definitely impressive for an article written from scratch! Wikipedia does have guidelines on biographies of living people so you should check that if you haven't already. Usually the big issue is of notability but I can see that there's interviews from notable sources about him. The other big problem is often conflict of interest as people often write about themselves or are paid to write/promote someone. I don't think you are Mark Addison (since your user page says you're a journalist) but even that's not an instant disqualifier if you follow the guidelines.

One last plug: my one advice/plea to editors (besides citing authors which you're good at but most wiki editors seem to be allergic to.....) is to add archived links. Articles written even 5 years ago often have broken sources because the website they link to did some changes to their system and all links to pages on their old site are useless. Annoys me to no end. Best thing you can do is to include Internet Archive snapshots of the pages you're citing. If there isn't a snapshot of the page that you're using on Internet Archive already, then you can/should make one. Helps preserve the internet's useful information for generations to come. For instance, I often use as a source. Their articles generally get archived but some don't. If I wanted to cite this article, I would definitely make a snapshot of it and include it in the citation (this isn't the same page but it's a snapshot of another page that is stored on Internet Archive). Images often get broken in snapshots but that's still much preferable to having nothing. Anyway, happy editing! Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 03:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are my new hero. Thanks for all the great advice! I most certainly am not Mark Addison, and do have an uncopyrighted photo to add that would indicate that (if you knew what I looked like!). Suffice to say I am not a bald male and he is. I didn't think IMDB was editable by anyone, but that's good to know. I hope I'll be able to substitute those refs, though I'm wondering if I'm overdoing it a bit anyway.
I have written about Mark and many of the cited people before and think he has an interesting story — one that's definitely legitimate enough to be on Wikipedia. (I'm from Pittsburgh, only two hours away from Cleveland, and spent a lot of time there covering the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame, so I relate to his history, and both of us now live in Austin.)
I'd rather not put it out there with a lot of incomplete sourcing or incorrect referencing/punctuation, but I may have to let a few things slide because this thing is so reference- and link-heavy, it's taking forever.
I just have one other big problem: I've been using AP style all of my professional life. My brain cannot handle the concept of putting commas and periods outside of quotes! I know I'll have to go through this and fix that, but it will be very painful.
As for the couple of paywalled articles I need, the issue is that I can't even get into the archives to get the urls. I got copies of the stories from their author, but no actual link. (Like me, he copied stories out of his newspaper archives when he had access, before they all threw up paywalls or killed older content.) I've temporarily put in the info without links, and didn't get red-flagged when I inserted them, but it seems pointless to reference something no one can check. I can screen-shoot what I have, but I don't think that's what you're getting at.
Unfortunately for me and many other journalists, most of my career doesn't exist, as far at the internet is concerned. I was a full-time newspaper writer and editor for 20 years; only one of my former employers has online archives that include my work. I wrote for two magazines that are now owned by the same publisher — whose web designer somehow managed to wipe bylines off of every archived story. Ten years down the tubes. But their archives don't even go back far enough to include some of my favorite cover stories. Muckrack may have some, including uploaded PDFs, but I haven't seen any evidence that Wikipedia accepts those.
But I'm glad I'm taking the plunge.
One other question ... I checked pages by someone I know is paid to write entries, and she linked to pages on every mention of something like "Austin, Texas." There's no need to repeat links on each mention of a name or place, correct? TexasEditor1 (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TexasEditor1 Yeah, I'm glad I can help! And no worries lol, no need for the photo, I trust that you are (or in this case, aren't) what you say you are/aren't (man that's awkwardly worded).

I think the tough thing to wrap the head around is that this isn't one's job (usually). If you handed in a half done article to your boss, I imagine they'd look at you like you have three heads and tell you to go and finish it. But if you went to a food drive and contributed several dozen cans of food but didn't have any fresh fruit to give, no one would turn you away or think you did less than was required, you know? Same here (but see below about being paid for writing).

Haha I hear you, it's tough to change those habits. I'm a double-space after period person and changing that here was difficult lol. But wiki has introduced me to the day-month-year format and I really appreciate that. I don't think most of us in America have much exposure to that format.

Hmm....I see your point. I agree that archives of old magazines and newspapers not being available is frustrating. Only 20 years ago most libraries kept archives on microfilm but I'm not sure about that anymore. I was looking for a tag that would mean something like "need help getting a URL to this source that I have in my hands but can't find online" but the closest I could find was {{dead link}}. And I think that's 'cause if the source was published, it can be used, regardless of whether it's easily accessible by internet or to the average user (so there's no tag for this kind of case because there's nothing that needs to be fixed with such a citation). The fact that it would be hard to even get a hardcopy of the source complicates it a bit (Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Indicating_availability).

But if you have a physical copy of the newspaper article, you could upload it into an archive (like internet archive which has a place for these kinds of uploads). If you can scan in the article with enough of the rest of the newspaper visible to identify that it is a legit newspaper, I think it should be adequate. Just include the archive link in your citation and you would be good.

I wasn't familiar with Muckrack before but it seems that there was some discussion about it and it was decided that if the articles/uploaded pdfs are listed on a verified journalists' accounts (possibly even your own account if yours is verified), it's ok to use. If you could upload it to both Muckrack and Internet Archive, I think that'd be even better! Internet archive because if Muckrack ever goes belly up, there'll still be a copy on the former. And uploading it to Muckrack (if you have a verified account) gives it even more authenticity because the article will be linked to a verified account (yours). And I definitely sympathize with you. I think most people don't realize how much journalism changed with the rise of the internet and the impact it had on journalists whose shoe-leather journalism was paid for by the newspaper's revenue. I dunno if that revenue has returned with digital advertising on news sites but I hope it has.

One thing you can do is put up your thoughts/concerns about the sources in the article's talk page. Hopefully, other editors who may disagree or have issues with some of your edits will see your notes in the discussion page and you can talk it out there, avoiding an edit war.

You mentioned it in passing but conflict of interest with being paid to write an article is a complicated issue and way out of my depth. I don't know if that's your situation (or if you're writing purely for satisfaction) but there are guidelines on that here WP:PAY. If you are writing just for enjoyment, you can ignore that.

But as far as including links for every single mention of a thing that has a wiki article, yeah, you don't have to do every single one. My preference is to do it like I would an abbreviation of an acronym--include the link for the first use of it in the article and maybe in later uses if you think a reader might have jumped to that point in the article without seeing the previous link. For example, Austin, Texas is mentioned earlier in the article as where Joe Schmoe did a lot of his early performances. But later on, in the Personal life section, Austin, Texas is also mentioned because it's where he settled down in his 40s and it would be fine to include the link there as well. But there's guidelines on that here and here as well.

On that note, I'll say that it is sometimes hard to find the guidelines because wiki has both the public facing articles and the "behind the curtain" guideline and discussion pages and it's often hard to specify which one you're searching for. I might search for "wikipedia spaces after period" but search results would give me the wiki article about sentence spacing while the page about wikipedia's preferred style for editors might be buried in the later search results (though in this case they're not). One thing you can do is use wikipedia's search function and, when you're looking at the search results, click the bar that says "Search in:", which is two lines below the blue Search button. You can untick the Articles box and tick the Discussion and General help boxes so you're looking only at the behind the scenes stuff. I also often use and search for "wikipedia guidelines xyz" or "wikipedia manual of style xyz". Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 18:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! That pay reference was to another writer's work; I've read the cautions but I'm not getting paid for this. I somehow did start it as an article for consideration but I was following prompts and I'm not sure why that showed up. I pasted some copy in from a Word document that I'm now concerned could have been read as a copy-and-paste of source material, because I had copied a different Wikipedia page into Word to use as a template long before I actually tried to enter my copy on Wikipedia. When I did, I copied and pasted from my Word page — with new copy instead of the original I'd copied. But I suppose that might have complicated my effort.
I have definitely noticed what a labyrinth Wikipedia is regarding guidelines, guides, etc. I found one page titled "The Missing Manual." Except it's not a page. It's a book!
I have jpg and PDF copies of the clips in question. But I need to verify they exist in the Cleveland Plain-Dealer archive, and that's proving troublesome. If I lived in Ohio, I could access them through the library system there. My library card is expired; there's nothing in the wayback machine for these articles and this is getting incredibly frustrating for an ADD-afflicted person. I don't even know if I'd be allowed to upload individual 28-year-old articles published by a newspaper because they may still hold the copyright.
Plus, I can't find a way to upload them to I set up an account, but of course, their link to "getting started with uploading" comes up as a 404 error. Everywhere I turn, there's another freakin' roadblock!
As for Muckrack, I can't load someone else's work onto my page ..
I know is a legit reference source because I see it all the time in Wikipedia, but how about discogs? TexasEditor1 (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TexasEditor1, discogs is generally unreliable as its content is user-generated - see its entry on the perennial sources list. And you're correct about the newspaper articles probably still being under copyright, but you don't need to upload copies; you can simply cite them using the info you have and {{cite news}}. (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The stumbling block here is that the articles came from the Cleveland Plain-Dealer newspaper reporter who wrote them. I have a pdf of a clip and a Word doc of the text as it appeared in the paper's archive years ago. I don't have a url, and he no longer has access to that archive — which may not even have those 28-year-old clips. Several years back, the company where I held my last full-time newspaper job decided to wipe its archives of anything before 2000 — thereby removing all evidence of my 5½ years there. (I left in 1999.) That's the situation for about 70 percent of my decades-long journalism career. Only one newspaper out of several for which I worked full time is archived. All of the bylines for two magazines I contributed to regularly for 10 years were wiped by an incompetent web designer. I wrote for Rollingstonedotcom for six years; they archived about six of my stories. This is typical for many veteran journalists, and terribly depressing.
But the Cleveland Public Library apparently has a Plain-Dealer archive accessible by cardholders or Ohio residents. I'm working on having someone access it for me.
Still, if I can't use Discogs or IMDb (which I saw on someone's page just yesterday), that eliminates two information sources I used to electronically confirm information from actual CDs and non-archived clips. So do I cut information that makes this page more complete — especially the discography I spent ages putting together — or do I leave it on there amid enough other solid references that support my overall credibility as an information gatherer?
~~~~ TexasEditor1 (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TexasEditor1, unfortunately, yes - cut the information if you can't properly source it. But I'm not sure you quite understood what I said above; sources do not need to be in online archives. You don't need to provide a url. If you have an article title, publication name, and publication date, you have enough. (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't pick up on that, but thank you very, very much. Because I just learned the Ohio library has the clips in question on microfilm, not electronically stored. TexasEditor1 (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, you don't need to electronically confirm information you get from CD jackets and the like. Those are primary sources which can be cited like any other primary source. Quoting from our policy: "For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TexasEditor1 Sorry, I didn't see this post! Ughh, I feel your pain, wikipedia can be....dangerous for those of us with executive function issues. I think the copy pasting you did was fine and won't be thought of as plagiarizing since you're replacing the text with your own content. I have to do it all the time when my wiki code doesn't work and I'm not sure why lol.

Haha I see what you mean with the Missing Manual, that there's the wiki article on the book and a wikipedia style guide page that gives instructions/advice on editing articles. And if you search for The Missing Manual wikipedia on , they show up right next to each other.

I was away for a bit but I'm sorry for the confusion about online sources. The other editor w/ IP is correct, you don't have to have the source available in an online archive or accessible via internet. Like, if it was in any recently written book, no one expects there to be access to it online (unless you buy the ebook). Same thing for the newspapers and the CD jackets (I didn't know that policy). If you could upload pictures of them, that'd be nice and all but it's definitely not necessary. I'm really sorry if I gave the impression that you absolutely had to upload them :( ). If something was printed/published/exists, you can cite it.

My nitpickiness about having archived links is because, for a lot of the sources I usually use, they're online only and/or unlikely to have remaining physical copies. When a website goes down or undergoes renovation, unless someone archived those pages, that stuff is gone. With books and CD covers, there are generally still copies floating around that someone could get hold of if they wanted to. Since I'm writing about military stuff, if the manufacturer takes the specifications or descriptions down from the website, the only other sources out there would be the technical manual, the item itself, or company/government records. Access to those can be difficult.

One other reason I like archives is that they're useful for clarifying things. Like, if I see something that's written in a way that's not incorrect but is frustratingly vague, I'll want to look at the source it's citing. So that's where I'm coming from. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 04:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks … I'm using visual editor, which creates most of my references automatically. You're suggesting I back up any possibly ephemeral refs by uploading screenshots to the Web archive. So anything that has an archive page will link to that page instead of the original … TexasEditor1 (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing what I believe to be a mistake[edit]

A page has a person's birth and death dates. I believe the death date to be incorrect based on personal knowledge. I will have to do further research to determine the actual death date. I am basing this on the fact my father, a minister, did the person's funeral. He moved from the town where it is listed the man died 4 years before the death date listed in the man's biography. Should I wait til I have proof (not sure how to proceed?) Stevem451512 (talk) 03:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would absolutely do that. Anything you add based on what you personally know is unlikely to survive being challenged by another editor; an edit with a published source is almost guaranteed to survive. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Stevem451512 Just to add to the sound advice by @Jéské Couriano, there could be times - and this might be one of them- where simply leaving a note on the talk page of the article to explain what you think to be an error, and why, whilst at the same time making it clear you recognise the article can't be changed based on your knowledge. That might, in future years, be a useful prompt for someone to go digging into published sources or obituary notices. Without that slight niggle being flagged up, they might never think to investigate further. But no changes should be made to the article itself, and I'm assuming that a source is actually given for that ostensibly erroneous date? If not, you could flag it as {{dubious}}, too. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You need to add a newspaper reference confirming the date, which I have done. Broichmore (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with Nick about noting this for the record. Stevem451512, every content page has a corresponding "talk" or "discussion" page. Even if there is no immediate discussion, concerns about factual inaccuracies can be recorded there permanently for future reference. In this case you would go to Talk:Earl Marlatt, add a new section, give it a heading like "Date of death", and post your comment below. (The process of adding a new section should now be similar to how you posted your Teahouse question, but if you run into difficulties, please post back here and someone will assist.) Hope that helps! ⁓ Pelagicmessages ) 22:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

European Collectivity of Alsace[edit]

Departmental councils of Bas-Rhin and Haut-Rhin were replaced by Assembly of Alsace in January 2021 but in the articles on Departmental council (France) and List of presidents of departmental councils (France), the change isn't mentioned; no note that specifies that such a change occured or no addition or replacement in the table. So what should be done? Same is with the councils of Haute-Corse and Corse-du-Sud, they were replaced by the Corsican Assembly. Also to make it clear that these departments still exist, but their legislatures were replaced. Excellenc1 (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellenc1, I suggest that you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France. -- Hoary (talk) 05:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary, I did ask, but the problem with talk pages is that they take forever to reply. Excellenc1 (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I started to reply here, but instead posted at the Wikiproject, where it won't be archived so quickly. Short answer: I think it's worth mentioning under History, and updating the lead paragraph. Thanks for bringing it to wider attention, I have started to learn about these special Assemblies in the process! ⁓ Pelagicmessages ) 23:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I newcomer in Wikipedia, but I'd like insert chemical and physic equation in wikipedia page. I can't wait to collaborate with all of you. OrlanC (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@OrlanC: Math equations here use LaTeX markup. See WP:MATH for details. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@OrlanC: For chemistry, I suggest you read MOS:CHEM and perhaps include yourself in our Project WP:CHEMS. Welcome to Wikipedia editing! Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell keeps tagging my sandbox as a WP:FAKEARTICLE?[edit]

I made a sandbox basically just saying 'Wikipedia, The Free Enyclopedia' and someone added a {{db-u1}} tag up the article. It's not even a fake article. Of course, as expected, it got deleted just today. I swear someone here is trolling me. Oh and by the way if you don't know what {{db-u1}} is it's a tag for fake articles or hoaxes, and once added will alert the administrators of wikipedia to delete it. Ryj430 (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You added it, both times EvergreenFir (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ryj430. I think you are mistaken. {{db-u1}} is to do with requesting deletion of a personal user page (See WP:U1), which you placed, twice. Hoaxes and fake articles are {{db-g3}} (See WP:G3). Aidan9382 (talk) 05:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some random IP user left a message on my talk page that it is a fake article. They said i should add the {{db-u1}} tag to the top of the page to be deleted. Ryj430 (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one else "tagged" your sandbox. An IP left a message on your Talk page (incorrectly) claiming that it was a fake article, and you added the {{db-u1}} tag in response. The {{db-u1}} tag indicates that the creator of the page is requesting its deletion. It was subsequently deleted in response to your request.General Ization Talk 05:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like it said, i recently made a sandbox basically saying 'Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia' and when i came back there was a {{db-u1}} tag up there. Of course, as expected it got deleted within a few days. Ryj430 (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The IP's motive for posting the erroneous message on your Talk page will not be known to anyone here. As for how the {{db-u1}} was added to the page, your own response to the IP said you were going to add it, and the page history indicated that you were the one who did so. It would seem the best thing to do at this point would be to either recreate the page if you wish to, or don't. General Ization Talk 05:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@General Ization and @Ryj430, I am the IP who left the message, and it was not erroneous - @Ryj430 had been repeatedly posting an elaborate fake article in their sandbox, which I noticed after they asked a question here. I added the alert to their talk page and they {{db-u1}}'d the sandbox. They then re-created their sandbox page with innocuous content and {{db-u1}}'d that too. I do agree that something odd is going on. (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The IP editor is correct, and the account by Ryj430 is incomplete and misleading. As an administrator, I can view the deleted content. Ryj430 wrote a totally fake article about the nonexistent "Battle of Egastura Strait". Please explain yourself, Ryj430. Cullen328 (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What i mean here is that i recently just made a sandbox basically saying 'Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia' and it had a {{db-u1}} tag when i came back. And as expected, it got deleted a few days later. I would like to know who is doing this. Ryj430 (talk) 06:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. IT WAS MY LITTLE BROTHER WHO {{DB-U1}}'D THE SANDBOX.. I'm sorry for the inconvenience and i truly apologize. I'm sorry. Ryj430 (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was my little brother who keeps adding the tags. Thank you for alerting me. He's gonna pay for this. I apologize for this inconvenience. Ryj430 (talk) 06:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know how you feel. When I was younger, my little brother repeatedly fed my homework to the dog. Jokes aside, I imagine that you will now take steps to keep you brother out of your account. ;) ⁓ Pelagicmessages ) 00:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My student and I both tried submitting an article on an investor he did in depth research on[edit]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Brett Coulter
At first, the draft was declined for being advertisement and my student tried making it sound unbiased as did I. And once again it was rejected, would anyone mind reviewing the draft if i post it here Professor Benjamin Caldwell P.H.D. (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has been reviewed a number of times, declined, rejected and deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Professor Benjamin Caldwell P.H.D.: There's too much info that's either trivial or not about him. Also, the constant use of the personal "Brett" is jarring and unencyclopedic. Blow it up and try again, with the 8-10 best independent third party sources about him, and include only info that is in the sources. Avoid editorializing or explaining the underlying economic situation. You're probably only going to get one more chance, so good luck! You can always ping me for feedback before resubmitting. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Professor Benjamin Caldwell P.H.D. Note that the draft was rejected, not declined. Declined means the article is not suitable for mainspace at the moment. This means that after making edits to fix the problems, you may resubmit the article for review. If the article is rejected, the draft cannot be resubmitted unless you completely rewrite the draft. I recommend complete rewrite of the article, also check Wikipedia:GNG to make sure the article is notable. Urban Versis 32KB(talk | contribs) 19:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Professor. I'm afraid that you and your student are making the common but wrong assumption that Wikipedia is at all interested in what the subject (or their associates) wants the world to know about them: it isn't. It is only interested in what people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about them (in reliable places). So, for example, the section about The John Thiessen Charity does not belong in an article about Coulter unless somebody unconnected with Coulter or the charity has published an article talking about his contribution to it. ColinFine (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A student and a professor, "P.H.D." (!), worked on this article? It's strange that we don't see any sign of the "student" in the revision history. With its random capitalization, a sentence fragment with no verb and no period (full stop) in the very lede, bad punctuation such as using a semicolon where a colon was clearly called for, as in "creating new securities that were sold in a variety of packages known as;" followed by a list, writing "Than in 2002 CEO Sanford I. Weill & Citicorp CEO John S. Reed..." when "Then" was meant, all just for starters, this submission is terribly written. It's hard to believe anyone could think this is a good piece of work; it's almost as if the "author" didn't read it. Carlstak (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or they read it but don't have a firm command of the intricacies of English grammar. Either way, it's not a good look. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the terrible grammar, the bulk of this massively refbombed spam fest is actually unsourced - the sources included are not about the subject, even remotely, save for maybe 5. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you thinking what I'm thinking, that "school project" is a ruse, the "student" doesn't exist, and that Caldwell should be required to disclose their association with Coulter or any firm he may have hired for PR? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was thinking, but I was trying to be polite, which took a real effort with this shoddy bit of work. I also noticed that the editor uploaded images as his own work under the name CitiGroupREP, as PRAXIDICAE pointed out. Pretty lame. I'm glad that this person has been indefinitely blocked for advertising, so that we don't waste any more time with it. Carlstak (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Professor Benjamin Caldwell P.H.D.: Sort of beside the point at hand, but you might care to know that the letters you're appending to your name are supposed to stand for "philosophiae doctor," that being Latin for Doctor of Philosophy. So the correct abbreviation might be PhD or Ph.D., but it would NEVER be P.H.D. The Ph. together stands for something; the H. by itself does not. You might want to, uhm, have a look at your diploma and see how the, uhm, granting institution of higher learning presents it. Then get all your checks and business cards reprinted, to avoid professional embarrassment. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Funny comment about the, uhm, diploma. (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea but the original "student" editor uploaded all the images as their own work under the name CitiGroupREP. I've culled the article down to the sources that actually mention him. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(!) indeed, @Carlstak. Anyone who has a Ph.D. should know how to spell Ph.D. (there are two accepted ways). P.H.D. is, of course, not one of the ways. (talk) 04:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't see @User:AzseicsoK's post (talk) 04:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: OP has been indefinitely blocked for advertising. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot create an article[edit]

[3] shows me as an 'extended confirmed user'. I had understood that that allowed me to create an article. I have created articles or redirects many times in the past - see [4]. However, when I recently tried to do so, I got a message that "The page ... does not exist. You can create a draft and submit it for review, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered." Can anyone shed any light on why this is, or what has changed? Thanks in advance. Alekksandr (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Either the title is full-protected (more likely) or the title is blacklisted. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. However, the same thing happens no matter which title I use for an article. I discovered the problem when I tried to create "Ards (Parliament of Ireland constituency)." Can you give me a link to what "full-protected" means in this context? Thanks in advance. Alekksandr (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alekksandr, If you make a link on your userpage to yourarticlename can you then click the link and edit from there? Slywriter (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Realized you named the article, I have no issue trying to edit Ards (Parliament of Ireland constituency) Slywriter (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that worked. I seem to be able to create articles using that method, but not by searching for the title. Alekksandr (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alekksandr, when the search returns "The page name does not exist", the name portion should be in red. Click the red link to open that page, then just add your content and save/publish. Schazjmd (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Alekksandr (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanished user become unvanished but still named Vanished user xxx[edit]

Not sure if this is the right venue to ask this question, I came upon Vanished user 2904001 editing on Im Nayeon and N yesterday. They also created a redirect IM NAYEON on the same day. And looking at their contribs, user became Vanished user on 6 October 2021 but 15 days later, user edited Blue Banisters, then around 8 months (yesterday) later, they edit the two articles mentioned earlier. Should their username be rename back to their pre-vanished username, if so where can I ask them to go to as I think they don't seem to be aware of? Paper9oll (🔔📝) 05:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editors can call themselves whatever they want, subject to certain restrictions set out in the Wikipedia:Username policy. If you think their name is confusing or violates that policy by all means discuss it with them on their Talk page. Shantavira|feed me 08:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shantavira According to Special:PageHistory/User talk:Vanished user 2904001, their username was renamed on 6 October 2021 as mentioned above which goes against point 6 of WP:MISLEADNAME hence Editors can call themselves whatever they want, subject to certain restrictions set out in the Wikipedia:Username policy doesn't make sense as they can't request themselves to be renamed to "Vanished user xxx". Paper9oll (🔔📝) 09:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:RTV "f the user returns, the "vanishing" will likely be fully reversed, the old and new accounts will be linked, and any outstanding sanctions or restrictions will be resumed". DuncanHill (talk) 10:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to deal with someone following me around and being disruptive[edit]

Hello. I am a Japanese and have been trying to edit articles on Wikipedia regarding Japanese topics that have serious issues due to lack of editors with knowledge on the topics: Many such articles have been allowed to present false and at times outlandishly ridiculous information at times. Fixing these requires some drastic measures due to how bad the articles are (WP:BOLD). However, another user has been following me around to multiple articles and questioning my edits, disrupting my efforts at every step. This has happened multiple times. I brought this up before and their excuse was that they were watching the pages I'm editing to begin with, but in the latest instance doujinshi convention almost nobody had been editing the article, and that user only started to appear after I started work on it. Furthermore, I stopped editing it after I got sick of having to deal with them, and they immediately stopped editing it too, giving me the impression that their sole purpose on that article was to interfere with my edits. This user has also gone around accusing me of being a sockpuppet and claiming that I'm pushing original research (for making factual statements which are easily verified, or questioning ridiculous statements which are obviously false). My edits to remove false and at times plainly nonsensical statements was met with them insisting that statements with sources cannot be removed, my edits to add the most basic of information were met with reverts and accusations of using original research. Even if I was unable to add a source at the time for this basic information, would it not be better to leave the statement and just add a citation needed tag so that someone else might be able to add a source in the future? I want to add that the sort of edits they have done to the articles I tried to work on seem to show that they have no experience or knowledge regarding the topics at all, so I really don't see any reason why such a person should keep trying to disrupt my efforts. It would be one thing if someone with knowledge is arguing a different point of view, but that is not the case here. The only justification they offer is "that's how it's done on Wikipedia" and insisting that if a statement has a source then it cannot be removed, no matter how obviously ridiculous the statement. Is this not WP:HOUND, if not outright harassment? 2404:2D00:5000:701:EC0C:C140:2DBA:4512 (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken about how Wikipedia works. Articles should be based on reliable published sources, not on the beliefs of editors. If a statement is contested, and no source is cited for it, it should be removed until a source can be found. Statements that are supported by reliable sources should be retained, until better sources that contradict them can be found. Maproom (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, if you can show that a source has been used which does not support the statement, then it's perfectly OK to remove it. I'd then advise making a clear EDITSUMMARY to explain why you've removed it. And even think about making an explanation in the article's talk page. That way your actions are covered, and the other editor is required to explain/justify why they disagree with your actions. Everything here is recorded, so you can use that to your advantage if every step you make is explained and justifiable. Sadly, rather like racism in the real world, Wikipedia editors tend to distrust IP editors. That is unfair, so to counteract that horrible bias, do be as clear and careful as possible in each step you take. Registering for a free account is certainly a good idea, but by no means essential. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have always detailed my edits and explained them in detail on the talk pages of articles I edit. The user who is following me around frequently reverts my edits without looking at them. This same user has been previously warned for falsely accusing me of being a sockpuppet, and still follows me around to disrupt my edits and go around posting on talk pages gaslighting me. When I previously pointed out they were following me around, they said I am editing articles that they were watching to begin with. But they do not edit the articles until I touch them, only start to do so to disrupt me when I do, and then cease editing the articles immediately after I stop. It seems to me this user is only doing this to spite me, perhaps because I called them out for the false sockpuppet accusation and they took offense at being called out. Can nothing be done about this? 2404:2D00:5000:701:445E:364:385F:B1EC (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, IPv6 user. Whilst in no way taking sides with anyone, the answer is 'Yes' there is a way for anyone having evidence of another user WP:HOUNDING them to get action taken. First off, it's always wise to try to engage and directly question another editor on their talk page about their interactions with you.
So, imagine if I were the one causing you a problem, there could easily be a misunderstanding that a conversation with me on my talk page could help us resolve. Have you tried doing that? Always be polite, reasonable and attempt to understand my viewpoint, whilst also carefully explaining yours to me. Give WP:DIFFS to show what you did and why, and offer further diffs to show what I did to revert and how it might appear that I'm following you around in an unacceptable manner. Then let me explain what I was doing, and why. Talking is cheap, and should be easy between just two people.
Having failed to resolve your concerns with me, you could then take the big step of making a complaint against me at WP:ANI. Again, we would require you to provide clear evidence via DIFFS of the edits you made an an IP and or registered user, and further DIFFS to demonstrate why my actions were incompatible with expected behaviour, and that I'm clearly hounding you.
Expect to not only have their edits looked at, but all yours, too. (This, for example, is not the best way to leave messages as you've made accusations yourself about another editor having 'victims'.) Because you have an IPv6 address, your actual Ip address changed all the time within the /64 range, so it's hard for me to use an editor interaction tool for me to quickly check. I assume much of the issues you are concerned about happened here? Other users will come in and look at all those diffs and offer their views, and an administrator may then decide no action is needed, or take appropriate action against either party - or both in some cases. One or both parties might need to consider the outcome and modify their behaviour according to the expectations we have of collegiate working.
You should be aware that if someone makes bold edits to clear up issues ("drastic measures" you called them, above), then it often happens that other editors think they are being made in bad faith. They may then check up on future edits that that person makes to ensure no harm comes to other articles. (I do that kind of thing all the time if I spot unusual edits being made that make me question the reason for them) If you continue acting 'boldly', but without clear explanations, then it's normal for another editor to keep a gentle eye on your edits for a while until they're reassured.
Your own contributions across multiple addresses in the range do show that you don't often leave edit summaries. When we see an IP address doing that, it does tend to add to any suspicion of a bad faith edit, even if it actually wasn't justified. So always try to be clear with every edit summary what it is you're doing, and why. Discuss [WP:BOLD]] changes on an article talk page first and gain consensus for them, if you can. It would help if you were to register for a free user account here, but that is not obligatory. If you do already have a user account, you should not be editing from an IP address as well, especially if it comes across on a talk page that you are two people, when you're only actually one. I hope this helps a bit. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to indetify reliable sources.[edit]

Hello at everyone on the Teahouse community. I am a newcomer to Wikipedia & I was wondering how can I identify credible third party sources? What should I look out for? and what are some good things to know? Thx so much in advance. Skywalker 1000 (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skywalker 1000 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read about reliable sources for more information, but in short, you want sources that have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control- in other words, they shouldn't have a reputation of making things up, or of reporting without checking their information. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please review Jean-René Lecerf?[edit]

I recently added a ton of stuff to this article, so just to assure myself that there are no problems with it, can someone please review the article once? Thank you. Excellenc1 (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a reviewer, but it looks good to me. Do we really need three pictures of him? He looks the same in all of them, and they're all from 2009. Maproom (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Maproom, I didn't think of that but maybe I'll keep it because the article looks pretty boring otherwise. Excellenc1 (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please can someone help with my citation error at John Middleton (giant)[edit]

I've just attempted to add an existing reference to a sentence at John Middleton (giant) and in doing so have created the error message "Cite error: The named reference "bbc" was defined multiple times with different content". I've read the help page but to be honest I didn't understand it...I suspect it's a simple fix but it's beyond me! (This is why I usually stay away from referencing).

Please could someone have a look at it for me? Princess Persnickety (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PrincessPersnickety, fixed. The BBC ref had already been defined, all you needed to do was call it like this: <ref name=bbc />. Schazjmd (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Schazjmd - I think I must have been missing the space before the slash as nothing was looking right in the preview! I appreciate the speedy response :) Princess Persnickety (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


It would be interesting to know how popular the G7 leaders are back home. Could it be that we are pushed to ww3 by leaders who do not enjoy a majority at home? Regit321 (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Regit321: Welcome to the Teahouse. Did you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Regit321. However interesting your question is, I'm afraid that it is not appropriate here on the Teahouse. In fact, I don't think it's appropriate anywhere in Wikipedia, which is an encyclopaedia, not a forum for discussion. ColinFine (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The question may be asked in Quora. (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:India-related topics in Philippines[edit]

Please can someone work out why and fix the in-template edit of Template:India-related topics in Philippines opens Template:India-related topics in Philippines topics to be edited instead of Template:India-related topics in Philippines -- PBS (talk)▪ PBS (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PBS Fixed, this template uses {{Country topics}} as a base, which assumes the template title will be of the form "Template:[Country] topics". I've added a |template_name parameter to override this. (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. — PBS (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PBS FYI, I've opened a discussion at the template talk page to try to figure out why this template has such a complex method of filling in the "template name" parameter. (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thelma Montgomery[edit]

i'd like to look into 1950's LA model & actress Thelma Montgomery.She was in(1954)Girl Gang movie;a 50's low budget reefer/crime movie that's hilarious by todays standards. Film2buff (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Film2buff: Wonderful! Maybe you'll be able to gather multiple independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of her, and determine whether she meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article, and be prepared for a process that may include waiting for review, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link: Girl Gang. I notice that the IMDB (not a Reliable source, but usually indicative), has no information about her other than her appearance (as an un-named "Gang girl") in this one movie, which is not a good sign for her notability as an actress. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 07:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is an active WikiProject listed as defunct when its WikiProject template is placed on other pages[edit]

Hello, I was looking at the Abortion in Kentucky article, which is in need of copyediting, and on the talk page Talk:Abortion in Kentucky I noticed the Wikipedia:WikiProject Abortion banner at the top says "(defunct)". This struck me as very odd, given that abortion is a very active topic at the center of many ongoing political events in the United States currently (July 2022) and I would expect this WikiProject to be very active.

When I checked the Wikipedia:WikiProject Abortion page, it had |status=active at the top of the page, indicating this is an active wikiproject:

However, when the wikiproject template {{WikiProject Abortion}} is transcluded on other pages, the WikiProject is listed as (defuct), see for example

Can someone please explain why the template {{WikiProject Abortion}} lists the WikiProject as defunct, while the WikiProject page Wikipedia:WikiProject Abortion itself is tagged as active?


-- Charlesreid1 (talk) 04:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Figured it out: the status=active on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Abortion page was not reflected in the template, which had manually set status=defunct. I was able to correct this. Yay!!! -- Charlesreid1 (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page mentions a discussion where this WikiProject was considered for deletion in March 2021, but the outcome of the discussion was Keep. Guess the template was not updated? Anyway fixed now. -- Charlesreid1 (talk) 04:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

how to source old audio (AIR - all india radio) and television interviews[edit]

The article i've submitted was rejected for the "significant coverage" required while, most related articles are on television/audio dated long ago, where social media wasn't as prevalent as today. How do i source it? Normalcy (talk) 07:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Normalcy: Welcome to the Teahouse! Try {{cite episode}} to cite television and radio episodes. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to VfD a page[edit]

How do I list a page for deletion on VfD here? I tried {{vfd-new}} but it didn't work. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on what kind of page it is, Ilovemydoodle. Take a look at Template:Deletion tools. -- Hoary (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teal Swan Article[edit]

I have been looking at the Teal Swan article to see if there are things that need to be changed or made better and I noticed that the discussion that took place said that the article should be deleted and that was in 2015 and the article has not been deleted so do I just leave it alone and not do anything to it? I just dont want to be against policy so that is why I am asking, OhioGirl42986 (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OhioGirl42986, the current version of Teal Swan was created in 2018. There have been many edits to it since then; an unusually high proportion of them have been reverted. Very few Wikipedia articles are perfect, and this one has room for improvement. But I see you've made few contributions to articles, so I'd advise you to keep away from this controversial subject until you have more experience. Maproom (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name change[edit]

 – Heading added by Tenryuu.

I am trying to change the name of the rock pile to Georgia Falls my niece drown there june 7 2017 i have a love hate relationship woth the place but she absolutely loved it there.i was told on 2017 o had to wait 5 years its been 5 years ive contacted ngon through email and cant seem to get anywhere if its a process or a something i need that will take time i would like to get it started ive seen where they've vhanged road names for people who died on the street.please contact me with information on what to can research it Georgia faith Myrick drown at the rock pile june 7th 2017 at the age of 12 (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. If you're trying to change the title of an article on Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Article titles to see what is considered when determining a title, especially Wikipedia:Common names. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello IP editor. I am very sorry for your loss, but Wikipedia has no ability to make name changes, other than to reflect and follow what public usage shows. Thus Kiev was changed here to Kyiv, following world-wide use of the Ukrainian spelling, evidenced by that spelling being adopted in mainstream media. Should a community agree to change a placename, we might follow in due course, but not usually immediately. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Policies and guide on defunct Wiki pages[edit]

Hello, for non-mainspace wiki pages (pages within the internal workings of Wikipedia, such as essays, user pages, policy pages, project pages, and a long etcetera) is there an information page or policy page that provides an overview of Wikipedia's approach to preservation and deletion/cleanup of those old pages? I have come accross bits and pieces in different places. For example, the existence of the Template:Historical. Or, the Template:Deceased Wikipedian and related Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines. I have found lots of "breadcrumbs" of information about it, but never an overarching explanatory/policy article. Is there one? I am not a newbie but there is still so much I don't know and I am wondering if someone here can shed some light on this question. Also, if this is a question better addressed in a different forum, I'd welcome you pointing me in the right direction. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Al83tito I think WP:HISTORICAL and WP:HISPAGES are the information you are looking for? (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ thank you for your response. I was seeking a more overarching policy (for example, I think the two links you kindly point to are silent about what is the policy on retaining userpages of deceased wikipedians). I am finding bits and pieces here and there, but not a unified policy or explainer page on long-term preservation of old/defunct pages. If someone knows if this is indeed the case (that there isn't a comprehensive page on the topic) or the opposite, I'd appreciate dropping a note here. Thanks! Al83tito (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe consensus is to leave them alone. Hoary may be able to provide better insight. Slywriter (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who, me? Speaking as somebody who's old and defunct, my reaction is "If there seems to be (or likely to be) a problem arising from this, then what's the problem; and if there isn't, then why worry about the matter?" (Life's too short....) -- Hoary (talk) 07:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question about sources[edit]

Hello, may I use Britannica as a source if I support it with aditional sources ? I have found it here on WP:RSN that it is realible [[5]] especially if supported by secondary sources, but still I am getting reverted. Theonewithreason (talk) 21:24 03.July 2022 (UTC)

User:Theonewithreason - It would help if you provided a link or diff to the edit that was reverted. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
here is the link [[6]]. Theonewithreason (talk) 00:41 04.July 2022 (UTC)
@Theonewithreason: You were asked to provide a link to the Wikipedia edit that was reverted (not a link to the Britannica source). GoingBatty (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah sorry here is the link [[7]] with my 2 edits one is of Britannica and another from Veselinovic university professor, here is the link where editor reverted me [[8]], I also have one additional source presented on tp that I did not use in editing and one that was removed.Theonewithreason (talk) 01:49 04.July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia search of repetition of a string[edit]

In Wikipedia's search engine, how do I search fo all pages that contain a certain string more than a certain number of times? Like say I wanted to search for all pages that mention the word "cats" many times, how could I search for all pages that contain at least 50 "cats" strings? I have read guides for searching on Wikipedia, but could not find anything describing how to do this. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 02:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd have to do a custom quarry of some sort. PRAXIDICAE🌈 02:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SQLREQ can help/ 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merging to a list article[edit]

Hi. I think that this article is outdated and no longer meets the relevant notability criteria. But the subject is included in a list article, which is fine, so I was going to propose to merge the two. Is this appropriate, and is there anything I need to know about a merger proposal that has a list article as the destination page?

Also, in the merge template itself, I was going to link to a specific section of the destination page. Is that correct? — Matuko (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in an article[edit]

Yes, please, on the article about John Frederick, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach there are, I think 2 errors on his ancestry 10. John George I of Solms-Laubach (= 28.) and 11. Margaret of Schönburg-Glauchau (= 29.). It may be my browser but there is no number higher than 15 on the tree. Thank you, Jeff (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: John Frederick, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach - (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "(=28.)" and "(=29.)" seem to be errors, maybe the result of copying from some other family tree. I'll delete them. Maproom (talk) 07:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tool that lists top contributors to an article?[edit]

The history of a Wikipedia article contains many contributors, most of them are minor (e.g. typo correction or adding a link). Usually there are a handful of major contributors. Is there an automatic way to get a list of major contributors to a Wikipedia page? (This question was first posted here by somoene else, and it is a question I have as well and that I am asking again here. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

here you go. Accessible from page history - view statistics. Slywriter (talk) 04:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]