I am editing content and provide edit summary details. I am experiencing random users (bots?) that are automatically cancelling and reverting out the deleted content. eg. JayCubby, Aggarwala2727. How do I stop this.
Any help would be greatly appreciated as I am a newbie to this.
Please use the article talk page to discuss your edits; also see your user talk page for important information requiring a response. 331dot (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NedScopMCC: Please read the message on your talk page. Don't engage in an edit war. Use the article talk page to get consensus on your edits. 01:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, there are some changes coming to Wikipedia that will hide or obfuscate IP addresses of non-logged-in users. Where can I find more info on that? I tried a couple of shortcuts such as WP:IPMASKING but I couldn't guess the right one. RudolfRed (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RudolfRed Apparently the latest update is from April:[1]. I think this thing has been postponed several times as problems have been pointed out and acknowledged. Don't take my word for it, but I think it started: WMF: Lawyers says we have too, so we're gonna. Community:BUT!!!! WMF:Oh yeah... We'll get back to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have anything specific to add to the page, consider an edit request. If you rather have general sources to add, resort to the article's Talk page.
Please understand that Wikipedia is comprised of millions of editors from all around the world, and content added to articles, especially of contentious topics, will be discussed and consensed. (Wikipedia § Governance) Wikipedia furthermore tries its best to maintain impartiality and promote various viewpoints regarding documented situations.
"During the January 6, 2021 Joint Session of Congress to certify the Electoral College ballots, while tens of thousands peaceful protesters rallied in support of President Trump outside the capitol, chartered vans of Antifa were escorted by state police in black, unmarked SUVs into the midst of the crowd. Capitol Police then removed barriers and waved the crowd in to the Capitol steps. Antifa rioters proceeded to break windows on the U.S. Capitol building and storm the premises."
If you want nonsense like that then Wikipedia is certainly not for you. We are a serious encyclopedia based on reliable sources, not garbage propaganda. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are right wing conspiracy theories that have no basis whatsoever in fact, but are things they need to believe are true to justify Trump losing. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons links
Why are the Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons links no longer part of the English Wikipedia page?
@Mabrndt You may not have noticed the change to the default skin WP:VECTOR22. This places the links to Wikidata at the right-hand "tool" menu of articles (which may be hidden if you prefer). The link to Commons is still within a small box at the foot of the article, at least on my browser. Note also the interlanguage links, now top right. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The wikipedia page on Madision Grant claims he was zoologist and anthropologist. Yet, the man had no such degree. In awarding him with such professional titles wikipedia does academia a wrong. Please correct this page, it misrepresents the true history. 69.1.251.73 (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this is even possible, or if I've been reading the wrong instructional pages. Can one of you modify that reflist to sort the references single column by number of citations, most to least, so that I can see how it is done? If possible to do... -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Very Polite Person, I don't recall ever seeing that as an option or any article which has done that. (To be clear, as current exists, you'd like the Locke source first then Saltz followed by Dilawar and so on?) As far as I know, {{Reflist}} (and the underlying <references> tag) only support ordering the refs in the reference list by order they're first encountered in the body of the article. Is there any particular reason you want to use a non-standard ordering? Or let me/us know if I've misunderstood your question. Skynxnex (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I had no idea and am brushing up on years of IP editing and using wikimedia and similar in private (corp/org) environments. It just seemed to make sense that there would be a "sort by frequency" kind of option, rather than it just being "lands in whatever order"... darn. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's another picture already at Wikimedia Commons, which could easily be substituted. Otherwise, someone will have to upload a picture of you there which is not (too) restricted by copyright. The easiest way is to find someone who has, or is willing to create, a Wikimedia Commons account, and ask them to take a picture of you and upload it there. Otherwise, copyright law makes things more tedious. Maproom (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, please be reassured that every article in Wikipedia is a page, and that the genitive case (as seen in my, your, etc) is used to express any relationship between a noun phrase (me, etc) and a nominal (page, etc). This is most obvious with "birth", "death", "toothache" and the like: I can idiomatically preface any of these with my without any (ridiculous) suggestion that I somehow possess it. Thus "my photo" may mean the photo I possess, the photo I took, the photo taken of me, the photo I'm assigned to investigate, and more; similarly, "my article/page" may mean the one I possess (though this wouldn't be possible in Wikipedia), the one about me, the one I've been working on, and more. So yes, your Wiki page: if you don't like the photo that's currently on Bill Barretta, just ask somebody else to (i) take a better one, (ii) sign up for Wikimedia Commons, and (iii) upload the better photo to Wikimedia Commons. Please don't edit Bill Barretta yourself; instead, post requests or suggestions (such as that the current photo be replaced by such-and-such a freshly uploaded photo) for that page on Talk:Bill Barretta. Thank you for your trouble. -- Hoary (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're not wrong but most casual/irregular visitors in my experience will treat a "page" differently than they would treat an article, and that difference often leads to difficulty for the user, difficulty thst could be somewhat avoided if they had the right mindset early on. Just the way I see it, your mileage may vary. 331dot (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, if I'm not wrong, I hope that it can't also be said of me that I'm "not even wrong". If I were a casual/irregular visitor to this website and were told that the page about me was NOT [so capitalized!] my wiki page, I'd infer that my interlocutor either was somehow deranged or was treating me as an idiot. More generally, somebody coming here to politely ask a reasonable question shouldn't first have to go through some bizarre kind of linguistic purification ritual. I wish Billbarretta19 the best in using Talk:Bill Barretta to prompt disinterested editors to make improvements to his wiki page. -- Hoary (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone's different but I personally appreciate being informed about things like terminology so that I know I'm on the same page as the people I'm talking with.
I also wish Mr. Baretta the best and am a bit surprised that it has not been suggested that he simply upload a selfie which would avoid any copyright difficulties and save him the time of hunting someone down to take a picture of him and having them upload it. 331dot (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're all different? I'm not. How about first an attempt to answer the question or comply with the request, followed by something like "Incidentally, we'd normally call this an article rather than a page"? As for selfies, they can of course be done well, but a large percentage are horrible; and I for one have more success handing my camera to a stranger than I do taking a selfie. (Though a problem is that for the under-25s in my part of the world, even all-automatic models of camera tend to be historical curios belonging with typewriters, slide rules, acetylene lamps, mangles, and so forth.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I just created a Wikipedia page/article in my sandbox and published the changes. However, I don't see the information when I do a search within Wikipedia. Wallaby5312 (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is because the page is still in your sandbox and has not been moved to "mainspace" and become an article. The "publish" button does not publish the article in that obvious sense, it just publishes it in the legal sense of releasing some of your copyright in what you have created. (Yes, that's stupid, but Wikipedia's lawyers insist we do it like that.) However, your sandbox contents fall well short of the Wikipedia requirements for a mainspace article. Maproom (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you click "Search in" and "All" on the search results page then your sandbox does appear. Searches are only in mainspace by default. That's where our encyclopedia articles are. It's called "(Article)" in the "Search in" box. The content of User:Wallaby5312/sandbox is not suited for that. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot that you upload them on the userpage itself, so I uploaded them to the commons instead. I wanted pictures of me and my cats on my userpage. What do I do now? Petjayso (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't add your own pictures, or address or phone number or social media handles. Internet is not a safe place, and anything you save here becomes public and will stay with you your whole life. Let your older self make those decisions for you. — Usedtobecool☎️04:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Petjayso. There is no concept of "uploading a picture to a page". All images must be uploaded to Commons (or in certain circumstances, to Wikipedia itself) and then added to an article or other page. So you did it right! ColinFine (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Thank you all. I assumed that I did it wrong because when you are uploading to the Commons it asks you to upload it only for educational purposes. So I guess its ok if I did it for my userpage only. My cat, that aint for educational purposes. But its alright for my userpage. Am I correct? Petjayso (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I really hate about Wikipedia is the "page previews" functionality. Its rather annoying and rather useless. Worst of all, it can't be turned off, at least not permanently. Sure, you can go to settings turn it off and then save the setting, but its only temporary. Within a few days or weeks, the annoying page previews are back. I truly wish your developers would fix this issue! 69.112.11.174 (talk) 04:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tveol1091: First, this is not the place to raise this issue. Second, you are engaged in a campaign of unexplained changes that to some of us appear unhelpful and disruptive. Third, the section heading you give here is not helpful to anyone. Erictalk15:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have written an extensively expanded article on the educationalist and psychotherapist George Lyward* (3400 words) based on and including the one that is currently there (750 words). This being such a major change I did not want to just plonk it in there without any warning and thought I should run it by a senior editor first. Can you advise me please ? Many thanks.
@Taraxacum44 There are no "senior editors" here, just volunteers, some of whom are more experienced than others. You have not linked your proposed new article, just the existing one, and I don't see anything in your contribution history where the enlarged draft might be. There is no harm in being WP:BOLD and "plonking it in", with a suitable edit summary. If someone objects, they may have to revert the whole of your work rather than attempt to salvage the parts they may be happy with. However, that would just mean you would need to discuss a more incremental approach via the article's Talk Page. See WP:BRD. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My active-duty service ended in 1989 due to a medical retirement. I was broken! I was wounded! I now needed someone to advocate, support, and care for me. I began to uncover and face the abuse I experienced in pursuing my desired career. As a woman, especially of color, these sacrifices made and achievements reached came at a great cost. I didn’t seek it for recognition or glory but simply out of duty and honor for my job to protect our freedom in service to our country. I know firsthand the struggles faced by women who joined the Armed Forces in 1975, often left alone to fight their internal and external battles without the guidance of older female leadership. The struggle can harm one’s physical and mental health without proper support and resources.
I decided to allow my pain to fuel my purpose to help fellow comrades. On February 24, 2010, I founded Freedom Gifts, a 501(c)3 organization dedicated to serving veterans, their families, and their caregivers. Freedom Gifts is a supportive ministry designed to help those who suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Military Sexual Trauma (MST), anxiety, and depression. We aim to provide a loving, understanding, and healing community for veterans. Our outreach programs assist veterans in various areas where they may need advocacy, care, and support. At Freedom Gifts, we communicate and understand the language of service, committing to kindness, respect, honesty, compassion, faith, friendship, and spirituality.
I also focused on advocating for and caring for my close relative, a cousin who was like a nephew. Antonio, fondly known as Tony, lived with me briefly during my military career. I cherish the memories of teaching him how to walk. He joined the Marines and became a veteran grappling with the severe effects of Multiple Sclerosis. Eventually, I brought him into my home to provide him with the needed care and support. I also assisted him in getting his social security and disability benefits. Despite becoming bedridden and losing most of his bodily functions, he had a resilient spirit and managed to smile through his struggles. He took his first steps with me and his last breath in life with me. Providing care for Tony until his passing in 2021 was one of my life’s most rewarding and fulfilling experiences and the ultimate expression of “freedom gifts.”
My faith in God, my family, and the support of my personal angel, Mother Inez Allen, have been instrumental in my success on this journey.
Thank you for visiting our page and learning more about Freedom Gifts. I am grateful for your interest, participation, partnership, and support. Together, we can create a supportive community for our veterans, their families and caregivers, and those who care for them. So, let’s unite in our mission, lighting the path of compassion—because at Freedom Gifts, we’re not just a community, we’re a family. Caroline.j.ashleyy (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for an article titled "Henderson Mill Road" that was posted but subsequently deleted (by the road group - as not notable) some years ago. The local historical society is interested in the research contained within that article. Gulbenk (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gulbenk Like many deleted articles, it has been mirrored to other wikis where it still exists: you can Google for it on everybodywiki, for example (which I'm not allowed to link here). Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a page that provides detailed advice about what an editor should do when they get the message that there is an edit conflict, which is known in computing as a race condition? Although the handling of race conditions on editing talk pages and articles is more robust than it was ten years ago, I still find that sometimes, when I give what I think is the right answer to preserve both the intervening edit and my edit, that either the intervening edit or my edit gets thrown away. The edit conflict screen that is displayed is not self-explanatory. Is there detailed advice on how the second editor should respond to the screen? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: can you provide more detail regarding how the instructions at WP:EDIT CONFLICT, particularly the Layout of the edit-conflict page and Resolving an edit conflict sections, are inadequate? If someone had asked me the question Where do I go to see how to resolve edit conflicts?, I would have linked that how-to-guide without much additional commentary. VQuakr (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:VQuakr - Okay. It says what I have too often found, which is that it is sometimes necessary to save one's changes to the clipboard or to Notepad or Word. (It also briefly annoyed me by describing what happens when Alice has made large changes and Bob has made small changes. I had made large additions and another editor had made a small edition, and I am not Alice.) It appears that there may not have been a right answer for my situation other than saving my changes to Notepad. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I basically agree with you, it is a problem without any good answers, and it isn't the kind of thing where you get a chance to build up skills. There are different sorts of scenarios (e.g. whether you're editing a section or the whole page, what options you have enabled, etc.), and the behavior may depend on your preferences. One strategy that some people may use is just to make small (and hence quick) edits. But it can be annoying when people make many small edits instead of doing them as a single edit.
IMO, if you have an edit that can't be done quickly, the better strategy is to go do your edits outside of the page you're editing. Then when you've figured out exactly what changes you want, copy and paste them to the article you were going to apply those changes to, so that there's negligible chance of having it identified as an edit conflict. Of course, if the original page has changed, you need to figure out how to merge your changes in. Fabrickator (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I tend to use multiple source editing windows instead of notepad, but that's just potato/potahto. Ultimately I think this boils down to working within the limits of the software. In my experience most ECs are easy to resolve by copy/pasting my conflicting comment back into its intended location, but for those few that are more complicated things get messy very quickly. VQuakr (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will also comment, only indirectly related, that there are some race conditions that are not detected as edit conflicts, because they are not the result of two users editing, but of one user editing and another taking some action that is not an edit, usually with Twinkle, or two editors taking different non-edit, such as Twinkle, actions. They are usually easily recognized by an editor who has a computing or electrical engineering background, who will see that they are race conditions, but can be puzzling to other editors. These sometimes happen on New Page Patrol or Articles for Creation, because two editors may see the same article when it becomes available for review. For example, one reviewer tries to nominate an article for deletion while another reviewer is moving the article into draft space, or two reviewers try to accept the same draft at the same time. Usually these collisions are harmless but confusing. Should there be documentation that mentions them? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image Deletion
A bot had deleted my image. They said that I was a copyright violation, but I completely said when uploading the image, I selected "Someone else work". Could someone restore the image and block this user Abzeronow because he definitely deleted it without permission. Here is my image file: c:File:72576978007-halcyon-concept-010724-es-16.webp. ⚒️★MinecraftPlayer★321⚒️ Let's Chat!21:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MinecraftPlayer321. The file was uploaded to Commons and deleted there, so it's out of our jurisdiction. At a glance, it was a good deletion, since it looks like you got the images from a website that is copyrighted. If you're not sure about an image's copyright status, you should ask for help before uploading it. I would be happy to answer questions of that nature to the best of my ability.
There are a lot of rules here, and at Commons, and it's often true that we only learn about them when we accidentally break them. I encourage you to respond with more questions, and less calls for blocking the people that bring the rules to your attention. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commons doesn't accept copyrighted works. Wikipedia doesn't accept copyrighted works unless our use is compliant with the WP:NFCC policy. It's unlikely that copyrighted photos of a car would meet criterion #1, since a copyright-free photo of the car could be created. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We encourage our folks to attend car shows, literary conferences, academic meetings, rock concerts, sport events, county fairs and any other place where pictures of subjects may be taken by people willing to license them for the common good. --Orange Mike | Talk22:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the article on Erich Berneker is pretty much just a translation of the corresponding article on enciklopedija.hr (Hrvatska enciklopedija), which is copyrighted; much the same text is found on ru.wiki too. Does this constitute plagarism and/or a breach of copyright? What should be done about it, if yes? — Phazd (talk|contribs) 23:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phazd: Please investigate further. Our article has been in place since 2014, so there is a possibility that the copy went in the other direction. If by "ru.wiki" you mean the Russian Wikipedia, you can check the creation date there. I don't know about the other one. neither of them is older than ours, as do not need to do anything, but you might put a note on the article's talk page with the results of your investigation. If either if them is older, come back here. -Arch dude (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Phazd. Can you determine whether the content originated on ru.wikipedia.org or on Hrvatska enciklopedija? If the first, then there the only problem is to properly attribute the source. If the second, there may well be a copyright violation. If the content originated on the English Wikipedia, then there is no problem. Cullen328 (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arch dude @Cullen328 It's trivial to prove that the source is Hrv. enc. The earliest version of the WP article on Berneker, from 2014, cites Hrv. enc. at the end of each of its three paragraphs (the editor who created the article is a native Croatian speaker) - it would make no sense for Hrv. enc. to copy from a WP article that is itself entirely sourced from Hrv. enc. Also, the Russian version was created in 2020 by translation from English - it says so in the edit history there... Not to mention Hrv. enc. is a respectable encyclopedia that was published in print before Wikipedia existed; their online text on Berneker has remained nearly unchanged since 2014 - the page was saved on Archive.org immediately after the WP page was created). Since 2014 only one sentence, on Berneker's editorship of "Archiv...", has been added to Hrv. enc. – which is also the only sentence that is missing from the WP article. — Phazd (talk|contribs) 03:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'm sure that this is answered somewhere, but I've not been able to find where.
I had an account several years ago. I no longer know the password. I no longer have access to the email account which was used to set up the account. What are my options? I would like to be able to merge my old account with my new (this one) account. Secret Egypt 2 (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Secret Egypt 2: If you don't recall the password and cannot get password reset in your email, then your only option is a new account. You can add a note to your user page that you previously edited under the old account name. RudolfRed (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Unfortunately, the last time I accessed the old account was in 2019, and I don't have any of my old devices. I'd like to be able to edit my old User Page bio, because it's out of date. I wouldn't mind if an admin just came and deleted the bio.... Secret Egypt 2 (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to, but I received the message "This edit has been prevented because you attempted to edit a user page other than the one associated with your account. Please note that unregistered and newly registered editors cannot modify other editors' user pages. If you would like to contact this editor, please do so at the editor's talk page. If this is your user page, you can log in to edit it." Secret Egypt 2 (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Secret Egypt 2: I think that message is referring to "Autoconfirmed" user right, which happens when your account is at least 4 days old and you have at least 10 edits. You're in that group now, so try again. RudolfRed (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure this has been asked a thousand times before, but I can't find it. In Edward Diethrich, reference 4 is to a magazine which has the date "July/August 2018". That is what is says on the front cover. But it is giving an error "{{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)". Unfortunately, the "help" link does not help with this error. Any suggestions on the best way to handle it? Gronk Oz (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page "Vidyasagar Evening College" needs to be changed to "Vidyasagar Metropolitan College", as the college has changed its name after shifting its working hours. How to change the page name? PushanBanerjee (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think those type of links make any sense, as the table below is sortable, so the "A"s could be anywhere after sorting on the second column. As far as I can tell from the history, that set of links have never worked. Should be removed IMO. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such table TOC's are common for long tables, also when sortable. In this case it was added by an IP [2] who didn't add the corresponding anchors to table rows so it doesn't work. I have therefore removed it [3] but wouldn't object to using {{Compact TOC}} if the required anchors are added. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pelafigue: before you spend any more time on this, please carefully read our notability requirements (WP:N). If a subject is not notable by our definition, no Wikipedia article can exist. Really. It's not what you think is notable, it's what other Wikipedia editors agree is notable. Only after you satisfy yourself that the subject meets these requirements, please come back here fro further information. -Arch dude (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all, I have been experiencing a strange bug as of recently, where sometimes, seemingly completely random as of now, the Wikipedia site only allows me to delete or add 1 single character at a time when editing, and if I try to add or delete more, the site seemingly crashes and reloads automatically, undoing my edits and thus erasing any progress I made. Very, very frustrating. Any tips would be greatly appreciated LoneWolf803 (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to resolve an alignment error in a collapsed infobox section, wherein the attributes added to each collapsed section all appear shifted to the right. (Note that the example shown is significantly condensed). I'm curious as to what I'm doing wrong or if it's an existing issue, as I've seen it occur on other articles using the template. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Krisgabwoosh Looks fine to me (in a laptop Chrome browser), apart from contravening MOS:DONTHIDE. Each section in the box, including the collapsible ones, has a two-column table, with the left column containing the attribute headers (e.g. Preceded by), and the right column their values (e.g. José Tamayo). Each table is 100% wide and columns' widths are automatically determined by the browser to fit their content: the longer the longest attribute, the wider its column. Bazza (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of months ago, I tried to make some revisions on the "Transactional Analysis" page's content. However, wikipedia did not allow me to do this. The reason I wanted to make those revisions was that the content was not good enough, was not updated, did not even include the main and most important subjects about Transactional Analysis and there were also some incorrect contents. When somebody would search for Transactional Analysis to get an idea about what it is, the content he would see would not really reflect what it is about.
First of all, I would like to say that I would do these revisions voluntarily. Of course, I am not an authority on this subject but I did a master in Transactional Analysis, I am a Transactional Analyst (psychotherapist) and also a member of the European Transactional Analysis Association. As the members of this association (we are not getting paid by the association, we are just volunteers) we only want that Transactional Analysis wikipedia page has a better and correct content. This is why I've been trying to make some edits on the page which hasn't worked yet.
Maybe, I could not understand the way Wikipedia work. If this is the case, I would be happy to hear from you whether I would have any other options. I hope that with this message I could explain why I want to edit the content and that you can help me with this. If it is really not possible to edit the current content, can I create a new page with a totally new content about Transactional Analysis? Or do you have any other suggestions? What I want is just that people who are interested in Transactional Analysis get the correct and enough content when they search it on wikipedia.
Many thanks in advance for your support. BowlbyMaya (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BowlbyMaya, this account has only made three edits to that article, all in September of last year. You added some unsourced information and then did some strange things with references and the references section; your edits were reverted for being unsourced (and generally making a bit of a mess). The article has a talk page, Talk:Transactional analysis, where you can suggest and discuss improvements if you'd like. Please remember to cite reliable sources in support of any additions you wish to make. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to update the page dealing with Artibeus lituratus. The distribution list is incorrect. I have performed bat research through the caribbean for 30+ years and have several publications on this matter. I rec'd a message that my edits were of little value and hence dismissed.
Pedersen SC, Kwiecinski GG, Genoways HH, Larsen RJ, Larsen PA, Phillips CJ, & Baker RJ. 2018. Bats of St. Lucia, Lesser Antilles. Special Publications, Museum of Texas Tech University, 69:1-61.
Kwiecinski GG, Pedersen SC, Genoways HH, Larsen PA, Larsen RJ, Hoffman JD, Springer F. Phillips CJ, & Baker RJ. 2018. Bats of St. Vincent, Lesser Antilles. Special Publications, Museum of Texas Tech University, 68:1-68.
IP editor, your first edit added information without including any sources - putting them in the edit summary is not enough. It was reverted. You then made another edit and added sources, but you didn't re-add the information, and you put the references at the very end of the article, breaking the References section in the process. I've made a rough fix, but the references are now hanging out down there without any information to attach them to. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP user (SC Pederson, perhaps?). It's not that we don't want your contributions, but you need to make them according to Wikipedia's procedures. As well as the citation issues that 57.140 mentions, there is another point: adding citations to your own publications is regarded as a conflict of interest, so rather than editing the article directly, you should make edit requests on the article's talk page. ColinFine (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the protocol for which surname to use?
Hello. I am writing an article about Hilary Bradwell / Amis / Bailey / Kilmarnock. She was most well-known as the first wife of Kingsley Amis and mother of Martin Amis but she name changed twice after their divorce. The Guardian obituary called her Hilary Kilmarnock, but several books call her Bradwell. Is there a general rule of thumb for this, please? Thank you BJCHK (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventonYes - that is a bridge I am going to have to work out when I get there. I may well be back here asking about that when the article is published and in need of redirects away from her husbands' articles and to her own.BJCHK (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When attempting to view a recent block log, I can only see filters for the block type (unblock / modify / block etc) and tag. There are options to filter on specific performers and targets, but can't see a way to filter on the *type* of target (i.e. anon vs account).
e.g. if I visit a url such as: [7] there are dozens of entries for ST47ProxyBot (talk·contribs) blocking various proxies which I have to filter through to get a list of accounts being blocked. Are there query parameters to achieve this?
@Joozoon: Hi there! What were the exact steps you followed, and what was the exact error message you received? Were you trying to upload pictures you took with your own camera, or pictures you found on the Internet? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I've been a donor to Wikipedia for some years by reason of the platforms decentralized dedication to truth. Then, in the topic of the article, the only way to expound is to quote legitimate content. Many articles and content on the platform excerpt direct quotes for similar reasons as burden of proof. Then, making use of content that's been in the public domain for millenia for reasons of fair use is certainly not a problem. Please reinstate the article. CraigVHenry (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an editor, I thank you for donating- but donations are handled by the Foundation, we editors have nothing to do with the process and don't see the money. Wikipedia is not about truth- see WP:TRUTH- which isn't to say we don't want to accurately summarize sources, but truth is in the eye of the beholder. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The manuscripts excepted in the writing are in the public domain. They are thousands of years old and have been so since antiquity. The website mentioned is nothing more than a library project for the public to find some of the thousands of manuscripts. I simply quote fair use of topically paragraphs across the spectrum from many manuscripts. Many thanks. CraigVHenry (talk) 10:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The website may be copyrighted i.e. the name of the website, but the manuscripts have been in the public domain for thousands of years. Nobody has rights over for example a pre-flood manuscript written over five thousand years ago addressed to the world. CraigVHenry (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original texts undoubtedly are in the public domain, but you are not quoting original texts. You are quoting translations which are copyright by the translator. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!
I am trying to publish a page for "OSRC Network" on Wikipedia, but it is being deleted by the admin. The page has informational content. Can you please let me know how to resolve this issue? Do I need to pay for it?
I see an edit war between Mamiamauwy and LHD. You are both in danger of being blockedcunningfor edit warring. Instead, you should both discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Maproom (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A user called LHD once got attention for war editing in 2023. But I've been doing the same thing since then and I don't know if it's really possible to discuss it. Mamiamauwy (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cocobb8 I don't think that this is will be a separate category but you should be able to use PetScan to find those in "dead links" which are not in "permanent dead links". See documentation at meta. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cocobb8 I wouldn't really even make a distinction if you're trying to recover a dead link. It's not that unusual to find a "permanent dead link" that can actually be recovered. Even if you're only checking the Wayback archive, it can simply be the case that there are some "blue" Wayback links which are useless (e.g. they show a page saying that the requested page doesn't exist) as well as actually working blue links. Also, there is the possibility of finding additional archive versions using wildcards to ignore differences in the archived url, so these are differences in the display options (i.e. at the end of the url string). I don't know the exacts rule" for doing this, usually I will truncate it at some punctuation mark (e.g. a hyphen or other special character), add an asterisk, then, assuming this was an acceptable position for the wildcard (and it doesn't seem to be consistent about what's an acceptable position), it will give you up to 10,000 matching urls (but to be able to see all the possible matches, you'll want to put the asterisk in a position so that you get under 10,0000 hits). You can enter a string in the box above the hitlist in order to limit the display to those that match some string in the urls. Yes, this is extra effort but it works with enough frequency to make it worthwhile.
To be clear, I am unaware of specific documentation for this, it's generally only going to be useful if there were originally multiple urls for the same content (these seem to be mostly newspaper citations, but it's worth the effort because, so far as I am aware, there's no bot that does this). Hit me back if you have questions. Fabrickator (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you do the whole url, you'll get no matches. If you replace the "win-stuns-anfield-630897.html" with "*", you'll get appropriate hits with working wayback copies. Fabrickator (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't recall the precise details, but at times in the past, when a copyright or plagiarism violation was found and that violation was treated as "circumstantial evidence" to implicate hundreds of articles, those which didn't get "rescued" got deleted within a week or so. At the moment, I can't recall the specific details, but the evidence was so weak against these articles, I would think the effort would be better spent on re-creating these articles. (Maybe someone else can recognize this scenario and fill in the details.) Fabrickator (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am relatively new to editing on wikipedia. I have been trying to update a music artist's page and am experiencing "false positive" flags. How do I get around this so that the page can continue to be edited/updated? Many thanks in advance! EnterTheChat (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved