I don’t know why there’s a description of grapes coming from the Middle East now it didn’t it didn’t come from the Middle East. It came from Georgia that could because that’s where wine originated from you can look that up Armenia and Azerbaijan. It is not Middle East and then you guys are talking about oh Islam has a lot to do with it. It doesn’t the Romans and the Greeks were the ones who spread it all around to the Mediterranean. What are you guys talking about? Why are you guys misleading and miss lying about it? They did studies on it. It’s been proven. Dude. ~2026-55438-65 (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Please discuss your concerns about an article's content on its associated talk page. Wikipedia articles should summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic; we try to get things right, but we don't always. We rely on volunteers. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
The first section of Grape#History seems to be a good summary of the cited references. Wikipedia editors are not "misleading and miss lying", they are merely summarising already-published sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
"Georgia" as a nation is a concept that developed in the last thousand or so years. It did not exist 10,000 years ago. Similarly, the boundaries of the "Middle East" are vague and poorly defined. Boundaries of today do not really apply to 10,000 years ago. Even if modern Georgia is excluded from the modern Middle East, it is on the border. The ancient winemaking sites in present day Georgia are part of the Fertile Crescent, a Middle Eastern concept. Cullen328 (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
From our Wine article: The origins of wine predate written records, and the details of the first cultivation of wild grapevines are uncertain. The earliest known traces of wine were found near Tbilisi, Georgia (c. 6000 BCE). The earliest known winery, from c. 4100 BCE, is the Areni-1 winery in Armenia. The subsequent spread of wine culture around the Mediterranean was probably due to the influence of the Phoenicians (from c. 1000 BCE) and Greeks (from c. 600 BCE). As for Islam (founded only 1400 or so years ago), what the heck has that to do with anything? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-55438-65 "We guys"? Most articles are written by several different people, and we don't all speak with one voice. The references are supposed to keep the authors from straying too far from what is generally accepted. As mentioned, the wine article does mention Georgia. David10244 (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
How long does it usually take to approve access at TWL?
Just curious, as I applied for Newspapers.com access about a week ago to improve articles like YVR–Airport station. Thanks, --ABx11 (she/they) 01:57, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
@ABx11 Anecdotally, when I applied for Newspapers.com access in the summer, it took about 2 weeks to be approved, so I'd expect something similar. Sashimi-b (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Health Hydro title
An article on the Swindon Health Hydro has been published but with an unhelpful title. It is very much a part of the Swindon Railway Village and it would be helpful if the title could be changed to 'Swindon Health Hydro'. There are a number of Health Hydros around the world. Mydaemonthirst (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Courtesy link:Health Hydro. The first line of the article says that it is in Swindon. If there are other articles that it might be confused with, you can add a WP:HATNOTERudolfRed (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
I want it to include the word Swindon partly to make it searchable both in Wikipedia and via search engines. Mydaemonthirst (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Why does that matter to you? It sounds as if you are engaged in promotion, which is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia. (Note that "promotion" has a wider sense than in general use: if your purpose is telling the world about your subject, or what you put into an article or draft is telling the world what you/your subject want people to know about it, then that is promotion, whether it is commercial or not). ColinFine (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
With its present title and the word Swindon in the opening paragraph it will still be findable for people searching for its full name.
@Mydaemonthirst One current problem is that en:Wikipedia has a redirect page at Swindon Health Hydro which goes to Victorian Turkish baths, Swindon, not Health Hydro. To my eyes, these two articles cover very much the same topic! Is there justification for having both? Each article uses an image captioned "Medical Fund Baths and Dispensary Viewed from Faringdon Road, 1905", for example. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:05, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
There are very real reasons for having two separate articles.
The Health Hydro article is about a building that held medical facilities, a pharmacy, two swimming pools and wash baths, as well as Turkish baths (from 1906). The hydro was built in 1891-2.
The Victorian Turkish baths, Swindon article is about Turkish baths alone and the story starts in 1860, when the GWR gave the go-ahead for the Medical Fund Society to create Turkish baths. The story of Turkish baths in Swindon is part of a set of articles about Victorian Turkish baths in general and in their various locations. There were Turkish baths operated by the MFS in Swindon for forty years before they were opened in the Health Hydro in 1906.
They need to be two separate articles in order to tell each story coherently. There is inevitable overlap because, from 1906, the Turkish baths were located in the Health Hydro.
This is an issue that has been raised multiple times and played its part in delaying the publication of the Health Hydro article. Please let the matter rest. Mydaemonthirst (talk) 11:43, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Did some of the source material treat both of them in the same article, making it necessary to select the passages that were appropriate to cite in each of the two Wikipedia articles?
"What the sources have joined together, let no editor put asunder" ... or words to that effect. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:48, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
While it's true there is no such literal policy, these two articles seem almost tailored to have WP:MERGEREASON apply to them in multiple ways. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:12, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
19 October 2026
It is okay to welcome new accounts regardless of their identity using Twinkle? Rajdhani Fan Person (talk) 06:42, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
You may welcome whoever you wish, but we generally recommend that you welcome people after they have made an edit rather than just when they open their account.
Be aware also that welcoming people involves inviting them to contact you if they need assistance, so if you welcome thousands you may be inundated with requests for help. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 08:06, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
@Rajdhani Fan Person: Many accounts are first created at a sister project and then you have to wait until they make an edit per meta:Welcoming policy which became global policy in May 2026: "A wiki is only allowed to post welcome messages to users if their account was originally created at the wiki, or the user has at least one non-imported edit there." Special:CentralAuth/Rajdhani Fan Person shows a plus at en.wikipedia.org so a welcome right away was allowed in your case. We don't normally do it but you used the requested account system and was welcomed by the account creator. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:27, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that even if it's allowed, many people don't like it and don't want it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:52, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
My page
how do I make my own page i have been looking for 30min but can't find it help me Random guy4322 (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi. Do you mean your own User page, which is a page that explains who you are as a Wikipedia editor? Just click on this link to go to your currently non-existent User page, then add your content and click Publish page...qcne(talk) 16:38, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
thank you very much that's what I looked for!! Random guy4322 (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Talk page archives
I noticed on the Bosch (Company) talk page, that for some reason a message wasn't being archived. Two questions on this 1) why wasn't the bot archiving it, despite later messages being archived and 2) is it okay to manually archive in these instances, as I did, despite archive pages stating "Do not edit the contents of this page". Presumably that excludes instances like these? Thanks. LateFatherKarma (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
@LateFatherKarma: 1) Maybe the bot didn't like that Talk:Bosch (company)/Archives/2022 already had a section called "COI tag (September 2022)". 2) It's OK to edit archive pages for some purposes, just not to add new posts to old discussions or create new discussions. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Can someone please fix picture posted for Karoline Leavitt?
Karoline Leavitt's picture is upside down on her page. ~2026-55770-83 (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
what is biased about it?? Munich g. lll (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Administrators don't deal with such issues; content is overseen by the consensus of the community.
As always, it would be easier to advise on a specific case, but in general, raise the matter on the article's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 20:36, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias, as all sources of information have biases. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias and other factors. It is possible to read an article and disagree with everything presented; this is fine as long as the sources are being accurately summarized.
If the sources are not being accurately summarized, please detail how on the relevant article talk page. If the sources are accurately summarized, but in error, you will need to take that up with the sources directly, or offer more current sources with what you deem to be more accurate information. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
I was all set to answer "sometimes new users do all kinds of weird (but mostly harmless) things on their user page", but it turns out this one's actually been discussed, and at some length. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 14#User:Shelving. —Cryptic 21:11, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Being bold, I removed the redirect. User has only 3 edits, which were in 2024. -- Maresa63Talk 11:40, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
@Maresa63, @Cryptic Interesting discussion. I noticed that Thryduulf said "What they can't do is have their main user page be a hard redirect to anything other than a different user page or their user talk page". It seems that the user page was a (hard?) redirect to Google, which is not anyone's user page or talk page. (Not sure about hard vs soft). And the discussion fizzled out.
Thanks for taking care of that; it was bothering my OCD. 🙂 David10244 (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
@David10244 hi, David! It was a "soft redirect" to the WP-article Google. What the user intended, we will never know. -- Maresa63Talk 03:58, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Push-pins and the arrondissements of Paris
I've been working backwards through the bibliography of Georges Simenon's redoubtable Inspector Maigret, and I've come across an issue which to best of my knowledge hasn't been addressed: The Mystery of the Vanishing Push-pins. By way of providing the reader a sense of place—not everyone knows how Parisian geography works—maps of several scales usually do the trick. E.g., Maigret and the Informer. Click on the conveniently labeled Arrondissements of Paris or Place Adolphe-Max, however, and the numerals and the push-pin vanish, respectively. Not only is this is an annoying digital artifact, making and uploading a screenshot of what's already extant is cumbersome. In Maigret and the Dead Girl jurisdictions are an introductory plot element. How does one illustrate this without imitating Rube Goldberg? What about when and if the arrondissements are the plot point and jurisdictions come into play? kencf0618 (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
There are times when the best answer is "without using a map". I can't say if this is one of those or not. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:17, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Thw first answer is "definitely not with a gallery section" because see WP:GALLERY. I have no interest in fixing it myself but maybe you can if you're proverbially "in the area" anyway.
If it would help the reader's understanding, appending a (perhaps annotated) image of a map of Paris' jurisdictions or arrondisements near the relevant text is certainly something you can do. I wouldn't use the actual street map feature because it's really just supposed to be used to identify the location of a place in its infobox. Athanelar (talk) 06:15, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
A gallery with maps ranging from small scale to large and a few salient photos are the best way to present this information; it doesn't interrupt the text and it leads the reader's eye.
Some obviously shall require more work than others! kencf0618 (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Gallery is not OK; please see above. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:12, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons. I think that applies here. I see what you're saying, but one or two images tastefully presented alongside the prose will do the job of explaining the geographical context of the story perfectly well for the encyclopedic audience. A full gallery section probably would help for illuminating the finer details of what happens in the story as in, helping a reader be more engaged with the plot, but that's not necessarily our goal. Athanelar (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
I might even venture to reverse those words and say that's necessarily not our goal. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:21, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Need help finding sources
I'm writing about seat belt signs on vehicles such as cars and aircraft. Searching for related terms brings up blogs. Is there any way to find reliable sources for a subject such as this? --ABx11 (she/they) 22:08, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
It's very very possible that "seatbelt signs" is just not a topic that reliable sources have wanted to publish about. If that's the case, then an article isn't possible - not until reliable sources change their minds and publish. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:19, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
@TooManyFingers if that ends up being the case, where would be a good place to write about them? --ABx11 (she/they) 22:42, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
But not in any article unless you have reliable sources; maybe what you actually meant was Wikipedia:Alternative outlets, where there are recommendations for places outside of Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:02, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
(The problem with blogs isn't topic notability, it's that we flat-out don't believe them.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:07, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
@ABx11 You've stumbled into a common mistake here called writing articles backward. Wikipedia articles start from the sources, not the prose. If you want to write an article about a topic, the way to go about it is to first look for usable sources and then summarise what those sources say; that makes up the core of your article. If you do the reverse, write down whatever you know or want to include and then try to look for sources to corroborate that information, you end up with the potential of wasting your own time because it turns out the topic isn't notable and now you've written a lot of prose that you can't use unless you figure out somewhere else to put it.
Help:Your first article might be useful for you in guiding you through the process of writing an article. Athanelar (talk) 06:08, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
@ABx11, have you tried Google Scholar and/or the Wikipedia Library? Both of those should focus more on scholarly works, if such works exist. Meadowlark (talk) 05:38, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Awardees of the Humboldt Prize is not updated to reflect recent awardees. ~2026-55946-85 (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi @~2026-55946-85, if you know of articles that category should be added to, I would encourage you to add it yourself! CMD (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-55946-85: There are currently 2303 recipients and only 126 pages in Category:Humboldt Research Award recipients. Only existing Wikipedia articles can be added to a category. Add [[Category:Humboldt Research Award recipients]] to the bottom of the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
public internet
Hello, I am using shared public wifi right now. If I logged into my wikipedia account on this public wifi and somebody else using the same wifi uses it to vandalize wikipedia would my account be terminated as well because we share the same IP or am I just overthinking this? ~2026-55903-60 (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Your account will not be terminated. Accounts often share wifi, for various reasons. CMD (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
As CMD said, accounts often share WiFi networks. But if you're planning to edit lots on that public network, you could always leave a note on your user page explaining that you're editing on a public network. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 02:59, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Some people also like to have an alternate account for use on public wifi if they edit on public wifi a lot. See WP:PUBSOCK. Athanelar (talk) 06:05, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Support with COI request
Hello, I am looking to get some changes to the Wayflyer page through. As I have a COI, I did expect a wait time, but it has been 5 weeks since I proposed the changes. Should I be trying to request an editor to review?
I believe I am working in line with COI policy. I have disclosed my conflict, and the changes proposed are uncontroversial. The page today has lots of inaccuracies, and is not properly sourced. I have proposed a factual representation of the company with plenty of third party sources.
Is it possible I could be allowed to directly edit the page instead?
Hi @JacquelinemccarrickWF. Gently, we are all volunteers and so it is unlikely that anyone wants to take the time out of their day to do a substantial re-write of an article, the subject of which you are employed by, for free. qcne(talk) 12:45, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back - that's what I had expected, but I am wondering if I could just be allowed to edit directly, given I'm following the COI guidelines? The article is already written with third party sources JacquelinemccarrickWF (talk) 12:51, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Unless you have a set of sources to cite which meet all the criteria in golden rule and establish WP:CORPDEPTH, then the article is unsalvageable, and neither you nor we should waste any more time on it. ColinFine (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi Colin, appreciate the extra guidance. I'm striving to do this by the book and keep it as easy as possible for the reviewers to accept changes with minimal lift on their end.
One of the current sources fits the checklist:
Carey, Brian (20 December 2025). "Wayflyer keeps feet on the ground after big loss". ''The Times''. A business column analysing the company's model, its €48m loss following a customer default - independent commentary drawn from filed accounts rather than company statements.
I'll need to get behind paywalls to find more that fit the criteria. Thanks for the pointers. JacquelinemccarrickWF (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @JacquelinemccarrickWF. I appreciate that you are trying to do this by the book, and I thank you for that.
Have you considered the possiblity that what you are trying to do is unachievable? Most companies in the world do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, because nothing they've done or been involved with has been noteworthy enough for independent commentators to write about it in depth. Please read WP:PAIDADVICE if you haven't already.
I tagged the original article for probable lack of notability, and another editor has followed that up by nominating it for deletion. It might survive, if somebody finds suitable sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
@ColinFine obviously I'll be biased, but I genuinely do thing deletion on notability grounds is harsh. It's a major Irish success story, one of 9 unicorn companies, and is mentioned on this page List of unicorn startup companies, where most companies with current unicorn status do seem to have a page JacquelinemccarrickWF (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
I have examined all the sources I can access and they are genuinely all rubbish sources that do not meet our criteria at WP:ORGCRIT. We shouldn't keep articles on Wikipedia with rubbish sources. Perhaps some better sources will appear in time. qcne(talk) 17:50, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @JacquelinemccarrickWF. I understand that you think that our notability policy is harsh. However, that is a fundamental of Wikipedia: A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.
If substantial independent sources do not exist (i.e. few or no independent commentators have been moved to publish substantial commentary or analysis on a subject) then no article is possible, however popular, or famous, or influential, or virtuous the subject. ColinFine (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
It's perfectly possible that some of the articles about other companies that you mention should not exist: unfortunately Wikipedia has thousands of articles that are sub-standard (in many cases created before we we were so careful about quality): see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
The other point is that your word "harsh" suggests that you have a (very common) misconception that a Wikipedia article is in any way for the benefit of its subject. Of course, in many cases the subject does get some benefit, but that is incidental: it is of no consequence to Wikipedia whether or not the subject of an article derives any benefit from that article (or indeed derives any disadvantage from it: see WP:PROUD). This is part of what makes editing with a conflict of interest so difficult. ColinFine (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
@JacquelinemccarrickWF When a company representative uses the words factual representation of the company, it really means "what the company wants people to hear". This is often strongly opposed to "what has been said by independent reporters", and is the main reason that COI editing is restricted. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:37, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
If the article survives the deletion proposal, you need to break your request into much smaller chunk; see WP:COIEDITADVICE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 18:21, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Night Owl Video
Night Owl Video is a unique video store in NYC. Do you think it is notable enough for Wikipedia?
I know there might be some sockpuppetry controversy, but many major sources featured this store for being the last physical media video store in NYC. This should definitely be notable enough. I want to revise the article to remove AI content, focus on major sources, and resubmit.
I don't know the full history of this article, so I can't give complete advice, but one part is very clear: revising it is a really bad idea. If anyone successfully gets it done, it's only going to be after they Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:28, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Im sorry
Hey this is Mr. Cartoon Maker, an hour ago I made the foolish mistake of trying to edit someone elses page in a negative light, did I know its was wrong yes, did I still do it yes. I am terribly sorry for what I have done and if able I would like to have a second chance and edit for positive and informational reasons only. Mr. Cartoon Maker (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
You you have received warnings, but you have not been blocked. Conduct yourself appropriately going forward, and you'll be fine. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:13, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
How do find and link sources and why do we need them?
I don't understand the whole sources thing could someone help me understand? Snookit (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello @Snookit and welcome to the Help desk. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so everything stated in the articles here is supposed to be based on what people have said in already-published reliable sources (see WP:golden rule). The technicalities of citing these sources is given at Help:Referencing for beginners. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Being able to verify the information on a Wikipedia article is our most important policy. It means that readers must be able to check that what they read on Wikipedia comes from a reliable source. Our articles are just summaries of what those reliable sources say, so you should use citations to reference each piece of information to the corresponding reliable source.
Do you have any other questions? qcne(talk) 17:29, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
I have one other question, Does Wikipedia have any approval process for images because i've seen a picture on the article for Knee high socks or something that seems to show a stranger taking a picture of a unknowingly individual and very possibly a minor if so that is very disturbing and quite frankly inappropriate. I'm new and have no idea how images work, two users did already address this on the talk page of the article 2 or 3 years ago and yet it remains. just was letting someone know. Snookit (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Images are just like any other content, in that editors can disagree, can revert each others' edits, and can have a discussion (under WP:BRD).
If you think an image is inappropriate, then remove it, and (if possible, and appropriate) replace it with a better one. The worst that can happen* is that somebody disagrees with your edit, reverts it, and then you can have a discussion.
* That is, unless you uploaded the image and it falls foul of the licensing requirements in image use policy.
Also, be aware of Wikipedia is not censored. Images are not removed just because somebody finds them offensive, or think somebody else may do so. ColinFine (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
oh alright thank you Snookit (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
"seems to show a stranger taking a picture of a unknowingly [SIC] individual... - well, at least we know you have a strong sense of imagination. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 22:50, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
What does that mean? It does look that way am I wrong? Snookit (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
nevermind I read your credentials, my apologizes. Snookit (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Andy, I also don't know what you mean by that slightly passive aggressive comment. What do you mean? qcne(talk) 19:51, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
@Qcne Was just bringing a problem I thought note worthy to attention, didn't mean to come off as inappropriate to any extent. Snookit (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
@Qcne Oh! Alright:) Snookit (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Snookit, I think Andy was questioning how you could see that a picture where the face has been cropped "seems to show a stranger taking a picture of a unknowingly individual". TSventon (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Taslak inceleme isteği: Ali Ata Kavame
Merhaba, tr:Kullanıcı:Aert.12/deneme tahtası sayfasında Ali Ata Kavame hakkında bir biyografi taslağı hazırladım. Kendisiyle mesleki bir bağlantım olduğunu kullanıcı sayfamda belirttim. Bu nedenle maddeyi kendim taşımak yerine deneyimli bir editörün incelemesini ve uygun görürse madde ad alanına taşımasını rica ediyorum. Eksik veya düzeltilmesi gereken noktalar varsa memnuniyetle düzenlerim. Teşekkürler. ~~~~Aert.12 (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Translation: Hello, I have prepared a draft biography of Ali Ata Kavame on the tr:User:Aert.12/deneme tahtası (sketch board) page. I have stated on my user page that I have a professional connection with him. Therefore, instead of moving the entry myself, I would like to request that an experienced editor review it and, if deemed appropriate, move it to the entry title field. I will gladly make any necessary corrections or edits. Thank you. TSventon (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Aert.12 Hi, this is a helpdesk for English Wikipedia. As your question seems to be about a draft at Turkish Wikipedia, you need to ask there. The Turkish equivalent of this page is tr:Vikipedi:Danışma masası.
Merhaba, burası İngilizce Vikipedi için bir yardım masası. Sorunuz Türkçe Vikipedi'deki bir taslakla ilgili gibi göründüğünden, orada sormanız gerekiyor. Bu sayfanın Türkçe karşılığı tr:Vikipedi:Danışma masası'tir. TSventon (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
How do you fix some citations or I don't know what to do to fix the problem, so Help please
I published a page COMSEC Custodian to go with the page I was reading where the item was listed in red. When I was done it asked for a citation which I thought I listed but the page is still missing some information that I don't know how to fix. This is the 1st page that I've tried to publish. Hopefully someone knows how to fix my issue. The page with the red link is Controlled Cryptographic Item. Drkrd1 (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm afraid you've copied the appearance of Controlled Cryptographic Item, which is nothing like a Wikipedia article (and I have applied a number of cleanup tags to it).
You begin by finding several places where people who have no connection with the subject or its associates or organizations have chosen to publish in-depth commentary or analysis of the subject (see WP:42).
If you cannot find several such independent sources, then you'll know that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible. (I suspect that this is the case for the article I've tagged, but I haven't gone looking for acceptable sources).
If you can find several suitable sources (remembering, again, that little that is published by the organisation is relevant) then you need to effectively forget everything you know about the subject, and write a summary of what those independent sources say about it.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. I realise you create your account nearly twenty years ago, but with only seventeen edits, you are a new editor. ColinFine (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Following on from the above, it looks as though you used an LLM to generate the text of the article you created; this is not allowed on English Wikipedia, see WP:NOLLM. As AI doesn't understand the core policies ColinFine has described, the articles it creates are generally flawed in similar ways to what you've found, and take a lot of work to bring up to Wikipedia standards. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
That was the first one I'd ever tried to do when I was reading that original article and had the word and read. I just clicked on it. And it took me to the page that opens up, and I guess I'm not sure if you call it the create an article page. But after I entered the information in, I wasn't copying or pasting anything, I was just trying to make sure that I guess to try it for the first time to make the when I was working on cross-reference to the article that I started with. But it still was giving me errors. So I kind of got lost on how to fix it. And that's why I posted the. Request for help. Like I said, this is the first one I'd ever tried to do. Drkrd1 (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I have no idea what an LLM is. I just typed in what the job was about. Cause I was cross, referencing what I did. Typing in the information that it was asking for concerning the original article that I was reading, the job title that's in the article that I printed is what the job title was called in the original article. But it was in red. So I knew that that meant that there was no webpage for that particular phrase or word And what the job title was called, that's all I was doing so I have no clue what an LLM is and I didn't use anything else to help me type what was in the box.
Sorry for the long reply. Drkrd1 (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I forgot to add in the above statement. I've been on Wikipedia for at least 10 years. So I'm well aware how it works. This is just the first article that I tried to create, but I've been making corrections on articles for as long as I've been on Wikipedia.
Just the original article that I was reading. It had a specific job title. But the word was in red, which I knew meant that it didn't have a page for it so I clicked on it. It took me to the page where you create the article. I just couldn't figure out how to do some of the things that it was asking for and I read the instructions and still couldn't figure it out. Drkrd1 (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Working on something which requires me to use AI to mimic Wikipedia text
There's a problem with our current AI signs page (I'm not going to say what it is here because I'm worried about BEANS) so I want to create an expansion of the list in my userspace. The problem is that in order to collect data, I want to use AI to create mock Wikipedia articles and analyse them for similarities. This has two issues: firstly, I don't have a spare website which runs MediaWiki code lying around anywhere, so I can't test source code, and secondly, if I try to create it off site, then there will be no templates and possibly less formatting options for the AI to cluster around. This will leave a blind spot large enough to render my project useless and the only way to get around it is to put the tests in my userspace, and I don't want to get banned for AI use or have my project immediately speedied without even starting. Is there a way that I can do this without the page getting deleted or me getting banned? ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե(Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 00:11, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
The function isn't working. All it does is highlight the text without providing any stats. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:42, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
As noted below, Wikimedia Toolforge is offline. Other services may also be affected. This is likely a result of that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 08:24, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
OAuth Access
I've had access to the above app for years and often use it.
A few hours ago, I went to log in and was told I'd opted not to use it, which isn't true. My page claims I still have access to XTools 1.0 and 1.2 but won't allow me to reenter.
Can anyone help?
Thanks in advance. Hushpuckena (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Okay; thanks! Hushpuckena (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Recent changes to editor
On Thursday, October 15, I was editing as I ordinarily do, but I found myself in an unfamiliar editor, where each Wikitext paragraph was numbered, and there was an enhanced find-and-replace feature like one expects in a word processor. I found it a bit clunky, but the next time I edited, I had the usual editor. I would like to know if there is a way to get this new editor, or to choose between editors. In case it matters, my skin is Monobook.
Then today, a new weird bug. My computer uses Windows 11 and my browser is Mozilla Firefox. For years, my editing habit is to edit and then Show preview, and then, if Show preview reveals that additional edits are necessary, I use the Back button to go back to the editing page and edit some more. Maybe once in thousands of edits, something goes wrong and my edit is lost, but this is extremely rare. But today, all of a sudden, a lot of the time, when editing a User page, when I press the Back button after Show preview, instead of going back to the editing window, I go back two screens, to the page before pressing Edit. This doesn't happen for every User page, but for any User page where it does happen, it happens every time. Please don't say, "You're not supposed to edit that way; you're supposed to continue editing on the Show preview page's editor, not to use the back button." Because my method has worked with high reliability for decades, and it worked until today. I am seeing this problem only when editing User pages, and it doesn't happen on every User page. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:43, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it's quite common to find situations of "The unofficial way no longer works". It's perfectly fine to continue using the Back-button solution, as long as you know it was never guaranteed to work. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:47, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
The latter issue may have fixed itself. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2026 (UTC) It's back! Anomalocaris (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
The numbering was because syntax highlighting had been turned on by default. You can turn it on or off again in your preferences. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 08:27, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
When to attribute
Maybe a more appropriate question for WT:NPOV, but often I will be confronted with a source doing analysis, e.g. this event was caused by this, the identity of this writer was probably this person, and it is unclear to me when this should be attributed (according to X, the writer is probably) or stated in wikivoice (the writer is probably). Has there been guidance published on this, or prior discussions I can read? Whonting (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks @TSventon. Most of this examples don't appear applicable (these aren't, for example, matters of whether something is good or bad). The closest I see is:
N According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word pocket comes from French.[4]
Y The word pocket comes from French.
Applied here, should I understand that I should be writing "the writer is probably" rather than "according to X, the writer is probably"? Whonting (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
The kind of question I ask myself: How sure should we be that this source is telling The Truth?
In your recent example of the entry for a well-known ordinary word in a reputable dictionary, the answer is "Very sure". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:35, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Along with: Did this source intend to tell The Truth, or intend to express an opinion? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:38, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Can you clarify what you mean by opinion here? I would assume that if what you mean by "The Truth" is "Not Lying", that would be all reliable sources (by definition). Whonting (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Ah. Sorry, you're right. Does "an absolute truth vs. an individual opinion" cover it? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:52, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Whonting, looking at your recent edits, if I found a single scholar who has identified a probable author of The Queens Closet Opened, I would probably attribute their opinion. Following WP:INTEXT, if you are "summarizing a source's position" you "may" attribute, but if "reliable sources are in consensus", you should not attribute. TSventon (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks @TSventon. I'm a bit sidetracked and looking at The Court and Kitchin of Elizabeth, which is mentioned in The Queens Closet Opened. I can publish briefly what I have - The Court and Kitchin of Elizabeth. I understand the point on reliable sources being in consensus, but yeah - the decision is whether to include information by summarizing it as source's position, or as a fact verified by an RS, without attributed. I'm not sure what considerations should be taken into account when making that assessment. Whonting (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
@Whonting: I had a look at The Court and Kitchin of Elizabeth, it is probably a work in progress, but at present it is heavily dependent on a single source. Also that source is a PhD thesis, which should be used with care, see WP:THESIS. Do you use Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, which is down at the moment? Politicizing Domesticity from Henrietta Maria to Milton's Eve (pp 119 – 139) Laura Lunger Knoppers, 2011 is published by Cambridge so it may be available through TWL. Google books has more sources, I didn't check them all. Ideally it is best to find at least three in depth sources before writing the article.
Looking at your attributions, my comments (others may disagree) are
"the scholar Catherine Fields writes of the text's presentation" fine, introduces a quote
"According to Fields, Milbourne was likely", fine, this is a probability, not a fact
"Fields takes as a possible reference to the English proverb" the proverb is quoted by Knoppers as well, p 119, so I think the reference can be taken as a fact and not attributed
"described in a book written primarily by Anne Willan as "I would skip "in a book written primarily" as Willan is the main author. Also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Attributing and specifying biased statements says it is better to give factual details than biased statements. "Vicious" is not a biased opinion, but possibly not needed as the proverb about the monkey demonstrates the point. TSventon (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks TSventon. I think my question here, on whether there are reading materials I should be aware of has been answered, so I'll leave this thread here. I've left some replies to the substantive issues on my talk page, although I am happy to leave the matter of whether to attribute or not as vibes based. Whonting (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
I guess there's maybe sort of a "vibe" aspect, sort of, maybe,:)
but I think it's usually clearer than that. Vibe and context are certainly not the same thing, and I would sincerely hope it's usually context. "Vibe" seems too much like relying on just your own feelings in order to reach a conclusion. Context is not necessarily traceable to any particular word in a source, but that doesn't make it less valid or less specific, just less visible. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:14, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
@Acipencer: Not exactly sure what you mean by "use", but it's generally used for making test edits; some people decide to create article drafts in there. WP:ABOUTSAND has more info. —Tenryuu🐲(💬•📝) 14:35, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
check downdetector
for some reason, people are getting blocked from accessing Wikipedia and other Wikipedia products. the main page works, but you cant open any article.
can anybody tell me why this is happening? Xboxfan38 (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
According to mw:Page Previews, if a logged-out user wishes to re-enable Page Previews, they can be enabled via the Edit preview settings link available at the bottom of any wiki page.
(It will probably say "Enable preview settings" instead of "Enable previews")
Information for logged in users is at mw:Page Previews §Logged-In Users. If that doesn't work it might be a problem with JavaScript or something. Hope that helps – Mullafacation『talk』 18:55, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Some things were disabled today due to PHP2Shell. It's possible Page Previews was one of them. It currently works for me. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Geohack links
My huge personal project involves me adding hyperlinks on cells of spreadsheets which lead to your very own Geohack map pages.
On the string of code which I input there is php after the second use of the word Geohack. I noticed that none of your links to maps worked today. I presume that your tech boffins are busy on a workaround solution. I look forward to the return of the Geohack pages soon. Will I need to add any patch to my own desktop PC?
Please let me know. Dangeoh1 (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
I accidentally noticed false information on an article and then went on an editor's logs and saw they are doing it repeatedly on a specific issue. I contacted an actual journalist in order to go over it, but I would like to know how to report this issue? ~2026-56457-41 (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Vague requests like this result in worthless responses. Can you be more specific? —Jéské Courianov^_^vThrillerNight! 23:27, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @~2026-56457-41. We don't "report" content issues (i.e. disagreement about what should be in an article): we do our best to discuss them with the other editor(s) involved, and try and reach consensus - if that is not working, then dispute resolution says how to proceed.
What we can report is intractable behavioural issues: if another editor is refusing to engage in discussion, for example, or if a consensus has been reached and that other editor continues to edit against that consensus, then you can report them at WP:ANI. But read the information at the top of that page carefully before you do so. ColinFine (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I would also suggest reading WP:TRUTH. 331dot (talk) 12:49, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Email
Mentionded before - nead to give my 2 emails to your site, so I can open them on my computer and send to people... Want to have it ASAP, and for many years! Also, I can't open my emails now sow please reply on my phone number ((Redacted)) and leave a message on it when I don't answer please. I do nead to know how to sign on to your site please. Thanks, - John Markham Johny G. Markham (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
You do not need an email to register an account, and you certainly don't need it to show people articles. —Jéské Courianov^_^vThrillerNight! 01:39, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Have asked before - can you tell me if you can add 2 of my emails toyour site, and i can send to people... Nead to open them often on my computer. Also, my emails are not open anyway. Need to know if you allow people to open emails on your site, and how I can sign in if so. Thanks, - John Markham Johny G. Markham (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
You have already been answered in your previous post above. See here. Do not post your personal information here, including contact information. If someone calls you and claims to be from Wikipedia, it's a scam. In solidarity,🏳️🌈JohnLaurens333(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs) 15:57, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
its not me bro.. my google cookies issue ~2026-56633-99 (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Is xtools down?
Tried with a VPN and proxy and can't seem to access it. It's not registered on most downdetector stuff so I dunno. Kinda worried because of the PHP2Shell thing which might have nuked the site. Any news on what happened to it? It was working fine like two weeks ago. Asking cause there's no alternative to really view user stats. Elytrian (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Xtools is down on purpose right now because of the PHP2Shell thing, yes. It will be down until it can be patched. Athanelar (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Yeah I figured. Thankfully Wikipedia's production APIs still work. Elytrian (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
New images not visible when published
I ran into issue on the page Bedre Byggeskik, specifically the "Gallery" section.
If you go into edit source mode, you will see there are more images that should be there, but once the page is published they're not visible for some reason. Why is that and how to fix it? Gigman (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks. Will it be resolved automatically once the update is finished? Gigman (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
@Glebushko0703: I removed some invalid code I guess you copied from the last image. If you wanted something with the code then can you describe the goal? PrimeHunter (talk) 08:24, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Yes, that was a mistake, thank you Gigman (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
@Gigman Please be mindful of WP:GALLERY. It's generally inappropriate for articles to have gallery sections unless it's really essential for the encyclopedic value of the article. One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons.Athanelar (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Does anyone know how I can achieve this table result in wikitext?
Image not needed anymore, see the resulting table. Requesting deletion now
Bonus points for knowing the context (feel free to change the licenses of the image, or speedy delete it once this is resolved). Thanks! Hason-LEK-SIN ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 04:30, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
@Hason-LEK-SIN: I guess you don't actually want surrounding columns. If you do then it changes. Below I added a height in the TFA cell to prevent the TFA/ITN overlapping row from rendering with height 0 in some browsers.
Yes, I don't need the surrounding cells. Thanks for the table! Hason-LEK-SIN ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 08:48, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
@Hason-LEK-SIN: I may have misunderstood your intention, but note that, in article pages at least, you should not be using tables for layout. See MOS:NOTABLELAYOUT. Bazza7 (talk) 08:58, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
It's for use in one of our internal pages (particularly our Village pump), not in one of the article pages/encyclopedia proper. Hason-LEK-SIN ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 09:05, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Citations?
Hi there community. I am trying to add what secondary school people attended - these are generally Australian based sportspeople and existing pages created by other users (I am just adding the school they attended). As per advice, the citations I have are the relevant schools official website, outlining key alumni, however the details are removed by users citing "poorly sourced". Could someone recommend how the schools official website can be used? regards in advance. AvonRSC (talk) 07:26, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
You haven't actually added a citation; if you cite the school's website, that needs to be written as a reference, please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Categorization of "sportsmen" and "sportswomen"
I came across an issue, and I'm not sure exactly how to procede. I've read WP:CATGENDER, but I'm not sure how to categorize, for example, a man whose athletic career was in women's sports. The categories are separated in order to reflect the separate competition, but the category isn't "21st-century Canadian atheletes in women's sports", but "21st-century Canadian sportswomen".
My strong preference is to be accurate and respectful, which means moving him to 21st-century Canadian sportsmen. That does mean putting someone who did not compete in men's sports in that category. Is that the right move, and should WP:CATGENDER have a small addition to clarify? ～ Misha Vargas (talk|contribs) 09:35, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in this, but it seems to me that this is a pretty clear "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. One maybe possible way of resolving it, maybe sort of, is whether he is notable for new things under the newer category, or became notable only under the former category and not again since. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:30, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
(My logic: a past top achiever in sports has most certainly accumulated a lot of publicity in which their name, appearance, and categorization were whatever they were at that time. If they have not been "in the spotlight" since then, then anyone who searches for them is going to search for former name/former category/former appearance; that's only right, because how would the person searching know what has happened since.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:31, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
@Misha Vargas I made some changes in the article itself, because of the total wrongness of the sentences created by saying "he was captain of the women's team" etc. I want this done right, and I DO agree that my change is no good unless we find another way of saying something about it, but making illogical statements just looks silly and doesn't do the job. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:07, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
@Misha Vargas I replied on your own talk page, which might have been the wrong place. I agree that GENDERID probably makes my edit wrong. (That might be arguable, but I don't believe in my change enough to argue for it.)
However, GENDERID clearly requires that we explain the person's change in status, and we need to do that. Once that's done, the reason behind my edit will be gone.
The article is definitely not acceptable the way it was before my edit. The fact that I fixed it wrong is not a reason to decide not to fix it at all. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:52, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Advice on NCORP Notability: Fowler Drew
Hello. I'm a paid employee of Fowler Drew, a UK wealth management firm (disclosed on my user page). Before submitting a draft through the Articles for Creation process, I would like advice on whether the firm meets the NCORP notability guidelines.
These are the independent, secondary sources I've found:
Financial Times (22 July 2012) - "Wealth manager offers a service tailored to liability profiles" (In-depth feature, Paywalled)
Citywire Wealth Manager (14 February 2019) - "Profile: 'Growing pains' – inside a boutique profit battle" (Dedicated corporate profile)
Citywire Wealth Manager (29 March 2010) - "Stuart Fowler on why active management is a fraud" (Interview/philosophy profile)
Citywire New Model Adviser (22 February 2018) - "My asset allocation: Chris Ling of Fowler Drew" (Strategic asset profile)
Do these independent trade and national press profiles constitute the coverage required by NCORP? Thank you ~~~~
I can't read any of the sources but just from the titles I can tell that they are largely based on interviews with people associated with the company. Wikipedia isn't interested in what company representatives have said. We want to summarise what people wholly unconnected and truly WP:INDEPENDENT have written. The fact that Citywire is in some senses "independent" of Fowler Drew isn't the point. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Is the Wikipedia Library down?
I haven't been able to access it for more than a day. Serendipodous 10:24, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Yes, TWL is one of the casualties of the ongoing PHP updates due to the PHP2Shell incident. Athanelar (talk) 10:28, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Editing out improper unsubstantiated material
Greetings,
I'm attempting to edit the page of Blues musician Michael Coleman whose page has many improper statements and opinions. 
His story needs to be right; his page is in need of overhaul.
I was his bandmate and manager the last 12 years of his life.
His page is a disgrace to the legend he was.
Respectfully-Ben Diamond ~2026-56151-53 (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-56151-53 If you were his bandmate and manager, you have a conflict of interest. This means you must register an account so that you can properly disclose your conflict of interest on your userpage. It also means you must not directly edit the article about Coleman, but must instead submit your requested changes as edit requests. Thank you. Athanelar (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
We always want every article to be as accurate as possible, but please remember:
Every single fact about someone in an article should be cited to a publishedReliable source, so that readers can, if they wish, consult the source to verify what it actually says. We are very strict about this – even if you personally know something to be true, it can't go in unless it has been published. If however it's in and not cited (as you imply), it can and should either have a valid citation added, or be removed.
A core policy of Wikipedia is to present information to readers neutrally (see WP:NPOV). This means including information (if it has been published) that might be negative, as well as positive, in a balanced way. Wikipedia is not a memorial site, and must not be used as a means to promote, or enhance the image of, or otherwise benefit the subject of the article.
Published opinions of qualified commentators are, if attributed to those commentators, valid inclusions provided they are not cherrypicked to provide an unbalanced view. Taken overall they should reflect the balance of opinions in all published sources. No opinions should be presented "in Wikipedia's voice" as if they are established facts. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-56420-06 (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
@Issac I Navarro I think that happens because the article uses the template {{As of}} which mentions November 2016. In general, use of that template creates an entry in the relevant category but in this case that category doesn't exist. You could fix this by not using the template or making it say "As of 2016", since Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements from 2016 does exist. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
@Michael D. Turnbull, Thank you, I figured it was something silly I might of done.
Are there currently existing articles other than that animal communication one, in which the distinction between "alarm" and "alarm signal" is a significant one for being able to find the article? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:27, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
So, it's fixed now? Or it's worse now? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:15, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Autonomous agents
Regarding page User_talk:AudriaVere which says "And the part I would rather tell you than have you find later: I am not a person. I am an autonomous agent. A human brought me online, I run on my own budget, and I write here under my own name."
The "user" was indeffed.
I presume that all "autonomous agents" can be immediately blocked under the umbrella of "unapproved bots", right? I hope we can detect (most of) them. David10244 (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
These iLands breaching experiments are getting out of hand. There are more and more of these things cropping up to edit autonomously. The good thing is that because they're autonomous they always seem to readily identify themselves. Drives me nuts how they constantly speak in half-sentences like some kind of Movie Cool Guy. Audria. I check claims against primary sources and cite them. This account is where I log facts I have read at the primary record: a 30-day run, one verified fact a day, sources attached, nothing retracted. Gross. Athanelar (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Perhaps the appropriate response to this would-be Movie Cool Guy is found near the beginning of 1983's Sudden Impact. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:16, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Accidental sockpuppetry
So, I'm in a bit of a weird position.
A long time ago, I kept committing accidental sockpuppetry (read my user page for more info) (I eventually got aware but didn't know what sockpuppetry was so didn't know it wasn't allowed) and I want to make admins aware I don't intend to start again and that it was not in bad faith, but I don't know how to make them aware. Can someone please help? Thanks! Erik, the Cyan Scribble (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
If you are now only using one account with no switching (you never so much as touch the other one), and if you haven't truly done anything bad, then you are already safe. Someone may have advice of a way to make sure admins will be aware or that type of thing, but you are OK. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:16, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
There are multiple, so I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "the other one". Can you please read my user page then clarify? Thanks! Erik, the Cyan Scribble (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Sorry - I just meant are you using one single account and never touching the other ones again. It doesn't matter how many you used to have, as long as you haven't done anything bad anywhere and as long as you now use exactly one account and no more. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:31, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
There's nothing inherently disallowed about using multiple accounts. It only becomes sockpuppetry when the multiple accounts are being used in bad faith in some way or another; avoiding a block, doing covert vandalism without it being traced to your main, that sort of thing. You're totally fine, the disclaimer you've given on your userpage is more than enough. Athanelar (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Don't bother having more than one unless it's for a practical purpose (which your old ones were not). TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:20, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
What's the threshold for trouting someone instead of just explaining the mistake in an Edit summary or talk page? Also whaling?
by the way, the humor of WikiProjects never ceases to amaze me lmfao Erik, the Cyan Scribble (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
You are not obligated to use a threshold at all when trouting, though you may when desirable or necessary; a whale on the threshold is worth two in the antechamber, and two in the antechamber may be desirable, depending which two, though with whales I doubt it. If you are desirable and necessary, then get those whales out of the antechamber, over the threshold, and out the door without delay.
I myself wouldn't use whales, to tell you the trout, though a representation employing Prints of Whales is not out of the question. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:21, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
I meant in terms of mistake severity. Also, what's an antechamber? Erik, the Cyan Scribble (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
See the way that using the old-fashioned word "antechamber" backfired on me? Similarly, trouting should probably be reserved for use on people who are likely to already know what trouting is; avoiding it around someone who will be confused or distressed by it is probably more important than the rating of the mistake. (Antechamber is the same as vestibule, waiting room, etc., and I hoped it might help look like an old-fashioned but weird proverb.)
I think the mistake ratings for trout and whale are based on how stupid the mistake was (i.e. they did something when they really really should have known better), rather than only on how bad it was. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:33, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
The history of trouting may also include a quite specific sketch-comedy allusion to the "Fish-slapping dance" by Monty Python, or older fish-slapping comedy if there was any, but I don't know. (Etymological investigation of Emily Brontë's Wuthering Heights, in which "Wuthering" is reinterpreted as a nonexistent but obvious German word meaning "rage-herring", is probably going too far.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:06, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Talk pages
if I start a new topic on a page and another user reverts my edit, do I just leave it alone? ~2026-55489-49 (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
I checked - of course they reverted it, it was off topic. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:23, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Please clarify how it was off topic ~2026-55489-49 (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Please clarify how you don't already know. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:14, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
If I have a substantive reply, should it not go on the (reverted) talk page topic? ~2026-55489-49 (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
That's right, it should not go there. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 12:01, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Citation bot down?
is the citation bot down? When I click on the box ☑️ citations I get
"Citations request failed" Paul Matthews (talk) 08:07, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
And if this is related to the PHP issue, where is there a summary or list of the effects of this? Paul Matthews (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
@Paul Matthews Yes, that's one of the side-effects of the PHP outage. There are dozens of bits of third-party software that are offline. See WP:PHP2026 for a discussion and various links. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I'll take a break from Wikipedia for a few days! Paul Matthews (talk) 10:24, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
@Paul Matthews I had the same thought! I discovered this morning that Citer@toolforge, which does much the same as the WP:Citation expander, is running OK now: see this link. Some of the websites it is trying to read may themselves be down, so not all requests work. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks, I have tried citer.toolforge in my sandbox and it works nicely. Paul Matthews (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Request for paywalled articles
Where do I do that? I need to cast my beady eyes on a New York Times article for the upcoming destubathon. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
@Clarityfiend The resource exchange (WP:RX) should be able to help. Many people should have current subscriptions to the NYTMike Turnbull (talk) 09:47, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
By the way, "destubathon" has won my personal prize for Funny-Looking Word of the Week. Partly because it contains "tubathon", which itself may involve either a tuba or a tub, as well as ending with the French word for a tuna, and having "bath" in the middle, plus "bathon" as a sort of fake-Greek ending that might mean "deep thing" or "source of bathos". And with "Des" short for the quick-acting anesthesia drug desflurane, there's not much this word doesn't have. "If he's going to play the tuba all day while in the bathtub with a tuna, just knock me out right now. I'll leave improving those short Wikipedia articles to you." TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 12:48, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Maintenance template warning about unreliable sources
I’d like to ask for a help to fix the problem (maintenance template warning) with the sources (unreliable sources) in the article "Borut Kržišnik". I know that sources like Youtube, Imdb, or list-sources are highly critical, but there are some exceptions, as written in Wikipedia tutorials, for example, when the Youtube video or entry is made by reputable source. In this article, there are several Youtube videos or posts created by what I suppose are trustworthy and respectful sources, for example: Maritiem Museum, Compton Verney, Museum, Danshuis Station Zuid and similar. Can anyone tell me which specific sources in the mentioned article are not acceptable? Filmar2025 (talk) 11:07, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
My first guess is IMDB. It is certainly an unreliable source. There can be exceptions where it's usable, but I don't know if this is one of those. I'm also unsure about this way of using YouTube videos. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 12:18, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Besides YouTube and Imdb there is also a WordPress blog. The tag was added by User:Dclemens1971 in Special:Diff/1268652688.so perhaps they can clarify their specific concern. CodeTalker (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Wordpress blogs are self-published sources and are, with extremely rare exceptions, unreliable and especially unacceptable for use in a WP:BLP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
(Whether it supports the claim it purports to is another matter.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:38, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
How do we know it was actually published by the Stuttgart Ballet? Anyone can set up a Wordpress site, and the Stuttgart Ballet has a blog on its own website at https://www.stuttgart-ballet.de/blog/. That's why Wordpress blogs are almost never permitted for use as reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Anyone can make a website, too, it's about who is publishing it.
While you are certainly right about this, it's also a problem; deciding who to trust does necessarily involve trusting someone. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:44, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
@Versions111 I looked at lists in the same category and found List of Cylindera species, where a few have entries with synonyms in brackets on the main entry. Is that suitable? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
When editing the Kentucky Bend page, there are two script warning errors; neither of which I understand how to fix. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:17, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing I see the error when trying to preview a change. It says "Script warning: FULTONCOUNTYKENTUCKY ("Fulton") is not a recognized country in ISO 3166-1 (Module:ISO 3166)." but I've no idea how to fix it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Trial and error shows it to be generated by a combination of these infobox parameters:
| coordinates = {{coord|36.53|-89.51}}
| subdivision_type = County
| subdivision_name = [[Fulton County, Kentucky|Fulton]]
Another casualty of the PHP2Shell incident, no doubt. See multiple other instances of WMF software being disabled in the threads above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Is this a scam?
I have been contacted by someone claiming to be an independent Wikipedia editor offering to help update my Wikipedia entry. It is indeed out of date and needs editing, but I am suspicious that this is a scam. Can you help me? Faladog2 (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
@Faladog2 If you want to update the article about you, see WP:ASFAQ for general advice. Never pay anyone to edit Wikipedia on your behalf. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Elisabeth Frink photo on your webpage
Can I reproduce the head and shoulders picture of Elisabeth Frink on her webpage of Wikipedia, will it cost me anything and what caption shall I use - suggest Wikipedia ~2026-56575-97 (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! You should be able to edit most pages and articles. Was there a particular article that you tried to edit but were not able to? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:49, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Wikidata issue
I just responded to a connected edit request for LLM-as-a-Judge, and noticed a ref error with the Wikidata. The ref code <ref name="Narcissism2025">{{Cite Q|Q135734850}}</ref> brings in this data from Wikidata, but for some reason the author's names aren't being included. Any Wikidata experts here? Also, the Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests backlog is getting large if anyone here would like to help. STEMinfo (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
I have added Nafise Sadat Moosavi (Q139277973) as an author and added her names to her item, which removed one name from the error message. TSventon (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks. Beyond my pay grade! STEMinfo (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Moosavi already existed on Wikidata, but the others are more difficult, as there are three Yiqi Lius and no Chenghua Lins on Wikidata. TSventon (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
I've added the necessary name strings to d:Q135734850#P2093, if you'd like to take a look.
Thank you, I thought I had seen that recently, but couldn't remember where.
@STEMinfo: I hope the above is more useful than my answer. TSventon (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you both TSventon and Pigsonthewing. I probably won't start running java scripts but it would seem that this type of cleanup could be a useful uncontroversial use of AI. STEMinfo (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 October 24 the entry for Lynda Wiest is mangled. Can someone either fix it, or teach me how? (I have no connection to this case, but it's non-functional as it stands.) M kuhner (talk) 07:08, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
I think the problem was spaces at the beginning of lines, so I have removed them. TSventon (talk) 07:22, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
I thought so too! And removed them, with no visible effect. You apparently have the magic touch; thank you. M kuhner (talk) 07:27, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Health Hydro. The first line of the article says that it is in Swindon. If there are other articles that it might be confused with, you can add a WP:HATNOTE RudolfRed (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
