Wikipedia:Help desk

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

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

Ask a question

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

Requesting a submission, how to procede?

Hi,

I’ve written an article in my sandbox about the Spanish company Cosentino Group. The draft follows an encyclopedic tone and is supported by numerous references from reliable sources, which I understand are acceptable on Wikipedia.

I’ve also made sure to follow the style guidelines carefully, avoiding promotional language, editorializing, and vague time references, for example.

I initially submitted the article for review to assess its readiness for publication. A moderator suggested I revise the sources, which I did. However, while I was waiting for the updated review, another moderator declined the article again. Unfortunately, the first is “semi-retired” as it says on his/her talk page.

I’m asking here (apologies if this isn’t the right place): would someone be willing to review my sandbox to see if the article is ready for publication? Would it be better to request a new review, or should I ask this in another place?

Thank you very much! Rahoman (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@Rahoman I've added the standard template to your sandbox to allow you to submit the draft for review. Note that if you are in any way connected with the company, you should read and act on our conflict of interest guidance. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

After doing this I note that your previous Draft:Cosentino Group has already been reviewed multiple times and rejected. As it says on your Talk Page, this means that you may not continue but must work on it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: Are you sure about that? When did AfC reviewers gain the authority to unilaterally prohibit someone from working on creating an article?

That's not what is said at WP:AFCREVIEW. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing Yes, there seems to be a contradiction between that guidance and the "stop" template which says Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

This is exactly the same as the draft that was rejected on 23 July. That rejection happened after you re-submitted the article for re3view, having made no changes to it since it's earlier decline - the only changes were the removal of inappropriately-sourced material by another editor.

What makes you think the article might be deemed "ready for publication", having been reviewed twice already, when no improvements have been made? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, first of all, thank you so much @Michael D. Turnbull and @Pigsonthewing for your participation and responses. Sorry I haven’t had time to enter in earlier.

Let me break it down. What you said about repeatedly resubmitting the article for review without making changes is what I was trying to explain earlier. Let me go into a bit more detail:

I submitted it for review and was told to make changes. So I got to work on that, read through the style guide carefully to avoid using the wrong kind of terms—basically to make it more encyclopedic. I also tried to swap out the sources I had found (I couldn’t find many in English—maybe I should’ve added some in Spanish, not sure). Then I requested a new review, and it got rejected immediately.

So I reached out to the moderator and said, “Hey, look, I made the changes. Please take another look—it might seem the same, but it’s not. I followed the style guide, added sources, etc.” And the moderator replied: “Okay, but you didn’t request the review again. Do that and I’ll check it.”

So I thought, alright, I’ll request the review again. Then another moderator comes in and rejects it saying there are no changes XD

So I go again to the first moderator and say, “Hey, it got rejected before you could take a look,” and now on the page there’s a big blue banner that says PARTIALLY RETIRED, XD!!

That’s what explains the whole thing about requesting a review without making changes.

That’s when I started looking for a solution and ended up here asking you all for advice.

Anyway, thank you so much for the help. If I can, I’ll take another look and improve it again in my sandbox and resubmit. But about the question “what makes me think the article is ready?”—well, the same thing I told the moderator who’s now “semi-retired.” This is a very well-known company in Spain and in many other parts of the world (not sure if you’ve got anything of theirs in your kitchen, I do for example). So I thought it might be interesting for English Wikipedia. Like I said, I’ve followed all the guidelines on terminology, tone, focusing on facts, no promotional language, no opinions, etc. The references I found are from solid, well-known sources and in English. If I can add some in Spanish, I’m sure it’ll enrich the page even more.

Whatever you say—if I need to work on it more, no problem. If someone does a proper review and says it’s good to publish, great.

Again, thank you so much for your help because honestly, I had no idea who else to turn to. Thank you very much! Rahoman (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

It's had proper reviews; it's not ready to publish. There are entire paragraphs without citations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I have a conflict of interest since I have owned a business that has been active in the countertop industry since 1993 and I am very familiar with Cosentino and its products. I believe that Cosentino is clearly a notable company and encourage uninvolved editors to give Rahoman more specific advice to help them improve the draft, so that this article can be accepted. I recommend removing the registered trademark emblems since they are contrary the the Manual of Style and can be perceived as promotionalistic. The coverage of silicosis is weak and comes across as whitewashing. This industrial disease is a major crisis for the quartz countertop fabrication industry. The content about a future US plant is overly speculative. Report only on what has happened not on guesses about the future. Every single substantive assertion needs a reference to a reliable source. References to Spanish language sources are perfectly acceptable for a company that operates worldwide and is headquartered in Spain. Cullen328 (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, thanks again for your input @Cullen328, @Pigsonthewing and @Michael D. Turnbull, it really helped me review the article and (I think) get it ready for publication.

• I’ve added new sources to content that didn’t have any, both in the places where a user kindly pointed out they were needed and also in other parts I thought made sense. The sources are in Spanish, and I’ve indicated that clearly.
• One user mentioned that including brand logos wasn’t appropriate. I’ve removed those in the latest versions and yes, it might actually be better without them.
• About the plant that’s going to be built in the US, I’ve kept that info in, because what the reference says is that the land was purchased for that purpose. It’s all in the source, nothing speculative. It’s not possible to give more specific dates yet, because that depends on permits and how the construction progresses.
• And finally, about silicosis. What I wrote is that the company has had several silicosis-related lawsuits and was cleared some time ago. I didn’t go into detail about what silicosis is, because I don’t think this is the place for that, silicosis already has its own Wikipedia page where it’s all explained really clearly and in depth.

If I may ask for your help again, I’ve got a couple of questions:

Do you think it’s better to leave out those last two things from the article?

And if it's still viable, how do I request a review now? I can't do it from the Draft anymore.

Just in case, I’ve made the changes in both the Draft and in my Sandbox.

Thanks again, really, without your help I’d be completely stuck.

Cheers! Rahoman (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Adding material to my own Wikipedia page

Chuck Berry (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What is the process for adding material to my own Wikipedia page: Charles E 'Chuck' Berry (Colorado)? I believe it was established by the Colorado Legislative Council. I want to add several of my photos, and I want to add my parents' names and perhaps more. I am age 75, and My grandchildren are really encouraging me to improve/enhance my Wikipedia page. PS. I just donated $50 to Wikipedia and I have also donated previously. Thank you in advance for your help! Charles E Berry (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@Charles E Berry - Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You have several questions in your post, and I will try to answer them.

1. What is the process for adding material to my own Wikipedia page? - Editing a page about yourself is highly discouraged under our conflict of interest policy. That said, if there are errors in the information on the page, or if you are aware of published material that can be used to garner information to improve the article, you should feel free to make a edit request on the article's talk page. Here is a simplified guide to how to do that.
2. I believe it was established by the Colorado Legislative Council - Probably not. If the Colorado Legislative Council created the page that would also be a conflict of interest. It looks like the first draft of the page was created by Connormah in June of 2021. People here write about whatever interests them. Connormah writes about many politicians from all over the world (as well as other topics).
3. I want to add several of my photos, - Photos of yourself would be welcome, however in most cases the rights to the photo must be released by the photographer under our Copyright license. So if you are donating a photo make sure it is one you have the rights to (so a selfie), or have the photographer upload it and release the rights. That said, if you have a suitable photo, there is a link to the file upload wizard in the left sidebar.
4. and I want to add my parents' names and perhaps more. - See point 1 where I talk about published sources and making edit requests.
5. I just donated $50 to Wikipedia and I have also donated previously. - While we appreciate you donating to help keep servers online, it's important to realize that the donations have no impact on the content of the site. The articles are all written by volunteers, who do not see any of the money that is donated. The money goes to keep the site operational, fund legal services, fund educational programs, etc.

Let us know if you have additional questions! ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:02, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding providing a photo of yourself, This page can give you more information ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Nowiki being added around my formatting

Sorry for coming here but I can't figure it out. Whenever I try to add formatting via wikitext, nowiki (between <>) is being added. Here is an example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PositivelyUncertain&diff=prev&oldid=1301063393

I primarily edit on mobile in visual editor. This only started happening a couple of weeks ago; before, I had no problems with using wikitext so I'm not sure what changed. Additionally, at the same time this started I could no longer see previews of my text. Anybody know what's going on or have advice? Also, let me know if this is the wrong place to ask. Thanks! PositivelyUncertain (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

You may be better served by asking at WP:VPT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

PositivelyUncertain, in all likelihood, this is a known bug involving Visual Editor and the nowiki tag. Can you be more specific about exactly what you did/how it happened? Issues regarding Visual Editor and the nowiki tag are tracked in Wikipedia's bug tracking system called Phabricator. If you are comfortable with technical reports, you are welcome to browse these reports, and if what you saw is not one of those, I can help you create a new bug report (if this isn't something simple that just needs explanation). If you can describe step by step exactly what is happening, that would help. Lmk, Mathglot (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

UX/design professional

 Courtesy link: Draft:Thomas Girard (design scholar)

Guidance on creating a biography for a notable UX/design professional

Hello, I am seeking advice on how to create a Wikipedia biography that meets the notability and sourcing requirements for biographies of living persons. The subject is a UX and design professional with:

• Multiple published books with ISBNs, covered in independent reviews.
• Significant media coverage, including a profile in Business Insider and several in The BC Review.
• A TEDx talk featured on TED.com.
• Academic presentations at the Sorbonne, documented in public recordings.
• Awards, fellowships, and other recognitions covered in reliable sources.

I have previously submitted a draft that was declined and would like guidance on how best to structure, source, and format the article so it meets community standards. I want to ensure that the biography is written in a neutral tone and supported entirely by independent, verifiable references.

Could any experienced editor please provide direction, or suggest the best venue within Wikipedia to request assistance from editors familiar with biographies of living persons?

Thank you very much for your time and expertise. Onthomassubmission (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like your subject may meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for biographies, the key is to use independent reliable sources that give in depth coverage ... write in a neutral tone and cite everything. Organizing the draft into sections like early life, career .. works and awards can help. You could also share the draft with WikiProject Biography for more specific feedback.

See also: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Your first article for guidance on creating articles successfully.🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 04:37, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Onthomassubmission, I infer from your talk page that your subject is yourself. Please read and digest Wikipedia:Autobiography. -- Hoary (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

The subject is not notable. All the refs are primary and no book reviews. The rest is social media. Far from being notable. scope_creep^Talk 07:42, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I understand the importance of independent, in-depth sources for establishing notability. For reference, here are some independent sources with significant coverage:

• Vancouver Guardian
• BC BookLook
• The BC Review profile and essays:
  • Bringhurst essay
  • Typography Essay 4
  • Typography Essay 3

I will continue working on improving sourcing and structuring the draft per Wikipedia guidelines. Onthomassubmission (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

The first source is an interview, so not independent.

The second is a routine announcement of the launch of your self-published memoir, so not significant and likely not independent.

At least one of the essays (I stopped looking after that) was authored by you, so is not independent.

All this is covered by the advice you have already been given. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:19, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, Andy. I appreciate the guidance and will continue seeking and adding independent secondary sources to improve the article’s coverage and meet Wikipedia’s standards.

— Onthomassubmission Onthomassubmission (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Onthomassubmission. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

If there are few or no sources which meet those criteria, an article is not possible.

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. ColinFine (talk) 08:30, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful guidance. I appreciate the advice and am committed to learning more about Wikipedia’s policies and editing process. I will continue working on improving the draft with reliable, independent sources and hope to contribute constructively in the future.

— Onthomassubmission Onthomassubmission (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for the previous feedback regarding sourcing and notability. I understand the concerns raised about some sources being primary or insufficiently independent.

To supplement the existing coverage, I’d like to highlight these additional independent recognitions from reputable institutions, which may help strengthen the article’s sourcing:

• Simon Fraser University Emerging Scholar Award announcement (2021):

https://www.sfu.ca/gls/news-events/2021/thomas-girard-wins-emerging-scholar-award.html

• SFU announcement of international conference presentation (2021):

https://www.sfu.ca/gls/news-events/2021/girard-to-present-at-international-conf.html

• Similar coverage from Emily Carr University is available via the Wayback Machine and may provide further independent verification:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190406111333/https://www.ecuad.ca/news/2018/thomas-girard-awarded-2018-emerging-scholars-award

While I realize these may not alone establish full notability, combined with other independent coverage, they help demonstrate external recognition.

I continue to seek out and gather additional independent sources that provide in-depth coverage. I appreciate the community’s guidance and welcome any further suggestions.

— Onthomassubmission Onthomassubmission (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

It’s good to see you adding more sources to your draft take your time and don’t rush. Always focus on using high quality and verified sources from independent publications to establish notability. Cheers.🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 18:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello again,

To add to the independent sources I’m gathering, I’d like to highlight a notable podcast episode that features an in-depth interview with Thomas Girard:

UI Narrative Podcast: “Typography in Digital Interfaces” — Hosted by Tolu Garcia, a senior product designer, this podcast spotlights contributions from diverse designers and researchers. The episode includes a detailed discussion of Girard’s work on typography, accessibility, and UX design. It is widely available on major platforms like Apple Podcasts and SoundCloud.

This podcast is independently produced and hosted by a recognized professional, providing valuable third-party editorial content about Girard’s expertise. It complements other independent media coverage and academic recognitions and helps demonstrate a broader impact in the design community.

Thank you for your continued guidance and feedback. Onthomassubmission (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Please stop writing about yourself in the third person.

A podcast featuring you is not an independent source.

There is no point listing sources here and nothing will be done as a result of doing so. If you think they are relevant, then cite them in your draft and resubmit it when you think you have sufficient suitable sources (as defined in the linked pages provided to you) to demonstrate notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Article quality ratings

On a WikiProject page I see a table listing the number of articles in that project by quality rating such as “stub”, “start”, C, B, etc. what are the criteria used to place articles into these categories? Johnosaunders (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Johnosaunders see Wikipedia:Content assessment#Grades Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 04:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

wikipedia list of BC Cities by population is missing some major cities

Missing City of Surrey, Missing Langley Township, missing City of Langley. There are other cities missing two but those really stood out. 01lifepassenger (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

So what do you want to do with it? ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 02:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

That's not a helpful reply. Please bear in mind the purpose of The help Desk, and show kindness to newcomers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Please raise the matter on the list's talk page, Talk:List of cities in British Columbia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Can the "Digital Eel" page be restored?

I noticed that the page for the indie computer game developer "Digital Eel" has been removed. It's strange not to see it here because it has so much history. Can I find out why this was done, and how the page might be reinstated? Btw, I'm a co-flounder, I mean co-founder. Thanks. Wigandbean (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Wigandbean, it was "soft deleted" as the result of this "AfD". The reader is almost invited to request its restitution (and given a link for doing so); but NB you'll need to have prepared "the reason you wish to have the article undeleted". As it happens, the article did have almost two decades of history, but that counts for naught. Try instead for something like "I have found several reliable, substantive, independent sources. Among these are: (i) [details], (ii) [details], and (iii) [details]. If the article is restored, I undertake to [details]." -- Hoary (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi User:Wigandbean,

"The article on Digital Eel was deleted after a community discussion because editors found there wasn’t enough coverage in independent", reliable sources to meet Wikipedia’s general notability guideline.You can see the deletion log here.

Since you’re a co-founder of the company you have a conflict of interest when editing, this doesn’t mean you can’t help but it does mean you should avoid directly writing the article yourself. Instead, you can, Collect significant, independent, third-party sources (example, in depth news coverage, interviews not arranged by your company, reviews in notable publications). Work in your user sandbox to prepare a draft and request review from uninvolved editors via Articles for Creation. If new independent coverage exists since the deletion, you can also request undeletion so an admin can review whether it now meets the guidelines. 🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 04:54, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Thilio. Appreciate your attention very much.

I don't understand what happened or why. I understand, generally, reasons for deletion but I don't see specifics about this particular page. I must admit that I don't understand the terminology or process either. Still, I requested an undeletion though I am unsure what to do or specifically provide to help-- I don't know (or can't discern) what the offense was. Wigandbean (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Andy Stafford

I have just tried to enter a profile about myself on your website. All the information is 100% accurate. However when I look at the way it is entered compared to other footballers there are no boxes that the information appears in. Is this something you edit and change once verified Andy Stafford 11 (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Andy Stafford 11. What you have written in User:Andy Stafford 11/sandbox is nowhere near close to an acceptable encyclopedia article. It is entirely unreferenced which is a violation of policy. Please study Your first article. Writing an autobiography is highly discouraged and almost never successful. Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Cullen328 (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

[EC] User:Andy Stafford 11, you created an article draft in your "user page", User:Andy Stafford 11. Though well-intentioned, that's an improper use of the user page, which is instead where you, as a contributor, may if you wish write about yourself as a contributor. I've therefore moved it to User:Andy Stafford 11/sandbox. You can, if you really want to, do preliminary work on it there. However, attempting to write an article about yourself is rarely a good idea. (And if you succeed, the result will be outside your control.) Additionally, attempting to create an article about anything when you don't already have considerable experience of editing existing articles is hard work indeed. So I suggest that you let your draft sleep for a couple of months while you look for articles on footballers you know and -- using reliable, published sources (and not your memories, however clear, what the person wrote in email to you, etc) -- correct and augment those articles. You'll then have a clearer idea of what's involved in an article about yourself, and will be far better equipped to embark on a draft for it (if that's what you'll still want to do). -- Hoary (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Andy Stafford 11. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is.

If there is ever a Wikipedia article about you, it will not be for you to tell the world what you want them to hear. It will summarise what people unconnected with you have chosen to publish about you - whether you like what they say, or not. You would not own the article, you would not control it, and it may contain material you did not want it to. See WP:PROUD.

In addition, 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. ColinFine (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@Andy Stafford 11 Adding to the above, consider asking for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. If an article about you is possible, someone there might be interested in making one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

reformat

Is there a bot that can convert refs to {{sfn}} format at Campbell's Soup Cans?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger....Well,... there isn’t a bot that will automatically convert all the references to {{sfn}} format. Per WP:CITEVAR changes to citation style should have consensus. There are semi automated tools such as WP:AWB or off wiki scripts that can assist with the conversion but each edit would still need to be reviewed manually. 🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 14:56, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Page move

Hello. This page was moved without a discussion in violation of WP:RM. I tried to revert it to original title but ended up having an error "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid.". So I moved to a title with a space after the hyphen Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis (2021– present). Can somebody restore the original title without the space, which was Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis (2021–present)? Thanks. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 08:24, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

KhndzorUtogh, if you can't do an uncontroversial move, you can request it at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. TSventon (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

This has been done.

However, WP:RM says: "Any autoconfirmed user can move a page using the "Move" option in the editing toolbar; see how to move a page for more information. If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page." There was no "violation". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

It is probably safer "to expect a dispute concerning a move" for most Armenia–Azerbaijan pages. TSventon (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Images won't work

I hate when Wikipedia shows up literally every broken images... FIX IT TroyDoc (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

This might be because it is deleted. Also say which one is "Broken" ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 14:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@TroyDoc please write in a kinder way too. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 14:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh wait you said all images. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 20:35, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

If literally every image is broken, then the issue is likely at your end, not Wikipedia's. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:00, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@TroyDoc: And is it really every image? If you see a Wikimedia logo and MediaWiki logo at the bottom right then it affects the likely cause but it's probably still at your end. I haven't noticed any broken images or seen other recent reports. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Subject: Urgent BLP Removal Request – Libelous/Defamatory Content

I am the subject of the following Wikipedia article: [wikipedia.com/keiththomasproducer].

The article contains a statement alleging [references articles that are unfounded and not proven to be valid], which is false, defamatory, and misleading.

The content refers to a lawsuit that was dismissed with prejudice in my favor . The current text omits this outcome, leaving a false and damaging impression. Every time I receive press, someone anonymously posts these links from years ago, which we consider defamation. The same thing happened two years ago when I was on the Red Carpet at the Whitney Houston Premiere. I was able to get it removed via my attorney at the time.

The cited sources are either outdated (published prior to the dismissal) or unreliable per Wikipedia’s sourcing guidelines (WP:RS).

This violates Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons policy (WP:BLP), which states: “Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion.”

I request that this material be removed immediately from both the live article and the page history.

I am happy to provide official court documentation if required.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this urgent matter. I also cannot login to my account. It's been years since I've loggin and do not have the user and password. I just tried to unsuccessfully change the password.

50.206.180.67 (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Keith Thomas (record producer) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:55, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Chatbot-written requests will not be entertained. Especially when they misidentify the URL and misrepresent the content of the article (there's no reference to any lawsuit in the article at present). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

nevermind, found it. Said content the user's complaining about seems to be reliably sourced, but where it is is certainly not due. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:00, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we need a don't overlook LLM written complaints about BLP issues essay. There are sources about the lawsuit, but nothing about the resolution and the lead currently displays the allegations prominently. That's an issue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm looking more into the history to see if this is a repeated thing; if so I may file a request at WP:ARE under GS (as the MeToo movement was invoked) for a long-term semi. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, looks like the info was removed from the body but not from the lede. We should probably remove it from the lede too. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:00, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I removed it for now. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Looking into this (string: ["keith thomas" "jordan pruitt"]) all the responsive sources I'm seeing are solely about Pruitt filing the lawsuit; nothing about it being settled. I'm not seeing any sources about the lawsuit beyond that. I edit-conflicted with removing it as undue. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

However, see this message left by the subject a few years ago. @50.506.180.67: I would strongly recommend retracting that statement. Also see Cobalt Blue 2525, Jeanie044 and possibly other sockpuppets. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The OP is clearly correct on the basic point of his complaint. THere was no conviction, and there's no reason to mention the lawsuit in the BLP. OK, he's used a LLM to write his request here, and he's come close to threatening legal action in a previous posting. Those are both reasonable things for someone unfamiliar with WP policy to do. He should be (and has been) informed about WP policy regarding those things, but they should not be held against him when we apply the BLP policy. Maproom (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Help with template editing

Hello, I'm not super savvy with template editing when it comes to the software logic behind it. Can someone help provide an override to the template {{Daytona 24 Races}}? There were a few iterations at shorter distances before the current 24-hour format (e.g. 1962: 3-hr, 1964: 200 km) established in 1966 and another 6-hr exception in 1972. A simple option to add |name= [Text string] I think a test I put in the sandbox works at {{Template sandbox}} (Special:PermaLink/1305593893 in case it gets cleared) according to a test at Special:PermaLink/1305594058, but could someone please give a sanity check that my edit of the title line ( | title = {{If empty |{{{name|}}} |{{{Current}}} [[24 Hours of Daytona]] }} doesn't have other weird circumstances, etc.? Thank you! -2pou (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Seems fine. Other than that explicitly passing name as an empty parameter ({{Daytona 24 Races|name=}}) will use the fallback rather than an empty title, which may or may not be what you want. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

References

Leeds Girls' High School

Leeds Girls' High School

Please fix the latest citation (reference 2) on this page.115.70.23.77 (talk) 05:31, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

How to verify sources more quickly?

Hello - I am the nominator for Talk:Kızılırmak Delta/GA2. As you can see the reviewer @Alpha Beta Delta Lambda has spot checked about a fifth of the sources and found a few problems. Obviously reviewers are not expected to check all sources as doing so manually would take a very long time. Is there any tool I could use which would flag sentences which the cite might not verify so I could just check those manually?

Or indeed a tool which would flag surprising sentences so I could just check those? I tried asking Le Chat by Mistral AI but I could not figure out how it could do more than explain to me how to manually check sources.

Any other lateral thinking ideas welcome too Chidgk1 (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I asked claude.ai (you may need an account to use it, but the chat log below should be public).

It has some specific ideas to help with Kızılırmak Delta: (chat log). Asking better questions or using other language models may be better, claude is obsessed with exact figures yet can't refer to citation numbers correctly. Also make sure you don't use mobile Wikipedia urls, it can't read them.

In a different chat it mentioned the SIDE tool (research paper) which I don't believe is publicly available but may be on the right track. Commander Keane (talk) 09:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I would avoid LLMs to help you analyse sources. qcne (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)