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!

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

The help desk is currently semi-protected, meaning it cannot be edited by unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia).

However, you can still get direct assistance on your talk page. ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

There are currently 0 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template:

Editing -

I need help completing the article. i'm always getting error and i don' know what i am doing Chimenax (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @. Are you referring to the message on your talk page about a "CS1 error on Timothy Menakaya"?

For help on how to format citations, see Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:Citation Style 1, although there's some more technical material in that last one. Looking at the source for other articles with citations can also help you understand how they are formatted. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I think fixed your error: [1] Rockfang (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Chimenax, your article tells the reader that its subject founded Menax Hospital. Your username rather resembles this. Are you perhaps related? -- Hoary (talk) 04:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Genyk Lyubov Yaroslavivna

I am Genyk Lyubov Yaroslavivna, PhD in Ukraine. Todei work in Europe. I want neu artice to download it to the English wersion of Wikipedia. 2A00:1028:8398:49F6:10A1:B6A5:734:790A (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

It's not clear what you are asking for. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Genyk Lyubov Yaroslavivna did have an article on the Ukrainian language Wikipedia but it was deleted today. As for having an article here on the English Wikipedia, see Your first article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Genyk.

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.

Writing an article about yourself is even harder, and is strongly discouraged: see autobiography.

Most people (even with PhDs) do not meet English Wikipedia's criteria for notability and so unless you can find the necessary independent, reliable sources it is a total waste of everybody's time to try and write an article. ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Article reprinted in book -- different dates, different translators

I'm trying to wikify the following citation (from this article):

Freire, P. (1969) Extension y Comunicacion, translated by Louise Bigwood & Margaret Marshall and re-printed in 'Education: The Practice of Freedom' (1976), Writers and Readers Publishing Cooperative.

So far I have this:

{{Citation  |last=Freire  |first=P.  |orig-year=1969
|chapter=Extension y Comunicacion
|translator-last1=Bigwood  |translator-first1=Louise
|translator-last2=Marshall  |translator-first2=Margaret
|title=Education: The Practice of Freedom  |date=1976
|publisher=Writers and Readers Publishing Cooperative  |publication-place=London, UK }}

which renders as "Freire, P. (1976) [1969], "Extension y Comunicacion", Education: The Practice of Freedom, translated by Bigwood, Louise; Marshall, Margaret, London, UK: Writers and Readers Publishing Cooperative". That's almost correct, but for two problems:

1. It implies that Bigwood and Marshall translated the whole book, not just the article.
2. It makes it look like the entire book was printed in 1969 and reprinted in 1976, when in fact the article was printed in 1969 (I'm not sure where -- haven't been able to track down the source) and reprinted in the book when it was first published in 1976.

Any idea how to fix those? {{Cite book}} and {{Citation}} won't accept the |book-title parameter from {{Cite journal}}, but the latter demands a journal-title parameter that I don't have.
-- Photosynthetic430 ❧ 16:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

|book-title= is only supported by {{cite conference}}. Where did you see anywhere that |book-title= is supported by {{cite journal}}? That mention needs to be fixed.

If the original article was translated by someone other than Bigwood & Marshall, how can the article be called a reprint? The different translators make it a different article. WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT applies; cite the source that you consulted.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

James N. Moore

Contributing an article for Distinguished Professor James N. Moore, Horticulture Dept., University of Arkansas

i have an autobiography to contribute regarding my father, who was a Distinguished Professor at the University of Arkansas Horticulture Department. He created the small fruits program there in 1964 and created the first primacane blackberry. In additioin, his grape cultivar helped create the Cotton Candy grape. How may I contriute this article to Wikipedia? IM2ADHD (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

The notability of your father must be demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable and independent sources (see WP:42). It is strongly discouraged to write about someone connected to you, and you must disclose it. In general, if the subject is notable an article will develop naturally over time. If you still think you can create this article, read Help:Your first article and use the article wizard, though I wouldn't recommend beginning this article right away, as per my previous comments. TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

hi, can ask for a review

Hi! I’m a new editor and I’ve written a draft article in my sandbox. I would really appreciate it if someone could help review the draft before I move it to the article space. Here is the link: User:Linvn100/sandbox Linvn100 (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I've placed the draft in draft space at Draft:Vietcombank Fund Management Company Limited and put the information needed to submit it, but you shouldn't do that until the draft is in your own words, not written by AI. See WP:LLM as to why using AI is problematic.

If you are associated with this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I took a while to edit and rewrite the draft, and I’ve republished it. Could you please have a look and let me know your thoughts? Thanks for your feeback. Linvn100 (talk) 07:05, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

County Employees editing

I can see where it's allowable for Federal Employees are allowed to edit, however, I see nothing about State and Local employees making changes. We are currently in the process of updating our Communication Procedures and this one item keeps popping up because we can't get a clear answer by reading through all of the documentation. Thank you for your assistance. BlueSmurfette (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Employees have a paid conflict of interest. The WMF's terms of use require that they declare their COI which, on the English Wikipedia can be done according to the WP:PAID process. Once that is done, they should not directly edit the articles with which they have a COI - they should use the edit request wizard to ask uninvolved editors to make the changes on their behalf.

Their username should represent the user, not the employer. Cabayi (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Changes Denied

Hello, im trying to share important information with Wiki regarding Whitecap Mountains. I'm wondering how to share the information that the resort is now in foreclosure and is likely to not be operational for the 2025-26 season?

This section pertains to a 2025 civil case filed in Iron County, Wisconsin (Redacted)47.49.12.35 (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

We can't cite government documents, and this includes court cases. You'd need a news story that covers this for it to be included. I've also redacted what appears to be the text of the court judgment as a possible copyright violation. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the revert of your edit by MakaylaHippo1998, and with the reason they gave in the edit summary. Primary sources may be used to verify basic facts (bullet #3 at WP:PRIMARY) but you cannot draw any inference at all from the primary source. For example, you could say that a case was filed in CountyName, State, by PlaintiffName on dd MONTH YYYY seeking $AMOUNT damages against DefendantName, and cite that to an official Wisconsin government web page containing the case details, because those are basic facts and not an interpretation of the record.

You most certainly can always cite government documents. (I have to assume Jesse meant copy here, and not cite.) In many cases, government documents are also in the public domain, meaning you could not only cite, but also copy the actual document content word-for-word, although that doesn't mean that would be a good idea per Wikipedia's guidelines, and in this case, it certainly would be a bad idea. (In the very rare situation where the entire content of a court document or major portions of it would be worthwhile to have available to Wikipedia readers, you would *still* not copy it into a Wikipedia article (per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE) but rather into Wikisource, and then simply copy brief quotations from it to the Wikipedia article, and link it to the Wikisource document.)

But unless protected by a motion to seal, or related to certain protected cases like juveniles, Wisconsin's Public Records Law assures that Wisconsin court records are available to the public for inspection, copying, and republishing. The Public Records Law lays out in detail what this applies to, and imho this applies to both the filing and the court judgment as well. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice about copyright violations according to Wisconsin state law. If you have doubts, consult a clerk of the relevant court about any copyright or other concerns you may have about the use of Wisconsin government documents. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

"seeking $AMOUNT damages against DefendantName" would be against WP:BLPPRIMARY if the defendant is a living person. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

My saying "cite" there was precisely for the reason GGS points out. Given the case is from this year, the likelihood of the parties being living people is practically certain, and the case is about defaulting on a loan for the property. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:41, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Regaining access to old account

I'm pretty sure the username CyanideDreams is one of my accounts but I haven't been able to access it because the email address that was attached to it was deactivated by yahoo or maybe I neglected to add an email address. Is there someone with the authority/ability to confirm this is my account if I give them the email address and where the login locations were? Even if I can't access it again, it would be nice to confirm it was mine. The creation date in 2006 lines up with when I made another account for school, but the registration date is in 2013. I'm not sure what the 2013 date means. Cyanide Dreams Ni (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@Cyanide Dreams Ni: Special:EmailUser/CyanideDreams says "This user has not specified a valid email address". Special:Log/CyanideDreams says the account was created at the English Wikipedia 4 December 2006. That's the only information we have. Special:CentralAuth/CyanideDreams says the global account was registered in 2013 but that's just the time the old English account was automatically converted to a new system with global accounts which can be used in all Wikipedia languages and many other wikis run by the Wikimedia Foundation. It doesn't imply the user did anything in 2013. You cannot regain access to the account if you don't know the password. Passwords never expire so you can try your luck. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

CyanideDreams, created on 4 December 2006, has made no edits to en:Wikipedia, not even edits subsequently deleted. (If you're wondering, none of "Cyanide Dreams", "Cyanide dreams" and "Cyanidedreams" has been registered on en:Wikipedia.) -- Hoary (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

"CyanideDreams is one of my accounts" For interest, how many accounts do you have, and why? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.253.201 (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

How long does it normally take for an article to be published?

Looking for basic information on typical turnaround for an article being published. Shawn7474 (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Shawn7474 does not comply with the user page guidelines. If you would like to create a draft article, see Your first article. Draft articles need to be reviewed, and this can take a while.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:17, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Shawn7474. There is no typical turnaround, because the pile of drafts waiting for a review is just that - a pile, not a queue. Reviewers take them in whatever order they feel like.

What I will say is that obviously bad drafts (unsourced, sourced only to primary sources, promotional content, or obviously LLM-generated) are often picked up and declined relatively quickly; while drafts which look as if they are going to be time-consuming to review (large numbers of citations which need to be sifted through; bare URLs for citations; citations in other languages) may get left lying there longer before a reviewer feels up to looking at them.

A draft which is most likely to be picked up quickly and accepted is one which has only as many citations as are required to verify the information in it, with all those citations properly formatted, so the reviewer can see the title, author, date, and publication easily, and the majority of the citations independent, secondary, reliable, and containing significant coverage of the subject; and the text neutral (as opposed to what the subject wants to say).

It is rare for a new editor to have the skills to create that sort of draft, so 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) 14:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

Why my wikipedia page was deleted?

Hello - I have received reach outs from several of your readers informing my my page has been deleted. Can you tell me why it was deleted and what I can do to have it reinstated?

Please advise, Thank you! Anita Vogel - Television Reporter/host Anitajvogel (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Anitajvogel, your page was deleted per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anita Vogel for lack of significant coverage. Unless you can find sources that demonstrate you meet WP:GNG missed by the participants in that discussion, I advise against trying to have it reinstated/recreating it. GoldRomean (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I need to log in to my long time account and I can't....please help me

Help me log into my long time account please help me

Please help me log into my long time account Modernist Latertime (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@Latertime What errors are you getting when you try to log in/why can't you log in? GoldRomean (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I am trying to log into my longtime account User:Modernist; and it doesn't work. So yesterday I created this account Latertime in hopes of figuring out how to get back as Modernist....Everytime I try to log in as modernist it tells me it sent a verification code to an old hotmail email account of mine that I can no longer access... Latertime (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@Latertime: If you know the password then mail meta:Trust and Safety at cawikimedia.org. Don't reveal the password in the mail. You can try asking them to set a new email address for the account. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Edit deleted?

on the wiki page for the Agora in Columbus OH I added Too Much Joy’s 1992 appearance that doubled as a wedding reception. Why was it deleted? Ckboldies1121 (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ckboldies1121: I'm not seeing any edit in your history that resembles your descrption nor any edit by you except for the edit here at the help desk. Perhaps you forgot to press the publish button. Fabrickator (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like this IP edit to Newport Music Hall. @Ckboldies1121: Please always give a link or the actual title of pages you refer to. It was an odd unsourced description, "not kidding" is not something an encyclopedia writes, a wedding reception may have been closed to the general public, and based on page views the band appears less notable than the others. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ckboldies1121: The key word above is "Unsourced". It may be possible to mention the event, if you can cite coverage in a reliable source, such as a newspaper. See WP:V and WP:RS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Page to be translated and published in english

In order to make it available in english, I have created the translation of the page fr:Valentin Dommanget

But it seems that im not an experienced user enough to publish this page. how could i proceed please ?

Many thanks Valentindommanget (talk) 08:44, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

You need to use the Article Wizard to create and submit the translation as a draft. The English Wikipedia has different policies than other Wikipedias, you should make sure that the subject meets our notability guidelines and other policies before submitting. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Also see Help:Translation. Lectonar (talk) 08:51, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Also please declare COI that you are the subject of the article you are drafting, Valentin. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Valentindommanget, fr:Valentin Dommanget has a long list of Expositions. This unhelpfully fails to distinguish between solo and group exhibitions. Just one of the listed exhibitions appears (at first sight) to be referenced. It's a 2024 exhibition, and its "reference" is about a 2018 exhibition, and therefore of course the "reference" doesn't verify the 2024 exhibition at all. Is such material worth translating? -- Hoary (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

can't locate what I started

I've begun to create a wikipedia page re: Stanley L. Robbins, MD but I can't find what I've written so far. Where should I be looking? Jeffers1750 (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Your account contribution history has no edits(other than this post). Did you possibly create it while logged out? 331dot (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

My searches of that title could not find it, though I'm not a search expert. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

User:SWJeff1750/sandbox? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

User:SWJeff1750/sandbox and a longer version at User:SWJeff1750 TSventon (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2025 (UTC).

I have moved the latter to Draft:Stanley L. Robbins. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:12, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

And the former is at Draft:Stanley L. Robbins/sandbox. TSventon (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jeffers1750: Now you have found your draft, the most important thing to do is to add citations; please see WP:referencing for beginners. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jeffers1750:, a pretty randomly chosen sample: "Robbins took the bold move of re-structuring and re-writing what had become a wildly successful text". Which reliable source, independent of Robbins, says that the move was bold or that the success was wild? -- Hoary (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia

I am retired and had a sub-career as a fact checker. I thought I might be able to help Wikipedia, but I cannot understand all the ins and outs and wheres of the website to help. I am not a techno dummy, but I find Wikipedia far more difficult to master than ArcGIS, my next most difficult example. For an organization that prides itself on openness and participation, I am suprised there is no simple, plain language introduction to the website and how to get involved readily available. Jkonovsky (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

There are a number; I have left links to some on your talk page. Please stick at it, and ask here again, as often as you need to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I know this is a bit basic, but WP:ADVENTURE might be a place to start? When I started, I had the added disadvantage of not being very tech savvy. I spent time reading some of the noticeboards, where a lot of editors use policy in discussions. I made small corrections, copy editing etc. You do soon get a feel for editing. Knitsey (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jkonovsky: I want to empathize with your observation that editing Wikipedia is difficult. Aside from the technical issues of formatting text (whether using wikitext or visual editor), aside from the notability requirements (i.e. when creating a new article), there are plenty of opportunities for confict and it's easy to feel that people are pushing an unreasonble point of view. If you don't abide by the policy (e.g. fail to be properly respectful of other editors), you can find your editing privileges temporarily suspended, and all you get for this is to be allowed to present your explanation of why you think your position is the right one. Have fun! Fabrickator (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jkonovsky: As a fact checker you may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Reliability or Wikipedia:Reference desk. In the latter you can answer questions without knowing much about Wikipedia editing. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I am a visual learner. Is there some sort of schematic diagram that lists all the parts of wikipedia and how they relate to each other? Jkonovsky (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

None that I know of (Wikipedia is probably too big and organic for that), but I have copied your question here, from my talk page, in case anyone else knows of one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:28, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jkonovsky It is even worse than describing "parts of Wikipedia" because the whole of that is part of Wikimedia. There is a recent series of articles in our in-house magazine WP:Signpost that attempts to describe this. The first of the series is at this link. See also Wikipedia and Featured visualizations of Wikipedia Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Correcting A Page Title

Can we clear up some confusion? There is a page:

Highly elliptical orbit

Which actually SHOULD explain the concept of a highly eccentric or highly elongated orbit. The page title could be "HEO and Highly Eccentric Orbits" or something. It could explain that the acronym HEO has been incorrectly expanded to High Earth Orbit and also Highly Elliptical Orbit. In the "two body" case, all orbits are elliptical and the term "highly elliptical" does not make sense. Are there "highly straight" lines? Or "highly round" circles? A High Earth Orbit is very unclear as well, is that the same as a geosynchronous or geostationary or even cisLunar orbit?

Can I edit the title of the page? CharlesSpaceGuy (talk) 04:22, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposed changes to an article title are best discussed on the talk page of the article involved. You can start a requested move discussion to ensure that any change would have consensus.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:17, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, CharlesSpaceGuy. Wikipedia articles use the common name for the topic, not a pedantically correct name. I went to Google Scholar and that quickly confirmed my suspicion that many peer reviewed scientific papers use "highly elliptical orbit" both in titles and in the content of the papers. So, a title change is likely to be contentious. Cullen328 (talk) 06:32, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

"Highly eccentric orbit" would be a more rational term; and was indeed more widely used until 1962, according to [2]. But WP's rule recommends using the term in common current usage. Maproom (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

The other terms can be used as aliases (or Redirects) to the existing article; and can be explained in the opening paragraphs (or lede). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:05, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I have created redirects at Highly eccentric orbit and Highly elongated orbit. HEO is a disambiguation page with an entry for Highly elliptical orbit. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:05, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Surely, Habib and TR's beliefs are currently mainstream. The silent majority are not far right, are they ?

Wikipedia specify them as being Far Right. That is not really a fact. It is shown as such. It is merely an opinion, (of some people) that is a fact. It is therefore not a correct description. 2A00:23C6:C20D:2701:4877:135E:9E8A:CDF6 (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:Verifiability, not truth. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. You did not specify the article(s) you're talking about, and I don't care to go looking for it.

But Wikipedia articles should summarise what the reliable sources they are based on say. If the sources cited for that article describe them as "far right", then that's what the article should say - it's not Wikipedia's judgment, it's that of the sources.

If the sources do not in fact say this, or if there are other reliable sources which give a different view, then the article should possible be changed.

The best place to discuss this is on the talk page of the article in question. ColinFine (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Lieutenant General Sir Charles Dobell

In doing research on generals in WW1 I found little on this person. Then I came across a SPINKS Auction catalogue (DEC 2020) which contained an amazing biog of Sir Charles.

Can some add to what is already available, please?

(Copyright violation removed)

82.30.193.172 (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've removed what is presumably copyrighted text from an auction house. We can certainly cite reliable secondary sources (I don't know if an auction catalogue would count) but we absolutely do not copy material on which another organisation holds copyright. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 11:53, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Logging in with Firefox

I've noticed that logging in has changed. When I log in on Wikipedia or Wikisource on my computer with Firefox, I'm only logged in to Wikipedia or Wikisource. Before when I logged in, as recently as April, I was logged in to all wiki projects when I logged in with Firefox on my computer (Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, etc). But when I log in with Microsoft Edge, I'm logged in on all wiki projects at the same time. Do you understand what I mean and what has happened and why and how to solve it? Has this been brought up already on this or another language edition? I've already asked about it on Swedish Wikipedia, but maybe I'll get more helpful results here. I don't know where else to ask to get a solution. Grey ghost (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

It might be better, as this is a technical matter, to ask at WP:VPT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)