Jump to content

Wikipedia:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Helpdesk)
    ↑ To top of page
    Shortcuts
    Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)
    Ask a question
    Skip to top
    Skip to bottom

    August 23

    [edit]

    How To Make a Article

    [edit]

    How Do You? EggzBeatsGamez (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @EggzBeatsGamez: start by choosing a subject that meets our notability requirements (WP:N). If your subject is not notable, then there is nothing you can do to create an article for Wikipedia. After you are sure your subject is notable, come back here for further instructions. -Arch dude (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And via an apprenticeship of carefully thought out, beneficial edits. (Not like this third edit of yours.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thoughts on notability of these three academics?

    [edit]

    I am not particularly experienced with writing biographies, or WP:NACADEMIC, so I thought I'd ask for second thoughts here on if these three people are notable, because in an editing field I work in often (esotericism/cults) I run into them a lot and use them for citations very often, and I like having the fields in my citations have blue links.

    I don't know how the finer details of NACADEMIC work or if they'd pass it - would they? It says something about h-indexes but I don't even know where to begin with finding that out. All three of them have multiple books (either written or edited, though sometimes co-edited. Not sure how that affects NAUTHOR) that they wrote that themselves pass NBOOK with several reviews, though I think of the three we only currently have an article on a book Petersen wrote (Contemporary Religious Satanism). In any case even if they are notable by a technical SNG pass I'm not sure I'd even write the articles because I'm not sure if I could make it good enough for my own standards, but I'm curious if I could. Thoughts? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    PARAKANYAA, the links you offer aren't usable for much. For each of these three academics, has his work been discussed at any length by academics other than, and independent of, himself? Or has it been summarized in textbooks on the subject? Choose the most promising (from this perspective) of the three, and here (in this thread), link to what you consider the three best sources, quality being a combination of reliability, independence (from each other as well as from the subject), and depth. -- Hoary (talk) 07:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hoary I know they're not independent, they just show citations and works which I have been told matters for academic notability. I don't think textbooks exist for this subject. I mean, their works have plenty reviews and citations and there are other works that recount their arguments.
    Bogdan's books are reviewed here:
    [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
    There's some more but I got bored of looking for them when I feel that established the point. Several authors in books recount his arguments on the topic. I don't really know what helps here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is indeed an impressive-looking list of reviews. (I didn't even skimread any of them. I plead laziness.) Even in academic journals, reviews can at times be petty, superficial or wrongheaded; and sometimes the reviewer seems to want to summarize the book that they wish they'd published on the same subject; but more often than not academic reviews do have content that can beneficially be summarized. If you based a draft on Bogdan on such material, I imagine that you'd get a worthwhile article out of it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PARAKANYAA Just to point out that we have an article on the H-index which you may find helpful. Bogdan's value of 15 would not be considered very high but he is working in an esoteric area (pun intended). Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    article cant be published

    [edit]

    hey there, ive recently writen an article under the title of sadat people but out of some reason my article isnt published yet Sheikh Said Heshmatullah ibn Ashraf al-Mohammadi (talk) 08:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sheikh Said Heshmatullah ibn Ashraf al-Mohammadi If you are referring to the content of your sandbox, it is "published" in that it is on Wikipedia's computers, but it is not yet formally part of the encyclopedia, as you lack the information to submit it. It's better to create drafts via the article wizard, which makes it easier to submit them. We can edit your draft to permit you to submit it, but if you were to submit it, it would be rejected quickly, as it is completely unsourced. You need to source the information that you are providing, please see Referencing for Beginners. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    but how do i even list the sources? if i list the sources then my article will be published? Sheikh Said Heshmatullah ibn Ashraf al-Mohammadi (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are other issues as well(see the below comment) but sources are a must. Again, please see Referencing for Beginners.
    If English is not your primary language, you may feel more comfortable editing the Wikipedia that is written in your primary language. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to the other answers, I will point out that "An Exploration" of anything is almost certainly original research, which is not permitted in a Wikipedia article. An article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources have said about a subject, nothing more. It should not contain any analysis, argumentation or conclusions (except possibly a summary of the analysis, argumentation or conclusions in a single cited source). ColinFine (talk) 11:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey thanks for replaying, i have all the sources but the problem is that i dont know how to list them on my article the only reason i published my article was the it was kind of urgent situation, but i can read the beginner guide and also i speak several languages but i feel my feel most comfortable writing the article in english because it would be the most accurate with what the sources say. Sheikh Said Heshmatullah ibn Ashraf al-Mohammadi (talk) 07:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gems from User talk:Sheikh Said Heshmatullah ibn Ashraf al-Mohammadi/sandbox: "rich", "unique", "noble", "esteemed", etc. Such awestruck language is not suitable for Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 09:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    what kind of words arent allowed to use in wikipedia

    [edit]

    what are the words you cant use Sheikh Said Heshmatullah ibn Ashraf al-Mohammadi (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you mean when speaking to others on talk pages? WP:NPA has what you are looking for. Logoshimpo (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be related to this comment in an earlier discussion here. I believe what that person meant is that Wikipedia articles should not attempt to promote their subject – they should not contain subjective judgments like "esteemed". Tollens (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh: WP:PEACOCK would be relevant. Logoshimpo (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sheikh Said Heshmatullah ibn Ashraf al-Mohammadi, please also read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Cullen328 (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Name change of otherwise non-notable transgender person in another article

    [edit]

    I am a transgender person who is mentioned in a Wikipedia article under my deadname. I was a significant participant in events described in the article, and several sources for the article describe me under that name. I would like to correct the name, as

    1. it was a significant accomplishment of mine, which I now have to hide to avoid people looking it up on Wikipedia and finding my deadname, and

    2. friends of mine have (without my prior involvement) tried to correct it and they get frustrated when their correction is reverted.

    Unfortunately, as the events described in the article are passed, nobody is likely to write about my connection to them under my new name in a public source which can be cited on Wikipedia. Is there any way to update the name, that meets Wikipedia's policies, so is less likely to be reverted? 77.11.43.185 (talk) 12:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What is your current article name? If you were not notable until after your name change, your deadname doesn't have to be mentioned per MOS:ID. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As you say this event occurred under your deadname, this passage of MOS:GENDERID seems to be the relevant one: "Former names under which a living person was notable should be introduced with "born" or "formerly" in the lead sentence of their main biographical article. Name and gender matters should be explained at first appearance in that article, without overemphasis. In articles on works or other activities of such a person, use their current name by default, and give another name associated with that context in a parenthetical or footnote, only if they were notable under that name. In other articles, do not go into detail about such a person's name or gender except when directly relevant to the context.". If this event occurred under your deadname, it's going to be difficult to keep your deadname out completely.(see Chelsea Manning as an example) 331dot (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My question is about how to get my new name in the article at all as well as reducing the appearance of the old name. Basically I'd like to know what my options are. 77.11.43.185 (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I may be slightly wrong but I believe the correct thing per policy would be to use your current name followed by a "born as" or "formerly" with your deadname, such as "John Doe (formerly Jane Doe) did XYZ thing". 331dot (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I'm correct in my reading of MOS:GENDERID, if reliable sources state your preferred name, there is reason to move (rename) the article and have the lead sentence say "Name (formerly Name, born May 1, 1980) ..." or something similar to that. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, this user seems to be talking about an existing article where they are mentioned, not writing an article about themselves. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand, which is why I mentioned moving a preexisting article. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Either you are misunderstanding or I am. I don't believe any page move is necessary, since this person is not the subject of any article. They are mentioned in an article that is not primarily about them, and they are looking to remove the use of their deadname in that article.
    By my reading of GENDERID, I think the "only if they were notable under that name" clause is controlling here. If this person was notable under their deadname, we should use the parenthetical/footnote option presented by 331dot. If not, we should just use the current name, provided we can reasonably prove that one name is correct and the other a deadname. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I misunderstood the message as them having an article about them, rather than being mentioned in another article. My apologies. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If people here are not sure, or if it is a question of clarifying a policy, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard may be a better venue. TSventon (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I'm missing something, a problem that the above replies have not addressed is the lack of reliable sources mentioning the name change. MOS:GENDERID says Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words ... that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. Is the lack of reliable sources with the new name a total bar, and if so, is there something I could do myself that would count as a reliable source? Or is my only option to try and get the existing reliable sources to issue corrections? 77.11.43.185 (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Reliable" depends on context, and we typically find credible self-published statements reliable for identity claims like this. If you have a verified website or social media account, a statement there would probably suffice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing a curious "notes" section on a Wiki page

    [edit]

    On the main page on the artist El Greco, the notes section, El Greco#Notes, is displayed in an odd vertical format instead of the normal line-by-line format. Is there a way to edit this format so that it reads in a more normal manner? Thanks. What fun would there be if we already knew all there is to know? (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is because of the huge Timeline next to it. (It looks OK to me, but I imagine it would be problematic with a narrower screen width). I don't think there's a technical fix, apart from moving the timeline. I suggest raising it on the article's talk page. ColinFine (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pronunciation

    [edit]

    Is it possible for wikipedia to include a more readable guide to pronunciation for each item. The current symbols are unreadable/incomprehensible to the layperson. thanks john 2604:3D08:5A8A:6900:8CBE:97C5:9315:5237 (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem with using a more "comprehensible to the layperson" scheme is that laypeople from Birmingham, Birmingham, Boston, Bloemfontein, Brisbane, Bangaluru or Dunedin (couldn't find a major B in New Zealand) will understand it rather differently from each other. That's one of the main reasons for using IPA.
    Having said that, MOS:PRON does say The Wikipedia respelling system, using the {{respell}} template, can be used in addition to the IPA, so you're welcome to add pronunciations using that scheme wherever you wish. ColinFine (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those incomprehensible strings of symbols are in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). There are several IPA readers on the Internet. I use IPA reader. if you paste the IPA into the IPA reader it will pronounce it for you. -Arch dude (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ColinFine I suggest Bucklands Beach population of 9,360 or Botany, New Zealand. Botany is large enough for a semi-professional Ice Hockey team, Botany Swarm, which is one more Ice Hockey team than Bangaluru has. :)Naraht (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Need Help! Accidentally deleted Heading "Gyroklystron" in article "Klystron"

    [edit]

    I was editing the article "Klystron ", by adding a citation to the heading "Gyroklystron" ( located after heading "Reflex Klystron") and somehow, I deleted the heading "Gyroklystron " could someone please fix that and/or please help me to fix it? I think there is some conflict between the browser on my phone and Wikipedia 's visual interface, because when I click in a location to edit, the cursor keeps being sent somewhere else. I'm even having trouble posting this question - the text of my description keeps disappearing. Thanks. Sorry for the trouble. Taliesin13 (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that Cryptic (talk · contribs) took care of this. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When in doubt, you can undo your own edit from the edit history menu. This returns the page to the state it was in before your edit. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    media permission

    [edit]

    message indicating media may be deleted in 7 days unless copyright holder provides some permission. There is no copyright, this was provided when license CC(0) was created.

    what to do when no copyright exists?? MikeMARS52 (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I assume that you are talking about File:Celebration Joe Chambers.jpg. The file information page says that the photo was taken by Royce Degrie, who is a professional headshot and portrait photographer in Brentwood, Tennessee. Why do you say that no copyright exists? Do you have a legally binding document from Royce Degrie saying that he has released this photo into the public domain? If not, the photo became copyright protected the moment it was first published. Cullen328 (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MikeMARS52 After a bit of detective work, I assume this relates to File:Young Joe Chambers.png which you uploaded to Commons. You assert that you have the permission to do this from the daughter of the photographer. That is not sufficient. You must follow the procedure described at c:Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team, which involves the copyright holder emailing Commons volunteers to confirm they have licensed the file in the ways allowed on Commons. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ... so that's at least two files that are not correctly licensed yet. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now three. c:File:MJC January 2013 204.jpg appears to be a selfie of Joe Chambers (music producer), which is clearly not your "own work" given Chambers died two years ago. DMacks (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    August 24

    [edit]

    Re: Archie Henderson (comedian)

    [edit]

    Hello. I created an article about Archie Henderson (comedian) and just went to upload it. I then discovered there were versions in draft that have been rejected a few times.

    What is the protocol about uploading a new version which, I believe, has sufficient quality citations? bbc.co.uk, theguardian.com, telegraph.co.uk plus newspapers.

    It is a much reduced version of what was proposed before, but I believe it fits requirements.

    Do I just copy and paste my new article into the draft space? Any suggestions appreciated.

    Thank you 04:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC) BJCHK (talk) 04:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I will suggest you to improve Draft:Archie Henderson (comedian). It was declined couple of times and needs improvement, you can improve that. If you think that some portion from that draft need to be removed (non-cited) do it and if you have enough sources from across the web, then include them too.–– kemel49(connect)(contri) 04:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @KEmel49 thanks - the thing is I have already written and prepared an entire article already so I feel a bit meh about having to rejig what's already there. I might try uploading mine and see what happens. BJCHK (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then i would suggest you to submit your piece of work to AFC through your sandbox.–– kemel49(connect)(contri) 05:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I want to make a draft page but it is a redirect.

    [edit]

    I would like to make a draft page for the Iyanya album Applaudise but it's a redirect. Should I just turn the redirect to a page? OsigbemheEJB (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    First create a draft as Draft:Applaudise. after completing that draft, Submit to AFC. rest will be done then only.–– kemel49(connect)(contri) 05:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @OsigbemheEJB You are autoconfirmed and reasonably experienced, so there is nothing to prevent you creating a new article at the redirect Applaudise, if you are confident it will survive the new pages patrol, who check all such new submissions. My advice would be to develop the text in your sandbox so that when you first overwrite the redirect the new article already looks OK. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @OsigbemheEJB Well done. That looks fine to me. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    St Anne's College, Oxford

    [edit]

    Reference number 18 on this page is incorrect. Please repair. I cannot. Sorry and thank you, 175.38.37.197 (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This appears resolved. Tollens (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Regensburg subcamp

    [edit]

    There's a discussion of the footnotes on Talk:Regensburg subcamp. Not to mention the lack of engagement from the primary author, s/he doesn't seem to have the skill to fix the references so that the resources are moved to the bottom and titled bibliography. This is standard for better quality articles. I am not a subject matter expert in this topic so I'm requesting some help over in that section of the talk page. Logoshimpo (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Change Display Name of Article

    [edit]

    Hi team I recently Published an Article I wanna Change it's Display name Please help me about it. My Author's name is "Howard Hughes III" but on Article it's showing "Edward Hughes" please help me in this regard. thanks Saadkhan1233 (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Saadkhan1233 You added links to an article about a completely different person(Edward Hughes) than the person you wrote about. Your draft is located at Draft:Howard Hughes III. As a new user you cannot directly create articles and must submit your draft for a review.
    You will need to disclose your connection to Mr. Hughes, please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. It appears that you know him as you took professional looking images of him and he posed for you. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your draft is also completely unsourced. See Referencing for Beginners. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There were references at the version of the article which had hijacked the dabpage Edward Hughes, none of which were independent of the subject, and none of which contributed to notability. Saadkhan1233, it seems you and Hbhughes3 have a serious misimpression about the purpose of Wikipedia. See WP:42 and WP:GNG. Folly Mox (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Link to a subheading within a Wikipedia article

    [edit]

    In a Wikipedia article, is there a way to link to a *subheading* within another Wikipedia article, as opposed to linking to the full article? As an example, how do I link to "Early life (1732–1752)" subheading in the article George Washington? Thanks! Tfhentz (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Put a # after the article name and then write the name of the heading: George Washington#Early life (1732–1752). See WP:ANCHOR for detailed instructions. Perception312 (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perception312, Excellent; that really improves my presentation. Thanks. Tfhentz (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Emojis

    [edit]

    These emojis appear as boxes for me: 🪾🫜🫆🪉🫩🫟. How do I make this not happen? Frost 15:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Frost: I don't know about the rest of them, but the first one is "leafless tree" and is in the set of emoji unicodes in the draft inclusion for this year. Wikipedia sends the new unicode. Your browser interprets it. You will not see the actual emoji until your browser gets updated, probably early next year. see this article. -Arch dude (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's interesting. Thanks! Frost 16:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Frost: If you copy-paste them to the "Characters" field at https://r12a.github.io/app-conversion/ (not affiliated with Wikimedia) and click "View in Uniview" then you get this which shows images and names. The images are made by the site and not your browser. It doesn't have something which can make your browser show them at other sites. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Useful tool. Thank you. Frost 18:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking for a second set of eyes on this userspace draft

    [edit]

    While going through AfC pending reviews, I stumbled upon a draft submitted today, here (User:John Balao/sandbox). This page appears to be a copy-and-paste from somewhere, and even Turnitin shows ~75% similarity to a few sites. However, I can't seem to find where this was pasted from to report a copyvio.

    The article itself has several formatting oddities, which led me to believe this was a definite copyvio, but does anyone think I'm missing something? Recommended course of action, or a user to step in who knows more about this situation? Regards, OnlyNanotalk 19:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @OnlyNano: Another edit has declined it as giant wall of unformatted text. I did notice the submission started with "EDIT BELOWCASE STUDY", so maybe it is from a medical textbook. Did you check the sites Turnitin suggested? RudolfRed (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they seemed to have some content copied, but not actual sentances. OnlyNanotalk 20:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, it's extremely obviously copypasted from somewhere. A positive identification of the source shouldn't be necessary to delete as copyvio. Folly Mox (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great point, thanks! OnlyNanotalk 20:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
    Page deleted. DMacks (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Can socks override SNOW?

    [edit]

    A merge request on the page Severe weather sequence of July 13–16, 2024 has had unanimous consensus for about 2 weeks now. However, the two times it has been closed were by socks of WP:LTA/Andrew5, who improperly closed it under two different accounts over the past 2 days. I was considering closing it myself, but I am an involved editor and the situation with the socks might overrule that. Also, at WP:CR, the second sock requested a closer, but it was denied due to sock activity. I know WP:SNOW dictates that involved editors can close discussions with unanimous consensus, but if an involved closer didn't, I'm unsure if involved editors have the authority to do it. Is it fair to finish closing the merge myself, given unanimous consensus? Note none of the socks had voted on the merge !vote. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    August 25

    [edit]

    Request for Guidance on Creating a Wikipedia Article for Orkhan Hasani

    [edit]

    Dear Wikipedia Support Team,

    I want to creat a Wikipedia article for Orkhan Hasani, a writer whose work has gained recognition. Before proceeding, I would like to seek your guidance on ensuring that the article meets Wikipedia's standards for notability and reliable sourcing.

    Orkhan Hasani has contributed significantly to literature, and I believe his achievements are notable. However, I want to ensure that the article adheres to Wikipedia’s guidelines on biographies. Could you provide any specific advice on the types of sources that would be considered reliable for this purpose, as well as any additional tips for creating a well-structured and compliant article?

    Your assistance in helping me navigate this process would be greatly appreciated.

    Thank you for your time and support.

    Sincerely, Aytekin 78.109.54.4 (talk) 02:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there anything unclear in Wikipedia:Reliable sources? Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 03:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Photo

    [edit]

    How do I add a photo to an existing article? J. L. Shegull (talk) 04:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You might start here: Help:Pictures. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 06:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Cite from Wikidata

    [edit]

    Hello,
    I'm not new to Wikipedia but I don't know where else to post this:
    For me, citing is a tedious work. To cite correctly (e.g. with a template like {{cite book}} ), some fields need to be filled. I don't know about the technical complexity and it can be start small. But I would find it great if all we have to do is to give the Wikidata item of the citation (If it has one) and the template will output a citation with all the information for the reader (a 'style' option can be added in a second time). What do you think ?

    Kind regards, Jona (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Even if that can be done, in most cases you'll still have to add a page number. And I wonder if very many individual articles in journals (never mind individual pages on websites) are ever going to have Wikidata items.
    But I can see it might be useful in some cases. I suggest mooting it at WP:VPI. ColinFine (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    {{cite q}} is a sometimes successful attempt to do that. There are those among us (I am one) who intensely dislike {{cite q}} because of its, and wikidata's, failings (I say this even though I contributed to its code base). If {{cite q}} were drawing from a database dedicated to citations; if {{cite q}} obeyed WP:CITEVAR; if {{cite q}} autosubsted so that editors reading an article's wikitext would know who and what was being cited ({{cite q|Q12345}} has no more contextual meaning than visual editor's <ref name=":0" /> – don't encode that which ought not be encoded)... For these latter reasons, I and other editors expand {{cite q}} references on sight. Please don't make extra work for us.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jona: As one who spends a fair amount of time improving existing citations by providing an updated url or archive-url parameter, and realizing that the same source I am modifying is used in numerous other Wikipedia articles, I have often thought how sad it is that we couldn't just have a single instance of the citation stored externally, so that when the url needed updating, we could just update the single instance in the external source. What????? Now I learn that this functionality is already present???
    And so what is the objection? That when I'm editing, I can only see the qid and not the details that will be displayed when the article is viewed? I don't get it.
    And what is the alternative? It's that when I fix a citation referencing a url, and that same citation is used in 23 places, 22 of them remain broken. And the desired display format is different in different articles? This objection doesn't have much appeal to me, the fact we are replicating this information in each different place it's needed, that seems to overlook basic principles of information management. Facepalm Facepalm Fabrickator (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia generally does a really excellent job of overlooking basic principles of information management.
    I don't have a theoretical objection to {{cite q}}, but if one is malfunctioning I'll replace it with its contents and modify to fix, since changing the Wikidata claims to get the CS1 to play nice with it again is both beyond my competence and likely to break something somewhere else.
    I do think that a centralised repository for bibliographic metadata is called for, from which individual views can be extracted for different projects and CITEVARs, but I think that Wikidata is not the best place for this: it's too general and fairly inscrutable. I'm aware that Wikidata already has a big repository of citations that are actually used by real academics outside the Wikimedia ecosystem, but it's not convenient or transparent enough for our purposes here, in my personal opinion.
    One problem with any centralised means of creating citations, from {{cite q}} to a hypothetical successor to regular old single-source CS1 wrappers, is that their CITEREF values all have to be whitelisted manually at Module talk:Footnotes before they can be used in shortened footnote without being misfiled into Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, since the CITEREFs don't seem to be available to the parser at the point maintenance categories are added. Folly Mox (talk) 10:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Trappist the monk to let me know about {{cite q}} ! How do you "expand {{cite q}} references on sight" ? Jona (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    {{cite q|Q12345|expand=yes}}
    {{Citation |id=[[WDQ (identifier)|Wikidata]]&nbsp;[[:d:Q12345|Q12345]] |title=[[Count von Count]]}}
    then replace the {{cite q}} template with the expansion and fix/add/delete parameters as needed.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Substing {{Cite Q}} would be orthogonal to its purpose; and Wikidata is "dedicated to citations"; among other things. There have been entire international conferences about such use. You are welcome to supply code to address citevar issues. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Accessing and clearing the notification counter

    [edit]

    At the extreme top of my User page, between my User name and the tab for my Talk page, are two icons. One is for high-level notifications which shows the number of notifications waiting in a red square; and the other is for low-level notifications which shows number of notifications waiting in a blue square.

    For the past few weeks I have been unable to activate either of these facilities. There are notifications waiting to be read but clicking on the icon doesn’t cause anything to happen. I can’t read my notifications and I can’t clear the wait list. How do I fix it?Dolphin (t) 12:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dolphin51 What happens if you navigate to Special:Notifications directly by clicking the link here? Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mike Turnbull Thanks Mike. That worked perfectly. I have now read my notifications and the counters have reset to grey (zero?). Dolphin (t) 21:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Template provides incorrect information. The reference cited does not support the information mentioned.

    [edit]

    Could you help with the {{reflist}} issue on the Vizhinjam International Seaport page? The template provides incorrect information, and I don't know how to remove it.

    http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Vizhinjam_International_Seaport_Thiruvananthapuram Thank you. Hobbywriterae (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Answered at the Teahouse, I think. ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI

    Fixed problem with template use Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Application of WP:CRYSTAL to unscheduled pageant

    [edit]

    The pageant listed above is an unscheduled future event for a new pageant. Since it does not have an established history it is non zero probability that it will not occur this year. Not sure what to do with this, as some of the references for national contests in 2024 seem good enough. But should there be an article at all? Should it be a draft until a date appears?

    I have tried to initiate a discussion on the article talkpage, but no participation has occurred yet. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have added some information there. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.209.45 (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
    Per another editor's suggestion I have draftified to Draft:Miss Charm 2024. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ALSA, TEXAS

    [edit]

    The unincorporated town of ALSA, TEXAS is in Van Zandt County, but the lat & long show it being outside GILMER, TEXAS in Upsur County. When I manually enter the information from USGS I get this error Coordinates: 32°81′8″N 96°0′3″W Coordinates: latitude minutes >= 60

    {{#coordinates:}}: invalid latitude. Also what is the second set of coordinates shown? DMc75771 (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds like you're entering the decimal coordinates (32.818, -95.034) in degrees–minutes–seconds form, the second two parameters of which live in a finite field of modulo sixty. See the GeoHack page.  Courtesy link: Alsa, Texas. What second set of coordinates are you referring to, DMc75771? Folly Mox (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, when I search Google maps for "Alsa TX" and drop a pin, I get a longitude pretty exactly one full degree West of the longitude recorded at Wikidata (which populates the infobox map). The latitude is identical. Sounds like a typo. I'll see if I can fix it. Folly Mox (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Conformed longitude degree measure with OSM and GMaps value at Wikidata and here. Should be
    Resolved
     – (Unless I screwed it up.)
    Folly Mox (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    August 26

    [edit]

    Creating a new page for family member

    [edit]

    I would like to create a wikipedia page for a family member, Samuel Krimm, professor emeritus at University of Michigan in physics (researcher in biophysics).

    I understand there are conflict-of-interest issues, and it may not be best for me to create the page. I'm wondering how best to proceed.

    It is possible to create a robust page using published sources such as the following:

    If I were to limit myself to these sources, would that be sufficient to ameliorate perceptions of bias?

    If not, who would be a better source to create the page? (Could some administrator at the University of Michigan do so?) Philscijazz (talk) 02:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't matter who writes it: they should not, and it will be deleted.
    There's just not enough to hang an article on, by our standards. And I googled for anything else on him, got nothing. What you'd need is a biographical article in at least two reasonably notable independent publications. Couple-few meaty paragraphs about him in an article or section of an article in say the Detroit Free Press or a book or something. Where he came from, how come he got interested in the field, that sort of thing; not just a list of works, not just citations of his work, not just passing mentions.. University biographies don't count, they are not independent.
    Doesn't have to be as big as the Free Press, but it can't be some very obscure venue. Ann Arbor paper -- maybe, if that's considered independent of having a special interest. I can't guarantee it. And, oddly, interviews probably won't be counted as a valid. So unless there are a couple of biographical articles hiding from google, it's not enough. Sorry. Herostratus (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, here is an article with a couple paragraphs involving Krimm. Benton Harbor, Michigan paper. Population 9,000. If it was about Krimm it'd help some. But its just him talking about someone else. It doesn't help. Herostratus (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, this helps clarify a great deal. The specifically biographical component required is probably a tough find, though maybe not impossible.
    If I can find something in Ann Arbor News (or something comparable) I'll come back and ask for a judgment. If there is any bio from a professional society like American Physical Society (he won an award in High Polymer Physics in 1986), is that still too close? Philscijazz (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know. It might be for me, but I'm pretty liberal. You should probably go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation and follow that process. And those people are pretty strict on bios. Anybody else know if the American Physical Society would be an independent source? Herostratus (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: the APS/HPP prize was 1977. 1986 was a different milestone. Philscijazz (talk) 05:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Philscijazz, the requirements for an article for a professor such as Krimm are a bit different. They are covered in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). He is definitely notable enough for an article since he was elected a fellow of the American Physical Society in 1959. His name is already in Wikipedia on the list of fellows here. A reference for that award is the database at the APS website. That same database reports that he received the Polymer Physics Prize in 1977 for "his outstanding experimental studies and theoretical developments in infrared and Ra-man spectroscopy and X-ray scattering from natural and synthetic polymers". Material published on the University website, including his curriculum vitae is fine for facts about him. Biographical coverage in newspapers is not expected but can be very helpful. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much! Now, who can create the article? If a family member does, is that acceptable as long as there is an explicit disclaimer of the family relationship and all content is cited properly?
    If I would be eligible to do it, I will set about doing it. If not, I'd need to look for a properly eligible creator. Philscijazz (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Philscijazz: If you think you're capable of writing a WP:NPOV article about this person that reflects the WP:SIGCOV they've received in WP:RELIABLE WP:SECONDARY sources or otherwise that meets the criteria listed in WP:NACADEMIC, then you can try. However, given your personal connection to the subject, you should first create a WP:DRAFT and then submit it to WP:AFC for review when you think it's ready. You should also follow the guidance given in WP:COI, particularly with respect to WP:DECLARECOI. Before you do start working on a draft though, you might want to take a look at WP:LUC, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:PROUD and WP:OWN because once an article about this person is created, you won't have any type of final editorial control over it and won't be able to prevent others from editing it. In fact, you will for the most part be expected not to directly edit it yourself, but rather follow the guidance given in WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement. So, it's quite possible that the article may subsequently move in a different direction from the one you originally intended or perhaps even include content that you rather it doesn't. So, if your primary intent is to highlight all the great things this person has done while perhaps overlooking some of their not so great moments, you might find WP:ALTERNATIVES to Wikipedia to be more to suited to such a thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent, thanks very much.
    I have direct knowledge of the subject, and there aren't any skeletons in the closet to worry about, no controversies. Not concerned about things "moving in a different direction" once independent editors take over, just aiming to establish some posterity for his work, which is considered important by the academy. But I appreciate the warning just in case.
    He meets criteria 2 and 3 in the academic notability page (APS fellow 1959 and APS prize 1977).
    If indeed university materials and CV are significant enough and secondary/reliable enough to qualify the article, then I think I can put this together and hand it off for evaluation. I'll do the best I can, and hopefully there will be enough to warrant an article. Philscijazz (talk) 06:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of what you will need to do as a family member is to essentially forget absolutely everything you know about him, and write only what you can find in published sources - this can be difficult to do. ColinFine (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, yes, I totally get that! Journo hat on, here. If it isn't in a legitimate/independent web source, it ain't in the article.
    One thing I'm going to try to get right is when something very technical would benefit from translation/paraphrasing from jargon into a more vernacular expression for broader accessibility.
    Also, in order to convey some particular aspect of his work, is it acceptable to cite a couple of his peer-reviewed journal articles? (This is where the paraphrasing might really come in handy.) Philscijazz (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This [11] is a passing mention but it hints there might be better sources out there. Assuming it's the droid we're looking for. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's exactly the droid, thanks.
    This is a related link (see original post above):
    https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/75/9/30/2845466/The-trailblazing-career-of-Willie-Hobbs-MooreThe
    But there aren't really personal bios along the lines that seem to be required of non-academics.
    The original post here has a number of sources at the university that seem to be sufficient according to StarryGrandma. CV is found secondarily at the first link:
    https://lsa.umich.edu/content/dam/physics-assets/physics-documents/Krimm_CV.pdf
    So the only remaining question seems to be whether an immediate family member can create this article. Philscijazz (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Philscijazz All a family member need do is read WP:COIEDIT and comply with 1) the disclosure requirements and 2) use the articles for creation process. A more relevant issue in your case is your inexperience: writing articles is quite difficult for newcomers, even without a COI. So I suggest you contribute to existing articles for a while, to get used to our policies and guidelines before tackling the larger task. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gotten some tremendous start-up assistance from the Help Desk folks here, really appreciate it. Especially the process map from @Marchjuly, and I've seen the policies and guidelines. It makes me bold enough to try it in one shot, with a draft.
    I do have a good deal of writing experience in various contexts, and I've been a frequent user of Wikipedia for many years. I'll compare with comparable existing articles for story format. I'm taking all the various cautions very much to heart, but I'm a pretty quick study on things like this, and I'm going to take considerable care with it - I totally understand it's not just a casual thing like a social media post or even business email. It's essentially a journalistic enterprise. I've been involved in enough formal writing to know the difference, and to adhere to policies. Thanks much. Philscijazz (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia isn't really the journalistic enterprise many seem to think it is, and often users who approach it as such (including some say they're professional journalists with lots of formal writing experience) find themselves having a hard type getting articles created. My suggestion to you is to focus your draft's content on clearly establishing the subject's Wikipedia notability and keep that content as minimal as possible. Trying to do too much might allow whatever COI bias you have to start to creep in, and this, in turn, could start to make things a bit cloudy and harder to assess. You don't need really need to create anything more than a WP:STUB which has a clear claim of Wikipedia notability. Once the draft has been approved by AfC, you can then use the article talk page to make edit requests using Template:Edit COI regarding future expansion of the article, or (ideally) you can just leave it to others to build on what you've started. Everything you've posted above so far sounds great, but pretty much everyone wanting to create an article about a family member says the same thing. Many people in a similar situation as you think everything is great until their draft is declined the first time or things don't otherwise go as they want. At that point, some people get really frustrated and give up, lash out or do some combination of the two. I'm not trying to discourage you; I'm only suggesting you temper your expectations and think small. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks and understood. My approach will indeed be minimalistic, in the sense of ensuring everything is directly citable and relevant. And if I make a mistake, I'll be looking to the editorial authorities for continuing guidance (I know I'm a newbie, but I do have some amount of transferrable skills).
    I'm approaching this with the mission of doing what's possible, and learning the Wiki Way along the way. I'm going to make my best effort to get it as close to right the first time, but I'm also prepared to be alerted to mistakes. My mission then will be to explore how to correct the mistake, if possible.
    A good model for my approach is to observe my initial response to the suggestion that without a couple of conventional bio sources the article would be deleted (or really, the draft would be rejected - the draft process makes a whole lot more sense to me). I basically accepted that, and set my mission to see if any such thing existed in citable form on the web. When it was noted that the academic notability criteria were different, that gave me a new round of hope, and redirected my efforts. Philscijazz (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One specific question about legitimate sources. The following link is a mixed source:
    https://apps.lib.umich.edu/faculty-memoir/apps.lib.umich.edu/faculty-memoir/faculty/samuel-krimm.html
    There is an official bio, and links to CV and a list of publications. May I presume that would be treated as authoritative? Is it acceptable to draw from this bio for the draft article I'm going to write? (Details are pretty much covered in the CV, but I can cross-check to be certain. He may have written the bio himself, but I presume it would have been verified by the university for publication.)
    Following that is a Memoir section, written by him as author, and mentioning many other relevant figures in the history of biophysics at UMich (he is included in passing). I presume that this is not considered a source for his own article, but perhaps it might be a legitimate source for articles about others mentioned in the history. He had a particularly close and comprehensive view of the introduction development of biophysics research at the university. Philscijazz (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jack Churchill (1880–1947)

    [edit]

    Reference 6 is in red - please repair - I cannot work it put at all, thank you 175.38.37.197 (talk) 08:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    Hello. I would like to use a photo from British newspaper from 1908. I have looked at the "image use policy" and the "when Does copyright expire" page but this kind of thing isn't my forte and I am struggling to grasp it. I believe the photo is relevant and beneficial for the article but would appreciate some guidance in normal English please! Thanks BJCHK (talk) 09:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @BJCHK: It's impossible to answer without knowing which image, form which paper, and/ or the identity of the photographer if known. Please provide a link, or details, or both. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @BJCHK My understanding is that if the photographer is unknown, the photo is in the public domain and you can upload it on Commons as such. Otherwise [12] it may be PD depending on when the photographer died, life+70 years is the line. If this is about a leadimage for a WP-bio, you can use it locally on en-WP if it's not in PD. Probably. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BJCHK, if the newspaper was published before 1923, any copyright in it has expired, and you can upload an image to Commons and use it in any Wikipedia. (I also disagree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång's statement about unknown photographers: if you don't know who the photographer was, you won't be able to establish their date of death, and so won't be able to use the "after date of death" calculation.) Maproom (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what the Commons Help says, which is: Anonymous works: Photographs created before 30 June 1957: 70 years after creation if unpublished, 70 years after publication if published within 70 years of creation (so fine in this case) but Standard copyright term: Life + 70 years if the photographer is known. GGS is therefore correct. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Same minute. WE ARE BORG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Maproom That, according to Commons, is the British part of the equation.
    "If the work is a photograph with an unknown author taken before 1 June 1957 then copyright expires 70 years after creation or, if during that period the work is made available to the public, 70 years after that. "
    I agree that the US part of it is fine, but Commons need both US and country-of-origin-if-other rules to be cleared. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Publishing My Work Entirely

    [edit]

    How can I publish the entire page publicly? Masierra2008 (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Masierra2008: Assuming you're talking about Draft:Medusa Film, you'd use {{subst:submit}}, which you've apparently learned to use at User:Masierra2008/sandbox. Your draft does not have any inline citations that establish any wikinotability, so it definitely won't be considered as it is. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Appreciate it! Means to me! Masierra2008 (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Quack...Do you have another account by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Harvey milk

    [edit]

    Harvey Milk's wiki page has a random, uneditable section on Lithuania for some reason. Should be removed, but is a protected wiki. 2A02:C7E:300B:3A00:9935:E255:90AF:77D5 (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Done, thanks for pointing this out.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the fix! 2A02:C7E:300B:3A00:9935:E255:90AF:77D5 (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    why is this 2A00:23C4:C303:A901:586B:BD3B:C364:F081 (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There was a random section because an editor thought it was an improvement. If you are curious you can look at the article history. TSventon (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Membership in a diffusing subcategory and also in its supercategory

    [edit]

    Claude Jorda was both a judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (a UN tribunal) and a judge of the International Criminal Court (a non-UN international court). The article was included both in Category:French judges of international courts and tribunals and in its (usually) diffusing subcategory Category:French judges of United Nations courts and tribunals. (It was the only article included in both categories.) Not realizing the subtlety involved, I removed the supercategory. Now I'm wondering whether that was correct. If he'd only been an ICC judge, he should only be in the supercategory; and if he'd only been an ICTY judge, he should only be in the subcategory. There's a somewhat irritating asymmetry in the fact that his role at the ICTY is now explicitly reflected in the subcategory, whereas his role at the ICC is only implicitly reflected in that he's in the supercategory by virtue of being in the subcategory. Perhaps it was appropriate to put him in both categories after all? I couldn’t find anything about a case like this in WP:Categorization. Joriki (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Trying to set an account and create a wikipedia page

    [edit]

    Is there a number to call to guide me as to how I can set up a wikipedia page? I have tried but it will not go thru. 45.49.230.182 (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No, there is no phone number to call. There should be a link to create an account on your screen, or you may use WP:ACC. We write articles here, not "set up pages", and writing an article is the most difficult task to attempt here. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Let me know what you think before you speak. All I need to do is go do my thing. Masierra2008 (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you meant to put this comment in the earlier section #Publishing My Work Entirely, @Masierra2008? (Not that I can make any sense of what you've said wherever it goes). ColinFine (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=1242464345"