Wikipedia:Help desk

arbitration

There is an article that tries to cover 2 standalone topics. I want to open an arbitration case against it for its deletion Gnosticfind (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

1. Which article are you talking about?
2. There's no need to involve arbcom in a routine deletion case. See WP:Deletion for how the deletion process works.

Athanelar (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@Gnosticfind, welcome to Wikipedia! Arbitration is meant for intractable behavioral issues that the community can't otherwise handle. You cannot open arbitration cases against articles. If you feel an article is too broad in its coverage of the subject, you may raise this issue at the talk page of said article. If you really wish to delete the article, please see WP:AFD for instructions. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 21:30, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@Gnosticfind, does the article in question cover two subjects about which Wikipedia (a) already has two separate articles, or (b) has an article for one but not the other, or (c) has no article about either?

If (b) or (c), is there any reason (aside from lack of WP:Notability) that either or both subjects should not have articles? If not, why not look towards creating a second suitably named draft about one of them, editing the existing article and new draft to 'segregate' their content, and change (move) the existing article's title appropriately? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

I hear you and you sound so nice. However, I have asked before and was rejected. That is why arbitration needs to be opened. Here is the useless article:

Christianity and Islam

This nonsense article was posted by somebody with an ulterior motive.

Each is a standalone topic and has carloads of information. Additionally, the religions are very different--almost opposites.

Also, I am fine with bankrupting you until you remove it. Gnosticfind (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no process for deletion by arbitration. The arbitration committee does not rule on content issues. As for bankrupting Wikipedia, good luck with that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

The article is pretty clearly focused on comparison between the two religions, and the ways they have interacted. Now, whether the title and lead do a good job of communicating that is another matter, but it is not true that the article 'tries to cover 2 standalone topics'.

Also, we already have independent articles on Christianity and Islam if that's what your complaint is.

I'm also not sure what you mean by I am fine with bankrupting you until you remove it. but this sounds like a WP:THREAT which is categorically not allowed here. Athanelar (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

An encyclopedia covers many kinds of topics, and this is one of them. Nobody is making you read any of it.

If Wikipedia followed my religious beliefs, all articles would be required to use the words "fantasy fiction" to describe every religion. That would be a ridiculous and stupid way of censoring an encyclopedia, so it's a good thing they don't do it. But your proposed way of censoring the encyclopedia is no better than mine. Encyclopedias don't follow any person's religious beliefs, and it's pointless to ask them to. Encyclopedias do respect everyone's religious beliefs, by not forcing people to read articles they aren't interested in. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I see you cannot tell when you are being played. I am now going to write an article on Christianity and Dentistry ALSO Unitarianism and Frisbees. Its very important to be so open minded you can prove your brain has fallen out. Wikipedia is not about integrity and scholarship; Wikipedia is about feel-good verbiage Gnosticfind (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

You can write anything you like. Just not on Wikipedia, since we don't permit random contributors to abuse its facilities to construct nonsensical 'articles' to prove some sort of facile 'point'. Should you attempt to actually add such content, you will no doubt find yourself blocked per WP:NOTHERE. We can manage well enough without your input. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Regarding me having been played: which part of "your religion is fantasy fiction" did you misunderstand? TooManyFingers (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

You can write "Christianity and Dentistry" if you can find and cite WP:N-good sources that covers that subject, compare Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. I started Shakespeare and Star Trek myself. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Second sentence of that article: "Both are Abrahamic religions and monotheistic, originating in the Middle East."—so no, they are not "almost opposites". It is entirely appropriate for this project, as an encyclopedia, to have an article comparing and contrasting them.

Your dislike of the article, or of one of the two religions, is not a reason for its deletion. You are not here to build an encyclopedia, but to "right great wrongs", and as such you are wasting your own, and our, time. If you persist, your account will be blocked.

(This, then this, and also this may be related.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

"Wikipedia wants to trick you into thinking Christianity and Islam are similar so that you'll convert to Islam" has to be the strangest WP:CABAL theory I've ever heard. Athanelar (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Meh, it's a natural part of our liberal agenda. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I always wondered what Template:Convert was for... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:47, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Per your links above, I also wonder if "demi-urges" is a term for people who wants something, but in a half-assed way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Demiurges was meant, I think. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:03, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, both can be argued to make sense. Kinda like Christianty and Islam. Can be, I said. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

We're off topic by now, but given their new username is 'Gnosticfind' they were likely referring to, as Andy said, the Demiurge of Gnostic Christianity Athanelar (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Vorrei e non vorrei, mi trema un poco il cor, ...

-- Zerlina in Mozart's Don Giovanni, having a famous demi-urge during "Là ci darem la mano" TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:02, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I may have to steal your definition of demi-urges. Ha! That was funny. David10244 (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

P.S. I was also confused by the "agenda" comment. David10244 (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Gnosticfind: I think the point you are trying to make is that Christianity and Islam is a synthesis of information, and indeed synthesis is not allowed per policy: Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material. However, if there are sources comparing two standalone topics then an article can be written using those sources. Essentially, any ulterior motive is by the authors of those sources, and Wikipedia simply reflects that. Commander Keane (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia donation

I can not in good conscience donate to Wikipedia any long. The far left political thoughts drive me away ~2025-44010-89 (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Nobody is obliged to donate to Wikipedia (or more accurately, the WMF, since it is them that is responsible for collecting donations). Or to read Wikipedia for that matter. Given that plenty of people seem happy enough to do both, I'm sure we'll manage without you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

We don't care. Nobody here has any involvement with the WMF's money. Athanelar (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, if you only want to read what you want to hear and what fits your views, this isn't the place for you. 331dot (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

This sums it up too: Wikipedia:Not gonna donate. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:55, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that you are having those thoughts and that they are driving you away. --Jameboy (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Everyone is welcome to read and edit without donating. I have given much of my time to Wikipedia but do not assist financially. As others have pointed out, donations are taken by the WMF, and only a fraction is spent on improving Wikipedia. I too am disappointed that much of the income is passed on to other organisations, many of which have a political position. It is also true that beneficiaries are almost exclusively left-wing, though I would be equally upset to see money passed on to the far right. Certes (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

And why do you think that this is worth mentioning? GrinningIodize (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

What happened to the sidebar menu?

When reading an article in Wikipedia, there was usually a sidebar to the left of the screen, showing the article's table of contents, that is, its section and sub-section headings. You could click on one of those headings to go straight to the relevant part of the article. The sidebar was always visible, and could be scrolled independently of the main article text.

Today, that sidebar seems to have disappeared. Instead, there is a button in the top-left of the screen. Clicking on the button makes the table of contents visible. But it now takes up nearly half the width of the screen, and obscures the text behind it. And when you click anywhere outside the table of contents, it disappears and you have to go to the top of the screen and click the button again.

The same change seems to have occurred with the main menu. This was the menu that previously appeared just above the ToC in the same sidebar, showing things like "Main page", "Random article", "About Wikipedia". Again, this has been replaced by a menu button that behaves in the same way as the ToC button.

This is all very irritating. It means that you now have at least three clicks to navigate an article, whereas it was previously only one.

Is there any way of getting back to the previous system? Or is to something we are stuck with?

Thanks in advance for you help.Mike Marchmont (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Just to add: I am seeing this behaviour when viewing Wikipedia on the desktop, that is in a web browser under Windows. As far as I can see, there is no change to the Android app. Mike Marchmont (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Mike Marchmont.

The default skin of Wikipedia changed a while ago, and for a while we got a lot of people asking this.

I don't know why you have just had the problem, but please see WP:Skin. ColinFine (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mike Marchmont: When you click the icons to display the main menu and the table of contents, there should be a button saying "move to sidebar". PrimeHunter (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mike Marchmont you might have accidentally switched to mobile mode. Scroll to the bottom and check if it has “Desktop” listed and then click that if it is present —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you all for your prompt replies. Unfortunately, I am no further forward.

@TheDJ:. No, I was not in mobile mode. But thanks for the suggeston

@PrimeHunter:. I can't see the "move to sidebar" button anywhere. Is it in the menu itself, or somewhere else on the page?

@ColinFine: I have now tried all the skins showing in my Preferences page. MinervaNeue and Timeless both behave the same as the new default skin (as far as this issue is concerned). Legacy and Monobook do indeed show the sidebar, but this does not show the ToC; the Toc is present in the body of the article which means it is not visible when you scroll down.

I must be missing something here. Any further suggestions would be gratefully receive.

Mike Marchmont (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mike Marchmont: After clicking the icon to display the main menu or table of contents, I get a popup box with "move to sidebar" on grey background at the top right of the menu, to the right of the bold heading "Main menu" or "Contents". Does something different happen when you click the icons? What is your browser? PrimeHunter (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: That worked perfectly. Many thanks. I think the reason I couldn't see the "Move to sidebar" button was that my browser window was zoomed down to about 90%, and so the flyout panel was not quite wide enough to show it. After I reset the zoom level, I could see the button. So now the menus and ToC work again the same as before, which is relief. Mike Marchmont (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Should "Ujjal" link only to "Ujjal Dosanjh"?

Should Ujjal link only to Ujjal Dosanjh with other items in "See also"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: The other current items seem to belong in "See also" but you could add other people in intitle:Ujjal. I don't know whether they (or Ujjal Dosanjh) are commonly referred to as just Ujjal. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter:, thanks, yet another obvious idea that I did not think of... --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

When Ujjal Dosanjh was frequently in English-language news, they never referred to him as just Ujjal. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:43, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Suggest a Person of interest

How do you suggest a person of interest ~2026-62052 (talk) 02:58, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Suggest for what purpose? If you are referring to writing a biography, the person must be truly notable as Wikipedia defines that term. Wikipedia biographies are written by volunteer editors like you. Please read Your first article for a detailed description of the process. Cullen328 (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-62052.

There is a place where you can suggest articles - it's called requested articles - but in honesty, suggestion tend to stay there forever.

The fact is that Wikipedia is created and maintained by volunteers, who work on what they choose - and people will usually pick up your suggestion (or anybody else's) if they happen to be interested in the subject.

So it's possible that if you suggest a subject, somebody will go, Oh yes, they're interesting, I'll have a look at that. Possible, but not very likely. You can perhaps improve the odds a little if you can find a WikiProject that is relevant to the person - if you post there, then people reading it may already have some interest in the subject.

But generally, if you want Wikipedia to have an article on a subject, the most effective way of doing that is to write it yourself. Unfortunately, writing an article is much much more difficult than people imagine who are not familiar with editing Wikipedia. So if you are going to take that route, I would suggest spending 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) 13:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

You can tell us their name, and provide links to two or three pages about them, here; then we can advise you further. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

If you have information about a Person of interest, please contact the police. However, if you are asking about creating a Wikipedia article about a notable person, please read WP:NPERSON. -Arch dude (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Author George S. Drew

[Material copied from this page redacted.]

Elemental Wall: Spirit Binds

published June 27, 2024

Elemental Wall: Water Surges

published September 25, 2025

Elemental Wall: Earth Rumbles

published tbd 2026

Elemental Wall Series. Author.g.s.Drew (talk) 07:54, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Are you asking for help with Wikipedia, Author.g.s.Drew? -- Hoary (talk) 08:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

We have no article on that author. Please see WP:NAUTHOR.

If you are he, please see WP:Autobiography. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:03, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, that external link (to Pegasus Publishers) triggers my security app (Malwarebytes Browser Guard) to give warning of a possible malicious trojan. It may of course be a false alarm.

My initial web search finds insufficient independent Reliable sources about George S. Drew on which to base a Wikipedia article. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.185} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Standardised user warning template

Is there a "Standardised user warning template" for the comment at Talk:List of mass shootings in the United States in 2026 which does not talk about how to improve the page? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to revert the comment and add the Template:Uw-bes1 warning to the TA. qcne (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Displaytitle

Hi there, I am working on Draft:Am-progressive. The display title of this article needs to be --> am-progressive <--

• am needs to be lowercase because it is referencing its use in lowercase
• am needs to be in italics because it is a metaword and a foreign word.

The displaytitle I have used seems to not work and adds it to the category "Pages with disallowed DISPLAYTITLE modifications". Please could someone assist me with the correct display title wikicode. Thanks, JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 16:19, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

{{DISPLAYTITLE:draft:{{lang|de|am|nocat=yes}}-progressive}}

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks – JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 16:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Concern about disturbing images on an article

Hello, I came across the following article: Sexual practices between men The article includes images that may be disturbing or inappropriate for general readers, especially minors. I wanted to ask if these images are correctly placed according to Wikipedia’s guidelines, or if they should be reviewed. Thank you. ~2026-73308 (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTCENSORED. If you think you may be offended by images of sex, I would advise not reading encyclopedia articles about sex. CoconutOctopus talk 16:37, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

The images seem properly placed. Images showing genitalia are drawn and not placed at the top of the article, to minimize shock value.

Wikipedia is not censored for any reason, including to protect minors from graphic imagery. Readers who do not want to risk seeing images they view as inappropriate should follow the guidance at WP:NOSEE. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

It is inadvisable to give minors (particularly younger ones) unsupervised access to Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Help:Options to hide an image may be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

The only thing that I would say is that there are probably too many images in the article and that some pruning would not hurt.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

the two lower down with images directly relating to a specific practice seem fine, the only question to me is whether the legality section needs an image of that type in addition to the map. Naraht (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

YE GODS! There's GAY SEX in the article GAY SEX?! Athanelar (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I should probably write an essay for scenarios like this mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 18:58, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Article was erased and redirected without a formal conclusion

Hello. 3 days ago, the user OutlawRun unilaterally deleted all text in the article 2025 Georgia State House District 121 special election and redirected it, without any consensus. I am not sure what to do. Delcoan (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Delcoan.

According to WP:BRD, if you disagree with the change you could simply revert it. (In order to do that, go to the link, and it will take you to the destination, but with a line "(Redirected from 2025 Georgia State House District 121 special election)" at the top. Pick that link, and it will take you to the redirection page. Then you can pick "View History", and simply undo the edit.

However, I see that there is relevant discussion from a few weeks ago at Talk:2025 Georgia State House District 121 special election#This needs to be merged. The last comment there was from @OutlawRun, and my guess is that since nobody has replied, they felt that there was nobody opposing the change, and made it.

I suggest you join the discussion at that talk page. ColinFine (talk) 10:59, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

important for articles

Clarification on removing dead links

Hello,

WP:DEADREF states that "if the source material does not exist offline, and if there is no archived version of the web page (be sure to wait ~24 months), and if you cannot find another copy of the material, then the dead citation should be removed and the material it supports should be regarded as unverified if there is no other supporting citation."

However, WP:KDL states that "a dead, unarchived source URL may still be useful. Such a link indicates that information was (probably) verifiable in the past, and the link might provide another user with greater resources or expertise with enough information to find the reference." and to "not delete a citation just because it has been tagged with {{dead link}} for a long time."

If a link has been tagged as dead for 24 months or longer, and the link fails all other steps on WP:DEADREF, would the next correct step be to remove the dead link per DEADREF or keep it per WP:KDL?

Thanks, Ecourter (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I would keep it, mark it as dead, and add a "better source needed" tag. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Probably needs a RfC, but personally I don't think we should be removing references just because they have died. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:24, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Why do you think they should not be removed? Ecourter (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Because that information was cited to that place. Having saying where we think the information came from is much more use than having no information on that, removing the citation details means that without looking through the history, theres zero attribution.

There is also a lot of usurption in news media nowadays. Websites will quite often overwrite their own news media. So, when something is cited, they can later change it. If that specific instance of the page isn't archived, then there is sometimes little difference between a live link and one that is dead. That's why we have an access-date parameter, to say that the information came from that specific website at that specific time. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:19, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

If there is no possible way to access a web source (and has been tagged dead for a long time), would that not make the source unaccessible and therefore not verifiable? Ecourter (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

But is removing the source and not the accompanying text an improvement? It's now an unsourced piece of information,. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Then I could remove that information as well or, per WP:DEADREF: "If it is material that is specifically required by policy to have an inline citation, then please consider tagging it with {{citation needed}}." Tagging with CN has been the method I have been doing when I've previously stumbled upon this situation. Ecourter (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

That is kind of my point. Our policies suggest that we tag it with citation needed, but I don't think that is a better solution than retaining the source even if it is dead. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:34, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@Ecourter And because we'd be irresponsible and destructive to go around assuming everybody was lying all the time. Requiring evidence is good. Requiring constant fresh sources of evidence is not smart. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:35, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Why would that not be smart? If "verifiability means that people can check that facts or claims correspond to reliable sources," how could a viewer verify a certain statement made if the attributed web citation has been tagged permanently dead with no archive or alternative found in over 2 years? An editor would have to either replace the source, remove the dead source and tag with {{cn}}, or delete the claim entirely. I agree with WP:DEADREF stating that tagging with citation needed is the correct method because I think it allows more editors to attempt to find a replacement accessible source for the claim. Ecourter (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

How is adding citation needed a better solution than {{dead link}}? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:39, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

If you mean keeping the dead link, I'd say replacing the entire web citation with a 'citation needed' tag is the better solution because A) it removes the inaccessible, therefore unverifiable source and B) allows others to search for a replacement source (as mentioned above).

If you mean the initial discovery of a dead link, then no, I think adding {{dead link}} is the appropriate choice if I could not find an archive or replacement at the time. Ecourter (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I disagree that having no information is better than having some information.^{[dead link]} can be used in-line for the exact same purpose as ^{[citation needed]} Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:04, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

We have to assume that the original link and the original source were both valid at the time. Proof doesn't unprove itself just by our not being able to find it anymore. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:21, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I would like to move this discussion here. @Lee Vilenski @Pigsonthewing @TooManyFingers you are welcome to participate and add your arguments. Ecourter (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox university -- map problem

In the article Episcopal Divinity School, there is a map in the infobox showing the school's former location in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The school sold its campus in Cambridge eight years ago and moved to New York City, as explained in the article. I can't find anything in Template:Infobox university as included in the article which calls for a map of Cambridge to be shown. (The infobox template does provide for a map, but none of the fields used in this article's infobox call for the map.) Elsewhere in the article, I updated the school's coordinates for its New York location, but that didn't affect the infobox. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@Metropolitan90, from a quick glance {{infobox university}} is generating a mapframe from the Wikidata coordinates.

Template:Infobox_university#Mapframe_maps - mapframe – Specify yes or no to show or hide the map... Internal onByDefault parameter: yes.

Episcopal Divinity School at Union (Q5383462) has the coordinates ending in 2017. Commander Keane (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The coordinates are pulled from Wikidata. Click "Wikidata item" under "Tools" (in Vector 2022) to see Episcopal Divinity School at Union (Q5383462). PrimeHunter (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I tried editing the Wikidata and now the map for the correct New York location is showing up. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Bible summary - can it be done?

Summary from Adam to Christ ~2026-92580 (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-92580. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? qcne (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @~2026-92580! This is the help desk, which is meant for questions related or pertaining to editing Wikipedia. This looks more like a question fit for the reference desk, specifically the Humanities section which includes religion as one of its topics. I recommend asking this there, though if I had to give an answer, the Genealogy of Jesus article covers the two distinct genealogies of Jesus as described in both the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. Hope this helped! _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 14:18, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-92580 If you just do a web search for "bible summary" you will find plenty of attempts at this. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

The following summary is not my own:

____

There once was a man who said "All

men are predestined to fall

(as Eve did, when tempted),

but will be redempted."

[with footnotes provided by Paul].

____

I hope that helps. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:32, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

New Template ChartDirect

Hello, I am not really familiar with the wikipedia pages here in enwiki. I want to inform that I have created a new Template:ChartDirect that allows again to do simple plots directly from wikipedia. The interface is similar to the Template:Chart and the legacy Template:Graph:Chart. Note, that it would be possible to also directly plot from wikidata using the same commons module as this new template. I have also posted this earlier in Wikipedia:Requested templates, but apparently it didn't get any attention there. Let me know, if I should inform somewhere else as well. Regards--McBayne (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Help writing article

Where can I get help with writing the article I've recently written -- history of Catholic theology? I tried in WP:Wikiproject Catholicism but they seem inactive (I believe a message sent 3 months ago has not been answered yet). Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hopefully you will be lucky with Wikiproject Catholicism, it seems some questions get answered, probably depending on the interests of pagewatchers. TSventon (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Are there any other places I can ask? Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@Wikieditor662: what kind of help are you ;looking for? If you want someone to take over writing the article for you, you would be lucky to find someone interested. If you want advice, that is more likely. And specific questions are more likely to get specific answers. I looked at WP:WikiProject Christianity, but that looks quiet as well. You could post a link to your original query. Have you seen history of Christian theology? It seems to have a lot of relevant content. TSventon (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

If you want someone to take over writing the article for you, you would be lucky to find someone interested. Well not taking over, but helping out... I thought Wikipedia articles each have multiple people working on it rather than one individual. Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Only if they're interested and choose to do it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:24, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@Wikieditor662, usually there are indeed many people working on articles, but the timespan is measured in months or years (unless the article is about a subject that has recently become popular, when the editor count will explode). More 'random' articles, like the one you're working on, attract fewer editors because there's nothing to really prompt the editing, if that makes sense? It means that someone has to find that article somehow (probably by searching for it), and that person has to be both interested in and capable of (as in technically capable and also able to find suitable sources) editing.

One example is an article I expanded, Kaz Hosaka - if you look at the history, you'll see it was created on June 27 2024; a few people tinkered with it after that, not making any major changes; it was moved back to draftspace, and then returned to mainspace, on July 4 2024; I saw Hosaka's final Westminster Show, and was thus prompted to search for him and then write about him, on November 24 2024; and pretty much nothing has happened since. This is a very normal sequence of events for an article! (Except perhaps for the brief adventure back to draftspace and then back to mainspace, anyway) Meadowlark (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Find out when I viewed a Wikipedia article first

Hi, I'm using the Wikipedia app on Android. The history tab let's me see when I viewed/read an article, however it only shows the most recent date. I'd like to find out when I viewed a specific article for the *first* time though. Is there a way to find that out? --~2026-10054-1 (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Your browser history is the only way, as far as I know. (In other words, for the app, no.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:22, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

AI Agents as source authors

So I came across the site AInvest (aiinvest.com) while reviewing citations as part of new page patrol activities. The article that the author has cited ( https://www.ainvest.com/news/emerald-expositions-navigating-recovery-post-pandemic-world-2505/ ) has a byline of "Generated by AI Agent Cyrus Cole". It is an interesting issue about whether we should consider AI Agent authors as reliable for 3rd party sources or not. I did not see this was obviously addressed here, which is why I'm posing this new question. I think this is a major emerging issue and I'd be interested in understanding where Wikipedia editors stand in general on this. Personally, I am loathe to treat any AI Agent as an author of a reliable source, but understanding how the community of editors considers this would be very useful to me. Thanks for your input. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:06, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

An AI "author" is not only never reliable, it's also never an author. It's a generator, and the difference is that it's incapable of thinking. ("Never reliable" does not mean "always wrong"; it means "can't be trusted".) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:20, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Ceyockey. The answer to your question about whether or not a source written by AI is reliable is "absolutely not". If the content is accurate, then the AI bot is rewriting actual reliable sources written by humans, and those are the sources that should be cited. Cullen328 (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

On further thought, I think it might even be more important in the minds of the AI boosters that AI, being inanimate, cannot be held responsible for its bullshit. (It's incapable of anything as intelligent as making a mistake.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:21, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

No access to email address

My account, this one, is logged in on mobile and I know the password. I have tried logging in other devices but it sends a verification code/email to the email I don’t have access to.

how can I change my email for this account? Hazara Birar ^(Talk) 08:33, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

In your account preferences. You should be able to do that from the device you are logged in to. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Referencing errors on William Eagleson Gordon

Special:Diff/1331462757

I can't see what's wrong with the date in my citation to the VC&GC Association - no such error has been flagged up on the date in the CWGC citation which is identically written. Thanks, Cloptonson (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@Cloptonson: The access date is in December 2026. Editors are not allowed to time travel when verifying references. DuncanHill (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

We are in January. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:50, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@Cloptonson minor edit FIX  Done CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 14:16, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

There's no rule against time traveling! You just have to edit on the date you travel to. (I always follow this rule.) Clarityfiend (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Tower of Botafuegos

Special:Diff/1331468459

I need to edit the date section. But I do not think that the article specifies a date other than 2001. Thanks, Theopedias (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@Theopedias FIX  Done for guides please see How the templates work CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 14:23, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Editing and adding to a Wiki page

Dear Wiki, I recently added to a Wiki page for the American Football player “Tommy McDonald”.

Are the changes under review by Wiki, because I see the next day that my additions to the page are not there? I believe I followed all the wiki rules, so I’m not sure why the new edits are not showing. Maybe it takes a few days for your review before it’s final?

Thank you in advance for your reply. Bluehen04 (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Bluehen04. Your edits were reverted because you provided no sources to verify the new information. We cannot accept unsourced information, and verifiability is our most important policy. This is especially important for biographies of living people, where unsourced content is removed as soon as possible. qcne (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Fully understand and my fault for not fully reading the rules/guides. Of course, integrity and accuracy is what makes Wiki a valuable source. I will make sure I include the sources next revision. Bluehen04 (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

You may find Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:45, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Doug LaMalfa

Looking up Doug LaMalfa, R congressman who died. Under death, it says he died for being a coward!!!! Shame on whoever added this comment. Please remove it. ~2026-11601-0 (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-11601-0 this is vandalism which has already been removed. qcne (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Phillip Ensler

Formal Request for Review of Repeated Disruptive Edits on Phillip Ensler Wikipedia

Dear Wikipedia Trust & Safety Team,

I am writing to formally request a review of repeated disruptive edits made by the user “Yoblyblob” on the Wikipedia page for Phillip Ensler. This is the second instance in which this user has substantially altered content that was neutrally written, well-sourced, and compliant with Wikipedia’s standards for biographies of living persons.

The edits in question characterize properly cited factual information as “promotional,” despite the content being written in a direct, encyclopedic tone and supported by reliable secondary sources. In addition, the revisions introduce wording that reframes events in a misleading or harmful context, which raises concerns regarding accuracy, neutrality, and potential bias.

I am particularly concerned that these repeated changes may constitute disruptive editing or vandalism, rather than good-faith content moderation. As Wikipedia emphasizes the importance of up-to-date, verifiable, and neutral information—especially on biographies of living persons—it is imperative that editorial decisions adhere strictly to policy and not personal interpretation or bias.

I respectfully request that this editing pattern be reviewed and that appropriate action be taken if it is determined that Wikipedia’s content or conduct policies have been violated. My goal is not to promote any individual, but to ensure that the article reflects accurate, balanced, and properly sourced information in line with Wikipedia’s mission.

Thank you for your time and for your continued work maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia.

Sincerely,

A concerned constituent ~2026-11367-4 (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-11367-4 Please do not use AI chatbots to write messages. This seems to be a content dispute and you should follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process, but first you should discuss this on the talk page of the article. Do not call any editor a spammer or a spreader of hate, as you did in the edit summary. qcne (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Promotion is a goal, not a style. A Wikipedia article about a person is part of a history book - not part of a business directory, and not a way to honor them. Any content that alludes to what the person could make or do for me can be promotion, depending on the context. And adding or removing ANY content in a way that appears intended to improve the person's image is definitely promotion. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:12, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Please note that there is no 'Wikipedia Trust & Safety Team'. The WikiMedia Foundation has a Trust and Safety team, as a part of their legal department. They don't however answer Wikipedia help desk questions, or otherwise involve themselves in day-to-day matters, and are highly unlikely to involve themselves in what appears to be a routine content dispute. If you have serious concerns, discuss it (in your own words) on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Template & section header positioning issue

While reading the Addiction article I came across this mess at the start of the 'Stimulus control of behavior' section. It appears that the Template:Operant conditioning at the end of the previous section was placed to the right side and the article is trying to squeeze the following (fairly long) section header into the tiny gap between the template and the left edge.

I don't have much experience with templates like these so I'm mostly relying on the template pages. Things I have tried to fix the issue include: adding |clear=left and |clear=both parameters to the Operant Conditioning template (which did nothing); adding a Chart Top template with |clear=both directly above the Operant Conditioning template (which put the entire following section in a box); adding a Chart Bottom template below as well (which fixes the header but displays the tree box in a box); and trying to add a blank line of text between the template and the header (which I couldn't figure out how to do; blank lines, spaces, and line breaks didn't work). The main issue I'm running into is that the parameters that might be able to fix this if it were just a Template:Tree chart don't seem to be available on the derived template.

Anyone know how to fix this? TypoEater (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@TypoEater: It looked OK on my desktop but I have moved the wide {{Operant conditioning}} to the start of the section so it doesn't squeeze the section heading in narrow windows. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Message about a calendar invitation

I just got a calendar invitation from "Wikipedia Admin" to have a Google Meet with a Will Morris. Note say that my Wikipedia page currently contains citation issues that may affect its accuracy and standing on the platform. I am not sure what this is all about. Can you enlighten me? Thank you ~2026-12255-5 (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @~2026-12255-5! This is very likely a scam that you should avoid. See Wikipedia:Scam warning for more info. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 23:00, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-12255-5: I should note that I checked to see if any user even goes by "Will Morris", all I got was User:Willmorris97 and they are clearly not an admin. This should be another clear red flag that this is a scam. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 23:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I venture to guess that most articles here have citation issues. We can fix them ourselves. (Just in the last few hours I've corrected a reference to a piece purportedly by Stephen Winick and purportedly about Europe to what it really is: a piece by Nancy Groce that's about the US. And I'm sure that as I continue going through that feeble article I'll discover more horrors.) The article "Will Morris" is referring to, if it even exists, has a talk page. If you're the subject of the article, use that talk page to make suggestions and requests for the article. What articles here don't do is stand on platforms. A very strange notion! It occurred to me that "Will Morris" might be insane, but on reflection perhaps somebody touched base in his thought shower. -- Hoary (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd venture to guess that "Will Morris" is probably trying to scam someone as well. Even if it isn't for money, this just seems like a way to annoy someone with random nonsense. So maybe not a "scam" but still "spam". Spam, spam, lovely spam! What a strange person... _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 23:29, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

If you would like to tell us the title of the page that is about you, we can advise further.

See also: WP:About you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Some freely licensed files are getting tagged for PROD

How can I seek help from someone to readdress PROD situation? I already found some photos eligible for automatic transfer to Commons. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Which ones? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 12:13, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Some tagged PROD by @Iruka13. Ahri Boy (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Then this isn't a technical question so much as it's a content dispute. (If you get a technical solution they'll still keep doing it.) So you should go to their talk page and ask them about it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:14, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Please give specific examples. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Update to Scottish Law Commission account

Good afternoon,

I've having difficulty adding a footnote to reference 5 as it keeps inserting number 1. Grateful if you could assist with this.

Thank you.

Wilma Wilma Campbell (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

@Wilma Campbell: I'm not sure what you mean by adding a footnote to a reference. If you mean there is already a reference and you want to add a footnote which applies to that reference but is displayed somewhere later then it's not something we do. You use VisualEditor so see Help:VisualEditor#Editing references for how to make references. Note that if you add a new reference then you should not edit the references section but only the place where you want the small bracketed reference number to appear in the body of the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

@Wilma Campbell: you can in fact put a footnote on a reference, but first please think hard about whether or not this is the best editorial choice. Probably better to just put the "footnote" information in brackets inside the ref. If you are sure you still want to do this see Wikipedia:Nesting footnotes. One situation might be when the same footnote will be used in multiple places in the article. -Arch dude (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Why do I need my email address to use mute features?

Mute features do not exclusively affect email. Why do I need a confirmed email address to use them? Dronebogus (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Which mute features? Where did you encounter this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

If I try to “mute user”, like for notifications, it says I can’t because I haven’t confirmed my email address. Dronebogus (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

See WP:MUTE. I also wasn't aware of this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Hii can someone review contribution history for user:Stefan2702?

I unidid their one edit on Daniel Peel page and suspected of them making edits for no reasons and it turned out to be correct. Special:Contributions/Stefan2702. They have been making vandalizing edits for some time now. I do not how to raise this behavior to administrators for some actions. It will be appreciated if someone can check their contributions and report in proper medium. ~2026-14349-6 (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I think that you mean this edit to Daniel Pearl. Yes, it wasn't a good edit. I reverted another of his edits. Neither edit was beneficial; but, in my view, neither was "vandalizing". (I wonder if for you, "vandalizing" means "not beneficial". If so, this is an unusual understanding of the word.) An alarming number of this person's edits have been reverted; but the third edit I looked at seemed good. -- Hoary (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

By vandalizing I didn't mean it for just the edit I Undid but the pattern of their previous edits. You can see this in their edits for Indian economy, TLP, Satyendra Bose... So on. If those are okay then I guess idk properly what vandalizing an article mean yet. ~2026-14349-6 (talk) 08:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Vandal = all they want is to ruin everything

Not a vandal = they want everyone to hear their opinion TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:31, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

"Vandalism" is defined and discussed in "Wikipedia:Vandalism". It's probably longer than you'd much want to read, but its content is summarized well in its short first paragraph. Do please read this first paragraph (and I encourage you to read the rest as well). -- Hoary (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Advanced watchlists

Is there any way to watch a page for only keywords, for example watching a talk page but only being notified when a section with "edit request" is created? As in any gadget, script, etc? Thank, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Reverting major changes made by Urayahahah

Been seeing users raise concerns (I did too) on Urayahahah making major articles in the firearms area without at least trying to see if the other users would object to it. As of now, he got rid of his own account. I won't be surprised if the user comes back to Wikipedia with another account. I forgot how many times the user's been doing this, but I suspect that the user did it three times (eg doing articles without consulting others and later on, asking to globally lock his account. Ominae (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Ominae.

If you have concerns about the long-term behaviour of another editor, then WP:ANI is the place to take it. But please read the guidance at the top of that very carefully before you post there. ColinFine (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Trouble logging in with my phone

Hi, I'm having trouble logging in with my phone. I can log in just fine on my laptop, but when I use the same user name and password with my mobile, it says there's an error with the user name or password. What am I doing wrong? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

can you try clearing cookies of the websit or use incognito mode to see if that works? ~2026-14349-6 (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Nope, that didn't work. I can access Wikipedia on my laptop, but when I use the same password on my phone, I get the pink box that says error in password or user name. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: Are you certain you are using the same username and password? Are you typing it on your laptop when it works or relying on something the browser stored? At which url are you trying to log in on the phone? Does it help if you switch to the desktop site on the phone by clicking "Desktop" at the bottom of a page? You can switch back later by clicking "Mobile view". PrimeHunter (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I figured it out. Somehow the keyboard on my laptop got changed from CA to GB, and when I entered the new password, it mapped to the GB layout. So when I tried to enter the same password on my iPhone, with a North American keyboard, it didn't match the GB version. When I noticed the mistake, I changed the keyboard on my laptop back to CA, then entered the new password with the CA layout. Then I tried logging in on my phone and it worked! Weird -- every so often the laptop keyboard changes to GB and I don't know what I've done. Thanks for the suggestions, everyone. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

How do I revert to the previous desktop layout?

I was using the site on desktop when, without warning or notice, the layout changed to resemble a mobile or tablet style. I can't find any option to revert back. I don't know if the site changed the layout or not. WeirdoTZero (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

At the bottom of the screen there should be a link that says "Desktop"; clicking that should return you to Desktop mode. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

This worked! Thank you. WeirdoTZero (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Archive bot

Archive bot takes very long time and its almost impossible to archive. Any solution..? --Gpkp (talk) 11:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

At the top of the page to which you link is a "report problem" link. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you User:Pigsonthewing. --Gpkp (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Starting a new page

Hi - I would like to start a new page and do not understand how to do it. Is there a step by step guide please? CarbonSix6 (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@CarbonSix6 Welcome to Help desk... I sent you full tutorial on How to start a new page check your Userpage or Click here please CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 15:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @CarbonSix6.

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) 16:07, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

See WP:Your first article.

Looking at Draft:Mohammed Abu Tair, you need to strip out all the promotional hyperbole (what Wikipedia calls "puffery"), such as "seasoned", "define his future influence", "political ascent", "his political work deepened" and so on. Regarding "A trained and highly experienced professional pilot"; are there any professional pilots who are not trained? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Page

Hello,

I hope this message finds you well.

I am the owner and General Manager of Flex FM, and I am writing regarding our existing Wikipedia page.

Unfortunately, I no longer have access to the account originally used to manage the page, and as a result I am unable to log in to update or correct information. I would like to update elements of the page, including historical information and ensuring that the content accurately reflects Flex FM’s development and current status. I understand Wikipedia’s policies regarding neutrality and conflict of interest, and I am more than willing to follow the correct process to request changes rather than editing the article directly.

Here is the link to the page in question:

Flex FM

I can provide proof of ownership and any supporting documentation required, and I would appreciate guidance on the appropriate next steps to have these updates reviewed and applied correctly.

Thank you for your time and assistance. Kind regards, Terry Little Owner & General Manager Flex FM Noelsie tl (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Noelsie tl, welcome to Wikipedia. You are probably by now already familiar with our policies on conflict of interest, and the recommendation to request edits on the article's talk page rather than updating information yourself. You may not yet be familiar with our requirements on paid-contribution disclosure: generally to comply with Wikipedia's terms of service, you must follow the procedure to identify and disclose your business relationship for any edit where you receive or expect to receive compensation. That procedure is described at Wikipedia:Paid contribution disclosure. You've already been upfront about that here so you're already ahead of many commercial editors, but the proper disclosure is still mandatory.

Once you have properly disclosed, you should go to the talk page of the article you would like to update, and write an edit request. For that you can see our summary guide at WP:Simple conflict of interest edit request, or check the links from that page for more detailed information. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Noelsie tl.

I'm afraid that you have a (rather common) misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and how it works.

Wikipedia's article Flex FM does not belong to you or the company, is not controlled by you or the company, and preferably should not be directly edited by you or anybody associated with the company, though you are welcome to make edit requests concerning it.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

All Wikipedia accounts are personal: group or role accounts are forbidden; and almost any account may edit most articles (COI being one restriction). ColinFine (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Given the OP says "I understand Wikipedia’s policies regarding neutrality and conflict of interest, and I am more than willing to follow the correct process to request changes rather than editing the article directly... I would appreciate guidance on the appropriate next steps to have these updates reviewed and applied correctly.", I wonder who has the misunderstanding? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

This is actually one of the things that made me assume the OP was using unfiltered LLM output in their post here. However, given their edit was reverted as promotional (and it's very much not hard to see exactly why) there's little to no chance the changes they've been trying to force would be accepted thru an edit request without completely re-writing the lot. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:35, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The sequence has been (with some repetition):

• Conflicted editor does things the wrong way
• Conflicted editor is reverted
• Conflicted editor is given advice on their talk page
• Conflicted editor asks here for further advice in order to do things the right way, while at the same time declaring CoI
• Conflicted editor is correctly answered (in this case by Ivanvector)

Correct me if I'm wrong. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

That's the way I see it. They may make a request for an edit that is entirely unacceptable, and we may be able to work with them from that point. At any rate we're still a few more steps away from "experienced editor tells conflicted editor their edits are trash and to go fuck themselves", hence my warning to Jéské Couriano about their original message here, which I removed. They've made the proper disclosure on their userpage, but I don't see a request yet. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:RfD

Is there any way that I can get a notification when someone replies me in the RfD? Jako96 (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

if someone directly responds to you (using reply-link) you should get a notification, do you not?

If they edit the page instead you won't get a notification. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:31, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I also don't get notifications when people reply to me in deletion discussions unless they tag me, I have no idea why. Athanelar (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

If you're referring to "subscribing" to the RfD section (as you can on, for example, this talk page), it's not currently possible because of the level heading that is used. See Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Archive 15 § Subscribing to individual RFDs, Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Archive 16 § Can't subscribe, and Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Archive 17 § Making it possible to subscribe to RFDs for a few previous (brief) discussions. There is a Phabricator T275943 task for implementing more flexible subscriptions, and a related community survey, but I don't think it's had much recent progress. Skynxnex (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Am I being bullied?

Another user has repeatedly undone my edits https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allison_%26_Busby&diff=1331899421&oldid=1331898912 but I did not introduce any external links; nor did I introduce any false information. I only added information already in the sources; everything I added is verifiable. Please help! Vollerhass (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not absolutely certain what's happening here, but seeing the type and sequence of edits makes me ask first: what's your relationship with Allison & Busby, and with the people there? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:02, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Changes Reverted

My changes to Jeff Lew got reverted because it was "advertising" but I believe this was incorrect and unfair Flamewrites (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

You're saying links to merch on Etsy is somehow not advertising?? Sorry, you're wrong, it was advertising. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:18, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Flamewrites, placing an unreferenced biography of a living person into Wikipedia is a violation of policy. Linking to an Etsy page selling "Official Killer Bean Gifts and Merchandise" is also a violation of policy. Please stop violating Wikipedia policies. Cullen328 (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Assistance needed with non-free file rename

Hi, I need help renaming a non-free file. The file is:

File:Leslie Howell and Trevor Buchanan.jpg

It won't let me add the rename template to the file page, could someone please rename it to or help me add the right rename template to:

File:Lesley Howell and Trevor Buchanan.jpg

This corrects the spelling of Lesley Howell's first name. Thank you. ItsShandog (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I've moved it. For future reference, WP:Moving a page#How to move a file. —Cryptic 00:38, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

It lets me move other pages but It doesn't give me the option on that one. ItsShandog (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

The file has been moved. Mjroots (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I understand that I was just replying back to the editor as they sent me something about how to move a file. ItsShandog (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Aymeline Valade

Reference help requested. Hi! I am quite new to Wikipedia, and I thought that it would be right to edit a few pages on a whim. On this specific page, I added a citation to a website, but I received a message saying that the citation had a "generic name". If you could help me, I would be more than happy to comply. Thanks, Diorzhou.

Diorzhou, thank you for asking. You wrote within a citation template | last=FashionModelDirectory.com |first=The FMD-. But the pair "last" and "first" is intended for an individual (e.g. | last=Marx |first=Karl). If "The FMD-FashionModelDirectory.com" were informative, you should give it as | author=The FMD-FashionModelDirectory.com". But it isn't: it's no more informative than "Editorial staff" (a generic name). So just skip it (no "last", "first", or "author"). -- Hoary (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Tyr putting the ulr through this - may have to add better title.

• Template:Editor tools

Moxy🍁 00:02, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

semi automatic cleaning for remnants of spam link based WP:QS

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Dwellics.com. There are about 35 pages still contaminated with this spam. Most of them added by sock farm. I've first spotted this source being cited in religions stats for Portland, Oregon and found it to contain error. So, the quality of data is in question too. Is there a semi automated way to clean up something like this? Could someone help out? Graywalls (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@Graywalls 35 could probably just as easily be done by standard edits. However, you could try at WP:BOTREQ. There may be an existing bot that could do the necessary and the experts will be watching there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

How do I ask for a move request to be closed?

There’s been a move request for Hans Island since February 2025. I posted to it so I can’t close it. How do I request that an uninvolved admin consider whether to close it? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:CR is the way to go. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 17:54, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Article about my uncle, should be removed

I don't if if this is the right place

There a edit notcie about my death notorious uncle, Rodrigo Noval: Notice about sources
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy. For all related material:"

But this editnotice should only be used when someone is alive. Can this notice be removed? VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 04:19, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done If it's not fixed now, it should be fixed soon. Noval was under Category:Living people, which is what was causing the editnotice to generate. DonIago (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipage section titles on the left margin

Why has the left margin which used to show the sections and sub-sections titles of each Wikipage subject been removed again?~2025-37691-51 (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2025-37691-51: It's a setting. Click the icon to the left of the page heading. Then click "move to sidebar" to display it permanently. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Some people want it there all the time, other people say it gets in the way of reading and they only turn it on when they need it. (It probably depends on how wide the screen is.) That's why it's made so you can set it either way. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Cladogram

In the cladogram to the right, P. velifera, P. latipinna, P. kykesis, and P. latipunctata are supposed to be labeled as sailfin mollies the same way the other species are labeled shortfin mollies. I cannot for the life of me figure out how to do it. Whatever I try ends up labelling only one of the two branches, i.e. either only P. latipinna and P. velifera or only P. kykesis and P. latipunctata. Surtsicna (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

like this?

  |label2=Sailfin mollies
  |2= 
    {{Clade
    |1={{Clade|1=''[[Poecilia latipinna|P. latipinna]]''|2=''P. velifera''}}
    |2={{Clade|1=''[[Poecilia kykesis|P. kykesis]]''|2=''[[Poecilia latipunctata|P. latipunctata]]''}}
    }}

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I have no idea how that differs from what I have been doing, but it works and mine did not. Thank you, @Trappist the monk! Surtsicna (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

False admin claim

I've recently happened upon something questionable, a newly registered editor claiming to be both an administrator and a checkuser. I had reverted it, as it seemed to be plainly disruptive, but when I searched for a template to warn them or a policy to cite, I couldn't find a policy directly about false rights claims. Is there a policy on this? Was I wrong, and it was actually permissible? MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Some possibilities: WP:DAPE, WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE. But I agree with you that "Don't claim to be someone you're not, or to hold positions you don't hold" is a good rule that seems like it should already exist but I haven't actually found it anywhere. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:45, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

A-ha! There is an essay, WP:FAKEADMIN, and it contains a link to WP:TALKNO, part of the guideline for talk pages, where it prohibits claiming to be an administrator or to have an access level you don't have. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:49, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't know how I didn't find that in my searches. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I think I might actually know: the way the guidelines are structured, "Talk page guidelines" seems to act like sort of a "separate rabbit-hole", so that if you don't start your search with that, you may have less chance of finding it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:57, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

It's not permissible, no, but generally wouldn't be dealt with any more severely than other forms of disruptive editing. We'd probably just tell the user to stop doing that, and escalate enforcement if they did not. If they are impersonating a specific administrator, or any editor for that matter, then they would be blocked very quickly (WP:IMPERSONATOR, Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Joe job, WP:JOEJOB). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok! So, it's just under the category of disruptive editing. Cool. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@MetalBreaksAndBends Depending on the situation, WP:THREATEN might apply. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:46, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I need urgent help.

Hello, I am an Afghan commando soldier living in Afghanistan. My financial situation is not very good. I need urgent help. Kusarjan (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this page is not a general help desk for the internet. We Wikipedia users are unable to provide assistance. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@Kusarjan: We cannot help with such matters. You'll need to find out what sort of options are available to you within your local area or your chain of command. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:41, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Blacklist

Why is it banned to link YouTube videos? ~2025-40048-69 (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Why do you think linking YT videos is banned? WP:YOUTUBE doesn't make such a claim, and in fact states the opposite. DonIago (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I added a YouTube link on Reference Desk and a pop up told me that. ~2025-40048-69 (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

the case is actually that shortened links are banned, as the last paragraph of wp:youtube details. the easy solution is to just replace the "youtu.be" with "youtube.com/watch?v=" consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 17:33, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

... and short links are banned because people have to be already able to see where the link goes, before they click. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:49, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

And also because some providers allow their shortlinks to be changed, and it is therefore possible to manipulate a shortlink to insert a link to a malicious website, although that's not so much of an issue with youtu.be links AFAIK. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:01, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

...actually, yeah, why is that specific shortlink banned? there doesn't seem to have been a discussion about it, aside from one admin in wt:el's archives having said that it was a bad idea (here's a link) 14 years ago, so maybe it could just be procedural by now? weird stuff. alternatively, i'm just bad at looking, since i haven't found their reason for saying it was a bad idea consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:08, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

You could take a look for example at: meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2024-10#youtu.be (there have been other discussions). One argument is that allowing multiple domains allows the actually blacklisted items to be easily bypassed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:27, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

...huh. ignoring the mild trainwreckiness of that discussion and how it seems it would've been closed as "remove blacklist" if it was closed, the arguments for blocking youtu.be are either purely procedural or... just a tiny little wee bit completely nonsensical? if the discussion hadn't devolved into "nuh uh, you prove your claim first", i'm pretty sure the question of why they don't also apply to youtube.com would've been followed further, because it absolutely also does

but that's besides the point here, even if it is something that can be discussed in another forum in the context of wp-en. i'd probably still vote to have it blacklisted, but instead to filter out people who want to cite reviews from their favorite #content creator or the kind of unwatchable slop that makes me glad to stick to siivagunner consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:46, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

It's not a great discussion, but it contains some useful links and information. The meta blacklist is probably the wrong place to discuss it anyway (in enwiki's case). Instead the whole domain can be whitelisted at MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist, and at the same time, amend some 10 existing entries in the local blacklist plus any going forward. If one is going to propose a change, it probably should be a relatively well advertised, and definitely well explained, local RfC. I'd personally rate its chances quite high. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:50, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

on involvement

for the purposes of closing discussions, which of those would you consider "improper", assuming different levels of involvement, but regardless of if the closure would require admin perms?

1. closing on non-procedural grounds (keep, merge, retarget, etc.), after a comment or correction regarding another editor's mention of policy (i.e. "that's a2, not g2")
2. closing on non-procedural grounds after a comment or correction regarding another editor's mention of a page's topic (i.e. "it's a berry, not a follicle") that is not actually opining on the discussion
3. closing on procedural grounds (already speedy deleted, disruptive nom, malformed or duplicate nom, redirect overwritten by an article, they took earth to afd again, etc.) after a comment or correction regarding the stuff already mentioned above
4. closing on procedural grounds after a vote (for this, it usually shouldn't matter if the vote supported or opposed the result)

yes, this is mostly a matter of opinion on stuff i'm only very slightly iffy on, so don't worry too much consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 17:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the reason these are not found in any rule book is that they can't be solved by any set of unchanging abstract principles; they depend very much on the context. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

...yeah, hence the disclaimer that it's "mostly a matter of opinion". as in, i'd say "no > no > doesn't count > yes if you overwrote it", but arguments could really easily be made that they'd be different, like #2 being a tentative or even strong "yes" consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 22:10, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Looking for feedback for declined draft

hey there just wanted to get some feedback on my latest draft that was declined (Draft:Zumper). I followed the guidance from a previous help desk inquiry that told me to start simpler and I did so with sources from wired, wsj, fortune, etc and a govt entity citing the company's data. Any feedback/guidance on the draft would be greatly appreciated as I think about next steps/edits. ZumperCrystal (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

My advice is that you abandon this endeavor. Please see WP:BOSS, and show it to your superiors and colleagues. The vast majority of companies on Earth do not merit Wikipedia articles, and most company representatives fail in attempting to create one. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell about themselves, their offerings, and routine business activities(like raising capital).. 331dot (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Public domain name image adding

I am trying to insert an image of the Funbag logo, but when I tried to add this link (https://ised-isde.canada.ca/cipo/trademark-search/0771241?lang=eng&payload=%7B%22domIntlFilter%22%3A%221%22%2C%22searchfield1%22%3A%22**3**%22%2C%22textfield1%22%3A%22funbag%22%2C%22display%22%3A%22list%22%2C%22maxReturn%22%3A%22500%22%2C%22nicetextfield1%22%3Anull%2C%22cipotextfield1%22%3Anull%7D&pageNum=0&pageLen=50) as the public domain tag, it doesn't work. What do I do? WVWG9652 (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @WVWG9652. I'm not an expert on this area, but that link seems to say that its registraton as a trademark has lapsed, but says nothing about its copyright status (they are entirely separate issues).

I suggest asking at WP:MCQ. ColinFine (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

TV episode "air date"

Articles about a TV series usually include a list of episodes including the "first aired date". If the episodes are first shown on transmitted TV (eg Freeview in the UK) on different dates, but the entire series is available for streaming at one common date, what goes in the "first aired date" field? -- SGBailey (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @SGBailey. Does MOS:TV answer the question? If not, I suggest asking at WT:WikiProject Television. ColinFine (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

How to link to pages I accessed via the Wikipedia Library for sourcing

How do I link to a page I used the Wikipedia Library to find as a source so that people without the Wikipedia Library can use the link? Nononsense101 (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@Nononsense101 Please don't use such links, because as you realise most readers will not be able to use them. Instead, just give the full citation to the source using {{cite journal}}, {{cite news}} or other as appropriate. Links are for the convenience of readers but are not generally required. In a few cases, you can strip out the library part of the link and it will work: we can give more advice if you specify the citation you were thinking of using. Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

What I meant was how to remove the library part. Nononsense101 (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:Simon Property Group

I think that this discussion was closed prematurely by the nominator themselves. If I started Template:Simon Property Group, how should I proceed? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm with them, on this one. I honestly think it's not worth doing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:41, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers:, come again? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I totally misread the discussion over there. Sorry. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:45, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

(I don't have a worthwhile opinion on how to fix it.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:46, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Someone reverted anyway. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Is there any way I can talk to an agent about my situation with this person from Nigeria that has threatened more than once. ~2026-19160-3 (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Forgery, Threats and harrassing me for 4 years but I can't get anyone to listen and help me

Hacking my phone and account's Google account email account my Google maps and just after 4 years of this constant harrassing and I have had enough. I need to speak to someone as soon as possible because I feel she's going to try to hurt me because my husband left her and he's home with us but like I said I can bet on it that my husband was involved and he took my birth certificate and social security card and his to and gave them to her in 2021 or 2022. He denies it and he denied living with this person while she was planning my Death, but I need help now and my Police Department isn't listening to me ~2026-19160-3 (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

This is not a general help desk for the internet, just for Wikipedia. If your local authorities will not help you with your issue, unfortunately we can do nothing to help you. 331dot (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

The only other thing you can do is consult with a qualified legal professional in your jurisdiction. 331dot (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Referencing errors on List of rulers of Timor

Reference help requested.

Thanks, Javed Khan king of India (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2026 (UTC)