User:MagicalPrince863/EnderCon

Can you please help me edit EnderCon MagicalPrince863 (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 19

How to specify multiple locations using sfnp?

I noticed that Padre Pio had multiple error messages in the references, saying "sfnp error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFCastelli2011". These arose from code such as the following: {{sfnp|Castelli|2011|pp=20, 100ff, 139ff}}. The author is trying to refer to multiple locations in that source, but when I look at the documentation for {{sfnp}}, it does not seem to cater for this situation. I have tried a couple of ideas, including "|loc=pp.20, 100ff, 139ff" without luck, and unfortunately the error message does not show up in Preview so I only see it when I publish. I don't want to continue with trial and error on the published page - is there a way to refer to those multiple locations? Gronk Oz (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the pages, it's about the number of possible Castelli 2011s that the citation could point toward. I'd recommend removing the full citation to Castelli (#5 currently) and leaving the §Sources entry as the only possible target. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Firefangledfeathers: I figured that while you were typing and it is fixed now! Sorry for wasting your time. --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's always the option of not referring to page numbers in the reference and using {{rp}} immediately whenever it's cited to show which pages are being sourced. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu: LOL. Thanks, but last time I did that it got reverted (twice) because the other editor was adamant that it was ugly beyond anything that could be tolerated. In any case, I agree that would have been a good option this time except that the problem turned out to be something else.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help me

I am editing post East Asian cultural sphere, I just want to say that Vietnam is not really part of Sinosphere. I can't really find a proper source to substantiate this. But I dare say this because the classification of Vietnam in Sinosphere is controversial. The Vietnamese were divided into 3 camps, one pro-Vietnam faction classified as Sinosphere, one pro-Vietnam faction classified as Indosphere, the other saying that Vietnam was a mixture of Sinosphere and Indosphere. I don't know what to do. The pro-Vietnam faction belongs to Sinosphere because they love Chinese culture and especially because they are infected with toxic Chinese cultures such as movies and comics, The pro-Vietnam side belongs to Indosphere because they hate China, the rest are neutral. In addition, the original culture of Vietnam is the Dong Son culture and many other cultures before being invaded by China. If anyone knows about Vietnam, please help me find a source to prove that Vietnam does not belong to Sinosphere, I am grateful to that person. 27.3.1.242 (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not here to help you "prove" anything. If there are two or more conflicting viewpoints that are both supported by reliable sources, then the article should reflect all of the viewpoints, and point out that there is a conflict. as far as Wikipedia is concerned, there is not one "correct" viewpoint. Please discuss this on the article's talk page. -Arch dude (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Internal project discussions

Do internal project discussions for purposes of WP:ECR include formal merge discussions? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal

I would like to know why my info from the Kelly Severide Page keeps getting removed when it is nothing but accurate and I have documentation to prove it. Dsummjr11 (talk) 05:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Materialscientist, care to comment? No edit summaries at [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Er...and marking reversions as minor? Um...I would think a reversion of a well-intentioned addition, even a problematic one, is never a minor edit. Valereee (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dsummjr11. It looks to me as if you have been adding information unsupported by a source. You say you have "documentation" to prove it. Provided this documentation is a reliable source by Wikipedia's definition, you can add the information, properly cited to the source. ColinFine (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well Colinfine if you understand the show you would know that he has had many love Interests in the show and his fandom page as well as all the updated info for that. Dsummjr11 (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dsummjr11, a fandom page is likely crowdsourced and therefore not considered by WP to be a WP:reliable source. If you add content without any source, it's quite likely to be immediately removed. Ditto a bad source. Valereee (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have your opinion and I have mine I just know I have seen every season and episode and know what are the facts and what are false. I am just making sure they are accurate information Dsummjr11 (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not doubting your knowledge. What I am telling you is that your own knowledge is not good enough for Wikipedia. Valereee (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dsummjr11 Verifiability is a major part of Wikipedia. A reader should be able to follow your references to see the source information for themselves. Writing "what you know" is not acceptable, as Valereee said. Besides, if everyone "understands the show" the way you do, there would be no need for an article. David10244 (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dsummjr11, when you find someone is reverting your edits, go to the talk page Talk:Kelly Severide and open a discussion. Don't just keep re-adding them, as you can end up blocked for edit-warring. Discussing is always necessary. Valereee (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linking within an article

I tried to link to another section from Montana (disambiguation)#Naval vessels, but it doesn't work. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't use Template:Anchor for this purpose, try it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it works now, Clarityfiend . . . but does it? -- Hoary (talk) 08:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The link had a typo, fixed in [2]. You don't need an anchor to link to a section heading. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

where is my article in queue

About five weeks ago I submitted an article on William Thompson Boos (1943-2014). As far as I know, it had been deemed appropriate in other ways, but because I am related to the subject I needed to fill out a conflict of interest form, which I did. However, I haven't heard back. It's o. k. if it's taking a while, but I don't want it to be lost in the queue. Could you kindly check to be sure it hasn't been lost?

Many thanks.

Florence S. Boos (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Florence S. Boos, per the template at the top of Draft:William Thompson Boos, "Submission declined on 9 February 2023". See WP:TUTORIAL on how to add reference correctly, the text-sections needs work on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

. . . and you haven't submitted it since 9 February. There's another problem. It's not just that the material in the draft is linked in a very odd way to its source, it's the source itself. Most of the article is sourced to this piece in the Iowa City Press-Citizen. The latter sounds like a newspaper, so I expect to see a newspaper article. However, it doesn't read like an editorial obituary; it reads instead like something submitted to the ICPC by a member or friend of the family. The other examples of obituaries linked from and sampled at this page are more obviously submitted by a member or friend of the family (or perhaps a writer for hire); at the foot of the page we read "Iowa City Press-Citizen is not responsible for screening, editing or verifying obituary content submitted. The submitter is solely responsible for all such content." And so the ICPC piece doesn't seem to me to be a reliable source. -- Hoary (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Florence, also please read WP:NOTABILITY and Wikipedia:Notability (people). What we need are three sources that represent significant coverage in an independent reliable sources. That's how we show a subject is notable, which is the minimum requirement for having an article about that subject. More sources isn't better; to help assess, we'd like to know which three (not four, not ten) are the best for supporting a claim to notability. Do not skip reading the links above. Notability is literally the crucial piece you're trying to prove right now, and from a brief look at that article almost nothing is independent. It all looks like it was either written by him or written/edited by you or another family member. Valereee (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: To be pedantic, WP:THREE is an essay that strongly recommends three sources when awaiting draft review. It's (in my opinion) invaluable advice, but by no means is it needed by virtue of being policy or a guideline. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, just trying to give the simplest possible info to someone with 23 edits. Three instances of sigcov in independent RS, at least two of which are non-local/non-niche publications, will get over the notability hump for almost all subjects. Fewer than three, unless extremely strong indeed, are always going to be at risk of rejection/AfD. Valereee (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Valeree. I appreciate this helpful advice, since I'm not certain what to do next. My subject was a professor and publisher of academic articles and a book, but I'm not sure of how to find independent sources beyond listing his publications and degrees. The academic publications are of course in non-local professional sources, both national and international. What would you suggest? Florence S. Boos (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not every professor is notable. What we need to see is sources that prove this particular one notable: significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Which are the best three sources that would represent significant coverage in independent reliable sources? In addition to the links above you can also look at WP:NACADEMIC, which discusses how academics are a different case.

I know this is all very confusing, and I apologize for that. We have a lot of policy. Valereee (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Florence S. Boos, when a professor dies, it's not unusual for an academic journal with which they were closely associated to publish a brief article about him. And periodicals may publish obituaries written (and signed) by other academics working in related areas. These would be usable. -- Hoary (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and also: Academics do have other ways to be proven notable, generally involving having made an important contribution to their field. Generally this is proven by things like how often they were cited by other academics, or whether a textbook they wrote was widely used. Often Google Scholar can give you a clue about that, but I'm not finding an entry for him. Valereee (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automatically Expanding All Sections

Wikipedia has been automatically expanding all sections when I read content on my phone. I'm using the browser version on an iPhone, I am signed in, and I've reverted to the classic vector legacy 2010 skin because the new one has a completely unacceptable layout. Whenever I open an article all of the sections automatically expand, making it annoying to find the information I'm after. Additionally, I am no longer able to locate the "expand all pages" setting in preferences. Has this issue been reported already? Strangely, when I sign out, the expand all setting comes back, but since I'm not signed in I can't save pages to my watchlist :( Devilsavocado6596 (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Popular pages configuration

Hi there,

I am trying to add the popular pages script to this page but I am hitting walls to what I am doing wrong. [3] Nocturnal781 (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nocturnal781: User:Community Tech bot/Popular pages config.json says to post en edit request on the talk page. That means on User talk:Community Tech bot/Popular pages config.json, not on the page where you want the report. See User talk:Community Tech bot/Popular pages config.json/Archive 1 for example requests. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Locating Saved Page Content

To whom it may concern,

Perhaps a little more than a year ago, I established a Wiki account and began working on adding content to a page. I was interupted due to other pressing obligations. Now, as I attempt to locate the content I saved, I cannot find it. Mind you, the page never went live as it was not yet completed. Where do I find the content I saved? Yonupe (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yonupe: This post is the only saved edit by your account. It was created 5 February 2021. You have to click a "Publish" button to save an edit. "Publish" on a draft just means it becomes visible to others, not that it is submitted to the encyclopedia. You don't have to be logged in to make edits. If you did save it but was not logged in at the time then we may be able to find it if you say what it was about. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP users in move requests

Are IP users allowed to vote in move requests? Treetoes023 (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Treetoes023 Per WP:RMCOMMENT, "All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion regarding a requested page move". 331dot (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Treetoes023 (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lowercase or uppercase?

Good morning. Why is 'pseudo-Arabic' written in capitals on this page ('pseudo-Arabic'): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Kufic, while on all other pages the term 'pseudo-Kufic' (a variant of 'pseudo-Arabic') is written differently, i.e. with 'pseudo' in lowercase? JackkBrown (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 14 times it appears on the page, only two have 'pseudo' capitalized (except at the beginning of sentences or captions.) You can probably just go boldly make corrections. If anyone has a reason they object, you can discuss it with them. Valereee (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JackkBrown, because that particular article needs copyediting for consistency, since the lower case form is used later in the article. A Google Books search shows that reliable sources consistently use the lower case version mid-sentence. Cullen328 (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: @Cullen328: I meant that in the first lines of the page it says 'Pseudo-Arabic', but on all pages other than this one, including this one, it says 'pseudo-Kufic' ('pseudo' in lower case), when it should, in line with 'Pseudo-Arabic', also be written 'pseudo-Kufic' in lowercase. JackkBrown (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JackkBrown, go ahead and make the corrections. Cullen328 (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, just make the corrections you believe are needed. If someone objects, you can discuss it with them. Valereee (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: @Cullen328: the problem is that there are too many pages with this "error"; wouldn't it be better to write "Pseudo-Arabic" in lowercase (in "pseudo-Arabic")? JackkBrown (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no idea what you're suggesting...requiring it to appear as p-A? But what happens when it starts a sentence? Valereee (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most mentions of pseudo-Arabic are from Template:Arabic culture, which appears in around 100 articles. Pseudo-Arabic is capitalised in the template as an article title. TSventon (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CAN bus, references, and ISO specs

This article, CAN bus, has 21 inline references, and almost as many external links. However, it's a long article at 61,000 bytes. When I read it, it just feels like citations are lacking. Large sections of the article don't have any inline citations. Is this a case where "general references" can support information in an article? Is this article properly referenced?

In addition, the article goes into a lot of detail, down to the bit level of the protocol, with examples and narratives. Is this too much detail, or is it appropriate?

Finally, the level of detail appears to be what you would get from the specification itself (I have read some ISO specs) -- but you have to purchase the specification from the ISO. The spec itself (or a now-obsolete revision) is cited. Is the spec a primary source, and, are we allowed to purchase an ISO spec and then republish it in an article? David10244 (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, general references are not good enough, and that article does not appear to be adequately sourced. If I knew anything at all about the subject I'd likely be placing multiple tags asking for inline citations. If you have any knowledge of the subject, definitely place tags where you think something can be improved. If others object to your tags, you can discuss on the talk, but go ahead and be WP:bold. Valereee (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Valereee. Being a computer programmer, I know a bit about the subject, and I can probably add a lot of "cn"s, or a full-article citation-needed thingy. But...

I am concerned about the excessive detail in the article, much of which probably came from the ISO spec. I don't want to buy the spec to see if the detail that is in the article is a copyright infringement or not. Of course, the spec is copyrighted -- ISO says:

All content on ISO Online is copyright protected. The copyright is owned by ISO. Any use of the content, including copying of it in whole or in part, for example to another Internet site, is prohibited and would require written permission from ISO.
All ISO publications are also protected by copyright. The copyright ownership of ISO is clearly indicated on every ISO publication. Any unauthorized use such as copying, scanning or distribution is prohibited.

From https://www.iso.org/privacy-and-copyright.html

"Any use of the content"... does that include "rewriting in my own words"?

I am curious whether all of the visuals were copied from the ISO spec, or if someone actually recreated them. And whether the prose was copied, or rewritten. I could be wrong, but it seems that, even if there's not a direct copyright violation, if we reproduce and rewrite enough of a copyrighted operational specification -- that doesn't seem right somehow. I don't suppose that the Wikipedia library gives us access to ISO specs, so that we can check this, does it? Thanks for any suggestions. David10244 (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David10244, again we're not in my wheelhouse (literally don't know what the acronyms stand for), but I would assume that an ISO copyright statement such as "any use of the content" would not include forbidding you from summarizing it in your own words. That's how all Wikipedia articles are written: we read the content in a (often copyrighted) reliable source, and then summarize the important parts in our own words. Copyright does not apply to ideas, but to the expression of those ideas.

Re: excessive detail. That's actually usually a separate problem. We are concerned with what is useful to the reader. If the detail is trivia that isn't useful to the reader, we leave it out. But if it's helpful to people who are interested in or trying to learn more about CAN bus(ses?) and ISO specs, then we would typically leave it in. Is your concern that the level of detail is so specific that it would render the ISO itself less valuable because Wikipedia has provided so much information that no one would need to buy the ISO? I think you might want to start a discussion at that article talk; it looks like the article has hundreds of watchers, and 30 visited recent edits, so there are people interested. Or, if you think the article has too much unhelpful detail, just start trimming. If someone objects, you can discuss.

Re: WP Library...don't assume they can't give you access to something, but again this is not in my wheelhouse. Valereee (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee Ok, thanks. I'm not too concerned that WP will diminish the value ofbthe ISO's copyright, but the detail seemed excessive. When I get a chance, I'll try to mark "cn" where needed. I appreciate your advice. David10244 (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Javascript tools in external links

Having seen online practice tools included before on several pages about writing systems, I added several from one place. These changes where reverted on the basis that private tools should not be included in EL sections. Is there any consensus on whether online tools are appropriate? The guidelines on external links did not clarify anything for me. 82.43.190.243 (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a high-level index page. Did you intend to link to that? David10244 (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is the index from which I was taking the links. 82.43.190.243 (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Generally, links to a top-level page are not very helpful. David10244 (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David10244: It's been a few days and I still don't understand whether ELs should include external tools. If the answer is no, I can point to several places where more need to be removed from script-related pages (though that would be a shame). If it's yes, then I don't know why the ones I added were removed as spam. I guess it could be a case by case thing. 82.43.190.243 (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calculation of the population density in the Infobox

Hi there,

i have a problem with the population density in the Infobox. The calculation is clearly wrong in my opinion, but unfortunately I can't make any change. The value is not displayed in the source code. Am I correct and how can I fix the problem?

PS.: The article in which I would like to correct this is Magdeburg. Bildersindtoll (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bildersindtoll: Please always say what you think is wrong when you report a perceived problem. Do you mean that it's rounded? It says Area Total 201.03 km² (77.62 sq mi), Population Total 236,188, Density 1,200/km² (3,000/sq mi). Without rounding it should be 236,188/201.03 = 1,175/km². It doesn't appear the rounding can be avoided. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Banned from Russian Wikipedia

Dear Sirs and Mesdames

The [lifetime!] block recently imposed on me by Russian Wikipedia is unnecessarily harsh. Furthermore, I was given absolutely no prior warning that my "sins" were bad enough for that penalty; thus, I had no opportunity to try and rectify or remove the offending item before the ban was enforced.

In fact, it is very debatable whether I really am guilty of any serious, punishable 'incorrect behaviour', because I was only trying to be helpful - attempting to enrich their "Delta-T" site by linking to [what I believe is] a first-class diagram showing recent changes in the value of that important parameter.

Furthermore, I cannot attempt to reason with them by writing to the person who initiated it, because the block extends to not allowing me any access to their personal correspondence file!

I have uploaded the same link [showing that diagram] into the English, German, Spanish and Japanese Wikipedias - and they are all still there, available for public viewing. Certainly, none of these four sites has hinted that I deserve to be blocked.

I am quite happy *not to challenge* the deletion of my last Russian Wikipedia post regarding Delta-T... More than that - I am prepared to never contribute anything more to Russian Wikipedia, but just cannot see why [in this instance] my block there has to affect my membership of other Wikipedias [by being a 'blot' on my record].

There must presumably be a way of appealing against my ban, but my Russian is probably not good enough to investigate where and how to do that. In any event, it looks as if the conditions of my block will probably not allow me to do that!

It seems that it was "Q-bit array" who blocked me: so - may I please ask somebody to forward this complaint and request to a *different* Russian administrator, who could perhaps give a second opinion on this matter.

With thanks in anticipation, Regards, David McNaughton [Wikipedia Identifier: "DLMcN"] DLMcN (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have zero control over what happens on the Russian Wikipedia. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this is going to seem mean, and I don't intend it that way, but if your Russian isn't good enough to figure out how to appeal, why are you working at ruwiki? I kind of feel like people should be working at the wikis where they have reasonable language skills. Here on enwiki we consider it a WP:Competence is required issue. Valereee (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee - I submit that you are 'out of order' with your unhelpful remarks. Many decades ago, I was actually the official translator of scientific Russian articles for a government in southeast Africa - and my efforts and contributions were appreciated. Before this last episode, my last posts in Russian-Wiki were ten years ago - and they too were welcomed.

With the relentless passage of the decades, my command of Russian has, unfortunately, faded through lack of practice and usage. Despite that, I did manage to find a couple of places in Russian-Wiki where it seemed that I could register my complaint - only to find that I was blocked from editing there.

My Japanese is significantly worse than my Russian, but it still seemed worth telling them about the Delta-T diagram. And [contrary to what you imply] they had the grace to thank me - in English ! --DLMcN (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DLMcN Your block on ru Wikipedia can only be undone by appeal there. However, you are not globally blocked and can continue to contribute everywhere else, as evidenced by this Teahouse thread, for example. You have added a link to your personal website as a reference in our article on ΔT (timekeeping) and have explained on its Talk Page why you did that. I don't think you would be blocked for doing such a thing here so if I were you I'd just stop worrying about ru Wikipedia on the basis that if they don't want your contributions there are plenty of other ways to assist the overall Project. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mike T, for your reassurance and advice. The Russian block is enough to prevent me from using the Wikipedia Library. The Library authorities do, however, imply that they might be able to ignore that if I provide some clarification - so I have written to them. --DLMcN (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DLMcN: I speak no Russian at all, but what I gather from DeepL is that you were blocked for promotional editing and a promotional username. Promotional editing is at least dubious, but I see no case at all for promotional username, and in any case a block without a warning is extremely severe. Hence, I do sympathize with your plight.

That being said, I concur with Valereee. To edit ru-wp, you do need a basic ability to read the guidelines there and speak the language decently enough to communicate. (That is not only a requirement of language skills - navigating the policy pages is an art in itself.) If you cannot find the way to appeal blocks, that’s a sign that you probably will not be able to contribute much to ru-wp.

If you are ok with abandoning ru-wp (and again, I am not saying that’s fair), then there is not much need to "set the record straight". A block on X-wp will usually not be "counted against you" in Y-wp unless there is evidence that the same issues carried over from one wp to the next. That occurs usually in conversations about civil POV-pushing ("editor X is rewriting articles to paint East Domania in a good light and West Domania in a bad light" / "oh well, they seem civil and their edits are sourced, come back when there’s more evidence" / "actually, they were banned from Domanian Wikipedia after a very long discussion of their edits there, they switched to English Wikipedia just afterwards"). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the "Welcome" message which I received from Russian-Wiki (12 years ago, admittedly) -

"Hello and welcome to the Russian Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions. If your Russian skills are not good enough, that's no problem. We have an embassy where you can inquire for further information in your native language. We hope you enjoy your time here!" ... [However, my block prevents me from going in there and asking for help !] --DLMcN (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DLMcN, was your talk page access revoked there? If not, you can ask the user to discuss there. Not sure what you mean by their "personal correspondence file", but they do have an email link on their user page. I would first try to simply respond on your user talk to their block message, pinging them. If they don't respond, you can (if able) email them. If they still don't respond, perhaps you can find a Russian speaker who can post a request at ruwiki's version of AN. Valereee (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Valereee -

I could not see an e-mail option on Q-bit array 's Russian page, but did find one on his English page [and used it]; this facility was also available in his "Russian bot" page-site. In addition, I left a copy in his English Talk-Page:

User talk:Q-bit array - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Q-bit_array

which shows that there have been other people who feel that he has blocked them unfairly !

For that^ reason, it may be necessary to try and contact a different administrator, for a second opinion.

Cheers ! - David Mc DLMcN (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Success ! ... Q-bit array has lifted the block ! ... I really appreciate the comments and suggestions made by everybody above... Three Cheers ! --DLMcN (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Approval of restructure of Road signs in Ireland topic

Hello, I have prepared a restructure of the Road signs in Ireland article in my sandbox. I was referred to here as well as the WP:Peer review page, as I would like my proposal to be approved by others rather than immediately changing it in an edit, but am unsure what is the best way to go about it. Thanks in advance, EthanL13 (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EthanL13: You should mention this also at Talk:Road_signs_in_Ireland RudolfRed (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so now, thanks EthanL13 (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to link the Sanhujoriwon document to the Korean ko:산후조리원 document.

I wanted to connect, but an error appears. How can I connect? 망고소녀 (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@망고소녀: Sanhujoriwon is a redirect to Sanhujori#Sanhujoriwon. Do you mean you want to add the English redirect as a language link at ko:산후조리원? The normal Wikidata method doesn't allow redirects. You can instead add the code [[en:Sanhujoriwon]] to the wikitext of ko:산후조리원. In addition you can add [[ko:산후조리원]] to the redirect page but few people will see it. See more at Help:Interlanguage links#Local links. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]