Help desk
< April 11	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

April 12

CHANGING IMAGE ORDER ON PAGE

How do i change the order of the images on my page Revelationfineart (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revelationfineart Arthur Milton Robins is not your page. It is a Wikipedia article about you. Since you have a conflict of interest to promote yourself (which is natural), please make an edit request instead of directly making edits to the page. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 03:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use all caps whilst communicating. It comes back to others as aggressive. Just a piece of not-asked-for advice. thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/ $ 03:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading a page on Wikipedia.org

For several years I have tried to have my page upload it to wikipedia.org and it has been very confusing, to lsay the least...so many different times in the past but, my students did not understand how to do use Wikipedia, I do not understand how to use lit. It is not as easy as it may seem to be. I paid a company called Wiki proficiency to create and upload my Wiki page and Although I did most of the proofreading and updating, they led me on and scammed me. Though, I did keep the updated page with links to different articles done, they never uploaded the page as promised. I would truly appreciate to have a volunteer be able to upload it to Wikipedia.org 47.148.121.67 (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing is generally unfavorably viewed on wikipedia. In addition there are general guidelines on what Wikipedia is, and isn't. It's also generally discouraged to write about yourself as it can lead to a myriad of other issues. Generally, if you're notable enough to meet the criteria for inclusion, someone will write a page about you. If you need help with editing Wikipedia, the Teahouse is a good place to start. Q ^{T C} 03:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am Sorry if I was not clear but I was not paying for editing I was paying a company called WIKI proficiency to create and upload a Wikipedia page for me. They found me to be noble when they were working with Wikipedia And I satisfied the criteria for inclusion and they were writing the page for me but, they did not finish uploading the page as promised. If you are not able to upload the page I would truly be grateful for you to ask someone who can because starting again with guidelines are very confusing to me and I do not know how to do this...Thank you! 47.148.121.67 (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We strongly discourage anybody paying anybody to edit Wikipedia; that's the very definition of paid editing. You were scammed by crooks. You won't find a lot of sympathy from many of us, because you should never pay to get an article about yourself in Wikipedia. There is no good reason for such a thing. Indeed, we advise that it may be sometimes be a bad thing to have an article here about yourself. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SCAM; if you still have any email communication the scammers sent you, there is an address on WP:SCAM where you can forward it to for investigation. 331dot (talk) 07:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP 47.147.121.67. It does sound like you got scammed, especially if the company was telling you they were working with Wikipedia in some way since there are no companies offering paid editing services that are "officially recognized" by the Wikimedia Foundation. These companies are no different from you, me and anyone else in that they need to comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines if they want to create/edit Wikipedia content. I'm afraid that the company either knew what they were doing from the get-go and knowingly scammed you, or they promised you something that they thought they could deliver but found out later that they couldn't do. Anyway, I strongly suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before trying to proceed further. If after ready those pages you feel that (1) you clearly meet one of Wikipedia's notability guidelines and (2) you understand that you'll have no real editorial control over what's written about you on Wikipedia as long as what's written complies with relevant policies and guidelines and (3) you still want to have a Wikipedia article written about you, you can try working on a Wikipedia:Draft that you can submit to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review once you think it's ready. An AfC reviewer will assess the draft and decide whether it satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. That's about the only thing anyone can surely say with respect to someone creating a Wikipedia article about you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor: if you want to have a biography here, you obviously are happy to be named. If you post here your real full name (and affiliation if referring to "students" means you are an academic), then experienced editors will be able to advise whether you are likely to be notable in the way we define that for academics and hence how to proceed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading a picture

Why My Pic Was Not Upload In Article Muhammad92786 (talk) 09:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhammad92786: Which picture, and which article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhammad92786 You can't upload pictures into articles by drag-and-drop like you might do into an email program. Picture upload (usually as a file stored at our sister project Wikimedia Commons) is the first step, followed by incorporation of the file's name into the text of the article. See Help:Pictures for full details. You can ask back here if you need further advice. Note that it is simplest if the picture you want to use is your own work: something you took with your own camera. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhammad92786 I forgot to say that only WP:AUTOCONFIRMED users can upload pictures. You have only five edits here and need at least ten to reach that status. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

bottleofchocmilk editing my profile to his liking

I purposing took my entire name out - and it's been out for 4 days or so without bottleofchocmilk putting it back. So, why is he so cincerned with editing it when it's there to describe me as he sees fit to do? EarthChoice2016 (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask BottleOfChocolateMilk. TSventon (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EarthChoice2016 in a previous query you were advised to propose changes to 2024 United States Senate election in Nevada by making edit requests. That is still good advice. TSventon (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EarthChoice2016: a source is needed to remove a declared candidate. The candidate filing page still shows Rheinhart. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons: license for CDC image

I'd like to upload this picture. Acc. to their policies, it is public domain (don't find hints for an exeception). Do we have a proper CDC licence tag on commons? Best, --Julius Senegal (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Julius Senegal There are loads of tags on Commons which can be used for US Govt. images. Your best bet would be to find an existing image uploaded from the CDC and use that, or ask at the specialist Commons helpdesk at c:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.... it is probably Template:PD-USGov-HHS-CDC but don't trust me on that! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Unconfirmed Account

Hello, How do I start editing so that I can confirm my account? Phollypurcell (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phollypurcell. You started editing the minute you posted your first comment about 15 minutes ago at WP:FFU. You can find out more about when your account will become auto-confirmed by checking WP:AUTOCONFIRMED. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I understood you need to make at least 10 edits and wait about 4 days until the account can be confirmed. How do I participate to make further edits? Thanks again! Phollypurcell (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Confirmed" is the status you need to upload files and make changes to some protected pages. You can make edits on any of the hundreds of thousands of articles without being autoconfirmed. Recon rabbit 14:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Phollypurcell Find something you're interested in at the Task Center 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 14:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And relatedly, you have yourself to actively create your User page, until which your signature will remain red. Of course, you don't have to: some account holders choose never do so; others like myself have been editing for years (around 20 in my case) without an account at all. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.145.123 (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Fringe theories

By any chance, does this rule apply to the status of a name? Someone said, "To have North Korea as the title of a document is to treat 'North Korea' as if it were on par with the fact that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is an official country name, which violates the Wikipedia talk: Fringe theories" It's a question I left in the talk in this article, but I'm forced to leave it here because there's no answer. Mamiamauwy (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:COMMONNAME applies. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So that rule is a guideline that does not apply to the status of the name, right? Mamiamauwy (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mamiamauwy: I get no search results on your quote. It would be odd to say "violates the Wikipedia talk: Fringe theories" and not "violates Wikipedia:Fringe theories" so I wonder whether the quote is real. Your description isn't enough to judge. If it's about something at the English Wikipedia then please link it. If it's about another Wikipedia language then we have no authority over them and they may have other policies than us. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mamiamauwy Isn't this rather similar to a question you asked previously about China? The answer is the same. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.... or maybe it is because you are blocked on the Korean Wikipedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citing court cases

Is it acceptable to cite a criminal court case, even though it's a primary source? I was working on updating List of incidents at Walt Disney World, and wanted to add the results of a criminal case that hadn't been reported on anywhere else, so I just cited the court directly. This is Florida where court records are public record and easily accessible. –DMartin 15:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Court records are considered primary sources. If it's not being reported on, how do you know about it? If independent reliable sources are not reporting on a matter, it really shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all. Does the case have Disney as a party, or did the incident at issue merely occur there? 331dot (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The case had been reported on when charges were filed, but no updates on the case had been published, which is why I chose to cite the court directly. It seemed unethical(or at least unfair) to report that someone had been accused, but not state that they had plead not guilty and maintained their innocence. –DMartin 16:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmartin969: Hi there! The template {{cite court}} can be used where it's acceptable to cite a court case. GoingBatty (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone wondering it was List of incidents at Walt Disney World#cite ref-129|this case specifically. –DMartin 16:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's so obscure that nobody reported on it, it's definitely inappropriate to put into one of our articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The initial incident was reported on, but not the results of the court case. –DMartin 16:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a nothing-burger with a side order of nada. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Display Screen Settings

Is there a "Dark Mode" setting on Wikipedia's site? All my other applications, including Google, have this feature. I may be missing it. I've searched the site, which I believe should display this option. However, I'm not finding it, and even a Google search was unsuccessful. I'm confident I'm just overlooking it.

If you could point me in the right direction, I would greatly appreciate it. When I use other programs in "Dark Mode" and then switch to Wikipedia, it takes me several seconds to adjust to the bright white background. It's quite straining on my eyes, and I'm sure many others feel the same. This is why many sites are now offering this feature.

Adjusting my computer's "brightness" setting affects everything, which is not what I want.

Thank you for your time and assistance, Dennis, also known as GRIZZLYMAN700. GrizzlyMan700 (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GrizzlyMan700, this should be available to you as a gadget in your preferences. See here. 57.140.16.57 (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disable editor help panel when copyediting from newcomer homepage

Even though I am an experienced editor, I still use the newcomer homepage as a page to suggest edits to be. However, when I open an article to copyedit that it suggests, it still tells me how to copyedit, even when I have the editor help panel disabled in settings. How can I get rid of this help panel, it's annoying? thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/ $ 17:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sudden flags on my entry about previously accepted content

Greetings,

I am an award-winning journalist and nationally syndicated columnist. I hired an experienced Wikipedia writer to create a biographical entry about me in 2017, supplying him with my biographical information. The entry was reviewed by Wikipedia, approved, and posted in mid-2017. Since then, I have made minor edits -- mainly to add new major publications that had published my columns. These edits were immediately accepted and added without question. HOWEVER: A few days ago, I made a very simple addition to my entry, noting that the Boston Globe had also published one of my columns. I was shocked the next day to see two warning messages in huge letters: 1) "This biographical article is written like a resume; and 2) "a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject."

I dispute both these claims: 1) Having helped many people write their resumes and having reviewed many more job applicants' resumes as an editor, I know for certain that this article bears little resemblance to a resume. I have received major awards as a writer and a journalist, and I can accurately assess the writing in this article. It is written like a news article that describes a subject's past, providing many more details and much more important context than a resume; 2) Adding the name of one newspaper does not make me "a major contributor." And reading several forums of Wikipedia users/writers, I see no prohibition against contributing to -- or even writing -- an autobiographical article.

I would be grateful if these issues could be addressed promptly. Thank you. James Rosen Blueboy567 (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: James Rosen (author) - 57.140.16.57 (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blueboy567: I have removed the warning tags, which were added inappropriately, However, please do not edt the article again (save for removing any abuse or unambiguous vandalism); but instead make suggestions on its talk page. See the guidance that someone has posted on your talk page, and our FAQ for article subjects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've never used the Talk page, but I will try to do so. Blueboy567 (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is simply adding one more newspaper to a list of newspapers that have published my articles considered an edit? Would it help if I link to my article as published in that newspaper? This is completely factual, completely noncontroversial, and involves no conflict of interest. Blueboy567 (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blueboy567, please stop adding additional items to that list, unless the item is particularly noteworthy in some way. This is one reason we ask article subjects not to edit their own articles. Please make edit requests on the talk page. 57.140.16.57 (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re "unless the item is particularly noteworthy in some way:" Yes, the item WAS particularly noteworthy. It was my first column in the Boston Globe, a preeminent newspaper widely respected by journalists and others....To be candid, the notion that there is some of conflict in me simply adding that newspaper's name to an existing list of other newspapers is === absurd. It also raises the question of why similar additions I made previously === adding other newspapers' names === were not flagged. Whoever flagged this -- especially saying "MAJOR ISSUES" -- is overzealous and almost certainly misinterpreting Wikipedia's rules. But reading through all the back and forth over this one small issue, I can understand why the rules might be interpreted differently by different people. They are incredibly complex and, at points, contradictory. This whole experience really changes my opinion of Wikipedia. A close friend of mine is a federal judge. He has a Wikipedia entry. So here's a multiple choice question about it: Who properly should have written that entry? A) The judge himself; B) One of his clerks or other employees; C) An outside professional writer; D) Someone else (please explain who if so)...Re my entry, although an outside writer wrote the initial entry, I provided ALL documentation and sourcing for the information it contained, and there was/is a lot of sourcing. I truly don't understand what more Wikipedia would want. Blueboy567 (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D - someone else, somebody who has no conflict of interest and is merely a disinterested contributor of reliably-sourced impartial information. The judge is obviously the worst choice, because we can never be impartial about ourselves; one of his employees next worse, because they've got the boss looking over their shoulder; and "outside professional writers" range from the occasional rare avis, the actual legitimate pro, to scammers, fraudsters and spammers whom we ban on sight. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Blueboy567: Every time someone adds/changes/removes something from an article and clicks the "Publish changes" button, that's considered an edit. Adding information to an article about you, even if completely factual and non-controversial, can be considered a conflict of interest. Best to make an WP:Edit request on the talk page with a published reliable source. GoingBatty (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing) - I am curious to know why you thought the tags were inappropriate? Since 2020, the edit summaries clearly state "I added my work..." Does that not make the article subject to wp:COI scrutiny? Does continuously adding your own achievements to the article not render it unlike a CV?

In this post, @Blueboy567 says "I hired an experienced Wikipedia writer to create a biographical entry about me." Is that not wp:paid? Personally, when an article is written, and when the subject of the article is continuously editing it and hired someone to contribute/create it, do readers and editors not deserve to know "a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject"?

All my tags were meant to do was create awareness and start a discussion on the talk page on the appropriate steps needed to correct the issue at hand. Would Template:Autobiography been more appropriate? The specific problems are difficult to discern because the article is mainly composed by a potentially a paid editor and subject.

I know you are powerful editor on the project and I trust your judgement. I don't think paid editing should be tolerated and its important to create records to document when it happens. When there is COI/UPE and the like, I want to make others aware. Without tagging this article we may have never known that this article was a product of paid editing. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 20:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amused at the thought of being a "powerful editor". As noted above, the article reads northing like a resume. As for {{COI}}, my edit summary has already invited you to read its documentation, which says in part "This tag is not generally used to notify readers that an article appears to be partially or wholly autobiographical... if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start [such] a discussion, any editor will be justified in removing the tag without warning." and "In order to be tagged, the article should have a specific, articulatable, fixable problem. Do not apply this tag simply because you suspect COI editing, or because there is or was a COI editor. COI editors can be added to the talk page using the template {{Connected contributor}}. ". I note that the latter is already in place. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing, again, we would have never known outright that this article was a product paid editing without addressing the COI issues directly. I think there is value in that. I can appreciate that there needs to be a specific problem. But when there is years of COI editing across multiple IP accounts and a created account(s) purporting the be the subject, the specific, articulatable, fixable problem is the COI issues. The best I can do is start a discussion with the tag and in doing so alert other editors to help seek out solutions to look through the edits/article.

{{Connected contributor}}, doesn't negate the issues happening within the article itself, especially when the COI is mainly/lately through IP addresses. I appreciate you inviting me to read the COI documentation. You are much more well versed in the letter of law here, but I hope you can see I am acting in good faith and trying to improve the project. Happy to have more guidance in the future.

On the matter at hand, do you think Isingness is the paid editor in this scenario? I see that the user is already blocked. Or do you suspect another user? Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 20:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at User talk:Isingness#July 2020 and the subsequent discussion after they were blocked, seems very likely to me (they're specifically tied to WikiExperts). I suppose the bright side here is that they weren't outright scamming folks, unlike several others brought up on the help desk recently. 57.140.16.57 (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, Isingness is blocked - indefinitely so. Blueboy567 - who came here to ask for our help - has been given good guidance and has agreed to use the talk page in future. Multiple editors are reviewing the article and discussing it on its talk page. What else are you hoping to achieve? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blueboy567: In you haven't reviewed it already, you may be interested in reading Wikipedia:Autobiography. GoingBatty (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blueboy567: Looking at these statistics on the article, I see that the #1 author is the "experienced Wikipedia writer" you hired, with 81% percent. It seems that all the 2600/2601 IP addresses are edits by you, which total over 9%. It appears to me that you are in fact "a major contributor" to the article. GoingBatty (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that 9% of the IP addresses makes me a major contributor. By definition, that's a minor contributor. Furthermore: Where is the conflict in me being a contributor, major or minor, to an article about me? Especially one that is extremely well sourced and documents. Blueboy567 (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blueboy567: I was trying to say that hiring the original writer PLUS your IP edits makes you "a major contributor". To answer your question about the conflict, please see the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide (and the links on your talk page). GoingBatty (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that you're the first person to flag any of these issues for an entry that's been posted since 2017 and edited with small changes many times since then -- this show that the problem is with you. Blueboy567 (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blueboy567: I am not the first person to flag the COI issues in this conversation. I have not flagged the COI issues at all on the article or the article's talk page or your user talk page. You can confirm that by reviewing the edit history for each page. GoingBatty (talk) 04:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about how it is in the US, but where I am, the regulations and policies cover actual and percieved conflicts of interest. What this means is that if you have any external relation, even if you are fully correct that you have actual no conflict of interest whatsoever when writing something, you should familiarise yourself and follow the guidelines we have regarding conflicts of interest, even if to you they seem unnecessary, even if they seem purely pro forma. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I can't even follow your logic. Blueboy567 (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's put this in a context you might be more familiar with. You're a professional journalist, you've written for NPR, they also have conflict of interest guidelines. Let's say, hypothetically, you're involved in some newsworthy event and, NPR have asked you to write a story about it. You don't think your involvement forms any actual conflict of interest. What do you do? Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-wiki article queries

Is there a way to generate a list of Wikidata items (or corresponding Wikipedia articles) where the article on one Wikipedia is in a particular category and the article on another Wikipedia is in another particular category? Kk.urban (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that the answer to this is more likely to be found over at Wikidata. It seems like something it should be able to do fairly easily. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When do I need to use "links" and when do I need to use "citations"?

When writing a scientific article, we refer to other publications. How do I use references in a wikipedia pagina - should I use links or citations?

Best, Wikicluck44 (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External links should almost never occur inside the text of an article, unless they are in citations: see WP:EL.

Citations should contain bibliographical information, such as title, author, publisher, page, date: if there is a URL available that links to a legal copy of the source, then it is a good idea to include the link as an aid to a reader or reviewer; but in most cases, a link is not an essential part of a citation.

The purpose of a citation is to identify a reliable source for a specific piece of information in the article: nothing else. If a paper directly support a claim in the article, then cite that paper; but in any other case, don't.

Sometimes it is appropriate to link to other papers in an External links section. ColinFine (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this clear answer ColinFine - this helps me in further improving my draft wikipage. Wikicluck44 (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COI edit request backlog, and access paywalled financial publications

I'm helping clear the connected edit request backlog, and am starting to get pinged on my talk page as the backlog continues to grow. If anyone want to help, we can use it. I'm working on an essay with syntax tips for connected editors on how to make successful edit requests, based on rejections I've seen from other editors. Comments and suggestions are welcome. The latest ping request requires access to paywalled Bloomberg and Financial Times articles. I just signed up for JSTOR access to get some academic journals and books, but wonder if there's something similar for editors to use to access Bloomberg and the Financial Times? STEMinfo (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@STEMinfo: Are you able to view archived versions of the Bloomberg and Financial Times articles at the Internet Archive? GoingBatty (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: Thanks for the tip and help. Searching this archive is new to me. I just went to the Internet Archive to try to find the first article listed as a source. A few hits came up with archived time stamps, but the result only shows the first two paragraphs, which is similar to what shows as the text gets fuzzy on the live paywalled page. It looks like the archive can't get past the paywall either. Are there any free library type subscriptions qualified editors can use? STEMinfo (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@STEMinfo Archive.is website sometimes has stuff others don't. The Bloomberg article there is this URL but it may not be very helpful as the extra amount turns out to have little content. You could try for the FT there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.... and don't forget WP:RX. The folk there are very helpful. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull: Bingo! The additional content is needed to source the amount the firm manages, which it does. Thanks! STEMinfo (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced template editing

I've found errors in an important template, which is composed of transcluded elements that go many levels deep. I tried to make my way all the way down the rabbit hole, but I've hit a dead end. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how to edit the actual data in the template. I could draw attention to the errors in the talk page, but then I wouldn't learn anything. I'd appreciate it if someone with advanced template editing knowledge could walk me through the process of finding the right page to edit so that I won't need to ask for help in the future. It would be extra appreciated if this wonderful person, to whom I would be most grateful, could have a live conversation with me at a mutually agreeable time. DOSGuy (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DOSGuy: Maybe I can help but it's hard to tell without knowing the template and perceived problem. I don't have live conversations. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DOSGuy: For live conversations, you might want to try WP:IRC or WP:Discord. GoingBatty (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]