Wikipedia:Help desk
/static/apple-touch/wikipedia.png
Page for questions relating to Wikipedia

Search the frequently asked questions Search the help desk archives and other help pages

Hello , you need to delete a page on wikipedia becasue its not true story and its making a lot of noise in public! 95.86.40.182 (talk)

OK! I'll do it right now! Uporządnicki (talk)

Oh, did you have some special page in mind? Or will just any page do? Uporządnicki (talk)

Just read all eight million and delete the one which isn't true. PrimeHunter (talk)

The confused Magic 8-Ball says: which article? Facepalm - RichT|C|E-Mail

Hello, I just created a Wikipedia account because I thought I would be able to bookmark articles of interest to me within my account, rather than cluttering up my computer with a lot of bookmarks, for which I often get told that I'm running out of space on my computer, etc. So, since bookmarking articles within my account does not appear to be an option, I would like to delete my account altogether since I just created the account and have no intention of editing any articles. Please advise what I need to do in order to delete my account.

Thank you,

BRomer99 BRomer99 (talk)

BRomer99 for attribution reasons, accounts cannot be deleted. Since you have not made any significant edits, you can simply log out and never log in again. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs)

@BRomer99:You can use your user page or a user subpage to hold your collection of bookmarks. Just edit the page and add links. Organize that page any way you want. -Arch dude (talk)

Others can see those pages. For a private list which is easier to make, you could use your watchlist and view it at Special:Watchlist/edit which gives an alphabetical list of the page names. PrimeHunter (talk)

Hi everyone, I’m working on a draft article about Koorosh Ghorbani, an Iranian trial motorcyclist, and I’m having some trouble with sourcing. He is well-known in Iran and has been extensively covered in Persian media, which are considered reliable sources in his home country. These sources were sufficient for his Persian Wikipedia page, but I’m unsure how to properly reference them on the English Wikipedia. I know Koorosh Ghorbani personally and have access to official documents and translated certificates of his championships. He has participated in international races, including two in Mexico and two in Italy, and I might be able to find links to these events. However, most of the detailed coverage of his career is in Persian. Can anyone advise on how to use Persian sources on English Wikipedia? Additionally, is there a way to upload and use translated documents as sources? We’re aiming to introduce him to an international audience, and having an English Wikipedia page is crucial for this purpose. Thank you in advance for any guidance! Neginghaderii (talk)

Courtesy link: Draft:Koorosh Ghorbani. Maproom (talk)

Hello, Neginghadeni. Non-English sources are perfectly acceptable in English Wikipedia, if there are not English-language sources of equal quality. The sources still need to meet English Wikipedia's criteria for reliability; and most of them also need to be independent of Ghorbani - anything written, published, or commissioned by him or any of his associates, or based on a press release or interview, may be used in only limited ways (see WP:PRIMARY) and will not contribute to establishing that he meets the criteria of notability. When citing foreign-language sources it is helpful to include a translation of the title, and perhaps of a relevant quotation from the source - see NONENG.

Sources do not have to be available online, as long as they are published so a reader can in principle consult them (eg by ordering a copy from a major library). Unpublished materials, on the other hand, may never by used as source for a Wikipedia article, irrespective of their provenance.

If you know Ghorbani personally, then Wikipedia regards you as having a conflict of interest. This does not stop you from writing about him, but you should declare this on your user page, and be aware of the pitfalls in writing about somebody you know. ColinFine (talk)

I’m a photographer specializing in sporting events, and through my work, I’ve gotten to know many Iranian and world champions personally. I’ve even interviewed world champions. My most recent project involved covering the World Champion Trial GP in Belgium. This experience gives me a unique perspective, allowing me to write accurate and well-informed articles about athletes like Koorosh Ghorbani.

Thank you for the detailed explanation. I understand the importance of sourcing and will remove any parts of the article that are not supported by reliable sources. I would greatly appreciate it if you could take a look at the draft again. Instead of rejecting it, could you please help modify or suggest changes that would make it suitable for publication? Your guidance would be invaluable in ensuring that the article meets Wikipedia's standards.

Thank you in advance for your support. Neginghaderii (talk)

@Neginghaderii: It's good that you have expertise, but on Wikipedia expertise isn't really relevant, becauase you cannot write what you know, you must write about what published sources say.

Your draft wasn't rejected, it was declined. If it was rejected, that means you should give up and move on to something else. If it's declined, that means the reviewer thinks it may be suitable for publication with improvements.

I looked it over, made a few minor changes. It's pretty good as a stub article. Can you flesh it out a little? Most of the sources don't really provide any significant coverage of Khoorosh Gorbani, they just mention him. I suspect that's why the reviewer declined it. ~Anachronist (talk)

Hello! There is something wrong with some templates and references. I can't find the errors. Doncsecztalk

I don't see any obvious error, so you'll need to be clearer about what problem you're seeing. ColinFine (talk)

@ColinFine: : Check |isbn= value: checksum (help) or : External link in |website= (help) These will appear after saving. Doncsecztalk

@Doncsecz~enwiki The error messages themselves have wikilinks to help pages, which is where you should look. In large articles like Prekmurje Slovene it can sometimes be tricky to find the correct place to fix the problems. I'm going to start tidying up that article and you'll be able to see my edits there later, assuming I can fix the problems. Mike Turnbull (talk)

.... now done. The article still needs cleanup work. Mike Turnbull (talk)

Hello,

I recently received an automated warning about potentially spamming when I tried to add external links to multiple Wikipedia pages. The links in question point to the official website of the UAE’s Commission for Academic Accreditation (CAA), which is the Federal Government’s quality assurance agency for higher education.

I work at a college in the UAE, and we undergo annual audits by the CAA. The accreditation status of programs and institutions can change frequently, and the only authoritative source for the current status is the CAA’s official website. I’ve been adding this link to various Wikipedia pages related to UAE institutions to provide accurate and up-to-date information.

Here’s why this link is crucial:

The CAA website is the definitive source for the accreditation status of UAE higher education institutions and programs.

Accreditation status can change annually, with some programs and institutions having their licenses revoked. The CAA's website is the only way to verify the current status.

If a program or institution is not listed as active on the CAA’s website, the Ministry of Education (MoE) will not stamp or recognize the certificates issued by that institution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elrashid.co (talk • contribs)

For example, the CAA website lists detailed information for institutions like the Higher Colleges of Technology, including the status of specific programs (e.g., active, inactive).

I have made these edits under my account, and you can view my contributions here: User contributions for Elrashid.co.

Given this context, I believe that adding these links is important for maintaining accurate and reliable information on Wikipedia. Could you please advise on how to proceed without triggering the spam warning? I also want to ensure that my edits are compliant with Wikipedia’s guidelines on external links. Elrashid.co (talk)

@Elrashid.co: As you say the warning was automated, so you needn't be too troubled by it. The additions look good to me.

That said, the formatting of what you added was not in our preferred style; instead of a call to action, you should include the link as a reference, so, for example, instead of

Higher Colleges of Technology (HCT) is accredited by the Commission for Academic Accreditation (CAA), the UAE Federal Government's quality assurance agency for higher education. To check the CAA's active accredited programs at Higher Colleges of Technology (HCT), visit this link.

you would add:

Higher Colleges of Technology is accredited by the Commission for Academic Accreditation (CAA), the UAE Federal Government's quality assurance agency for higher education.[1]

--

Hi Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);

Thank you for your prompt response and helpful guidance. I appreciate your clarification on the preferred formatting for external links. I’ll make sure to revise the edits accordingly by including the CAA website as a reference rather than a direct call to action.

I understand the importance of following Wikipedia's guidelines, and I’ll be careful to format future contributions in line with your advice. If there’s anything else I should be aware of, please feel free to let me know.

Thanks again for your assistance.

Best regards,

Elrashid Elrashid.co (talk)

we need to add some information in our wiki page but after adding this content its rejected 103.175.62.181 (talk)

That is because this edit was blatant promotion, which is not allowed. Wikipedia has no interest in what you are deligted to share. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs)

You also have a WP:Conflict of interest, so should not be editing that page at all, but you can make suggestions on the talk page - Arjayay (talk)

Hello. I have a question about notability for topics that do have sources, but are debatably notable to have their own articles. In particular, I am looking at articles in the theme of Graffiti in Houston, Graffiti in Washington, D.C., and Graffiti in Chicago. I had opened a discussion for deletion, but they were removed as "size is not a reason to delete an article", but my argument was not about size alone - graffiti in these areas is not notable in the way they are in places like New York or Philadelphia, which have effected graffiti history and culture significantly in a way which has led to such being discussed in academic journals.

The fact that there are news articles of graffiti in these towns helps them fit in general notabiltiy guidelines, but this seems very problematic given that I am sure I could find news articles saying "someone did graffiti" in every city in the world and quite a few small towns. Is there a better way to establish notability for this kind of subject? -- NotCharizard 🗨

One preferred method for dealing with subjects on borderline notability that fit together in a common theme is to place them in context within a larger article. Infrastructure of the Brill Tramway is the classic excellent example of this. For your case, these articles are all in Category:Graffiti in the United States by city, which has no main article yet. Graffiti in the United States exists, with two topographic lvl2 subheadings and a third lvl3 under § Regulations. Maybe you could incorporate the content of the inadequate articles (like the particularly poor Graffiti in Washington, D.C.) into subheadings to provide a place for the information inside its larger context, and for cities that do merit a standalone article, summarise them in context and provide a section hatnote linking the existing article. In other words, merge as appropriate. Folly Mox (talk)

Hi, I’m working on the translation of the Persian article for Koorosh Ghorbani. Someone helped me change the name, but after I pasted the code for the article, it remains a draft without a submit button. I’m also concerned that the references, which are sourced from the Persian article, might not be recognized as reliable because they are not in English. Could someone please help with this? I want to make sure the sources are properly acknowledged and that the article can be submitted correctly. Thank you!

Draft talk:Koorosh Ghorbani Article in Persian : کوروش قربانی Neginghaderii (talk)

@Neginghaderii, you deleted the submission template in this edit. TSventon has added it back for you. 57.140.16.8 (talk)

(edit conflict)Neginghaderii, I have added back the draft templates, so you should be able to resubmit it. However the previous version was rejected not because of foreign language sources, but because the article is a WP:BLP (biography of a living person) and there was unsourced information. The article still has unsourced information, such as the date of birth, which should be cited or removed. TSventon (talk)

Thank you for pointing out the issues. I’ll remove the date of birth right away. Could you please let me know if there’s anything else that needs to be removed? I’ve already taken out another part that didn’t have a source.

I have a question: isn’t Persian Wikipedia considered a source? For example, the date of birth is listed and accepted there.

Thank you for your help! 92.54.250.108 (talk)

Thank you for the clarification. I understand that neutrality is key when writing for Wikipedia. However, if I weren't interested in this sport, I wouldn't even be aware of these athletes' existence, let alone know enough to write about them. Having some background information helps me ensure that they are indeed notable and well-known in their field.

I’ve removed some parts of the article and would appreciate any further suggestions or help you can provide. Thank you again for your guidance and support. 92.54.250.108 (talk)

@Neginghaderii/92.54.250.108, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, no matter which language it is in. Reading WP:USERGEN may help you understand why. 57.140.16.8 (talk)

Each claim in the article is supported by Persian sources, and I'm translating content from Iranian news outlets. 92.54.250.108 (talk)

Many months ago a page that had been of some controversy because of the ongoing conflict in the middle east as well as it seems some "anti"anti-Israeli sentiment/pushback, was quietly purged from Wikipedia. To my understanding page regarding the "Ben Gurion Canal" was deemed a "conspiracy" & not factual, was then put up for vote & deleted.

I have recently come across a declassified memo from the US Office of Science & Technology Information, posted & available on their website OSTI.gov that outlines a very real proposal of said Canal, thus bringing to an end of this project actually being just here-say & conspiracy.

I believe this information as well as the former Wiki page has relevant, concerning information that is of vital importance that the public should be aware of & is of journalistic & historic significance.

Having it wiped from the halls of Wikipedia has done nothing but lead credence that this proposed idea was nothing more then a crackpot scheme to undermine & defame "Israel".

All that being said I believe it would be in the best interest of the public & Wikipedia to restore this page, include the document I will link below & lock the page (or otherwise restrict editing/deletion)

I would also like to propose that any page relating to conflicting states & said "conflicts" be given additional scrutiny before any deletions & major edits be performed.

That being said one of the arguments of the pages deletion was that "it was a proposed project & it was not built".

Well history, the internet along with wikipedia is full of Government (& others) projects that never came to fruition, but they are still both of historic & journalistic significance.

Atlantropa, Project Carryall, Cross Florida Barge Canal, Bering Dam, Qattara Depression Project, Project 2025.

I could go on & on about different things that never came to be or are still just proposals but still are worth a page here. The Ben Gurion Canal is just that.

Please reinstate & lock the page so no one deletes history while everyone else is looking in another direction.

Thank you for your help!

https://www.osti.gov/opennet/servlets/purl/453701.pdf LtCdrLaForge (talk)

Wikipedia does not base articles on primary-source documents. To establish that this topic meets Wikipedia notability requirements you would need to show signioficant coverage in secondary reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk)

I'd add that I'm not even finding a deleted page by this name. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today

I think they're talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Gurion Canal Project. DanCherek (talk)

Ok. So maybe you can answer this. why has any reference to the canal only been scrubbed from the english Wiki?

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proyecto_del_Canal_Ben_Guri%C3%B3n

https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B9_%D9%82%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%A9_%D8%A8%D9%86_%D8%BA%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%88%D9%86

https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terusan_Ben_Gurion

There are at least 7 pages I can find in various languages all have citations.

Listen I am not trying to call out some conspiracy, I am not ani-israeli, anti-zionist, pro-palestine. I am Pro-Human & I am Pro-History. I believe in the adage that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

I would like to continue on my rant but this is not the platform for that.

I am just looking for a "good" explanation as to why this happened, prevent it from happening again & hopefully fix it. LtCdrLaForge (talk)

It happened because somebody nominated it for deletion and the participants in the discussion didn't think it satisfied the requirements in Wikipedia:Notability for significant coverage in reliable sources. Lots of articles are deleted for that reason. The discussion was open to everybody and listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 18#Ben Gurion Canal Project so it could be seen by people following deletion discussions. Wikipedia languages are edited independently and make their own policies. I don't know the policies for the languages with an article, or whether their article satisfies those policies, but many languages have less strict policies than the English Wikipedia. Ben Gurion Canal Project (Q120703821) currently shows eight languages with an article. Some of them were based on the English article when it existed. PrimeHunter (talk)

Ben Gurion Canal Project wasn't "quietly purged". It was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Gurion Canal Project 18 December 2023. The top of the article displayed a big box about it for a week with a link to the discussion, similar to this on another article. After the normal time, seven days, the discussion was closed. It was decided to delete the article. The discussion remains visible to everybody. The article called it an alleged Israeli project. Your source is an American document with no mention of Israeli knowledge of the idea. The source had its own section in the article and was mentioned in the deletion discussion. It's still mentioned in Project Plowshare and Peaceful nuclear explosion but with no claim that it was an Israeli project. PrimeHunter (talk)

Hallo WIKI

I've been using the wiki for many years. What came as a novity already a few years ago was/is the terrible little square which contains the content and which is stuck in one place (the upper left hand "corner") while scrolling the page up and down. This bothers me so much that I've been limiting using the Wiki to a minimum and opting for a different app to get the information I want to read.

My hope is that you either eliminate it or make it possible for a reader to get rid of it while I am reading a page.

Thank you for your input.

Wiki reader. 2001:569:744C:900:A9D1:65BA:70CC:8C8A (talk)

Are you perhaps using the Wikipedia "app"? If so, simply use a browser instead. Using Ghostery and not logging in to Wikipedia, I see no little square stuck in any one place, whether I choose "mobile" or "desktop" view. -- Hoary (talk)

I see a box with as described if I log out and "Contents" is hidden from the sidebar. It's part of the current default skin Vector 2022. If I log in then I instead see a fixed page-wide bar at the top in Vector 2022. Logged in users can select other skins at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. I prefer the former default Vector legacy. None of the other skins have such a box. They display contents as part of the article itself. The skin affects many other things. PrimeHunter (talk)

Hello. According to WP:TRACKLIST, the track listing data for albums can be sourced to liner notes as a primary source without explicit citations. Would this also apply for track listings in a Soundtrack section of a film? I see examples of this for films Wish I Was Here, Summer Lovers and others. Opinions welcome! Assambrew (talk)

Disappointing that nobody has answered me yet, but I see you folks have your hands full here with difficult questions and difficult people. Kudos for your patience! ...

I'll be more specific: I tried to add a Soundtrack section for the film The Lords of Flatbush, but it was reverted because I didn't cite any sources. What I added was all from the liner notes of the album cover. Shouldn't that be acceptable as a primary source without explicit citations, just as it is for regular record albums? Assambrew (talk)

Whenever I try to load Template:Advert I get a blank HTML page. Viewing the source in Chrome view-source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Advert reveals that the page source is all there. Trying the actual editing link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Advert&action=edit also comes up blank.

Is this happening for anyone else? I noticed it when an article with this template wasn't displaying anything for that template. ~Anachronist (talk)

I can't reproduce this (although, of course for me https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Advert&action=edit acts a bit unusually since it's template protected). Based on other experiences, it may be worth trying turning off any ad block/content you have running, since I've had some ad blockers block aggressive on things like the box-Advertclass in <table class="box-Advert plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-content ambox-Advert" role="presentation">. Skynxnex (talk)

Aha. After using AdNauseam for years without any issues (other than installing updates since Google banned it from the Chrome store), this is the first false positive I've had with it. I disabled it on Wikipedia and the page appeared. ~Anachronist (talk)

I am working on a backlog category Category:CS1 errors: URL.There is an article which shows that there are issues in two reference. but when i open edit windows, its just gone but if i again open article, it shows that there are issues in reference. The Article: Alive Alive-O!

–– kemel49(connect)(contri)

Article title corrected -- John of Reading (talk)

@KEmel49: The {{Album chart}} template builds its own references based on the information supplied in the other parameters. According to Template:Album chart/doc#Supports, for Italy and Spain, it was trying to build a reference from the "artist" and "album" parameters; these were missing, causing the invalid URL error. The template was not expecting to see a fully-formed reference as its third unnamed parameter; although they were visible in the edit window, they were ignored by the template coding.

I've chosen to restore an old version of the album chart without the extra entries added in December 2023. I was not convinced by the references that were visible in the edit window. And when I added the missing parameters and allowed the {{Album chart}} template to build its own version of the Italy and Spain references, they did not verify the supplied chart positions. -- John of Reading (talk)

Thanks –– kemel49(connect)(contri)

Why did you remove the awards and commendations that he received in the Marines? Are you trying to censor the truth? If so, that is despicable. 2601:647:4400:D8B0:AC99:D7B6:487B:5C91 (talk)

Join the ongoing discussion at Talk:JD_Vance RudolfRed (talk)

How do i remove slanderous false statements that are solely intended to persecute a company because of the owners religion? When I try editors blindly deny the edits. Newsbuffstuff (talk)

Can you please provide article name.-- kemel49(connect)(contri)

Probably Desert Tech. Maproom (talk)

Newsbuffstuff, the statements that you tried to remove from the article accurately summarize what reliable sources like CBS News and the Salt Lake City Tribune have said about that company. That is exactly what we do on Wikipedia. You have no basis to remove that content. You clearly have a Conflict of interest regarding this company and should not edit that article. What is your connection with User:DTNEY1? Cullen328 (talk)

Hi, I am working as a senior webmaster and designer in Liwa College. As our college name has been changed from Emirates college of technology to Liwa College. I want to update my college name in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirates_College_of_Technology But there is no option to edit the name. I cant see any move or more option to change or update the page name. Can you please help or guide me to solve this issue.

Thanks Liwa College (talk)

I've moved the article to Liwa College and added a reference for this being the new name. Unfortunately I've also had to block your account as a breach of WP:ORGNAME which prohibits usernames that unambiguously represent a company. I appreciate you likely created this account in good faith to make this suggested change but we don't generally allow usernames like this. There are instructions on your usertalk page on how to request a rename, perhaps to something like "<person name> at Liwa College." Also as outlined on your userpage, you need to be aware of both the policy on paid editing and the policy on conflicts of interest. Again, you do seem to be here in good faith so please don't take this list of policies as a criticism: there are simply some fairly strict rules for how representatives of companies are allowed to contribute to their own company pages. Happy to discuss further if required, after you've renamed your account. -- Euryalus (talk)

Hello Community,

I am working on updating Wikipedia articles related to building and construction technologies, with a focus on new methodologies impacting deck repair. My objective is to enrich these articles with updated, reliable information and ensure all additions are substantiated by authoritative sources.

As I aim to enhance the content quality, I seek advice on several aspects:

Verifiability and Reliable Sources: What are the best practices for verifying and integrating sources, particularly new ones from rapidly evolving fields? How can I ensure these sources meet the community's standards for reliability?

Seamless Integration of New Data: When introducing significant new information to well-structured articles, what strategies should I employ to maintain the article’s coherence and neutrality?

Advanced Citation Practices: Are there specific citation techniques or common pitfalls I should be aware of, especially for citing online studies or technological advancements?

For a broader perspective and detailed analysis, here is a link to my project's data Spreadsheet with Technological Advances in Deck Repair. Additionally, further information about our methodologies can be found on our project’s webpage at DeckRepairLittleRock.

I appreciate your guidance to help me make responsible and effective contributions to Wikipedia’s knowledgeable community.

Thank you for your support! Deckrepairlittlerock (talk)

I have blocked your account for your promotional username indicating shared use. Wikipedia accounts are for individuals only, not for businesses. Advertising, marketing and promotion are not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk)

Not a bad idea, but I'm wondering if someone(s) have reached out to the editor/user to suggest re-registering with a personalized login? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me)

See the (standard) message which @Cullen328 put on their user talk page, Ceyockey. ColinFine (talk)

Hello there fellow ladies and gentlemen, I would like to ask your opinions as to the information concerning navboxes and sidebars, (assuming that there exists both for a particular topic, say Discrimination) should they link to the same number of articles or not? If not, which should link to more articles?

Atakes Ris (talk)

@Atakes Ris I think that some guidance is given at WP:CLN, especially WP:BIDI. However, I may not fully understand your question, so please be more specific if the links don't help sufficiently. Mike Turnbull (talk)

For example, the articles related to Geography have a sidebar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Geography_sidebar) and a navbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Geography_topics), however the number of articles in the sidebar is less than that of the navbox.

Another case, the articles related to Discrimination have a sidebar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Discrimination_sidebar) and a navbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Discrimination) as well, but the number of articles in both are the same.

So I would like to ask, among the general consensus of Wikipedians or otherwise, should a sidebar have the same amount of articles as its respective navbox (assuming that both exist)?

Thanks! Atakes Ris (talk)

@Atakes Ris WP:SIDEBAR says that sidebars .... should be treated with special attention, because they are so prominently displayed to readers. That suggests to me that there should be fewer entries in a sidebar than in a navbox which is doing roughly the same job. However, none of this is a policy. Mike Turnbull (talk)

I see, thanks! Atakes Ris (talk)

User:Mellk is vandalizing the article, removing important information with reliable source[1]. I think that he is not going to stop vandalize. So what should I do? Пинча (talk)

@Пинча Firstly, removing another editor's content under these circumstances is not vandalism, which has a very specific meaning here as you can read at that link. Melik's edit summary pointed out that the new information should not be placed in the WP:LEAD of the article, which is supposed to summarize what appears later. Hence, if the same information is not in the body text, it should not be solely in the lead. Please follow our normal WP:BRD process and discuss the issue on the Talk Page of the article at Talk:Arkady Babchenko. Mike Turnbull (talk)

So User:Mellk could have improved it, couldn't he? Removing important information with reliable source is vandalism. Пинча (talk)

If information is 'important', it needs to be discussed in depth in the article body, and then possibly summarised in the article lede. As it is, you have provided nothing that suggests that this nickname is of any significance at all, instead merely citing a single source which mentions it in passing. I suggest you find further sources that discuss it, and then list them on the article talk page, where their relevance to the article can be assessed. AndyTheGrump (talk)

If you have questions about why an editor made the choices they made, the best thing you can do is ask them about it in a non-confrontational manner. There was no need to escalate this to this page. DonIago (talk)

Pincha, Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Different editors can and do have different opinions as to what is important, and what belongs where in an article.

To insist that you are right, and that anybody who disagrees with you is a vandal, is not collaborative. Please discuss the issue with the other editor, according to WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk)

Removing important information with reliable source is vanalism. Now the vandal accused me in edit war because I reverted his vanalism. Пинча (talk)

You are edit warring. AntiDionysius (talk)

No, I reverted obvious vandalism, improved the article, and asked here how to protect the article from vandals and avoid edit war. Пинча (talk)

WP:EW: An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. AntiDionysius (talk)

You are correct. It is what User:Mellk and User:Theroadislong are doing. Пинча (talk)

You can do this "I know you are but what am I" routine all you want; a stubborn refusal to talk to other editors on an equal footing will just mean that you don't succeed in getting your edit made. AntiDionysius (talk)

User:Mellk called another vandal, User:Theroadislong who reverted even improved version. It is what I am talking about: they are just vandals and don't what to improve the article. Пинча (talk)

It has been pointed out to you several times now that disagreeing with you about what is relevant to an article is not "vandalism". Please stop accusing other editors of vandalism. Editors on Wikipedia are required to assume good faith of each other, which you are not doing. AntiDionysius (talk)

That person calls himself StarshinaZapasa in every social media.[2][3][4] Why can't it be stated in the article? Пинча (talk)

I have no opinion on that. Maybe the information belongs in the article; maybe it doesn't, as not everything that is true is important enough to be noted on Wikipedia. I don't know, in this case. What I am saying is that you need to discuss these things in a constructive manner with other editors in order to reach WP:CONSENSUS and stop accusing them of vandalism. AntiDionysius (talk)

No, they need to discuss these things in a constructive manner with other editors in order to reach WP:CONSENSUS to avoid being accused of vandalism. Пинча (talk)

Your insistence that anyone who disagrees with you is a vandal makes it less likely that your preferred version of the article will end up prevailing. AntiDionysius (talk)

It is not their own page and they cannot decide what is important not knowing the subject at all. Пинча (talk)

And it's not your page either, so you have to talk to people and don't get to sidestep that by pretending they're "vandals". AntiDionysius (talk)

I did not 'call' anyone. I removed the social media name from the lead because it is not important enough to be mentioned in the first sentence. Also not mentioned as a nickname in the lead of ru:Бабченко, Аркадий Аркадьевич. Mellk (talk)

See how he is lying! He didn't just removed the information from the lead, he removed the information at all. It is called vandalism on Wikipedia. Пинча (talk)

I quite literally removed it from the lead. But the continued personal attacks suggest that a block is needed until you understand the policies better. Vandalism has a very specific meaning as you have been told. Mellk (talk)

There is the obvious difference between moving from lead to another place, and removing at all. Don't speculate here. Пинча (talk)

pasagott! 119.92.138.20 (talk)

Wikipedia has a special page for that. Please visit Special:CreateAccount. Shantavira|feed me

Hello! I've read various rules about updating data on your own company page. Ours is a bit out of date and I've gathered several links (to outside sources) to show progress that should be reflected on our page. Can someone tell me best way to submit these to a Wiki editor to update? Much appreciated. - Erin Ehbrown.writes (talk)

The best way to do this is to use the edit request wizard to place requests on the article's talk page. Remember to make these requests as precise as possible, and that all information you wish to insert must be verified by published sources, and preferably by sources wholly unconnected with the company. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk)

@Ehbrown.writes Best practice is also to declare your WP:PAID status on your own userpage. See that link for how to do so. Mike Turnbull (talk)

Briefly looking at the useful "edit request wizard", it doesn't seem obvious where the edit requests go. Is this something that could be clarified, or a pointer to clarification provided? Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me)

@Ceyockey The instructions on the ERW page say editors are encouraged to submit an edit request on the article talk page using the form below (my bolding). Mike Turnbull (talk)

Thanks. I'll have to give it a try myself and see how it works out. Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me)

Hi, which of the two is correct:

van Pelt, Robert Jan (2014). "Freemasonry and Judaism". In Bogdan, Henrik; Snoek, Jan A.M. (eds.). Handbook of Freemasonry. Brill Handbooks on Contemporary Religion. Brill. p. 197. ISBN 978-90-04-27312-2 .

Pelt, Robert Jan van (2014). "Freemasonry and Judaism". In Bogdan, Henrik; Snoek, Jan A.M. (eds.). Handbook of Freemasonry. Brill Handbooks on Contemporary Religion. Brill. p. 197. ISBN 978-90-04-27312-2 . ? tgeorgescu (talk)

@Tgeorgescu My understanding is that Van Pelt is a surname in which the "van" means "from". Hence the first of your versions seems better. Mike Turnbull (talk)

Agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)

(ec) You need to add |authorlink=Robert Jan van Pelt. Once you have done so, either is "correct" depending on where you are, see van (Dutch). Wikipedia:Citing sources does not prescribe anything so you can do what you like as long as you are consistent within your article. —Kusma (talk)

I asked the question at nl:Wikipedia:De kroeg. They replied that "last1=Pelt | first1=Robert Jan van" is correct. tgeorgescu (talk)

We had this question last year at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2023 September 5 § Sorting of Dutch names. The guidance is at WP:SUR, with backup guidance at this external source. I feel like I remember there being different answers depending on the nationality of the person in question: for Europeans, "van" / "von" is sorted into |first=; some North Americans have "Van" / "Von" (with initial capital) as the beginning of their surname. When there's doubt, I put "van" / "von" at the end of the forename. Folly Mox (talk)

What they worn? 41.122.1.58 (talk)

This is incoherent. Are you asking a question about a certain article? 331dot (talk)

Is the answer here Gumboot dance in which case the answer is wellies. Knitsey (talk)

I know this must be an extremely dumb question, but please bear with me.

I have just finished drafting a long article (7,000 words readable prose) in my User space. I asked a friend for comments and was told there is no Table of Contents (TOC). This seems to be the case: unless you are logged in (which my friend wasn't), an article displays with no TOC. This seems to hold for any article, in mainspace or otherwise.

Can this really be true? It makes long articles very difficult to read for readers who are not logged in (i.e. most of them). I have tried forcing a Table of Contents with but it makes no difference.

Am I missing something obvious, or is there a way of fixing this problem? Ttocserp

This question might be better suited to WP:VPT, they tend to know about this sort of thing. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today

@Ttocserp: Logged out, I see a TOC on the left hand side, looking at User:Ttocserp/Slave-owning_slaves. It looks like if that is hidden, then the TOC may be at the top of the page, to the left of the page title. RudolfRed (talk)

+1 Just tested this logged out with the same results. RudolfRed is referring to the directly to the left of the page title in the event that the ToC isn't appearing in the left sidebar. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )

@Ttocserp This happens because the logged-out interface defaults to Vector 2022, which places ToC off to the left if visible at all. Logged-in users can choose from a number of skins at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. Mike Turnbull (talk)

I can't log in!!!! wikipedia tells me I have two user names associated with my single account - and I can't log into either of them. Temporary passwords don't wor 2600:480A:29D1:C900:7163:25A2:DAD9:F7E3 (talk)

What is your Username? –– kemel49(connect)(contri)

So I would like to understand what level of source I would need to provide context to a claim made by Jesse Ventura that I've laid out on this talk page Talk:Hulk Hogan#Hulk Hogan 2024 election. The claim is one made against Hulk Hogan by Jesse Ventura that references the sworn testimony of Vince McMahon. I have not been able to find a primary court report of the statement made by Vince McMahon. I understand that YouTube sources are not going to cut the muster, but CNN does not provide a full transcript of the interview, and I don't believe the other source is of enough journalistic standing to reference. I was considering contacting the court clerk to see about accessing the court report, but I'm not sure about the process for turning around and citing that, especially since it seems that it is not accessible via a public-facing site but instead a document I will need to pay to receive. Spicygarbage (talk)

If it hasn't been published, by a reliable source, you can't use it. There's no way around it. --Orange Mike | Talk

Hello, I apologize for any inconvenience my previous submission may have caused. I've worked on improving the article based on the feedback and have resubmitted it. I would greatly appreciate it if you could review it again. The article is now well-sourced, and I’m eager to ensure the content meets Wikipedia's standards. Thank you for your time and support.

Koorosh Ghorbani Neginghaderii (talk)

@Neginghaderii Since your sources are in Persian and Turkish, you may have to wait a while before someone with appropriate language skills does the review. It is acceptable to politely ask the reviewer who declined the previous version to take another look (ask via their Talk Page). Mike Turnbull (talk)

After reviewing the draft and the references, I'm not convinced that you know the standard for inclusion. WP:GNG requires an article to ge backed up with multiple in-depth coverage from independent and reliable sources, and none of the cited sources covered the subject in-depth, instead merely talked about their ranking or role. The subject does not seem to pass WP:NATH as well. You would need to provide sources that talked about the subject in more details, preferably not any types of announcements about change in position or upcoming events as those are considered to be WP:ROUTINE. Tutwakhamoe (talk)

Thank you for your feedback on the article for Koorosh Ghorbani. I appreciate the time you’ve taken to review the draft.

I understand that these might not fully meet the WP criteria, but I am eager to improve the article and would appreciate any guidance you can offer on how to strengthen it.

Would you be able to suggest specific types of sources or approaches that could help meet Wikipedia’s standards? If additional or different sources are required, I am committed to searching further or revising the content accordingly.

Thank you again for your support and advice. Neginghaderii (talk)

News articles, books or other publications (online or offline, doesn't have to be in English) where the subject are talked about in detail. Don't use anything written by the subject or people/organizations associated with him, including interviews. Official records in which most information came form the subject himself can not be used as well. Try to find any source can prove that he passes WP:NATH. There are a lot of athletes over the history of mankind, and Wikipedia only have limited amount of storage space, we need to make sure that the athlete you are writing about has received enough attention so we can verify the information provided about him. Tutwakhamoe (talk)

What is the process for reinstating a defunct taskforce? Vestrian24Bio (TALK)

Vestrian24Bio, I remember when I first started editing 15 years ago and Wikiprojects and task forces were portrayed as a "really big thing". The more I learned about these efforts, the less impressed I was. Making something like this work again depends entirely on attracting a critical mass of editors. If several editors do not participate regularly,then the Wikiproject or even vague task force is meaningless. So, if you can motivate participation withour pestering people, that's great. The issue, in the end, is who cares other than you? Good luck. Cullen328 (talk)

Watchlist the taskforce and respond if anyone posts there. Participation begins with you. CMD (talk)

Wikipedia:WikiProject#Creating_and_maintaining_a_project may have something of use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)

Got it; Thanks. Vestrian24Bio (TALK)

Somewhere, there is a rule not to 'hijack' a discussion on a talk page by adding a contribution on top of the discussion and grabbing the attention this way. I don't remember where it is and did not find it anymore - anybody know it, please? --KnightMove (talk)

Wikipedia:Indentation#Indentation_examples #4 is the closest I can think of atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)

Thanks so far... but there is also another rule on another page. --KnightMove (talk)

This addresses it a bit: Help:Talk_pages#Replying_to_an_existing_thread FactOrOpinion (talk)

There's a lot of guidance at WP:TPYES and sections below that. Mike Turnbull (talk)

Does english Wikipedia has any rule dealing with unsubstantiated polemics created by users that ends up hindering the development of a topic? I know this is a common problematic of the encyclopedia, when seemingly good faith actors keep producing admissible arguments that demand an exorbitant effort by other users, sometimes winning by exhaustion. I have been dealing with a situation where I dont really think that the editor has provided any substance to his arguments, based on the principles of verifiability, and nonetheless has been allowed to flag an article as NPOV issue and keep hindering to development of the content. It seems to come very close to WP:DISRUPTIVE, but I dont know if there a appropriate place to fill a notification about it. I really wish some guidance in this aspect of the policy. JoaquimCebuano (talk)

Either WP:DRN or WP:ANI, depending on whether you want to focus on resolving the dispute, or whether it has gone beyond that and it is the other editor's behaviour. In either case, read the top matter on the page carefully. ColinFine (talk)

Hello, I have archived my talk page once. But I want a different archive every time I want to archive my talk page. How do I add another archive? This is for future reference. Felicia (talk)

If you archive manually then you can just create User talk:Felicia777/Archive 2 next time and so on. PrimeHunter (talk)

I already donate to Wikipedia. I'm using my labtop not my P.C. Can you please stop the pop-up's asking for money. When I have already donate every month. I use wikipedia a lot especially for football and other things. Thanks very much. 80.40.19.51 (talk)

If you make an account then you can suppress fundrasing banners when you are logged in at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-centralnotice-banners. PrimeHunter (talk)

To expand: donations are actually made to The Wikimedia Foundation, and Wikipedia has no interconnection with the donating process that can tell it whether even an Account holder has donated, let alone whether an unknown person using a (likely dynamic) IP has done so. This is to preserve editorial independence, so that, for example, no subject of an article can 'buy' influence over the article about them.

When you posted your query your laptop then had the IP address of 80.---51: tomorrow it may have a different IP, and 80.---51 may have been assigned to someone else's device; or you may be using a different device; or someone else (who has not donated) may be using your laptop (hopefully with your permission).

If you have donated to a charity, do you get irritated if you see another advert for it on the side of a bus? The bus can't know that you've already donated. Nor can Wikipedia. Hope this clarifies. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.109.53 (talk)

I have forgotten the password for my Wikipedia account. I also do not remember which email I used to create the account, what username I set, or what phone number I used. How can I reset it or edit this information now? 103.18.20.112 (talk)

See H:RP. However, if you do not know the username or email, it would be difficult. Incidentally, I don't think that Wikipedia ever asks for a phone number as a password recovery method.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me)

IP editor. You can probably remember one or two articles you are sure you edited, and roughly when. By looking at the history tab for those articles, you may be reminded of your username and hence can follow the H:RP method. If you no longer have access to the linked email address, your only way forward is to create a new account and, if you wish, state on its userpage "previously edited as XXX". Mike Turnbull (talk)

We need to paraphrase copyrighted content (along with citations and in text attribution). But we should not add original research. Just for clarification, why is paraphrasing not considered original research since paraphrasing is changing words and creating another way to express information, and no paraphrasing is perfect, so it may change in meaning, which may be interpreted as original research. I know it isn't, but I just wanted to clarify why. Anonymous1261 (talk)

Original research is "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists." Paraphrasing from a reliable source is not considered original research because the basis of the text is in the reliable source. If the paraphrasing introduces new material that wasn't in the cited source, it is then considered original research. If you are paraphrasing copyrighted content, please make sure it fits the non-free content policy before inserting it into an article. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk)

Thank you! Anonymous1261 (talk)

That is in no way original research. MallardTV (talk)

I created a new page about filmmaking duo Siegel & McGehee to replace two sub-standard stub pages about the two filmmakers as individuals. The idea was to change the two individual pages to redirects to one "duo" page, but now I realize I can't change an existing page to a redirect. Can anyone help? WikiWonka888! (talk)

@WikiWonka888! Technically, the article on Scott Siegel could be turned into a redirect but I think that is a bad idea. The article on Siegel & McGehee is wikilinked in the WP:LEAD of his biography, which should be sufficient. After all, a fuller individual biography might include material about his early life or family that would not be relevant to his work with McGehee. Mike Turnbull (talk)

Hi, Thanks, Mike! It's actually David Siegel (screenwriter), not Scott Siegel, who is the Siegel & McGehee co-director, and his work has been exclusively collaborative with McGehee for 30 years. I'm following the lead of other film co-directors, such as Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, or The Daniels, or the Coen Brothers, whose careers are described on a single page without individual pages. I can't figure out, technically, how to redirect from an existing page, though. Is it possible? WikiWonka888! (talk)

Yes, it is possible. You edit the source of the article, and replace the entire content with

#REDIRECT [[destination]]

Whether you should do this is another matter, and you should probably discuss it on the article's talk page first.

See WP:Redirect. ColinFine (talk)

My edit was deemed 'not constructive' by a bot and it was removed, but it was a paragraph of well-researched information which added to the article. It was on the page Henny Penny - I added the Chinese story of 'the man of Qi worries about the sky', which is completely relevant in the 'related stories' section... I undid the undo but slightly worry that it's just going to get deleted again for no reason. I'm trying to contribute positively to Wikipedia, I'm not committing vandalism. Not sure why my contribution was auto-deleted. Confuro (talk)

You weren't reverted by a bot. You were reverted by an experienced Wikipedia contributor. If you want to contribute positively, I suggest you discuss the matter on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk)

If you look at the history of Henny Penny, you'll see that the second (also human) editor who reverted you, @Jimfbleak. said "good faith addition with no independent verifiable sources".

All information in a Wikipedia article, without exception, should be verifiable from a reliable published source; and while there is not a formal requirement that everything actually be cited, editors nowadays tend to insist on a citation when information is added. ColinFine (talk)

@Confuro Just to clarify a little. You say your addition was "well-researched" but Wikipedia does not allow the inclusion of original unpublished research. We want editors to include their sources, so that readers can verify that what our articles say is backed up by reliable sources. Mike Turnbull (talk)

Hello! I am trying to create an infobox for artist collectives, and have been writing it here, however when I try to test it over here it isn't working how I want it - it is meant to have headings for "membership" and "art" but for some reason is just putting everything under the "art" heading. Can anyone tell me what the issue is? Thank you very much. -- NotCharizard 🗨

See Template:Infobox § Usage and note the enumeration of the various parameters in the example.

—Trappist the monk (talk)

And in general, the order of named parameters don't matter in template calls so any positioning of header1, header2 and header3 would give the same result. It isn't possible to make a coding of {{Infobox}} which would behave as you expected so the more cumbersome parameter numbering is necessary. PrimeHunter (talk)

Hello, I received feedback regarding citations on the article I submitted a few months back. I've worked on improving the article based on the feedback and have resubmitted it. I would greatly appreciate it if you could review it again. The article is now properly sourced, and I’m hopeful the content meets Wikipedia's standards. If it does not, I would greatly appreciate any guidance on how to further meet those standards. Thank you for your time and support. BDOklahoma24 (talk)

BDOklahoma24 You have submitted it for review and it is pending. As noted on your draft, this could take some time, please be patient. 331dot (talk)

BDOklahoma24, please remove the inappropriate external link in the first paragraph. External links do not belong in the body of an article. Please read Wikipedia:External links for more details. Cullen328 (talk)

Thank you for your response and guidance. I read through the page you linked. I want to make sure you are referring to the Brewster and De Angelis external link? I will remove it now, if so. Thank you again. BDOklahoma24 (talk)

BDOklahoma24, that I'd correct and I see that the link has been removed. Cullen328 (talk)

im planning to abandon this account, goodbye

how do i delete it ZacharyFDS/Memphis1525 (talk)

For attribution purposes, accounts cannot be deleted. But you can request to vanish yourself by having your username be renamed to a random text. – robertsky (talk)

Hi,

About 13 years ago I added details of a new Fredric Brown collection to Wikipedia to match existing entries - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Proofreaders%27_Page_and_Other_Uncollected_Items

Some time back the page was allegedly removed because it did not "cite any sources" although for some reason I (as author) author was never notified of the deletion (which is discourteous at least).

Then yesterday I got a message to say that the cover scan of the book that I had uploaded would be deleted because it was an "orphaned non-free image".

I reinstated the page (so that the image was no longer orphaned) and attempted to add a source only to find the source has now been deleted by the same bot for reasons I don't pretend to understand.

I tried to contact the author of the bot (b_bot) but apparently he has retired from Wikipedia editing and has just left his bot running to do random damage in his absence.

Frankly I don't really care if the page is there or not - it's Wikipedia's loss, not mine - but I confess I am getting rather sick and tired of the degree to which Wikipedia attempts to prevent anybody other than an "expert" from creating or modifying content and am inclined to give up on attempting to help out.

If somebody can explain to me quite what a "non-free image" means when related to a scan I took myself and made freely available, and quite what "sources" are needed to list the contents of a collection that I have in front of me, then I'd be happy to attempt to fix whatever these imagined "problems are". Philsp (talk)

If I'm reading the edit history correctly, the text you added was deemed to be a copyright violation and was removed by The4lines (talk · contribs), not by a bot. There's information at Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Supplying evidence of non-infringement as to how you can contest this if you feel the claim was made in error. Also, the bot that tagged your image was created by B (talk · contribs), who last edited two days ago. In any event, as the image is currently in use, I've deleted the template on the page for the image as per the instructions included with that template, but the article itself still needs at least one source added. DonIago (talk)

Thanks for your speedy reply. I looked at B's talk page and it said he was effectively retired and not interested in other than a small range of requests from other editors.

Thanks for deleting the template on the page, but I still don't know what sort of source is required or how to add it. The text I added was the "advertising blurb" I wrote for the book when I added it to lulu back in 2011 and which has been used (without my permission) by sites such as Google and Amazon and I have no idea how I can be violating copyright on something I wrote nor how I can prove that I wrote it.

Which brings me back to the main point. This is a book that I created and published and, as such, the ultimate source for information on the book will always be me. Demanding some other form of source is sheer nonsense, to put it politely. Philsp (talk)

@Philsp: The Proofreaders' Page and Other Uncollected Items was converted to a redirect in [5]. BLAR refers to WP:BLAR. We don't call it deletion when the page history is still visible and ordinary users can restore the former content as you did. Many articles have contributions from hundreds of users. The creator is usually not notified of conversions to a redirect. If a page is nominated for deletion where only administrators can undelete it then the creator is usually notified. You can use your watchlist to help keep track of edits to pages of interest. Articles about books should generally satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (books) by having independent sources about the book. We are not a book catalogue but an encyclopedia with articles on selected topics which are deemed notable. PrimeHunter (talk)

Philsp, the article that you wrote about your own book is completely unreferenced which is a violation of the core content policy Verifiability, and therefore the article is in imminent danger of being deleted. When you write This is a book that I created and published and, as such, the ultimate source for information on the book will always be me, that indicates that you have a complete misunderstanding of how Wikipedia actually operates. You are actually the last person who should be editing that article, because you have an obvious conflict of interest, and that guideline says COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted. Your book is self-published on Lulu.com and self-published books are very rarely notable books. The most common way that a book becomes notable is if it has received multiple reviews by reliable sources. If you cannot provide references to significant coverage of your book in multiple reliable, independent sources, then a Wikipedia article about your book is not viable. Cullen328 (talk)

I added Harvnb refs here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Za%27ura%2C_Syria&diff=1240521081&oldid=1240515422

But when I click on them it doesn't target the source in Bibliography, not sure what I did wrong. Supreme Deliciousness (talk)

You have to list all of the authors' surnames (4 authors max). Sulimani isn't the only author; don't leave Kletter out.

—Trappist the monk (talk)

Noticed, when I accidentally hit an edit icon, that my phone, not logged in, has been blocked, with the note: "disruptive editing". I don't usually log in or edit on my phone, and I don't think I've ever edited anonymously from it. And noone has had access to it. Logged in, it seems fine -- I'm logged in on it now to post this.

How do I find out what that block is about? Thanks! Tsavage (talk)

Probably someone who has the same IP address as you was responsible for the disruptive edits, and the entire IP address was blocked as a result. Typically there will be a warning on the talk page of the IP address, and it will include a reason for the block. Tutwakhamoe (talk)