Help desk
< February 25	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 27 >

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.

February 26

What does the REFUND in WP:REFUND stand for?

Does it stand for the word refund, or requests for undeletion? I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 00:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@I.hate.spam.mail.here: I think it can mean both things. Because in the sense of the word, when you are requesting something you made to be undeleted, you're requesting that you be refunded that thing. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it was chosen [1] as a kind of pun because it could mean both things. That's probably also why it became popular. It's not the only or oldest shortcut for Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022-23 NCAA Division I Men's basketball season

Can you fix the reference i made please. 98.186.54.177 (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Although you should probably find a better source since that uses HTTPS (which is more secure than HTTP, but doesn't mean it's a bad ref) instead of HTTP. Are there no RS's that talk about that? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the sky is blue

Hi, how do I disable this wonderful and extremely useful new "feature" that demands my attention at the top right hand of my screen to let me know that I've made an edit when I've made an edit? Thank you. Dr. Vogel (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bit of discussion in this past thread discussing this notification including how to disable it. Jessamyn (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting users only here for promotional purposes

I don’t know where to report users who are only here for promotional purposes, would it just go to the general noticeboard?--CreecregofLife (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard: WP:COIN. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Password Recovery Failed

Hello,

I am trying to get into my account, and my Password Recovery step did not send a link to my email. I tried both my current and old email account (over several days). Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.226.46 (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check your spam folder? Also, emails can sometimes take a few hours to deliver. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It could have very likely went to spam. I always delete those emails without even checking them. I will try again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.226.46 (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic bot template for locations in Poland

I'd like to ask the administrators for input regarding a problematic situation, which I identified on many Poland stub articles for towns and villages. It appears that the original template used by a bot to generate the stub articles, included a very POV-ish stand alone statement: "" (example: [2]) This statement is present in hundreds of stub articles. Also, I would like to note that in itself the statement is not incorrect, however given the fact that many of those places changed hands multiple times though their history, to just have this one stand alone blurb lacking any further historical context is extremely unsettling and creates undue weight issues within the stub article. My question is how can this be remedied, on a large scale, by either adding a bit more historical context, or removing it completely. --E-960 (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is to expand the articles, to fully cover the history of what countries they were in through the ages. Mjroots (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots, this is in HUNDREDS of stub articles, not just in the one I provided as an example. Also, it is blatant POV, and I'm actually taken aback that a template was created to include this stand alone blurb while omitting other facts. I mean seriously, "before 1945 it was Germany" going back to the last ice age? Such poor editing on a large scale needs to be properly addressed not dismissed. --E-960 (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: A simple query shows that there are about 3000 articles with this sentence. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 19:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots, also in a related and ongoing discussion[3] another user Phil Bridger, noted that such content is indeed questionable for such a stub article. --E-960 (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also just carrying over the discussion, Black Kite, Phil Bridger and Rsjaffe do you have any suggestion how this issue could be fixed either by augmenting the statement using a bot to provide full context or removing it, as it appears in 3000 or so stub articles across Wikipedia. --E-960 (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This region does have a complex history, so some context, delivered as briefly as possible, would be useful to the casual reader unfamiliar with the region.

My suggestion is to do one of the following:

1. Add hatnote like: {{for|history of the region, see|[[wikilink to pomeranian history here]]}}

2. Add a history of the region link and category to each template in the category West_Pomeranian_Voivodeship_gmina_templates (I don't like this idea, personally).

3. Add a See also section with a link to pomeranian history.

4. Include a sentence in the article: For the history of the region, see History of Pomerania. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if this sounds snarky, but don't you people read? As was stated, the problem is in thousands of articles. Suggesting manual edits of thousands of articles is NOT a viable answer.ArtKocsis (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but don't you read? The discussion has moved to talking about using a bot to edit. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rsjaffe, indeed I think adding a bit more detail to provide full context would be a good idea, as for using a bot is this an option that a regular user can request? I have to admit I do not know anything about bots, who can use them and how. --E-960 (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOTREQ. You are more likely to have success there if you have a specific thing that is to be done. [Adding] a bit more detail to provide full context is much to vague.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Despite all advices and suggestions, like expanding, he still tries to delete the truthfully sentences about Germany [4].. He is obviously only here for POV-pushing. Such actions should be stopped.. I can't see any cooperation or understanding from this user. --Jonny84 (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taking in to account the fact that these are stub articles, I think that keeping the statement "For the history of the region, see History of Pomerania." is sufficient and address the recommendation by some editors to have such a reference statement. Remember these are just stub articles about villages and rural communities. --E-960 (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]