This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Contact us. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
@Base: Which page are you talking about? Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects, Wikipedia:Contact us - Licensing, or both? None of the others have external links that I can see. And which links do you mean in particular? For the Creative Commons licence link, I'm reluctant to change that, as there may have been legal reasons for linking to the official version. For the Wikipedia links I don't see any problem with changing them to internal link syntax, but I'd like to check which links you mean before I do it. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪06:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The only thing on Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects that could be changed is <span class="plainlinks">[http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit§ion=new leave a message on the help page]</span> could be changed to {{Plainlinks|url={{fullurl:Wikipedia:Help desk|action=edit§ion=new}}|name=leave a message on the help page}}. On Wikipedia:Contact us - Licensing, I agree that [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload upload it yourself] should be changed to [[commons:Commons:Upload|upload it yourself]] and [http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_upload/Wizard submit a request that another user upload it for you] should be changed to [[Wikipedia:Files for upload/Wizard|submit a request that another user upload it for you]]. The only other thing I could see on those pages that might be worth changing is removing the "http:" from all mediawiki external links and let the system choose what is appropriate between http: and https:. Technical 13 (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
@Mr. Stradivarius:Oh, I didn't realize that I was redirected so forgot to clarify the page, sorry. It's Wikipedia:Contact us - Licensing and things to fix are [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload upload it yourself], [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license] and [http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_upload/Wizard submit a request that another user upload it for you]. --ᛒᚨᛊᛖ (ᛏᚨᛚᚲ) 15:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Sorry for bothering, but not fully done yet: there is an interwikiprefix creativecommons: for links to creative commons.org so [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license] should be changed to [[creativecommons:by-sa/3.0/|Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license]]. Thanks --ᛒᚨᛊᛖ (ᛏᚨᛚᚲ) 14:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Stradivarius was resistant to make that last change because of worries of legal implications of the link not being exactly showing that is going to creative commons itself. Redrose64 would you please revert that change until someone from the foundation (maybe Ironholds since they are the last to change the protection level of this) can comment? Thanks Technical 13 (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
That's the tooltip, which is often short, and varies significantly between browsers. What is displayed at the bottom of the screen? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
We have 2 html div's on this page with the following style definitions which are causing issues on the mobile site (see https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31591):
1) float: left; width: 49%; margin-right: 1%;
2) float: right; width: 49%; margin-left: 1%;
We actually have css classes which do this and are more mobile resilient:
.portal-column-left
.portal-column-right
Could someone with permission to edit this page replace the style attributes on these div with
class="portal-column-left"
and
class="portal-column-right"
respectively?
Also after the last div to clear the floating is probably necessary
I WISH YOU ALL MARRY CHRISMASS FOR 2013
Maandishi ya kichwa
It has been our living culture, here in Tanzania, as the Chrismass day gets closer and closer, to find people wishing each other a merry chrismass regardless the religious beliefs one belongs. the mode of communication has been either through well concocted SMS or emails.
Most words so popularly used are HERI YA SIKUKUU YA PASAKA or simply Heri ya sikukuu. for the Christians particularly the Roman Catholics, the words 'Alleluya' are widely used.
For Haya people the popular words are MWAIHUKA NA EKILO KIKULU, or NAKUTONA OMWANA YAZALWA KWO,
the essence of doing all these in our own language is to make a clear expression of love and charity. for the closest friends, the communally have the meals and drinks together. some do move from long distances all way to join friends, partners, and relatives.
WITH SUCH SENTIMENTS FROM MY INNERMOST PART OF MY HEART I TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO WISH YOU ALL THE MERRY CHRISMASS FOR THE YEAR 2013
-o is designed for emails on BLP's I believe, and many of the emails are nothing to do with it. In any case, info-en is watched more, so directing people there will likely get a faster response. --Mdann52talk to me!06:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, -o is the courtesy queue, User:Mdann52. :) ("c" was taken for copyright.) -q (quality) is for BLPs. info-en is largely a sorting queue with some very broad form responses. Why don't you ask on the OTRS mailing list for preferences or ask people to come here to voice their thoughts? Obviously, whatever works best for people is what should be done. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
A recording is not an "illustration" is it? So I'm not sure about that choice of wording. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The core of the change is excellent and desired, but I am also unsure that "illustrate" is the best terminology when talking about images AND audio. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉20:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@Espoo: it is a tab, but it appears as a button (or maybe a link?) - you don't know it's a tab until you've clicked on it. I'm confused by what you mean by "Not on the right" though; it is for me. What skin/editing environment are you using? Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Forgot to answer, sorry. I'm using the default skin Vector and Firefox. The edit tab is exactly in the middle of the page almost at the top (in the second row). It looks more like a link than a tab on its own, but it's right next to the Read tab, so it looks like a tab too. Definitely not a button. --Espoo (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
run-on sentence
Comma needed as shown here:
Edits are not the responsibility of the Wikimedia Foundation (the organisation that hosts the site) nor of its staff, and edits will not usually be made in response to an email request. --Espoo (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
Could we get this page updated so that it recommends that editors upload under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license instead of the now-outdated 3.0 version? That would be great! Also, I wonder if the page might be rephrased to be 1.) more encouraging for people to use Commons rather than suggesting that they might just as well upload to Wikipedia directly (when this is inefficient and usually not necessary), and 2.) to be less encouraging that people come up with some kind of declaration of consent on their own, "or use ours", when the fact is that unless they use ours, their statement will be rejected by OTRS, which is only a waste of time. Thoughts? Thank you! KDS4444 (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
You know, it has not. Let me contact them and see what they say. Thanks for pointing this out to me. KDS4444 (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I've now heard back from Legal. As their disclaimer specifically states that the recipient must not copy or disclose the contents of their messages, I will summarize what I was told by "Jacob": he offered strong encouragement that volunteers begin transitioning to the 4.0 licenses where possible, as he considered 4.0 to be better written and more flexible than 3.0. Apparently they (Legal) are planning on having a community-wide discussion on the topic of wholesale migration to 4.0 "at some point later this year" (whoops, I copied that), but are holding off until Creative Commons finishes translating their latest license into all of their intended languages. The legal team is also not entirely confident about the use of the 4.0 license for article content that was originally created in 3.0, but expressed only encouragement for the increased use of the 4.0 license with regard to images. Inasmuch as what we are talking about here is the uploading of images, I am taking this as a green light from them to update the recommended license from 3.0 to 4.0. How does that sound? (Also, as an aside, I believe Commons is already operating fully on 4.0— I don't know of any page there that mentions 3.0 except for historical purposes.) KDS4444 (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
OK, so the next step is to get the upload forms amended so that they offer the 4.0 licenses (we already have the two necessary templates, {{cc-by-4.0}} and {{cc-by-sa-4.0}}). We should not recommend the use of a license that isn't available when uploading, it only causes confusion. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
@Redrose64: I agree completely. So... then we have the license available, yes? All we need to do then is change the text of the page mentioned above so that it no longer "recommends" cc-by-sa 3.0 but instead recommends... nothing? Or something? In either case, I guess my edit request still stands. Can this be done? KDS4444 (talk) 07:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks,JJMC89, Edokter, Redrose64! My only remaining request is that the wording of the Wikipedia:Contact us - Licensing page be updated to either reflect the 4.0 license or have its licensing recommendation removed. This is what got me started on all this in the first place. Can someone do that? I think the page is fully protected. KDS4444 (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
@Edokter: Yeah, the thing is, if you look at the talk page for that page, I've already tried to get the declaration changed/ updated to 4.0 but no one was willing to implement it. I wasn't the only one making the request, either. But I wasn't able to establish what probably constitutes community consensus to implement the change. Perhaps now, with the permission of the legal department as mentioned above, we can move forward on that. Thoughts? KDS4444 (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
@KDS4444:I believe Commons is already operating fully on 4.0— I don't know of any page there that mentions 3.0 except for historical purposes Try going to c:Commons:Upload, select "It is from somewhere else" (which is the same as "Already know the license, and its copyright tag? Go directly to the main upload form") at the bottom), have a look in the "Licensing" dropdown. Seven of the entries, and the templates that they emit, are:
Own work, copyleft, attribution required (GFDL, CC BY-SA 3.0) - {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0|migration=redundant}}
Own work, attribution required (GFDL, CC BY 3.0) - {{self|GFDL|cc-by-3.0|migration=redundant}}
Own work, copyleft, attribution required (CC BY-SA 3.0) - {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}
Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 - {{cc-by-sa-4.0}}
Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 - {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}
Attribution 4.0 - {{cc-by-4.0}}
Attribution 3.0 - {{cc-by-3.0}}
Only two are 4.0, five are 3.0. Now, also at c:Commons:Upload, if you go for "It is entirely my own work", and have a look in the "Licensing" dropdown, you will find (amongst others), these four entries:
Multi-license with CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL (recommended) - {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
Multi-license with CC-BY-SA-3.0 and older and GFDL - {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0|GFDL}}
All are 3.0, there are no 4.0 in that selection list. Also, only one of these ({{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}) is common to both lists. None of the other options at c:Commons:Upload offer CC later than 2.0. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Even after nearly eight years of doing this, there is still so much I do not know. Thank you for pointing these out to me, I am working on getting them updated! Are there others? KDS4444 (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
How to report apparently improperly re-used Wikipedia content?
So far, I have been unable to find any specific directions or recommendations for how one might best report web content that appears to improperly re-use Wikipedia content without proper attribution or with potentially misleading usage of Wikipedia logos. It seems to me that this page should have such a link or recommendation on it. Any suggestions from anyone else on this?
Thanks kindly for the great cross-link. I followed the site that rated the worst "offenders" of our "WP content re-use licensing requirements," and none of them seemed to be as bad as the certain site that I stumbled upon this AM at Gawker-Labs, and all of them, so far as I could tell, appear to have been contacted by our legal department and to have subsequently removed whatever material may have been in question. Am hoping that the same might happen now with Gawker-Labs too. I've written a letter to the WP legal department about this. My guess is that yes, they will now soon be "reaching out" to Gawker too. We shall see. Be good (relatively speaking of course). Scott P. (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Complaint.
I wish to complain against the nasty and vile treatment afforded to me by the faceless admonistrators within this organisation. I took many months to research and compose an article on the Dublin Celts American football team.
It took me many edits, and included references and the work that was lost is now irreplaceable, and I wish to state that I resent the heavy handed and nasty approach by the faceless individuals.
I was making edits, and in time it would have been fully referenced. As for cut and pasting it was the easiest way to upload the article.
The article in question was in relation to amateur sport, and did not show an political or obsene material in its content. I wish to register my disgust at the nasty and vile treatment afforded to me by this organisation. Kevinwsharkey (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Needs a link for reporting problems with the WP website
It would be helpful if this page had a link for reporting problems with the WP website itself: the serving of its pages to the public. That way, if the website has a problem, it can be reported to a person who volunteers to handle such reports. For example, I just encountered a transient error in connecting to WP and got an error message from my browser. If such errors are common, they will be of interest to the WP Webmasters. David Spector (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Your raise a good point, but in the wrong place, since it is not specific to this article. Please move your comment to an appropriate WP forum for discussing WP policies. You will have to research which forum is the best match for your comment. It does not belong here. David Spector (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I respect your opinion that the issue of dash usage applies mainly to this article, but disagree. It seems clear to me that there should be a WP policy for dash usage that will apply to many other articles, not just these three. There is no good reason to provide no general guidance to editors on this usage, either through a policy or through the explicit editing instructions. WP benefits from style standardization. An example is the standard or policy for titles of articles, which explains that the standard is to capitalize the first letter and use lowercase for the remaining letters, and also gives guidance as to the exceptions to this rule. The dash usage policy would be simpler than this existing title policy. QED David Spector (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
These are the phrases in question. I have added yellow highlighting to the hyphen or dash as appropriate:
at Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects: "comments or concerns - put {{edit COI}}" and "data for you - for such edits" - a spaced hyphen in both cases
Me, Myself, and I are Here is merely asking for consistency within these three pages, not consistency across the whole of Wikipedia. MOS:DASH shows that dashes are preferred to hyphens, and either unspaced em-dashes or spaced en-dashes are preferred to spaced em-dashes. So Wikipedia:Contact us - Donors has the correct usage, the others do not and should be amended. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Redrose64, for articulating my position better than I would have. I find the Manual of Style's guidelines on dash usage more than adequate; I'm just wondering if (since these three pages are related and somewhat prominent) we should have consistent usage (for style, mainly, and MOS-compliant, if nothing else, to set an example). Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Here is my objective. I added to the hatnote on Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia because I misunderstood what someone asking for help on The Teahouse was asking for when referring to contributing. I realized someone might go to that page by mistake thinking that was how to contribute financially. I went to what appeared t be the best place, although the page for people outside the U.S. isn't quite as nice as the one with the "official" message from Jimbo, which does specifically mention dollars. I feel like that message should appear without a reference to dollars regardless of your country once you get to a page on how to donate from English Wikipedia.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
– Firstly, these are all de facto subpages of Wikipedia:Contact us. Implementing them as actual subpages will create a breadcrumb trail at the top of the page, will allow the use of Help:Link#Subpage links, will facilitate searching within all subpages, and will provide a technical manifestation of their relatedness. Secondly, the page titles should be updated to reflect how they appear in the navigation template on the page (thus the changes in the names). Thirdly, the current titles do not comply with WP:DASH in that they use a hyphen instead of an em-dash. If they are made subpages, this punctuation become irrelevant. Bsherr (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)--Relisted. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Moxy. Not exactly, as least how I read it. Per Wikipedia:Project namespace#Content the project namespace "do[es] not generally need to conform to the same … style conventions as articles" (emphasis added). My understanding of the meaning of that is that the project namespace need and should not be in the same style as articles, but I think it's generally accepted that the grammatical, spelling, and syntactic rules still apply to the project namespace. --Bsherr (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Redrose. The rule is not specific to page titles. An em-dash is used to signify a break in text, for example as an alternative to a colon. A hyphen is never used for that purpose. --Bsherr (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
You're referring to the section "In article titles", yes? You're correct, it doesn't mention em-dashes, but only because en-dashes are more common in article titles. Other punctuation is not mentioned at all, but not with any intention. (The MOS is not intended to be exhaustive of all grammar and style rules.) The next section, "Punctuating a sentence (em or en dashes)" applies equally to titles. --Bsherr (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Support per nom. On a related note, about a year or so ago, I had considered moving all of these pages proactively to the titles that the nominator is proposing for the subpage reasoning ... exactly per the nom and for organization purposes as it’s simpler to move subpages with its parent page than to attempt to find all related pages that are not subpages. However, I did not move the pages back then since all of these pages are move-protected. (These pages will have to be moved by an administrator.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Move all pages that doesn’t use Commonwealth English variants to use the Commonwealth English variant as its title
Not an issue for Contact us. Referred elsewhere.
Many countries that speak English are part of the Commonwealth of nations, aka the Commonwealth, use the -our, -ise/yse, and -nce ending spellings, not the American/Liberian/Philippine spellings of -or,-ize/yze, and -nse ending spellings. The article Elevator can be an exception because Canada uses Elevator even though it’s part of the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth uses lift except in Canada where again they use Elevator. MetricSupporter89 (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Opposed despite being Canadian I realize Wikipedia is based in the United States....Thus MOS:TIES and WP:RETAIN should be recognized in this case .... even though the MoS does not really apply to Administration pages.... it seems like a prudent rule of thumb to follow in this case.--Moxy (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I do some New Pages Patrol and occasionally come across someone who has copyrighted material he or she would like to donate to Wikipedia. I'd like to direct such people to WP:Donating copyrighted materials, the intuitive shortcut to which is WP:DONATE, which redirects to the Donors subpage. I'm not saying we should redirect the shortcut over there since the subpage does make more sense as a target, but I do think a hatnote to the effect of "'WP:DONATE' redirects here. You may be looking for WP:Donating copyrighted materials." should be placed at the top of the Donors subpage. I am aware of the actual shortcuts to Donating copyrighted materials (DCP and DCM) and use them, but one can't generally guess them without looking at the page itself. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello Wikipedia team,
I created a Wikipedia profile, Name Bengal Talkies. I want to inform you that today I release this profile, move to article, after that I added logo, and after that I saw Some Wikipedia user Alexf, who delete my profile, under section G8. I wants to tell you that, I already maintain all Wikipedia terms and conditions and Put the minimum information. I thought that when this profile will be published, I will add others information. But before I do that page was deleted, it's really frustrating. Please tell me how to back this profile, and I want to edit this profile information, Not create another one. Please guide me on how to solve this problem and how to recover my Profile. For further information, please mail me, My Mail id: ranitawhs@gmail.com. Ranita Bhattacharya Whs (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Jimmy Wales line
Is it really necessary to say in item 2 that Jimmy Wales isn't personally responsible for Wikipedia's content? Couldn't that be rolled into item 1 or just removed? {{u|Sdkb}}talk15:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Should this page be linked from the sidebar?
An effort to revamp the left sidebar is currently being planned. When considering this page, I noticed that it was also linked from the bottom of the screen next to the disclaimers. Given that (I'm assuming) the vast majority of people who come to this page would be better suited just going to a talk page or somewhere like the Teahouse, I wonder whether it might be better to deemphasize this link and include it only at the bottom of the screen. What would you all think of that? {{u|Sdkb}}talk15:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Mobile accessibility
I just checked this page on mobile, and it's not ideal, since (at least on my device) the left tabs appear beside the main area, creating a horizontal scroll. This isn't quite as urgent as it might seem, since most visitors to this page are presumably coming to it from the sidebar (which doesn't appear on mobile), but still. Evolution and evolvability, you fixed a similar problem at Help:Introduction (I think by adding flexbox css?) — would you potentially know what to do here? {{u|Sdkb}}talk00:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: Ok, having looked into it, I think it'll be easiest to modify {{intro to}} so that the buttons at the bottom can be hidden via a parameter. That'll avoid having to keep additional templates up to date with changes or fixes. I'll start on it this weekend. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk00:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I would like to request information where or with whom I can contact to report harassment treatment and bully from Wikipedia editors..? Joannych Joannych (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 28 June 2020
This edit request to Wikipedia:Contact us has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I've a slew of simultaneous changes to request in order to get this page set working on mobile devices using {{intro to}}:
Xaosflux, this is a section following up from the one above about mobile accessibility. Evolution and evolvability is trying to do that by switching to using the {{Intro to}} framework (from the Help:Introduction series) as the way to structure the framing box and tabs, rather than {{Help intro frame top}} and whatever else this series is currently using. However, {{Intro to}} currently requires pages to be sequentially named with /1, /2, /3, etc., thus the move requests.
I am very much in favor of consolidating the underlying framework between here and {{Intro to}}, since both pages have the same display format. The renamings give me a bit of pause, since the pages here aren't sequential the way the Help:Intro tabs are, so it'd be better to find a way to switch to {{Intro to}} without having to rename. But if that doesn't happen, I won't lose any sleep over it. Hope that helps clarify, {{u|Sdkb}}talk21:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This isn't very clear, doesn't address what pages are high risk and need protection, appears to be mixing protection levels throughout, and seems to be creating non-desired redirects. Evolution and evolvability, please explain this in more detail what the end result needs to be. — xaosfluxTalk03:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Xaosflux and Sdkb: The edits from sandbox versions are just to change the formatting template to {{intro to}}, with the content otherwise kept the same. I've now updated the template to that it's possible to manually specify the prev and next subpages in the series. I'll therefore update the editrequest tomorrow to keep the subpages at their current locations and only change the formatting templates from the sandboxes. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk12:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
What is calling the first page now, is that changing? Here is one set of the the request above:
This will move the fully protected page to that other page, moving its protection with it and presumably you want to leaving a redirect behind (which will also be protected).
Not done So why do we need all these new redirects instead of just updating the current pages, or also fixing Wikipedia:Contact us/tabs to bypass all the redirects you will have created? Deactivating edit request for now, reactivate when you think this is ready again. — xaosfluxTalk20:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Xaosflux and Sdkb: Here's the updated proposal based on the discussion above. The pages are kept at their current locations. All that is needed is to update the pages below to use {{intro to}} by copying over from the sandboxes.
That should do it! There should be no need to use numbered subpages, as override parameters now specified for the template). Optionally, to omit the "back" and "next" buttons entirely, you can just omit the |prevsubpage= and |nextsubpage= parameters on each of the subpages. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk07:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for working on this! I think the back and next buttons should be suppressed — someone who navigates to the correct page for their situation will typically have no need or desire to see the others. (Also, it'll be easier to get this request implemented if it doesn't make any changes beyond the mobile accessibility, and not having back/next buttons is the status quo.) {{u|Sdkb}}talk07:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Sdkb's proposed modifications. Would it be better to just create our own version of Intro to, instead of adding parameters? --Bsherr (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Bsherr, the best path would have been to create a core template for the box/tabs structure, and then have {{Intro to}}, {{Contact us}} (hypothetical), and anything else (does anything else using this structure exist?) modify it for their custom purposes as needed. But due to path dependency, at this point I think it'd be easier to just use {{Intro to}}, since it has parameters for everything except the navbox suppression, which would be trivial to add. I'd oppose a fork (which is basically what we have now) per Don't repeat yourself — let's remember that a fork is what led us here in the first place, since only the intro to version was updated for mobile friendliness. {{u|Sdkb}}talk16:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
So then if we're continuing to use Intro to, we may be able to accomplish our purpose using Help:Labeled section transclusion, since the template contents we don't need is all coded at the bottom. I'm going to play in the sandbox. --Bsherr (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@Bsherr and Sdkb:. There's always a tradeoff between avoiding forking where possible versus complicating the template with optional parameters and #if functions. For the moment I'm leaning towards futureproofing and avoiding manual duplications if possible, but I can see the value in having multiple specialised templates that adapt transclusions of {{intro to}}. For now, I've made the |navbox= an optional parameter in {{intro to}} (with the defailt as [[tlx|}}) and updated the sandbox versions of this page to omit the prev and next subpage buttons, and omit the navbox. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk06:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, so looking at {{Intro to tabs}}, it seems to be dependent on pages being named with /1, /2, etc. That might take a bit of work to figure out how to overcome. {{u|Sdkb}}talk21:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to say in item 2 that Jimmy Wales isn't personally responsible for Wikipedia's content? Couldn't that be rolled into item 1 or just removed? {{u|Sdkb}}talk15:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Ajpolino, I tried rewriting item 1 to include it, but Edits are not the responsibility of the Wikimedia Foundation (the organisation that hosts the site), its staff, or Jimmy Wales sounds weird and redundant, since Wales is essentially a Wikimedia staff member. So I support just taking the line out. How many readers are really going to assume that he's responsible for the site's content anyways? {{u|Sdkb}}talk04:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Proving that great minds think alike, I just made that change in the sandbox without even having seen this thread. EEng00:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
OK, but exactly how? Its key should be If you see a threat of harm (including self-harm)...EEng02:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
EEng and Ajpolino, I can think of two approaches: the first is to add a bullet point on the first page with something like If you see a threat of harm (including self-harm), please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. The other approach is to add a tab to the list on the side so that goes to a page that transcludes most of WP:Responding to threats of harm (or we could just move WP:Responding to threats of harm redirect to this page). Which approach do you think is best? {{u|Sdkb}}talk02:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
How about if we create a scratch copy we can edit all together? But first... the structure of this page is quite baroque. Is there a reason for all the subpages and transclusions and stuff? Are these bits and pieces used elsewhere? If not can we just compile it all together? (I haven't looked closely so maybe I'm missing something.) EEng02:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
EEng, I don't really have an issue with the overall structure. We don't want this to be a long page (that scares people away), so it's best to have the tabs, and readers can click on whichever one is relevant to them.
I've got no problem with the linking, it's that even what's visible on this one page has the sidebars separate and I'm not sure what else. Why isn't this one rendered page on one source page? EEng03:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Copyedit
Needs a bit of a copyedit. Like most things it's too wordy. For example, is it really necessary to say that the reason one might see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is that it offers avenues available to resolve disputes? EEng02:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
This edit request to Wikipedia:Contact us has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Following up from the discussion above (which seems to have stagnated, despite an invite from the help project talk page), please adopt the version at Wikipedia:Contact us/sandbox. This makes a few changes, including adding a notice about threats of harm, adding a visual, and removing the line about Jimmy Wales. Thanks, {{u|Sdkb}}talk06:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't really see an active consensus for any of those changes. I personally have issue with the big red box and that has no specific discussion. The line removing Jimmy doesn't seem to have any discussion specifically to removal, and I also don't see discussion about a big image on the right, and one participant already concerned about scrunching (which this image makes worse). The only thing I'd be willing to implement right now is the slightly less verbose pair of lines. Please achieve consensus on each component. --Izno (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Izno, I made the edit request since EEng and I seemed to agree there's a need to address threats of harm, Ajpolino and I seemed to agree it's unnecessary to have a line on Jimmy Wales, and the image addition seemed uncontroversial since we have images of the same color/size on all the other "contact us" tabs after the intro (Moxy showed up after I submitted it).
I'm happy to have further discussion, but (as with many pages in this kind of space) it's hard to draw attention (I sent an invite to WT:Emergency as well as the one to WT:Help project), and I'd prefer we not all forget about it and get stuck with the status quo. As much as I try to limit the number of VPR posts I make, I may post an FYI link there. {{u|Sdkb}}talk00:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Regarding Ajpolino: Agreed that it could be rolled into item 1. Seems a bit silly as is. Ajpolino (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC). You removed the line but Ajpolino seemingly agreed to merging the line.
Regarding the image: Feel free to adjudicate Moxy's concerns then.
As for the red box: EEng agreed to a link. Please convince me a red box is necessary. (I don't think it is, again, personally, without my admin hat on.)
I am not particularly interested in forgetting the changes. I am interested in ensuring the integrity of a fully-protected, widely-viewed, page. As I said, please show consensus for each discrete change. --Izno (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@Izno: That's reasonable. I addressed Wales above. For accessibility, I had opened a section on mobile accessibility below, which is inadequate in the current version and won't be made any worse by the image; for desktop it should display fine for any reasonable setting. Again, it's what we already have on the other pages. For the threats of harm, I went with the box to err on the side of caution, since it'd be tragic if someone came here after seeing e.g. a suicide threat and couldn't instantly find a pointer to the resource they need. That said, having never monitored the emergency@wikimedia.org address, though, I can't say whether that sort of thing happens here. Thinking about it, I think having a tab for emergencies that transcludes the main portion of WP:Emergencies might be the best option. I'll set that up; please let me know what you all think. {{u|Sdkb}}talk04:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Please change <span class="plainlinks">[http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit§ion=new leave a message on the help page]</span> to {{edit|Wikipedia:Help desk|leave a message on the help page|section=new}}. The latter is cleaner and more resilient in the face of possible API changes. Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs) 19:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I've also gone back (and here again I apologies for being late to the party) and made some fairly extensive edits to the Wikipedia:Contact_us/sandbox (see [4]). Most should be uncontroversial, but there are three places (called out in edit summaries) that might bear further scrutiny:
a change in the text about who's "responsible" for edits/content
dropped the help desk as a listed place to go for help, leaving just the Teahouse and IRC
dropped the bullet about Jimbo.
I hope it's not too late to consider taking this revised version live.
However, there's a lingering issue I want to raise. There are two different places telling what to do about content issues:
In the main list it says If you disagree with an article's content, or are involved in a content dispute, see Dispute resolution.
But in the "tabs" there's link Readers – How to report a problem with an article, or find out more information which takes you to a more elaborate discussion.
I don't think we should have both, and I think it's the dispute resolution that should be removed – the sort of person who lands on this page will be chewed up and spit out by Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution.
[Needs more discussion below]: Furthermore, in the Readers link I don't know what "find out more information" means – more information about what? What it really is is what to do if you're concerned about article content, but only if you're not the article's subject -- the next tab is for article subjects. I'll leave this point for now while people digest what I've already done, but I think this stuff needs rationalizing. EEng00:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
This all sounds good; I'm still very much down to remove the Jimbo bullet point, which just doesn't seem at all appropriate in 2020. {{u|Sdkb}}talk22:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
OK, I removed the DR bullet. That still leaves my last point about the Readers link and so on. Thoughts? EEng03:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I kept meaning to get back to this whole effort, and my apologies for not doing so earlier. I've made some edits to WP:EMERGENCY. EEng
On the matter of the emergency tab: My understanding is that the Contact us page is meant to face readers, not editors. Since the issues raised by WP:EMERGENCY are going to be on user and talk pages, is Contact us a relevant place to include this information? But if it is, wouldn't a link to WP:EMERGENCY be better than a transclusion? --Bsherr (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Bsherr, those are good questions. This is definitely a reader-facing page, but I think there's still reason to have information about emergencies. That's partly because it is possible a reader might come across an emergency situation in mainspace (e.g. vandalism that includes a threat of harm), but also because someone who sees a threat of harm might reasonably click on the link in the sidebar and come here, and we definitely wouldn't want them to be stranded.
Regarding a link versus a tab, I think either could work alright. The important thing is that, since emergencies are time-critical, the information should be reasonably prominent and no more than one click away. I previously mocked up what a link from the first page might look like here. {{u|Sdkb}}talk23:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I understand the reason to make it prominent, but may we place it at the bottom or side instead of the top? With placement at the top, it becomes the first thing a reader reads on the page, even though it won't be the reason most readers come to the Contact us page. Also, some context might be helpful, so as not to alarm readers who may not be familiar with the "anyone can edit" concept of Wikipedia. --Bsherr (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm. You do have a point. I guess it might make the uninitiated think, "What kind of place is this?" But we want it prominent.On the whole i'd leave it at the top. If it's at the bottom it's like we're deemphasizing it, but then reemphasizing it with the box and red triangle and stuff. EEng04:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Bsherr, sorry I never got back to this previously. The current approach is to have WP:Contact us/Emergencies as its own tab in the sidebar, rather than a box at the bottom or top of the initial page. Are you on board with that? (If you are, that'll be 3-0, which will hopefully allow us to implement.) {{u|Sdkb}}talk22:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. I still think it would be better to just link to WP:EMERGENCY from the introduction tab instead of transcluding it on its own tab. If consensus is for the latter, however, I think Template:Transcluded section should appear at the top. --Bsherr (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
To me, the burden to overcome for transcluding over linking WP:EMERGENCY is whether we are putting the information in WP:EMERGENCY in context for readers. For example, like I said above, explaining that, because anyone can edit, and because Wikipedia has talk pages for discussing improvements, a reader may encounter another user experiencing a crisis. If we're just regurgitating WP:EMERGENCY, I don't see me why we wouldn't just link from the introduction page, which would involve the same number of navigation steps as a tab (one). --Bsherr (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Bsherr, I think we definitely want WP:EMERGENCY to be part of the reader-facing area of Wikipedia, for the reason above that readers conceivably might have reason to use it. I think it's decently good at that currently, given that it doesn't have a whole lot of room for detailed explanations the same as a normal page would. {{u|Sdkb}}talk02:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Bsherr, I think it fits better with the overall structure, which is for the introduction page to serve as a portal directing you to different ways in which you might want to contact Wikipedia, each of which is represented by a tab. We could always have the tab link go directly to WP:EMERGENCY, but that then makes it harder to navigate if someone clicks on it and then realizes, "oh wait, discovering a defamatory allegation on the Wikipedia page about me isn't actually an emergency according to this". {{u|Sdkb}}talk03:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: Let's say we do go with the tab. Firstly, I agree with the notion that "Emergency" is a terribly ambiguous name for the page and tab. WP:EMERGENCY is a shortcut; the actual name of the page is Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. That's the only emergency that page and the proposed tab deals with, so wouldn't that be the better name for the tab? Secondly, if we are taking the time to make a reader-facing tab based on WP:EMERGENCY, wouldn't we take the opportunity to tailor the information for that audience? Specifically, I mean providing context for the information, as I described above, and also distilling the information to only that which is likely to be useful to the likely audience. The person who arrives at this tab is probably not going to be an administrator, is probably not going to know how to contact other administrators by email, and is probably not going to be on IRC, so that information should be trimmed. Then a link should be added to WP:EMERGENCY. If that all seems reasonable, those changes would justify not merely linking to the page. --Bsherr (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Bsherr, my proposal for the tabs is here; I use the description to make the page's purpose clear.
I'm hesitant to try to modify WP:EMERGENCY, since I'm not a crisis response professional, and I think writing that page is something we should be leaving to professionals (someone at WMF, presumably). But to the extent that that page is not appropriate for readers, I think the page itself needs to be changed, since it's possible readers or very new editors might come across it. {{u|Sdkb}}talk16:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Just for fun, here's what EMERGENCY looked like before some of us nonprofessionals took it in hand [5]. Imagine finding a suicide threat and then landing on that meandering bloat-monster. EEng14:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
WP:EMERGENCY was largely written by ordinary editors.[6] Obviously, it is not WMF taking the initiative to include this information in the "Contact us". Strictly speaking, we don't have any professional advice on the benefits of presenting the information in the "Contact us" hierarchy, and whether or not context, as I propose, is helpful or even essential. But we can look to other websites that host user generated content that are not volunteer run, like Facebook[7], Twitter[8], Instagram[9], etc. All of them contextualize the information, provide more in the way of resources, not just a notification process, and none of them have a top level link from their help/contact page to their page (rather, on all of them, it's a second-level link). Also, in contrast to concern about making changes to WP:EMERGENCY, the proposal already differs from the information presented on that page. It changes the title and truncates the sections on information for administrators and external links. The external links section might actually be essential, in that it links to WMF's crisis support resources page. So, again, if the intention is not to make any changes to WP:EMERGENCY, why are we not just linking to WP:EMERGENCY? If the intention is to create a more user-friendly presentation of the page, why aren't we doing that? --Bsherr (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
All four pages have the same type of obsolete html tag Lint error. They use the obsolete html tag <tt>...</tt> and must be replaced (see this). All instances where <tt>...</tt> is used in the pages must be replaced with <samp>...</samp>. This gives the same output without error. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Another vulgar use of "via" instead of the appropriate preposition, in this sentence ...
"Please refrain from emailing about disagreements with content; they will not be resolved via [sic] email." Should be, "by email". Autodidact1 (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm IAR opening this request, even though discussion stalled above without reaching clear consensus, since it is actively dangerous for us to continue to have no pathway from the contact us page (a plausible place to which someone encountering an emergency might go) to our instructions for emergencies. Please implement this edit, which adds a link to WP:Contact us/Emergencies to the sidebar, and full-protect that page to match the other contact us pages and prevent disruption. The discussion above from several months ago was about how best to format the link, and while that can continue, it is unconscionable for us to continue to have nothing. {{u|Sdkb}}talk22:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done for now: Has the Wikimedia Foundation itself been contacted to ask whether this change is a good idea? I understand the motivation behind this request, but I would like to get someone from the WMF emergencies team to OK this change before implementing it. They can be contacted at cawikimedia.org. They're the ones that would be most affected by that change, and personally, I suspect the urgency of this request may be overstated. There is actually a risk that this proposed change may be counterproductive in that it may invite additional misuse: readers are going to see "Emergencies" as the first thing in the sidebar and assume that's a way to fast-track a fix to ordinary vandalism or a content dispute. This is problematic because it would dilute the WMF's resources. (IIRC they have to take time to submit an internal write-up for every request that comes in, regardless of whether they took action on the request.) Mz7 (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Mz7, I hope people would be responsible enough to heed the instructions to use the address only for threats of harm, but yeah, that's a valid concern and I'd be happy to have WMF input. There's no way for me to email that address without going off-wiki; do we know who to ping? {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Sdkb, I recommend emailing that address if possible, since I think that let's them address the question as a team. You could ask them to respond on-wiki here. If you're concerned about privacy, I recommend creating a separate email address for Wikipedia-related activities. If you really want to keep this on-wiki, you could try pinging or leaving a talk page message for JSutherland (WMF) (I used {{noping}} here)—in my experience, he is quite helpful. Mz7 (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
@Sdkb: Thanks for the ping. I raised this with the rest of the team and we have concerns about including this information so prominently on what is by definition a reader-oriented page. I don't think volunteers are using the Contact us page to get in touch with the Foundation; there are editor-facing pages with this information, for example Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm and the relatively-new User:Emergency with its EmailUser functionality, which I know a lot of users have used. We have some concerns that its inclusion here, on a reader-focused page, would result in misuse of the service by those misunderstanding what kinds of "emergency" the team handles—we're quite a small team and we need to be sure we don't burn out on this workflow. I hope that makes sense—thanks for asking the question. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
JSutherland (WMF), thanks for the consideration. I wonder about instances in which threats of harm might surface in reader-facing areas, but that's presumably a pretty low probably, and I defer to your judgement. {{u|Sdkb}}talk01:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm a relatively experienced editor (or at least not a complete newbie) and it's still quite hard for me to find the right venue to report serious abuse. Where should I report visible and current death threats? What about older (already reverted) death threats that need to be oversighted? And suicide threats? What about serious harassment that does not explicitly involve death threats? I have reported instances of all these categories, sometimes to the wrong venue, sometimes to the formally right venue only to find it's not the venue that actually gets things done, etc. If it's cross-wiki, it's even harder to figure it out. Even more experienced editors couldn't give me definitive answers when asked privately. MarioGom (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@MarioGom: To answer your questions in the context of the English Wikipedia:
WP:EMERGENCY is for threats of physical harm, which include death threats and suicide threats. Therefore, if you see a death threat or suicide threat, you should report that to the WMF (e.g. using Special:EmailUser/Emergency). Additionally, you should also notify an administrator (e.g. using ##wikipedia-en-revdelconnect) so that the threat can be revision-deleted and the user blocked (if necessary).
Serious harassment that does not explicitly involve threats of physical harm does not fall under WP:EMERGENCY, so you do not need to contact the WMF's emergencies team. The most relevant policy section here is probably WP:DWH. In this scenario, a bit of discretion is required: I'm not sure there's really a catch-all answer here because it depends on the nature of the specific harassment. If the harassment involves private (e.g. off-wiki) information, it may be best to email the Arbitration Committee (e.g. using Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee). If the harassment involves only on-wiki, non-sensitive information, you could also consider contacting an administrator by email or on their user talk page or reporting the incident to WP:ANI.
Mz7: Thanks. That's more or less the processes I knew about and used for enwiki. It took me some trial and error to figure out that sometimes 2 or 3 venues need to be used and followed up (e.g. T&S email + #wikipedia-en-devrel IRC). When I came across cross-wiki or non-enwiki issues, I realized there was even more research needed to report anything effectively (e.g. does this wiki have local OS? what's the right way to ask for steward help?). My feeling is that the whole thing is not accessible for most users. MarioGom (talk) 09:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
This thread prompted me to look at meta's "emergency" page [10], which would make me laugh if the subject weren't so important. Unbelievable. EEng16:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Contributing on Wikipedia is too complex for me and other Wikipedia beginners.
To the Wikipedia Staff and Users.
While I do enjoy updating Wikipedia articles on various pages on movies, TV shows, Video games, books and music pages.
However the current editing user interface is too complex. I'm not very good at coding and I'm lousy at it and I'm an autistic man and I get nervous when I make mistakes as I'm trying to make the Wikipedia articles more user friendly.
Can we please update Wikipedia to have a simplified user interface since I don't like the complex code editing. It's taking too much of my time to be a contributor and it's causing me unnecessary stress, and I would be grateful if we could have a simplified interface like Fandom has. Please make changes to Wikipedia and give me a simplified option for editing Wikipedia articles. CrosswalkX (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Please improve the URL by removing the "/en" suffix in order to directly link to the parent now-multilingual donation page address on this page (last paragraph,the first link that reads "you can do so here"). Alfa80 (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Could someone please tell me what should I do so that the reviewers knowing that I am the copyright owner instead of using other people's works, so as not to be mistakenly identified as infringing others' copyrights and be deleted? Crescentnz (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Done ish, bypassed the first link, unlinked the other 2 (one was deprecated, other was same as the press room link). — xaosfluxTalk15:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
I found an error on Contact us Page and want to notify you.
This edit request to Wikipedia:Contact us has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The last line on "Contact us" page is "emailing about disagreements with content; they will not be resolved via" here instead of semicolon(;) after the word "content" comma(,) should use.
I'm making this edit request as a part of GSoC/Outreachy project Edit Request Wizard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhigya Pandey (talk • contribs) 16:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, if exists. Perhaps I just could not find it. Please, then a word and I delete this note. Thanks.
If OK (here with), an urgent note: the column "In other languages" does need a note, that this "In other languages" are own articles, never (or mostly ?) not just translations; from which article´s source ever. Thanks the interesst. --Visionhelp (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Right frame / numbers "3." to "5." are no disclaimers
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the right frame, the introduction para announces "some disclaimers", but, as I understand them, only no. "1." and "2." are actual disclaimers.
Nos. "3." to "5." are no disclaimers and, thus, sould be in the left frame, under their own headings:
No. "3." (which reads)
"If you have questions about the concept of Wikipedia rather than a specific problem, the About Wikipedia page may help."
should be under its own heading, e.g. under "Concept of Wikipedia".
Nos. "4." and "5." should also be in the left frame, and should/could be under the heading of e.g. "Editing/Editors".
Not done (not yet) @Steue: please make all the edits you are suggesting in the sandbox: Wikipedia:Contact us/sandbox, and test that it works and displays well on multiple devices/resolutions/skins. When ready, comment below and reactivate the edit request. If this is just a discussion for someone else to do this work, they can do that instead. Best regards, — xaosfluxTalk15:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
@xaosflux, I only did not do it myself because, in this case, I was not sure whether it would be OK; I did not want to invest time and later get it undone.
When I open this sandbox and click on [Edit source], I only see the content of the right frame. Where do I find the left frame? Steue (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
VRTS gets a lot of email from people who found the info-en@wikimedia.org address on this page but clearly were not interested in reading further than the email address to learn how to resolve an issue. It creates a labor burden for a volunteer service that always has a backlog, and causes needless delays for correspondents who really do need a VRTS agent to help.
It would be best to encourage them to read the contents of the tabs on the left, and emailing VRTS as a last resort. The info-en address can be found in the "Readers" tab already. There is no need for it to be on the introduction page. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Someone who's been doxed or cyberstalked on this site would likely want to come here. This page should include a link that's easy to get to. PBZE (talk) 04:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Either that or a reader. Basically anyone who comes onto Wikipedia and sees themself or someone else being threatened or stalked. PBZE (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I mistakenly changed the user name of an article I had written (BearManor Media) when I went to move it. I thought I was givning the the article a title. Obviously I was not!! How do I change the current user name (BearManor Media) back to my user name (Bxzooo)? Bxzooo 02:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)(talk)
THANK YOU P.I. Ellsworth!!! It's been well over a decade since I last created an article. If, at (almost) 81, I need more help or have any questions ... can I ask you? Bxzooo 08:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)(talk)
#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Contact us/Readers]]
{{R from move}}
to this:
#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Contact us/Readers]]
{{Rcat shell|
{{R from move}}
{{R to project page}}
{{R from modification}}
{{R to subpage}}
}}
WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.
The {{Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance!P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there10:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
for leaving the template link in the rcat templates, as in {{tl|R from modification}}, when I transferred these from my sandbox. All instances of {{tl| have been removed in all three of the above requests. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there20:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Fully protected edit request on 6 February 2023 – 1 of 3
A protected redirect, Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem, needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:
from this:
#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Contact us]]
to this:
#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Contact us]]
{{Rcat shell|
{{R to project page}}
{{R from modification}}
{{R with history}}
{{R from subpage}}
}}
WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.
The {{Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance!P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there10:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
A protected redirect, Wikipedia:Contact us/Donations, needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:
from this:
#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Contact us/Donors]]
to this:
#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Contact us/Donors]]
{{Rcat shell|
{{R to project page}}
{{R from modification}}
{{R with history}}
{{R from subpage}}
{{R to subpage}}
}}
WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.
The {{Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance!P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there10:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
For starters, it instructs users to use {{request edit}} to make edit requests. It doesn't mention that the edit request template is only used for "change X to Y" requests, or that more controversial/wider changes will need more discussion (preferably at WP:BLPN if the talk page doesn't get attention) and not a mere edit request.
More importantly, it doesn't mention how to verify your identity by mailing VRT. Template:uw-ublock-wellknown has the instructions, but do we really need to wait until the account is blocked?
I wish to create a new page on Wikipedia
I am unsure how to get started and how to make a page that Wikipedia will accept Nehakaahn (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Dr. William Longshaw
Dr. William Longshaw was born in Manchester, England April 26, 1836. I have copies of originals like the the Census of 1841 Manchester, England. Willliam was 5 years old when he travelled to the United States. I do have a copy of the census that I did upload to wikipedia. Toshiye6 (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Toshiye6, and welcome to Wikipedia! Just to let you know, you’ve posted this at the page for discussing the 'Contact Us' pages - which, if you were looking to contact Wikipedia itself, might not have been what you were intending. If you have any questions, I’d recommend asking them at the Teahouse. All the best :) A smart kitten (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
This page seems clearly historical, and looks like it should have been redirected around the same time as the other pages, but may have been missed. I propose redirecting it to Wikipedia:Contact us as the main ‘contact us’ page.
If this is okay, please replace the content of this page with the following:
#REDIRECT[[Wikipedia:Contact us]]{{Rcat shell|{{R with history}}{{R from subpage}}{{R to project namespace}}{{R from more specific name}}}}
Apologies for the bumper edit request!
Notes
^{{R from merge}} instead of {{R with history}} here as I found a reference to a merge in the history of the destination page for this redirect. I couldn’t find references to any merges in the history of any of the other redirects' destination pages.
article i worte has discppeared and all my hard wark and hours of labour wasted
i wrote an article about Dr Rajeev Gupta, who is Chairman of the Royal College and a very highly regarded person in the United Kingdom in the field of medicine. I have spent weeks to collect the links to his articles and where he works etc which I put in an article which I was about to edit further, however that seems to either have disappeared or I don't know where to find it. Can someone guide me, I am very disappointed Petertumbler (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
@Petertumbler: Looking through your contributions, I see that you've worked on Draft:Rajeev Gupta. You can continue to edit the draft. The reviewer has left a message at the top of the draft, asking for improvements to the referencing - potential readers need to know which of the reference links backs up each fact in the text of the article. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
My Wikipedia Johan Decavele in English
You can neglect my message of this afternoon. The actual page lay out is perfect. Please don't change anything. I am very satisfied with the actual format and the good look. All information I wanted to publish is present and perfect.
Thank you for your attention
Johan Decavele Verloren16 (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Requested link
Hello. Since the page is locked, can someone please link Wikipedia in the first sentence "
Thank you for your interest in contacting Wikipedia." Wikipedia is linked, usually at first mention, in articles about it and its work and process. Note that the WMF is linked at first mention just a few sentence in (although that link could be changed to the Foundation's Wikipedia article). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Unlike the other terms linked later on, I think anyone reading this can be expected to know what Wikipedia is. This isn't an article so we don't have to follow the guidance we would if it were. {{u|Sdkb}}talk15:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Readers know what it is but still might have an interest in exactly what it is, where it came from, stats and descriptors etc. A link to Wikipedia has been common in major articles. I haven't looked if the link to the WMF a couple of sentences later has been changed, but both should be linked to their Wikipedia pages.
I suspect most Wikipedia pageviews come from the link on the Main Page, and I wouldn't be overly concerned about a drop. I think the WMF link going to the foundation's site rather than its article is fine — again, this isn't an article. {{u|Sdkb}}talk15:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
What link on the main page was changed? Thanks (I use Monobook, so may have missed a change). No, this isn't an article, but it is viewed by many thousands of readers daily. A link to 'Wikipedia' at its first mention seems both justified and appropriate. You may be right about the WMF link, but at least there is one. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't know of any link changed on the Main Page. But the one right up top seems to generate some of that article's views.
What usefulness would such a link have? Users at this page want to contact Wikipedia because they're interested in changing something. They aren't interested in increasing their encyclopedic understanding of Wikipedia. {{u|Sdkb}}talk00:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
I sincerely doubt that 12,500 people a day proceed to actually contact Wikipedia. Apparently someone will click on the link "Contact us" every few seconds, probably because the link is on the left-hand list, at least on Monobook, and for some reason they want to take a look at what that means. Dollars to donuts many of those same curious readers would click on the Wikipedia link to have a look around. That's what links are for, to give readers an easy opportunity to expand their on-line experience. Am appreciating this conversation, and am further convinced that requesting the link seems the correct way to go. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Writing a Wikipedia article is a very different skill than writing a help page. The bar for adding a link is a lot lower when writing an article. The potential for reader curiosity isn't something that meets the bar for a help page. {{u|Sdkb}}talk00:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Cross namespace redirect.
Hello,
Might it be better to have a redirect from "contact wikipedia" or some form of article namespace contact related page, because people may not know about the WP: bit of this. In addition to the sidebar of course!ThanksGeardona (talk to me?) 02:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Done I amended Wikipedia:Contact us - Licensing. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Not done: My concern was linking to Wikipedia's copy of CC-BY-SA at Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License; I don't have anything against Redrose's formatting changes. The tooltip looks fine to me, so I'm marking this as not done. I suppose we could change the tooltip if we really wanted to, but that is getting firmly into WP:DEW territory, in my opinion. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Question: Do you think "embellish", "improve", ??? would be better? — 
Done by separating it from this part of the sentence [2] — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Not an issue for Contact us. Referred elsewhere.
Not done So why do we need all these new redirects instead of just updating the current pages, or also fixing Wikipedia:Contact us/tabs to bypass all the redirects you will have created? Deactivating edit request for now, reactivate when you think this is ready again. — xaosflux Talk 20:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Moved to WP:Teahouse § Hollywood
wikimedia.org. They're the ones that would be most affected by that change, and personally, I suspect the urgency of this request may be overstated. There is actually a risk that this proposed change may be counterproductive in that it may invite additional misuse: readers are going to see "Emergencies" as the first thing in the sidebar and assume that's a way to fast-track a fix to ordinary vandalism or a content dispute. This is problematic because it would dilute the WMF's resources. (IIRC they have to take time to submit an internal write-up for every request that comes in, regardless of whether they took action on the request.) Mz7 (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Geardona (talk to me?) 02:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you Geardona (talk to me?) 11:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
