China GT牵手亚洲GT，GT Masters上海站存疑？

百度 （和百灵）(责编：刘天宇（实习生）、张雨)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2017

The Barley family lived at Barlow Hall not Woodseats. The old Barlow Hall was demolished in 1589 because of debts incurred by Peter Barley (Barlow) 86.170.3.223 (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Please do not post your requests or questions on this page unless they relate to the Tutorial article.

For general questions about Wikipedia you can use the Help desk and for new editors, you can ask questions at the Teahouse. At the Reference desk you can ask questions about any topic. Volunteers will respond to your questions as soon as possible. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Problem reading/editing the page

There is a picture (drawing) in the middle of the first paragraph of this information article (at least on my browser}, and so the first thing I see when I read the article is the middle of a sentence (which starts with the hyperlnked words "reliable source"). I clicked "Edit source" to see if I could try to fix that, but all I see when I do that is some codes. I'm not sure why. Could someone try to fix the fact that an image is (or seems to be) in the middle of a sentence on this Wikipedia Help article? Thank you. GreyGoose (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@GreyGoose: Thank you for pointing this out! I think it occurred because of how the browser tried to order the picture, the 'shortcuts' box and the text on a narrow screen. I've rearranged these elements so that hopefully they arrange in a more sensible order, with the image first, then all the text together. You're correct that the source code for this page is far more confusing than most, since it transcludes most of its contents. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks! It looks fine now. Thanks for the quick response. GreyGoose (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2017

Sunil5151 (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Sunil5151 (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2017 (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. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

wrong picture

The picture on Robert Graf's profile is not him. 

The picture is actually Robert Hardy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.75.238 (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2017

warth mill was also a prisnor of war camp for german POWs in 1940-45 David fc (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2018

Need to add: South Mountain Park, Phoenix, Arizona 16,000 acres. Here's a quote: South Mountain Park in Phoenix, Arizona is the largest municipal park in the United States, and one of the largest urban parks in North America and in the world. It has been designated as a Phoenix Point of Pride. Wikipedia" Wan Heterotroph (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. ??ElHef (Meep?) 15:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2018

Daisy1298 (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2018 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (? ? ?) 14:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2018

What is a reliable source? Is it a leftist source? Because your thought police seems to censor any non leftist/factual source. 47.147.16.228 (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. JTP ^{(talk ? contribs)} 19:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

verifiable is all well and good

But your highhanded "editors" don't take the time to check content before deleting. How does speedy deletion without checking for verifiability serving the internet community. Come on wikipedia, do better for your customers or did you not know that your volunteer authors are customers?. MissParker (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Typo

Could not proceed with a correction on mobile - transclusion activated and preventing edition:

• From: "(...) posts by readers are not usually considered reliable sources.)";
• To: "(...) posts by readers are not usually considered reliable sources)." - 5CR1PT3D1AN (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Typo

I just wanted to say that near the start it says "an inline citation", is it supposed to say "online"? TheMCMultitasker (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry hold on nevermind TheMCMultitasker (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Mention of Preference setting for RefToolbar

Sdkb, you reverted my change, and the revision by Nick Moyes to mention the preferences setting for refToolbar. While you are correct that having it on is the default for new users, and what you get if you choose "Restore all default settings" I think it may be off for anyone whose account was active before the gadget was introduced, and i am sure it is off for anyone who ever opted out of RefToolbar ver 1, and perhaps in other cases. In any event I would like to restore the changes and then modify them to indicate that while active by default, if an editor doe snot see the toolbar, tht editor should check the preferences. I am, making this post in the spirit of WP:BRD. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC) By the way, if you intended a pink by putting my username in your edit summery, that doesn't work. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

DESiegel, WP:REFTOOLBAR states Originally an opt-in Wikipedia Gadget, Reftoolbar was moved to a site-wide script on February 25, 2011, and to an opt-out gadget on April 2014. So it seems it's been around for 6 years, which basically means the only users at this point who might have it off are power users, who are not the intended audience here.

And oh no, is the method at Help:Fixing failed pings#Edit summary method broken? If so, we should definitely bring it up there, since it's also at Template:uw-pingfix and likely elsewhere. {{u|Sdkb}}?^talk 15:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I still think a brief mention that it can be turned off via preferences is warranted, Sdkb. As to the ping, I can only say that I did not receive a notification, although I was pined by Nick Moyes in the Teahouse about this matter. I wasn't even aware that a link in the edit summary was supposed to work. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

DESiegel, I saw the Teahouse thread after I replied. Since the editor mentioned new to active editing, I assume they must have an account that's older than April 2014, which seems like a very rare situation, but I guess if they're asking about it it happens. How about we link to Wikipedia:RefToolbar over "RefToolbar"? That will provide an option for the (presumably very few) editors experiencing issues to more easily troubleshoot without cluttering things for the majority who don't need the fine print. {{u|Sdkb}}?^talk 16:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I initially thought your edit yesterday was a sound one, DESiegel, and worthy of a further tweak by me, but I now also appreciate that RefToolbar has actually been activated by default since early 2011. The discussion yesterday at the Teahouse which initiated this change now seems to me to have been sufficiently unusual not to warrant a specific mention here that RefToolbar can be turned on/off in Preferences>Gadgets. If new users since 2011 have it by default, do we really need to tell everyone about activating it in this Help section? Yes, the questioner who didn't have the Cite button began here in 2009 (so maybe that was why they didn't have a 'Cite' button visible whilst editing, or they'd simply turned it off without appreciating its purpose) but I think most long-standing editors should either know enough to investigate Preferences to find tools for themselves, or know how to ask at a help forum, as that one did. Even just adding "'RefToolbar' can be disabled in your Preferences settings" would seem rather unnecessary. (Just to note that I've since made some further tweaks to add clarity and to this page, including a mention of 'Preview' which I suspect is of more value to most readers) I also think Sdkb's (edit conflicted) suggestion above of linking to RefToolbar is a good way to point to "turning it off and on again". Nick Moyes (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)      

"The Michigan Daily" example - "letter to the editor" by an author without established reliability?

I am surprised that this letter to the editor is considered a reliable source. The paper itself and anything written by staff, sure; but a letter to the editor can be written by anyone. I can't really find anything else the author has written other than that article, so it is not as though the author is a known authority on the matter. If the paper does its own independent fact-checking, then I could see calling this a reliable source, but I see no indications that that is the case. This seems to have the same issue as the "Forbes" example:

"Not reliable. Forbes, a well-known American business magazine, might seem at first glance like a reliable source. And indeed, content written by Forbes staffers is considered generally reliable. However, this article was not written by a Forbes staffer, but rather by an unaffiliated contributor. Such articles have little editorial oversight and are considered generally unreliable."

Similarly, the letter to the editor was written by an unaffiliated contributor. That makes me think the answer to the Michigan Daily should be "not reliable". Ikjbagl (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ikjbagl: Oh oops, I missed the letter to the editor designation. Yeah, we should probably find some other college fact to use as an example there. Any thoughts on what the best general-interest college fun fact might be? {{u|Sdkb}}?^talk 15:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: How about, from this article, something like this: "Although Stanford has no official school mascot, each year a student is chosen to be the "Stanford Tree" and wears a costume of their own creation." Ikjbagl (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Ikjbagl, sounds good to me; I'll update it. {{u|Sdkb}}?^talk 18:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times reference of the first example is identified as Reliable for the wrong reason.

The first sample reference is identified as reliable because "news articles from the Los Angeles Times are considered generally reliable." However, the reference is to a blog post hosted by the L.A. Times; it is not to a news article in that publication. As it happens, the blog post is by a writer who works for the Times, so it might still be a reliable reference, but the reason given for it being reliable is not correct. I lack the experience to make an actual correction here and am simply bringing it to the attention of more experienced persons who might feel more confident in correcting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diversitti (talk ? contribs)

@Diversitti: Yeah, I did notice that that article was to a "L.A. Times blog" when I added it. It seems that the L.A. Times tried out labeling some of their articles as blogs at some point, but as you noticed, they're still written by staffers and still look like they carry the same reliability as the newspaper itself. If it's tripping people up, we could try swapping it out for a different clearly reliable publication that covered the SOPA protest. {{u|Sdkb}}?^talk 16:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

language error in link to this page

Editing any WP page produces Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources. Where can i request correction of that text? Correct English is "references to" but "citations of reliable sources". --Espoo (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Espoo, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_185#Changes_to_the_universal_editnotice. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}?^talk 06:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"Help:Refs" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Help:Refs and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 14#Help:Refs until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Missing sources

Sources for claim Some cultures still use their teeth as currency today. Porch potato (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)