Wikipedia:Help desk

Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)

• For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
• Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
• If your question is about a Wikipedia article, draft article, or other page on Wikipedia, tell us what it is!
• Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
• For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
• New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).

Ask a question

Can't edit this page? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

March 20

Notability musings

I consider myself a relative old-timer so this question is not about getting the usual links but a general feeling from others.

When I actually added content back in 2006 "notability" wasn't a strict guideline, more of a concept. When I wrote an article, I looked for significant coverage in secondary reliable sources and if there was enough I created the article using the content I found. If no books or journals applied to the subject I used newspaper databases (this was when journalism was somewhat more credible than today in my opinion). That is where I stopped, I didn't then scour the internet for official or industry websites to fill in any gaps.

Move on to today, WP:N exists and in the nutshell says the notability guideline does not determine the content of articles and below links to the usual NPOV, V, NOR for content rules.

This codification change became apparent when I discovered Christopher J. Einolf, a Wikipedia biography with no biographical details from secondary reliable sources. I had an involved discussion on the talk page with the article creator and became of aware of "notability" for academics but I assumed the intent was that since this writer was mentioned in books a lot that biographical details would emerge in the future (or that as notability was established I wasn't looking hard enough). Fine.

Jump to today I found Quintessential (company). Several mentions in newspapers, basically they bought this or that building for $200M. So probably "notable", but the rest of the article is just regurgitating their website or refers to industry websites. The websites are published, the article seems balanced (as yet I haven't been able to dig up any dirt or anything particularly interesting). If I removed everything not from a reliable secondary sources there wouldn't be much left. So is it up to me (a Wikipedia editor) to decide how much content, and from which websites, to include? Commander Keane (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

That article has a problematic history. It was declined several times at AfC and then REJECTED by @Robert McClenon on 27 Nov 2024. Then on 12 Dec, the article creator @User:Commercialindustrial made a few changes then moved it to mainspace. On 3 Jan 2025, @लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक moved it back to draft, noting "Not ready for mainspace, incubate in draftspace". Then today, Commercialindustrial made a couple of very minor changes and moved it back to mainspace again. This editor's contributions appear mostly promotional. CodeTalker (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree that this article is very promotional. I discovered it while going through articles in Category:Articles with a promotional tone and I don't think it should be published as is. 🄻🄰 19:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

As indicated by User:CodeTalker, that page has issues. In this scenario, (at least from the information you've given), I'd recommend putting it up for deletion through WP:AFD mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 17:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

User:CodeTalker, User:Commander Keane, लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक - Thank you for letting me know. I will look at the article within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I just cleaned up the article, so looking at Quintessential (company) now makes my original post out of date. I was really looking for general thoughts on notability, but I appreciate the interest anyway. Commander Keane (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

An IP editor with no other edits has reverted your cleanup. Seems likely to be a WP:LOUTSOCK of the article creator. The article is now at AfD. CodeTalker (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Middleton family

I cannot work out what I have done wrong with ref number 126 which I have just added. please fix. It is a from a journal from which I am citing. I am so sorry Srbernadette (talk) 09:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Srbernadette I don't know how to fix it but it looks like you used the wrong citation template; according to the reference you used the Journal template but did not fill in the "journal" parameter. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I have fixed the error. TSventon (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Have you considered working with a specific mentor that might be able to help you detect these errors before you make them? 331dot (talk) 09:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Archive disconnected

Suspicious Russia-related deaths since 2022 has several times changed names. I was at the Talk page, looking for older discussions and could only find them by using History. Eventually I found Talk:Suspicious_deaths_of_notable_Russians_in_2022–2024/Archive_1 but there is no link to this Archive on Talk:Suspicious Russia-related deaths since 2022. My question is: how to create a link to the archive on the talk page? Lova Falk (talk) 09:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Lova Falk I checked Help:Archiving a talk page and added {{Archives}} to the article talk page. Archive 1 was redlinked so I moved Talk:Suspicious_deaths_of_notable_Russians_in_2022–2024/Archive_1 to match the current page title. That seems to have solved the problem. TSventon (talk) 10:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

TSventon Thank you! Lova Falk (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Edit requests

If the talk page for an edit request gets archived, should me mark the edit request as answered? I see many in the pending edit requests lists that have been archived TNM101 (chat) 14:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Probably depends on if it's suitable to do the edit request. Archival doesn't mean that the text isn't suitable for inclusion, rather that no one has made an edit to that part of the talk page. I'd recommend evaluating the edit request when it's been seen the same as any other.

If someone has edited it and it went stale, then maybe. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! TNM101 (chat) 14:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@TNM101 and Lee Vilenski: the information page section Wikipedia:Edit requests#Archived edit requests says If the article talk page has archiving enabled, edit requests may occasionally be archived before being answered. If the request might still be considered, move the edit request back to the Talk page. Otherwise, if you believe the archiving shows there was no consensus, simply close the request by changing the |answered= parameter to "yes". The section was discussed recently at Wikipedia talk:Edit requests/Archive 2#Archived edit requests. TSventon (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

How to reach en-checkusers

Hello. I have tried contacting en-wiki checkusers for over a month now to be given the local ip-block exempt user group. I have tried to get through the offical route (checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org) and tried messaging the checkusers directly. No response. I won't be able to tell more about my situation publicly, but without it, I really can't edit in this wiki. I have the global IP exempt group to allow to work in Commons and Wikidata. Are my options to just wait or just message a steward I happen to be in contact with? Thanks. --Osmo Lundell (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Osmo Lundell If you are editing this page, you are not affected by a block. We can't force the checkusers to talk to you. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your reply, even though it wasn't very useful. Obviously I'm using another, tempotary way to send this message, normally I couldn't do that. Would you happen to know one of your checkusers that has been active recently and ping them here? --Osmo Lundell (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@Osmo Lundell According to the global log here you already have the right since 5 February. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

They have global IP block exempt, which does not help with local blocks. Presumably they are having issues with a local block. ⟲ Three Sixty! (talk, edits) 15:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, I'm asking for the local user group. --Osmo Lundell (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

You've made 15 edits in the last two days(and one a few days before); were these all by this "temporary method"? Is it not something that you have access to long term? 331dot (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

No, it is not. Is there an active checkuser around? --Osmo Lundell (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@Osmo Lundell apologies, your email was indeed send to the correct place but no one replied. Taking a look now. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much! --Osmo Lundell (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

A "403 Forbidden" domain, down since 2016

There are over 100 references to a website called Relationship Science. When currently trying to reach this domain, my browser tells me it's a dangerous site, and the Wayback Machine (Archive.org) seems to indicate that 2016 was the final year that this domain actually worked. Is the protocol on Wikipedia to find suitable permanent links from Archive.org to enhance each of these references, or would it be more helpful to readers to remove them? Without having done any research, I'm not sure if this Relationship Science platform is (or ever was) a truly reliable source. It seems like it was some kind of "semantic web" network for business people's names, like LinkedIn, but begging for paid usage. - Whole milch (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe that making archive links is the standard, assuming that "Relationship Science" is a reliable site. Wayback Machine is what I personally use for archives.

MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 18:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

You could ask whether Relationship Science is reliable at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources Noticeboard and give a couple of archived examples, e.g. Inderpreet Wadhwa and Nikolay Banev. TSventon (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion now at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Relationship Science. TSventon (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

If your research indicates that prior to 2016 it was a reliable source, you can make a request at Wikipedia:Link rot/URL change requests to have all of the links marked as "usurped", but still use the references in the article with safe archive links. Reconrabbit 13:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

How to close a requested move discussion?

Second Trump tariffs has had a discussion going for nearly two weeks. Everyone agrees with a name change but but consensus is a little unclear, partly because new alts were offered throughout the discussion.

How do we decide when to end it? Also, WP:RMCI says we need an uninvolved editor to close it but not where to ask for one. Where do I find one? satkara❈talk 23:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello satkara, good to see you here!

To close a Requested Move (RM) discussion, follow these steps:

1. Is It Ready to Close?

RM discussions usually last seven days, but can go longer if needed.

If most people agree on a name, it’s ready to close.

If there’s no clear agreement, more discussion may help.

2. Who Can Close It?

You can’t close it yourself if you're involved in the discussion.

You need an uninvolved editor to close it.

3. Where to Find Someone to Close It?

Ask for a closer at:

Wikipedia talk:Requested moves – The best place to request help.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard – If the move is controversial.

WikiProject talk pages – If the topic has a related WikiProject.

WP:ANRFC (Requests for Closure) – If the discussion has gone on too long and needs a decision.

4. What Happens Next?

If the move is approved, the page will be renamed.

If it’s unclear, the closer will explain why and may suggest further discussion.

If you think i failed somewhere feel encouraged to ask question i would be happy to answer. Sys64wiki (talk) 06:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually I looked out at the same discussion page and found out that the actual consensus about the article have not taken place since alts are still being discussed. I advise you to wait a little and perform the closure of discussion page when majority reaches consensus? Sys64wiki (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

March 21

"The topic seems to be likely notable, but poorly sourced"

How do I source it properly? Can someone help me with this, all the information is public on the internet and I have added the links I used under the "reference" section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rheinmetall_Nordic

OleBj (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, OleBj. Please read the guideline Notability (organizations and companies). A company is eligible for a Wikipedia article when it is the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable published sources that are entirely independent of the company. Your draft has six references. Five are published by Rheinmetall itself, are not independent, and are therefore of no value in establishing the notability of the company. The remaining reference (#2 currently) is about a predecessor company and is also of no value in establishing the notability of the successor company. We already have an article about the parent company Rheinmetall, so perhaps describing this subsidiary can take place there, unless you can come up with references to multiple sources that actually establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 08:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Also the citation includes Wikipedia itself which seems funny way to use reliable sources. This is the reason the article is failing to be published. I would advice to use sources that are both trusted and outside wikipedia such as journals, other articles or books. Please note that blogs are not reliable sources because wikipedia think them as promotion. Sys64wiki (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Not English

Template {{Not English}} is not allowed to be used in drafts?

1. Why not?
2. The documentation does not provide an alternative, so what should I use instead?

Polygnotus (talk) 08:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

There is no point in adding templates, illustrations, categories etc to any draft article as they do not contribute towards notability. Most draft articles never get to be an article. Focus on getting the article to the point where it meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I didn't start the draft. And it contains text in a language other than English. Which is why I want to tag it so that someone who speaks that language can translate it. Polygnotus (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

If they actually submitted a non-English draft, it would get declined as a non-English draft. It's also possible that they have the non-English text there so they can then translate it themselves. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Or that they they accidentally created it on the wrong Wikipedia, for that matter. The other day, I came across some instructions on another language's Wikipedia that directed people to one of our help pages. If that happened when they were trying to find out about creating drafts, they might well create it on the wrong wiki—especially if they're new and think it's just a matter of adding some tag later to specify the language. Not everyone realises the different languages are on different wikis. In which case, they may now be wondering where their draft went, since it doesn't exist on their Wikipedia . . . ! Musiconeologist (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@Polygnotus Which draft is it? Musiconeologist (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Article Name Change

I was about to make some major edits to a current Wikipedia article. One of the edits I had envisioned was to change the name of the article. The article is currently under the French title of the island, "Île Sainte-Marguerite". However, since this is the English Wikipedia server, I can see no reason why this Wikipedia article cannot be under a commonly used English title for the island, i.e. such as the direct translation "Saint Margaret Island (France)" or at least "Sainte-Marguerite Island". Can someone let me know the procedure or protocol for changing the title of an existing Wikipedia article? SMargan (talk) 08:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

SMargan Please see WP:COMMONNAME first; as you seem to suspect, an article title should be that which is most commonly used in English-language reliable sources. If you believe that "Saint Margaret Island" is the most common, you may want to first post on the article talk page to see what other editors think. If you get a consensus agreeing with you, or if no one objects, you can then request a page move at Requested Moves. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@331dot (talk) - In particular "Île" ("Island") is not a word used in English at all that I am aware. Based on what you have said, I think that the "Sainte-Marguerite Island" option is probably more appropriate. I have a thread for the talk page already. Therefore, I will make the major changes I have already been working on and then post a discussion on the name change to the talk page, and then I will make that request to Requested Moves as you have suggested. SMargan (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

As 331dot says, it's more about what we most commonly call the subject in English language sources. There's nothing wrong with a foreign title, even if there is an English version available if it's the one that is mostly used for the subject. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Policy

Hi, I recall there was a policy or guideline relating to excessive US focus on articles. Does anyone recall what this is? I was not able to google it and find it. Specifically I was referring to this edit I made, in which an editor wants to include US SEC lawsuits in the LEAD of an article largely unrelated to the lawsuit. The policy I recall was about excessive focus on US policy in wikipedia articles, as essentially a weight issue. Maybe someone knows what I am looking for, maybe it was an essay? As I get older I cant remember all this stuff :-) Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

For a start there is an explanatory essay with a section Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Anglo-American focus. TSventon (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Making a Bibliography

I am in a college class and have to make a bibliography as an assignment. After going to the page sent to our class and clicking on edit, the only thing it will allow me to do is add an undocumented parameter. And after doing that I cant find it. MacKJMm13 (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

It's very hard for us to help when we don't even know what page you were directed to. Wikipedia has no control over what tasks your teacher assigns. Maproom (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

If you've simply been asked to create a bibliography I suggest you do it elsewhere. Edits to Wikipedia are subject to scrutiny and may be deleted or altered at any time. If you have to create it on Wikipedia you should at least familiarize yourself with the policies at WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppets?

Hi, I have a suspicion of a suspected sock puppet account operating. Can someone please direct me to where I can forward it to someone with Wikipedia:CheckUser permissions to have a look? Many thanks Nayyn (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Nayyn There are several options at Wikipedia:CheckUser#Contacting a checkuser. TSventon (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

thank you, I saw this, but was a bit confused as there are a few different methods. Should I reach out to a checkuser individually before proceeding to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations ? Not sure what the right procedure is to do here. Many thanks Nayyn (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@Nayyn Probably best to go straight to WP:SPI, as there will be several people watching that. Be sure to read the instructions carefully. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

many thanks @Michael D. Turnbull Nayyn (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@Nayyn could you check the date of the first edit of the newer account? TSventon (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

hi @User:TSventon I did, the second account was made when the previous account was under an indefinite ban. The ban was later lifted I guess but both accounts are still active. User:Nayyn (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@Nayyn New account 16 April 2024, ban 19 April 2024 to 22 April 2024, or am I confused? TSventon (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Im not sure how long the ban was active, but the user did not use the banned account again until late May 2024 the 2nd account was made in on May 11 2024. It was scary to submit it because it seems like a serious action but I was suspicious so just went ahead. Nayyn (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@Nayyn Thinking before a serious action is a good thing. I have commented at the SPI with a diff from 16 April 2024. TSventon (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk page Archives

Hello everyone out there, I'm starting to feel like my talk page is starting to get full. How can I archive? Gnu779 ( talk) 14:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@Gnu779: Help:Archiving a talk page has some options. I am using cut and paste. TSventon (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

How can I tell bots to do it for me? Gnu779 ( talk) 14:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@Gnu779 Help:Archiving (plain and simple) usually works well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's a few ways. You can manually move the items to User talk:Gnu779/archive1, or use a bot, instructions are at WP:AUTOARCHIVE, although it can be a bit complicated. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Gnu779 Please see User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo which includes quick instruction and more detailed explanations. Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Thx Gnu779 ( talk) 15:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

How do I style my signature?

How to style my signature so that whenever I write something on talk pages or discussions, my account username would be stylish like the other users? For example like I wanna add a green color background to my username signature, how do I customize it? Note that I've already read Wikipedia:Signatures but I'm still failing. I'm a mobile web user btw, hopefully someone can help me a little.  :') Imwin567 (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@Imwin567 I would recommend proceeding as at the help section WP:Signatures#Customizing how you see your signature. If you do that, you personally see a nice green background but everyone else sees the standard blue, which is much less distracting to others. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes but that is only for my own point of view. How do I show it for others? Imwin567 (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

By navigating to Special:Preferences and adding the sort of markup suggested on the signatures page you have already found. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

understood! thank you! Imwin567 (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?

I have little interest in and avoid when at all possible, issues editor behavior. There is an article David Haward Bain authored by an editor BainDH. That to me, smells a lot like a conflict of interest. Surely there is someone here who is well versed in policies/guidelines related to COI who can do the right thing here with regard to BainDH and the David Haward Bain article. I would much prefer to step away.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

March 22

My edits keeping falsely tagged by the edit filter

It's falsely tagging my edge Gladcape2013 (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I mean edits Gladcape2013 (talk) 02:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Can you give some examples? The filter has tagged exactly one edit of yours in the last 10 weeks: Special:Diff/1281722239 was tagged "New or unregistered user modifying talk page archives". That seems pretty accurate. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's the report here? It's not a page I'm familiar with but I can't see anything particularly alarming there, just a factual list of things that need a bit of care (eg installing javascript gadgets). Musiconeologist (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Companies House

<-- Redacted per WP:BLP I will be reporting the repeated violations of WP:BLP policy here, and suggesting that the contributor responsible be blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC) -->

Wikipedia app

So I started using Wikipedia's app but I can not where some features are or the apps equivalent. The features are the apps equivalent of the desktop version notifications system. I looked over the bell icon on the app, but it does not capture all the notifications the desktop does. Namely reply's to my comments, from what I am seeing the only way that a reply would show up in the apps is if the other editor mentions me. The other feature I am trying to locate is the equivalent of the desktops preferences, the only thing I can find that is similar on the apps is the settings, but it does not give me near as much options. I am looking forward to your answer. Sheriff U3 14:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Sheriff U3. You are correct that the app lacks some of the functionality of the desktop site, especially with regards to collaboration among editors. The good news is that the desktop site works fine on smartphones and mobile devices, although you will need to zoom in and out a bit. I am an adminstrator who has made about 100,000 edits on smartphones using the desktop site with very few problems. Years ago, I wrote an essay about this that you may want to read, User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing. Cullen328 (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Cullen328 Ok will take a look at your essay. I have been using the browser on my phone for some of features the apps lacked, but was wondering if I just had overlooked something. If you were able to make that many edits with a smartphone, then I can at least try!

I looked through some of your essay and noticed that you have recommendations section, you may want to look into updating it as you say that you are interested in learning how to use the admin toolbar on a mobile phone, you mostly likely have used the admin toolbar on a mobile phone by now though. Also I noticed that the phone you are currently using according to your essay is an Android 5.0, I would be rather surprised if you are still using it now. Though I have to admit that I myself use a old and largely outdated phone (it is an Android 7.0 from 2017). One question I have is how much of difference has there been between 2015 and now with editing on Wikipedia on a smartphone. With the advancement of smartphone technology I expect that there has been some improvement to how Wikipedia works with smartphones, but then again it sounds like it is not very common to edit with a smartphone.

By the way for your information I used a smartphone only on this entire post! Will be trying some of your methods as figure out what works for me best. Sheriff U3 21:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Sheriff U3, as I said, I wrote that essay years ago. I have not tried to keep it up to date, because to me, it is a snapshot in time. Other people edit it occasionally. Currently, I an using a Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G. I have now been an administrator for 7-1/2 years and have had no significant problems carrying out administrative actions on my phone. I do not think that there have been major, substantive changes to the software in recent years that affect editing with smartphones. Cullen328 (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

User investigation

I need help with a user (BPS CS1804-0888 (talk · contribs)), they have done a few edits that they shouldn't (like this one for an example). I don't know if all the other edits they have done is bad as well, so if anyone can check their history and find that out that would be great! Also, this account matches with other edits done by other users (see this article for an example) so maybe there's a connection? Thanks for the help. // Kakan spelar (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@Kakan spelar: Based on behavioral evidence, they look like a sockpuppet of Affact VA18300P, whose account was recently blocked for similarly unconstructive edits (WP:NOR and WP:CIR issues). ^Complex/_Rational 15:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Kakan spelar, that account has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet creating hoax content. Cullen328 (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Great! // Kakan spelar (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)