Help desk
< January 29	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 31 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

January 30

File talk:Elbert Benjamine AKA C. C. Zain.gif

Hello, I recently learned that there is no entry pertaining to Elbert Benjamine only a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Elbert_Benjamine_AKA_C._C._Zain.gif and a request to start a discussion. I don’t know what ‘start a discussion’ means. Elbert Benjamine died 70 years ago and is unknown so there is no one who can discuss him. His page can be improved by having his life story available for people to read and I would like to do this. I would be grateful if you could tell me what to do without having a meaningless discussion. The Gemini kid (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Gemini kid. You have started a discussion. This person is covered in Church of Light. I suggest that you begin by adding well-referenced content to that article. Cullen328 (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Gemini kid. There actually was a Wikipedia article about C.C. Zain that was WP:MERGEd into the article about the Church of Light as a result of the WP:CONSENSUS established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. C. Zain. The main reason for that seems to have been that it couldn't clearly be established that Zain satisfied Wikipedia:Notability (people) for a stand-alone article to be written about him; so, content about him was incorporated into the article about the church. If you feel something has changed and that Zain is now clearly Wikipedia notable, you might first want to discuss the possibility of creating an article about him at Talk:Church of Light to see what some others might think. If the consensus is that a stand-alone article about Zain is now OK because he's clearly Wikipedia notable, there's really no need to start from scratch since part if not all of the original article can probably be restored. Any new content and sources that are found can then be incorporated as needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gemini kid You said "His page can be improved by having his life story available for people to read and I would like to do this". This means that you have found in-depth published material about him, from sources that Wikipedia considers to be reliable and independent of him, right? If so, you can create a draft, possibly starting with the older material. If you haven't seen this yet, please read your first article. David10244 (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful advice and guidance. To David 10244 the answer to your question is yes. I published Elbert Benjamine's biography - Drive as with Thunderbolts - in 2014. It tells his life story. The Gemini kid (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Gemini kid. If by I published Elbert Benjamine's biography - Drive as with Thunderbolts - in 2014, you mean you published a biography about Benjamine titled Drive as With Thunderbolts, then I'm not quite sure that would meet Wikipedia's definition for a reliable source and probably would not accepted as such for supporting any content about Benjamine on Wikipedia if it deosn't. Was this book self-published? Has it been reviewed by any reputable literary critics or recognized subject-matter experts? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a PDF ebook self-published through a religious website. I cannot even find an ISBN number for it. Unless my Google search is missing something major, this is not a reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I stated in my original contact that no one knows anything about Elbert Benjamine or the subject-matter he wrote about. So there are no experts to review his biography. Seems like the misinformation about him that's available on the internet will have to do. The Gemini kid (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New format help on desktop

I’m not proud to have to ask this, but can someone tell me how exactly you log in on a desktop with the new format? I can not find the login button on the list that comes up, and the only thing now visible is the create account button, but I’ve been here nearly 20 years at this point so I don’t need an account. It’s likely some stupid thing that I haven’t thought of, but I don’t have time to think it through at the moment, and not being able to check watchlists is bumming me out. 2600:1011:B14C:3627:D866:6799:7A51:C006 (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a drop-down menu, which appears when you click on the "…" button in the top right hand corner. Happily888 (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@OVasileva (WMF): - wasn't sure how pieces of in-play feedback like this were best passed to you Nosebagbear (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Happily888: Thank you so much for the reply! God knows I looked for it for two hours or so an three different days and could not find it, its always been in the upper right hand corner. I kept clicking the three lines box on the left figuring it'd be there somewhere or that if I left eh main page it might show itself, but it never did. @OVasileva (WMF): For the record, three dots (...) can be intepreted by older generations who grew up ahead of the digital curve as "to be continued", however in this case that is very misleading because I did not need options for creating an account (getting started, registering, etc), I just needed a log in button. It'd be the same issue with the hashtag, in my day it was known as pound sign since that what it was referred to on land line phones, but try using that interpretation with Gen Z and beyond and it'd be lost on most of them because that isn't what they know it for. I disagree with the decision to redesign everything for exactly this reason, all the up and coming redesign people think they are making it better but what actually happens it that it forces us to relearn everything we already know to account for naked vanity and pride that comes from people who feel adjustments like this help. Two of the biggest failures in Microsoft's history resulted from that exact train of thought, first with clippy and then with Windows 8, both of which forced changes on users they weren't happy about. Windows 8 in particular was a catastrophy because it was built for mobile at the expense of the desktop, which is where the bulk of Microsoft's business was coming from at the time. There is also an unseen security risk in this, if people like me who have advanced rights can not easily discern how to log in we may be tempted to leave our accounts permanently logged in which in turn can result in unauthorized persons using advanced level accounts for malevolent purposes. Lastly, I wanted to draw your attention to an old signpost issue with a story titled Why does the number of Wikipedia readers rise while the number of editors doesn't?, to which I replied with my own analogy in the discussion section. The long and short of it is fiddling with the equipment can have unexpected and adverse results, some of which may not be so easily seen and/or understood. I've already found one, in this new format I couldn't log in, and I'd wager others are going to find more in time. Thats why defaults should be left as is, and skins like this should be optional for users and not forced on us. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

redirectcreator

I want to use this tool, but I don't know how to use it. The documentation says there is a "redirect" button in the search results window, but I can't find it. Please help me. (using google translator) -- ginaan (˵⚈ε⚈˵) 03:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@기나ㅏㄴ It appears you added the code on User:기나ㅏㄴ/common.js. Did you follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache? If that doesn't work, I suggest asking the script owner at User talk:Awesome Aasim for assistance. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@기나ㅏㄴ: The installation code was wrong. It wasn't made by Awesome Aasim. I have fixed it.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing is of great help to me. Thank you very much for helping me:) --ginaan (˵⚈ε⚈˵) 16:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Screen appearance

Is there any way that I can change the Wiki screen background from white to black. It is much easier to read. aI have my Google screen setting to black but can't find any way to change the Wiki screen. 2001:569:5461:E700:683A:DAE6:1B35:296D (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DARK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of articles

I added some facts to a site…but how do I show proof of what was added to a site so it isnt removed again MRZIPITYDUDA (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to find a reliable source which quotes these facts, and then generate a citation for the source. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MRZIPITYDUDA Specifically you added information which you may know to be true but you didn't provide a source so that readers could verify that what you added is correct. That's a central policy of Wikipedia. It may be that an existing reference in the Allen Jacobs article could have been used (see WP:REFNAME for how to do that). Otherwise you have to find and add a new source: see this essay. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MRZIPITYDUDA Where did those facts come from? If they came from a published, independent, reliable source, you would cite that source. If the facts came from anywhere else, they likely won't be allowed to stay in the article (not site). Wikipedia only documents stuff that is published elsewhere. I hope this helps explain Wikipedia's way of working. David10244 (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dichroic prism?

Hi, I'm not really sure where best to ask this question... The article Dichroic prism, which defines its topic as "a prism that splits light into two beams of differing wavelength (colour)", is illustrated by the image on the right, which is a featured picture. However, it looks to me like there are quite a few more colours than just two in this image. Can anyone explain this? I would ask on the article talk page, but it doesn't seem like it's a well-watched article so don't know if I'd get an answer. Is there a science helpdesk or similar I can go to? Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru I think that you need to compare this sort of prism with a more conventional one, explained at dispersive prism where white light is split into a single beam containing multiple colours. I'm not able to give a detailed explanation but you'll get one if you repeat the question at WP:RD/S. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has two diagrams. One is clearly labelled as showing a trichroic (not dichroic) prism, and is to some extent comprehensible, though I can't guess what the orange line labelled "F₂" is. The other is completely incomprehensible, and although it is captioned "dichroic prism", it shows light of at least nine different colours. The text refers to "the diagram", without making it clear which diagram is meant.

Sometimes a Wikipedia article gets into such a state that whenever anyone, even an expert in the field, sees it, they think "OMG what a mess. I'm not going to get involved in that." But the best place to ask your question is the article's talk page. Maproom (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Turnbull and Maproom: OK, I'll give the RD/S a try, thanks. Not too confident in the article talk page, it hasn't been edited since 2015

— Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot insert images

I tried to add an image to Death by burning at the Effect section and the image just don't seem to load even though the wikitext is valid. Is this caused by some sort of censoring here? CactiStaccingCrane 15:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The image is on the Bad image list. You can request an exception for this article at the talk page MediaWiki talk:Bad image list. —Kusma (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic Wikipedia

Dear Sir Greetings from Egypt I want to submit a complaint, regarding the management of the Arabic Wikipedia, as the editors and administrators who have the power to accept or reject articles, as they are controlled - like all Arabs - by the religious character, and this absolutely affects their work on Wikipedia. This is confirmed information, I am a secularist edit articles, many of them was rejected, even books articles, because it may contradict Islam and the sanctification of formal religiosity such as the niqab, or it may delve into unseen matters that Islam has been silent about, Then they cover it up by saying it's not encyclopedic. if you review the articles that were canceled for me in arabic section, you will be sure of my words. it is certain that the Arabic Wikipedia does not present the scientific truth as it is, because of what I mentioned,In defense of the legacies and the protection of pre-modern beliefs, which caused the emergence of extremist thought. How can I convey this idea to the central higher management of Wikipedia, which has the right to intervene in the management of the Arabic section? محمد عبد الرحمن المهدي (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@محمد عبد الرحمن المهدي Meta-wiki might be the right place for you. CactiStaccingCrane 16:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@محمد عبد الرحمن المهدي, I suggest you try to raise this issue at the "Movement Strategy Forums," an official forum for the WMF, and for discussions. Sm8900 (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Friend, Many thanks محمد عبد الرحمن المهدي (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia search querry string for suggestions

Hey,

I am trying to add wikipedia as a search engine to Chromium and I had no problems adding the search functionality. I can't find a suggestions link anywhere though.

Here is a suggestions querry link for Google as an example: "http://suggestqueries.google.com/complete/search?client=firefox&ds=yt&q=%s"

in contrast to the search link: "https://www.google.com/complete/search?client=chrome&q=%s"

I didn't find the suggestions link in the Help:Search article here on Wiki. Can anyone help? We could add it to the search help page also, since I doubt I am the first to look for that solution.

Thanks for any replies. Ondřej Janča (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Try using https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=opensearch&format=json&search=%s&formatversion=2 Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Victor Schmidt mobil sadly, this does not work. 158.194.11.237 (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, forgot to log in. the 08:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC) comment is mine. Ondřej Janča (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why make wikipaedia so complicated???

Cant you guys leave anything alone, it all worked fine before, Now i cannot type in an enquiry regarding any random subject because it does not exist. There used to be a box in the top tight hand corner i could type in a request for information regarding just about anything where has that box gone. You annually ask me for a contribution and i usually send you a fiver, it looks to me like you do not need my contribution anymore. I shall have to get my information from you tube and google. Wikipaedia is history it would seem. Poydem2011 (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Poydem2011, see Wikipedia:Vector 2022 for more about this change. As you have an account, you can change your preferences to return to the previous behaviour (Appearance -> Vector legacy). This will only work while you are logged in, though. —Kusma (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the search box is still there in Vector2022: it's just moved to the top left. ColinFine (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Poydem2011 And the search box is now top left, just to the right of the logo. It is an improvement, IMO. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the width of your screen, the search box is very clearly either to the left or bang in the centre at the top, you can't miss it? Theroadislong (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And, I just (!) realised, there is a search magnifying glass at the very top left of the drop-down menu that appears when you are viewing material at the end of an article or on Talk Pages. Hence in Vector 2022 (unlike Vector 2020) you don't even need to scroll to the top of a page to immediately do your next search. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In a narrow window you may have to click a magnifying glass icon at the top to get the search box. It's a universal icon for searching. Most users will know it or quickly guess it. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protection request

List of largest political parties is being vandalized repeatedly by anonymous accounts. Please restrict editing by anonymous accounts. Thanks. // sikander { talk } 🦖 17:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The place to request page protection is WP:Requests for page protection. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph: Got it, thanks. // sikander { talk } 🦖 14:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BLP subject requests removal of birthdate

Hello! This is regarding the edit request made by the subject of Joel Gallen. THey have requested their birthdate be removed, however I don't think we can do that just because they ask. I'm not actually able to find anything about this however so I'm asking here to see if anyone knows where to find somethign that talks about this. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably remove it. Per WP:DOB: "If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it." I might feel differently if there were oodles of reliable sources for the DOB, but I'm not seeing more than just the one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze Wolf, did you check WP:DOB and perhaps WP:BLPKINDNESS? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It also depends on how publicly available the birthdate is already. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I had. I just thought there was some help page regarding what to do if a BLP subject requests information be removed from their article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. In the future, please note that per WP:DOB we generally err on the side of "don't include birthdates" for BLPs unless it's literally everywhere and it's a person who is very well known. In the case of either a marginally notable person or if the birthdate is only found in a few places, it's fine to leave it out. --Jayron 32 18:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Policy on articles providing "Pet Care", and what a reliable source for that looks like?

It seems like over time a lot of animals commonly kept as pets have had the addition of "Care" sections. It felt a bit odd to me, since animal care has never been objective in the slightest. An example is the care section on the Chinese Mantis page, it is completely uncited and includes a lot of information considered very subjective in the hobby. I don't know of any reliable sources that back this information. You could definitely find reliable sources saying they can eat those bugs, but I don't know of any that confirm it is a suitable diet in captivity.

Sometimes when care articles do cite sources, it is places like Petco's website. Does this count as a reliable source? I would argue they have a fairly poor and outdated understanding of most animal husbandry that does not run on any actually reliable information. Obviously that's partially my own opinion on Petco, but even if I thought they had it all correct, do they actually count as a reliable source just because they're a big pet company?

I feel like having these pet care sections can be risky, since people (despite what they are told) will go to Wikipedia for objective, well researched facts. I imagine there's some extent that things in these section are not permitted, but I've struggled to edit them because I do not know where the line is, and don't want to enforce a policy that doesn't actually exist. Would appreciate any pointers, thanks! PoetaCorvi (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per several Wikipedia policy and guideline pages, if you see uncited material in ANY article at ANY time, you have several options:

1) find citations yourself

2) Tag the material as needing a citation using the {{cn}} tag

3) Remove the uncited material

Option 3 (removing the material) is especially warranted if there are other issues with the text, such as it being likely wrong, or trivial, or otherwise not appropriate for the articles in question. In general, Wikipedia defaults to not including information if there are some problems with it, see WP:BURDEN or WP:ONUS. If someone objects to your removal, you are within your right to challenge them to provide sources; but also don't edit war, as that can get you blocked. --Jayron 32 18:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! In the past had offered my own citations or tagged as cn, but I wasn't super confident in removing problematic info. This and other replies definitely helped me figure out whether certain things can be deleted, appreciate it! PoetaCorvi (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here: an article should not read like a "how-to" style owner's manual, cookbook, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. Even if properly cited, content on pet care almost certainly doesn't belong in such articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I figured there had to be a policy like that somewhere, but I must have missed that one. PoetaCorvi (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PoetaCorvi: I think the policies listed above apply and the sections should be removed, but the specific subject is outside of my area. You might ask the folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals to comment or to direct you to a more focused project if one exists. -Arch dude (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Will definitely head over and ask around sometime soon, didn't know a page like that existed. PoetaCorvi (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that "pet care" has some similarities to "medical advice". Especially if someone includes pet care information that turns out to be harmful, and someone follows that advice. Given all of these various reasons (not HOWTO, etc.) I am strongly in favor of removing pet care information wherever it appears. David10244 (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I definitely agree, I've seen a handful of articles in the past give subjective or (in my opinion) harmful care information, glad to know I'm justified in changing it. Would hate for someone's animal to get hurt because they trusted misleading information on here. PoetaCorvi (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moving my article from my Sandbox to Wikipedia

How do I move my article from my Sandbox to Wikipedia??? PegDag (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read Help:Your first article. There is no realistic prospect of the material being accepted as an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why so? The topic is valid and notable and I expect some help from colleages in fleshing out the topic. The learning curve to writing the article and to understand the Wikipedia protocol is certainly high. The intent is to start small to get something going, and then build on it. PegDag (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first source you cite is a broken link. The second is to a webpage that says nothing about the topic. The third is a primary source - an organisation promoting the concept. We need evidence of notability through significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the learning curve for writing articles is high. This is why we recommend first spending time editing existing articles, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. You may also find it helpful to use the new user tutorial. Starting small is fine, but the draft must still meet certain minimum standards if it is to be sustained in the encyclopedia and not subject to a deletion discussion. 331dot (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PegDag: Yes, start small. The very first step is to establish notability as we define it. Until you do this there is no reason to continue, as notability is the only absolute requirement for and article. Look at WP:CSMN to see several ways to mess this up. Once you are certain that most editors will agree the subject is notable, build your article as a draft, so you can build it incrementally in a relatively benign environment. See WP:YFA -Arch dude (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia REST API under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL

As stated in https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1

By using this API, you agree to Wikimedia's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Unless otherwise specified in the endpoint documentation below, content accessed via this API is licensed under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL licenses, and you irrevocably agree to release modifications or additions made through this API under these licenses. See https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/REST_API for background and details.

Does this actually mean that any content returned must inherit and comply with GFDL license? (even though underlying text returned in JSON belongs to articles that are not necessarily under GFDL?)

Also, does GFDL license apply to software (and recursively any further software) that is used to call API? If so, in what ways? 82.183.36.43 (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP user. The first link you supplied doesn't work. I think you meant this one with an extra /. Any edit adding material to Wikipedia is made under under a CC license. So, for example, here at a Talk Page there's a warning that says By clicking "Reply", you agree to our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.. Hence all of Wikipedia's content is CC BY-SA 3.0. What I think this means (IANAL) is that anyone who extracts Wikipedia content via the API and chooses to re-publish it must do so in accordance with the license: in particular the "SA"="same again" part, attributing their source as Wikipedia. There is more information at WP:REUSE but for more technical questions I think you should ask at WP:VPT. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that content accessed via this API is licensed under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL licenses is correct. Most of Wikipedia text is dual-licensed as such, but not all of it is - see Wikipedia:Copyrights and the links from there for the glorious details - and I do not believe there is any way to determine which is which via the API.

CC-BY-SA 3.0 should apply to everything, though. (By the way, Michael D. Turnbull, "SA" means "sharealike" - i.e. the same license should be applied to derivative works - not "same again".)

Yes, Tigraan, that's correct. I used "same again" because that seems to me to be less jargon and is [what the license page says] "you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original" (my emphasis) Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So would an interpretation that API documentation provided in description about usage conditions is referring to a general note that content provided by the API may be either under CC-BY-SA or GFDL?

As phrasing may be a bit misleading to treat such sentence as explicit declaration that content under the API is explicitly licensed under both CC-BY-SA and GFDL.

The underlying reason to understand the semantics here is that GFDL requires extra steps in attribution and structuring of content, as well as I must understand how to license my derived content. 82.183.36.43 (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those licenses only apply to the content the API returns. The software used to query the API might have its own license, but the point of an API is that you can choose to query it with almost any programming language (as long as you obey the rate limitations etc. but that is not a licensing issue). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that answers a second part of my question, that software licensing does not inherit license based on the content. 82.183.36.43 (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia page is gone.

For many years there was a Wikipedia page about my work and books. My name is Charles D. Hayes. I am about to turn 80 years old, and the page is suddenly gone as doesn't exist. I am frequently under attack by political zealots and figure they must be responsible for taking it down. Can you check? 66.58.181.128 (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted in Feb. 2022. Here is the discussion about it: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_D._Hayes RudolfRed (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And in case some of the terms used in that discussion are unclear, Charles, a Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what independent sources say about a notable subject. Not being an admin, I can't look at the deleted article, but by what those comments say, it did not establish that you meet Wikiepedia's criteria for notability, was not written neutrally, was based on non-independent sources, and mas mostly a copyright violation anyway. "Political zealots" have no power to remove an article from Wikipedia, unless they can persuade other editors that it meets Wikipedia's criteria for deletion. --ColinFine (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As somebody who is in agreement with you on many matters, Charles Hayes, I am stunned that something as grossly inadequate as the "article" about you was not deleted many years ago. It was not only deleted, but speedily deleted because it did not come anywhere near meeting our minimum quality and accuracy standards. Sorry; but it's the truth. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]