Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 January 6

__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ = January 6 =

I think
I think the article Wikimedia Foundation needs to be updated at the expense and the revenue of the organization. I concluded them above. 2001:EE0:4BCA:3F20:BC4C:1488:250F:E6D9 (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Please direct concerns about that article to its talk page, Talk:Wikimedia Foundation. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Warnings
Please check my talk page. A user claims that I made "Personal attacks" and gave a warning for it. Imperial [AFCND]  12:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * what's your question? ltb d l (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please check the deletion discussion on Battle of Thane and the talk section. Do any of my comments there reflects personal attacks? Sorry for doing this here but I think this isn't much to take to ANI.  Imperial  [AFCND]  13:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Dropping a uw-vand2 on User talk:Jonharojjashi for mixing up two historical figures who shared a name wasn't really the best way to engage. The comment about the mixup could have stood on its own, without the warning template, and it's not terribly surprising they've responded in kind.If you're concerned about the reputational damage of unreverted warning templates on your usertalk, just stay focused on the content of the Battle of Thane article and its deletion discussion. Editors are never under any obligation to convince one another of anything or satisfy each other's demands. Folly Mox (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We made conclusion by discussing. Btw, thanks for looking into this. Imperial  [AFCND]  13:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Can a person legally hold two wikipedia accounts in his name?
Is it wise and legitimate to hold two wikipedia accounts with similar usernames for a same person? Yashrajkarthike (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Yashrajkarthike: There could be reasons, for example, it might be that they forgot the password for the previous account. In any case, they have to tell on their user page that they have another account. Please read WP:MULTIACCOUNT.  Delta  space 42 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Definitely not wise.  bishzilla  ROA R R! !   pocket 13:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC).
 * Agreed! darwin&thinsp;bish 13:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC).

Real pictures of mutilated bodies from crime scenes? Needs removed.
I was shocked to see a mutilated corpse from actual crime scene photo on the "jack the ripper" page. I tried to remove this photo but was unable to do so. I was also unable to find any other way to change/delete.

Out of respect for the victims and there families, I think showing mutilated corpses is horrible. How would you like it if your relative had been murdered and her mutilated corpse photos were online? Disgusting. I also fear those individuals with psychotic personality disorders could derive inspiration/motivation from these types of photos.

Can someone please help me to remove the mutilated corpse photos? Thanks

(The corpse photos are bad enough, but the mutilated corpse goes too far, in my opinion.) XB9000 (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry that this bothers you, but Wikipedia is not censored. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've left information on your talk page on how you can suppress images that you may find offensive. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , please be aware that Jack the Ripper is a Featured article and also a Vital article. It has gone through extensive peer review by highly experienced editors, and has been displayed on Wikipedia's main page. The consensus of the editors with a long term interest in this topic is that the photos of victims belong in the article. Images that are shocking to some people are commonplace on Wikipedia in articles about shocking topics, and that is simply not going to change. Cullen328 (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Martineau family
"Excessive citations" After reference 54 the editors say there are too many references (5 altogether). Can these all be put into one long (truncated) citation  so that  all 5 of them are  only seen when the reader clicks on it - I have seen this done before. Also, can this truncating also been done with the 5 citations occurring before citation number  69? (the editor again says "excessive citations".)

Thanks 2001:4479:6201:ED00:441F:501E:8854:E2F5 (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It's possible to have 5 citations inside one set of  tags, but those 5 citations still may be excessive. I suggest talking with the editor who added the "excessive citations" tag first. GoingBatty (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)