This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. 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 main page.
I often edit Wikipedia movie pages, usually to add sources or detail. In the "reception" section of every article, I always see Wikipedians writing about what score the movie achieved on Rotten Tomatoes, but I never see what score the said movie received on IMDb? Why is it like this? And would I be at fault for adding an IMDb score? Ram P. (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@VirusesSuck44: Welcome to Wikipedia. Information in articles must come from reliable sources. There is currently consensus that IMDB is not a reliable source due to being user generated content, but that Rotten Tomatoes is reliable for movie score aggregation. So that is why articles use Rotten Tomatoes scores and not IMDB. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources for more info on those two sources. RudolfRed (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi VirusesSuck44. (e/c) Rotten Tomatoes' default score for a film aggregates professional published reviews, which is what we use. It also has an "audience score", i.e., unreliable, user generated content. IMDb by contrast only provides audience ratings of films, and so it's essentially the equivalent of RT's audience score, which we don't use. See also Wikipedia:Review aggregators. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Who wrote this?
Not enough traffic on the Talk Page, so bringing it here.
While pondering the term: "Character actor" for an article I am writing on a BLP, I happened upon this article the page: Character actor at WP and was really quite shocked at its rather "personal opinion" style of writing. It seemed more like something I would read in The New Yorker rather than an encyclopedia. Statements such as: "Others, like Sir Laurence Olivier, submerge themselves in any role they play", has nothing to do with the term "character actor" but simply the fact that Olivier was a very good actor; and (Character actors tend to play the same type of role throughout their careers) "Abe Vigoda as an aging criminal", even thought he is best remembered for the lovable detective Sgt. Fish on the TV series Barney Miller and roles such as Grandpa Vincent Ubriacco in Look Who's Talking. These statements, along with: "Some character actors are known as "chameleons" ..." which the source provided doesn't even back the claim: "Someone could be deemed a character actor but still seem the same in every role he or she pursues. Chameleon actor has more of a feel, because when they inhibit a character, they become it, blending in like a chameleon. In turn the viewer loses themselves in the actor’s performance." It's as if the editor simply made things up as they went along. Clearly a "chameleon" actor is not a character actor; they are a separate talent and art. The lede definition: "In a literal sense, all actors can be considered character actors since they all play "characters", but in the usual sense it is an actor who plays a distinctive and important supporting role" once again simply states an interpretation on a quote from an interview by actor John Jarratt: “I don’t know. I played the lead in Wolf Creek 2 recently, so what is a ‘character actor?’ If you’re always getting co-leads and cameos, I think they call those people character actors. But every part plays a character." Certainly not an authority on the craft of acting or the historical definition of the term: "character actor."
Merriam Webster defines "Character Actor" as: "An actor who is known for playing many different and unusual characters" which immediately disqualifies nearly half of the article's claim and content: "Character actors tend to play the same type of role throughout their careers, like Harvey Keitel as tough and determined." The lede definition found online: "An actor who specializes in playing eccentric or unusual people rather than leading roles", which contradicts itself throughout the article: "A character actor can also be the leading man in his films, such as Wallace Beery." Absolutely no source to back this very strong claim. And this: "While a leading actor often has physical beauty needed to play the love interest, a character actor typically does not." According to whom? and this: "A character actor's roles are often substantially different from their real-life persona." Isn't that the very definition of an actor ... period?
I find this article to be one of the worst written at WP. It reads like a school paper; filled with subjective - often contradicting - thought, re-interpreted, inconsistent definitions, made-up content and entirely without substantial sources for an article that should be more definitive in its term and encyclopedic in its examples. Maineartists (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@Maineartists: You can be BOLD and improve the article yourself. If not, you can post on the article's talk page, and then post on the WikiProject's talk pages to invite them to help. You can also add {{citation needed}} for sentences unsupported by a reference. GoingBatty (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Article Space
Hi, When an article is reviwed an accepted it will go in the article space. Please could you let me know what the article space is.
After the review is accepted will it be on public wikipedia?MasterD.D. Patel (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
You notice how some pages have words before a colon in page titles (like this one, Wikipedia:Teahouse)? Articles don't have that. Well, they can be part of the subject's name, but those are usually understood from context provided in the body of the article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC) (Addendum added 02:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC))
How do I reply directly to comments by a specific editor?
My first attempt at a page [Tobey C. Moss] I made many mistakes and corrected them in a draft that I re-published in February. I heard concern about conflict of interest. That is why I re-published the December 28th page in February to only use wording from established sources like the Getty Research Institute and the Los Angeles Times and the University of California Los Angeles(UCLA) Special Collections. I included many inline citations from those venerable sources. And, as the son of retired 92-year-old Tobey C. Moss, I would have much preferred waiting until The Getty Research Institute posted this page, but they don't do that. I wanted to see her contribution to the art world in print, especially women artists and Latino artists and Southern California artists, available to Wikipedia users, before she dies, not 10 years afterwards. There was a concern about the word, International, as in "international art dealer", I cite her 47 contributions to the collection of the British Museum, as an example. Can you tell me how I can improve that latest version from February. DavidJMoss (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC) DavidJMoss (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I really appreciate all your suggestions, and the updates done by GoingBatty that removed Tobey's early life and focused on the gallery's history and importance to the Southern California art world, and I went further and took out the remaining line that had citation needed. I tried very hard to take out any conflict of interest bias and stick to what was written elsewhere. Please let me know if there is anything more I can do. I do not think we need to add an infobox about her, as one editor suggested. Thanks you all. DavidJMoss (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I've been on WP for a while now and I've always had troubles finding free images. Recently, I worked extensively with article Yu Wensheng, and I hope to one day nominate it for GA status. Can someone please help me find a photo of him? Thanks. Thomas Meng (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi there. I have been working on 2008 Beijing Wushu Tournament over the last few days. As you can see, it has sections that follow a similar format to an article about a sport at a multi-sport event: some background info, schedule, qualification, medal table, and medal results, but in addition to this, there are sections on detailed results and match brackets for each specific event. As a result, the single page article is quite long as the medal tables are redundant with the detailed results. I was also going to create a list of participating nations and numbers of athletes sent, but that would also be somewhat redundant with the amount of information already listed on that single page. Do you think it is a good idea to create subarticles for each event? Thank you. Yinglong999 (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I reverted an edit which is this because it was vandalsim, but after some time the editor ( user:Hellothisismyaccount10) who made that edit leaved a message on my talkpage stating his edit was right and he also wrote on his talkpage that I have did wrong edit. What does he mean by so? ExclusiveEditor (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I posted the following at Frederick Crews' Talk page, and no one has replied; I hope that it's ok to try here. I did not mention at the Talk page that the deletion I want to make, which is little better than gibberish, is at Frederick Crews' request.
In the first paragraph under the heading "Literary criticism," I would like to change the comma after "(1904)" to a period and delete the rest of the sentence, which reads, "analyzing the function and tensions within a system of manners, the interaction between an individual's ethics and their reflection within the values of a community.[12][14]."
My problem is that, when I delete it, a problem with another footnote arises. The problem, which I see when I click "Show preview," is in fn.16, concerning Kreisler, even though the footnote containing Kreisler is #3. In fn.16, I get the message: "Cite warning: <ref> tag with name Kreisler 1999 cannot be previewed because it is defined outside the current section or not defined in this article at all."
I don't know what that means. This problem occurred even when, as an experiment, I deleted the text after "(1904)" but retained footnotes 12 and 14. I don't need to understand what is going on; I would just be grateful if someone would make the change I describe in the first paragraph of this comment. Thank you.Maurice Magnus (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC) Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I know Frederick Crews only slightly, through a mutual friend; we've met in person only once, about 25 years ago, and we exchange emails every couple of years. I happened to looked at his Wikipedia entry the other day and emailed him a comment about it. When I told him that I was a Wikipedia editor, he asked me to delete the phrase I quoted above, because, as I said, it is little better than gibberish. I have no conflict of interest; he's not paying me for this trivial favor. I just don't have the editing skills to deal with the "Cite warning" that comes up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurice Magnus (talk • contribs) 10:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@Maurice Magnus: I assume you're using "edit section": the "warning" really just means that the reference is defined outside of the section you're editing and reused inside the section, so you can't see a preview. Since all the references are not broken, you could safely delete that sentence with no problem. That being said, the fact that Crews told you to delete that sentence is a conflict of interest. Wikipedia does not care about what the subject wants to say about itself. The only reason to remove a sentence is if it were not in those sources, but the Carlson reference does seem to support it. You could elaborate more on Crews' works, but be prepared to provide secondary sources to back up your claims. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 02:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Maurice Magnus. The problem you're having most likely has to do with the fact that the same citation is being used to support multiple statements in the article (see WP:REFNAME for more on this); so, the edit you want to make is either removing a citation from the article where it was defined or the defined citation is located in some other section of the article than the one you're trying to edit. Look at Frederick Crews#cite_note-Fuchs2006-3 for an example of what I'm referring to above. That particular source is cited eight times (indicated by the letters "a" to "h"). Each letter is linked to the location in the article where the source is cited in which the letter "a" represents the first time the source is cited and "h" the last time the source is cited. The fully formated citation is usually (but not always) found (i.e. "defined") where the source is first cited; so, if you remove that citation, then the error "not defined in this article at all" will show for the other times the source is cited. Similarly, if you edit a section that doesn't contain the fully defined citation, then the software won't show the citation because it's "not defined" in the section you're editing. As for whether you should be the one to make the edit on behalf of Crews, I suggest you follow the advice given in WP:COIADVICE or WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement. If you feel you can make the edit yourself, then you might want to clarify your reasons for doing in an edit summary and on the article's talk page. If another editor reverts the changes you make, you should then try to resolve things per WP:DR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Maurice Magnus, the sentence in question is cited to two, presumably reliable, sources who are other scholars discussing Crews' work: one of them is hyperlinked, and to my limited understanding of critical terminology (much of which seems like gibberish to me) appears to corroborate the passage. Since a basic principle of Wikipedia is to summarise what other sources say about a subject, not what the subject wants said about themselves, Crews' own opinion is not our concern. The only reason for deleting the passage would be if it does not, in fact, accurately summarise (withoutsynthesis) what the sources say. If yet further sources (unconnected with Crews) assert something contradictory, then that too should be added (cited to those further sources) to show that different interpretations exist. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.75.168 (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Regarding Page Deletion
I would like to tell you that, My wikipedia page content has been deleted, someone mention me that, article is not allowed on this page. I am creating a famous person in West Bengal, India. I created Atanu Raychaudhuri Wiki Page, he is one of the most successful film presenter & advocate in Kolkata High Court, Wb, India. I want to ask you why my page has been deleted and how to recover this. Souvik4296 (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@D7869: welcome to the Teahouse. The article is currently semi-protected due to a high level of disruptive edits from new and unregistered users. Your account is autoconfirmed so you should be able to edit the article yourself, but please take care not to add any unsourced or poorly sourced information. Regards, --bonadeacontributionstalk10:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I have made a draft for a character and it was declined as it 'was not notible enought', however there are many other characters of the sort, so i was wondering why mine was declined. I added references aswell. Thanks MasterD.D. Patel (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
MasterD.D. Patel, you need to add more reliable sources to the article. Fandom is user-generated content, and is not considered reliable. The fact that pages about other characters exist is not a valid rationale for trying to get the page you wrote published. Giraffer(talk·contribs)09:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
MasterD.D. Patel, the Star wars site is reliable for things relating to Star Wars, but is it is not independent, which is equally important for establishing notability. Wikipedia basically doesn't care what Lucasfilm say about the character, only what people who have no connection with them have chosen to publish. --ColinFine (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Use of Alternate Language Wikimedia files
Hello!
How do I insert a file from another wikimedia language page? Some images are absent from the English wikimedia category page, but are present in another language. For instance, in English it's easy as the files start with "File:". If I link the image name from Italian or Russian, for example, I place this Файл:Пётр Петрович Глебов.jpeg and no image is inserted (page does not exist). Thanks in advance, I am trying to flesh out a page for a Russian film which is becoming popular in English~~ Knightoften (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@Knightoften: Well, there are two ways. First, you could just upload it to the English Wikimedia Commons. Also, you could save it to your Hard Drive, and click on the image icon when editing the page. Click on upload, and choose the file. This *should* work. EGL123404:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@EGL1234: Thank you for your reply! I decided to just upload it on the English commons, but I'll keep in mind that I can upload something directly as well. Cheers! Knightoften (talk)
I'd like to add a couple of caveats to EGL1234's reply. If the file is freely licensed as required by Commons, then you can upload it to Commons. (There is no "English Wikimedia Commons"). I believe there is a tool to help with this, but I don't recall whether it's in Commons itself or in English Wikipedia - if the latter, it may not be available in other editions.
@ColinFine: I assumed there were different wikimedia sites per language, since like I said, Файл:Пётр Петрович Глебов.jpeg exists on the Russian page in a category, but on the English page the category is blank (and also the file itself does nothing here in English when I try to link it). I am not well versed in these matters, so I thank you for your response as well. My belief was since it exists in one place, why not another? Knightoften (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Knightoften, there is one Wikimedia Commons, and the files stored in it may each have descriptions in many languages. Commons accepts only freely licensed material - either public domain, or material that has been explicitly released by its own on a suitable licence. In addition, each edition of Wikipedia may allow files to be uploaded, but their policies vary: I believe the de-wiki does not accept non-free material at all. English Wikipedia does, but only if it meets all of the WP:NFCC. I don't know ru-wiki's policy, but I suspect that it is less restrictive than en-wiki: if so, a file that is accepted at ru-wiki may or may not be accepted at en-wiki. When you link to a file, it will pick up that file from the local Wikipedia if it exists, and if not, from Commons: it will not pick up the file from any other Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Knightoften. I'm afraid that the screenshot you uploaded to Commons is likely going to need to be deleted per c:Commons:Screenshots, unless you can verify that either (1) you hold the copyright of the film And Quiet Flows the Don (1958 film) or (2) the copyright holder of the film has given you their consent to upload the screenshot to Commons. So, if unable to provide evidence of either of those two things, I think it would be best for you to follow the instructions given in c:Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#G7 and request that the file be speedily deleted. It's OK if you just made a mistake, but you might want to carefully read through c:Commons:Licensing before trying to upload anymore files to Commons for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: I am not well versed in these matters, so I thank you for your response as well. I had read them, but my belief was that since it exists in one place, why not another? This is why I reached out in the first place. What I will do is as user:EGL1234 secondarily suggested, and upload it directly without using Wikimedia Commons, and then ask for it to be speedily deleted from the Commons. Knightoften (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@Knightoften: While I appreciate that you uploaded the file in good faith, as ColinFine explained above, each language Wikipedia project has its own rules and policies when it comes to the image use; so, what they do at Russian Wikipedia has no impact on English Wikipedia. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite strict as explained here and it is this policy which needs to be satisfied. Since I think the file's non-free use currently doesn't satisfy that policy, I've tagged it for speedy deletion; if you disagree with this assessment, please follow the instructions given in the deletion template I added to the file's page or in the notification template I added to your user talk page. Finally, while I think EGL1234 answer to your question was somewhat helpful in explaining some technical aspects about uploading a file, their answer didn't touch on the copyright aspects of doing so, which is something that is much more important per WP:IUP#COPYRIGHT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Thank you for your additional responses. I would have preferred it if you didn't tag it for speedy deletion since now I have to scramble to ensure everything within a short period of time; I marked the commons image for speedy deletion myself as you suggested, but here I think I have a case. I do think that it's non-free use satisfies the policy; perhaps I wasn't thorough enough in my reasoning which I listed on the image page. Most of all my edits have been in the last two months, so I haven't been doing this for very long, so thank you for bearing with me. It is slightly disconcerning that the deletion windows are narrower than even on the Commons page, only 2 days to contest a deletion assessment, my my. I will try to do as you instructed, leaving a (Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>), and filling it out. The original justification posted to the Russian wikipedia was the same as that required by the English, but perhaps I missed writing something out additionally or didn't write it in the correct place. Please bear with me. Cheers! Knightoften (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Define a inappropriate discussion for the relava topic
CommanderWaterford: please note that in English "responsible" (note the spelling) does not mean "capable of being answered". Your reply is likely to be misunderstood by English speakers who do not know French or Spanish.--ColinFine (talk) 12:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I looked at some of your editing history. Appears that the issue is that on Talk pages of articles, you have been adding your own personal observations on the topic, hence relevant to the topic but not appropriate due to policy of Wikipedia Talk pages. Talk pages are not a forum for editors to exchange information with each other. Instead, content is supposed to be specifically for disputes about content in the article. I hope this explanation makes sense. David notMD (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
3rr and counter-vandalism
Sorry for asking (I'm fairly new to the counter-vandalism side of Wikipedia and don't want to get myself into any hot water), but if an editor insists on repeat obvious and blatant vandalism of a page, does the 3rr apply to me when reverting back to an accepted version of the page? Should I stop reverting at 3rd edit and allow someone else to revert (if anyone notices) or is it ok to continue reverting? Obviously, I will have left warnings on the user page and possibly reported to ARV. thank you for your time :) Tommi1986talk!12:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@Tommi1986: Yes, apart from with obvious vandalism. You should just report it to an admin here. But remeber to put the tag subst:An3-notice on the person you are reporting's talk page. EGL123412:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Looks like you handled it properly. An IP address vandalized the same article eleven times in a two hour period (!!). You and other editors reverted all edits. You posted progressive vandalism warnings on the IPs Talk page. And then you filed the Admin report. David notMD (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
If I find an editor with username violating username policy then how do I get to know that the user has already changed his name or he does not know about it? ExclusiveEditor (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@ExclusiveEditor: You could look at the user page and user talk page to see if they've been notified or blocked. If notified, you could look at the user's contributions to see if they're still editing after being notified. GoingBatty (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
What happens if a review is inactive?
I am currently reviewing a GA-article but the nominator last edited on February 20, 2021. What happens if the nominator continues to remain inactive? If they remain inactive by the end of February, do I then mark the review as a failing grade? --AlabamaFan101 (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC) AlabamaFan101 (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi AlabamaFan101, I'm a little concerned about you doing GA reviews, as (unless you've had prior accounts) you are a very new editor and are unlikely to be familiar with a lot of writing requirements and norms here. Usually GARs are done by editors who have gone through the process themselves and are quite familiar with the process. In regards to the Saquon Barkley review, that appears to be a bit of a drive-by nomination by another (relatively) inexperienced editor who has only made 9 edits to the page. A quick read by me found a number of issues that I would have flagged in a GAR and which you may not be familiar enough with yet to bring up. I would perhaps hold off on further reviews until you're more familiar with Wikipedia's manual of style and sourcing requirements. Alyo(chat·edits)00:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi AlabamaFan101. Since articles aren't really WP:OWNed by any one particular contributor, I don't see why it would matter that the editor who nominated the article for a GA review is no longer around if the article otherwise meets the standards for GA status. You might want to ask about this at WT:GAN since that's where you're going to find other GA reviewers who probably can help clarify what needs to be done in a case like this. Finally, just a personal observation: your account is only about a week old, but perhaps you've been editing for much longer than that. While I don't think that means you cannot carry out a GA-review of an article per WP:GAI#Reviewing, I think that GA reviewers are generally expected to have a proven track record when it comes to article creation, even perhaps a history of creating GA articles themselves. The fact that you're asking a question like this at the Teahouse might be seen as not a good sign for someone reviewing articles GA status. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
You asked earlier if your doing GA reviews would speed the process of getting reviewers for articles you nominated for GA. The answer is still "No." David notMD (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Mea culpa. I may have been the one to suggest the editor do GA reviews, since there is a large backlog. I should have been more careful with that comment. RudolfRed (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Actually, bamafan volunteered to take up GA reviewing - which is great - because the backlog is huge. I am just hoping that bamafan understands all the criteria to consider. David notMD (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Alyo and David notMD, I have two articles that are waiting for review (and yes, I will be patient waiting). I am familiar with the GA-criteria. I am aware that articles aren't owned by people. I apologize for asking anything like this at the teahouse. Is there anyway I can withdraw from the Saquon Barkley review and let someone else review it instead? Also, RudolfRed you did suggested that I would take up a GA reviewing. I eventually took one but I'm not going to continue with anymore reviews regardless of what happens with the Saquan Barkley review. --AlabamaFan101 (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@AlabamaFan101: You don't need to apologize for asking for assistance at the Teahouse. If what I posted above gave you that impression, then my apologies to you. I was just trying to say in a clumsy sort of way is that GA status is a fairly substanital upgrade in article status when it comes to article WP:ASSESSMENTs; so, I'd imagine that such reviews are not really a good way for new or newish editors to try and establish themselves as an editor since they might not be familiar with the process or other things related to Wikipedia. If you feel up to the task, then be WP:BOLD and best of luck to you. You can always ask a more established GA reviewer to look over your reviews if you want or are stuck on something since asking for help is probably the way most editors learn how to do things on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@Marchjuly:@David notMD:@Alyo: This will be the last thing (or question6 I say on this section. I’m just going to go ahead and either put the Saquan Barkley article review on hold or withdraw from the review and ask another reviewer to review the Saquan Barkley article. In the mean time, I will either find another article to review (if necessary), find new articles to work on, or find articles to both work on and nominate it to GA-status. I am familiar with the GA-criteria. I will return to this page if I have any questions. —AlabamaFan101 (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
AlabamaFan101 I just want to second what Marchjuly said above--this isn't meant at all to be a personal criticism and we're very happy that you came here to ask questions. GAR is a backlogged process and working there is a perfectly admirable goal. While I would encourage you to perhaps go through the GAR process with your own article first, I don't say any of this to mean that you can't learn very quickly: there's just a lot of components that go into a well-crafted Wikipedia article, and it's unlikely you've seen them all in a week (again, assuming you haven't had a prior account). I've been editing for over a decade and the one GA I have took months to bring up to snuff--and I still wouldn't review another person's GA without having a more experienced reviewer look over my comments to see if I'd missed anything. If you would like to chat more about the Barkley page just as an exercise in article quality review, just let me know. :) Alyo(chat·edits)16:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey there! I was practicing editing and accidentally published a page prematurely. I took out the text but still need to delete the page. Could someone help me? Thank you. Here is the page. Grimothy29 (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Celliant Page edits reverted and is now incorrect and out of date
Hello, I recently made substantial changes to the Celliant Wikipedia page. I did this because what is currently there is badly out of date and incorrect in many instances and the creators of Celliant would like their wiki page to accurately reflect their product. My changes included numerous references and sources and notes about what I had changed. Today I learned that the edits were reverted. How can we get them changed back to the edits I made so Celliant's Wiki page can be accurate? Here is a link to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celliant
@rudolphred Ok, I read about disclosing that I'm associated with Celliant. But it's not clear what I need to do differently. I registered as independent user. I also don't agree that they was 'highly promotional' edits. I worked to put only facts that were clearly backed with sources as I put at least 27 links to outside sources. What can I do to make changes to the page? To put it plainly, if this is an encyclopedia, the entry on Celliant is currently incorrect and out of date.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BayekOsiris (talk • contribs) 10:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
If you are "associated with Celliant", you need to disclose your relationship: please read WP:COI and make any relevant disclosures. I also agree that your edits were highly promotional because it reads like an advertisement. In fact, you've copied text from Celliant's website, which is a copyright violation. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV before you edit further. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 02:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
You can "not agree" all you want but the content you added was so profoundly promotional that it read like it was lifted directly from the company's website, where they hawk their products—and indeed it was. The history has now been revision deleted to remove this copyright violation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@Hoary @GoingBatty Hi all, thanks for the input. Yes language will seems similar/same as Celliant's website as there really is only a few acceptable ways to talk about the product, its benefits, and how it works in order to be accurate and for legal reasons. But I have tried to put only factual language and completely respect the wiki ethos. Really, I just want the Celliant entry to be accurate and up to date. But there may be no way around the language issue as, I said, there are only certain ways, phrases and words that are to be used in describing Celliant. Regarding external links to back up the claims, there were links to independent studies done at highly reputable institutions that are used to show Celliant's efficacy. And then any external links that were relevent to any other claim being made, which we tried to put as many as possible. Finally, apologies for the Registered mark and TM, that's my error I didn't realize that note about not needing them here, I actually the opposite idea for some reason.
Just to follow up, I'll try editing the page again soon, incorporating everything I've learned here to get it right. Thanks all!— Preceding unsigned comment added by BayekOsiris (talk • contribs)
BayekOsiris Wikipedia cares not at all about what Hologenix wants to say about its product, Celliant. Even if you manage to paraphrase it rather than copy off the Celliant website, that will add nothing to the notability. That goes the same for the clinical trials, either published in journals (one? two?) or all the unpublished studies. WP:MEDRS applies, which means that individual clinical trials are not valid references, even if published. Only what entirely independent, reliable sources have written about the product can count. The article has been nominated for deletion. David notMD (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Per your Talk page, there is now a required request that you describe your connection to the company on your User page. MAKE NO EDITS prior to being in compliance. If you are in fact compensated by Hologenix, you are prohibited from directly editing the article. Your only path is to describe changes you what to be made on the Talk page of the article. You are allowed to comment at the deletion page. David notMD (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
What makes a GREAT Wikipedia page?
Hey guys, there are obviously technicalities that make a page great but, personally, from your experiences, what ultimately makes a GREAT Wikipedia page?
Quality and popularity (the latter confirmed by page views). A small percentage of articles are either GA or FA and get more than one million views per year. David notMD (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Nicolasnudo! If you're thinking about drafting an article, I want to let you know that it's one of the most difficult tasks for a new editor. However, of course, that difficulty makes it fulfilling to do correctly, and I'm sure there would be editors (myself included) who would be willing to help out. Like David noted, featured articles and good articles are what we've decided are the best Wikipedia has to offer, so finding two or three of them on a topic you're interested in and reading them could give you a better idea of what really makes a great article. If you are thinking about creating an article, we encourage you to read through 'Your first article'. TheTechnician27(Talk page)22:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
How to add a wiki article about someone in my family.
I would like to publish an article about a notable member of my immediate family, but according the wiki help page, that is discouraged. Is there a way to ask some third-party wiki expert about publishing this article instead? I can help by gathering references and sources and such... Brownray8309 (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Brownray8309. There's really no such thing as a wiki expert, but you're definitely right that creating it yourself would be discouraged. What would probably happen in this case is that we'd ask you to read 'Your first article' (YFA) if you haven't already. If you earnestly believe your family member meets our notability criteria outlined in YFA, you could try to track down an editor who's willing to research the subject and see if they agree that they meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. That same editor or someone else could then create a draft of the article. So long as you give a disclosure on your User page, you could be involved by discussing possible additions to the draft on its associated talk page. TheTechnician27(Talk page)00:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I believe that TT27's reply is not correct. WP:COI addresses how to create a draft of an article if you have a connection to the person. Therefore, disclose and use YFA to create a draft. Be as complete as possible, but do know that only what can be verified by reliable source citations can be included. Only after an article exists are people with a COI advised to request further changes on the Talk page of the article rather than editing directly. David notMD (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Need guidance on copied text
Hi all,
I have been making minor fixes to the William Perry page. I was going to try to fix the major issue it's marked for, which is lack of citations, so I went back through the page history. If you go to the page history and go to oldest, you can see
"23:13, 7 June 2004 Jiang talk contribs 32,229 bytes +31,250 PD text from http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/secdef_histories/bios/perry.htm"
This edit summary appears to imply that all the text was copied over from this source? The link to the source no longer works so I am unable to check; however a search of exact phrases from the text reveals this link.
Based on this, it seems to me that large sections, possibly the majority, of this wikipedia article are not only unsourced but completely copied from the US defense government website.
@Ganbaruby: Thank you for linking, I didn't know. Does that mean it's okay to have copied the text into an article? I don't have much experience in this- I know on TV show pages, you can't copy over the episode descriptions, you have to write it in your own words, etc. But since it's under public domain, is Wikipedia policy fine with copying it for the article? Apathyash (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@Ganbaruby: Thank you for clearing that up! Can the lack of citations banner now be removed? The rest of the article has citations, the largely un-cited section is from that government site. Apathyash (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@Apathyash: We would still like an inline citation for all those unsourced paragraphs though. The source is named Historical Office William J. Perry; just place that reference at the end of paragraphs that cite it. If the source doesn't cite it, try to find another source, and if you can't find one, put Template:citation needed. You'll have to go through the entire article, but then it would be safe to remove the banner. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 01:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
File: Advertisement for Johnson Arms Inc conversion of US Military M1 Carbines to the Johnson MMJ 5.7mm Spitfire Cartridge.jpg
I am having issues trying to figure out if something is free or fair use. An advertisement originally published in 1963 for a company long since defunct, whose owner passed away in 1965. There is no copyright notice on the ad which was originally published in Shotgun News in either 1963 or 1964. Retrieved from a website http://www.uscarbinecal30.com/forum/carbine-ads-in-shotgun-news-19601975_topic2550.html. The item would be used on Wikipedia to demonstrate one of the adaptations commonly advertised at that time, specifically referenced to the Wikipedia article on the "M1 carbine" heading "Commercial copies" How could this be used to illustrate that portion of the article? Smaugmra (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@Smaugmra: There's two aspects to consider here. The first is the obvious one of whether or not the ad itself is free. The second is if the person that took the picture made that picture free. Unless you took those pictures or the image taker specified that the picture is under a compatible license, you cannot put it onto Wikipedia. See WP:IUPC. You haven't made it clear which image you're trying to use, but I don't think any could be used as fair use either (you'll have to have a really good reason based on WP:NFCCP). In short, when in doubt, don't use it. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 01:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
There is no on-WP process as such, but at places like WP:RSN editors ask and responds to questions about what sources are good for what content. There's no "one size fits all" here. It may interest you to know that WP uses nofollow. WP wants reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If you started a website today, getting there will probably take years, if it ever happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Get accredited subject-matter experts to write for you, and sources considered reliable to discuss yours positively. For an example of how this has happened, see TorrentFreak (its entry at WP:RSP: "Most editors consider TorrentFreak generally reliable on topics involving file sharing. Editors note references to the website in mainstream media. The source may or may not be reliable for other topics.") Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Batball (game)
1) I have invented a new sports. I have acquired a copyright for it. I want to upload a link for its rules in reference without compromising its copyright protection. How can I do that.
2) I want to add a box of characteristics of my sport like you can see in other sports articles. How can I do that?
3) I want to add an intro but when I edit the page it is showing my intro after the contents box. Sangharsh Nirvana (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
In short, creating an article like this is WP:TOOSOON. Only when the world has taken notice of your game and independent reliable sources have commented on it would it be feasible to have an article here. You are wasting your time trying to use Wikipedia to gain advertising for a new game, see WP:PROMOTION, which is not allowed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I want to add an intro but when I edit the page it is showing the intro after the contents box.
I want to upload a link in reference section for a pdf of a publicly available book of which I have copy on my laptop. How can I do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangharsh Nirvana (talk • contribs) 18:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Sangharsh Nirvana. Not to pile on, but it really is in your best interests to understand this unequivocally, so you don't waste your own time: You will never, ever succeed in having an article on this game at Wikipedia at this time, nor to have any mention of it remain in any existing article. The very nature of an encyclopedia prevents it. Until the game has been substantively written about by reliable, secondary, independent sources, no use of it is warranted, anywhere. (In other words, the draft in your sandbox will be rejected as an article.) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I would also point out, Sangharsh Nirvana, that by publishing that draft in your sandbox, you have irrevocably released it under a CC-BY-SA licence. In other words, you have already given permission (which you cannot withdraw) for anybody in the world to reuse or alter the material you have published in your sandbox, for any purpose, commercial or not, as long as they credit where they took it from. This may not be what you intended, but it is what you have done. That is exactly why the "Save changes" button was renamed "Publish changes". --ColinFine (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Good point, although I wonder if the OP really means "copyright". He or she is using that word, but none of the surrounding content really make sense with that form of intellectual property. (It sounds like they might be talking about a patent and/or trademark.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
References for a Page
How should we cite a reference that is used multiple times. For example I got a good reference that gives me the cast name. Should I cite the page at the end or in the beginning? Please leave the answer on my talk page. AppleAKB (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi AppleAKB. There a few ways to cite the same source multiple times in an article, but the most common is probably to use the WP:REFNAME syntax. As for the second part of your question, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Generally, it's best to place a citation as close as possible to the content it's intended to support per WP:INTEGRITY, but if it's a short sentence or paragraph and the source cited pretty much supports all the information contained therein, then it would be OK just to add the citation to the end of the sentence/paragraph. Finally, for furture reference, a Teahouse answer often benefits not only the person asking the question, but also others who might have the same or similar question. So, posts which have been responded to are archived after a few days. For this reason, Teahouse questions are going to be answered here pretty much all of the time, and not the user talk pages of those asking the questions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Unable to get wikipedia page of 'Sonu Goel' published
Dear Wikipedia Team:
Hello from India! We sent a page of Dr. Sonu Goel who is a well known personality in public health for publication, however it was denied with the following comments:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
Can any one of you help in drafting the version as desired to be published in wikipedia. I am willing to share the page with any one of you. Request you to help me in this.
Rakeshsipher Hello and welcome. Who is "we"? Group accounts are not permitted, each account is for the exclusive use of a single individual. If you work for or represent Dr. Goel, you will need to review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures.
The draft reads more like a resume and less like an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not just for telling the world about someone and their accomplishments, it is for summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. I'd suggest reading Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 06:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Courtesy link:Draft:Sonu Goel@Rakeshsipher: I'll give you some advice. The most important thing is that you put in way too much info, considering the only sources are his papers and YouTube videos. It needs to be much shorter if you have no profiles of him to support his notability. He won't pass the WP:GNG guidelines, but he might meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria. The guidelines for scholars and academics are different than those for non-scholars. I looked him up on Google scholar and saw his papers are cited 1227 times, but he's the co-author - never the sole author. That affects his notability a bit, but perhaps someone more knowledgeable about the notability guidelines can comment. But start by removing 90% of this, particularly things that aren't sourced. You can save the removed text for future use if there are better sources, but it won't help you now. If you can cull the info and get down to the most important info, there then needs be some copy and syntax editing. Ref tags come after punctuation, and there are no spaces between the refs and text. This discussion can be continued on the talk page, where I started a discussion with this text as well, and you can always ping me for additional advice. Good luck. TimTempleton(talk)(cont)07:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Laney145, the best way to create a new article is to create a draft, and then submit it through our 'Articles for Creation' process, where an experienced editor will come and review it, and if it passes, move it to mainspace as an article. To get started, take a look at WP:Your first article. Giraffer(talk·contribs)08:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
If a particular word is linked to a particular page,do I need to link the word to the page for the whole article or once will suffice?E.g.:the Ozone Layer page where stratosphere was repeated but only linked once. Laney145 (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Per User talk:Zamilgroup the editor is indefinitely blocked until making a name change and explaining that understands the reasons for the Sandbox Speedy deletion and will not try that (promotional content) again. David notMD (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I´ve created a new page, but since my account is new, I guess it has to be approved by the editors before final publication. Where can I see if that is the case? Where can I check the status of the review? Do I get e-mail notifications when they suggest changes?
@Boglarka Mihaly: Welcome to the Teahouse! As far as I can tell, you have not actually submitted your draft for review, so just add "{{subst:submit}}" to the top of the draft, and then it will be reviewed by an AfC reviewer shortly. You will get email notifications, because the AfC reviewing script automatically adds talk page messages when the reviewer leave's a comment, so as long as you've enabled those in your preferences, you should be good! JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master?13:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Your Draft won't be in the (long) queue for review until you submit it by adding the template {{subst:submit}} right a the top of the page. However, I can tell you that at present the draft has no chance of being accepted as virtually all the citations are to the website of the company, which makes them WP:PRIMARY sources. In order to show that the company is notable, you need several secondary, reliable sources where third-parties have discussed the company in detail and done so independently of any information from press releases or interviews. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Boglarka Mihaly. Remember that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Ryhym bancey, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I'm not sure quite what you are asking, but I suspect that, like many people, you have a misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is, and how to use it. You have put some material about yourself on your user page - that is acceptable, but the principal purpose of your user page is to share information about you and your interests as a Wikipedia editor. Please do not attempt to turn your user page into an article about you. In fact, please do not attempt to use Wikipedia to write about yourself: writing about yourself is strongly discouraged here, and an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. If you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability - roughly, that several people who have no connection to you have chosen to write about you in places like major newspapers, or books from major publishers - then there can be an article about you. You are strongly discouraged from writing it yourself, or getting somebody to write it for you; and if one is written, it will not belong to you, you will not control the contents, and it may end up saying things that you don't want said. Wikipedia is not a place to promote yourself or your activities. --ColinFine (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
New Entry?
I am interested in creating a new entry for a nonprofit that I work with. We're hoping it can be a place for obvious information about the organization but also a place where references and resources about the organization can be collected for use by researchers, etc.
Mamaochio Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that you have a common misconception about what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place for organizations to tell the world about themselves. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is not interested in what an organization wants to say about itself, only in what others completely unaffiliated with the organization say about it. Most people in your position have great difficulty writing in such a manner- you need to forget everything you know about your organization and only write based on the content of independent sources. If you nevertheless want to attempt to write such an article, you should review Your First Article and create a draft using Articles for Creation. If you just want to tell the world about your organization, you should use social media, your own website, or some other alternative outlet where that is permitted.
Hi, Brozovera, and welcome to the Teahouse! There are a lot of ways to create a citation with a URL and a title, but the easiest is in visual editing mode. When you go to the top of the page, there's an icon named 'Cite'. If you click it and select 'Cite web' (you can also select 'Cite news', 'Cite journal', or 'Cite book' if those are more applicable), then you can place the URL in the 'URL' box and the title in the 'Title' box. There are other fields for other useful information about the citation, such as when the sourced was published it, when you accessed it, etc. Hope this helps! TheTechnician27(Talk page)17:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, when I made an edit to a page (Steve Young) it was reverted, but instead of saying on the page history "Reverted 1 edit by BeanieFan11" it said "Reverted 1 pending edit by BeanieFan11". The page did say edits by unregistered and new users would be pending, but I've been here since November and already have Extended Confirmed and even Autopatrolled. Why do the edits I make to those pages need to be reviewed? Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@Ganbaruby I made an edit on the test page. On the page history there was the normal white color surrounding the edit. But when I revert an edit there is a light blue color surrounding it and at the end it says "[automatically accepted]". And, when I make an edit to the page (Including other pages with pending changes), instead of saying "Publish changes", it says "Submit changes". Am I still considered a "New User". Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
KANFSAND Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As Naomi Biden was not alive for very long, unfortunately, there is likely not enough information for an entire article about her. She is mentioned in her father's article(Joe Biden). 331dot (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey guys, can you check Mvcg66b3r's latest edits, He has been removing PSIP from Broadcast stations' channels column in infoboxes and stuff lately without edit summaries. So, is anyone sure about his latest contributions?, because Virtual channels could still use PSIP. LooneyTraceYT (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Here's what Sammi Brie had to say on her talk page: "Oh, one more thing! "PSIP" is only extant in ATSC 1.0, so while I'm already an evangelist for dropping (PSIP) from these infoboxes, it's probably even better to do with stations involved in an ATSC 3.0 arrangement. FYI, ATSC 3.0 permits services to have major channel numbers that are three digits, and per a perusal of SiliconDust's forums, most ATSC 3.0 test stations do this by simulcasting channel 7.1 on 107.1 and so on." Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@LooneyTraceYT: Yep! This and also, in my view, (PSIP) is extraneous information to include in an infobox. It's like "Elevators: 6 (tractor)" or, worse, "Elevators: 4 (lifts)" (because this style propagated to countries not using ATSC, you'd get "Virtual: 1 (LCN)" which is redundant). When in doubt, ask yourself about MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Submit?
First time that I've submitted anything. WikiHow says to submit a draft to click submit in the AfC header. I don't see that header. What am I doing wrong? Malicorneus (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Greetings, wikiworld. I'm a tragically experienced professional editor (writer when coerced) dipping a pinky toe into these waters. I've completed the tutorial, created a funky, fictional page, and read much of the supplemental material. Seeking to build my wikifolio (is that a thing?) and simply asking for advice on getting started. Any/all thoughts, suggestions, hard advice, greatly appreciated.
Hi Danceswithedits, cool username! As an editor, you may be interested in joining the Guild of Copy Editors and freeing Wikipedia pages from poor phrasing and bad grammar. On the other hand, perhaps you're sick of editing and would like to try something else - the Wikipedia Task Center is a great way to find ways to help out. Finally, the thing that drives Wikipedia is love - so if there's something you're passionate about, go find articles or WikiProjects on that subject and start improving them! One etiquette thing - sign your posts on talk pages like this by putting four tildes in a row (~, like that, plus three more). Wikipedia will automatically replace them with your name and a timestamp. Happy editing! Ganesha811 (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the excellent reply. After nearly 3 decades editing, doubtful I'll get sick of editing. I'll look into your recommendations asap. Thanks again!Danceswithedits (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Danceswithedits, there's masses of writing that's waffly or sycophantic. For a quick way to find plenty, try googling "at the tender age" site:en.wikipedia.org. An article that perpetrates this silliness is very likely to have a lot more bad writing. You can helpfully (and perhaps enjoyably) clean up some of these articles, but you're likely to find that some are so utterly promotional (their subjects people of such minor notability) that they should just be deleted. Don't yet propose them for deletion; instead, make a note of their titles, so when you're more experienced and have a better idea of what you should do about them, you'll be able to find them. -- Hoary (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you as well. Very familiar with that sort of silliness from other venues. Can't imagine I'll propose deletions for the time being, but thank you for the note taking recommendation. Made my first wiki edit on an Ivory Soap section. Good, clean fun! Danceswithedits (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@Danceswithedits: Greetings, and welcome. In a similar vein, if I may: My sister is an admin who has done a lot of work around articles about cities and towns and places which are barely places. Her pet peeve word in these articles is "nestled"--"Smallville, East Dakota, is an unincorporated town nestled in the eastern Insignificant Valley"....as opposed to it being, say, plunked down hard? (eyeroll) In any case, there's a lot of rules and guidelines to keep in mind around here, but as long as you're acting in good faith you'll do just fine. Happy editing! --Finngalltalk01:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Article makeover
Hi, I am new here, so hello to everybody :o)
Would anybody has some time to check and authorize upload for an makeover I wrote for an article?
I am not sure if this is the right place to ask.... Wikigetsme123 (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi thank you, the article that is at Gympie pyramid as very poor, based only on assumptions people made over the decades, and written from a collection of news paper articles, which I inspected in copies at the library.So instead of adding 80% I created a new one, which includes the main article. Everything what I wrote can be easel y sourced and I included the links. I delete the 'conclusion'. I read and watched nearly everything to that pyramid and have been on site, made photos. So everything is based in facts. Can I upload and we see from there? Wikigetsme123 (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I already advised someone to delete the articles photo, because it was showing a hill nearby, not the pyramid. Also I found two web links dead in the article and they were deleted. When I deleted them, my actions were reversed. so as I said, the article is a disgrace but nobody bothered for years. Now there is me honestly trying to upgrade it, and I experience only rejections.
I understand that several semi profs here fight daily for consistency and high standards, but you ave to let new editors be a bit, and don't stop them at their first move. There is not much to discuss about the old article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigetsme123 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Wikigetsme123. You appear to be discussing ways to improve the article on the article's talk page with another editor; so, my suggestion to you would be to continue to do so since that's one of the ways articles are improved over time. Generally, Wikipedia encourages to WP:PRESERVE existing content whenever possible; lots of articles are WP:IMPERFECT and can be improved in some way, but sometimes the process can be a bit slow and time consuming. Wikipedia does encourage us to be WP:BOLD in our editing and fix things we feel need fixing, but sometimes we can be too bold and try to do too much at once. Since Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project, we sometimes have to slow down and be WP:CAUTIOUS by seeking WP:CONSENSUS and involving others. Having an edit you make reverted can be certainly be frustrating, but it's something that happens to us all and is something that is part of the Wikipedia process; so, try not to take it personally siince most editors are WP:HERE trying to improve things just as you are. If you're reverted and the reason isn't clear, then try and seek clarification from the editor who reverted you. Wikipedia has quite a lot of policies and guidelines that article content is expected to comply with and even really experienced editors aren't familiar with them all.Some other things you might not be aware of when it comes to Wikipedia. Wikipedia article content is really only intended to reflect what reliable sources have stated about subject; there's lots of information that's true, but Wikipedia is more interested in what can be verified. So, if you're able to track down reliable sources about the pyramid, then such content possibly can be added to the article. As long as you don't synthesize what you find or try and interpret it yourself, it will probably OK to add to the article. If anyone disagrees with the changes you make and reverts you, try and address their concerns through article talk page discussion per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. As for photos or other images of the pyramid, please take a look at Wikipedia:Image use policy for more details. You might also want to take a look at c:Commons:Licensing and Wikipedia:Copyright#Guidelines for images and other media files. The easiest photos to use will be ones that you yourself have taken since those will be ones that you own the copyright on. It's not impossible to upload photos, etc. taken/created by others, but it can be tricky because copyright laws vary from country to country and in some cases the copyright holder's consent may need to be obtained and formally verified. Since the pyramid is located in New Zealand, you might want to take a look at c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/New Zealand for some general information on New Zealand's copyright laws. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Marchjuly for the detailed explanation. That's the thing, I don't have the time to become a fully grown editor, I see an article that is causing damage in a tricky time, as the pyramid gets demolished in a highway project, people get misinformed or discouraged when finding this as first row in google, and Wiki and those responsible accepting that article over years should act quickly in this case. The article should not have been accepted, as it shows a collection of unfounded assumptions, same for the photo which was false, now deleted. And its suspected, I got told, that at least one editor has interests in the site and keeping that article this way. And now I try to change it and I get all the head wind. Ok, will try and post changes, which are actually just additions, into the pyramid talk page. Looking forward to more picky comments in stead of help. But thanks for explaining the process a bit more. Wikigetsme123 (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi again Wikigetsme123 Wikipedia tends to move much more slowly than the real world, partly because all editors are WP:VOLUNTEERS and partly because that's how it's been set up to work. See WP:NODEADLINES, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:RECENTISM for more on this. If there are factual errors in the article due that can be verified through citations to reliable sources, then those can and should be corrected. However, editors who create articles aren't required to maintain and verify that the content they created or added is still accurate as of today because no article is owned or is the responsibility of any one particular editor or group of editors. That is why Wikipedia wants us to be WP:BOLD and that is by being bold that most articles are maintained or kept up to date. So, if you think changes should be made to the article, then be BOLD and explain why the edits comply with relevant policies and guidelines when making the edit. If you do that, the chance of your edits being compeletely reverted will go way down.After looking at the page history for Gympie Pyramid, it seems you made only two edits (this and this) to the article. Your first edited replaced an existing category with a non-existent category and also replaced an existing external link with some links to YouTube videos; your second edit changed a section heading in a way that was not really in accordance with MOS:SECTIONCAPS or perhaps contexutally relevant. None of changes you made were explained and they weren't really clear improvements; moreover, the YouTube links might possibly be copyright violations or otherwise problematic per WP:ELNO and thus require further assessment. Another editor who seems to be more familiar with these types of things saw the changes you made, reverted you, explained why they did so here and then asked you to discuss things on the article talk page. This is an approach that is quite consistent with Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and not ususual at all; it had nothing to do with who made the edits, but rather the other editor's concern over the suitability of the edits. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Can Univision be semi protected due to a lot of vandalism on the page.
Hi ItsJustdancefan. The place to request such a thing is WP:RPP. If you're talking about Univision, that I'm not sure I would classify the recent edits made as vandalism as explained here; the edits might not be appropriate, but they do seem to be being made in good faith by someone who genuinely believes they are improvements. If you feel the edits aren't improvements, then perhaps it owuld be better for you to follow WP:BRD instead of requesting page protection. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I started a GAN and did something I probably shouldn't have done, is this OK?
The GAN nomination instructions page says:
Save the page. A bot will update the nomination on the GA nominations page to indicate that the article is being reviewed, and will use {{GANotice}} to let the nominator know that the article is being reviewed.
I, um, updated the nomination page myself, I didn't read it carefully. Is this OK? If it's not, what can I do? Also, is my username appropriate? I haven't been blocked yet, but you never know. (Or rather, I never know...) MEisSCAMMER(talk)Hello!01:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Demonstrating Notability with External News Sources
I recently submitted an article draft for a orchestra in my local area. I had only worked on the rough details of the article before hitting submit (thinking that it would take several months before a reviewer actually got around to reviewing the article) and expecting to add more to in the mean time. That being said, the reviewer came back in less than a day to decline the article due to a lack of demonstrated notability and lacking external sources.
I think I have fixed those problems now, but was hoping to get some additional guidance before submitting the article for a second review (not wanting to waste their time to just get declined again). The article in question is Draft:Mankato_Symphony_OrchestraShhmatt (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@Shhmatt: You may want to read Wikipedia:Avoid mission statements. The lead states that they are "well known" for their performances, while reference #4 calls them "Mankato's best kept secret" - which is it? Also, the external sources seem to be more like press releases than independent coverage. GoingBatty (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@Shhmatt: just an FYI, I've tried to clean-up the content of the article a bit. If you'd like, I can work with you while you continue to write it and publish it for you when it's satisfactory. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@Elliot321: I would very much appreciate that (I don't know what the best way to collaborate on an article is, is that just using the talk portion of a draft page?). Writing these kinds of articles is not necessarily my forte, but I do know lot of people that can help me find sources for the MSO so I felt like I had a good chance of having a go at it. In terms of just notoriety it felt like based on the other SW Minnesota music ensembles that do have pages on Wikipedia, that the MSO would have a similar level of notoriety. I usually hear the MSO mentioned in the same contexts as the Mankato_Area_Youth_Symphony_Orchestra, Govenaires_Drum_and_Bugle_Corps, and Minnesota_State_University_Marching_Band - so it seemed weird that MSO wasn't also part of that list. Shhmatt (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@Shhmatt: yeah, the talk page is generally the right place to collaborate on articles. An article like Mankato Area Youth Symphony Orchestra is kinda iffy - and someone might nominate it for deletion if more sources aren't found (the standards for notability used to be less strict). I do think the article you've created is notable, but more sources are always good, to improve coverage (obviously, more detail is better, but we generally avoid using groups' own statements for most things, as they are self-published sources). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Question on sources
what if you dont find any relevant sources that can back up some information that has nit been cited? Could I switch the information to fit my relevant sources ? Santanavictianny (talk) 06:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
what if you dont find any relavent sources that can back up some information without citation? Could I switch the information to fit my relavent sources ?
Santanavictianny (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Santanavictianny. You have given any real specific details in your question (e.g. an article name); so, it's a bit hard to give you a specific answer. Please take a look at WP:UNSOURCED for more details, but sometimes it might be OK to simply add a template like {{citation needed}} instead of simply removing the unsourced content; it's not necessarily wrong to remove unsourced content, but perhaps it's not always necessary to do so either particularly if it seems reasonable that a source could be find to support the unsourced content. In many cases, it may depend upon the the nature of the unsourced content. If it's a serious claim that might have WP:REALWORLD implications (particularly about a living person), then removal might be the best thing; however, if it's more of a minor claim unlikely to have a major impact if left in the article, then perhaps adding a maintenance template is OK as a temproary measure to give others a chance to try and find a source. As for the other part of your question, if you can find a source that contradicts what's unsourced in the article, then you can be WP:BOLD and edit the article to reflect the source you found. Sometimes, however, reliable sources may contradict one another and it's can be hard to know for sure which one is correct; in such cases, it might be better to re-phrase the content to reflect this disagreement among the sources instead of just picking one over the other, assuming that that WP:UNDUE is not a problem and the sources are for the most part considered to be equals in terms of their reliablility as a source for Wikipedia's purposes.Finally, please try to give a host the chance to respond before reposting the same question or a similar question. All Wikipedia editors are WP:VOLUNTEERs and sometimes you just need to be a bit patient when asking for assistance. If you want to add on or correct something you previously posted, it's not always necessary to start a new discussion. Since you're a student editor, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for some general information about how editors interact with each other via talk pages or noticeboards. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Is the tool to "Fix ambiguous links" broken?
Good evening, Teahousers.
I have an article which is still an incomplete draft, so I have {{Userspace draft}} at the top.
This creates a box which includes links to some tools, one of which is described as "Fix ambiguous links".
But when I click on that to run the tool, it gives the following error message:
This site can’t be reached
69.142.160.183 took too long to respond.
I have tried running it again several times, with the same result. Is this a known problem? Is there a work-around? Or who should I report it to?
Welcome to the Teahouse, Gronk Oz. It appears that the server for the tool is down but I'm not sure who to report that to. All this tool does is check for Wikilinks in the text of the Draft that go to disambiguation pages rather than directly to the correct page. I use a much simpler colour-based way to do that, from which I note that your link MD (which shows in orange for me) is the only one that needs attention. If you want to implement that colour-based mechanism, let me know and I'll dig out the instructions to set it up on your account. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
There is a page i came across..where the spellings and name of the person about whom the page is made are wrong..i wanted to change the title but don’t know how to do it Ibaadat (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I have one question regarding my page content. I created content for my business where I have discussed everything about my business along with other relevant information and relevant links. But I don't know what is promotional there or please let me know how we can write a company page which also not appear promotional. Dear, I need your help here. ButlerJan (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
ButlerJan (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Like others sometimes do, you seem to have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia does not have "company pages" written by and under the control of those companies, like a social media page would be. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with articles about companies, typically written by independent editors. Those articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself, only in what others unaffiliated with the company say about it. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves, even if they are not soliciting customers or selling something. For you to write an article about your company, you would need to forget everything you know about it and everything on your company website and only write based on the content of independent sources. Most people cannot do that. If you just want to tell the world about your company, you should use your own website, social media, or other forum where that is permitted.
@EGL1234:, While i am trying to login with my wikiaccount credentials result shows . Your account has been globally locked. Yesterday i got email with mention You are blocked from Wikidata for infinite. 45.118.105.26 (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I personally have always been extremely uncomfortable with hidden evidence and blocks that are not transparently explained. Anything that feels like its against due process rubs me the wrong way. But that is the way sockpuppetry cases are handled. Anyway, the block was issued at Wikidata. Here's the block log, from which you can see who blocked you, with the reason being "CheckUser", meaning that evidence indicated you were a sockpuppet of someone.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
What is "sockpuppet" exactly, means wiki tech team found that i have multiple accounts during CheckUser? If this is the reason then wiki tech team needs development. 😂🤣 I join wikipedia 23days ago. edit and learn how wiki works during my office time bcoz i don't have any officework in my office. Before some day i though why spending time on YouTube lets try wikipedia atleast gain some coding knowledge. That's it. I don't have any other accounts. Now i set my mind to create my own website and spending time there to writing blogs. 😊 Thanks with regards. 45.118.105.26 (talk) 05:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I cannot see what checkuser found on Wikidata exactly, and even if I were able to publish it somewhere on Wikipedia. In general, CheckUser is a powerfull tool because it has access to the connection IP/user account, and can also see the used browser. In this case, the checkuser seemed to be ironically a followup of this thread on the Wikidata Burecrat Noticeboard opened by Auramstate. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@Victor Schmidt:, Yes I User:Auramstate Open a discussion but as request not against of any user. i saw the particular user marked vote for delete even an entity have Viaf, worldcat number and an inter wikilinks and argument with other user to proof how the entity is notably. That's why i feel this is an undid subject thats no one noticed about the problem so i am set a notice to Wikidata Burecrat. everyone can read the conversation. My words r not intentionally nor pointed to abuse to the particularly user but the Wikidata Burecrat have to find out to the reported user's explanation. the user mention clearly he/she have multiple accounts and his/her words like *How can a new user found me that i am blocked and how can a new user get touch with burecart!!!!. really..😂🤣. Is this an explanation!, and the burecart decide that i am found guilty 😋 and my punishment is globally locked. Some one please tell to the wikimedia foundation please don't not allow several tools to new user they can find other user's activities! I can't stop laughing dude... Anyways i learnt lots within 23days of my wikipedia journey and it's a memorable. Thanks to all and special thanks to the tea house members and hosts. 45.118.105.26 (talk) 07:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
For anyone who's reading along, there was curious cross-wiki argy-bargy Z vs QW and QS vs IWI: [2][3][4][5] But Auramstate's global contribs have a different language distribution from those users. Anyone’s guess whom the checkuser found Auramstate to be the same as. (Aside: I couldn’t find an SPI for QW's original block here on EN.) I wonder about global CU locks, is there no documented SPI process on Meta? Fuhghettaboutit's observation about lack of transparency may be apt. Or it could be that I’m not looking in the right places. — Pelagic ( messages ) – (06:52 Thu 25, AEDT) 19:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@Pelagic: I would just note that before posting last night I looked at the global contributions of the blocking Steward, and I too was unable to find any such pertinent SPI or SPI analogue they use at Meta/Wikidata, et al. – despite finding his or her involvement in a variety of such cases--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Appears they have a light-weight procedure of requesting a steward lock without another formal SP investigation. Presumably a lot of cases are documented on other wikis before being escalated to global intervention. But what if they aren’t? (Apologies, I’m learning about this as I go.) With UCoC Enforcement on its way, I’m concerned that the idea of "long term abuse" could get broadened and there will be more undocumented lockings.
I just searched through https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global/2021-02 and couldn’t find anything pertinent. The instruction If the account name is grossly insulting or contains personal information please contact a steward privately ... wouldn’t seem to apply to the locked user, AFAICT.
I am actually worried about this case, but I get the feeling we would need someone with checkuser access on Wikidata. What currently is most concerning for me is wether the evidence behind the block was of technical or behavoiral nature, and the fact that it is nowhere realy documented. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@Victor Schmidt: Yeah, me too. Sure, the underltying reason could be legitimate but for all we know the OP is more like Josef K. than we know. Yes, Wikimedia's a private organization; we don't have courts nor treat our policies/guidelines like statutes but we properly care about the spirit of our guiding policies and cultural norms—and our culture in most areas is all about transparency. Not here. Even SPI cases are concerning in their lack of transparency but at least there we see some process playing out. If we did take up a more court-like process there would have been multiple notices required before a default judgment issued and could be enforced, which would be vacated in a heartbeat if lack of due process in its issuance was discovered.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
lowercase sigmabot III not archiving article Talk
I added the MiszaBot archiving template to Talk:List of multiplayer browser games a week ago but lowercase sigmabot III still hasn't archived it. Here's the code:
Giraffer, I was considering that but thought I'd ask here just in case. If nobody figures it out by the time this thread gets archived, I'll do that. Thanks for taking a look! Woodroar (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
This Question Is Kind Of Interesting To Me. I Tried To Create An Article Based Off Of Inanimate insanity. But It Showed Me A Decline Article
By Many Users. So How Come The Article Was Declined And Is Not On Wikipedia? Waistprate (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Dear editors and others of Wikipedia. Forgive me for I am new to this site. I have enjoyed using Wikipedia for as long as I can remember. However, after visiting the site so many times, I feel that somethings are missing. For those who don't have time to read every single piece of information on some historical or current leader. politician, etc, etc. They don't know how to get this information. I propose a couple of ideas for the templates.
Extended content
Ideas
What I am proposing is this.
Tenet: Progressive, Neutral or Conservative
With this, users and those visiting the site can learn what their favorite historical or current leaders' tenet is.
For example. Oda Nobunaga, Qin Shi Huang and Cao Cao were Progressive.
Sun Quan, Sanada Yukimura, Zhang Liao, Minamoto no Yoshitsune and Tokugawa Ieyasu were Neutral.
Adolf Hitler, Takeda Shingen and Zhuge Liang were Conservative.
These are just a couple of historical individuals to give you an idea.
Ideals: Ambition, Fame, Talent, Family, Determination, Mastery, Greed, or Justice.
With this, users and those visiting the site can learn what their favorite historical or current leaders ideals are.
Fame: Shimazu Yoshihiro and Minamoto no Yoshitsune
Talent: Toyotomi Hideyoshi and Kuroda Yoshitaka.
Greed: Dong Zhuo, Tokugawa Ieyasu, Matsunaga Hisahide and Lu Bu.
Justice: Sanada Yukimura, Hosokawa Tadaoki, Liu Bei, Zhuge Liang and Zhao Yun.
This give you an idea.
Tier: C, B, A or S.
With this, users and those visiting the site can learn what their favorite historical or current leaders tier.
S: Cao Cao, Oda Nobunaga, Zhang Liao, Zhuge Liang, Qin Shi Huang, Minamoto no Yoshitsune and Toyotomi Hideyoshi.
12: Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi and Kuroda Yoshitaka.
11: Imagawa Yoshimoto.
This gives you an idea.
If these ideas are added to templates, it should help users and newcomers learn must faster and more efficiently on what or who they wish to learn about. It doesn't have to just apply on people, but policies, groups, organizations or whatever it can be applied to.
This is what I propose to help Wikipedia help those who want to known this type of information is essential to any avid leader or newcomer. Like with everything, Wikipedia must move forward. If not, those who do not are doomed to fail. That is all I have to propose at the moment. Azuchi1579 (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@Azuchi1579: Clearly, you've put a lot of thought into this idea. However, that may be the problem in adopting it here because the nature of Wikipedia is exactly opposite of that, disallowing any form of original research. Instead, as an encyclopedia, we write about what reliable sources have written about a subject. Even if there were reliable sources that had "pigeon-holed" people in exactly this way, I'm sure there would be other reliable sources that would disagree, making it incorrect for us to just pick one or to do any form of synthesis to try to make it fit this model. Instead, we neutrally summarize the different points of view of those sources. (See the blue links and the other pages to which they link for the related policies and guidelines.) —[AlanM1 (talk)]—16:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@Grantastik: To add to what others have said here, there's a decently high threshold for an article to be considered of Mid importance to a WikiProject, at least as far as precedent is concerned. Just as an example, articles such as 2008 United States presidential election and the 2001 anthrax attacks are categorized as Mid-importance articles for WikiProject United States. 'Low' importance is essentially the norm the overwhelming majority of articles, and this importance is separate from its quality scale (see: WP:ASSESS). As I've come to understand it, a 'Top' priority article is one where it would be majorly detrimental to a WikiProject to not have an article about it (as an example, Joe Biden, Spanish–American War, and the United States Bill of Rights for WikiProject United States; 'High' is where a WikiProject would be conspicuously lacking without it (as an example, Apollo 13, Kansas, and Brett Kavanaugh for WP US); 'Mid' is fairly important to an article; and 'Low' is one that contributes to the breadth of knowledge of the WikiProject's subject field, but whose absence from the project would not be very conspicuous. There's definitely some flexibility between these, and there are plenty which I would change (for example, 'Dewey Arch' is somehow Top importance, while John Adams is only High), but unless Coup has had a large impact on the world of gaming, there's just no good reason in my eyes to assess it as being of Mid importance. TheTechnician27(Talk page)17:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Entering a notable person with the same name as another
Hi, Tinyskeptic, and welcome to the Teahouse. As Gråbergs Gråa Sång noted above, there are a few ways this can be done. It can be a bit subjective if you use parentheses, but please read WP:NCDAB. If you're still not sure after reading this, you could say who the existing notable person is and who the subject of your new entry would be, and we could probably give you a suggestion. TheTechnician27(Talk page)16:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Tinyskeptic, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. My advice is not to worry about this question at all until much later. If you are contemplating the (much more difficult than it looks) task of creating a new article about somebody, then my advice to anybody who hasn't already successfully created several articles would be to use the articles for creation process to create a draft. When you've developed the draft to the point where it might be ready to go into the main encyclopaedia, you submit it for review: if the reviewer accepts it, they will look after moving it to an appropriate title and handling disambiguation as necessary. I would actually go further, and advise not even thinking about creating a new article until you've made several hundred improvements to existing articles that have not been reverted by other editors: at that point you are more likely to have some understanding of what is required in an article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Red Devil Battlebot
I need help with finishing an article page.
I really need help with the page Red Devil Battlebot that I made, I don't know how to finish it off well, and every time I make an attempt I look at other people's examples and realize how much better their articles are. 0crock18:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@Starman2377: As it turns out, the article for BioHazard was created in 2006 and was therefore probably a victim of early Wikipedia's much more lax citation standards. I've compiled a preliminary list of potentially useful citations on the article's talk page and plan to use them to improve the article, and I plan to do the same to help 0crock with their Red Devil draft. While I'm convinced BioHazard meets notability guidelines (I was genuinely ready to bring it to AfD before I started digging up sources while performing WP:BEFORE), I'm not really sure if that's the case for Red Devil at a glance, but it's worth looking into, since it kind of seems on-the-fence right now. TheTechnician27(Talk page)21:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
As a good-faith, but not helpful response to this request, Fandom and Facebook have been added as sources and I had to fix the indentation above. Sooner or later, when not receiving help, people are usually relatively successful at finding correct instructions on various pages such as WP:RSP. They're less likely to find such pages when receiving unhelpful instructions by other new editors. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Very few (any?) of the individual battlebots have been the subjects of Wikipedia articles. Even your mention of BioHazard has no references, and thus at risk for being nominated at Articles for Deletion. For Red Devil, I doubt that Fandom or Facebook can be considered reliable source references, and the Battlebot website content is just a name mention and photo. David notMD (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, David notMD. While I think Red Devil's notability status is more ambiguous (see above), I found a handful of sources that make me believe BioHazard meets notability guidelines just doing a few minutes of WP:BEFORE, so I'm starting work on improving the article – more firmly establishing notability and bringing its citations up from 2006's to 2021's Wikipedia standards. TheTechnician27(Talk page)22:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@David notMD @Starman2377 @TheTechnician27, So I need an overall idea of what you guys think, if I work on this article enough to make it good, will it be able to meet Wiki Standards, or will it not become posted. ~ 0crock
My personal opinion based on a preliminary search for sources is that the answer would be 'no', as I think it falls just shy. For context, this is the list of reliable, third-party sources I was able to find about Red Devil. I also searched for it under the name HyperActive but couldn't find anything. This could just be a case of WP:TOOSOON, though, and I think keeping the article intact in the draftspace could be worthwhile. To be entirely clear, though, none of this is a reflection on you as an editor; this is just a matter of whether or not Red Devil falls short of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. TheTechnician27(Talk page)22:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
hilary clinton how come no one ask her what she meant by refuges are fast cash in her wiki texts
why isent no one asking bicth clinton what she meant when she said refugies are fast cash in her wikilink text 75.118.248.113 (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia auto-filter of source is, and well very good, for, well blackish-source-interception. However, is it because of political stand-point, or is it really "a bad new source", to eventually restrict user against citing Global Times source. If you want to go further arguing with me, why not let me interpret and explain to you the reality. Is that when I cited Global Times source and confirm my publish of edit, one nuisance would pop-up, saying clear that the source I'm citing is not reliable or whatever, who impose this restriction? Gosh, second step I took, was however, tried to find Global Time's trace in other article, I found a bunch of it. Like India News citation, as in 2020 China-India Skirmishes, the news was directly sourced from global times, acting s third party, then, why not you, together, restrict the website's citation availability. Besides, being one of one of the only, well state-owned news media, it has full coverage of everything, that is, well, possible to be covered by their news team. Lots of Chinese (mainland)-news-sources is based on Global Times as reference (full-copy) while being cited through third party websites, like SCMP, India Times etc., to source news form Global Times. Who can explain this? If Global Times is unreliable, I think third party could not live, then, as of now. Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
INFORMATION FROM WIKIPEDIA'S ARTICLE ON Global Times: "The Global Times is a daily tabloid newspaper under the auspices of the Chinese Communist Party's People's Daily newspaper, commenting on international issues from a nationalistic perspective. The newspaper has spread unfounded conspiracy theories and disinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic." And, per Global Times, disinformation about other topics. David notMD (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Every news has its on views on cases, it doesn't mean it has a joint-conspiracy theory of doing things, even though "you" hate the ideology of CCP doing things, leaded by leaders in your "own country", accept this as a controversial point of view. Just accept and justify it. For fake spreading of news, you can't prove it clear, I can say this statement is false, and is brought up by western community to counter CCP. I believe a lot didn't cared about news transparency and unpropitious/incorrect of it, but as part of their country's worldwide efforts to destabilize all communist governments, they ramp up against CCP, like as news agency such as BBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
There is near unanimous agreement, per this discussion [7] that the Global Times is a tabloid propaganda rag, and is thus a "deprecated" source. AdmiralEek (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
If, Global Times, per anti-ideological "editors", is a tabloid propaganda rag, and is thus a "deprecated" source, then why we cite third-party source that is copied and sourced directly from Global Times, isn't this indirect distribution of propaganda. Say it steadily for your self, Wikipedia is for everyone and is free for everyone to share their thoughts, and censorship does not occur under political standpoint or ideological-prejudice. If Wikipedia wants to play political propaganda censorship, why not BBC, CNBC et. cetera. get banned, as they follow western ideology and is on the conspiracy of Western propaganda. These are the inequality of news availability, and I request fellow Wikipedia to remove the restriction. Within the limits, I can also say BBC spread fake Chinese deprecated news out and is a tabloid propaganda rag, and this is why it gets banned. SO, IF YOU WANT TO PLAY THIS CARD WITH ME, GO DO IT TO BBC, #EQUALITY AND FREEDOM OF NEWS AVAILABILITY AND NON-POLITICAL-"SIDE VIEWS" OR STANDPOINT. So, you see, the Western accused G.T. of spreading fake propaganda, and thus, G.T. is restricted, then, on the other hand, China accused BBC of spreading fake and "counterfeit" propaganda in and around China, so, why not, we restrict BBC citation. With such, I DON'T THINK EITHER G.T. OR BBC IS WRONG, BUT POLITICAL JUDGEMENT AND CRITICAL POLITICAL BLACKISH/ENVIOUS OF THE CHINA ERA THAT causes G.T. TO GET THIS TREATMENT, AND, POLITICAL REFRAIN AND avenges/TIT-FOR-TAT caused BBC TO GET BANNED. SO WHY NOT, IN THIS COMMUNITY, LET'S CREATE POLITICAL-FREE ENVIRONMENT, and stop the restriction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
You said "Wikipedia is for everyone and is free for everyone to share their thoughts". No, Wikipedia is definitely not for everyone to share their thoughts. Our articles report what reliable sources have said. We have judged that Global Times is not reliable and BBC is. It's not about which ideology a source has but whether their claims are considered reliable. Western sources can also be unreliable. The British Daily Mail was the first source to be deprecated. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
@Hypersonic man 11: There is also a big difference between the Chinese state censorship banning media from the whole country, and Wikipedia, a privately run website, choosing not to report what somebody claims. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry, stop arguing and interpreting in a political standpoint, the "independent" means non-sate-own, and you are credibly just going recklessly against CCP AND communism ideology like other Wikipedians to destabilize Chinese presence in the growing world. BBC, i know, it isn't backed by state, however, it is whirled inside the case, of spreading of fake news, and, is considered a "deprecated" source, as per China. Neither of them is wrong, I know, "but" they are just dragged by political tensions. Say it your self, BBC also spread fake and unapproved news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry, no, I didn't credibly mention disseminating propaganda would create political free environment, but, I meant Western Wikipedians follow a conspiracy of destabilizing growing Chinese presence, instead of saying it is a propaganda spread-room, we can say it is an insightful source of Chinese article. For the propaganda, every government has it, and you're gonna adapt to China's today, in 21st century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
If your beloved Chinese dictators conquer the World then they can close Wikipedia or use it in their propaganda. Until then, the editors decide what to do. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Whoa, don't go any further with this, I first mention news availability, not pro-parties, why do you have to meddle with politics against each-other in Wikipedia? Do you want to go any further? Until then, your snubs are deleted and you are round-up-ed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
AdmiralEek pointed out that in 2020 there was a month-long debate on Global Times as a reliable source and the decision at that time was "Result: Global Times is deprecated and is now considered an unreliable source; WP:SNOW close. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)" A new RfC discussion could be started, but for now, that decision stands. David notMD (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
@David notMD, Neither does I want to be whirled into the politics, however, just saying, that none of the bilateral media group is a deprecated or unreliable source, they, particularly is forced by state and their conspiracy held theory to go against each and other, BBC is forced to spy-report Xinjiang camps and create counterfeit and fake news, to convince others to go against China's ethnic issues, does we have to meddle with propagandas here, I could held BBC up for commenting on Eastern issues from a nationalistic perspective. The newspaper has also spread unfounded conspiracy theories and disinformation related to the Xinjiang reeducation camp and is considered a deprecated source. I could do this, if @DavidnotMD wants G.T. to continue get restricted in citation, from a western perspective and reckless conspiracies, you should, however, consider to do this to BBC, from an eastern perspective and conspiracy theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't expect this to be month long, however, I will fight until eastern gets the justice, ZH:Wikipedia also cites Chinese state-media news, and I strongly believed that they are much more ahead than us in Chinese article, for the time being, I am also ZH:Wikipedia member, and I do want to take the move if rights doesn't exist here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs)
@Hypersonic man 11 Multiple users (from what i'm guessing, i'm not going to make myself read this whole thing) have told you GT is not going to be a source used on this wikipedia, there has also been many discussions people have posted, keep arguing like this is going to go nowhere. I'd also like to note that GT is owned by People's daily, which is a newspaper company in China, can you guess who runs it? : ) Max20characters (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@Hypersonic man 11 The difference between PD and other state owned news media is that the CCP is known for spreading false information. : ) Also, just a tip, you should put four tildes (~) after your text to sign it. It makes wikipedia look nicer. Like this -> Max20characters (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@Max20characters, thanks for your assist. However, if you want to point out Western accusation of GT spreading fake news, you should rather refer to Eastern accusation of BBC news spreading fake and mislead Xinjiang concentration camp news. Instead, you should also take a look at state-owned Qatari Al-Jazeera case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Why is this even an arguement, It is impossible to avoid some type of bias, and everyone has their own biases, I personally, plan on avoiding what I know I am biased about, that way, I can properly contribute to this website, honestly, with ANY news agency, we should probably cross-reference the news sources with others, and take a middle stance between the sources, that way, that we get a wide range of information, and can hopefully avoid issues like this in the future, or issues in credibility, or, say some propaganda/false information doesn't get in Kiri621x (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I might have misunderstood you, Kiritami (621), but we shouldn't take a "middle stance" between sources when one is unreliable. Please see WP:NPOV, which tells us that we should be "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Contrary to the heading of this section, in this case we're not talking about "two same things". Cordless Larry (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@Hypersonic man 11 I never said GT spread fake news though? I said the CCP spreads fake news. Also, if you can provide me a source that the eastern has accused BBC news of lying that's not from a chinese owned media, I'd be happy to read it. : ) Max20characters (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@Kiri621x, how can we avoid if everyone don't tolerant, you can argue, but, at least, show some respect, in, this debate, if, we stop this, next user would still argue with it. You say it right, wide range, but the range you got, is from GT, so why aren't we arguing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@Hypersonic man 11 Hi,I don't exactly understand, there has been multiple news media that has called out China for the xinjiang camp, like business insider, the guardian, radio free asia, etc. but you decided to pick on BBC because it's owned by UK goverment. Even though everyone who has more than 1 braincell in their head knows China built concentration camps for uighur population. Also, I asked for a source that accused BBC of lying that's not from a chinese media, because obviously they would try to cover up the xinjiang events happening now. Max20characters (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@Max20characters, IF, you don't understand, don't go ahead. You can report and called out for certain scenario, but reporting misleading news and blackish reports based on nationalistic propaganda and prejudice-mental views is right, wdyt. Now, what did GT mis-reported, say it out. Unlike others, you are just going recklessly against "CCP". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi ItsJustdancefan. All of the images you have uploaded to the Commons appear to me to be copyright violations, with you claiming to release the ownership over content you don't own. I could be wrong, but can you please explain how you own the copyright of these various works (I would normally think that are owned by big companies, like NBC, and similar) such that you have the authority to release them under Creative Commons licenses? (I would note that it's possible some of these may be not subject to copyright in the first place, as too simple geometric shapes and text, but that is a different issue).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC) @GoingBatty: It's in use there because this user uploaded the image and then added it to the article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
DISPLAYTITLE position
Hello,
Whereabouts in an article should one place the DISPLAYTITLE magic word – in the rare case that it should be used? MOS:ORDER doesn't appear to have any thoughts on magic words other than DEFAULTSORT.
Hello. I would like some help. I am currently in the process of translating the article Draft:Guy Crescent from the French article. I just don't know what the procedure is for putting attribution to the original article in the other language. If someone could please move the article to mainspace (I will continue translating afterwards; I'm not done yet) and do the correct procedure, that would be very helpful. Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
If a editor is contributing to english wikipedia in a language ither than english, think he is contributing in japanese, then how should I warn him? ExclusiveEditor (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Are these two articles talking about the same subject?
I stumbled across the article Palar River (Kaveri basin) and noticed a disambig at the top to the article Palar River. Upon closer inspection, the one with the disambig "(Kaveri Basin)" has only had two edits: one when it was created less than a year ago by Vijethnbharadwaj, and one when Wolfgang8741 provided the disambig, possibly not realizing these two articles could be about the same subject. The same map picture is even shared between articles.
If they are the same, what would I even do in this case? Merge the content into the main article and then just make the duplicate a redirect to the main article?
As an aside, I had to blank a very obvious case of plagiarism from the main article that had been sitting there since 2015. Is there anything else I should do besides adding this information back in in my own words? TheTechnician27(Talk page)04:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
It's a small group! Only about 500 people with Administrator status are currently considered active (another 600 or so less active or have stopped participating in Wikipedia). David notMD (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I wish to request references be cited in this story to the claim that the "canonical five" were prostitutes. This claim has been adequately disputed. Such a claim is hearsay even if it is considered to be part of the historical record. A claim such as this, without references perpetuates a potentially prejudicial stance, whereas it may be what popular journalism at the time claimed as being true, is now considered hearsay and requires references as to the origin(s) of this claim - or at the least, a disclaimer of some kind as to the legitimacy of such a claim. See "The Five" by Hallie Rubenhold, copyright 2019, Mariner books edition 2020.
NOTE: The preview of a request for references by appears to be unsupported. My edits not being accepted due to page protections. BobKat107 (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Lomrjyo, and welcome to the Teahouse! There are a couple ways to do this. For starters, if you're on desktop and go up to your 'Preferences' tab, you can view it under 'Basic information'. Likewise, for more advanced information, you can go to your 'Contributions' page (also up top if you're on desktop), scroll to the bottom, and select 'Edit count'. In your case, that would return this webpage. Hope this helps, and congratulations on 200 edits! TheTechnician27(Talk page)02:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I am a newbie and I apparently have a problem with references and citing sources in the article named Fred Belloni. I have been reading several times about this subject and cannot seem to get it right. Thank you. Bello239 (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
It's not an article; it's a draft. It now has one long section. Within this, two assertions (or not) are referenced:
"He was the only one"
Either (A) "in the row of East Indies composers" or (B) "He was the only one in the row of East Indies composers".
However, "He was the only one" is, by itself, meaningless: He was the only one what? "[I]n the row of East Indies composers" doesn't state anything; "He was the only one in the row of East Indies composers" raises the question: Which row?
I don't like to say this, but these two references are, as they stand, worthless.
@ExclusiveEditor: Hard to say without knowing the real specifics; looking at the edits, seeing how many and their contours; knowing the user name and studying what's going on. Maybe a tailored warning essentially saying "what the hell is X about" or maybe a block's in order. Can you disclose?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Who is Tikashi6969? + Should I do not vandalize Wikipedia?
When I go to the old revision of "Tikashi6969" of the Emirates on 8 February, there's an title "is the Sh*tiest airline in the world. its overpriced and sucks. end of story." It later reverted at same UTC (22:42). On 10 February, I saw that "Tikashi6969" has been blocked without expiration (also as "indefinite"), as resulting vandalizing Wikipedia. Should I do not vandalizing Wikipedia and getting blocked indefinitely? Lkas123 (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@Lkas123: Welcome to the Teahouse! I do not know who "Tikashi6969" is, but they weren't here to improve the encyclopedia. Their vandalism has been reverted, and the user has been blocked. On the other hand, your edits look like you are acting in good faith to improve Wikipedia articles. Keep up the good work! GoingBatty (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, yes, do not vandalize articles! I reverted your edit to Emirates (airline), as in my opinion, the wording was better before. However, I also consider that your edit was a good faith attempt to improve the article versus vandalism. David notMD (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I did some basic editing for an historical group I belong to, and apparently all of the edits were accepted. Then I wrote a brief, original article about the umbrella organization that curates and guides these types of historical groups. It's been in existence since 2002, and has wide breadth within the field of history and genealogy...and certainly does not market or fundraise in any way. I linked it properly...it was tight. (Maybe someone could review it my finite history), and I immediately received a "this article has been flagged for instant deletion" from a wiki editor (Valdemar2018) who appears to be an expert in writing articles on insects...which is all good; but perhaps not the person to vet the nature of my topic. There did not seem to be an explanation about why my article was going to be deleted...not sure if it actually was deleted...but I'm wondering if perhaps I teed it up in the wrong location or something. It certainly has significant relevance in juxtaposition to the many societies and organizations in wikipedia that come under its purview, so it did not seem logical at all...and happened almost instantly. I "appealed" the instant deletion decision and made my case, and received the final note:
"the user page is not for to create articles, also the content is in your sandbox. Regards Valdemar2018 (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)"
Anyway, just making the effort to add to the corpus of my area of expertise, with content that is not trivial, self-serving or profit-driven...but absolutely appropriate. What am I missing?
Hello Barrychoward, and welcome to the Teahouse. Based on what I'm seeing at User:Barrychoward, you have indeed written in the wrong place. That page is for, if you want, to write a little bit about who you are and what you do/want to do on WP. Start a WP:DRAFTS instead. You can just copypaste the current text for starters. Next, in no particular order, you need to get rid of the in-text external links, and apply the art of inline citations, see WP:TUTORIAL, and consider the guidance at WP:NORG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Is United's 777-200ER have been retired, like Delta Air Lines?
When I saw the United Airlines fleet, there's something missing, there's no 777-200ER. United has 19 Boeing 777-200 (non extended range) and 55 Boeing 777-200ER, but when I saw, it was combined to non extended range version from 19 to 74 by Realbruno and the Realbruno's describe changes written "United has 777-200 not 777-200er". Please someone fixed it. Lkas123 (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Having Trouble adding previous teams played to infobox basketball Biography
Hi, Im editing a Basketball player bio page Aaron Pervis Williams and I need help with adding career history/previous teams played inside the info basketball biography template info box. The field is called 'years and teams'. I get an error message whenever trying to add information. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! Feed2wiki (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I published an article on Wiki in spanish and now I have translated it into english. There are some differences between the spanish wiki editor that I may not understand. What should I do to submit the article for review here? I can't find a button where it indicates it. Thanks
--DianaMTancredi (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC) DianaMTancredi (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@DianaMTancredi: I have added the submit button to your draft. For future reference, if your draft on the english Wikipedia does not have a submit button, you can place the code {{subst:submit}} (as it appears when viewing this page) to it to submit for review. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Pre-translation cleanup
The article about my company's product (PolyAnalyst) presently has a cleanup tag. I have done some work to make it neutral, but it is hard for me to judge neutrality with my COI. The thing is, we are preparing to translate this article into five other languages (Russian, Chinese, Korean, French, and German), so I would like for it to be neutral first to aviod multiplying any potential bias problems by five. Is anyone here willing to help with the cleanup or verify neutrality? Sam at Megaputer (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@GoingBatty:: Thanks for cleaning up the formatting. You got any comments on neutrality? Those neutrality templates are supposed to facilitate cleanup, and not just hang there indefinitely as a badge of shame, but sometimes it feels like they are used that way. Any comments or edits that you would like to make on this subject are quite welcome. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I want to make Wikipedia display fonts that I want. NOT change the font that other people see, I just want to read it in a different font, specifically Fraktur.
UV Light is the source of the fields and unifys the forces: Unification and the handwritten imagination of a mind out of time the sea
Extended content
UV Light is the source of the fields and unifys the forces as IT IS THE SOURCE OF ALL THE FIELDS
Einstein was wrong in so much that the speed of light is only a constant for large things and can not be applied to very small thigs such as electrons. Action of non local distance and conservation of the strangeness can be conserved at great distance with a rederivation of the Einstein equation so that we can express the need for all things to be translated in space equally including time and the speed of light and in such Cause and effect and planks distance becomes a relativistic quantity. This is easily done using Faradays constant as unit by which can express all things as relative by the inverse of the square of the distance 3 sq root (X2 - 5). I have uploaded some equations Ive jotted down and scanned in and I see you like science so lets see if you are one the 12 people Richard Feynman mentions in the 1964 Messenger lectures that ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND RELATIVITY AND QUANTUM PROPOSITIONS. If we assume by dropping mistaken axiomatic logical and adopt a more Mayan wisdom to our mathematics then we can begin to understand Magnetisms role as a frequency of UV radiation and in such establish a unity between matter at the Faradays constant as this is the only co-ordinate that has any axiomatical mathematical potential to unlock the laws of that which is very small and apply it to that which is very large. My discovery however poses a serious problem however as Im sure you will understand molecular chaos theory and magnetic fields very well. We have removed all lumps of stuff acting on the big lump of iron in the centre of our lovely planet so we can look more lovely as idiots. Oh what fun but here's the kicker....TRIANGLES WILL SWEEP OUT AT EQUAL DISTANCES AT EQUAL TIMES NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU YOU WORK TO PROVE THIS THE NULL HYPOTHESIS. So now the fields are different, what's more is that now the lumps are getting more UV CHARGE than they were and the atoms are now jiggling (as my brother in arms Feynman would say) and niggling wrong ,,,so jiggling wrong in the wrong place.
So now the ANGULAR MOMNRETUM has changed and tilted and you and I both know proof of a tilt in angular momentum would be hard to do in line with CAVENDISES weighing of us all so we would need another way to infer this, Lucky are we that you can tell a great deal about the surface tension and behaviour of a sphere by looking at its core. Ours has sped up since the nuclear era by 4.8 mph (or kmh I forget which I appologise)giving us the predicted outcome of a tilt in angular momentum.....CORE SUPER ROTATION
Now they are pissin about with Apollo 11 type missions to space in order to drain the val allen belt which is pretty easy but those muppets know nothing of high energy protons or how to calculate G magnetic flux in relativistic terms. Nor to they know how to calculate the Quantum flux of the martian bluberrie using relativistic multhiphase flow equations.
anyway Im sending this then Ill write out some equations scan them in and send them, over
A Beautiful Mind
I recently started my first attempted merge proposal at Talk:Mosaic theory (litigation). It's kind of a complicated one, but it felt important enough for me to try to do it. One of the editors I pinged for comment came back and—they were not happy (and rude). It's only us two on the talk page, and I think we're just going to be deadlocked with WP:NOCONSENSUS. What can I do (without seeming to WP:FORUMSHOP)? —Wingedserif (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Just recently there have been a few seemingly non-constructive edits at the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry page. I think that page may be under the 1RR rule (as opposed to the usual 3RR rule) but I am not sure. On some pages there is/has been a notification that shows when you are about to edit, informing you that 1RR is in effect, but on this page there seems not to be. How can I determine what the rule is there? Thank you very much. Skllagyook (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi There. Because of the rise in interest of Spacial Sound and my direct role in rebirthing Quadraphonic music creation, I have been asked to publish a wikipedia article. I have very cited multiple credible articles and have satisfied the criteria of:
1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]
7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
@Kamranv: Welcome to the Teahouse! I'm curious - who asked you to write the autobiography which is now at Draft:KamranV? In the "Spacial Music" section, I suggest adding a reference for the first sentence and additional references for the second. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Image Question
When uploading an official cover art via "Upload file > Upload a non-free file" there is a required field that says "Author (author / copyright owner of the original work)". I was curious what I should do if I don't know who the author is. Should enter "unknown", "NA", or something else entirely? If I already entered something like "unknown" for an image would that be cause for the image to be removed later? Also, how specific should I be about where I found the image? Can I just say the website or should I provide a link? TipsyElephant (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Someone recently pointed out to me that the class parameter for a Wikiproject banner is better left blank for Drafts and Redirects because those articles are likely to change in the future and the class is auto-populated simply by virtue of the article being in Draft or Redirect space. I was curious what the standard conventions for WikiProject banners in general, but I'm specifically interested in whether it would be better to have a shortened WikiProject banner for Categories and Files because they are unlikely to change, but would be auto-populated. Would a short banner without a class parameter be best or should the class be included? Or if it doesn't matter, what would you suggest? I would assume that it's best to keep a standard convention across a large number of articles so if I'm making sure it's one specific way for an entire WikiProject what would be ideal? TipsyElephant (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@CommanderWaterford: Thank you, but I looked over that page and it doesn't seem to say anything about whether I should include those classes or not. It says "For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter", which implies that it's optional I guess. Is there a benefit to including the class? TipsyElephant (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Non base 10 numerical systems
Hello, I am new to wikipedia and want to create an article explaining numbering systems that are not base 10 and how those work and how to change those values into base 10. I searched for it, but I didn't find the thing that I wanted to write about. I'm just worried that I may have missed a page where the topic is written that I didn't find because I didn't put in the required keywords to find that search result. Is there anything I missed? Jsjsjjals83828 (talk) 03:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi there! I just wanted to know whether there is any policy or guideline which says something like "in order to prevent the revision history of an article to become clogged up, editors should ensure that all the information they want to edit is done at once". Thank you! EvanTaylor1289 (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Clarification - what I mean when I say "at once" is "in one edit as opposed to dozens of minor edits". EvanTaylor1289 (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@EvanTaylor1289: I agree with the comment in the essay Wikipedia:Editcountitis that a person shouldn't make lots of small edits to an article just to increase their edit count. However, there can be times when it's beneficial or easier to make a few edits in a row to the same article. GoingBatty (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey EvanTaylor1289. I am betting the germ of this post is an absurdity – and extreme example of this playing out – but "legitimate" reasons that I can think of for "chunking" edits include:
(this is a big one) making sure that any changes that might be seen as controversial (and thus more likely to be reverted) are separated from any edits that are not, even if closely related in concept/form – so that if and when one is reverted, other edits the same reverter might not object to, are not roped in
(in the same vein) any reverts that may be re-reverted ("revert last as ____, and copyedit")
(another big one, though I don't know that it's well known) any edits that remove or add line spaces (or swap paragraphs, and similar), for the reason that they make it much, much harder to parse what was changed in the diff view – indeed when doing a copyedit, I will sometimes attempt to make all changes that avoid this in one edit, and do the spacing in the next, for just this reason (I have been reverted on this basis);
when removing copyvios, for separating distinct by copied source, as noted in the separated edit summaries;
Where you believe the edit summary is important for listing different tasks, not just for other editors' understanding, but so that you can see what you did, to review later (maybe years later) in an organized and non-haphazard fashion.
Some articles need so much work that it would be impossible to do everything in one massive edit. As long as Edit summaries identify what parts of the article was being revise, and a description of the edits, multiple edits should not cause problems for subsequent editors. Example: during raising Vitamin K to Good article, I made >100 edits. David notMD (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Wow! This has received many replies! The reason I asked the question os because I noticed that someone had done >100 minor edits to one page in a row. I THINK this should be covered by David notMD‘s response though
Sometimes I copy a section to my Sandbox, work there, then replace the original with the revised. I would not do an entire article. In the example you mention, if truly minor edits, sounds like someone running up their edit count. To what end? David notMD (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi IP 69.11.65.11. The content about this in Willard Bean states as follows:
In 1905, Bean claimed the title of middleweight champion of the world. Although it was not until 1910 with the formation of the International Boxing Union that world title fights were created, until that time champions were generally recognized by public acclamation. The World Middleweight boxing champion at the time was Tommy Ryan.
If you are asking about healthynord.com, you may still not add that to any Wikipedia articles. Please read the information on your user talk page. It contains links (the words in blue) to explanations. --bonadeacontributionstalk08:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Instructions I don't understand
I was curious what the instructions at the top of this article mean Category:Podcast logos and why you're supposed to do it. I looked through the current files and it appears that only a few follow the instructions. So why should anyone follow those instructions if simply adding the category like you would on a regular page does the same thing? TipsyElephant (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I think you intended to say: "I was curious what the instructions at the top of Category:Podcast logos mean and why you're supposed to do what they tell you to do." If this was indeed your intention: Because, I think, doing so not only adds the file to the category but also adds a warning template to it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Rishi1010. Please see WP:DEADREF for more on this, but a dead link isn't necessarily removed just because it's dead. So, if by "good one" you mean that you found an archived version of the dead link, then you can add that to the original citation containing the dead link. If, on the other hand, you mean you find a new source that supports the same content as the dead link, then you can add that as a "new" citation in addition to the dead link one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Mrcow20069 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Successfully creating a new article(not just a "page") is one of the hardest things to do here on Wikipedia. It takes much time, effort, and practice. You will greatly increase your chances of success if you gain experience first by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. That will help you learn about some of the various policies and guidelines that there are. Users who dive right in to creating articles often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings as something they worked hours on is mercilessly edited and even deleted by others. I don't want to see you have bad feelings so I would recommend that you not dive in just yet. It would be a good idea for you to use the new user tutorial.
(Resolved) Does removal of promotional information amounting to about half the article require a talk page discussion?
I removed some promotional information from the Wikipedia article about FIITJEE this morning, and returned less than an hour ago to remove some negative information from the article, because the newspapers that were used to cite the information had redacted the negative information and hence I couldn't find evidence that the information was true. I was reverted entirely, and was told to discuss the removal on the talk page. I've started a discussion there, but I want to know whether removal of promotional information like in this case requires a discussion. 45.251.33.44 (talk) 11:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello IP, I believe your removal of info was correct. It was reverted because often large removals of text from articles by non-registered users (IPs), are flagged as potential vandalism, and can be reverted as such, as yours was. The text you removed was blatantly promotional, and while I appreciate you removing it, it is generally preferable to remove as little as possible and reword as much as possible. I've added a tag that adds the page to a list of articles that read like an advertisement, so hopefully someone should help clean it up, but in the meantime I suggest you don't try to remove info until Serols agrees. Thanks, Giraffer(talk·contribs)12:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Resolved
– This issue has been resolved. I now understand that I could have avoided this issue by not making big changes without any discussion. 45.251.33.44 (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello , Many subject and issue do not have articles on WP.I am from India's Maharashtra state.I think many issues about around deserve articles.I think WP is not just place to make article about notable peoples ,film stars and politicians.As WP community we must have to make articles on the issue and burning topics like about farmers bad situation in Maharashtra , Women's rights.I am mentioning , suggesting some title and topics should deserve article - Agriculture in Maharashtra , Farmers suicide in Vidharbha , North Maharashtra (Geographical region of northern Maharashtra) , British rule in Maharashtra , Maharashtra wildlife , Wildlife sanctuaries in India , Rivers of India , Droughts in Maharashtra , Crime against womens in India , Domestic violence against womens in India / Maharashtra , Police corruption in Maharashtra , Corruption in Government offices in Maharashtra/India.If WP community think some of these topics deserve seperate article please create it. 223.178.144.61 (talk) 10:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You can request that articles be created at Requested Articles, though there is a severe backlog there, to the point where it will be a long time before your requests are acted on, if ever. The best way to see that an article is written is to do it yourself using Articles for Creation and after you read YOur First Article, but you will want to learn about the process first, and maybe edit some existing articles, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. 331dot (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
331dot Thanks brother for responding all the way from my favourite country England.I did this before reading your suggestion.I created a article about a small village in India - Kothadi but so far it is not live.You can see it : Draft: Kothadi.If it takes so much time I start feeling I'm wasting my precious time.If some educated folks like join me to create these articles it'll be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.178.144.61 (talk) 10:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Can't find much more info on this template I stumbled across (can't remember what page I saw it on) and just wondering what it's used for and can you still edit an article that has it? Is it requesting review of unpatrolled new page and if not is there a template for that or just something that you wait for until page comes up in page curation queue? -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@HistoricalAccountings: The template is part of a series for standard stuff in discussions on Wikipedia. It is probbably intended to serve as a temporary status notification for request-like noticeboards such as WP:RFPP so that others are aware that somebody is looking into the issue, to reduce the number of times where two admins try to decide on a (very complicated) request simuntaiously.Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@Victor Schmidt: Thank you, couldn't figure it out. Is there a template that can be added to a new page that hasn't been reviewed/patrolled yet or may have been overlooked or is that just something you wait out? -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Where to post/get help with a suspected case of WP:Citogenesis?
What is the right place on Wikipedia to either record or get help with investigating a suspected case of citogenesis? The information in question was added in 2007, uncited. Since then, a number of places have repeated the information in extremely close phrasing to that on Wikipedia, but I cannot find a single source from before 2007 that mentions it.
I strongly suspect citogenesis, but am unsure what the procedure is to "prove" it or add this to a list. There *are* what we would usually consider "reliable sources" that share the information, so I am concerned that the information might end up back on Wiki again, this time cited. Thanks for your help! Ganesha811 (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Ganesha811. If this really is a case of citogenesis that's gone undetected for 14 years, it sounds like it's going to be a mess to deal with. For reference, would you mind linking the article and specifying the relevant citation(s)? TheTechnician27(Talk page)23:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, for sure! So the article in question is Joseph Bazalgette. Earlier today I removed (diff) a paragraph with a story about him planning of London's sewers. Another editor had earlier marked it with some citation-needed tags. The info was added by User:SmokeyTheCat in 2007 (diff), who seems to have been a fairly prolific user at the time, but has been inactive since 2015.
As I said, I cannot find *any* reliable sources that include this anecdote from before 2007. That is not to say that none exist, but I looked for about 45 minutes today using Google Books, JSTOR, and other resources. On the other hand, post-2007, there are sources that seem to have this story included, often using phrasing extremely close to the wiki source. From the Institution of Civil Engineers, from The Spectator, from The Hindu, from the Museum of London (in modified form). There are also several books on Google Books from this decade with the same story, such as thesetwo, both about 'creative thinking.'
There are innumerable contemporary committee reports and whatnot that show up about Balzagette and his sewers, but none of them mention the specific calculation that was given on Wiki. In particular, none of them contain that specific quote, which since it is supposedly a direct quote should be easier to find. This is a long post, but I hope it adequately covers why I think this is citogenesis. Thank you for your help, TheTechnician27Ganesha811 (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@Ganesha811: Well, I definitely see your point, and it's a worrying one (I also see you likely found it through the r/TIL post, which somehow got 90k+ upvotes for an uncited piece of trivia in a Wikipedia article; classic r/TIL). I found this book from 2001 but, unfortunately, no instance of that quote anywhere. In the meantime, I've placed the offending material on the talk page for ease of access, and I'm going to try to track down an expert from a relevant WikiProject in the hopes they'll be able to provide a pre-2007 source. TheTechnician27(Talk page)01:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
In the meantime, I've been looking for sources, and Aline van Duyn, writing for the Financial Times, seems to have really messed up on this one: their 2009 article "Insight: Accounting for unforeseens" reads: "When planning the sewage system, the engineer “took the most dense population, gave every person the most generous allowance of sewage production and came up with a diameter of pipe needed. He then said ‘Well, we’re only going to do this once and there’s always the unforeseen.’ So he doubled the diameter to be used,” according to a Wikipedia entry. [emphasis mine]" Thankfully, they at least attribute it, but you'd really think that if it isn't cited and you can't find anything to attest to it that you wouldn't even include it in your article. Mercifully, that does tell us something, though: in 2009, the markets editor for the Financial Times likely couldn't find a source for this quote or event, which definitely makes this more suspect. TheTechnician27(Talk page)01:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@Ganesha811, TheTechnician27: I have located the content in a book, word-for-word, from here (see content started at the very end of page 13, and spilling over through the first paragraph of page 14). However, there were two editions – a first in 1996 and a second in 2009, i.e., pre- and post-dating the addition of the content to the article. So, it could be unattributed plagiarism and infringement of the article, only included in the 2009 edition's content seen at the posted link. A post to WP:RX would seem to be in order, asking if someone can access and is willing to check the 1996 edition.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Fuhghettaboutit, thank you. I was able to locate a version of the 1996 edition online through a friend's academic account and it did not have the anecdote included. I suspect the author plagiarized from Wiki for the 2009 edition. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
In such a context, I would remove it from the text, and leave a commented-out note explaining what happened. "If you want to restore this anecdote to the article, you must cite it to a source from before 2007." DS (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Most sorry about the Copyright links to the external homepage and any other problematic issues and errors indicated, I am New to Wiki posting and not familiar with your rules. Please, I would like the unacceptable changes I made removed Or revert to the previous Wiki content.
Will greatly appreciate your restoring the Wiki page content with your red flag alert removed.
Thanks for your understanding. Ginger Weird Man (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
It is done. Please be aware, Ginger Weird Man, that the copyright issue was not the links you added, but the content that was copied from the links. We cite sources to verify information, but the information must be written in our own words (and not just at a surface level). Thank you for understanding.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC) P.S. The reverting user did not post a notice giving information on the infringement issue, so I have done so at your talk page using the template {{uw-copyright-new}} (nudge, nudge; wink, wink @ Cabayi).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@Cabayi: Sorry bout that. When I scanned the page (obviously too quickly) I was looking for a section header and missed it under the series of escalating warnings for a variety of matters. Of course your notice's "" should have alerted me, even on my hasty look!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
my draft on Michael Koutsilieris was rejected
Kindly send me some advise on upgrading my draft, I cant comprehend why it was considered similar to advertisent. Dr. Koutsilieris is a distinguished scientist and has many requests from people that are doing research on his work for biographical information. Please explain how I can proceed.
I have studied wikipedia articles and I cannot locate the mistakes I have made. Kkmk mani (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Kkmk mani Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have done a good job of writing about who Dr. Koutsilieris and what he has done. A Wikipedia article, however, must do more than that. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sourceswith significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. You've cited what he has done, but not what others choose to say about him- that's what the article needs to summarize.
When you say "Dr. Koutsilieris is a distinguished scientist and has many requests from people that are doing research on his work for biographical information"; I would ask if you are associated with or work for him? If so, you will need to review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you may be required to make. If people just want biographical information on him, does his employer not have such information on a website? 331dot (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@Kkmk mani: There is also quite a bit of unsourced information in the draft: his birth date/birth place/children's names, scientific interests, memberships in many societies, and the editorial board section. If the information isn't included in an independent reliable source, then it should be removed from your draft. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@Kkmk mani: Also, minutia such as his "license no." isn't necessary in the article. Unsourced phrases such as "enthusiastically accepted" and "highly successful" seem like an advertisement. GoingBatty (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Hampton University Notable Alumni Section Editing Issue
I tried to add a notable alumni under education and now there is an issue with this section. Was wondering what went wrong, how do I fix the education section and how do I avoid this problem in the future? Soulcontroller (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@GoingBatty I added an alumni again and messed up the table’s format. I created a separate alum template and thought I placed it where it should be alphabetically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulcontroller (talk • contribs) 16:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Im involved in my first AfD process. In the discussion, people are referring to "salt", as in "consider salting" as if it's a type of page deletion.
So, the stupid question: What is "salt" in this context? Rklahn (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Rklahn "Salt" refers to preventing the creation of an article in the first place, as in "salting the earth" to keep plants from growing. Articles are salted if they are repeatedly created and continually do not meet guidelines. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
GoingBatty I spent a long time trying to find WP:SALT. I think I know where I went wrong. It's a type of page protection, not a type of deletion. Hopefully, this discussion gets indexed, and the next editor has an easier time. Rklahn (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Rklahn, here is a useful tip for finding policies, procedures and guidelines on Wikipedia. Type WP: in the search box, followed by a plausible keyword (in this case SALT). Most of the time, you can find what you want very quickly. Cullen328Let's discuss it23:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@Cullen328:. Apropos of your post above, I posted Help:WP search protocol last week, and was thinking of creating a short, associated info template for it. Your post struck me as approximately perfect for its text! (Even for including "(in this case ____)" as an fillable, optional parameter for tailoring the template's message.) Thanks.---Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I know you want to be as unbiased as possible, but The Daily Express makes fake end of the world/world war 3 predictions and they make fake news everywhere with no proof and they even admitted to this in this quote: "[I run the paper] purely for the purpose of making propaganda and with no other motive." And you already blacklisted The Sun (Another fake news site) but the daily express is far worse, I believe The Daily Express should be blacklisted. 98.101.158.202 (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello IP, the Daily Express is listed as an unreliable source here. This is a result of this discussion, where it was deemed acceptable for non-controversial topics such as sport and entertainment, but an unreliable source for topics such as politics. Giraffer(talk·contribs)16:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
The Daily Express is not mentioned on the GamerGate page either, so it's difficult to determine what issue you are concerned about. In any case, the best place to raise any issue with a specific article is on the talk page of that article.--Shantavira|feed me17:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
What's wrong with my edit to "Counties of the United Kingdom"?
My addition was to show that as well as cereomonial and historical counties, there are also "vice-counties", which are not so well known, a type of geographic area for the United kingdom. There is a page vice-counties, and they are otherwise hard to find out about.
My edit was reverted by an experienced user because "did not appear constructive", and that user deleted my question about this from their talk page.
Have I done something wrong? How should I get my edit restored or improved? -- I don't really accept the argument that this isn't information about types of county in the United Kingdom, or that my edits were anything but constructive.
I'm a bit puzzled as to why your question of the other editor was removed. Your edit to the article may have been reverted because there was no citation. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey, IP editor, you did the right thing by adding a reference to Dandy, though the wikilink to vice-county didn't actually make that essential, and I wouldn't have reverted you myself. But I bet I've reverted other editors in areas I was not knowledgeable about, and felt a citation was necessary if it were to remain in. It's great to see you flying the flag for Watsonian vice-counties; I spent much of my working life collating and disseminating biodiversity data from VC57 (Derbyshire). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
State of the World Liberty Index lists the Star Wars Galactic Empire as Number One in Liberty
On the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_World_Liberty_Index I saw that someone had that day ADDED the "Galactic Empire" as a nation to the list, even though this is NOT a nation and is a Star Wars reference (a rather trollish one for anyone who knows anything about the Galactic Empire from Star Wars) I saw this as a griefing, I don't contribute to wikipedia but I do sometimes revert articles back to help keep griefers out. This is exactly what I did. I reverted the article back. I received a message from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Le_Deluge stating that:
"Hello, I'm Le Deluge. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to State of World Liberty Index have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Le Deluge (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC) "
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2600:1700:CA30:CCF0:E59D:2012:8727:884E&diff=cur
I was directed here to ask questions. My question to wikipedia is do you understand that the Galatic Empire is both NOT mentioned in the source material and is NOT an actual nation in the world? I mean it seems like that should be very very obvious... I am not one to complain to wikipedia but this is laughably inexcusable. 2600:1700:CA30:CCF0:E59D:2012:8727:884E (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse! Your willingness to revert obvious vandalism is greatly appreciated! Unfortunately, your edit accidentally many instanced of "freedom" to "(filtered)", which was probably the unconstructive issue that Le Deluge meant. I have reverted the Galactic Empire vandalism in this edit. Thanks for letting us know! GoingBatty (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
BugMenn Hi here Kundan Dhayade from India.you said someone deleted your edits.It could probably happened due to you copied lines from some other Websites's articles.copy paste WP don't allow.write everything in formal words in your language , do not copy exactly from website or book it's illegal under copyright law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.178.144.61 (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Bugmenn also contacted me on my talk page. I have provided an explanation of why rollback was used and what the editor can do to restore the non-copyrighted edits.--S Philbrick(Talk)13:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
User:BugMenn Hi , I advise you to never copy paste from any website on WP.The from where you copy paste or write exact lines from their article is like stealing something from someone.You have to read their article , book and then rewrite it with your words in simple language on UK English.Not In American , Australian Eng and after writing site their website by editing their website link in <ref>...</ref>.Then no one will undo your edits.But the websites , books must be well known and famous like - New York Times , The guardian , BBC.These big websites have their reputation they don't write wrong things without research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.178.144.61 (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@R3daeret: You have come to a great place here. Wikipedia is a massive (and often confusing) technical edifice, but it is also a massive (and even more confusing) cultural development. Watching the Teahouse is one of the best ways to get a feel for the culture of Wikipedia.--Verbarson (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@R3daeret: I must, however, add a note of caution and say that anyone who makes silly edits, and contributes nothing constructive to this encyclopaedia, or removes good content, soon finds their user rights withdrawn. As you're on your final warning right now for doing a bit of that, do please take care when you next try to help out here. If you aren't sure - please come back and ask. That's what we're here for! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
getting this paragraph onto the TARDIS article
can i get help getting this paragraph onto the TARDIS article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARDIS). it keeps getting rejected due to either a lack of citations or original research, and i can't seem to get it accepted. so can someone please edit my paragraph and photo w/ description to make it acceptable for the article?
Inconsistencies between Props and Real Police Boxes
The prop has almost never been accurate to the real Police Box, its most accurate portrayal was in the Dalek films starring Peter Cushing where it is almost completely identical. the original prop is fairly close, but is noticeably smaller[1]. the free for use of public sign changed doors inconsistently throughout Patrick Troughton's run, starting from Evil of the Daleks (1967). The Shada box, used from 1976 to 1980[2] and inconsistently throughout the early eighties (notably Logopolis and Castrovalva 1981-2) is stockier with a completely flat roof, though it was steeped again for its appearance in Logopolis and Castrovalva. in 1980, a new prop was constructed from fibreglass[2] for The Leisure Hive (1980), and is now larger again with a firmer build, though still smaller than the genuine article. the 1996 TV movie is also slightly larger, and its windows, which normally have six panels with the two in the bottom corners being white or off-colour, this one has some panes in the wrong slots. the one on the right door is in the top corner and some have the off-colour panes directly adjacent to the other one.. the Eccleston/Tennant prop is much larger, and the panels/windows are almost square and take up much more space. This has caused many a joke where a character to comment on how "the windows are the wrong size" with the in-universe explanation being that the TARDIS is so old that the "bigger on the inside" has begun leaking out, causing the outside shell to grow. the original prop was navy blue, though on-screen it was grey as the show was in black and white at the time, and it was repainted to a lighter blue in 1972 which remained consistent (albeit some minor colour shifts) throughout the rest of the run. The 2005 prop is much greyer, with a green-yellowy twinge to it. The Smith Prop is a vibrant navy colour with an intense wood effect, while the Capaldi Prop turns this down significantly, making it a mostly solid blue. The Whittaker Prop returns to the 2005 Prop's colours, but re-adds the wood effect. Since the show's reboot in 2005, the dimensions have stayed identical with only minor alterations. The Hurt Prop, as seen in Day of the Doctor (2013) is essentially just the 2005 prop with sand and grime all over it and a few cracked windows. However, these inconsistencies don't just apply to the Doctor's TARDIS, as in Logopolis, both a real Police Box and the Master's TARDIS assume the Shada Box's proportions and in The Doctor, The Widow and The Wardrobe (2011) The Doctor finds a real Police Box that looks like his. Both of these situations were probably caused by budgetary constraints though, as it would be uneconomical to have many separate Police Box props in storage unused. The roof lamp has changed too, the original was rather accurate, while in season two it was replaced by a cheap plastic cylinder along with the whole roof being less steep. The Shada Box uses a generic lamp, while in its namesake story and a few others before and after it, it has a blue spinning police car lamp. The 2005 Prop uses a cylindrical lamp, while the Smith Prop has one from a ship (boat, not space-ship). None have ever gotten close to the real lamp, which would've been encased in a cylindrical cage with a dome on top.
then add picture named "Dinky Toy Police box" and its description (with alterations for brevity's sake) and add citations and the relevant links to where they are needed, and you're done! thanks in advance for helping me curate this paragraph for use in an article. WombleYT (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi WombleYT. I think you now have the answer (again). It does not belong in its current state; it will not be added while it includes unsourced parts, and original research parts. It appears, though, to include a mix of verifiable hard facts, with citations already provided, that could be included, unsourced facts, without citations that might be sourceable (and thus might be includable if sourced), as well an overlay of analytical content – a synthesis of the facts used to state your own conclusions, as is properly forbidden. So, your path seems straightforward: as much as you want to keep it in as you've written it, accept that it cannot be; remove every part that isn't directly supported by a source. Voilà.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Help resolving a dispute with another author
Hi there, I have been going back and forth with someone re: a biography of a living person. The person is using their wikipedia page which he wrote himself and he keeps exaggerrating things and changing things back whenever I offer an objective assessment. SHould he be allowed to write his own biography? How do I stop it from being reversed every time I make a change that is rooted in fact? Foodprofessor (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I have a theory that will probably get rejected by those that know better than me... but somehow your account skipped over Autoconfirmed and went directly to Extended Confirmed per the user log... I'm wondering if Pending Changes is ignoring the implied Autoconfirmed and hence you are still being caught under PC protection. There is my 2 cents anyway. - RichT|C|E-Mail06:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@DiamondIIIXX: (sorry, I gave a misleading reply just now, related to reviewing pending changes rather than editing a PC protected article. New attempt, with coffee inside me...) There is a problem with pending changes – see this thread at the Village Pump, and this thread at Wikipedia talk:Pending_changes. Those are the places to check to see what is happening with this issue, and maybe report that it's happening to you as well. --bonadeacontributionstalk07:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Bonadea: I was replying to your response when I got a merge conflict and found you removed it, haha. The issue was sent to Phabricator and has been listed as a bug - I raised the error in the wikipedia-help IRC. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 07:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Filmography table request templates?
I know there's a template for requesting an infobox be added to articles. You add the request to the talk page. I haven't been able to find one for Filmography tables? Does one exist or a list of articles in need of one? -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Kindly please remove promotional materials and extra links from article (Tariq Shah Bahram). it's very kind of you if you do this to me, cause i don't know what's promotional material in my article. thank you very much.
it will be appreciated that my article is published and on public status on wikipedia. thank you very much. Waseem.nasimi (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Waseem.nasimi: Welcome to the Teahouse! I'm glad you posted your concern on the article talk page. The sentence about his hobbies is unreferenced and could be considered promotional. Also, please use the references and external links to create additional footnotes. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Can someone Add Viacom (1952-2006) to their watchlist, Because some unregistered user keeps on removing Viacom International from the Former names, when it's actually a true former name of the Company. I also recommend blocking the user Indefinitely for causing an Edit war. LooneyTraceYT (talk) 02:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I think Gråbergs Gråa Sång is right, and I wonder if there's some kind of external recommendation to get "backlinks" from Wikipedia articles right now. There's this higher up on this page, and a couple of days ago I noticed this. It's not uncommon for new users to add spam links in good faith, but I haven't really seen this phrasing used. Three instances isn't very much of a pattern so probably a coincidence, but I'm mentioning it here in case others have noticed the same thing. --bonadeacontributionstalk12:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
COI: First, I want to disclose that I have no financial or in-kind gain from editing Wikipeida. I will disclose that I am a fan, but these exist on both sides of the spectrum and these are the people who help build Wikipeida.
I am being accused of vandalism on the two pages mentioned, but in my opinion the two editors concerned are the ones doing the vandalism.
The Fukagawa Geisha house has been featured in several major media outlets, including NHK, CNN, and the Wall Street Journal. There are plenty of other major news outlets writing about it as well. It should not be merged into the Fiona Graham article because it is a non-profit venture established by several local geisha, albeit Fiona Graham is the geisha mother. A lot of the arguments being forwarded by the other side seem to involve other editors that have nothing to do with me. My primary aim is to get a Fukagawa Geisha article up and add more information to the Fiona Graham page, so merging the "Geisha mother" section into [Fiona Graham]] article is fine with me.
The prominence of the Wanaka Gym case is vandalism and should not be an entire section, in both the Japanese and English wikipedias. It is rarely mentioned in any article about Fiona Graham beyond articles about that court case, yet most of the editors arguing with me seem to have a bone-of-contention on that topic (despite the fact that I included the case in a paragraph myself in my article).
If you look at the history of Japanese version of the Fiona Graham article, you can see that several non-Japanese editors (Ineffablebookkeeper, IP addresses etc...) repeatedly revert any new information that is added to the article, being unconstructive and reducing the usefulness of the article. Their main aim in both the English and Japanese versions seems to be to increase the prominence of the Wanaka Gym case. Japanese editors always seem to try and change edits back to the original version.
They need to be constructive towards wikipedia:
Wikipedia is about constructive article building. Fukagawa Geisha has received a lot of media attention in major global news outlets and hence deserves a page on Wikipedia. Fiona Graham has a lot more going on in her life than Wanaka Gym, and not only does the court case not deserve its own section, but there is so much more about her life that should be added but the editors keep reverting.
Considering a large number of edits (of opposing party) seem to come from IP addresses or English speaking accounts, I consider them to be more resembling vandalism, whereas my role is a fan with no material gain.
Geicraftor is likely a Fiona Graham sockpuppet. She has been at it for over ten years now; see the talk page of her article for detailed backstory. Also, regarding "Japanese editors always seem to try and change edits back to the original version." -- per WP:DUCK, these editors are most likely sockpuppets of Graham herself. They are all SPAs that push the same point of view on the article; a POV that just so happens to be the same as Graham's. Furthermore, Graham has been on this point about "my trouble with Wanaka Gym is irrelevant!" for all these years, so it's getting super obvious that when a new account, editing in JST, shows up and tries to remove it, it's our friend herself. Finally, the media attention she mentions is usually puff pieces that are designed as promotion rather than appearing to be any serious journalistic in her work. 124.197.54.156 (talk) 07:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
How do you had citations in movie pages that have cast lists. Seems like you can't use the visual editors and have to use basic coding. Also, how do you create new sections such as "reception" once the movie comes out Nerdpantz (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Nerdpantz, welcome to the Teahouse. You should be able to still add citations through the visual editor with its Cite button. To create a new heading, just go to a new line and on the editing toolbar, change "Paragraph" to "Heading". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Cite book with two ISBNs
Hello again, Teahousers. I am writing the List of Works in an article, and trying to cite a book that has two ISBNs: one for the print version and the other for online. The Manual of Style says to "provide the ISBN of one or more editions when doing so seems to be helpful", but I just can't see how to do this using {{cite book}}. It only appears to support a single ISBN. Am I missing something? Or is there a preference for which of these ISBNs to use? --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@CommanderWaterford: that makes sense when using it as a reference. But in this case, it is being used in a list of published works instead. I suppose as you say, I just need to add them manually with descriptions. Thanks.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Were Nagant M1895 used by the Ottoman Empire?
I have seen some historically accurate tv shows about the ottoman empire where they featured the Nagant M1895 revolver, was the revolver ever used by the ottoman empire and if so why isn't the Ottoman Empire featured in the Users list on the Wikipedia page about the M1895 revolver? Mig Pilot (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Rose Bulma, and welcome to the Teahouse. We don't have "stories" here, we have encyclopaedia articles. Anybody is welcome to create a draft article about a notable subject by using the articles for creation process; however, creating an article is much more difficult than it looks, and hundreds of attempts by inexperienced editors are declined for rework, or deleted, every day. My advice is not even to try it until you have had several hundred edits to existing articles, that are accepted as improvements (i.e. they don't get reverted by another editor). That way, you are likely to have some understanding of how Wikipedia works before you try it.
If by "your own story", you mean "an article about you", then my advice is not to try it, ever: autobiography is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, and you are likely to have a frustrating and miserable time if you try it.
Finally, there are no celebrities on Wikipedia (apart from as the subjects of articles): there are only editors. Some of the editors might happen to be celebrities in the world, but here on Wikipedia they are only editors. The only kind of talking to them that is appropriate is when collaborating to improve the encyclopaedia: that is what we are all here for, nothing else. --ColinFine (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Feedback on potential article contribution
Hi everyone,
I am hoping to add a bit of information to the police abolition page, with emphasis on cities that have undertaken the first steps to police abolition. My contribution is in my sandbox at the moment and I would love to hear any feedback on the content. Here is the link to my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Evb16/sandboxEvb16 (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
OMG. It cites no sources at all. Where did all that content come from? A Wikipedia article needs to be based on the sources that it cites. The (relatively) easy way to write an article is to find all the sources you will need, read them thoroughly, then write the article based in what they say, citing them as you go. Very much more difficult, is to write your own opinions and recollections, then go through what you've written, trying to find a source for each statement. I recommend abandoning what you've written, and starting again from the beginning, using the method I've recommended above. It will save you a lot of effort. But I know from experience that a new contributor is unlikely to take that advice. Maproom (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
More than once you have written "occording to the New York Times... Go to those Times articles and use your own words to repeat what was written – but don't add in what wasn't written there, such as your own opinion, or what you heard from someone. Then cite those articles. Use reference brackets, and between those brackets put in the article name, the name of the newspaper, and page number the article appeared on. Find other published sources for what you want to say. If the newspaper articles are online you can add an External Link for those who want to read the entire article, but for Wikipedia articles a condensed version of what was written is often best, for many people feel overwhelmed when seeing a long article.
It's good that you want to edit Wikipedia articles, and that you reached out for help. It takes some practice to know the best way to improve an article. Best wishes. Karenthewriter (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
How to submit new created article , draft to review ?
Kothadi appears to have been created by a different editor? Anyway, not yet submitted for review. Jalgaon has now been submitted. David notMD (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I did not, that was someone else. Did you try the link I posted just above? You can also add this code: {{AfC submission/draft}} at the top of a draft you want to submit. Then check the "Improving your odds of a speedy review" advice in the template. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi. The housing scam article was an interesting subject. It might have been accepted, but probably not in its prior state but I have done a complete copyedit/rewrite and I believe it's ready for the mainspace. However, I am now "involved" so I would not presume to accept an article I worked on this extensively.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I have tried, but cannot remove a template on my father's site: Noel Wood, Australian Artist. I have made references to where someone unknown to me put in "citations needed". The citations were about his birth and his mother - ridiculous! Enoneo (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Enoneo: Welcome to the Teahouse. The issue is that there are no inline citations per Wikipedia standards; please see WP:EASYREFBEGIN for an introduction to citing. If you are related to Wood you must disclose your conflict of interest. Please do so either on your user page or the article's talk page. Your citations must be to reliable sources. On an unrelated note, the article is suffering from a tone issue, which should be expressed as neutrally as possible (that is, not using words like sadly). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Washishi-1.(noun) to be epic or awesome;to like or worship monke(also know as monkey).2.(verb) to misunderstand someone or something;to be misunderstood(thought to be said sometdifferent).
Pronounced(way-shee-she)and can also be spelled washishied or washishing depending on the situation
Hi, Hahatrey, and welcome to the Teahouse. Based on your user page, I believe you may be trying to create an article for the word 'Washishi'. However, I can't find mention of this word anywhere (including the Japanese Wiktionary). If you are trying to create this entry, I would advise against it for two reasons: 1) This reads very much like WP:MADEUP, and 2) even if it weren't, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If anything, assuming this is some slang that you or a friend made up, this would probably be better for a site like Urban Dictionary. If it's not made up and you can support that, then our sister project Wiktionary would be the place to go. TheTechnician27(Talk page)19:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
How do i add external links to Wikipedia without typing the whole thing. I need to be able to verify stuff with external links but i REALLY don't want to have to write the whole link. Chewie1138 (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Chewie1138, welcome to the Teahouse. To clarify, you're referring to using external links as references? Assuming that's the case, the Cite feature in the visual editor can automatically generate a citation from an external link where most of the legwork is done for you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
what happens when two articles are about the same subject?
i'm very curious about what happens when two articles are about the same thing, i've never seen this happen before, so thats why im curious
(sorry if this was short, im not very good at writing super detailed questions :/) Alex102207 (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Alex102207: Sometimes, two editors will unknowingly write articles that have somewhat different titles but deal with the same topic. Sooner or later, when someone notices this, the articles will be merged. Deor (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: Would it somehow be possible to link the german article de:Metrik_(Mathematik) which redirects to de:Metrischer Raum ? We wouldnt have the issue with two links going to the same german article and wouldnt have to worry if someone writes an article about Metrics.
I want to make an article about a family member. I think he is relevant enough.
So i want to make an article on an author named John Wayne Falbey I. The problem is that said person is related to me. I think he's relevant enough since he just wrote his first book published by a publisher instead of himself. Would an exemption be made for this, Or will someone else have to make this article? Chewie1138 (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Chewie1138: The first problem here is WP:COI. You have a conflict of interest. The second is WP:NOTABILITY. He needs to be known and talked about by independent sources (WP:RS). Extending the second point, WP:NAUTHOR. He needs to be a notable author. Looking over the list, he fails all 4 requirements. I've looked him up and found 2 articles on Google that mention him in passing. From this, I doubt he is notable enough to have an article about him. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 23:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Editing My User And Talk Page To Make Them Look More Exciting
Hi, I would like to ask now could I make things more exciting for other users. My User and Talk page look very dull and I just want to make it welcome for other people that's all! I am AestheticDiabetic09 as you said 'DO NOT SIGN with tildes' AestheticDiabetic09 (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey, AestheticDiabetic09, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are a whole bunch of things you can do to spice your user page up, but my personal favorite is an infobox with userboxes. Userboxes (WP:UBX) are templates that allow you to describe yourself as an editor or as a person. They're always bright and colorful, and they can often be helpful to other editors visiting your page. For example, some describe what language(s) you speak and how proficiently, some describe how many edits you've contributed, some what WikiProjects (WP:PROJECT) you're involved with, etc. Also, check out Wikimedia Commons, our sister project, for great Creative Commons images you can add to your profile. TheTechnician27(Talk page)16:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Talk pages are for functional communications with other editors, about article edits, so my advice is don't dwell on it being 'exciting'. David notMD (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
For Wikiproject Korea: Contextual use of unreliable source?
Hi! So I'm posting a question here in relation to articles within Wikiproject Korea, particularly in the entertainment field. I noticed that while the website Seoulbeats.com is considered as an unreliable site for this Wikiproject, some articles on Korean music albums and dramas cites this site as a reference, particularly in regards to an album/drama critical review. For example: Ice Cream Cake (EP) and The Tale of Nokdu.
In this case, is context needed for the usage of Seoulbeats.com? Like is it unreliable for main articles regarding a living person or event, but acceptable for album/drama reviews? Thanks in advance! JTan1017 (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi @JTan1017:! While I don't know much about Seaoulbeats.com specifically, an unreliable source like a tabloid or a fanblog generally means that you cannot use that source for biographical information or breaking news. Because a critical review is a matter of opinion and not of fact, certain sources may be included there. For example, the article for the Halestorm song "Uncomfortable" cites the Daily Express, which this list says is "generally unreliable." However, its use in the article is an uncontroversial album review, not a piece of heavy-hitting reporting. Kncny11(shoot)17:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply! Seoulbeats is a Kpop and Kdrama fanblog and review site, and I've been working around improving several Korean album articles lately, so I was wondering if I could use that. Hehe. JTan1017 (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
No talk page discussion?
I want to make certain changes to an article (Gimbap), but I was advised by one of the editors to use the talk page. I'd already edited and reverted three times, so to avoid edit warring, I added my proposed changes to the talk page (talk:Gimbap). But, nobody has commented on the proposal, including the person who had reverted my changes on the grounds it violated 'fair balance' three times. It's been 4 days and I was wondering at what point I could edit the article again without being accused of edit warring or for not seeking consensus? NettingFish15019 (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@CommanderWaterford:, thanks for the advice. I'm trying to get a third opinion through the talk page, but nobody seems to be posting anything and I thought I could only post a third opinion once there has been more discussion on the talk page? Does this apply to the questions I posted, or just to the general topic as a whole? Also, someone had recently edited the page, such that it drastically changed the tone of the article as a whole (which I thought was without consensus too). In that spirit, I tried to reverse the changes by, what I thought was, making the language more neutral. NettingFish15019 (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Banned from Live Chat Help
Hello, moments ago I attempted to ask a question using the Live Chat Help. Before I could ask a question about improving my article, I was quickly banned. Why would this happen, and how do I get specific help with improving an article when the reviewer isn't available? I've asked the reviewer to elaborate on his/her comments about notability, but I've not heard back. I'm afraid the draft article will be removed before I can provide some improvements. Lakewood66 (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Lakewood66. I have no idea about Live Chat (I've never used it) but I can reassure you on one point: drafts are not deleted just because they fail review (I don't think they're deleted even if they are outright rejected). They are deleted only if they break major policies like COPYVIO or No personal attacks, or if they are untouched for six months. --ColinFine (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Your draft, Declined once, exists at Draft:Shannon Global Energy Solutions. You also asked about it at Help Desk and have been promised help (in future please do not ask in more than one place). There is some history about the topic, as it appears you had created a draft last summer that was Speedy deleted. No idea what happened at Live Chat Help. David notMD (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Lakewood66: I don't know why you were banned from the live chat help I've seen people get banned because they were being rude or because they were blocked on Wikipedia, but those don't apply to you. Were you logged in to #wikipedia-en-helpconnect or somewhere else? Were you logged in as Lakewood66 or an anonymous username? (Maybe an anonymous username or IP was blocked earlier, and you were assigned the same username or IP range when you tried logging in?) If you'd like to try again tonight, I'll keep an eye out for you. GoingBatty (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello Lakewood66, I'm very sorry that you had this experience. I'm a channel operator over at #wikipedia-en-help and I looked into this issue. It looks like you came in right in the middle of an attack where the attacker was rapidly IP/nick hopping and I fear you might have been accidentally assumed to be a part of that attack (they were using dozens of nicks that were "WPhelp<random #>" and a wide variety of IPs, where normally the nick is "<ColorAnimal##>"). I hope you will accept my apologies. I will go ahead and unban all the less-suspect IPs around that timeframe and keep an eye out for you, you can just type my nick or GoingBatty's nick to ping us specifically if you like. Waggie (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Political leanings
I've noticed the Parler Wikipedia article has a Liberal lean. The problem is that it's almost entirely watched and controlled by a Liberal so anything i do to fix this will be undone. Is there a way i can stop this lean once and for all? Chewie1138 (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Chewie1138 (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. Any bias in those sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. Wikipedia presents the sources to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias. We don't deal in truth, but in what can be verified. Only you can decide what is true for you.
If the reliable sources in the Parler article are not being summarized accurately, or there are sources missing, please bring it up on the article talk page. If the sources are being summarized accurately, but you disagree with them, you will have to take that up with the sources. 331dot (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Chewie1138. Are there any specific excerpts in this article you take issue with? If so, I would be happy to look at them and see if what we've said reflects what reliable sources have said. In high-profile articles such as this, there's usually a high level of conformity with reliable sources, but it never hurts to double-check. Cheers. TheTechnician27(Talk page)23:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
How to retrieve some diff without browsing the page history?
My question may be naive, but I found it problematic to retrieve some concrete old diff from the pages with a long history (user talk pages, various noticeboard). Usually, I was doing that by browsing the page history, but sometimes it may be too time consuming. Are there any tools that allow you to quickly retrieve a diff with some post made, e.g. at 10:21 am, 1st October, 2018?
Hi, Paul. If you go to the article's revision history, then select 'Filter revisions' at the top, you can search within a specified date. However, I don't think it's possible to specify the time within a date. Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken. TheTechnician27(Talk page)00:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I have written an article in the past about a boardgame, and it didn't pass muster because of what I perceived to be lack of WP:GNG. In my rage those day, I just speedily delete my article and then never return again.
Thus, how to prove WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV to board games? Almost all board games, except for very few, will be covered by mainstream medias.
And seeing how the articles above still be allowed, if I created similar articles with similar sources (not much in media coverage) can it pass review?
Lack of response to my contribution made on January 28, 2021
I had made my second contribution on January 28, 2021, after my first submission was rejected. I made necessary changes and additions to the content. But, I haven’t received a response on acceptance or rejection of my later submission. Please look into the matter at the earliest. Evolved nerd (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Evolved nerd: Draft/article reviewing is done in no particular order, and asking on the teahouse will not "cut the line". I can tell you, however, that your article as it is right now will probably not make it. It's not structured like an article. There are many NPOV issues and the article looks like an advertisement in some lights. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 07:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I am sorry. I thought I resubmitted the edited content. Should I simply now click on the resubmit button? Could someone guide me? Also, if someone could point out where exactly the text is falling short, and what edits I should make to help my article get accepted, that will be great. This is my first time making a submission on wikipedia. I am rather lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evolved nerd (talk • contribs) 05:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@Chewie1138: Infoboxes are easiest when done in source editing mode. Find the most relevant infobox template, copy in the blank syntax code, and start filling in the parameters after the equals sign (=) in each line. The list of available parameters and what should go in them are in the infobox documentation (like at Template:Infobox musical artist). The best way to see how they work is to go to an existing article with an infobox, go into source editing, and see how the code works there. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 06:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Apparently a sports facility in Florida has been rebranded. The article describing it has been correspondingly moved, and is now at Jackie Robinson Training Complex. However, before the move, a user (whose username suggests a connection with the subject) has heavily edited the article, including removing all references and categories, hence it is now tagged as unref'd and uncat'd. As I see it, I cannot just restore the previous good edit, and I cannot manually add back the refs, because the content to which they relate has been largely changed. (I can add back the cats, obviously, but that's the least of the problems.) I don't know how to deal with this, could someone please advise and/or action? Thanks -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, DoubleGrazing. In the future, click the article's "History" tab and scroll down to the version just before the disruption started. Click on the date/time of that version, and then click "Edit", and verify that this is the most recent good version. Now, leave an edit summary, click "Publish changes" and the undamaged version of the article will be restored. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Cullen328: I know how to restore earlier versions, my problem was that I assumed that the substantial edits (in connection which, the refs were removed) were valid and should not be just rolled back. But it seems I was wrong. Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
DoubleGrazing, the manual revert procedure I suggested is not the same as rollback, which is a much more aggressive procedure that should be reserved for overt, unambiguous vandalism, libel and the like. That's why I said that you should verify the version you reverted to. If there was some useful content in the intervening versions, you can copy that and paste it back into the article with an explanatory edit summary. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Chewie1138, the easiest way to create a page is to create a draft, with the name of your article, (i.e. Draft:Example if I wanted article Example,) and then to write the draft as you normally would. When you have finished, you can place the template {{subst:submit}} at the top, and a user called an "AfC Reviewer" (AfC for Articles for Creation, which is what this process is called) will come and look review it. If it is declined, the reviewer will leave some suggested changes in order for the draft to be accepted. When you have made those changes, you can re-add the template {{subst:submit}} to see have it re-reviewed. If it is accepted, the reviewer will move it to mainspace, thus making it an article! For more info on how AfC works, see here, and for a guide to creating your first article, see here. Giraffer(talk·contribs)07:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
The Article I Created
Hi Teahouse, few days ago, Feb 24, I created an article which I think was approved but I still wonder why I can not find it on Google yet or other search engines. It actually came out on Yahoo search about two days ago. Please what do you think is the problem?
@Trendrives: Google does a ton of things with indexing and stuff. This isn't really a Wikipedia problem (if the article is actually in mainspace), moreso a Google thing. Just wait a bit longer. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 05:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Can I suggest a topic here for an editor, then someone can start with creating a profile page?
There is a Thailand-based football player, I think he is a lot deserving for the Wikipedia page. I am new on Wiki and don't have an idea about article writing, but I can suggest a topic for the editor. I can share all details that I have for the person if someone is interested. 103.84.81.198 (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would correct you in that Wikipedia does not have "profile pages", not one. Wikipedia has articles. You are welcome to suggest articles at Requested Articles; however, the backlog there is severe and it may be some time, if ever, before your request is acted upon. You are correct to be cautious about article writing, as it is the hardest thing to do here. We don't just share information/details about people, we summarize what independent reliable sources say about subjects. I will say though that if you have reviewed the Wikipedia definition of a notable football player and believe this person meets it, and you have at least three independent reliable sources to support that, you can take your time creating a draft using Articles for Creation, and you can submit that draft for a review by other editors before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. You may wish to read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to Teahouse - WP have backlog of requested articles.So I suggest you to learn how to edit on WP.Observe other articles about football like Lionel Messi and first experiment in your sandbox.Cite reliable sources from Newspaper website's articles like big one BBC , website of top news channel's of your country. You can make article only about notable people. 106.220.85.12 (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
How to write successor , previous office holder name in Infobox ?
Hello friends , while editing a article about former office holder Eknath Khadse , politician.I am not able to add his previous office holder's name
, Chief minister's name in which cabinet he was minister.Also not able to add governor name.I tried to add by visual and non visual way , but I couldn't.I think Infobox office holder don't have these options.that man was three times minister.Can someone fix this issue. 223.178.144.61 (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
In {{Infobox officeholder}}, you can populate the existing |predecessor1= and |predecessor2=, and add |predecessor3= and |predecessor4=. If you would like further help, I suggest you post in the article's talk page: Talk:Eknath Khadse. Please provide a published reliable source for the information you would like added to the article as well. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
How can I go about contributing to a portal that seems mostly inactive?
Hi, I'm an electrical engineering student wanting to contribute to the electronics portal, but it just so happens that it seems pretty inactive. I've made a few edits already, I'm just wondering if it's okay to go ahead and continue editing, and make sure I'm not stepping on anyone's toes. FemboyCircuits (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@Jajajay: Welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, an article can have more than one reliable source from the same website. However, the article should have sources from multiple independent sources. GoingBatty (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Hossein norouzi 306, and welcome to the Teahouse from me too. To add to what the other editors have replied: I recommend you be cautious before you edit a semi-protected article. Have a look at the article's talk page, and see what has been going on. Some articles are semi-protected because they have had a spate of vandalism - that is, editing simply to damage Wikipedia - and if that is why the article has been protected, then if you have something to contribute, go ahead! But other articles are protected because they have been contentious and often people have been trying to continue a real-world conflict in the pages of Wikipedia. If an article you wish to edit is one of those, I urge you to read the Talk page and its archives carefully to see if the edit you want to make has already been discussed; and in any case, unless it is something trivbial like correcting a misspelling, think about discussing your proposed change on the talk page first. See BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello! I have made several suggested edits to my current draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Roy_S._Herbst) and I would greatly appreciate if someone could take another look at it and let me know what else I can do to get it accepted.
Jcollinsycc, I'm not a draft reviewer, but just from looking at your draft it seems like you've added many sources. My one suggestion is to add a citation to the personal section. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs17:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Bop34 and GoingBatty! I've decided to remove the section, since it's not particularly necessary or important to the entry. If there's anything else I need to do to get this article accepted, please let me know. It's been in draft space since December and I'm eager to see it as an article. :) Jcollinsycc (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Jcollinsycc. All of our core inclusion policies (such as notability, verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research) converge on aspects of reliable sourcing – so improvement of the sourcing will always make a draft more likely to be acceptable. One thing you might to do here is bone up the attribution of the citations, for better transparency.
To provide one example, right now, with respect to one source you've cited, all the draft provides is a linked title and "Nature, June 2010". I would change that to the following (here, I'm using a citation template; I find them very helpful, because it consistently formats everything automagically, without my need to know any order, but you don't need to do likewise; the point is the addition of a lot more attribution information):
<ref>{{Cite journal|journal=Nature Reviews Drug Discovery|volume=9|issue=423|url=https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd3199.pdf|title=Adaptive BATTLE trial uses biomarkers to guide lung cancer treatment|date=June 2010|doi=10.1038/nrd3199}}</ref>
Many, many times I have tried to improve an article someone deletes my hard work. I quit Wikipedia years ago for the very same thing, but figured I'd give it another chance, but it's happening again. I'm about to quit forever! 174.250.246.103 (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello IP user, could you maybe link what article you're triyng to improve so we could know if the person who deleted your work was right or wrong? I would reccommend you to ask the person who deletes your work why they did that on their user talk page. I also reccommend you to make an account so you can keep track of your contributions since the list resets when you move locations as an IP, that would also help people know what you're talking about. Max20characters (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Notability of potential subject: singer / songwriter Lainey Wilson
Hello. I have been hired by a management company to create a Wikipedia entry for Nashville Singer / Songwriter Lainey Wilson.
Before I begin the Wikipedia process, I thought it best to start here and make sure that she meets the notability requirement.
Any help you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Craig.volt (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
She needs to be the subject of significant, independent, published work. Basically, people who are not her or associated with her need to have written about her life and work (i.e. not her personal website, her employers, or work that was "written for hire" about her, press releases also do not count, etc.). It is those independent, reliable sources that are needed so that an article can be written. The indicator of notability is the independent source texts. --Jayron3218:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Craig.volt. Thank you for being up front about your task. Please be aware that creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks there is for an inexperienced editor; and it is many times harder if they have a COI. Have you read Your first article?
Another take on what Jayron said is that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.. You may also want to show Wilson the page An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing: make her aware that if you succeed in getting an article about her published, it will not belong to her, and neither she nor you will have any control over its contents. --ColinFine (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I fixed Template:Univision programming Since Dulce Ambición has ended it has changed to La hija del embajador
While I am not a Teahouse Host, I can assist you with your question. There are two ways to create articles. For beginner editors the recommended way is AFC(Articles For Creation) because you can get help from AFC reviewers. Another way is to search for a non-existent article and create an article for it. However, it can be seen and be deleted if you don't follow Wikipedia's policies. Happy Editing, SoyokoAnis18:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)!
JudeJnr Hi Ok you just submitted your first darft.Now it can take long time to be reviewed and approved.Till you can improve it by adding new info and citing reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.220.85.12 (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
JudeJnr Hello you editing skills looking good. You can create new articles on Musicians , Politician , Sportsmen , Village and towns around you , edit and improve existing article about your interest. Cheers 106.220.85.12 (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank You, took out time studying series of exiting articles and also ensure they met WP:NPOV, following the code of conduct; governing this system. Would try something new on entrepreneur.--JudeJnr (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
If you meant what happens to the draft, a review can take place within days, weeks, or (sadly) months. The system is not a queue. If accepted, the reviewer will more it to mainspace and remove Draft: from the name. A tag may be added to distinguish it from the other Oxlade. Once in mainspace it can take up to 90 days before it will be visible to a search conducted at Google or other search engine. David notMD (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm trying to edit my employers wikipedia page : American Society of Echocardiography. I updated it in September and then today noticed it had been reverted to an old version. I retrieved my changes and tried to add more citations, but just wanted to check what else I could do to keep the newest revision in place.
Ase2021, You really shouldn't be editing your employer's page as you have a clear WP:COI. It's general practice not to edit if you have a COI, but you can send a COI edit request on the talk page. Looking at your edits, it is clear that they are promotional. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs16:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
What you added twice, reverted twice, was a huge amount of content of what the society says about itself (Mission Statement, Strategic goals, Membership benefits, blah, blah, blah). None of that belongs in the article. As already mentioned, the avenue open to you is to go to the article's Talk page and propose changes. David notMD (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Change:
James Michael Johnson (born January 30, 1972) is an American attorney, politician, and former talk radio host serving as the U.S. Representative for Louisiana's 4th congressional district. First elected in 2016, he is also the chairman of the House Republican Study Committee, a coalition of socially- and fiscally-conservative members of the larger House Republican Conference.
To:
James Michael Johnson (born January 30, 1972) is an American attorney, politician, and former talk radio host serving as the U.S. Representative for Louisiana's 4th congressional district. First elected in 2016, he is also the Vice Chairman of the House Republican Conference. He previously served as chairman of the House Republican Study Committee, the largest coalition of socially- and fiscally-conservative members of House Republican Conference.
Place to ask is on Talk page of the article in question. Or just make the change. But you will have to put that URL in proper reference format. Look at other website refs in the article and mimic those. David notMD (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
How to use images from others that I have permission?
I obtained the permission to use Dr. Michael Sawaya's X-ray crystallographic image of 20 amino acids. How do I added it to the wiki site since this image is not my own work?
Hello, ShuguangZhang4, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, because of Wikipedia's fundamental purpose, to make information available to anybody for any purpose, permission to use an image in Wikipedia is not acceptable. The only way to do this is if Dr Sawaya himself (not you) chooses to license the image under CC-BY-SA, which will allow anybody to reuse or alter it for any purpose, commercial or not, as long as they attribute. If he is willing, he can either upload it to Wikimedia Commons himself, or can send a mail as specified in donating copyright materials. I have removed the contact information address from above: it is a bad idea to publish them in such a public site as this. --ColinFine (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
If edits are approved or rejected
Hello,
I am wondering when and how I will know if the contributions I made to a wikipedia site will be approved or rejected? Will i receive an email? How will i know when the decision has been made?
Thank you
Nicole Snively Nicole Snively (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Nicole Snively and welcome to the Teahouse. For most pages, once you've edited content and hit the 'Publish changes' button, your edits will appear immediately. Except for certain 'protected pages' there is no approval process. However, if your edit is not deemed acceptable, or perhaps not supported by references, or in some other way inappropriate, another editor may revert them immediately. You should see a red alert symbol at the top of the page notifying you of any such 'revert'. But you can always go to the 'View History' tab and check if a subsequent edit has removed your own. There should be an 'edit summary' alongside it which explains why that edit was made. (further explanation to follow shortly) Nick Moyes (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@Nicole Snively: I note these two good faith edits were made by you, but reverted as 'Vandalism' by NoahDavid771 just two minutes later (see here). However, I've since appreciated that he immediately left you a clear and valid explanation for their removal on your own talk page. i.e. it was a non-neutral edit with too much of your own opinion within it.I completely disagree with their initially-stated rationale, even if your comments were not as neutral as befits an encyclopaedia, as we might have wished (see answer to your follow-up question below, which explains why it was removed, and further comment from me) which I'm sure 'vandalism' as a reason was an error, so I am pinging them in the hope they will come here to explain their reasoning. (The normal way we do things is to suggest that one editor goes to the reverting editor's talk page and politely asks them to explain their rationale to you for reverting. The way you have done it below in your follow-up question would never have reached that editor, so I will remove it shortly) I'm sure there must be a logical explanation, and I apologise if you feel your efforts were not appreciated, but removing content that doesn't fit in with our style of voice is quite common. But vandalism it certainly wasn't. Please don't let that put you off - with 6,000,000+ articles to maintain, we can all make mistakes sometimes Nick Moyes (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC) (note: I've subsequently edited this post multiple times for clarity & accuracy)
@Nick Moyes:, @Nicole Snively: I used the RedWarn interface to revert it and it appears I misclicked. I gave you a reason on your talk page.
Looking for some help of native-language speakers interested in 1960s/70ies rock
Hello, I am new on wikipedia and wrote an article about the protometal band Poobah from Ohio (rock fans might be familiar with the name). I translated the article into english, but I am not a native speaker. I got a cleanup template message on the article and need some help to get it fixed. People with some knowledge of counterculture, psychedelic rock and similar things would be very welcome. The article is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poobah_(band)GegenkulturForschung (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC) GegenkulturForschung (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello GoingBatty,
I did a lot of research, but I am not sure where to find any source that will be considered to be independent and reliable about any older rock band that is not as popular as the beatles. To be correct; the band I write about is certainly not a common mainstream band, but most of the bands before the Disco invasion weren't. Although lesser known , it is not any obscure amateur band. The band ist still active after 48 years (and the founder played in two bands before that, having produced at least two records), has published 14 albums and is working on the next, and some of their songs have been used in televison serials and hollywood movies lately. I have a large collection of literature, (which wasn't helpful in that case) and I have found the band cited as "Most collectible psyche band" or "Top ten of.." in magacines like The Rolling Stone and metioned as important protometal pioneers all over the internet. Still, I need someone who can point me out a source that I can link here. So I hoped to find someone with mutual interests here in the tea room." GegenkulturForschung (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I can't claim I've heard of this band before, but if you have literature, even if it's not online, you can still cite it. Rolling Stone should be just fine. --Anon423 (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello NoahDavid771
To NoahDavid771
I see that my contributions were rejected on February 24th. I wonder why they were rejected as I got my information from credible scholarly articles. Could this be reconsidered?
Hello @Nicole Snively:. For future reference, it is better to talk to your reverter on their own user talk page. You were not rejected for not having reliable sourcing, rather, you were reverted for not having a neutral point of view. From looking at diffs, the quotes "what was forgotten by some," "It is unfortunate to think" "pivotal moment in nursing and the nurses experience" "Another significant part" are examples of some non-NPOV stuff. Please read over WP:NPOV fully to understand what we mean by NPOV. Thank you! WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 23:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@Nicole Snively: I seem to be making a bit of a hash of answering you, tonight. I have just noticed that you did, in fact, receive this perfectly clear explanation from the reverting editor, right after they removed your edit. Did you not see the notification that told you of a message on your userpage? My initial concerns that they thought your edit was vandalism is therefore not the case. To learn how to engage with another editor, you might with to read this page, though just replying to that message on your user talk page should have sufficed had you needed further feedback. Best, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
How to completely, thoroughly, totally, and permanently delete a Wikipedia account?
Why can't I make an article about an unpublished book? It can be improved after it is published right? I feel unjustified. This novella is something I feel like is notable, because there are many articles on books that are written by Fans, who wrote it neutrally, and they are considered notable. I'm not a fan yet, but I feel I can make this article. I did not break my neutral point of view in the article. The article was not financially involved with the author. All my refrences were relaible, and don't tell me that novels that aren't released can't be put here. If so, why are unreleased TV shows, episodes, and movies put up here?
Hi Danglerofhell. See WP:BKCRYSTAL; which will refer you to WP:CRYSTAL, which will refer you to WP:N (notability). Based on the fact that ever single source you have cited in the draft has had no utility whatever in demonstrating any notability—as we use that word here, and not as you have interpreted it in a vernacular manner to mean something else (every single one being primary and non-independent)—do not waste any more of your own time. In short, barring the unearthing of reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail, the future publication of this novella is not notable at this time, as it simply has not been the subject of reliable, independent publication by third parties, and no article can be written that will be acceptable right now.
It is not unjustified; it is in keeping with what an encyclopedia is. In effect, you're like a person who wants to submit for publication in an atlas something that sort of looks like a map, but isn't actually one, and are here saying it's unfair that you've been told "but that's not what an atlas covers". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFF and all that, but (I write this for the OP; I know you, Robert, know this), we also have articles on upcoming events that are highly anticipated enough, that multiple reliable, secondary independent sources write about the upcoming release.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Verifying citations
When copyediting I sometimes like to verify sources. Many sources have no links. When I try to get books or articles I am successful about 30% of the time using JSTOR, Internet Archive, WorldCat. Are there other ways of getting references? OodFloo (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@Hgh1985: If you didn't know, there was a census held that year, and processing was delayed due to COVID-19. Other users can correct me, but I don't think that data is available yet. If it is available, it's just a case that nobody's taken up the task of updating the figures. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 01:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Reset password
My email provider has discontinued its email service. For this reason, I cannot reset my password as the Wiki system does not allow another way than the email. Please advise on how I can recover my account. 41.13.224.235 (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
That is actually quite pathetic. But none the less I will soldier forth. Interesting how people in Wiki with contacts inside can “steal” profile names once the owner of that profile has moved on.
I think they mean "usurping", which you can't do if the account has made any appreciable amount of edits at all (any edits at all usually is sufficient), and the definition of "insider" for usurpation is, basically, has a couple of months of non-problematic edits. Beyond that, the only thing that would transfer is the username. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Passwords are not stored anywhere so nobody can access them (see key derivation function if you wonder how users can log in when the servers don't know their password). But some developers have access to set a new email address for an account so a temporary password can be mailed. They do it rarely in special circumstances like users with advanced user rights or large edit counts. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
PrimeHunter actually describes what I mean. The devs sometimes (very rarely) might use their access to set the email adress to something different. But as PrimeHunter already says, they will only do it for very few accounts, and you have to convince them that you are the actual account owner (thats why I mentioned the commited identity and the confidentially agreement). After all, this is unlikely to happen for 99% of accounts, so you will very likely have to create a new account. A few notes about emails, I recommend that you choose an email provider who will not simply shut down the service, but rather give you a few months (6 is common) beforehand so you can rehome all acocunts based on that adress to a new one. Thats also the reason why I recommend retaining any email confirmation emails, so you know which acocunts you need to find a new home for... Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Gents, thank you for the comprehensive feedback. It is actually very simply, my username Ameshoff is a very unique name to me and I would have loved to use it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.250.150 (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
If the only potential sources for a particular subject are in Wikipedia, then it's not a subject that can have an article in Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Talk
I am trying to respond back to the individual on talk but am unsure how to respond back. How do I respond back to the individual on his talk in order to prove that the correction was made for approval? Aletahall2021 (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
The primary purpose of this draft seems to be giving advice. Giving advice isn't something that Wikipedia does. It just recycles published facts from reliable sources. So the draft shouldn't say for example "A proposal video should have a mission statement of its organisation within the storyline" (my emphasis), as it now does; instead it should say for example Three studies found that around 80% of successful proposal videos submitted to grant organizations in northwest Europe from 2016 to 2019 had mission statements whereas 60% of unsuccessful proposal videos did not.[1][2][3], with each of those three index numbers pointing to a study published in a (non-vanity) academic journal or similar. -- Hoary (talk) 08:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Jallerso, and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know why you think you have been blocked: I can't find any evidence of it, and you still seem to be able to edit. The logo will be removed from Commohns because Commons accepts only freely licensed material. Logos can usually be uploaded to Wikipedia itself, as non-free media; but only if their use meets all the criteria in the non-free content criteria - two of which are that they may be used only in articles (not drafts), and that they must be used in at least one article. The time to consider uploading the logo then is after your draft has been accepted as an article. In the meantime, you can work on turning your draft from a piece of marketing puff into an encyclopaedia article. For example, a list of devices, OS's and languages supported in the first sentence is not appropriate - probably not appropriate anywhere, but certainly not there. Remember that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I was changing links from http to https on Cleveland, Tennessee, and when i tried to publish it, it said a link to a blacklisted site had been added. The problem is, i didn't add a link. All i did was change http to https. Any ideas on what to do about this. Chewie1138 (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
That's odd indeed. What's the page you want to link? (You can write it out here like "https :// www. spamcornucopia. com/ nigerianmillions .html".) -- Hoary (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Rmesiwotso, welcome to the Teahouse. I see you already created User:Rmesiwotso/sandbox before posting. That is the page linked on "Sandbox" at the top of pages so I recommend using that and not Rmesiwotso's /Sandbox link. Please clarify your question. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Adding a link to a name in an infobox in Visual Editor
Hello, BIDR74, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you work for the university and are editing any articles connected with them, then you are reagarded by Wikipedia as a paid editor, and you must make the declarations specified at that link. You should also read about editing with a conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Table
First round of discussion about 'Difference between Muslim .... and Islamic .... ?' in relation to Wikipedia article titles has been initiated at following talk pages.
Since I had promised at this notice board to keep informed hence a discussion invitation message.
Why at multiple talk pages, because 1) it is just initial first round only 2) to reach out a more people over a long long period.
If any editor is vandalising a page continuously and I am reverting it and at last I revert the third time then also that editor vandalises that page again, then what should I do as I it would be againt the tree revert rule, if I see that after two hour also no one has reverted that vandalism then what to do? ExclusiveEditor (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Has this draft been submitted for review? I cannot find it in the AfC Pending submissions list but the draft page has the subst:submit template. Thank you! --Indianite (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ganbaruby: They are not blocked on en-wp, but they are indeed blocked on test-wp by Koavf (see log). I see no warning on their talk page beforehand, so one might argue it is a bit harsh; but then again, stuff like this looks like they are testing how to make efficient vandalism, which we should probably not encourage. TigraanClick here to contact me14:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
When will the change I made to Lazlo Lorand biography, which is noted on the edited page version, appear on the main and first page of his biography Martinsugarman16 (talk) 11:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Martinsugarman16, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. Your edit was in good faith, but there were some things wrong with it. I think it was rather unkind of both KIENGIR (who reverted your edits) and SenatorLEVI above not to give a clear explanation to a new editor. You added information to an article, and gave a citation: well done! That's better than many new editors manage to do. KIENGIR's objection was that you hadn't put the citation in a proper format as explained at REFB.
I have now reapplied your edit, but with some changes:
I have not put it in the lead section, but in the biography section, where I trhink it is more appropriate
I have formatted the reference as a proper citation. I don't think that KIENGIR was right to have reverted for this reason, but the fact that you didn't give full bibliographic information, so that a reader ten years hence would be able to track it down, is a problem.
I have removed the mention of his being Jewish, mostly because that was not in the source. All information in a Wikipedia article should be found in a reliable published source. Even with a source, it is not necessarily the case that this should be mentioned, and it should not in the lead unless it is significant to the subject's notability: see CONTEXTBIO. --ColinFine (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I have to completely refuse to judge me being "unkind", neither it holds for SenatorLEVI. The edit log proves that ("please.."). I considered better than just put a cn tag, and I wished to see especially the source for veification. However, thank you for fixing it.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC))
Hello, KIENGIR. I did not say you were impolite (you were not) I said that both you and SenatorLevi were unkind in not explaining clearly to a new user just what was wrong with his edit. Your edit summary said "please use proper source format" without an explanation or a link to find out what the proper source format was - similarly Levi's comment above; and you didn't post anything on his talk page. Many new users don't realise that they can look at the history and see edit comments. I don't know if Martinsugarman16 knew to look, but his question above suggests that he wasn't aware that somebody had manually reverted his edit: if so, then he certainly wouldn't have seen your edit summary. --ColinFine (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
still reject being unkind, I did not investigate the user's background, I had zero negative intention, and please excludes the possibility not just being unkind, but even negligent. However, next time I will cite in the edit log a WP guideline/rule, so noone may say I did not give sufficient information.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC))
Good morning, I have been trying to update my boss's Wiki entry. I first tried using a new account I set up for him (Richard Andrew Baker), made the changes, published, and a few hours noticed that it had reverted to the old version. I didn't understand why. I then set up a new account for me (KimberleyKitten), re-amended the entry and the same thing happened. The Luke that is mentioned in some of the communications, is an IT friend of mine who was trying to help me. Basically, Mr Baker's entry isn't changing much at all, just that his roles are being put in to chronological order. Could someone advise on how to update and retain the amended entry; ie what I need to change or alter, thank you. I copied and pasted the revised entry so I could refer to it myself if necessary, this is copied below in case it is of any help:
KimberleyKitten (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for getting back to me. Having tried to understand the limitations, it isn't obvious to me why some of what we have amended is not allowed, there is a small amount of additional information, and the rest of the roles have been put in to a new chronological order. I also didn't copy and paste anything in to the entry when amending, I just kept a copy of it for my file. Can anyone tell me what to do in layman's terms? Many thanks, kind regards, Kimberley KimberleyKitten (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
@KimberleyKitten: Because you have a conflict of interest, you are discouraged from editing the article directly since it's very hard for you to remain in a neutral point of view. You should instead make edit requests at the talk page; instructions are in the link. Also, please continue the discussion in the same section; it helps other editors keep track of prior replies. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 14:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
In addition, per the message left on your Talk page "You are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." See WP:PAID for how to declare that on your User page. Sam would apply to Luke. Per what Ganbaruby wrote, you are prohibited from editing the article directly. Instead, specifically worded content is to be proposed on the Talk page of the article, so that a non-involved editor can decide to implement or not. David notMD (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Fandom encyclopedia?
Is Fandom.org basically an online encyclopedia like Wikipedia but with more detailed articles on television cartoon series? It seems many shows have their own dedicated "mini encyclopedias" within the website itself. 47.150.227.254 (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I am working on draft article and I've now realized it has the wrong name and I cannot correct it. I was wondering if there was a way to fix it or do I have to create a new draft page? Jediaj02 (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Jediaj02 I would leave a note for potential reviewers that the title is incorrect; if accepted, the reviewer will place it at the proper title. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Teahouse exchange
The summary of what led to a previous Teahouse exchange on 23:37, 22 February can be found in the second paragraph here. Attempted to reach out to User:David notMD, but views it as as a horsemeat. They do not seem understand I am trying to reach compromise with a user. User:Hostagecat had broken off from discussion after raising many concerns erroneous in nature that I think need to be examined (i.e. should AllMusic no longer be designated a reliable source under WP:RSMUSIC?) and then filed a report, which User:EdJohnston accepted without vetting if its claims were actually accurate and gave me a warning. Or perhaps they simply do not want to weight in. According to David notMD, "Content is totally outside my realm of knowledge (I'm an old white guy)". Either way, I am simply looking for a someone to serve as mediator between Hostagecat and I to enhance our communication. If you can assist in initiating a resolution or point towards the direction of an editor whose purview this falls under or is in some way interested, I would greatly appreciate it. -- Ascribe4 (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Ascribe4 (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ganbaruby:I tried replying on their talk page explaining that their claims were inaccurate. Among other things, User:Hostagecat repeatedly claimed AllMusic is unreliable and that I had not provide any sources when text did in fact have a citation, at the very end of the sentence they copy/pasted from. Instead of either accepting the facts I asserted or providing a clarification for what caused them to make such false claims they based their entire revert on—perhaps there was some sort of misunderstanding—Hostagecat broke off from discussion and filed an obscurant report. This complaint resulted in me receiving a warning by User:EdJohnston that I believe was undue. User:EdJohnston understandably had not been familiarized with the particularities of our conflict, accepted Hostagecat's claims without vetting if everything they said was accurate. When EdJohnston replied to me, for some reason they refrained from delving into the details I gave and instead turned their attention towards the 3rr and my earlier speculation that User:Hostagecat potentially might have been a sock, even though I had already stated Hostagecat has clarified they are not and that I assume good faith and believe them. EdJohnston has since moved on to other tasks without touching on the specific issues that I presented and has yet to respond to my request for assistance. --Ascribe4 (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Article is semi-protected so I can not edit
I am a student working on a class that requires us to edit an article. I chose the article "Feral cat" and I wanted to add an update from the AVMA with citations as well as 3 references for this week's assignment. I will also need to do further edits on the article as the course progresses but it said that the page is semi-protected. Will I be able to work on this article or should I pick another article to work on? Jmm26 (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@Jmm26: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you click on the gray lock icon at the top right of the article, you'll see that a user can edit the article if they are autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least four days old and have made at least ten edits to Wikipedia). You meet both these criteria, and I confirmed your status at Special:UserRights. At the top of the Feral cat article, you should see "Edit" and/or "Edit source" tabs. If you only see "View source", then you cannot edit the article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
If for some reason you wish to edit an article that you cannot edit, you may make a formal edit request on the article talk page, and write the change you wish to make there, for another editor to review. But as GB says, you should be able to edit that article. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
talk Hi first time I am seeing this that a people editing on Wikipedia as their class work. I don't think your response genuine. But before editing do research and write in you own words in simple UK English , don't use slang , local Eng words of your place. Because WP is read by folks all around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.178.144.61 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
It is not at all unusual for students to get an assignment to work on a Wikipedia article. Secondly, the variety of English depends on the article – articles about UK-specific subjects should be written in British English, articles about US-specific subjects use American English, and so on. Articles that are not about a topic that is connected to a particular region should in general stick to the variety the first author used. More information here. --bonadeacontributionstalk16:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Jmm26. Only articles which have been the subject of repeated disruption or vandalism tend to get page protected. Usually, page protection is the last resort when all other attempts to try and resolve the problem have failed. There also tends to be a number of editors closely monitoring such articles to make sure someone doesn't try to any sneak in any disruption by somehow figuring out a way to get around the page protection. So, you might want to discuss you desire to edit this particular article with your Wiki-Ed advisor(s) since you might find it a bit harder to edit than perhaps some other article. Well-meaning students often run into problems when they select articles about contentious subjects or articles which have a history of being page protected. Feral cat is indefinitely protected which means that there was some serious disruption going on at least at one point in time. The article has been protected six times since 2012 and each time the protection was removed, the disruption seems to have started up again. So, this might not be the best choice of an article to work on. I'm not trying to discourage you. If you really want to try to improve this article, then go ahead once your account has been WP:AUTOCONFIRMED; this might, however, be an article where it's better to be a bit more WP:CAUTIOUS than WP:BOLD. Just make sure you leave a clearly worded edit summary for your edits and try not to do a major rewrite/reorganization without first proposing it on the article's talk page. If you do those things, your edits are unlikely going to be mistaken for disruption or vandalism. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you all, but I still was not able to edit. The same message saying that it is semi-protected appears. Jmm26 (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Jmm26, Now that you're up to 19 edits, you shouldn't have any problem editing the article. The message will still appear, but you're part of the permitted group now. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Can I have an editor look over my draft article please? I've had feedback and tried to incorporate everything, I know I have expanded it and that it may be too long, I know I need more referencing after the first part, and I think having three paragraph headings in the same form may be repetitious (is there such a word?!) but apart from that am I on the right track and how can I shape it to be acceptable in due course? Grateful for any constructive criticism.
Paranoid Numanoid (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Paranoid Numanoid (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Paranoid Numanoid: Your personal correspondence cannot be used as a reference - all references need to be published so they could be verified by others. Also, please remove the link to example.com. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Hoary: I think these things should be brought up on the User talkpages or elsewhere, and not at the Teahouse unless brought up by the user or directly related to their statements and/or questions. This user literally hasn't said anything, so the comment comes across as aggressive.Tyrone Madera (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
@David notMD: True, you have a valid point. I've retracted my earlier statement. I didn't even notice the title when I left my comment. I apologize for any damage I've potentially caused. Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Draft:Tobey C. Moss
Courtesy link: Draft:Sonu Goel @Rakeshsipher: I'll give you some advice. The most important thing is that you put in way too much info, considering the only sources are his papers and YouTube videos. It needs to be much shorter if you have no profiles of him to support his notability. He won't pass the WP:GNG guidelines, but he might meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria. The guidelines for scholars and academics are different than those for non-scholars. I looked him up on Google scholar and saw his papers are cited 1227 times, but he's the co-author - never the sole author. That affects his notability a bit, but perhaps someone more knowledgeable about the notability guidelines can comment. But start by removing 90% of this, particularly things that aren't sourced. You can save the removed text for future use if there are better sources, but it won't help you now. If you can cull the info and get down to the most important info, there then needs be some copy and syntax editing. Ref tags come after punctuation, and there are no spaces between the refs and text. This discussion can be continued on the talk page, where I started a discussion with this text as well, and you can always ping me for additional advice. Good luck. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 07:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, all. --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Fixed by Paine Ellsworth. GoingBatty (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
If nobody figures it out by the time this thread gets archived, I'll do that. Thanks for taking a look! Woodroar (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Resolved
" should have alerted me, even on my hasty look!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Restored Firestar464 (talk) 07:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
