Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1109

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1105←Archive 1107Archive 1108Archive 1109Archive 1110Archive 1111→Archive 1115

Connect edits to existing pages

Hi. I won't keep you for too long, but the thing is that I've been looking up old tv shows and series for kids and young adults. I've personally had shows which names I couldn't remember prying on my mind. And sadly, the pages Wikipedia had to offer were rather short, so I decided to do something about that. I'm clearly not the only one trying to find old shows and series nowadays.

So I'm pretty much ready to start editing the list, but there's one problem. See, I'm actually Swedish, and a lot of shows were imported, so while I couldn't find too many pages in Swedish I found a lot in English and a few other languages. So now I'm just wondering how to connect my edits (which will be in Swedish) to their respective, English, pages. And you know here on Wikipedia, if something is marked blue, it's clickable. If it's marked red, it's still clickable, but it doesn't lead you anywhere. And I would of course want my edits to be blue marked. I hope this can be done, somehow.

Any serious help will be greatly appreciated, so thanks in advance! Denkichu (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Denkichu, welcome to the Teahouse! Interlanguage links are added from Wikidata, a repository of data that all Wikimedia projects can use, regardless of their language. To add an article in another language, simply click the "Edit links" button on the left sidebar below the Languages heading. I'm not sure what you're referencing to in your first question. red links are links to page that do not exist, like this page does not exist. If a page does exist, it would be blue, like example. Hope this helps! — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 18:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Denkichu, if I've understood correctly, what you are looking for is I believe Mall:ILL, which appears to be the equivalent of our {{ill}} template. That leaves the local link looking red until the page is actually created, but allows readers to follow an additional link to the equivalent page in another language. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Berrely @Justlettersandnumbers Hi! I didn't now how else to reply which is why I'm writing here. But I think you're both right, so thanks to the both of you! But I gotta say that all these links that you have to edit yourself is a bit confusing... I've never been very technical. Maybe there's a simplified video tutorial somewhere? Or if Wikipedia could fix the links on it's own? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denkichu (talk • contribs) 20:36, May 17, 2021 (UTC)

Hi Denkichu. The "problem" is that what you are talking about is to some extent counter to the way we (inspirationally) want links to work. Generally speaking, we want readers to see a red link, which flags that "no article be here", and then fill that hole in the Swedish Wikipedia by clicking and creating the article. So turning them blue through regular interlanguage links would be counter to that goal.

The template referred to above, {{ill}} here, Mall:ILL at the Swedish Wikipedia, is essentially a compromise. It allows the red link to remain, with a blue link to another language's article (linked by the name of the language). Of course, we all know that English is somewhat of a lingua franca worldwide, and especially in Skandinavian countries, but we still wouldn't, I don't think, want a sea of these compromise links.

All this is to say, this is not a "fix", and so won't be done en masse anywhere – unless some other language Wikipedia "gives up" on the idea of having their own articles and inviting their creation, or decides to take up this half blue, half red practice on a large scale. That means it must always be done selectively by someone like you. Anyway, since you said there was a technical barrier, here's how you would do it at the Swedish Wikipedia, in sufficient detail I hope to make the barrier very scalable

To create a piped, interlanguage link at the Swedish Wikipedia to an existing English article, you'd type there and save:
  • [[:en:ExactNameOfEnglishArticle|ArticleTitleInSwedish]]
To use the ill template at the Swedish Wikipedia for an article with the same name in English, you'd type there and save:
  • {{ill|en|NameInSwedish}}
And to use the ill template at the Swedish Wikipedia for an article with a different name than in English, you'd type there and save:
  • {{ill|en|NameInSwedish|EnglishArticleName}}
Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

sufficient citations in draft article

Hello - I've written a draft article on Edmond "Moen" Chait that cites 3 books (2 published by university presses, one in French), a third party webpage (in Dutch) and a tv documentary on the subject (in Dutch). It was declined for insufficient citations, meaning just passing references that are not substantial enough. I don't understand what that means. There's a long webpage devoted solely to Chait. He was extensively interviewed in the documentary. One of the books published by an academic press mentions Chait constantly because he was absolutely critical to the events described in the book. It is true, however, that one of the books glosses over his role and does not mention him all that much. How do I write the citations to convey how important Chait was in the references? Right now I have the page numbers in the citation refer to the specific event or activity mentioned in the sentence. But the article is a summary so it does not mention everything, with the result that it maybe looks like Chait gets only passing references, but that is not an accurate reflection of how he is portrayed in either of the academic books. Thanks for your help. DP1944 DP1944 (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@DP1944: The subject is clearly notable and I have approved the article. Sorry about it being declined, an abusive editor did it and has since been blocked. AdmiralEek Thar she edits! 19:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much.DP1944 (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)DP1944

please update st tea

 2600:8800:5E8E:7000:5C97:F0AC:263E:51B5 (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP, we don't have an article named ST Tea. If you're requesting someone to update an existing article, use that article's talk page to discuss with other editors. If you're trying to request a new article, go to Wikipedia:Requested articles. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The future free of vexation

 2601:644:301:830:6D55:477C:7A54:B73E (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? -- Hoary (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Non-Census sources in the US Census population infobox

Hi there! I have just a couple of questions about adding population data from non-census sources to the infobox that's ubiquitous to pretty much all pages for cities and towns in the United States. (I also asked this question at the Help Desk. Sorry if duplicate questions go against Wikipedia rules!)

  • There are a lot of towns and cities in the United States I have found in my research on nineteenth-century America that, for whatever reason, did not have separately-counted population statistics returned to the U.S. Census bureau. However, many of these places did have population figures and/or estimates that show up in contemporaneous, but non-census sources, particularly in gazetteers of the United States, and in fact a lot of these numbers already appear in articles across Wikipedia, albeit without any sources provided for where the numbers came from. Since the historical population table used in most U.S. city articles was seemingly intended to be filled out using official census counts, I presume that any additional data that I add to the tables should be noted as being non-census sources using a reference or footnote marker (such as the number from 1852 provided for the article on the history of San Francisco). Are there any "best practices" that I should follow when adding these types of data to articles?
  • I have two rather interesting cases (both derived from the same source) where both cities' populations were not officially reported in the final census count, but were nevertheless recorded and reported to a local newspaper in the same year as the census in question (1850), and these figures were furthermore provided by an individual who I was later able to verify was the person responsible for conducting the U.S. census operations in the county where these two cities were located. Since this particular case would seem to involve an unusual gray area between official and unofficial counts (considering that they were conducted as part of the federal counting procedure, but for some reason never made their way to the final census reports), if I were to add these numbers to the respective city articles, what would be the best way to acknowledge the unusual circumstances surrounding how these numbers were found?

Thanks for the help! Prussian Fool (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

NB: The above was duplicated on the Help Desk, where it was answered.
Prussian Fool, please do not place a query on more than one forum: this often leads to duplicating the effort and thus wasting the time of (at least some of) the responders, all of whom are unpaid volunteers. It may also lead to confusion on your or others' part, if answers on different fora are, or appear to be, contradictory because of someone's misinterpretation.
If I had not previously checked for newish queries on the Help desk just before doing the same here on the Teahouse, I might have spent substantial effort on answering you here when in fact you had already received good answers from other respondants there. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.217 (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Duly noted! What you said is completely true, and for that I apologize for re-posting the question. Rest assured, it won't happen again! Prussian Fool (talk) 04:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Abbas Rafei

Hello. my article is about an Iranian well-known Director,writer and producer with name Abbas Rafei, but it has been declined because of it resources. could you please tell me how can i fix this problem? of course i have a lot of new resources for myarticle but i dont know that will wikipedia confirm it or it will decline my article again. Mehdi Moradi644 (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mehdi Moradi644: We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler indicent. Every claim that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it or, if no such sources can be found, removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when editing about living people on Wikipedia and is not negotiable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
You have not edited since Draft:Abbas Rafei was Declined. His own website, Letterboxd and IMDb are not considered reliable source references. [added at 01:47, 18 May 2021 by David notMD]
Mehdi Moradi644, if you have other sources/resources, first look them up in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. If any displays a "no entrance" sign (a red circle with a red diagonal line), or a white hand on red, don't use it. If any displays an exclamation point in a triangle, read the explanation and use the source with great care, if at all. For any source that isn't mentioned in "Perennial sources" (and most sources are not), check that it's independent of Abbas Rafei, that it's not "user generated", and that it meets the other requirements laid out in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Incidentally, the claim that several of his films "have won various prestigious awards from national and international festivals" epitomizes the problems with the draft. A number of awards genuinely are prestigious: but even if these awards are, don't say that they are, because doing so sounds promotional. Which films? Which awards? And for each award, provide a clear reference from the prize-awarding organization, or, better, from an independent source (e.g. a non-gossipy news website). Good luck! -- Hoary (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Fiona Graham Page

This discussion has probably gone as far as it can do at the Teahouse. If necessary, it could be moved over to WP:BLPN. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For many years now a small number of editors keep on removing ANY positive or recent information that goes on to this page, no matter how validly it is sourced! Anyone adding any positive information is labelled a sock puppet without any proof at all. I have many thousands of followers on social media, I teach many students at university, I entertain hundreds of customers, I live with other people, I have guests in my houses, and we also have volunteers in our geisha district. I don't know all of these people personally just because they have an interest in the geisha world and in the outcome for geisha in this difficult age. Every person who adds positive properly sourced information to my page is not a sock puppet. If all of those many thousands of people are not allowed to add any information to Wikipedia then who is left to do it? Recently we have had Ravensfire And Ineffable Book keeper reverse everything positive yet again so the most recent information on the page is 2015. The most recent accusation against one editor is that he is paid by me. For the record, I do not have any paid staff. Could someone please help with this? I do not how to edit Wikipedia and I have no interest at all in editing myself. I DO teach a class on Media and my students learn to edit Wikipedia as part of their course. They are learning how to add validly sourced correct information to various pages. I have never met them, they have no agenda, and the only thing they are doing is trying to add correct information to the page. Unfortunately they are also learning that: = Any Wikipedia editor can accuse anyone of being a sockpuppet and then use that as an excuse to remove any positive content from a page. = Wikipedia is not objective at all. Any frequent editor can reverse anything at anytime without any reason at all. = Anyone who is a business rival can say anything damaging about other people in the media and then put on Wikipedia. = Any English speaking editor can use an IP address to delete everything positive from the Japanese page. Please look at the history there. Book book Many Many made a lot of nice careful edits from good sources a while ago, and a single English speaking editor removed everything time after time without any reason at all.

If you editors believe in Wikipedia, then please show my Media students that Wikipedia is what it is supposed to be, and that they can add correct information from valid sources to a page! 2400:4050:B1A0:2D00:DC3A:7F89:7ADD:6C0 (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. I checked the page history and there does not seem to have been much editing activity on the page since about March 2020. Regarding your students, are you saying that you are Fiona Graham, and you would like us to facilitate your students editing the Fiona Graham page? @Hoary: has been a frequent editor to that page, so perhaps they can comment on the above. Thanks.--- Possibly (talk) 04:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
The article Fiona Graham (like that on geisha) has for years intermittently been subject to obsessive interest from some editors. As Possibly says, activity in the article seems to have been rather quiet -- I think since summer '20, when I perpetrated this set of edits (which incidentally is geisha-irrelevant, and which I hope is unobjectionable). I think that semi-protection has helped here. By contrast, the Japanese article has recently had a lot of activity. And yes, much of this activity looks odd to me. However, that's the Japanese-language Wikipedia, and complaints about it should be brought up there, not here. The place to start is, I think, 存命人物の伝記/伝言板. -- Hoary (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Ravensfire - come get y'all juice, we're going round it again.
This has been going for more than a decade now, though I've not been editing Wikipedia for that long. Ravensfire and I did discuss what we could potentially do the last time this happened - and honestly, I once again voluntarily put my clown hat on to say that I Though Things Had Changed This Time, No Really, I Did.
Ravensfire suggested WP:ECP, but I have to ask, if candidacy for WP:LTA is too far in this case - which I think it might be - what's the step below that? --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Just want to note that the last time this sort of came up here at the Teahouse was in March 2021 at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1097#Vandalism and Talk:Fukagawa Geisha. As pointed out above, the article Fiona Graham has had issues for quite a long time which have been severe enough to require page protection multiple times since 2011. The latest protection will end on May 23, and my guess then is that the article will once again end up being heavily edited (by people on both sides of the fence) and then once again end up being protected. The best way to avoid that from happening would be the subject of the article to take a look at WP:BIOSELF (even if she's done that many times in the past) and advise her students to carefully read through WP:COI and WP:BLP even if she feels they don't have a conflict of interest with respect to her. I think it would then be wise for the students to follow WP:COIADVICE and WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement and use the article's talk page and edit requests to propose changes. The reason I suggest this is that if a number of new accounts (IP accounts or registered accounts) start showing up out of the blue after May 23 and start making major changes to the article, they are likely going to end being reverted either partially or totally by editors who've been monitoring the article over the years and asked to discuss things on the article talk page per WP:BRD. This will particularly happen if these editors start leaving edit summaries that give the impression that they have an WP:APPARENTCOI and make edits that on not in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guideline. If these new editors then try a "force through" changes, then warnings about edit warring, sock puppetry or meat puppetry are likely going to start being given and accounts may end up being blocked. If Ms. Graham is trying to teach her students how to edit Wikipedia as part of a course she's teaching, then maybe the best thing for her to do would be to get in contact with someone at the m:Wiki Education Foundation because it can provide lots of guidance on how to best do that. There is also Wikipedia:Education noticeboard which is where WikiEd advisors tend to hang out and would probably be quite happy to answer an questions that Wikipedia has and there is also some guidance about this in Wikipedia:Student assignments. Finally, Wikipedia has over six million articles and pretty much all of them are in need of improvement; so, there would seem to be lots of ways for Ms. Graham to teach her students about editing Wikipedia that have nothing to do with editing content about her. It would probably be best for Ms. Graham advise her students to avoid editing any content about her and focus on other trying to improve other articles that might interest them. A teacher is really helping their students one iota if the students end up getting blocked trying to help out their teacher by editing content about the teacher, and it's really unfair of a teacher to to ask their students to do such a thing, either directly or indirectly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I am Fiona Graham and one of the people constantly removing validly sourced information and refusing to discuss it on the Talk Page is Ineffablebookkeeper who is now suggesting here that the page be locked - why should it be locked? There is absolutely no reason to lock it. Why are you constantly removing valid information from my page? Why do take every recent edit off there and keep the most recent information from 2015? Why do you call every single person who edits the page a sockpuppet? Many people who follow my social media try to correct wrong information. Are all the 20,000 people on my LinkedIn account also sockpuppets?

The English page is okay right now if it wasn't locked without reason. The one thing that should be removed is the part about the Wanaka Gym. Please see the Talk Page about that...someone has recently found the original website and written a good argument for why it shouldn't be there. The court cases lasted over 15 years and are still being appealed. Taking one single case out of context and writing about it on Wikipedia is not fair at all, and in any case the cases are nothing at all do with the reason I am on Wikipedia and are just irrelevant beyond causing me harm by being there.

The Japanese page is a serious problem. Please look at it. One Japanese made many good edits over some months and one single English speaker has reverted everything every time using an IP address without logging in and without any reason. So please put the edits by Book Book Many Many back again as they shouldn't have been removed in the first place, all of them were from valid newspapers and television.

Please help with this situation. I cannot do it myself and it is very frustrating that there is nothing recent on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:4050:B1A0:2D00:A8DA:4ADF:6DC:B9D9 (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The different language Wikipedias are essentially different projects. There might be some overlapping in policies and guidelines, but there are also often some important differences. If you're comfortable enough in communicating in Japanese, you can post your concerns at ja:ノート:フィオナ・グラハム to see if someone responds; you could also try ja:Wikipedia:存命人物の伝記/伝言板, but I suggest the article talk page first. If you want to try and discuss your concerns in English, you can try ja:Wikipedia:Help for Non-Japanese Speakers. You will need to remember that most of the people responding to your posts are going to Japanese editors who might not want to communicate or be comfortable communicating with you in English, and editors might not interpret certain policies and guidelines exactly the same way that they are generally interpreted here on English Wikipedia. There are also probably much fewer editors which might mean it takes longer for someone to respond. Regardless of whether you're editing on English Wikipedia or Japanese Wikipedia, you should be upfront about who you are and what you want done right from the start. You should use your existing account if you have one. If you don't remember the password and don't want to create a new account, then you can use an IP account. However, you shouldn't have to be asked by another editor whether you're Fiona Graham; that should be something you clearly state in any post asking for assistance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I just wrote the following message to IneffableBookkeeper on his talk page....perhaps he could answer, and perhaps you other Wikipedia editors could finally hold him to account?

Message to IneffableBookkeeper This is Fiona Graham. Perhaps you could explain to me exactly what your problem is? I have never edited Wikipedia in my life. I do not know how to. I have many fans, many students, many supporters on social media, many customers who visit our geisha house and geisha district, many people who attend my frequent talks and lectures around Japan and overseas, and many volunteers who help with our geisha district and the charity program we have for our young geisha. Some of them try to correct the information on Wikipedia that they can see is wrong. That does not mean they are sock puppets. I am not even exactly sure what a sock puppet is, but if you are accusing me of creating accounts in order to edit myself, then no, I have never done that. If you are saying that some people edit from the IP address of the Tokyo Fukagawa Geisha Association then that is quite possible. That doesn't mean they are sock puppets either. What is important is that the information that is added to the page is almost always from valid sources - we haven't had any negative or incorrect media for a decade - and you keep removing it for no reason!! Perhaps you could explain exactly what it is that makes you remove recent valid information without any reason?

As far as the current students go they are not spending the term editing Wikipedia! They can't do anything complicated. All they are trying to do is put valid information directly from reliable sources on to a page. I haven't given any instructions about content and I haven't even met these students. All I am asking is that Wikipedia editors behave the way they should behave and allow perfectly valid edits! If editors like IneffableBookkeeper don't start removing content without any reason to do so then there won't be any problem and my page will reflect recent correct information which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:4050:B1A0:2D00:A8DA:4ADF:6DC:B9D9 (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

If as you say above that your students can't do anything complicated, then perhaps the best thing for you to do would be to advise them to avoid editing related to you because that's going to be complicated. There are plenty of articles in need of improvement where students can do a little research, find reliable sources, and add content that reflects those reliable sources to the article. They can start with the Wikipedia:Adventure and then perhaps take a look at Category:Articles with unsourced statements where they find over 500,000 article tagged for having poor sourcing. If they could improve even one of those articles by finding better sources, then that would clearly be good for Wikipedia. The fact that it seems that you think that the only way your students can learn about Wikipedia and make Wikipedia better is by them editing Wikipedia content about you does make is seem that they're doing so more for you than anything else. I apologize if that's not want you're really trying to do, but what you've posted above is kind of giving that impression. If you really want to help your students learn about Wikipedia, contact the WikiEd Foundation like I suggested above and work through them. WikiEd advisors are quite experienced at editing in general, but also experienced in helping students and instructors edit Wikipedia. The WikiEd Foundation has all created all kinds of modules geared to helping students learn how to edit and help instructors develop lesson plans that make use of Wikipedia. That would be the best thing for any teacher to do you wants to use Wikipedia as part of their class. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Sigh - I probably ought to create a list of the postings Graham has created here, on BLPN and probably a few others complaining that she can't make the page into the promotional page she wants. It's nice to see her admitting that she's been sending students here, usually denying over and over and then admitting some small connection. Fiona, you said All I am asking is that Wikipedia editors behave the way they should behave - you do realize that's exactly what's been asked of you and your students? Work within the COI guidelines. Realize that promotional puffery isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Follow WP:NPOV. All of the things you and your connected contributor have consistently failed to do. You wonder why there's a lack of good will towards you and your students? It's been your behavior, your relentless pushing of promotional and poorly sourced material, of white-washing anything you don't want included and doing that over and over and over again. Please think on that and about how poorly it reflects on you as a person and as a teacher. Ravensfire (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I've already replied to Graham's message here, but I'll repeat here as well:

  • You've written that "my page will reflect recent correct information which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be about" - though we endeavour for articles to be as accurate as we can make them, we do have limits. Wikipedia isn't here to chronicle your most recent activities - that's what a personal website is for - nor is it here to chronicle everything you do. If we can't find it in a reliable, secondary source - if all we have to go on for your most recent activities is primary sources - then the reason this isn't included is that you cannot rest the most recent parts of a BLP on primary references, per WP:BLPPRIMARY.
  • You write that "Some of [your fans, students, online supporters, customers and volunteers] try to correct the information on Wikipedia that they can see is wrong. That does not mean they are sock puppets".
    You're correct in this instance - a group of sockpuppets would be one person, many accounts. There's no way to verify the degree of contact or control you may or may not have over the various editors passing through the article, but if the situation is more "one person, many other people, each with their own account" - that's a meatpuppet. And that's still not acceptable.
    You write that "If you are saying that some people edit from the IP address of the Fukagawa Geisha Association then that is quite possible. That doesn't mean they are sock puppets either."
    They aren't sockpuppets - but if it is possible, encourage them to declare a connection to yourself as a member of the Fukagawa Geisha Association as well as encouraging them strongly to follow the easy-to-digest editorial guidelines on editing as a COI editor, or, encourage them to stop, as they clearly have little intention of actually following editorial guidelines.
  • The most worrying thing, perhaps, is the following: "I do not how to edit Wikipedia and I have no interest at all in editing myself. I DO teach a class on Media and my students learn to edit Wikipedia as part of their course." You then state that "They are learning how to add validly sourced correct information to various pages", but that "I have never met them, they have no agenda, and the only thing they are doing is trying to add correct information to the page."
    This implies the following:

Y'know, I had some pretty shoddy times at university. Not all of my tutors were especially great. But at the very least, I knew they could practice the subject they were teaching me. (Apart from one graphic design tutor, who asked a student out...lucky I can wrangle Photoshop into shape already.) This has been going on for a decade, with no signs of improvement in sight, and no signs of WP:COMPETENCE - the bottom line, regardless of motives or intentions. On the Talk page and in its archives, it's been explained how exactly a COI editor can contribute to the project; this has been ignored. It's been explained why various sources, edits and actions get reverted and removed; this has been ignored. I have tried time and time again to move progress along and reach a resolution where the editors involved step away from a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach, in the hopes of improving the article in question hand-in-hand; this, unsurprisingly, has been ignored. It seems that the editors who pop up, time and time again, appear to act with the notion that they can, if they brute-force their way into it, get their way and get over editorial guidelines and standards. I'd appreciate any kind of resolution, from more experienced editors who understand what range of actions are available in this situation, that means that we don't have to go through this rigmarole again. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My Article was declined

Sir My Article was declined by Wikipedia today. This is the original content. Sir please you help me to create and correct this article. Draft name St Michael Academy, Sasaram. SachinAryanInd (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft:St. Michael Academy, Sasaram lacks any references. Can you find references? If so, add them. If you can't, it's most unlikely that anyone else will be able to do so. If no references can be found, the draft is doomed. -- Hoary (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Please help in editing NERSWN

 Onla Wngkri (talk) 08:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC) 

Please help in editing NERSWN
You're asking about Draft:North East Research & Social Work Networking. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Your task is to get the draft to meet this notability requirement. Does such "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" exist? If so, then cite it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

About Journalist

Hi wikipedians, how many article need to create an article about Journalist. I want to create article about Anjan Bandopadhyay, who died on 16 may due to covid. Thanks in advance. Bengal Boy (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@TryingToDo I suggest studying entirely and closely WP:YFA and then if you think your subject does meet all those requirements go ahead and submit it. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
@CommanderWaterford: thank you. Bengal Boy (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Can I resubmit?

Hello, my draft was not accepted. I've worked on it lately and want to know if I could be missing anything. Draft name is Greg Mbajiorgu Draft:Greg_Mbajiorgu. Thank you. Solver d (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

There's a lot in this that briefly notes what he has achieved, but it's rather bare because there's very little commentary on this (from reliable sources). And then, suddenly, there's a list of "Academic works about his writings". I'd hope that each says something intelligible and worthwhile (although with literary criticism, I can't take this for granted); for any of them that is worthwhile, don't just list it; instead, cite it in an illuminating way within the body of the article. (You might aim for something like the "Writings" section of the article on Morris Bishop; but keep it brief, don't pad it.) Good luck! -- Hoary (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

find my articles in userspace and in draftspace

Hi Teahousers, glad you're here doing what you do. Quick (i hope) questions:

  1. How can I see a list of articles in my userspace? I know this can be done somehow, maybe even from navigating links on the left-hand-side of my interface, but i never recorded how.
  2. Similarly, is there some easy way to see all articles started by me which are in Draftspace. Or possibly even all Draftspace articles edited by me. I have a lot out there which I have not indexed/tracked.

Thanks in advance! Please ping me in reply if possible. Doncram (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Doncram: For #1, put prefix:User:Doncram directly in the search box, or alternatively, use Special:PrefixIndex. For #2, try XTools. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@Doncram: Missed a part of your question. The XTools link above is for draftspace articles you created. This link is a tally of all your edits in the draftspace. Note that drafts that have since been moved won't show up here. XTools has a lot of other cool statistics for you to play around as well. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi Doncram. If you go to your contributions, you will find a link at the bottom of the page labeled "Articles created", which will result in this search playing out. If you want to isolate pages you've created in a different namespace, such as the draft namespace, you can go directly to the tool, here, enter your username and change the default from "Main" to draft, resulting in this search of article created by you as drafts. To permanently have a link to that search, you can save that link at your userpage.

Although you could use this tool to find pages in your userspace as well, another option is to go to the same set of contribution links, and click on "Subpages", which will result in this prefix index search playing out, showing all pages existing in your userspace. If you might have created some subpages in your user talk namespace, you can change the search parameter to "User talk". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, that answers all my questions! Am copying these responses to where I will be able to find them. I was right there is a "subpages" link to select somewhere, but i could never find it, it seems bizarre to me that it shows up when select "contributions" (at least when at my own userpage?). Thanks for all the info. It helps me right away; i do have a lot of articles in Draft space that I want to get back to, besides when getting notified they're up for G7(?) deletion. Youse guys and other teahousers oughta get more props. :) --Doncram (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@Doncram: You're most welcome. Yeah, these links are not in an immediately obvious place, but it does make sense – they're all about deeper searches of one's own "contributions".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Hello My name is Tayyab Mahmood Sheikh Now these days I want to make my Wikipedia profile so can you tell me how to get create it and what is speedy deletion? Tibusheikh (talk). 10:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not contain "profiles" (thats a social media term, but we are not social media) but articles. Speedy deletion is a process under which pages which obviviously break certain rules may be deleted without an extended discussion. See WP:CSD for more info. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Tibusheikh. I hope you read my post responding to you higher on this page. In short, unlike your userpage, where you previously posted this autobiographical content, your sandbox with the same information is less likely to be deleted outright, but it's a shame when people waste their own precious time on writing a proposed article that has no chance of ever being accepted, which I believe is true here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Archived.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 00:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Tibusheikh, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a fundamentally wrong understanding of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not for telling the world about something, and especially not for telling the world about yourself. Wikipedia is only interested in subjects (people, or anything else) which the world has already been told about, in the sense that several people who have no connection with the subject have already chosen to publish material (in reliable places) about the subject. On your user page you are allowed to tell Wikipedia editors about yourself as a Wikipedia editor; and you can round this out with a small amount of information about yourself outside editing Wikipedia. But anything which looks like an article, or a biography, or a 'profile', or a sales pitch, is not allowed, and is likely to get speedily deleted.
For what it's worth, I don't think that the edits you made to existing articles were vandalism: I think you had good intentions, but as David not MD said on your talk page, they were not constructive, and editors were right to revert them. I suggest you take The Wikipedia Adventure and learn more about how Wikipedia works. --ColinFine (talk) 12:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The length of the months in a year

Why has the current length of the months been chosen: 7 months with 31 days, 4 months with 30 days and one "stupid" month with 28 days instead of a simpler choice like 5 months with 31 days and 7 months with 30 days? Both result 365 days per year, but with the "new" choice there is no need for a month of 28 days. Of course, a leap year is still needed and I propose to have the month of December with 30 days except every leap year when we would have a longer end of the year.

Guido Garavaglia Amsterdam 62.194.104.44 (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place to ask questions about using Wikipedia, it is not a general question asking forum. You may want to read the article about the Gregorian calendar to learn why it is the way it is, or you may wish to ask at the Reference Desk. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
The teahouse is for asking questions about improving articles on Wikipedia. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 14:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Timing for re-review of Draft:John Mariani

Hi,I understand that there are a lot of pages waiting for review/re-review at the moment. Do you have a rough estimate of timing for a page to be re-reviewed please? I re-submitted a page for review in March: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Mariani. Any guidance would be really appreciated. Thanks Factelf4 (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Factelf4, and welcome to the Teahouse! Articles for Creation submissions have an average waiting time of 5 months due to the backlog. Of course, it varies, but expect a 5 month wait. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Factelf4 Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
While you're waiting, Factelf4, you might add references for Mariani lives in Tuckahoe, New York with his wife. He has two sons and three granddaughters. / John Mariani began his career writing for New York Magazine in 1973, covering arts and entertainment stories. He wrote for numerous other publications including The New York Times, Financial Times, and Chicago Tribune. / His cover story for New York magazine focused on changing focus on the much-used theme of "Women in Jeopardy". He also wrote profiles and did interviews with film directors like Frank Capra, Stanley Donen and Richard Brooks and actors like Henry Fonda, Ann Miller, Sylvester Stallone, Jack Nicholson, Audrey Hepburn, Sam Waterston, Debbie Reynolds and Jon Voight. -- Hoary (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Hoary - I did have references to the actual articles in there, but removed them as I understand that citing the subject's own work is not correct. Any guidance on how what other type of references I can add would be much appreciated. --Factelf4 (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Correcting what Aknell4 wrote. The backlog is not a queue. Reviewers decide which draft to do next. Thus, can be days, weeks, or (sadly) months. David notMD (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Factelf4 In March a message was left on your Talk page to either acknowledge or deny that this draft is undisclosed paid editing (UPE). You have not responded. If Yes, state that clearly on your User page. If not, reply to the query on your Talk page. Only then can the UPE tag on the draft be addressed. As a separate issue, many of your contributions to article are quite large and significant, so do not tag that type of editing as minor. David notMD (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

David notMD I thought I had done that by adding the declaration to the talk page back in March when requested. Perhaps I have not done so correctly? Noted re edits - thanks and apols --Factelf4 (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Standard location is your User page. I suggest you copy the paid statement to there. Once done, the UPE tag on the draft can be removed. ONCE this becomes an article, you - as a paid editor - will be restricted to requesting future changes on the Talk page of the article rather than editing directly, so if there are edits or references that should be added, do that ASAP. David notMD (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Factelf4. Removing that citation was right: you can cite limited information from self-published sources, but only uncontroversial factual information which is not unduly self-serving - most of the material Hoary quoted does not meet that criterion. But leaving it uncited is even worse. Unless you can find sources wholly independent of Mariani that talk about all those things he has done, they do not belong in a Wikipedia article on him, period. --ColinFine (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Writing articles

Hello! I am looking for any beginner guidance on writing articles and whatnot. Is there a guide or tutorial page available? Thank you so much and I hope my questions aren't a bother. Abillionradios (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Abillionradios (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Abillionradios welcome to the Teahouse. I suggest having a close look at Help:Your first article - hope that helps. Happy Editing! CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Abillionradios. There is a tutorial available at: Wikipedia:Tutorial. As to writing articles, I second the linked page recommended above as providing a good overview. I have some standard advice geared towards trying to give a focus to new users that is often alien to them: the need for sourcing as the keys to Wikipedia's gates; that it should be their first concern and starting point for writing (the path that when not traveled from the start, causes so much wasted effort). Having taken a quick look at your contributions, I know this is is not completely new to you, so rather than post anew, please see that advice above to another user. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, Abillionradios, if Wikipedia editing is building work, then creating an article is building a house from scratch, and finding sources is surveying the ground and digging the foundations. Without those, the house will fall down. --ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Changing the title of an existing article

Is it possible to change just the title of an existing article? Thanks for any help. Vda47 Vda47 (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Vda47: This is known as a page move. See WP:MOVE. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Vda47 (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Changing the title of an article requires a page move. If you expect that such a move would be relatively uncontroversial, you may request one at Requested Moves. If you think that there might be controversy over such a move, you should first start a discussion on the relevant article talk page explaining why you think the article should be moved to a different title- keeping in mind that there might be reasons the article is at its current title. Note that Wikipedia tends to use the most common name for an article subject as its title, per WP:COMMONNAME, and not necessarily an official or legal name. It's Bill Clinton, not William Jefferson Clinton, which is a redirect. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested Username change per your recommendation

Previous discussion : #Destination Marfa page
Next discussion : #Thank you and I'll wait

Thanks for your patience, I have now requested the user name change as per your instructions/recommendation. Below is what I received in return. But you still need to remove what you've listed as my being paid to do this, it's not true. Below is what the Destination Marfa page currently says which is not correct and under it is my request for name change. And the name prod that you made me change is not connected with a film's production office - it is the name we selected because it matches our wifi account username. My wife used to be a producer up until 2002 and we didn't want to use our personal names on here. PLEASE REMOVE THE SECTION THAT SAYS WE'VE BEEN PAID BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT. THANK YOU KINDLY.

This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. (May 2021)

Rename request pending approval Jump to navigationJump to search Your username change request has been queued and is awaiting approval from a steward or global renamer. You will be notified by email when the request is processed.

Current username ProdOffice18 Requested username PhillipRyanNY ProdOffice18 (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@ProdOffice18: Who is we? AdmiralEek Thar she edits! 21:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
@ProdOffice18: this is a general help desk, so you're not talking directly to the users who have been dealing with your various submissions (you can see in the page history of all relevant pages who they are). The process of the rename is not down to us—that's for a steward or global renamer (as the notice you got says). I've removed the {{Undisclosed paid}} tag on Destination Marfa (film) per your comments here, but three things to help you assume good faith of everyone who's been helping you: (1) the reason someone placed that tag is because in 9 out of 10 cases like this, the person who wrote the article is being paid and refusing to disclose it, in violation of our rules (and you're the 1 out of 10 who isn't—that's great); (2) writing in uppercase ("PLEASE REMOVE ...") makes it sound like you're shouting, which can come across as rude; (3) rather than copying and pasting text, it's better if you can provide links—either by URL, or where possible by enclosing the text between two square brackets (so e.g. [[Test]] produces Test). — Bilorv (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Pictures straight from the source

Hi there! I'm working on Draft:Tati McQuay, and would it be acceptable to directly message her asking for a photo I could use for a Wikipedia article (assuming she even responds in the first place)? InvadingInvader (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@InvadingInvader: Yes - I do this all the time. But don’t be disappointed if you don’t get a response. The permission process sometimes throws people off because it looks like a lot of legalese and they don’t understand it. You can send them this link. Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Explain that this is simply to protect Wikipedia from being sued for copyright violations. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Another option I've had some success in sending people is the OTRS release generator, but it's also come with unsuccess (for the reasons Timtempleton gives). I would, however, emphasise that if they agree to release an image, it's not just for Wikipedia, but for anyone to reuse in any they want (with attribution), including commercial uses. — Bilorv (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Riders Share, "Airbnb of motorcycles"

Is Riders Share notable enough for a wikipedia article?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryancampbell/2021/05/05/ride-sharing-motorcycles-just-got-easier-and-more-affordable/?sh=5f4d9597478c https://news.crunchbase.com/news/austins-riders-share-lands-2m-series-a/ https://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/2017/january/riders-share/ https://www.cyclenews.com/2021/05/article/riders-share-launches-rider-pass/ https://www.motorcyclistonline.com/story/news/riders-share-launches-subscription-motorcycle-rental-service/ https://www.visordown.com/news/industry/riders-share-motorcycle-peer-peer-rental-service-offer-new-subscription https://advrider.com/riders-share-launches-subscription-service/ https://ridermagazine.com/2021/05/08/riders-share-launches-rider-pass-subscription-for-peer-to-peer-motorcycle-rentals/ https://www.rideapart.com/news/505106/riders-share-rider-pass-subscription/

Thanks, 136.49.173.201 (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@136.49.173.201: Watch this space and look at User:Jéské_Couriano/Decode. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
In order:
  1. The Forbes source has no editorial oversight, as it is written by a contributor and not Forbes staff.
  2. Crunchbase as a whole has no editorial oversight.
  3. MCN seems to be acceptable.
  4. CycleNews is clearly labeled as a press release, and thus has a connexion to subject.
  5. Motorcyclist seems to be acceptable.
  6. I'm unsure if VisorDown has an EiC. It's possible it's cited elsewhere on Wikipedia, but I don't have the time to look for it at present.
  7. advrider seems to have no (listed) editorial staff, and so it likely has no editorial oversight.
  8. Rider magazine is clearly labeled as a press release, and thus has a connexion to subject.
  9. Rideapart seems to be acceptable.
This is very likely a viable subject. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Destination Marfa Page

Next discussion : #Requested Username change per your recommendation

Hello there. I'm trying to submit the Destination Marfa wikipedia page and might need help.

I'm not seeing it posting yet.

This is the page right here below and I have the producer's permission (I'm working on some of their press and social media pages for them) to use their poster and upload all the details. I'm trying to understand why the page isn't posting. Thanks, Phil

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ProdOffice18 ProdOffice18 (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

ProdOffice18 You have created a draft, not an actual encyclopedia article. I have added the appropriate information to allow you to submit it for review(though this will not be in a timely manner due to a severe backlog). As you are working for the production, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. You will also need to change your username immediately to something more individualistic, please visit Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS to do so. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Whether you have the permission of the producer or not is irrelevant, as permission from the subject(or those making the subject) is not required for a Wikipedia article to exist. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

RESPNODING TO YOUR MESSAGE Thanks so much for the quick response.

Just to clarify because you're connecting the dots incorrectly.

I'm a volunteer. I'm not getting paid a dime. By 'working on some of their press and social media pages' what I meant was that I was technically uploading the info and inputting it, not literally 'working' or getting paid - they don't have that kind of budget. This is a small independent film that I'm helping out because I believe in them. I'm very grateful for your help but please don't state that I'm getting paid when its not true. This is on my own time.

Thanks so much and thank you even more for submitting the appropriate information for reviewal submission as an encyclopedia article. Phil

ProdOffice18 If you don't work for the production office as your username suggests, okay, but you still have a conflict of interest and will need to make the declaration called for by that policy. You will need to change your username as I describe above. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

You guys are awesome and on it so fast.

There is no conflict of interest and I will take your advice and change my username, I have to figure out how to do that so please give me a minute.

In the meanwhile please change my status as it says the following below which is untrue. I'm not being paid a dime and I'm not in any way contractually affiliated with the production or even receiving a credit. I love films and I often reach out and help them. There's no conflict of interest, if anything Wikipedia should be grateful that there are volunteers like me that do this and provide factual info. There's nothing on that page that shows favoritism. Its these exact kind of rules that have made folks use imdb instead of you and I much prefer Wikipedia. Please change my below status sir, I'm a volunteer and no money has been exchanged, it's embarrassing that's even been stated.

This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. (May 2021)

Grateful to you and looking up how to change my username right now. ProdOffice18 (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

See WP:COI for explanation on declaring your COI, which applies even though no renumeration. It's enough that you know the people involved. And 'sign' your comments by typing for of ~ at end. David notMD (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you and I'll wait

Previous discussion : #Requested Username change per your recommendation
Next discussion : #Destination Marfa page issue

Thanks kindly for your response.

The 'WE', if you did read it in context was referring to my wife and I in terms of our wi-fi username; nothing to do with Wikipedia.

Thank you for explaining the username change process; again I was doing exactly as you instructed that I do. I'll be patient and certainly wait.

But the info about my being paid still needs to come off the Destination Marfa page. It is not true and or reflective of what's going on. I'm a volunteer for crying out loud. ProdOffice18 (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Please make future follow up comments in this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. Please be patient, it will eventually be removed. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Undisclosed paid tag removed, replaced by COI tag, which is valid. David notMD (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

Hi, I am having a problem with a ip address out of Florida that keeps changing and he is doing disruptive editing on the Newark NJ Fire Dept Wikipedia page. I have warned him more than several times and he has had his edits reverted by others also. Would like to see him blocked at least temporarily. Thanks,Doriden Doriden (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Doriden: Welcome to the Teahouse! You can actually report them to the administrators at WP:AIV. Have a great day! Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 22:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
@Doriden: I don't entirely agree with the advice from Bsoyka. There is point in reporting to AIV without clear evidence of vandalism, and I see no such evidence. You and the IP appear to be having a content dispute, and no effort has been made to discuss it on the article talk page. I suggest that you read the advice at WP:Vandalism. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

/* Nickname */ How Joe Jackson received his famous nickname.

 Courtesy link: Shoeless Joe Jackson

I have spent 8 years compiling this book below. I have went through numerous articles, dates and fact about how Shoeless Joe received his nickname. The story I presented to Wikipedia is true, but apparently some folks care not to look into the references I have presented. Now the paragraph that these folks prefer to present is totally incorrect, and this is not how Joe came about his nickname, where are all these references? Yet I presented many and obviously you will not take a serious look at them. If you want to check the credibility of the information I presented, how about contacting Blackbetsy.com or info@shoelessjoejackson.org, both will validate what I presented as being true and both are your top sources for Joe Jackson. Now if the only thing that is a concern to you folks is how I presented it please let me know that this is the case, give me some helpful ideas and I will try to rework it. Thanks for your time! https://cdm17168.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/shoelessjoe/id/3005?fbclid=IwAR2_yb2ImWAdFo4Ob367b2B9NlFhFyoUY5oA0FsysUbLxd6-oyyrTDOp2lw SCGRISSOMFAN (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

You are obviously edit warring, and that is liable to result in your being blocked from editing. The place to resolve your content dispute is in discussion on the article talk page, not here at the Teahouse. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Destination Marfa page issue

Previous discussion : #Thank you and I'll wait

I'm really not happy about what you've stated regarding me, it feels like blatant slander and character assassination. I'm not closely connected to the project at all. My wife is from the main town in Texas where they shot this film so I looked up one of the producers on social media and reached out and asked them if they'd like help with their social media pages and if I could upload their Wikipedia page and they said yes. Marfa is hardly ever used in films and it makes my wife proud. I'm a volunteer that reached out to the producer on social media asking him if I can do this. He said it's fine as long as I don't expect payment. All of the info posted on the Destination Marfa page is already avail to the public on google, I haven't added or subtracted a word from it and you have no right to slander me like this. You're implying that I was paid to do it, and they have not paid me. You're implying that I'm connected to the project and I'm not. Please provide your email because I'll reach out to this same producer on social media immediately and ask him to email you directly to explain exactly all of the above.

I've done nothing wrong here and your rigidity in allowing someone to provide factual and correct info on a film when that person is not affiliated with the film in anyway is really infantile. My point of view is 100% neutral. All I've included on the page is where it filmed, who is in the cast, and when it will be distributed. And all of this info is already all over the internet and doesn't require opposing viewpoints that are for or against because it is factual. Please google it yourself. So it is a neutral point of view, it is all factual and readily available. Please remove the below

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (May 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) ProdOffice18 (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The text you refer to as slander and character assassination is standard boilerplate wording. Conflict of interest does not require someone being "closely connected." Your speaking to the producer of the film is sufficient. Over time, other editors will add to the article, and at some point in the future an editor (not you) will decide that the tag can be removed. As to the query about you being paid, all that is required is that on your User page you make a statement that you are not paid or in anyway benefiting from having worked on the article. At the same time you should state that you have been in contact with the producers, hence have what Wikipedia considers a COI. As you pointed out, the facts of the article are verified by citations rather than what you know. Kudos for creating an article. David notMD (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
What you and the producers of the film need to understand is that neither they, nor anyone associated with the film, nor anyone associated with the town where it was shot has any claim of ownership over the content of the article as explained here. In other words, it's not their Wikipedia page in any way shape or form. You've stated that you weren't receiving any compensation to create the article, which (at least in my opinion) is good enough for now with respect to Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure; at the same time though, the fact that were in direct contact with someone who does have a financial conflict of interest with the film does at least give the impression of an WP:APPARENTCOI on your part. Perhaps this is also not the case as you claim above, but it's best to let others who are clearly not connected to the film (even in an apparent way) to look the article over and assess it. The {{COI}} template added to the article is not intended to be a slight against you or anyone else; it's just meant to let other editors know that there might be some issues with this article that need to be addressed. Eventually the article will be assessed by someone, and the template will be removed if they feel there's no longer an issue. I will ask if someone at Wikipedia: WikiProject Film coud take a look at the article and assess it; it might take a bit of time for someone to do that (try to remember that all Wikipedia editors are WP:VOLUNTEERs), but eventually it will be done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

You're not reading my response in context.

Again, you're not reading my response in context.

I clearly said that I had to find them on social media to track them down. It took them months to respond. I don't know these people personally, it's only through social media. And the info on the film is exactly what is out there and avail on google. You can't have it both ways, you cannot accuse me and defame me by telling me I'm with the production and getting paid (which you've already said twice in the thread) and then tell me even I don't know them that I'm not neutral in my point of view because I've used info about the film that is already found online. It's either one or the other. It cannot be both. That defies logic and makes no sense. For crying out loud, why would you accuse, abuse and labal a volunteer who is adding factual neutral info to your encyclopedia that should already be on there?

I'll say it again.

I am not getting paid.

I'm not connected to the film in anyway.

Everything I've written is already easily available on the internet. The film seems to have a huge following when you google it. There's nothing that is non 'neutral point of view' about what I've factually included on the page. There's nothing on there that says the film is good or that it has to be watched or anything like that.

Please do the right thing here and stop penalizing me, this is pathetic. Honestly you're treating me like a child and a criminal. Remove the mandate or whatever it is you're calling it. ProdOffice18 (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

You were told in an earlier reply not to keep creating new sections, but to reply in the existing section. Obviously people won't read your response in context unless you place it in the correct context. I have moved this to your previous section, and you need to read the reply which you received there from David notMD . --David Biddulph (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
You say you aren't connected to the film but you are in communication with the producer. That's a connection. You don't have to be friends with the producer or have them over for dinner. The vast majority of editors here do not communicate with the subjects of the articles they write. Presumably the producer is willing to communicate with you as it gives their film more attention. We're trying to help you and you seem to be taking it poorly for some reason, calling it "abuse". 331dot (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Copyright issue? The text of the article's Plot summary is a word-for-word match of the description in refs 2, 3 and 4. David notMD (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

If a company updates there logo dose the logo have to be in Public Domain or Fair Use?

If a company updates there logo dose the logo have to be in Public Domain or Fair Use? ItsJustdancefan (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi ItsJustdancefan. Whether a company decides to update its logo has nothing to do with Wikipedia; moreover, whether the updated version of the logo would be considered to be public domain or non-free content for Wikipedia's purposes is something that will depends upon the complexity of the logo as well as the copyright laws of the country where the company is headquartered. Now, if you want to ask about a specific company and its logo, then it might be better to ask your question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions because that's where you're likely going to find Wikipedia editors familiar with this type of thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
@ItsJustdancefan:, for it to be on Wikipedia, it can be Fair use. But, if you want to upload it on Wikimedia commons, it has to be free content. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 03:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

When is a hatnote pointing to another Wikipedia article irrelevant?

Hi, dear teahouse people! I am not sure if I should put my question here or at Village Pump but here goes (let me know if I should rather move it to Village Pump): I am working on the article marine biology and I would like to delete the hatnote that points to another Wikipedia article with a similar name (The Marine Biologist) which is actually an episode from the Seinfeld sitcom from 1994. Another editor reverted my edit and I've written about it on the talk page here. I've said there: As per WP:HATCHEAP: "Hatnotes take up minimal space on articles, but they do consume a prominent position. They are helpful when it's one of the first things a reader should know.". Is a 1994 episode of an American sitcom really so important that it deserves a hatnote? Would those people searching for it not find it via the Seinfeld article anyway? Having that hatnote about an American sitcom episode from decades ago in such a prominent spot is strange in my opinion. Isn't it yet another example how Wikipedia is North America centric and Europe centric? I bet if there was a "famous" sitcom from Nigeria and India with that title we wouldn't be mentioning it in the hatnote. - So my question is, is my argument sound and justified? Or are we compelled to mention another Wikipedia article in the hatnote just because it happens to exist? - Thanks for your advice in advance. EMsmile (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I've just had an idea how to solve this problem elegantly: I could set up a disambiguation page for "marine biologist" with two entries: a person who studies marine biology; and The Marine Biologist. Would that be better? EMsmile (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
We have a guideline at Wikipedia:Hatnote that can be used to support arguments one way or the other. I'm sympathetic to the frustration of having a hatnote for a more minor topic sitting at the top of a more major article, but sometimes it's necessary. I'd recommend against raising the specific issue along with your argument at the Village pump, as that might be seen as canvassing. One thing you could do to seek additional input would be to put a neutral {{Please see}} notice at WT:Hatnote; beyond that, the path would be to create an RfC (which also needs to be neutrally worded). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Sdkb. Would my idea of a disambiguation page be a good solution, or does it breach any policies? EMsmile (talk) 03:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
@EMsmile: I'm not fully sure; the answer would be in WP:Hatnote. It's certainly one possible option. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Article on Mark David Chapman

 Courtesy link: Mark David Chapman

I edited this article at the request of my friend, Jan Reeves, to remove her name from the article. Jan has no recollection of making the comment attributed to her, and was not interviewed by any of the cited references. I see today that the article shows her name and in the history after my edit is the word "reverted". Please explain situation to me and advise me how Jan can have her name permanently removed from the article. She is a private person, but someone from a media group has sent correspondence to her home. Embroiling her in this issue makes her a target for papparazzi. The edit I provided retained the gist of the sentence, which is no less factual, if it is so, with the ommission of her name.

Thank you so much Jnh4mx4dc89r (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Jnh4mx4dc89r, Welcome to the Teahouse! I checked the reference used for Jan Reeves' claim and I didn't find it in that. I removed that statement as of now but mentioned the editor, who previously undid your edit. However, I did find Dana Reeves' claim in the reference so I didn't remove it yet. If you have any other issues with the article, the best place to discuss that is the Talk page of the article. And, you may also find reading WP:COI page helpful for future edits. We, generally, discourage people from editing about themselves or someone/something they are close to. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 02:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Jnh4mx4dc89r. I've gone ahead and removed the name for the reasons given in Talk:Mark David Chapman#Unwitting friend in Atlanta. While it's true that Wikipedia does generally discourage people from editing content about themselves or about subjects they may be connected to, there are cases as explained in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Making uncontroversial edits where such edits might be allowed. If you feel the need to do such a thing in the future, it would probably be a good idea to not only leave an edit summary explaining why, but also follow that up with a more detailed explanation in the future on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a beginner and just wondering how do I turn something into a link with the blue font on Wikipedia?

Thank you Lóqlen (talk) 07:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Lóqlen! For example, if you type [[gold]] it turns into gold. More on this at WP:CHEATSHEET and WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Lóqlen. You can find out how to do this at Help:Link, but what you do depends on what type of link you want to create. For example, if you want to create a link to an existing Wikipedia page like "Wikipedia:Teahouse", you just need to add two square brackets before and after the name of the page like [[Wikipedia]] so that it looks like Wikipedia. This will only work, however, when the target page (i.e. the page you want to link to) already has been created; if you try to link to a non-exist page like [[Pediawiki]], then the link will be red like PediaWiki as long as the page doesn't exist. Now if you want to add a link to to an external website or a url address like https://www.example.com, then there are a couple of ways to do so. The easiest is perhaps [https://www.example.com Example.com] which looks like Example.com. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help

--Lólen (talk)


Did I do my first major edit correctly?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Payments_Platform was lacking some information and seemed muddled. Was I correct to create a table comparing 2 common Australian bank transfer systems? Kartane (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

My opinion is that your creation of the table is original research, i.e., information resting on your knowledge of the bank transfer systems rather than on referenced material. I leave it to other editors to recommend what to do. David notMD (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

como regressar ao jogo?

 Wolrd (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Wolrd: I guess you are looking for Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
@Wolrd: Please post questions in English. The Spanish Wikipedia help desk is at [1] RudolfRed (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
And the Portuguese one is at pt:Ajuda:Tire suas dúvidas, Wolrd. --ColinFine (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Brexit

made Brexit because of at least three bad Airbus people. The start was the conversation with The Spectator. I informed The spectator online between January / February 2016 for Zurich, then The spectator informed the Prime Minister that the location is Zurich. Then some people flew to Zurich and then they told the prime minister that it was true. How it has been written and on wich part of Brexit it has been correct written? Best regards, Wname1 (talk) 09:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Wname1. I have no idea what you are asking. If you think that something in Brexit or any other Wikipedia article could be improved, then please start a discussion on the corresponding talk page (eg Talk:Brexit) explaining what change you think is desirable, and support any information you are adding with reliable sources. Otherwise, I don't see how your question relates to Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 11:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

References in native language (non English)

Hello, I would like to know if references that have text in other languages then English matter as references or not? If they are important notable references but from a non English speaking country do they count as valid references? Thank you in advance Kawazbozowa (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kawazbozowa They do as long as they are verifiable, preferred are (of course) native english ones, see Wikipedia:NOENG. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Kawazbozowa, good references that are in (for example) Polish are very welcome. -- Hoary (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Anonymous User (formerly a sockmaster, I have now reformed - as if I was a mafia boss)

Hello Everyone at the Teahouse! I used to be a Wikipedia vandal, now I am the exact opposite - trying to help in Eurovision-related articles. Hope you accept me from now on! --2A01:36D:1200:4A4C:3D88:A501:292E:9A87 (talk) 08:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC) 2A01:36D:1200:4A4C:3D88:A501:292E:9A87 (talk) 08:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome back. Whether people accept you or not depends mostly on how you conduct yourself: if your edits are constructive and you follow policies and guidelines, they probably will. --ColinFine (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

How to translate Wikipedia article from German into English

I am new to Wikipedia. My question is about translation.

"Wilhelm von Türk" is an article at: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_von_T%C3%BCrk I would like to translate the article into English. (Machine translations result in a very awkward English).

What are the protocols or methods for translating the German article into English?

(I would be working in Visual Editor, not mobile view). GustavChristian (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @GustavChristian, please have a closer look at Help:Translation# - it is not that difficult. Happy Editing, CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Commander. I'll take a closer look.
I'm confused. I just started by clicking on "English" on the left of the article. I get a pop up that then asks, in German, whether I want to translate. Then I click on that. Then I get a bifurcated page, with German on the left and blank space on the right, where I can presumably put my translation. But at the top of this bifurcated page there is a note: "Your translation cannot be published because publishing is only allowed to more experienced editors on this wiki." What does this mean? Somewhat similarly, when I click on the beta button, the translation tool is not available. I started translating the first paragraph, but what do I do when I'm finished, if I'm apparently not able to publish? --GustavChristian (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi GustavChristian. They should fix this, if it's what I think is happening. The issue I believe you're facing is that (as advised at this part of the page CommanderWaterford linked), the Content Translation Tool is restricted to extended confirmed editors (users who have been here for both (i) 30 days tenure; and (ii) who have at least 500 edits). I think it would be better if those who don't meet that threshold were turned away from the tool, rather than placed in your situation, where it's allowing you to run it partly, without being able to actually save. This means that you will need to do the translation manually, i.e., creating a page here, and saving your edits (being sure to follow the copyright attribution licensing requirements instructed here and here). However, while I am not very familiar with the visual editor, from what I do know, I think it may be much easier and even necessary to copy the text of the page using source editing, and then pasting the content here while also using source editing, rather than using the visual editor. Once you've saved the new page (with the licensing edit summary containing an interlanguage link to the source German article to meet the attribution requirements I advised about), then switching to the visual editor might work. Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you,Fuhghettaboutit. Here is what I wonder about. If I were to translate the German article as a “new” article in the English Wikipedia, will that lead an editor to make changes of a scope that might perhaps be warranted in the case of a truly new article, but that would not make sense in the case of an article that has been heavily vetted over the years, as in the case of the article I referred to above, even if there is an appropriate attribution and link in the edit history of the English translation to the German heavily edited version? Is there some practical way to cut through this? For instance, can I be granted access to the Translate Tool? (I’ve been a Wikipedia member since last July and have edited extensively in German Wikipedia)--GustavChristian (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
@GustavChristian: I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "changes of a scope ... that would not make sense in the case of an [established] article", but the English Wikipedia is its own community with its own standards and own processes. So yes, it would be treated as a new article, and if the Germans liked it on their side then that's great, but we have our own autonomy. It still has to satisfy English notability standards, for instance. And you don't own the article so anyone can improve it in any way they see fit. — Bilorv (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Bilorv. I wonder how this is going to work. There are many sources in German that address this subject and that demonstrate the notability of the subject, but the sources cited in the article are all in German. If an editor of the English version can't read German, how will he know that the subject meets the notability standard? --GustavChristian (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Non-English refs allowed. Often, auto-translate is good enough to see if the ref validates the text. David notMD (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I understand your question now. As David notMD says, non-English language references are perfectly fine, per WP:RSUE. If someone doesn't understand German and machine translations don't help then they can find someone that knows German, or leave whatever task they're doing to somebody else. — Bilorv (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey again GustavChristian. One more point of clarification. Your follow-up question implies that you may think the content translation tool results in a different ultimate result than a new article here; some other type of translation article. It doesn't. It's just a facility to make translation easier, and it does certain things like automatically provides the copyright attribution edit summary when you are finally ready to save, that I advised you must leave. In other words, it also "just" results in a new article being created here, no different than the one you will create. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Credible Sources

I apologize for making such a broad question but is this website (https://www.pomegranatearts.com/) a credible source? And is this website (https://www.sankaijuku.com/amagatsu-ushio-1?lang=en)? I'm just not sure. Thanks. (Breckan J (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC))

Hello, Breckishere, and welcome to the Teahouse. The place to ask about sources is RSN: but be aware that reliability of sources may depend on what information they are being used to support, and also that independence from the subject of the article is nearly as important as reliability. --ColinFine (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much ColinFine!

(Breckan J (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC))

Breckishere, I'll give you my opinion. The first says "Pomegranate Arts is an independent production company based in New York City dedicated to the development of international performing arts projects." This in an organization writing about itself, the second seems similar. They may have WP:ABOUTSELF uses, but they don't help an argument for WP:N for themselves or associated acts. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much Gråbergs Gråa Sång!

(Breckan J (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC))

Deleting Revision to hide IP Address

Is it possible to delete some revisions I made as I forgot to log in and my IP address has appeared in the 'view history' page and I would rather it didn't? I would then like to remake these revisions when logged in. Trentperson (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Trentperson, you should immediately contact the Oversight team and let them know what information needs to be suppressed and they can hide your IP address for you. See Wikipedia:Oversight for information on how to contact them (email is the fastest way, either at Special:EmailUser/Oversight or by emailing oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org). DanCherek (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

User Pages

How do I make a user subpage. I want to make one for Articles I've Made. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 12:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gandalf the Groovy, one way is to go to your user page, then edit the end of the URL to add the name of the subpage. For example, if you click on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gandalf_the_Groovy/Articles, Wikipedia currently says that the page doesn't exist, and gives you an option to start the page. You can click that, make any edits you'd like, and then click on "Publish page". DanCherek (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Section move question

Hi I was just wondering if you can close a section move proposal if you opened it that discusses BigRed606 (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@BigRed606: Hey there, and thanks for stopping by the Teahouse today to ask this question. In general, it is bad form to close a discussion you either started, or which you have contributed significantly to, unless it is so blatantly obvious that the discussion is clearly unanimous in one direction or the other (see WP:SNOW for an explanation of how to know that). Most discussions don't need to be formally closed, however; if you've asked for input, and received significant enough input that allows you to determine consensus and move forward, you can just go ahead and do what you were asking about. Formally "closing" discussions is usually reserved for contentious issues where there is a variance of opinion, and where you need an impartial person to assess the arguments on both sides and make a final ruling. If you DO need outside assessment, Wikipedia:Closure requests is the place to get help. --Jayron32 14:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Can i use a draft article that still needs to be reviewed in another page? for example i want to use this draft article Draft:List of Amharic musicians in a music section for Amhara people article

Everything is in the headline, ↑↑↑ thank you Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria: Welcome to the Teahouse! You shouldn't be using anything on Wikipedia as a "reference" as it's user generated content. versacespaceleave a message! 12:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Dawit S Gondaria . See also WP:CIRCULAR. Do not cite other Wikipedia articles. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Dawit S Gondaria. First of all, Wikipedia articles are not considered to be a reliable source for any purpose as explained here; so, no you shouldn't cite that as source (if that's what you mean by "reference") even if it was an article. Secondly, while it's generally a good idea to link Wikipedia articles together by WP:WIKILINKS, you shouldn't link Wikipedia articles and drafts as explained MOS:DRAFTNOLINK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Wow maybe the term reference is wrong. I mean like in the Russians culture section, you have a subject, then the main articles. Can i use this draft article as one of the main article for the Amhara people article, hope this clarifies somewhat. my apologies. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
@@Marchjuly: i think you answered my question, so wait for it to be reviewed? Thanks Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 12:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
@Dawit S Gondaria: I have improved the references and rewritten the lead section of the draft list article, to improve the odds of its acceptance. I just wanted to note that you might get ideas for improvement by looking at similarly situated articles, which you can find by browsing Category:Lists of musicians. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
That's very helpful, thank you very much! @@Fuhghettaboutit: Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Can I Move My Draft:Sanusi Mohammed Ohiare to Article Space

The past 27 days since I submitted the Draft:Sanusi Mohammed Ohiare have been informative, educative and worthwhile as I have learnt more about creating an article and also editing others. I have fallen so in love with editing articles and I discovered so much more to be done. But just to know if I can move my draft to the article space as it has been reviewed by so many professional and well experienced editors guiding me to make the draft to be in line with Wikipedia standard. Since the draft has been reviewed by several editors and they seem not to be any recent queries, can I move it to article space? Thanks Teahouse. Bibihans (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Bibihans Bibihans (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bibihans: Since the draft was declined once before, I recommend waiting until it is reviewed again. It make take some time, so just be patient. There are many other drafts also awaiting review. RudolfRed (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
@RudolfRed: Noted with thanks your prompt response.

Updated Username - PLEASE UPDATE THE WIKI PROFILE

PLEASE UPDATE PROFESSOR'S PROFILE. IT IS NOT AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY


Hello

I have changed my username as advised. Sorry for the confusion. As I mentioned before, my old username was created just so I can remember easily and this is my first experience writing a wiki page. I know about Professor Thayumanavan because of his scientific work and I don't have any personal relationship with him. His contributions to science are well known in the community that I live in. Some of his contributions are focused on scientifically solving some of the problems that have impacted me . So when I noticed that he does not have a Wiki page, I became interested in making that contribution. This is the reason that I am writing this wiki and I am not getting paid for this.

Thanks, Lakshmi Sathianathan LSwiki092018 (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Lakshmi. I have removed the notice from Sankaran Thayumanavan, and put a note on its Talk page to that effect. However, while you have put plenty of sources in, most of them are not indepedent of Thayumanavan and his institutions, and therefore they do not establish that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. 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) 17:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Satellite images

How is it possible for a user to add a satellite image to an article for the better illustration of a geographical feature??? Is a screenshot from Google Earth considered as a violation of copyright??? Micahhadar (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, such images are indeed copyright - Google pays a fee to the imagery providers, even if us viewers don't pay one to Google. However, Wikipedia does provide geolocation links to articles for our readers to find pictures and satellite imagery on other sites. You can help in this and we'll all be grateful if you do! See Wikipedia:How to add geocodes to articles for a how-to. It looks complicated, but it's easy to pick up and you'll be doing us all a favour! ◦ Trey Maturin 17:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Micahhadar. This Google page explains their re-use policy which is generous but contains restrictions incompatible with Wikipedia's free licensing. Instead, try to find NASA satellite images which are in the public domain, and can be used freely. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
@Trey Maturin: Oh, that seems fine as it too helps the reader visualize what he/she reads.I never knew linking to Google Earth or Google maps was possible.Thankyou for helping me.User:Cullen328,I had tried finding one but it was not available. Anyways I would like to try linking the maps(Micahhadar (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC))
Micahhadar, This NASA page explains how to find specific satellite images. The whole world is covered. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Seeing Deleted Articles

Is there any way to see how an Article looked before it got deleted? Crocusfleur (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Crocusfleur: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse: Administrators can do so. If you need to ask a question about a specific deleted article, you can ask an administrator to look into the article for you and tell you the answer you seek. There is no way for non-administrators to do so, but if you find a nice admin and give them enough information, they can help. <hint, I might be a nice admin>. --Jayron32 14:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
It's not a perfect tool, but http://deletionpedia.org/ exists. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
@Crocusfleur: On that note, I've found that if I Google the deleted article's name and use the word "wiki" in the search string, sometimes other mirrored Wikipedia graveyards show up. But if you have a specific one that you need, asking an admin is the way to go. Also, if you think you might want to work on a deleted article to bring it up to snuff, you can read Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. 17:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)TimTempleton (talk) (cont)

Please mark my merge work

Hello helpful people! I've implemented the decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChefMoz to merge ChefMoz into DMOZ. I've followed the instructions at Wikipedia:Merging, but this is the first time I've ever done this, so if someone could double check my work and, most importantly, let me know if I've done anything stupid so I can avoid doing it again, I'd be eternally grateful! ◦ Trey Maturin 16:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Trey Maturin: Looks fine to me. And since it was not that big a part of DMOZ, and the redirect goes right to the ChefMoz subsection, you can get away without updating the lead to add ChefMoz. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Need Help for 2021 Tamil Nadu Election -reg

Hi Experts, I want to create page, who have winners in the 2021 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election, i have ref from, http://ecapp0155.southindia.cloudapp.azure.com/NOM/pu_nom_2021/public_report.aspx?eid=AY32021, its enough or need more also check this for M. K. Ashok. if i use infobox photo's from social media and other sources http://ecapp0155.southindia.cloudapp.azure.com/NOM/pu_nom_2021/public_report. It is allowed in wikipedia. YASER ARAFATH (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Yasercs89: It might be better to add the info to 2021 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election#Results, since you only need one source. But I discourage you from putting in long lists of numbers and names without context, per WP:NOTDIR. I looked at the source, and can't figure out what it's saying. Also, don't add any images unless they can be licensed to Wikipedia under the current creative commons license. See Wikipedia:Image use policy. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I have interest in editing a page for an institution that I am affiliated with in order to update and add some specific info. The information I would like to add is verifiable, and I am making sure the info is notable rather than just a fun fact. Is it recommended to go ahead and make these edits with a conflict of interest disclosure, or to just leave the suggestion of these edits in the talk page for the institution? M.User21 (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

M.User21 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for asking your question. You will want to review the conflict of interest policy. In short, you should first attempt to make an edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page in which you mention your COI and detail the exact change you are requesting. If no one acts on it after a time(maybe 7-10 days), you could probably just make the edit yourself noting that you attempted to request it first. 331dot (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

editing blocked despite being autoconfirmed user

I tried to add a wikilink to a Commons Category on the Wikipedia page Thanatos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanatos ) and was blocked with a message noting the page is "semi restricted" and restricting editing to "autoconfirmed users". The pink-box note contains the following: 07:01, 23 December 2010 Nightscream talk contribs protected Thanatos ‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) (Excessive sock puppetry) (hist) (thank) I am quite sure I am an "autoconfirmed user", and can edit other pages without problem. Is there a glitch preventing my access, or is there a hidden restriction that I haven't discovered? Help will be appreciated. }} Seauton (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Seauton: from what I can tell, you indeed should be able to edit that page. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
@Seauton: did it actually stop you from saving changes? I get that pink box,too, but I can make edits in the edit box as normal. RudolfRed (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Biography

Can I get guidelines on writing a biography for a living person. Lorato Othusitse (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Lorato Othusitse, WP:BLP <-. Panini!🥪 20:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
And WP:YFA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Lorato Othusitse, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography is also helpful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

What counts as vandalism and what doesn’t? GraminGardy (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello GraminGardy. Please read WP:VANDALISM. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
@GraminGardy: In a nutshell: bad edits that were well-intentioned and made in good faith are not vandalism; whereas bad edits that were intentionally designed to damage the encyclopaedia in some way are. PS: Welcome to the Teahouse! Nick Moyes (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Similar but distinct names of sports clubs

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leicester_Hockey_Club&redirect=no

We have a small naming issue with our Field Hockey Club in Leicester, UK. Previously the entry for "Leicester Hockey Club" had included a reference to both Leicester Hockey Club (a smaller but historic Mens Hockey Club in Midlands League) and Leicester City Hockey Club (a bigger and very successful National League Ladies Team) The fact remains that the name Leicester Hockey Club does not refer exclusively to Leicester City Hockey Club and technically is not the name of Leicester City Hockey Club at all. There surely ought to be some sort of acknowledgement that Leicester Hockey Club is a separate entity, even if it is on a smaller scale. How can this be corrected?

Leicester Hockey Club leicesterhockeyclub.com Leicester City Hockey Club leicesterhc.co.uk YorkieLeicester (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@YorkieLeicester: Hello Yorkie and welcome to the Teahouse! If the Leicester Hockey Club is not notable, there won't be an article for it and no need to disambiguate between the 2. Also, it appears that you may be involved in the team in some way based off of you saying it was "your" team and your username containing the name of the city it's based in. If so you might want to take a look at WP:COI. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@YorkieLeicester: Just a polite note to ask you not to mark any more of your edits as 'Minor' unless they're genuinely an edit which makes no significant change to the content of the page. Things like a spelling or a punctuation change is a WP:MINOREDIT, whereas this most definitely isn't. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

All part of the learning process! Obviously accept that "If the Leicester Hockey Club is not notable, there won't be an article for it and no need to disambiguate between the 2". Leicester Hockey Club was founded in 1885, but other than being County Champions has played in only regional, not national leagues. The fact that the Mens and Ladies Clubs are separate identities was included in the oldest revision I can view (from 2015), it is a shame that this information is now considered irrelevent. Thank You Blaze The Wolf and Thank You Nick :noted

Fictional stories: Can we add them?

ok, I had a question: can we add fictional stories? 

I am a creative mind, and have a whole world up in my brain. I LOVE writing fictional stories, especially if other people can see them/ use them to infinite extent.
but this is a wikipedia.

I am just asking! 100%not fake (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

No, per WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought YODADICAE👽 16:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
@100%not fake:, if you like the wiki collaboration format, you may find somewhere that would welcome your fiction by doing a search of the unrelated fandom.com wikisite. If you're just looking to publish your stories, there are several free hosting platforms you might be interested in, including Blogger and WordPress. ◦ Trey Maturin 17:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is a encyclopedia with non-fiction, not a place for writing stories. Sorry Josh cant edit at all (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Another question concerning section move

Hi I was just wondering what is the minimum amount of time a section move proposal should be open. BigRed606 (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@BigRed606: Welcome back. You ask a lot of really good questions. I don't know that there's any strict rule on timing, except that enough time has been given for interested parties to notice the discussion and comment on it. That can vary too much to have a specific time. In most cases 2-3 days is usually a good amount of time, as it gives people who sleep and work a chance to stop by, see the discussion, ponder on it, and give their input. In some cases, you might close a discussion sooner, for example WP:ITNC is a fast-moving part of Wikipedia dealing with discussions of a very timely nature, some of those discussions are concluded less than a day. On the flip side, there are some times, especially when the discussion is occurring on an obscure article in a corner of Wikipedia that doesn't get a lot of traffic, where you might want to wait longer, like a week or more. If that were the case, I may try to advertise the discussion on noticeboards or at Wikiprojects to attract more perspectives on it. In general, for most active discussions 2-3 days is a good rule of thumb. --Jayron32 16:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi BigRed606. As provided at Wikipedia:Requested moves:

Requests are generally processed after seven days. If consensus is reached at or after this time, a reviewer will enact the request. If not, the request may be re-listed to allow more time for consensus to develop, or the discussion closed as "no consensus". See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for more details on the process.

In my experience, on average, the more complicated/long/controversial the request, the more likely a requested will stay open after the usually minimum seven-day discussion window before some volunteer comes along to close it. In this case, the requested move is in a fraught area, is long, with some heated discussion, and with many varying opinions, so it is exactly of the type I would expect to stay open longer than the average. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Joe Vogler

 76.176.201.201 (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse! Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia or the Wikipedia article about Alaskan politician Joe Vogler? Let us know and we'll try to answer. DanCherek (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Good articles

If I see a good article with issues, where can I list it so that people know that its status should be investigated? JediMasterMacaroni (Talk) 23:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

can a bot block users

I want to know  Tonkerboy (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

No. But it could report you that a (manual) block from an Admin might be appropriate. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Tonkerboy. No, never, at least at this Wikipedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)
Some admin bots are approved to block IP addresses. See e.g. Special:Log/ST47ProxyBot. I don't know any which are approved to block registered users. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Didn't that bot block me before? 2601:1C2:200:B610:95D0:E155:54:59C2 (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
IP, you've never been blocked. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 04:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh I am sorry for the misunderstanding when I was using a VPN I was blocked by it 2601:1C2:200:B610:95D0:E155:54:59C2 (talk) 04:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
All happens Tonkerboy (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

How do I get my draft review?

How do I get a review on a draft? Power62 (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Power62 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have submitted your draft for review, it theoretically could take many months, but it is likely it will be rejected quickly, as it is completely unsourced. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability.
Creating an article is the absolute hardest thing to do here, and diving right in without some knowledge of the process and some experience editing existing articles does not often end well, leaving people who dived in frustrated and with hurt feelings. I would suggest that you read Your First Article, use the new user tutorial, and edit some existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates before attempting to create a new article. 331dot (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Power62. I have deleted your sandbox for being a copyright violation and as blatant advertising, and "soft" blocked your account based on the promotion seen, coupled with your username. You can follow the instructions at the notice I left on your user page to choose a different name, but as noted above, I'm afraid no article on Power62 is likely to ever be acceptable. Even if you created a proposed article that was not a blatant commercial and did not infringe on any previous writing, I fear the game is simply not notable at this time – that no article citing reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail can be written, because those sources, with the suitable depth of treatment do not exist. Nevertheless, if you were to write a new article avoiding the prior one's problems, and citing those necessary sources to sustain an encyclopedia article, you can submit it for review by posting on it and saving this code: {{subst:submit}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Creating an article on intellectual relations

Hello everyone,

I'm new here so apologies for any errors. I'm interested in creating an article on Russo-Japanese intellectual relations. The topic is quite heavily researched in the academic world, but I saw that there is not much mention of it on Wikipedia and wanted to increase awareness of the topic. Originally I wanted to edit relevant articles, but the information I have collected does not fit into any one page and seem to go better as a unit, and so I decided on creating a page if possible. However, just looking around Wikipedia, I have not seen any specific pages on intellectual relations (of any country). I thought of editing the Japan-Russia relations page, but I am not sure if that is wholly appropriate, either, especially when considering that a large part of Russo-Japanese intellectual relations were through nonstate, leftist actors. Any advice on what to do would be appreciated. Thank you! Takoyaki22 (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Takoyaki22, such an article would (or anyway could) be most worthwhile. (Possibly even more so than "Ninja–Russia relations".) But I strongly advise you not to embark on it quite yet. Rather, read and digest WP:YFA, and get in some practice at editing and augmenting existing articles. (Perhaps start with straightforward stuff, such as articles about cities in Russia or Japan about which you happen to have resources, and then move on to meatier subjects.) After a few dozen edits, you should be much better prepared to launch Draft:Japan–Russia intellectual relations (or similar). -- Hoary (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I Want to create a Wikipedia for D'Argenta, the world renowned silver & 24K Gold Art manufacturer.

I'm trying to write the wiki for this company, it sells in over 40 countries around the world and in several large retailers, their sculptures have reached Kings, Emperors and even the Pope himself, but can't find enough on the internet that is not on their main site. They have never done publicity or a press release for that means. please visit www.dargenta.com to discover their art pieces.

Please Help.. Artsyst (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Artsyst Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. To merit an article, a subject must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about it, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability, in this case, that of a notable organization. If the company does not have such sources, it would not merit an article at this time, no matter how well you write it. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Artsyst, I notice that your user page tells us "My family founded D'Argenta 40+ years ago". Congratulations. Is the company much written about in books, magazines or newspapers? -- Hoary (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

PHOTO

Hi, i've been having trouble trying to find a picture of zoe ventoura that's free of copyright. Also, i'm not really sure how to hyperlink. Any help would be really appreciated. Thanks! 2001:8003:2DDA:D001:8916:ACCA:949A:41AB (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

For the great majority of living celebs, there are no photographs that are free of copyright. Hyperlinking and more are explained either in Help:Editing or in pages to which this links; if something is unclear, don't hesitate to describe what the problem is and someone here will try to help. -- Hoary (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
[Edit Conflict] Pretty well any photo of a living actress that you can find on the Internet is likely to be copyrighted, and as you probably know, fair use cannot be claimed for a photo of anyone still living.
The easiest way for you to obtain a Wikipedia-usable photo of her (given that you are both Australian residents) might be for you to attend a public function where she is present and take it yourself: as the photographer and therefore the copyright holder you could then submit it to Wikimedia Commons with an appropriate Creative Commons license.
You could also write to her agent, publicist or other management organisation (contact details are in her entry on IMDb, which is linked at the bottom of our article) and request that they themselves release a suitable photograph for this purpose. I rate this as less easy because you will have to explain why you want them to do so, why it would be in her and their interests to do so, and have them read, complete and return a fairly complicated legal statement (though they should have staff familiar with such things): they may or may not decide to help. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.217 (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Seeking help editing an article

Hi everyone,

I am a student who is new to Wikipedia. In one of my subjects, I am editing and updating the China-Pakistan Free Trade Agreement article. I was wondering if anyone would be able to provide me with some feedback and help me improve it.

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated! :) S2102sa (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Quick reaction is: You have greatly improved this article. Well done, and please stick around here after this particular course of yours has ended. -- Hoary (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

How can I improve this draft?

I have made an outline, and have a collection of source down below, however I got stuck on writing a good topic sentence for each section. If anyone has tips on writing these and improve the article in general, I would be happy to hear them and try to include it to the article :) DrifAssault (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Please note that most of the sources are VIetnamese, as it is one of the languages i can understand very well, and that is where most of the sources is. They are generally very reliable (except primary and trinary sources) since all of articles have editorial oversight. DrifAssault (talk) 05:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Your draft has a lead. And it has a lot of headers. None of these headers is followed by any text. Are you hoping that other people will look through your unsorted list of references (all of which appear to be in Vietnamese), decide which can be usable where, digest these, decide what's most important within what they say, and then write the topic sentences? If so, I doubt that you'll have any takers. If I misunderstand (and I hope that I do), please explain. -- Hoary (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC) [Accidentally (I hope) removed by Lowercase Sigmabot; readded -- Hoary (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)]
Yeah, guess I need to do it by myself then... DrifAssault (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I created a article about law of India

Some days back I written a article about The Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. I tried to write this law's status in infobox but I can't able to do that. I need you to write it and improve article. Huge Earth (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Huge Earth: Template:Infobox law's |status= parameter only takes a strict list of inputs, which can be found in it's documentation. "Active" is not one of them; instead, try "Current" or "In force". ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata help page?

I wanted to ask if there is a similar place to ask questions but for wikidata instead of english wikipedia because I can't find one 87.119.186.254 (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi IP, I think it's at wikidata:Wikidata:Project chat. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! 87.119.186.254 (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

File:MC_Kevin.jpg

Hello. This file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MC_Kevin.jpg should be deleted immediately, it is a copyright violation. Someone classified the work as their "own work" when on the Portuguese Wikipedia it is clearly under fair use or something. It should be deleted on all other Wikipedias. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I have requested speedy deletion on Commons, which will stop it being used on all language Wikipedias. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Sandbox

I would like to know if the my texts in my sandbox which I use to practice, will these texts be seen by the public or only the administrators. It is hardly complete and I would like to take more time to practice as I am new and just started today with Wikipedia Adventure. An excellent tool. Appreciate your advice on this. Acariya (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Acariya They can be seen by anyone. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Acariya, Yes, but don't fret if you believe it's available directly; people would have to search our draftspace in order to find yours, so it's out of the way of common public viewing. Panini!🥪 10:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
[Edit Conflict] CommanderWaterford is correct to say that they can be seen by anybody, but only if the person knows or guesses that you have a sandbox and knows where to look for it. Your sandbox should be blocked from being indexed by webcrawlers, so should never be found by any search engine query or accidentally stumbled upon. Nevertheless, because it is theoretically findable you should not copypaste any copyright text or picture to it. If you want to copy the text of a (hopefully reliable) source in order to work on paraphrasing it, it's best to use a text editor on your own device, preferably one that contains no (hidden) formatting codes: something like Notepad rather than, say, Word. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.217 (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

 2409:4043:2E18:BBE9:0:0:9909:3F0B (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your advise. It is very helpful.

Article for fretboard diagrams?

I just noticed while going through the Guitar chord page that there are no explanations for how fretboard diagrams are read. After some more searching, I could not find any other page with it either. I could be wrong, but if the information is not on Wikipedia, I'm planning on making a page for it, in which case I would greatly appreciate some help on drafting it. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

TechnoSquirrel69, I would say a good article title would be Fretboard diagram. Make sure that the topic is actually important, and read WP:GNG. If you cannot prove sufficient notability (2-3 sources) it will not be accepted. For now, I've created an article at Draft:Fretboard diagram. I, personally, have no idea what a fretboard diagram is, so I can't really help you much. Sungodtemple (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

please change my old articles name ( new Articles is Darveshpur Shikarpur Bulandshahr Uttar Pradesh)

Dear sir i want to change my old articals name ( new articals is Darveshpur Shikarpur Bulandshahr Uttar Pradesh ) my new articles not showing in chrome browser Thank you for help --Darveshpur (talk) 11:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Darveshpur (talk) 11:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

You haven't written an article. You have an unsourced draft at Draft:Darveshpur, Uttar Pradesh, and you have what appears to be an attempt at a draft article, misplaced on your user page at User:Darveshpur. The latter has been tagged for speedy deletion, so before it is deleted you ought to move its content to the draft page. You've had advice at User talk:Darveshpur. You also ought to read the advice at WP:Your first article, and the Manual of Style. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

How many categories are enough?

After asking a previous question I discovered that I am meant to remove "no categories" and "not enough categories" messages myself, but I'm not sure how many categories are needed before I do this. For example, Bing_Zhang seems to have quite a few categories, but still has the message. Should I remove the message in cases like this? if not, how do I tell when to? Many thanks in advance, DirkJandeGeer (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC) DirkJandeGeer (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Use WP:COMMONSENSE. In this case it would be appropriate to remove the template. For example, let's say someone makes an obscure article about someone who competed in the 1920 olympics. There is no other information about them. All the categories you could really add are dead people and people who competed in the 1920 olympics. That, in my opinion, would be enough, as there is no other information about them. Sungodtemple (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey! Could you please clarify my doubts?

Could you summarize the Wiki Guidelines and tell me? Vaibhav Vasanth (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't copypaste from sources. Always add a WP:RS reference that supports what you add to an article. If you can't reference it, don't add it. If you write about living people, be even more careful. When discussing with other editors, be polite. WP:TUTORIAL and WP:ADVENTURE can be a good start. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Counter to what you asked for, but see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and Wikipedia:List of guidelines. "Polite" is important. Editors who become too argumentative or abusive can be blocked. David notMD (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Also don't use alt accounts in a argument or get any advantage at all. All text and content added must be reliably sourced. See WP:SOCK, WP:RELIABLE and WP:PILLARS. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 15:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

What next?

Hello

I have created a Wikipedia page, and it is currently in 'sandbox mode' how do I take it out of the sandbox and move it onto the proper Wikipedia website?? Bevbot99 (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Bevbot99, at its current state your sandbox will not be accepted. It is overly promotional, has unnecessary external links, and uses terms like 'we' instead of they. If you are trying to create an article about your organization, please take a moment to review WP:NORG (to check if your organization is notable) and WP:COI (if you have a conflict of interest with the things you have written about). Also, you may want to improve existing articles first to get a better feel for how articles work. Sungodtemple (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello Bevbot99 and welcome to the Teahouse. You can use this link: WP:SUBMIT. However, your article will be rejected if you submit User:Bevbot99/sandbox in it's current form. "is a charitable organisation that has been very much at the heart of our community since it was formed in 1898. The work we carry out..." is not how to write a WP-article, and your article has no references whatsoever. I'm going to throw some links with relevant info at you, hopefully they'll help. WP:GNG, WP:NORG, WP:COI, WP:YFA and WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
It is also a blatant copyvio of this web-page - Arjayay (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Even more not good, see WP:COPYPASTE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


Thank you so much for the feedback guys ... when my boss put me on this mission to transfer some of the history of our charity and our building onto Wikipedia, I really didn't realise what an immense learning curve it would be. I have learnt that not only were we the first place that Anthony Hopkins acted but that Richard Burtons drama teacher and mentor was the chair of our organisation for a while ...and today I learnt that the original huts that the YMCA Port Talbot building started in may have been one of two huts donated to the YMCA but Lady Emily Charlotte Talbot of the family that pretty much founded the town I need to verify that before I add the link to the page about Lady Emily though I will definitely work on toning down the enthusiastic positivity, (its kinda in my nature, which is why I am a natural at publicity for the charity but was a rubbish journalist back when I did that for a living lol) And I will edit the speaking in the first person that my boss wanted me to copy and paste from the webpage out too.... a little bit of objectivity is clearly needed.

So there isn't a 'press button A to go live' thing? Its about it meeting community standards first .....cool .....now I have to work hard to meet those standards I gues (and not let you guys down) :)

Lets put this in order...
  • when my boss put me on this mission to transfer some of the history of our charity and our building onto Wikipedia I am afraid we likely have arrived within the scope of WP:PAID. If I am allowed to give you some advice, 99% of the texts written not specifically for Wikipedia are not useable on Wikipedia, because they break one or the other policy. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch might be of interest. Maybe WP:PROUD would also be worth a read
  • I really didn't realise what an immense learning curve it would be. You're not the first one. I speak from experience when I say that may people underestimate the amount of work it takes to create a new Wikipedia article.
  • its kinda in my nature, which is why I am a natural at publicity for the charity but was a rubbish journalist back when I did that for a living lol Being positive isn't bad at all, It certainly can help you in some places. But I am afraid it might be unhelpfull or hindering in some cases, and writing a Wikipedia article is certainly one of them.
  • my boss wanted me to copy and paste from the webpage out too As I said above, many texts not written specifically for Wikipedia are unsiutable for it. Not to mention that copying & pasting from other websites can have other problems, too, because of Wikipedia's content license. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

add photo and link article

Dear community, I am new to wikipedia. I have translated the article for "Irene Bertschek" from German to English. It got accepted, now I would like to use the same picture as in teh German article. ALso , the comments tell me, the English article is an "orphan". What can I dou to change this?

Thank you for help! Nebelao (talk) 08:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nebelao: Another user, Victor Schmidt, put the image in for you, and I cropped the image so that the person isn't too small. Click on "edit source" and look at the image syntax to see how we did it. For further reading, see Help:Pictures. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@Nebelao: "Orphan" just means that no other article links to Irene Bertschek. An obvious way to make such links for biographies is to consider which institutions the person studied at or is associated with. So the article has a reference to her studying at the Université catholique de Louvain. Hence it is valid to add & link her name in that article, at Université_catholique_de_Louvain#Alumni. Note that such lists in articles are only to be used for notable people: the evidence for notability in this case being that the article about her exists. Actually, in my opinion, her notability as an academic is a bit thin based on the sources so far, so you might like to try to find some additional ones. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Inscription of Hüis Tolgoi

Hi there guys. I recently uploaded a file on Wikimedia; a picture of the Hüis Tolgoi, which can be seen in the relative article. The reason why I uploaded it on Wikimedia is this: it is an inscription on a smooth surface of stone with a depression in the upper part. While, like a painting, it has a rear side with an irregular surface, that part has little to zero artistic and historical value, similarly to the frame of a painting. The "scanner-like" photograph is of the front, inscribed part. That is I considered this a " two-dimensional" historical object/object of art, such as the page of a manuscript, with the copyright belonging to the artist who created it and died in the 5th/7th century. However, they made me doubt this, so I ask you guys what you think? Should we delete or keep the file? Thanks.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The way the admins at Wikimedia Commons will see it, is that you've uploaded a photo you found on Twitter, in violation of the rights of the photographer. You may be able to persuade them that the photographer in fact has no rights; but you'll have to make that argument there, not here at en-Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Maproom you are right, the photo was found on Twitter. The point is, like you hinted at, whether the photographer has rights. How many pictures of paintings and manuscripts taken from the web, and the socials, are there at Wikimedia? But how do you categorize this stele? Anyway, I don't intend to make an argument, if it has to be deleted then it should be deleted. I just wanted to inform the admins of my possible (likely) mistake. It would be nice if you can redirect me to the place at Wikimedia where I can re-post this message. Thanks.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Haldir Marchwarden, try Commons:Village_pump/Copyright or Commons:Help_desk. I am biased here. I have a web site from which I sell digital images, scans of out-of-copyright maps. My country, the UK, recognises my "sweat of the brow" in creating, cleaning, rectifying, cropping, recolouring, etc., these images, and regards me as holding copyright in them. US law does not. But both countries regard the act of pointing a camera at someone's face and pressing the button as creating copyright. Maproom (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Alright, I'll try there. Thanks.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Elmer G. Cato

FYI
 – added WL to Header -Maresa63 Talk 07:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, can I have my article reviewed again? I would appreciate any inputs to it so I can continue editing.

Thank you! StratCom1080 (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts are (mostly) not also Reviewers. You resubmitted the draft on 18 May after making corrective edits. It goes into the backlog of 5,000+ drafts waiting for review. David notMD (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@StratCom1080: Your comment so I can continue editing suggests you don't realise that it is perfectly acceptable, and even encouraged, for you to continue editing the draft while it awaits another review. Other editors have already tried to improve it and you can do so as well, especially to tackle the comments made by the reviewers who declined the earlier versions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

change my old article ( new article is Darveshpur Shikarpur Bulandshahr Uttar Pradesh )

Can someone please change the old user article (new user article is Darveshpur Shikarpur Bulandshahr Uttar Pradesh) --Darveshpur (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC) My user page is not properly displaying or popup one block (contest this speedy deletion). I am not able to understand about that. --Darveshpur (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Link to my user Page User:Darveshpur --Darveshpur (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Darveshpur (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Darveshpur Your user page is not space to draft an article, but a place for you as a Wikipedia user to tell the Wikipedia community about yourself. You may use your personal sandbox (User:Darveshpur/sandbox) or Articles for Creation to draft articles. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Your content was first moved to a draft and then deleted because it was in part copied from a website = copyright infringement. It's gone. David notMD (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Am I allowed to make humorous pages?

I want to know If can make pages designed to make the viewer laugh 100%not fake (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. We do have in-joke pages in places the public don't usually see, but none in the encyclopedia itself. And we don't want any in the encyclopedia, please. ◦ Trey Maturin 17:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
No. Absolutely not. The purpose of this project is the writing of an encyclopedia, and we have rules against misusing it to humorous effect*. If you write a joke article, you will very likely be blocked from editing, or at the very least, have that article deleted and be scolded for it by a grumpy admin.
*There are some exceptions to this, but I strongly encourage you not to take advantage of those until you've got some experience editing. For example, some editors have joke pages in their userspace, or have written humorous essays which have made it into Wikipedia space. But one needs experience to know when, where, and how such things are acceptable, and you don't have that experience yet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Can you play a game on Wikipedia like you answer questions??? Eep Crood (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Only kinda. The only place I think would be at Wikipedia:Games TigerScientist Chat > contribs 16:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I think you meant Wikipedia:Wikipedia games. The link you gave is to the Wikiproject for working on articles about games. --Jayron32 16:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Oops yeah that link. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 19:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

How to put an article in the translation option?

How do I put a French translation of an article in the translation option at the top of the article? Excellenc1 (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Excellenc1: and welcome to the Teahouse. I am not exactly sure if I understood what you wanted to say but if you want the "This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in French" template to appear at the beginning of the article you should add Template:Expand language at the top of the article. If you want to translate an article from French then you should read WP:Translate. I hope I helped. Cheers, OakMapping (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry user, but that's actually not what I meant to ask. In desktop version, the list of available translations on the left of the article. How do I edit that? Excellenc1 (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: these lists are maintined on Wikidata, a sister project of Wikipedia Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Excellenc1, If there are no language links yet, click the "add links" button under "Languages" in the left sidebar. Then you put in the language code "fr" for French Wikipedia, and whatever the title of the article is in the French Wikipedia. If there are already other language links in the sidebar, but French is missing, click "edit links", which takes you to Wikidata. At Wikidata, in the top right of the page there will be a box titled "Wikipedia" with various Wikipedia article titles. Click edit, then add "fr" and the title of the French Wikipedia article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Is the earth flat

Is the earth flat? RolmazingRol-N (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

It depends on your point of view. -Roxy . wooF 08:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
No, the earth is not flat. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion, "earth" can be flat, "Earth", not. David notMD (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
MAYBE ITS FLAT MAYBE ITS NOT????????? (sorry for caps its a joke) TigerScientist Chat > contribs 15:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Not where I live. It's a steep climb to the top of my road to get to the shops or the bus stop. Can't speak for the rest of the world, of course. Mike Marchmont (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I sailed a boat all the way across the pacific ocean in 2012, and it was flat all the way (except the bumpy, wavy bits, and they were flat on average) back then. But it may have changed?Wayne 03:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Almost unsourced BLP survives AfD — now what?

Earlier I took Stan Freese to AfD on notability grounds; it survived, which is fine of course. However, there's a related problem (which, had the AfD gone the other way, would have been resolved, alas...) in that the article is a BLP of some length, yet it's only supported by two (IMO flaky) sources, each cited once, ie. the vast majority of it is unreferenced. And it has been, and been tagged, like that for years. What should I do next (other than moving on and minding my own business) — should I delete the unsupported content, which would mean removing entire sections? Should I expressly not do that, since I'm the one who moved the AfD? (I should also mention that there is evidence of at least some COI editing, see here, and it looks like removing content might not go down very well with certain IP editors.) Any advice? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, DoubleGrazing. Several sources were identified in the AfD. Use the best of them to improve and expand the article. Or move on. The choice is yours, though my first recommendation is the best, in my opinion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Cullen328. Yes, a number of sources were identified, that's true, and they might be enough to establish notability; whether they are enough to support the article contents needs looking into. (Just to mention, though, that the LA Times piece is an interview, the Disney one a close source, one returns 404, one only mentions this person once in passing... so basically we're down to a single source that actually is worth anything, AFAICS.) Anyway, if those two are my options — work on the article myself (which I've zero interest in doing) or move on, I guess I'll choose the latter. :) Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't know. But if you're starting to wonder whether perhaps it's just you who thinks that the article is wretched, no, the article is wretched. -- Hoary (talk) 06:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the note of solidarity, @Hoary: I just think that it makes a mockery of the BLP policy, that articles like this can be published and left there for years, and there doesn't seem to be an obvious, easy way of enforcing the rules. But I'm too old and tired (IRL) to even try to right such great wrongs... ;) Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi DoubleGrazing. You could be WP:BOLD and just improve the article as you deem necessary either by finding sources for content you feel is important or removing unsourced content that you feel is superfulous or not as important. If the AfD was a bit contentious or there were quite a few WP:BEFORE or WP:NEXIST comments made by those who felt the article should be kept, then it might be better to be WP:CAUTIOUS instead. Try stating your concerns on the article's talk page and notifying those who participated in the AfD and inviting them to discuss things. The editors who felt the article should be kept might have some ideas on how to improve it. If you don't get lots of responses, you can always then try asking for feedback from relevant WikiProjects. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
That discussion is pretty short, although some sources were provided to that appear to establish notability. But, if there are no significant improvements to the BLP in the next 12-24 months then a second AfD could be justified to obtain a more thorough consensus. Although I would not do this if you can find significant coverage yourself in the meantime, per WP:BEFORE. Polyamorph (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion concluded that sources exist which could be used to demonstrate notability; but they have still not been so used. I think the article should be converted to draft until someone finds time to do the work. I'm not going to try myself, as I have no understanding of music. Maproom (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
The article does need sourcing but this does not indicate a lack of coverage. Since it has been decided that it should be kept, why not improve it (e.g. address the WP:BROCHURE tone of some parts) rather than subjecting it to another contentious AfD? Like what a previous post stated, all participants can perhaps move on to more productive things. Darwin Naz (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

NeverEnding Story

Hello, I have another question to ask. How much did the first NeverEnding Story movie made worldwide? I've seen some sources like Box Office Mojo and IMDB say it made $20,158,808 when I recall it made that much domestically. Another reason for asking this is because on the main page for The NeverEnding Story said it made $100 million. I'm just a little confused is all. Gojilion91 (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I created a section heading for this item.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
This really should be asked at the Entertainment Reference Desk There are many WP contributors who specifically frequent the desk just for these types of questions. Maineartists (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
@Gojilion91: The article should reflect what is in the sources, and the $100M figure has a citation. If that citation is not correct, or if you have suggestions for changing the article, discuss it on the article's talk page. IMDB is not a reliable source, since the content is user generated. I am not sure about Box Office Mojo. RudolfRed (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete uploaded File from Wikipedia Commons

Gentlemen, How to delete an uploaded File from Wikipedia Commons?

Valliappan Kannappan (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

As you're looking at the file in Commons (not in Wikipedia), click "Tools | Nominate for deletion", and then do as you're asked. -- Hoary (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Retirement template

Can anyone give me the link for the retirement template Sumit banaphar (talk) 06:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sumit banaphar: I assume you mean {{retired}}? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah,thank you Sumit banaphar (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Miklos Hornok site - Images was removed without explanation despite the photographer's written consent sent to commons-wikipedia

Please give me an explanation why the referenced photo below was removed from that site without any explanation despite of the fact that Peter Zador (the photographer) released the copyright with his written statement sent to July 26, 2019 to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org email address! (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mikl%C3%B3s_Hornok,_captain_of_Hungarian_Davis_Cup_team_and_his_No.1_player_Marton_Fucsovics_(2012).jpg I would like to reinstate the referenced photo as soon as possible because there is no reason to remove it! Mrandrew16 (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: similar question from November 2019.--- Possibly (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
@Mrandrew16: This needs to be resolved at commons, not here. Try asking at c:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard on why it was deleted, or on c:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard on why the image was deleted despite having been restored with what I presume is a ticket ID. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I have asked at commons, c:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#File:Miklós_Hornok,_captain_of_Hungarian_Davis_Cup_team_and_his_No.1_player_Marton_Fucsovics_(2012).jpg for you. An OTRS member will presumably tell you on why this was deleted (again). Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Changing title of draft article

Hi, I am working on creating a wikipedia page for a school assignment, and I realised that I have made a mistake for the title of the page. How can I change the title? Can you help me please? I've read through the instructions for moving a page but I don't have that button on my site. I would like to add the year to the end of the movie title.  Kiwis&apples (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kiwis&apple - this looks a well written draft but why do you want to change the name? The year doesn't feature in the title and there is a strong preference for using the correct title for films unless there are two films sharing the same name.  Velella  Velella Talk   09:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello Kiwis&apples, and welcome to the Teahouse! You don't have the "button" yet because WP:AUTOCONFIRM, but you will in a few days. In the meantime, you may want to check "Improving your odds of a speedy review" in the the review template at Draft:When the Tenth Month Comes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Graphics Upload to Wikipedia (*.jpg)

I created a jpeg file in Excel to explain the difference between Kovats index equations. However the picture icon (I see that above my text editor right now) does not result in showing the picture in Wikipedia... I only get into trouble I dont understand... WalterSpeaksma (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, WalterSpeaksma, and welcome to the Teahouse. You have successfully uploaded File:C--Users-WSPIE-Desktop-Walter-PicKovatsDifference.jpg to Wikipedia, but have not so far added it to any articles. It has been tagged as lacking information about its origin, so you need to add that, or it will get deleted. Given that you produced it yourself, you are presumably intending to release it under a free licence, in which case it would be better for you to have uploaded it to Commons, so that it can be used in any Wikimedia project. See WP:Images. (It would also be good to rename it , to something a little less unwieldy). --ColinFine (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I want to create a page in wikipedia.

 Sonamsingh143 (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sonamsingh143: Hey there, welcome to the Teahouse! You can see Your first article to learn how to create an article, but I recommend you start with some simpler tasks first. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 13:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I know how to edit page and create page but i want to create new page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonamsingh143 (talk • contribs)

Sonamsingh143 If you are asking permission, you don't need anyone's permission to create a new article(not just a page"). You should be advised that creating a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. Your edit history is very thin and I'm not certain that you actually understand what goes into creating an article. I would strongly advise you to spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest you first, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. This, and using the new user tutorial, will better prepare you and reduce the chances of disappointment, frustration, and hurt feelings. However, if you still wish to attempt to create an article, you may use Articles for creation. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Looks like they have attempted an article, courtesy link for draft Draft:BKPK VIDEO. Theroadislong (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Including Biography in Wikipedia

What is the format for submitting biography of self or any other person? Thank you Infantry28 (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Infantry28. The first thing you're going to need to do is assess whether the person who want to write about is someone who is going to be considered Wikipedia notable. You can find out a little more about this here and here. This is important because it will make no difference whether you're trying to create an article about yourself or another person if you're unable to clearly establish that the subject of the article is Wikipedia notable as explained here. So, self-assess the Wikipedia notability of the person you want to write about by looking for at least two or three examples of significant coverage about them in independent and secondary reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia). If you're able to find such coverage, try following the suggestions for creating an article given in this guide created by a Wikipedia administrator to help new editors such as yourself or come back to the Teahouse and ask some more questions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Infantry28, Additionally, if your intention is to write about yourself, you probably should not. See WP:Auto. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Wrong Section

In the article - List of American Civil War Medal of Honor recipients: T-Z in the V section the name Edward Van Winkle is misplaced. I am not good enough with Wikitext so if someone could move it to its proper place in the W section that would be nice. Thanks in advance! Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest delete that redlink entry (and several others) per WP:LISTPEOPLE.--Shantavira|feed me 16:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe that in this case it would be better to keep the names in redlinks as a complete list of Medal of Honor recipients. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

That's great! I have moved Mr Winkle.--Shantavira|feed me 16:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Shantavira Thanks! Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

new articles create

Sir How to create new articles ?? --Darveshpur (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC) Darveshpur (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

You have been given a LOT of advice, but you appear to be unable to follow it. Your draft is here Draft:Darveshpur Shikarpur Bulandshahr Uttar Pradesh it requires reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Advice on creating your first article is available at Wikipedia:Your first article. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
But please note, that competence is required. Theroadislong (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

ARTICLE GETS DELINED ALWAYS

I really don't understand, when I see other articles on the same platform, passed the qualification, and got approved. I followed the same way when writing my article but get decline. Do you consider based on Popularity or facts? Ophirizayamba2021 (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

This regards Draft:Malawi Luxury Inc. Seeing as you are writing what appears to be an advertisement for this company, it is no wonder it has been declined repeatedly. Wikipedia is not an advertising agency. If you wish to make your brand more noticeable, please contact an ad agency. To create an article for a company is a difficult thing. Read WP:BOSS for my general advice on editing about a company. AdmiralEek Thar she edits! 20:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
@Ophirizayamba2021: Fix ping AdmiralEek Thar she edits! 20:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Ophirizayamba2021, please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for a better understanding of what makes a company notable and therefore eligible for a Wikipedia article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The only problems I see is that the section names are all caps, in the main thing there is a link showing and not a reference. That’s all I can see. Maybe check if you have cap locks on Josh cant edit at all (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The article is written like a advertisement. The punctuation is also missing in lots of spots. The lead section (which in this article's case is most of the whole article) isn't cited either. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 21:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Ophirizayamba2021 Please see other stuff exists. Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean yours can too. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. If you want to help out, please identify some of these articles you have seen for possible action. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Before you do anything, reply to the PAID query on your Talk page. If you are paid, must be declared on your User page. If not, state that on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Ophirizayamba2021 (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC) This article is NOT PAID, If I indicated at first, then I must have missed it, This is not paid, Let me give you a bit hint. In Malawi, there is No Print on demand, and this just started Last Year, I provided links based on what has been achieved and what others are talking about it. Malawi is not Europe, its one of the poorest, so some new companies take time to get that Public figure status, If you require it to mature for years before writing an article about it, then I can totally understand, but I was more than careful when starting the project, followed all the processes, checked how others are coming up with articles, this is why am surprised to get a note that it looks like an advertisement. I love Wikipedia

Ophirizayamba2021 (talk) 06:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC) I have not get any response from you please update me with the proceedings.

Ophirizayamba2021 You have had many many responses. So sum them up, the sections are in all caps, it is like an ad, punctuation issues are prevalent, and it is unsourced. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 18:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Ophirizayamba2021 (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC) I have heard, your points. So now, what is the first step i need to do to the article ? so i can improve it

If the above responses are not sufficient in providing you the direction, then you are not ready to edit topics with potential for advert. Since you are not paid, and are here just because you love Wikipedia, just drop this topic and move on to something else where it's easier to learn the ropes, where you can get help from others without being seen with suspicion, where notability guidelines are much more straightforward, or sources more abundant. Maybe, some things to do with the history of Malawi. Or social topics you are familiar with. Then, when you have gained sufficient experience with editing, you can revisit the topic and reassess then whether it is actually notable. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Usedtobecool. Start with editing articles that interest you; it's fun, and you will like it. Good luck! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

HELP: Requesting assistance with Draft:KAP Hub

Greetings people at Teahouse. I'm new here and I've been eager to join the team contributing to the Wikipedia contents on the internet, unfortunately despite my strength in writing, I realized that I may not be that good in creating a Wikipedia page (seeing that my first Wikipage (Draft:KAP Hub) was declined). However, I do not want my hard work to be in vein and I really want to see it published. That said, I would appreciate if there's any means for someone to help make my contribution meet with the Wikipedia standard, so it can be published.

I look forward to a response, as I familiarize myself with the features of this application! Somtonna (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Somtonna Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would first ask you if you work for or represent KAP Hub. There are certain policies you are required to comply with if that is the case, see the paid editing policy as well as conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something; a Wikipedia article about a business must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the business, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable business. The sources you have offered do not seem to meet that definition. Wikipedia is interested in what others completely unaffiliated with the subejct say about it, not in what it says about itself or merely what it does. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Need Personal help

how to deal with anxiety and boredom in this lockdown ? as I am feeling anxiety. Bengal Boy (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse, sorry to hear that you are suffering with anxiety but Wikipedia doesn't offer medical help. We can help you with editing Wikipedia though. Theroadislong (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Bengal Boy (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Teahouse is not for irl questions but just do things you like and if you can't do that do things that you haven't done before. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 20:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Untitled question by Marine-Society

I have written an article on a well known marine engineer titled "Anshuman Sen" and have cited to sources a journal and a newspaper, however it has been more than a month and it is still showing draft, could someone tell me how toget it reviewed and published in the main wiki Marine-Society (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Marine-Society: Draft:Anshuman Sen is not currently submitted for review, however, if it were to be submitted right now, it would probbably be declined. For a living person, we have a high standard of referncing. Every statement you make about a living person MUST be accompied with an inline citation to a reliable source, because we are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
@Marine-Society: Welcome to the Teahouse. The number of drafts that have been submitted for review number in the thousands (standard waiting time is 4 to 5 months), and it's a backlog, not a queue, so reviewers will pick the ones that interest them the most first. Just be patient; someone will get to it soon. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Per Victor Schmidt, you have not submitted it for review. If submitted as it is now, will not be accepted, as no references. What Anshuman Sen has published doe not contribute to establishing notability. What is essential is providing references to what people have written ABOUT Sen. David notMD (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

As per David's guidance, I have included an article where journalist for The News International with a monthly circulation of over 1.4 million have written about Sen, referencing his expertise on the reason for the recent grounding on the vessel "Ever Given" in the Suez Canal

Not how references are done (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners). and anyway, that is an interview with Sen, not an article about Sen. Interviews do not support notability. David notMD (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

why was my sandbox declined?

I provided a link so It could go under review. Artmaker12 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Artmaker12: no souces? Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
An article, Phone fraud, exists. Perhaps you can improve that article. David notMD (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

County Durham (district)

Could some editors help me with linking the new article to the settlements and any other articles that use the district. I created it to help with clarifying the ceremonial and unitary authority district of County Durham (district) and County Durham. I have made a few links but would be appreciate of some more help. CheersRailwayJG (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC) RailwayJG (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Zacharias David Idris

Hi I think that the text on this page should be deleted, to leave just the redirect...can someone do it? GrahamHardy (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I deleted all the not redirect content from the redirect page and linked to the previous revision in the talk page of the main article, in case there was some different content woth keeping. Personuser (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Asking for suggestion

I am a very newcomer and I am trying to contribute to wikipedia. How should I begin so that I can be a proffesional wikipedian in future days?Well,I lack sufficient experience to create new articles , but I want to do so late after.I require suggestions from the experienced ones. Kushal Dev Wiki (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kushal Dev Wiki, In English, "professional" implies that you would be paid to edit, which is discouraged by Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure). But if you simply want to become good at editing Wikipedia, my experience is that you should start small, and make simple, helpful edits, and learn as you go. Here is a good place to start though, if you want a little more guidance: Help:Introduction. Best of luck! — HTGS (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Willard Erastus Christianson

I am confused what to do with Willard Erastus Christianson as the article title. A number of books call him Willard Erastus Christianson, but I can't figure out why. He was known in public records as Erastus Christiansen (no Willard, last two letters are "en") from when he was six years old (1870 census), subsequent census up to 1930 and his marriage records. To make things a little more confusing, in some of his public records he had a middle name of Julius, J, Warner, or W. Between 1875 and 1938, when he died, Newspaper records have 59 hits for Erastus Christiansen and four hits for Erastus Christianson. There are no records for "Willard Erastus Christianson" or "Willard Erastus Christiansen" in that time frame.

To those around him, he was known as Matt Warner (outlaw). I got 3,108 hits for "Mark Warner" Utah OR rustler OR outlaw from 1875 - 1938

It seems to me that the article should be moved to:

  • Erastus Christiansen because that's what he went by in public records and matches up with how his surname was spelled in his lifetime.
  • Matt Warner (outlaw) because that is what he is mostly commonly known as, per WP:COMMONNAME. He signed his memoir The Last of the Bandit Riders as Matt Warner.

Your input is very much appreciated. I'm a bit stuck on this - and I'll need administrator's help, I am pretty sure, to move it to the existing Matt Warner (outlaw), if that's the name that is landed on.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC) –CaroleHenson (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

added memoir info.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
"Matt Warner ([something distinctive])", where the distinctive something may well be "outlaw". I take your word for it that he's vastly better known as Warner. (Relevantly, our article on Henry McCarty (who sometimes used the nom de guerre William H. Bonney) is titled Billy the Kid.) If nobody disagrees (or beats me to it), I'll move the article to Matt Warner (outlaw). -- Hoary (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
That would be great, Hoary, thanks! I was hoping the "hits" information helped prove that he was much better known as "Warner". I actually started an article for Matt Warner (outlaw) and had no idea that his birth name was Christiansen - but I think the fact that he couldn't win an election until he used is alias, and then used "Mark Warner" as the author of his memoir helps make it clear that others thought of him as MW.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
. . . however, my example of Billy the Kid is an odd precedent at best. The article fairly consistently refers to him as "McCarty" (in itself a surprising contrast with the title), but for example: Deputy U.S. Marshal Robert Widenmann, a friend of McCarty, and a detachment of soldiers captured Sheriff Brady's jail guards, put them behind bars, and released Bonney and Brewer. / McCarty then joined the Lincoln County Regulators [...] so "McCarty" → "Bonney" → "McCarty" within two consecutive sentences. -- Hoary (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Okay.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC) I am assuming that means - we'll wait to see what other people say.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes CaroleHenson, let's leave it for 12 hours or so; and then, if nobody either has any better idea or has beaten me to it, I'll do the move. -- Hoary (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Hoary, Sounds like a plan!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Done. Please see Matt Warner. -- Hoary (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Yay! Thanks so much! It looks good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Article Editor/Improve my Article

I need help improving my article in order to resubmit it for approval. Sjws96 (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

{{u|Sjws96}] Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You were given some advice in the message declining your draft. Do you have specific questions about it? 331dot (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Courtesy ping: @Sjws96: GoingBatty (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Restricted articles

Some articles are locked(to edit) .What type of articles are editable and which ones are not? Could you explain those criterias? Kushal Dev Wiki (talk) 01:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kushal Dev Wiki, information about protected pages (what I assume you mean by "locked") is listed at Protection policy. Pages are usually edited to protect against too much activity from bad faith editors.— HTGS (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kushal Dev Wiki, adding onto what HTGS said, articles are protected when editors vandalize a page frequently. Articles without vandalism don't get protected. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 02:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@Kushal Dev Wiki to add: if a page is protected, you can always click 'View Source' at the top of the page, and click 'Submit an edit request'. There, you can type the exact text you'd add to the article and where (along with citations if you're adding new information), and someone will check it and copy it over. You can see your addition in the talk page of the article, and it'll increase your edit count as well, so you'll be on your way to edit even protected pages. Uses x (talk • contribs) 03:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Getting the patrol right

Hello, I'm Shabib20, or you can call me Shabib. Recently I saw that I have the option to patrol edits in the Bengali Wikipedia. But I'm not getting it here. So its a question to you, "How do I get an option to patrol edits ?" Shabib (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Shabib20: Different language Wikipedias operate independently from each other. That means that whatever happens in the Bengali Wikipedia does not concern the English Wikipedia, and any user permissions you get there do not carry over here. I think the English Wikipedia counterpart to "patrol edits" is the pending changes reviewer right. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Should I use RfC, or just ignore one dissenting opinion? (Naming conventions NZ)

Hi all,

I recently made a small, though not inconsequential, change (here) to Naming Conventions (New Zealand), believing it was appropriate and essentially what most editors had been acting on already (a senior wikiproject editor had already commented supporting the idea behind the change). Another editor reverted my change, so I raised a discussion on the talk page. After discussion, it seems that the only person opposed to the change is still this same editor. This editor and I have discussed extensively, and I find their arguments nonsensical and against better Wikipedia principles and guidelines.

(Essentially this editor opposes a preference for common names, but makes arguments that don't seem to support this preference. Eg, paraphrasing: "we shouldn't prefer common names because guidelines say we don't always have to use common names," and "official names aren't much less concise in some cases," and "sometimes there isn't much written about the topic, so a common name is hard to establish". My impression is that it all boils down to a preference for official names.)

So my question is, at this point, should I assume that consensus (only four to one; though editors who have elsewhere commented on similar discussions have been extensively notified) has found my edit preferable, and reinstate it… OR should I raise an RfC to get outside opinions? I do believe outside wisdom would follow my own thoughts on the matter, but I also don't know whether I need to bother; community discussion has only been pushed back by this one editor, so I feel that usually (eg, on typical article talk page discussions) we could just proceed. I'm not in any real rush, but it has been some time, and I'd like to move the issue on. — HTGS (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

So my question is, at this point, should I assume that consensus (only four to one; though editors who have elsewhere commented on similar discussions have been extensively notified) has found my edit preferable, and reinstate it… OR should I raise an RfC to get outside opinions? I do believe outside wisdom would follow my own thoughts on the matter, but I also don't know whether I need to bother; community discussion has only been pushed back by this one editor, so I feel that usually (eg, on typical article talk page discussions) we could just proceed. I'm not in any real rush, but it has been some time, and I'd like to move the issue on. — HTGS (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

HTGS I'm not familiar with New Zealand topics, but from experience in Mandarin Chinese romanizations, naming conventions tend to be messy. While you're certainly free to be bold, in possibly contentious cases like this, it is often better to have an established consensus before making the change. I didn't read the talk page discussion because its quite long and complicated, but a formal RfC, closed by an uninvolved editor, could be a good move to clearly define what consensus is. It would also be a chance to get opinions from even more editors on the matter. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 05:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

my article move new page

sir my old article move to space draft This is my new article {{Darveshpur Shikarpur Bulandshahr Uttar Pradesh}} --Darveshpur (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for help [1] --Darveshpur (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Darveshpur (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Darveshpur Shikarpur Bulandshahr Uttar Pradesh
Hi Darveshpur. I'm not sure what you are asking about with regard to the draft, currently located at Draft:Darveshpur Shikarpur Bulandshahr Uttar Pradesh. The AfC submission template in it, at the top, contains a big blue link for "Submit the draft for review!" However, the last reviewer's comment left at the draft, after you last submitted it, said "PLEASE add reliable sources before submitting for review". No reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail were added by you after that comment was left by the reviewer.

After you posted your question here, I took a look and finding it was a copyright violation and plagiarism, reverted the draft to before the previously written material was added, hid part of the history, and left notes about this in the draft and at your talk page. Do you have any follow-up questions?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

How do I tag a page for BLP

Hi. I'm trying to tag a page for BLP, so it informs those who edit the page that they are editing an article relating to BLP. But I don't see a tag relating to this sort of thing. Is there an issue? Thanks. Seahawks4LifeTALK—CONTRIBS 17:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Am I allowed to add an image in case you don't know what I'm talking about? Seahawks4LifeTALK—CONTRIBS 18:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi Seahawks4Life. Please see the article talk page template: {{BLP}}. I know of no template that is geared solely for the purpose of tagging a BLP as a BLP, for display in the article itself. However, there are numerous templates related to BLPs that flag some underlying concern. For example, the list next to "BLP-specific" in {{Citation and verifiability article maintenance templates}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I realized there was a tiny glitch that removed what I was talking about for a couple minutes. It's back now. Seahawks4LifeTALK—CONTRIBS 18:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@Seahawks4Life: Ah, great. I was actually composing a follow-up. Probably superflous now, but I thought you might be referring to the output of {{BLP editintro}}, which per its documentation:

This edit intro is shown automatically when editing a page categorized as either Category:Living people or Category:Possibly living people. The edit intro is injected into the edit URL by MediaWiki:Common.js.

This means that the page must be directly or secondarily placed into one of those categories. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Hello. A member of Rosguill advised to seek help in this section. I wrote an article in a draft about an organization that is part of the largest state university in Russia - Draft:Moscow Center for Consciousness Studies. I want to show here (I was recommended by an experienced participant) several authoritative sources that consider the activities of the organization. References: 1 - this book has a good overview; 2 - this book also has an overview; 3 - this scientific article discusses the organization in great detail. Unfortunately, all sources are Russian. 2A00:1FA1:4301:DA57:889D:A04E:AFC0:DDF2 (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. In sum, sources do not need to be in English (nor available online). All things being equal, if there is an English source and a foreign language source of equal status (reliability, independence, etc.) we prefer the English as a matter of ease of verifiability for our readers, but outside of that, it is perfectly acceptable to use non-English sources. Please note, though, that as a pragmatic concern, doing so may make a review take longer—because the presence of the foreign language sources is likely to cause some reviewers to move along to review something easier for them to access—but it is never a valid reason to decline a draft from acceptance. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. It is very important for me that someone speaks out about my sources. Is the literature, books, and scientific articles that describe the organization suitable? And it is very important to me that someone looks at the style of the article and helps to improve the article in terms of style. Thanks! 2A00:1FA1:FA:37C6:E9A6:63D6:9B13:DB0A (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I recommend that you edit the article yourself the best you can, removing any unreliable sources (and content sourced to unreliable sources) and adding reliable sources (and content citing those sources). Once you believe that you have finished the article, you can submit it for consideration by typing {{subst:submit}} at the top of your draft in the code view and saving. Once it is submitted, a reviewer will consider the sources in the article, the tone of the article, etc. and determine whether it is acceptable. People monitoring the Teahouse board here generally do not handle this review process. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Note that there are three separate criteria for a source being satisfactory to establish notability: reliability is one, but the other two are independence from the subject, and having significant coverage of the subject. At least a third of your sources are published by msu.ru, so they are not independent of the Centre. Such sources can be used in certain circumstances (see SELFPUB) but they do nothing to establish its notability, and a section which is supported only by non-independent sources generally does not belong in a Wikipedia article. 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) 21:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@ColinFine: I looked at these sources carefully. The first two books, which describe the organization, have nothing to do with MSU. In the third source, indeed, the author of the scientific article is the MSU processor, so it can not be taken into account, I fully agree with you. Then I will replace it with this source - 1, 2.2A00:1FA1:43B5:8B39:87:A5EF:F442:6993 (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

question

am I aloud to use a photo from a source if I put a link to it even if I don't get permission? I just wanna double check Thememe420 (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thememe420, as a general matter, no. Certain photos are freely licensed or public domain, but those are special cases, and most images from around the internet don't fit into either category. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

rcats

does every redirect need a rcat? i'm a bit confused, as some don't have one, and some do
 2603:8000:9903:663C:7DFC:7C75:B28F:27B6 (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, every redirect should have one, though I think in practice most do not because no one has gotten around to categorizing them. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Also, it's often difficult to find an appropriate category for a redirect. The whole situation is messy. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Ethical Issues

Hello. I am author of several traditionally published books which have developed new information at academic standards in a given subject area. I am embarking on a project to edit Wikipedia articles on approx. 20 subjects, to start, for accuracy and the inclusion of new and relevant information. In working on the first one I'm finding a number of errors of fact and omissions of relevant information that I will correct based on my own academically documented information. I will also be editing the article in a few instances where something that is said in one para is contradicted in another, other problems that seem to come from creation by committee.

Also, this particular article makes positive reference to my book on the subject in its main text. I did not put it there and won't delete it of course, but it confuses my problem:

If I were not personally involved in the subject matter in this way I would have no qualms about making the necessary changes and footnoting them primarily or secondarily to the book that is the source of the information. But in reality I wrote the book, which another editor has complimented in the article, and I'm not quite sure how to handle that. My goals are 1) to use my work to increase accuracy and comprehensiveness in Wikipedia (which is a wonderful tool, among others, for writers of nonfiction), but 2) to be sure that my work is as properly credited as any other would be. I've looked at the COI rules for Wikipedia and think that I can operate within their boundaries, but a result after my editing will be an article that both complements my work and uses it extensively in footnotes, edited by me.

I would appreciate any help in thinking this through. Thank you. Vabookwriter (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Vabookwriter (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:Vabookwriter, and welcome to Wikipedia! The official guideline is WP:SELFCITE, which I assume you have come across. Given how thoughtful you sound here, I think it is likely that you will handle your conflict of interest appropriately. I would recommend disclosing who you are on your userpage if you are comfortable with this, so that your editing is totally transparent. You can also check out WP:COIN, the noticeboard that handles conflict of interest issues, though it is more conflict-driven and confrontational than this board. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Vabookwriter, WP:EXPERT may also contain some useful guidance, but you seem to be thinking in those lines already. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Also, with "traditionally published" I hope you don't mean WP:SPS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for those kind responses. I will consider disclosure, and you've confirmed that the answer to a professional problem is to act professionally with the best intention. Re traditionally published: the distinction between traditionally and self-published is increasingly made by active authors as the technology and economics of book writing and publishing keep changing at breakneck speed. A forum similar to this one at the Authors Guild, for example, talks through the intricacies and interdependence of the two forms on a daily basis. Wikipedia mores about self published material will have to evolve as self-pub becomes increasingly legitimate as a tool in the author's output. I have seven traditionally published books and one that was originally trad published, but which I had to get back from the publisher and self-publish to keep its momentum, reviews, Amazon listing, etc. viable. Thanks again. Vabookwriter (talk) 05:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Vabookwriter, one more thing. If you check the talkpages of articles you are interested in, they should mention near the top one or more related WP:WikiProjects. These have talkpages of their own, and though some are abandonded, it's sometimes possible to get help and advice from topic-savvy editors there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Ehsan Naghibzadeh

Hello, I want to publish my first article and I do not know how it will be published. I wrote it for my friend in his name. The article is neutral and the links for proof are given. My article Draft:Ehsan Naghibzadeh was reviewed but it is still not published and I do not know what I need to do that it gets published? Can you please help? Thanks in advance, Lisa Ehsan Naghibzadeh (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Ehsan Naghibzadeh, Reviews can take up to five months. You could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts if anyone is interested in reviewing it. Most likely, though, you just need to wait patiently. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Ehsan Naghibzadeh, one further note -- this one is still pending and has not yet been reviewed. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

A PROBLEM: You chose as your User name the name of the person you are trying to create an article about, at Draft:Ehsan Naghibzadeh. David notMD (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD; I, Lisa, created the article in his name. However, now I created a new account (Volisa) and rewrote the article again (originally also written by me).. does that solve the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehsan Naghibzadeh (talk • contribs) 20:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Suggest Changes to Republish this Articla

Hi,

I was the major contributor to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stevep2007/sandbox_james_heppelmann. It was deleted because the votes came from people not knowledgeable about industry 4.0 and the challenges of introducing new products as companies evolves.

The reason for the deletion was notability; however, the subject is notable.

I am interested in documenting Industry 4.0 companies that are not a CoI for me, because I have worked in the undustry.

Your suggestion would be appreciated.

Thank you Stevep2007 (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Heppelmann. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Stevep2007: I took a quick look. I’d remove the entire career history of positions before he became President. It reads too much like a resume, which BTW was already pointed out in the deletion discussion. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Stevep2007 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is written by volunteers from around the world and intended for all; there is no requirement that people be an expert in the subject areas they participate in, as Wikipedia primarily summarizes what independent reliable sources say. (there are encyclopedia projects out there where one must be an expert in a field in order to write about it, but not here). As you were told, notability is not inherited. Staff of a company do not necessarily merit articles just because the company meets Wikipedia's definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Declined via AfC end of March. In you opinion, is this draft superior to what was deleted? P.S. I deleted the career history because I agree with Tim T. David notMD (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Calliopejen1 and David notMD - thank you for your thoughtful comments. I also looked more deeply at the awards, obtained by from the web. They might be meaningful to a small audience, but do not add any significant insights. Would you please take another look, and let me know if I should make additional changes. Stevep2007 (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Title change?

Is there a way to request the title of the article Menkes Developments Ltd. have the period removed from the Ltd at the end? Thank you in advance. 73.0.114.181 (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse.The title of the article does not meet the Wikipedia manual of style WP:NCCORP and it should be moved to Menkes Developments. Since that already exists, as a redirect to Murray Menkes, an ordinary editor cannot move the article over it, so I have put in a Move request to do so. (A Move request is what you could have made, but as I say, your preferred title is not appropriate). --ColinFine (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. The article was created and so titled by Excel23, who clearly likes "Ltd." (see the edit summary). If anyone's wondering, titling an article with "Ltd" (with or without a dot) conflicts with article titling convention. (And ColinFine, you're not an administrator? That's a bit silly.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the appreciation, Hoary. I've never felt a yen to take on that mantle of responsibility. --ColinFine (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
But ColinFine, a licence to kill the possession of the administrative machete, blunderbuss, and mop and bucket don't come with any obligation to use them, or even to carry them around. -- Hoary (talk) 09:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Artist page creation

Hello, my great-grandfather Wilhelm Karl Dohmann (*1876 Riga) was a commercial portrait- and landscape painter.

During my genealogy research I found very little regarding his education in the Arts, nor have I been able to establish/proof his place and date of death, so far.

Unfortunately at some point in time an auction house put up the birth and death dates and places of another Wilhelm Dohmann, which is now being used as a reference (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wilhelm_Dohmann_Blick_auf_Stadt_und_Feste_Kufstein.jpg). These dates are close to my ancestor's, but not exact. After consultation with a museum registrar we've come to the conclusion that there are not two painters in the same time period with the name Wilhelm Dohmmann.

I would like to create a page for him, publishing a few cornerstone dates and info, for my personal need for accuracy and maybe a bit of acknowledgement of the "job" portrait painter at the turn of the 19th century.


I have looked at other artist pages and noticed that I am lacking info about his formal education.

I have church book entries relating to his birth, marriage (which includes mention of his trade) and the birth of my grandmother. Also advertisements in newspapers for his studios (Riga and Stuttgart), two other activities, that relate to community activity (as painter).

So far I have created a personal page documenting my art finds on the internet and documenting which ones are owned by family currently. These paintings, together with photos of the family, establish his "provenance".

I would like to know if this information is enough to create a stub, which might in turn yield more connections and info as it is out on the web?


regards, Petra

PS: this is my page: https://wilhelm.dohmann.alsbach.net/ Pisa911 (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Pisa911 and welcome to the Teahouse.
Biographical articles need to be based on significant coverage by independent reports published in what are considered reliable sources. None of the evidence you've mentioned meets these requirements.
Using your evidence to preserve your great-grandfather's work on a webpage and perhaps writing it up at some of the alternative outlets is probably the best thing you can do at this time. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 23:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Your research sounds interesting and commendable, Pisa911; but personal websites such as this, and personal assurances that the writer has seen unpublished documents in Stuttgart, Rīga or wherever, are unusable for a Wikipedia article. If you succeed with your research, then Wilhelm Dohmann (your Wilhelm Dohmann) will perhaps be written up in surveys of art of the relevant period/area/genre, and may then qualify. Please see WP:RS, WP:ARTIST, and WP:COI. As for the misunderstandings that may arise from what's written in Wikipedia Commons, it's common for one name to be shared by two artists (consider Sakae Tamura and Sakae Tamura as a humdrum example); but if you think that you can usefully augment the description at commons:File:Wilhelm Dohmann Blick auf Stadt und Feste Kufstein.jpg, then you are free to do so. (And I mean usefully for potential users of that image, not usefully for publicizing a different Dohmann.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your speedy replies,

as it stands I will expand my personal page with a Biography showing the facts as I gather them.

But what about the incorrect information on that Wiki commmons image? I have contacted the auction house in the source section and they have not responded. And it irks me to have the wrong info perpetuated to the point that the museum in Riga itself has it on one of his paintings! And they are not replying to my information requests.

Regarding him turning up in other publications, as he was the equivalent of your modern passport or wedding photographer, so highly unlikely.

Thanks and I will investigate the above alternative outlets

PS: I had made a contribution in 2016, which was accepted, but was told today that I need to disclose my COI, I would appreciate it if someone could check my edited userpage and the contribution if it is all ok. Pisa911 (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Pisa911, when you talk about "my personal page", I hope that you mean the page to which you pointed us. (A user page in Wikipedia may not be used for such purposes.) Your problems with an auction house and with a museum in Rīga are for you to pursue; neither Wikipedia nor Commons can help you with them. If you can point to a reliable, independent, published source to back you up in saying that something in commons:File:Wilhelm Dohmann Blick auf Stadt und Feste Kufstein.jpg is mistaken, then go ahead and fix it; if you can't, then you can't do anything about it. In the meantime, perhaps you can amass enough material to let you publish an article (elsewhere, not in Wikipedia) that will convincingly distinguish Wilhelm Dohmann from Wilhelm Dohmann and will draw readers' attention to the noteworthiness of the lesser-known of the two. -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
yes indeed Hoarytalk, my web page, NOT userpage. I checked alternative outlets, but not sure if they would be appropriate. I assume Wikimedia commons might be a starting point, but I haven't delved deep enough yet to see, if I can contribute, especially with the notability aspect relevant there as well. My insistence that the info is incorrect is based on the signature comparisons of over 20 paintings. But, since I am not a certified art historian, that is of no value, I know. What makes the auction house source for that image a "reliable, independent, published source"? I know they have uploaded loads of images to Wikimedia Commons, but I don't understand how that makes them a reliable source. I do appreciate your input, even if it isn't directly related to publication on Wiki. thanks Pisa911 (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Pisa911, I don't make any claim for the credibility of the auction house. Normally I'd suggest that you bring up the matter with the person who uploaded the image, but I notice that he seems to have been inactive since 2017, so you'd be unlikely to get any response. It's not a Wikipedia matter but instead a Commons matter; how about asking at Commons' help desk? -- Hoary (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Hoary, I have asked for help there now. But now I have a different question, when I followed the link the help page came up, and when I click on my username at the top, it said the userpage doesn't exist?? Even though it says that I'm logged in. What am I missing?? Do I have to create a new userpage for every wiki group separately?
thanks, Pisa911 (talk) 03:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Whereas I (for example) have not only a user page here but also a (perfunctory) user page there, you don't (yet) have a user page there. (Click on this if you want to create one. You are of course under no obligation to do so.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Hoary, will go and create one there.
Hi, Petra, where you wrote "there are not two painters in the same time period with the name", does that mean the other Wilhelm Dohmann (1884–1945) was not a painter? Do you have any information about him other than birth and death years?
If your great-grandfather died more than 70 years ago, then photographs of his paintings would probably qualify for Wikimedia Commons via c:Template:PD-Art. (Though some countries have weird rules about "unpublished" works which sadly could affect paintings that have only recently been publicly exhibited.)
— Pelagic ( messages ) – (08:50 Sun 23, AEST) 22:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


Thank you for that question Pelagic: yes, I assume he was not, but have not found definitive proof for either: I have tried contacting the profile admin for that WD, but they haven't replied. I also have tried contacting a Dohmann descendant in the exact area, found through a google search but they haven't responded to my requests either. So either their WD has not been a painter and they haven't got the time or patience to reply, OR a big mystery involving both our families! //laughing emoticon// not sure if that will show! Anyway, I will check out your link and see if that's a way of getting my WD properly accredited. Thank you for your helpful reply, Pisa911 (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

edition Draft:Peter Mostovoy

Hi, I would like ask the help to finish by right way my article in VisualEditor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Peter_Mostovoy . The problem with citation. I don't understand what's wrong. thank you, figelvigelFigelvigel (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

In this edit of 5 January, you, Figelvigel added two references. Good. You need a lot more of this kind of reference, for all the other assertions that are made in this draft. Here's an introductory reminder of how to do this; here is a lot more detail. -- Hoary (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Alden S Gooch

I published a first draft in 2018 and it was rejected. I submitted anew draft is a user space 5/20/2021. Where do I look for reviewers responses to this? Under the watchllist? Hcgarmstrong (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hcgarmstrong Reviewers will respond on the draft itself, and post on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Courtesy: recreated draft is at User:Hcgarmstrong/sandbox/Alden S Gooch. David notMD (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Your attempts at referencing are an absolute mess. Remove the "ref numbers" you incorporated into the text, and move the actual refs to the ends of the content being referenced. Separately, appears you have typed the same or different refs under the section title References. The right was is embed the refs in the text and the refs will automatically show up as numbered under References. David notMD (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Declined page submission

 Courtesy link: Draft:Aegean Boat Report

Hi all, I had a page turned down by CommanderWaterford and wanted to ask regarding the following point:

'This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.'

My question is about what specific links this refers to.

The links I provided (more than 30) were all from published, reliable, secondary sources, which included the United Nations and some 25 news agencies across Europe.

All were published.

Was there a specific problem so I can fix it please?

Thanks so much... Rfrokeeffe (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rfrokeeffe This is quite easy to explain - the foremost majority of your sources (and the majority of content) are referring to a controversial theme regarding the greek government and so-called "illegal pushbacks" of migrants and have only in second plan something to do with your organization, so next to it is barely neutral per Wikipedia:NPOV it does not establish sufficient notability per Wikipedia:NORG by independent, secondary, significant coverage. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks very much for the quick response, and I hope you are well.

So I should note that it's not my organisation. I would also note, however, that the 'controversial' issue of illegal pushbacks is absolutely central to the work of Aegean Boat Report and to what's happening in the Aegean right now. Literally every link, aside from the UN's Universal Declaration on Human Rights and Refugee Convention, specifically name Aegean Boat Report, use its work and data and in most cases quote the organisation extensively. All are published sources and are available to an international audience, and all are specifically independent (of the organisation) media companies for wide public consumption.

I'm really sorry. I don't mean to be annoying, but given that, what can I do to improve this so it can be published?

Thanks so much,

@Rfrokeeffe: Welcome to the Teahouse. While I cannot speak up as to whether all the references are all reliable, I was drawn toward the second issue:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

Links removed.
External links should also not go in the body of the article, and people named in the article are referred to by their surname in subsequent mentions. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi , thanks very much for this. I will of course address the isecond issue, and I will remove the links from the main body.:

Hi @Tenryuu - I would expect next time a ping since I was explicitly mentioned. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
That is a request that I can do as a courtesy, but after seeing your prompt response here there appears to be no need to have done so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Rfrokeeffe I Googled the group and only see passing mentions, but no significant coverage. Reiterating and adding to what CommanderWaterford posted - please see WP:GNG, WP:NPOV and even WP:NOTESSAY. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.). TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Are general and flag officers automatically notable enough for an article?

I recently created articles for retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant generals, which were declined by Nomadicghumakkad due to lack of notability. The drafts are Draft:Robert D. Bishop Jr. and Draft:Bruce A. Wright. In the past, I've created a couple dozen articles similar to these two and they were accepted.

Until February 2021, guidelines given by the WikiProject Military History at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Historical SOLDIER essay stated that holding general or flag officer rank was considered enough to be notable enough for an article.

After having a discussion with the person who declined my article, we both came to the conclusion that current guidelines were unclear whether my articles should be created or not. He said that the new guidelines appear to follow the ones at WP:BIO, but that he felt that those standards were likely too rigorous because the media is unlikely to cover senior military officers unless there is a major event. He suggested that I ask about this topic here.

Essentially, my question is, are military officers of general or flag rank automatically notable enough for a Wikipedia article anymore? Or did the change in guidelines in February 2021 make it so that is insufficient to be considered notable? Gunwriter (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Gunwriter. There is no such thing as "automatic notability" on Wikipedia, and the ultimate test of every topic is the extent and quality of the significant coverage that the topic has received in reliable, independent sources. I happen to think that many or most general officers are notable but people who want to write articles about them must do the work to actually identify the reliable sources instead of speculating that they probably exist. Special notability guidelines are intended to identify a topic likely to qualify, but do not guarantee that they actually will qualify. And a notabilty guideline for general officers has never been approved, as far as I know. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
It's worth emphasising, I think, that notability is nothing to do with "this person has made a valuable contribution to society". It's just the criterion that allows us to establish a narrow-enough scope for the project that we're working on, when every article takes up volunteer maintenance time (e.g. in reverting vandals). I don't like the full listing of "Education" and "Military assignments" because Wikipedia biographies shouldn't look like CVs or listings on a personal website. What we need reliable sources for is really to explain which parts of the figures' education and military careers they are best-known for or were most impactful in or in which they brought some new or unique perspective. I'm not seeing notability from the sources given, so whether the topics are notable depends on whether other sources exist. — Bilorv (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
There was a guideline for "presumed notability" of military personnel, but it has been depreciated (still viewable here. So they know definitely need to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Incoherent message

N MMM MM,M M LAIKUANCHAO (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

LAIKUANCHAO, your (short) list of contributions suggests that you're having lots of fun. It's not clear that you intend to contribute to the encyclopedia; but if you do, you may wish to ask questions here about this. -- Hoary (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Help to remove article from my sandbox

Hello kindly l want to create another article from my sandbox but l have article waiting for review what am l suppose to do this the article ( john kiarie waweru ) 

   User:Ngangaesther/sandbox Ngangaesther (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
You can either delete the whole article by editing it, or create a new sandbox. Heart (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ngangaesther. I have moved the page to Draft:John Kiarie Waweru. This is a better location for it from the start. So, while that move has freed up your sandbox, I suggest you don't use it for creating another draft, but create your next draft directly as a draft, in the format [[Draft:Name of Subject]]. Meanwhile, your post indicates you have submitted it for review but you have not. To do so, post at the top of the page and save this code: {{subst:Submit}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi again Ngangaesther. In this edit you did not add {{subst:Submit}} to the page and save. You added it to the edit summary and saved, and so the page remains unsubmitted for review.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

need review of edits: 2601:441:4780:320:A45D:2D50:225A:BFFE

need review of:

@0mtwb9gd5wx: They seem ok to me. If you disagree, you can revert the edits and discuss it on the article's talk page. See WP:BRD RudolfRed (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@0mtwb9gd5wx: The edit summaries seem to me to overstate the case (slightly insulting to previous authors, and the previous version was not "grammatically incorrect"), but I think the new phrasings are improvements. Pelagic ( messages ) – (09:18 Sun 23, AEST) 23:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I am a 30/500 user but I still haven not been designated an "extended confirmed" user

I have had this account for more than 30 days. As of writing this question, I have exactly 500 edits. Based on the article below, I thought this meant I would be automatically be designated an "extended confirmed" user.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_access_levels#Extended_confirmed_users

I've logged in and out, tried a different browser, all that jazz. I still cannot edit articles that are extended confirmed protected, and the only user group I'm in is still just "autoconfirmed user".

Is there a delay? My 500th edit was over 24 hours ago. The above article mentions nothing about a delay and describes the process as automatic.

Do some of my edits not count? The above article makes no mention of certain edits not counting. The only thing it says about this sort of concern is that even deleted edits (of which I have none) do count.

Is this a glitch?

Is the problem something else I haven't considered? Paco2718 (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Update: After posting this (my original post here was my 501st edit), my account is now extended autoconfirmed. If anyone can offer an explanation, cool. Otherwise, feel free to remove this post. I may do so myself if no one offers an explanation.

Do not remove posts from Teahouse, even your own. David notMD (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft Article

Hello, my draft article got rejected. I'm not too sure how to improve it. Would it be possible for a wikipedia editor to either give me detailed instructions or edit it themselves? I hope that's not too much to ask of you. I assume my draft article will be visible on my talk page. Thank you in advance! Maahir S (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Maahir. I assume that you are talking about Draft:Kiran Bir Sethi. The references are all bare URLs which are definitely suboptimal for reviewers. Start by fleshing them out per Referencing for beginners. But many of those URLs are links to sources that are not reliable, so eliminate those. The phrase "thought leader" is mumbo jumbo that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, and is a big red flag for reviewers. "Global luminary" is a similar overtly promotional marketing and advertising phrase that signals to a reviewer, "decline this draft ASAP". "Key influencer" is a similar phase that signals that a draft is an advertisement. Wikipedia is not a venue to crank out promotional garbage about various people. It is a neutral encyclopedia with standards. "Unenthused with the system, Kiran decided to curate her own school." Gimme a break. That is not how an encyclopedia article should be written. Clean up your draft radically, and remove 100% of the advertising and marketing. Is anything left after you do that? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Orh and oad

Sir oad are rajputs of odisha and the sons of Raja bhagirathi rajput. Someone is changing our history and giving false statement about us the person name is chariotrider555. Kindly help us thank you Rohitsinghoad (talk) 06:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Rohitsinghoad. Caste warriors are not welcome on Wikipedia. Spend some time studying Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Understanding and following those carefully is the key to success in editing Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
At Orh, your edits have been reverted (reversed) by several editors. The place for a discussion is at Talk:Orh. There are previous discussions there, so also read those. David notMD (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

need your guidance

am kind confused l wanted to ask for review on my article but l can only publish it 

   Ngangaesther/James Mathenge Kanini Ngangaesther (talk) 07:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 Courtesy link: James Mathenge Kanini   Maproom (talk) 08:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Ngangaesther, the article has to demonstrate notability. Currently it does not. -- Hoary (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Category display at the bottom of pages

What in the world happened to them? They just got enlarged horrendously! Did I miss a CSS change or this is a bug? 125.167.116.83 (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a known problem. See this Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Font_sizes_all_over_the_place Follow up Apparently it has been fixed but you'll have to wait for it to bubble through the system. - X201 (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

How to change article name? List of musicians using Amharic in their music to List of musicians using Amharic vocals

Good day, question i created a article Draft:List of Amharic musicians. A reviewer changed the title to List of musicians using Amharic in their music and then approved the submission. I'm glad the page got approved, but i think a better/shorter title would be, List of musicians using Amharic vocals that way you remove in their music which unnecessary, since musicians is already in the title. So my question is, can the title be changed, and where to ask for it? Thank you Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Dawit S Gondaria, seems like Fuhghettaboutit moved the article. Since they're active here, I can ping them for reasonings as I have now. Panini!🥪 10:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I think it was me who moved it. The new name is shorter, clearer, and not tautological. Maproom (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Definitely an improvement, thank you very much! @@Maproom: Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Endorsements Box

I am currently in somewhat of an edit war on 2022 New York gubernatorial election. While there are five candidates running for the Republican nomination, only one, Lee Zeldin, has been road tripping and actively campaigning. He has picked up endorsements from a handful of county chairs, U.S. Representatives and the former Secretary of State. Whenever I try to put an endorsement box, I have gotten my edits removed by the same user for a few reasons. First, I was told that I was not having a neutral point of view, after that, it was that my articles were not reputable since they were local sources (what national papers comment on county endorsements in the first place??), and now, I am told to wait until other candidates have endorsements before putting the correct box in place.

The article itself says "Nick Langworthy has stated that the party intends to pick the GOP gubernatorial candidate in June of 2021". Considering that is the end of May, I would like to put this information on the page. How can I make the appropriate edits without getting banned as I have been threatened?

Zeldin is the only candidate with endorsements, and the selection process supposedly happens next month, so I do not think it is wise to wait for other candidates who are not the frontrunner to get endorsements written by big papers to put the frontrunner's endorsements in. I hope this makes sense. Capisred (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Capisred. The proper thing to do to avoid edit warring is discuss the matter—I see there's some discussion at Talk:2022 New York gubernatorial election#3 small sources re-added regarding "Zeldin endorsements" but if someone disputes your changes then you should be discussing only, and not edit the article in the meantime. Continuing to revert just makes people annoyed and treat you less respectfully, which in turn makes it much less likely you will be able to make any improvement to the article. A revert with no edit summary like this is definitely not acceptable, because it doesn't progress the conversation in any way, and it will come across as very rude. It seems to me that you don't understand the other person's point of view, as questions like what national papers comment on county [endorsements] in the first place?? miss the point of what they are trying to tell you, so you would do better to learn what they actually think before asserting that your opinion is better than theirs. — Bilorv (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think my opinion is better than theirs, I actually think it is worse. I was told to establish a consensus on the article's talk page, and I posted an explanation and waited a couple of days but got no response from anybody. I just tried to bring up the sense of urgency (due to the selection process being less than a month away) on the talk page under another user's section, so maybe I can get some positive input there and progress some conversation that warrants a response. Thank you! Capisred (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Capisred: thanks for the reply. Just to clarify, because perhaps my wording at the end was a little bit rude: when you revert without an edit summary, the subtext you're conveying (whether you mean it or not) is "my opinion is better than yours". If you don't get feedback after starting a discussion, which happens a lot and can be frustrating, you need to look at the next place to escalate it to. It seems like you've found one that could be relevant. Some others: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics (same project, a level up); Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (if the question is specifically "is this source reliable for this information?"); Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. You can just leave a note "Please see the discussion at [X page] about [this topic]" or you can start a discussion there (though mind not to make it harder to follow by spreading non-trivial discussion across multiple pages). — Bilorv (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Accident

Hello Wikipedia I have made a mistake which I regret, accidentally I might have posted some names into an article by accident while using my monitor thinking it went to my best friend as he wanted to know more about my friends, therefore, I instantly deleted them and my question is Will this have any repercussions or can I just delete my account and be done with this story as I know it is Illegal therefore I am regretting this decision CyberAquila (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for asking here, CyberAquila. All edits are public unless suppressed by a trusted volunteer—you can see them by clicking "View history" from an article page—however, it's unlikely that many people would look there or see it, aside from any editors monitoring the page. I've requested oversight to delete the edits from the page history (if any admin reads this beforehand, you can WP:CRD#4 it). — Bilorv (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
And it's now been oversighted, by the way, so the edits are no longer public. — Bilorv (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora

Hi! I was looking for some assistance on improving the Agreed Measures article to hopefully have it upgraded from a stub ASAP for my University of Sydney course! Any advice/tips would be much appreciated! Bambixie (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Bambixie Given improvements to article, I upgraded classification from Stub (dating back to 2007) to B-class, and changed importance from mid to high. Kudos for your quality work. David notMD (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Yep, B-class looks like the right choice. For feedback, Bambixie, I'd say making the lead as simple and accessible to a non-expert reader is the only thing I can suggest. Thanks for your work here—I've seen a lot of student editor assignments and a lot result in only small tinkerings, but this is really useful and I think one of the three best student expansions I've ever seen. — Bilorv (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Portal:COVID-19

Hello, can someone take a look at the references section? There is a CS1 error: unsupported parameter. I would do it, but unfortunately wouldn't know where to start. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lotje: An error like that indicates that a template for the Citation Style 1 is used but with a parameter that this template does not support. You need to check which reference generates the error and then look at the wikitext which parameters are used. At his point, I see no error message like that, so it might already have been fixed. See Help:CS1 errors for more information. Regards SoWhy 14:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@SoWhy: thanks for the advise. You are correct, it is no longer in the Category:CS1 errors: unsupported parameter Lotje (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Uneditable page?

Hello again. Those who've read my previous entries may be aware that I try to extend Swedish lists of tv series for kids and young adults. I was about to get started, but at one page I can't edit, and I was hoping someone could help me solve why.

Unfortunately, I cannot upload any helpful images. But if you visit the first link below, you can see that the page is editable. But if you visit the second link below, you'll see that the other page is not editable, for some reason. I don't know why, but if it could be made editable somehow, it would be very helpful.

(In the first link, please scroll down to section five, titled 'Program'. In the second link, please scroll down to section two, titled 'Artiklar i kategorin "Barn- och ungdomsprogram i Sveriges Television"')

Any help would be very much appreciated, so thanks in advance!

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVT_Barn#Program_som_visats_i_SVT_Barn

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategori:Barn-_och_ungdomsprogram_i_Sveriges_Television Denkichu (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

DenkichuThe second page is a category page - you don't add information to such pages by editing them, but by adding the relevant category at the bottom of the relevant article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

How can I improve this submission?

Hello, so I just submitted a draft (Draft:Johnny Yin) for submission a few minutes ago. Most of my information is from the Chinese Wikipedia page, however, since it isn't sourced/referenced, I deleted some paragraphs. What do you suggest or advise to improve this submission? I asked this in the WikiProject Afc help desk, but I think that wasn't the right place to ask. Thanks Seantseng918 (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

If you translated it from another language Wikipedia, you need to provide proper attribution, or it is a copyright violation. Please see the documentation of {{translated}} and add that template to the draft talk page per instructions. Make a dummy edit to the draft itself, to note in the edit summary that the draft is a translation of [provide link to the chinese article]. See WP:TFOLWP. Since your subject is a musician, the draft must meet the notability guidelines at WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO or WP:ANYBIO. See those guidelines and try and demonstrate at least one of those has been clearly met. If it's not an obvious case, you can leave a note at the draft's talk page for the reviewer, explaining why the topic is notable. As for the general improvement of the article, you have to look for reliable sources and add further information that you find in them. Make sure every claim in the article is supported by inline citation to reliable sources, which is a requirement for biographies on living people. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Changing Password

Hello, Guys, May I get help for how to change the password. The current password is not safe enough and I would like to use a stronger password Mighty Asgardian616 (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Under "Preferences" (at top of page), there is a button there you can click to change your password. RudolfRed (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Deleting a Draft

I would like to delete the article that I currently have in draft status ("Randy Bishop") and start over. Can you please advise how I can do this?

Thanks. 70.77.206.61 (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

As long as you are the only contributer to the draft, you may put {{db-g7}} at the top and an admin will be along shortly to delete it. Please dont forget to login before doing that. NW1223 | Howl at me 16:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources

is indulge express is a reliable source for Wikipedia? Ramesh012 (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Ramesh012, and welcome to the Teahouse. WP:RSP says of The Indian Express The Indian Express is considered generally reliable under the news organizations guideline. However, that does not necessarily mean that its Indulge Express section is regarded as reliable. I suggest asking at WP:RSN - and it is helpful to indicate what kind of information you are looking to support, as reliability sometimes depends on this. --ColinFine (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

On Chai's newest record "Wink"

Hello! This question may seem kind of trivial, but I was wondering if someone could help add a page for Japanese rock quartet Chai's newly released record WINK. I've been excited for a WINK page as I am both a fan of Chai and editing for Wikipedia! I would thoroughly like to assist in making this page happen if anyone wants to help get it started.

With sincerity, Quail & Metal Quail & Metal (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Quail & Metal, and welcome to the Teahouse. You might find somebody here willing to work with you on that, but probably not. You might have better luck asking at a suitable WikiProject, such as WP:ROCK or WP:JAPAN. but the most valuable thing you can do if you want this article to happen is to start doing the legwork, and find the reliable independent sourcs which talk about the record: these are a non-negotiable necessity for an article, so if you cannot find them (because it is TOOSOON) then you'll know to shelve the project for the time being. (I see there are a couple of references given in Chai (band), but I don't know whether any of them meet the triple requirement of being reliable, independent of the band, and having WP:significant coverage of the record rather than just being routine announcements. -ColinFine (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Paolo giani margi page my contribution

I have added yesterday my article with a lot of sources and link, but the control remove it. I can't understand why? Is there possibility for me to add my contribution? The sources are not good enough? 91.80.22.86 (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any sources you added to verify the edits were true. See WP:Tutorial. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 16:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
(e/c) Unless you are User:Gomba80, who made a reverted contribution to Paolo Giani Margi, I don't see any other contribution under this IP. If you are the mentioned user, you should discuss such huge changing to an article on its Talkpage beforehand. --Maresa63 Talk 16:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Maresa63 They made 1 big edit but it was 100% unsourced. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 17:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@User:TigerScientist, you're of course right! I didn't mention it, because you already did 😉. --Maresa63 Talk 17:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Oy! At Paolo Giani Margi, a large amount of content has been added eight times and reverted eight times because of a complete failure to follow referencing procedure. Seven of those were by IP addresses, mostly with no references, then the most recent by User:Gomba80. If you are indeed Gomba 80, I recommend you study Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, and then practice in your sandbox creating portions of what you want to add to the article. When properly written and referenced, copy a portion into the article. Add n Edit summary in the space at the bottom to describe what you did. I add that the article was created by User:Lugnuts, who is the editor who has been reverting your improper additions, so you may want to leave a comment on Lugnuts Talk page, describing your intentions. It is important that all statements of fact about PGM be verified by references. David notMD (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

how to revert newly-created template

I would presume one "reverts" the creation of a new template by deleting it, but I don't really know how to do that.

The template to be deleted is {{New link}}. (This exercise has at least served to make me aware of the {{tlx}} template). ;-) Fabrickator (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Fabrickator, you have to be an administrator to delete pages. I have tagged the page for speedy deletion under criterion G7, or author requests deletion. Sungodtemple (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sungodtemple: To be clear, {{New link}} was created by User:Caferkiyak1985, not by me, in conjunction with the creation of spam content. See Special:Contributions/Caferkiyak1985. Fabrickator (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Visual Editor do not work in Wikipedia in English

Simple question. I would like to know for what reason Visual Editor does not work in English Wikipedia but in the rest of Wikipedias [German, French, Italian, Spanish] actually do.

--Mauriziok (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC) Mauriziok (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by not working? It works fine for me. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 17:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@Mauriziok: Which page are you attempting to edit? The visual editor isn't enabled everywhere. (Notable places where it isn't enabled are all talk pages(including noticeboards) , pages which contain something else than Wikitext, and I believe the Help namespace.) Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@TigerScientist: @Victor Schmidt: It doesn't show that option in any kind of page, a-n-y. A mean, I can only see the option [Edit] between [Read] and [View history]. I see that I can also press [alt-shift-e] to activate Edit but if I press [alt-shift-v] to see if might work Virtual Edit the page doesn't respond, nothing happens. I don't know what is going on here. I repeat, this problem only happens here in English, in the others Wikipedia works perfectly. So... --Mauriziok (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@Mauriziok: Check your preferences. Under "Editing" make sure that the checkbox "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta" is not checked, and that the dropdown labeled "Editing mode:" below it is set to "show me both tabs" (You can of course also set it to something else, but each editor has its (dis-)adventages, and I believe haveing the ability to choose makes it easier) Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@Victor Schmidt: Problem solved. All right, perfect. I saw wich was the problem. Thanks (Y). --Mauriziok (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

MW previews

On wikipedia, when you hover over an article link, it shows a preview. How do you do that? I have a wiki on Miraheze (which uses MediaWiki and updated MW in october 2020) and I want to do the same thing. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 16:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

If I'm understanding this correctly, shouldn't it do the preview automatically? I didn't create a preview for my articles and it has a preview. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 17:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
TigerScientist, I don't know what you mean by "I didn't create a preview for my articles and it has a preview" 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 17:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
By preview, I mean this: 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 17:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
It should automatically create a preview like the picture. Your page does not have a preview? That is very very strange. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 17:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, LightningComplexFire, what you're seeing is the Popups extension, which implements the Page Preview functionality. In order to us this feature, you would have to make sure that that extension is installed on your MW. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@LightningComplexFire: Popups is listed at https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Extensions#Other_Extensions so you should be able to enable it on your wiki. See Special:Version for the current extensions on a wiki. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Fails WP:NLIST

I recently submitted a page on [of Development Zone of Myanmar]. This page was rejected with Fails WP:NLIST. I cited from only a legal document of Myanmar Government. I cited the documents in both English and Burmese Language. And I am wondering why it is flagged with Notability#Stand-alone_lists Thanks. Punwath (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Punwath, see WP:GNG. Lists still need to have a few independent, reliable, and secondary sources. Your draft, unfortunately, has none. Sungodtemple (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Sandbox - Stub Article Suggestion

Hello - I'm doing research on Australian film and TV. I have posted a stub suggestion in my sandbox. How do I get feedback on it? Thank you! Ajcwritwiki (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any stub suggestion in your sandbox. Could you clarify? Sungodtemple (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Courtesy: Content appears to be at User:Ajcwritwiki/sandbox. You had also created it at the Wikipedia Sandbox, which is frequently blanked. David notMD (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Feedback: Too many of your refs confirm he has acted in stuff, but are not at-length descriptions about him. Rather, in-name-only mentions. Given that in "Between Two Worlds" he 'plays' a brain-dead, potential heart transplant donor, I don't imagine that reviews are going to elaborate on his acting. David notMD (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi

 GordonFunnyRedBananaHatAmongus (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC) Uh hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by GordonFunnyRedBananaHatAmongus (talk • contribs) 18:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi. This is the teahouse where editors ask questions. Next time ask a question about editing. Have fun! TigerScientist Chat > contribs 18:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Paolo giani margi page someone expert could helpme

Some one who is just very good with the editing could edit for me? 91.80.22.86 (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

This article history shows a sorry story of a struggle with Lugnuts over what has alternated between a mere stub about Paolo Giani Margi and a partially/obscurely referenced and verbose portrait of the same person. I agree with Lugnuts. Possibly you are related to Gomba 80; but even if you aren't, please read the welcome message posted on Gomba 80's talk page. (And if you are Gomba 80, please make sure that you're logged in as Gomba 80 before you edit.) Here's a sample reference of what Lugnuts reverted: 10^ Paolo Giani Margi on the book “ ABC of the Sport Horse” By Giulia Iannone, Progetto Cultura, being updated, ISBN 978-88-6092-733-0. No such book exists. The book possessing ISBN 978-88-6092-733-0 is instead Iannone's L'ABC del cavallo sportivo; but how is Margi "on" it, and in what sense is it "being updated"? Is Margi perhaps quoted within it? It's a book of over three hundred pages; on which page(s) within this large book can this information be found? And no, you don't type "10^"; instead, you insert a reference as it should be inserted,[1] and then the Mediawiki software used by Wikipedia will do the formatting and numbering for you. -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ Like this.
When I wrote the comment above, I hadn't noticed the presence of an earlier thread, #Paolo giani margi page my contribution. If you want to ask further questions, please ask them in that thread or in this one; please do not start yet another thread. -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I've tried to communicate with the editor (see User talk:109.52.248.24), but they jump from one IP address to another, with some of them being blocked. Clearly this isn't how to write an article. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

TWA makes my head hurt

So long story short, I found out about WP:TWA, I think it's cool, I get stuck because I already made a userpage, I do so much testing and find the problem. Ok so when you create a account, does a bot or a editor give you the join the teahouse or TWA notification on your talk page. If that is a bot, why when I made this account, it didn't send to me. It is just frustrating I won't ever ever be able to complete the adventure on this account. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 20:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@TigerScientist: there isn't a bot for recommending The Wikipedia Adventure to people. There is HostBot, which automatically welcomes some editors - others are manually welcomed instead (the reason for this is to avoid spamming every new user with talkpage messages - only editors who have edited for a bit and haven't been manually welcomed get the automatic welcome). However, it doesn't recommend The Wikipedia Adventure.
Also, you should be able to do TWA even with an existing userpage. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Elli thank you. I have done so much testing and maybe it is just me but I can't (I have already had this conversation). Is there a reason why Hostbot won't reccomend TWA? TigerScientist Chat > contribs 20:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
nevermind TigerScientist Chat > contribs 20:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@TigerScientist: indeed, I just tried and you can complete the first adventure. Just make sure to leave an edit summary alongside the edit you make to your userpage. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I tried again and added a summary and guess what! it didn't work. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 20:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@TigerScientist: could you possibly post a video (screen recording)? I'm kinda confused how you're getting stuck. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I haven't downloaded a screen recording thing and you know this conversation is getting way too long over some worthless virtual badges on a page so I'll just not talk about TWA again. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 21:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Fair. TWA does have some issues... the original maintainers are I'm pretty sure no longer around, and the site has changed since it was introduced. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Antarctica in World War II

I have finally submitted my large draft Draft:Antarctica in World War II to Articles for creation. I believe that this one would be best to go through the review stage. I am not looking for an early review, I would just like some help with some formatting as I find the Argentine expedition section a bit off. If anyone could quickly help with that section it would be appreciated. Thanks in advance and happy editing. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gandalf the Groovy: Only thing I noticed in the Argentine section was that the two subsections were at different heading levels, which I fixed. Hope it helps. RudolfRed (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed Thanks! Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Refs 7, 8 and 41 are URLs. David notMD (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Scribal errors and printing issues

Good early afternoon Teahouse! I am lately interested in the article Typographical error. The article deals mostly with what is in modern days commonly called a typo, but scribal error and printing error redirect to that same article. I believe the philologic and technological (e.g. unprinted letters at the borders of a page or similar) aspects would merit either better treatment in this article or a separate one. I tried to improve the philologcal aspect, which is somewhat more interesting to me, but I had some troubles finding good sources for both and thought that bringing up the matter in relevant projects or to editors more familiar with these subjects would be helpful. The main problem is that I can't find a project that's really relevant. Any advice or links to articles that already deal with these specific aspects that I may be missing are welcomed. Personuser (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Most (not all) WikiProjects are more or less moribund. I understand what you're proposing to write about but am no expert on the matter (and have no knowledge of any centuries-old language or handwriting convention), so can't help. I'd look for articles on related subjects and look through their recent histories for the names of editors whose contributions have been particularly well-informed and constructive. (Don't be misled by mere numbers of edits.) Contact one editor on their own talk page. Don't contact a second editor until you've got a response from the first, or until a couple of weeks have gone by with no response. And ignore this suggestion if somebody manages to suggest a promising WikiProject: the talk page of a relevant WikiProject showing signs of life is indeed a better place to ask. -- Hoary (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@Personuser: You could start a discussion at WP:TYPO project talk page, perhaps other editors in that project will share your same interests. RudolfRed (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you both for the suggestions. I already checked a bit related articles for refs and productive editors and will take a closer look and wait for eventual other answers before bothering someone (some articles are really good, but probably mostly written years ago). I am slowly learning that WikiProjects aren't always as promising as they look, but activity can be easily checked. Some errors from centuries old copyist seem quite similar to modern day errors by random people on the internet (or by myself), but it's hard to find a source addressing the subject outside of a specific field, which is probably a common problem with "multidisciplinary" subjects. For topics related to the printing process I'm a bit more afraid the subject may be covered elsewhere under some differet name and in a more general or unrelated to meaning way. Members of WP:TYPO surely have a lot of personal experience about this, which isn't acceptable, but some of them may know about (recent?) relevant sources, so it makes sense to drop a discrete message. Personuser (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Personuser:I think a case can be made for a "Scribal error" article that is complementary to "Typographical error". The two may have some overlap, and make reference to common features, such as to haplography and dittography. But if you imagine "scribal error" having a starting point of ancient manuscripts and working outwards from that focus; and "typographical error" have a starting point of, say, post-Gutenberg printing; then that is probably sufficiently different for a separate article. The proposed "scribal error" might well, for instance, additionally have a subsection of what ancient copiers and scribes did when they made a mistake in copying holy texts (e.g. leaving them to decay in the desert). Why not consider trying a Draft:Scribal error? Feline Hymnic (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Feline Hymnic and note that the redirect Scribal error was originally created with the edit summary "redirect to treatment of topic, pending fuller treatment here". One thing that might (or might not) be treated in such an article is cases that, while perhaps not errors in the strict sense, nevertheless resulted in the transmission of corrupt texts—such as the migration of glosses into the texts themselves. Deor (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I see some benefits in treating both subjects togheter as well as a case for a separate article, which can be addressed in different ways, but discussing an eventual split on Talk:typographical error if/when there's more material seems a more natural way to deal with this. Actually some modern aspects could also have a better treatment (and probably should if the scribal part expands, I doubt there aren't any good studies on the frequency of common typos or similar in internet/publishing/schooling, if you know where to look). The fuzzy meaning of the term(s) somewhat complicates the matter and may have discouraged some editors. Personuser (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Question regarding citing sources using footnotes

I received this notice: "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes."

However, I did add footnote citations. I need help understanding what I did wrong per Wiki standards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Glen_Lerner

Thanks in advance for your input and help.

JDL-author (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)JDL-author JDL-author (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@JDL-author: you have this At the age of 5 Lerner’s father went to prison for double murder and was not released until 1989. They remained close until his death. Growing up with a father in prison had a profound effect on Lerner and he attributes it to making him the fighter that he is as his father’s incarceration led to serious financial issues and the family living on welfare. with no citations. Same in the Philanthropy section. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Some of the refs are interviews. What Glenn says about himself in not considered verification of content. David notMD (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Use of the terms "Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria" and "RSD"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysphoria

Hi team, I don't really know how to do the editing and what have you, but I did notice when looking up "dysphoria" as part of a discussion with the moderators of an ADHD forum that the terms Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria and RSD were linked with ADHD, which just happened to be the very point of our discussion. In short, this term was coined by a sole psychologist, and as far as we've been able to research it has not been independently verified, peer reviewed or otherwise cited other than back to the original piece it was coined in. We believe that, while our fellows do suffer from emotional dysregulation and do tend to be sensitive to rejection, the use of this term invalidates other, more serious conditions and usage should be discouraged until such time as more rigorous research becomes available. How would we best approach this?

- D. Leon Adams 49.227.127.192 (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The first place to bring it up would be Talk:Dysphoria. If there's no reaction, or if you think that the reaction is underinformed or otherwise unsatisfactory, you might advertise the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology. If nothing much still happens, there are other avenues. -- Hoary (talk) 05:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
My opinion is be bold. RSD is mentioned at the Dysphoria article as being an aspect of Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, but at that article, there is no mention of RSD. Based on this, I recommend deleting all mention of RSD at Dysphoria. If an editor reverts this deletion, then the proper step after that is to start a discussion on the Talk page. David notMD (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
@David notMD: - I'm surprised it's not brought up on the ADHD article; I wouldn't consider it an obscure symptom by any means. I hope some verifiable sources pop up in the future to warrant its inclusion. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
At PubMed (U.S. Library Medicine) I see a lot of lit about Rejection Sensitivity, a bit about RS in context of ADHD, but no mentions of "Rejection Sensitivity Dysphoria". David notMD (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Username

Can we use images in username signature? Powerful Karma (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Powerful Karma: No, see WP:SIGIMAGE. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Two darts

In the last year I have worked two drafts List of Studio C episodes and Rugrats (2021 TV series) but there be there be other drafts for these articles I just wondering if these are isolated cases or have this happened a lot Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Fanoflionking. It's not an uncommon occurrence, and because of that, in a variety of places where we talk about creating articles, drafts, etc. we try to insure against this taking place. For instance, the last sentence of the first paragraph of Help:Your first article is: "Please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject." Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Removing content added by own.

Can a editor remove the content added by him even two years later of addition and would he not receive any warning for removal of content. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 11:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi ExclusiveEditor. Context is so important here, it's imposible to hazard a guess – I can postulate multiple scenarios where this would be absolutely appropriate and absolutely the exact opposite, so you would need to inject specificity into this. If this is about something that actually occurred, what was it; if not, propose the scenario (including what content, in what article, with what edit summary). Sorry, but it's really that variable.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Think in the article of a company, a editor adds history of that company with good sources. Then after two years he removes the context added by him saying that he had added that context two years ago and now he wants to remove the context added by him. This is a fictional scenario not real. Also I would like to specify that he only removed the context added by him and not of others. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 11:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Going with your premises, that the edit summary indicates no plausible rationale (e.g., "...the sources don't actually verify what I wrote here"), and the content, besides being reliably sourced, appears quite relevant and properly written – such that no one would is likely to think something like "bad rationale, but this really doesn't belong as a matter of editorial discretion, because X" – treat this at base no differently than if an editor blanked sourced content because they wanted to (you would "treat this differently", insofar as the edit summary you leave, but not in the result, which would be a revert). There is no dispensation for self-removal, and it is a fundamental precept here that when we edit we give up all rights but for our free copyright ownership, requiring suitable credit attribution upon reuse. In other words, the answer to the original quesiton posed is, "no". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Typo in a “Blocked” article

Is it best to just wait out those types of articles? JGrammerSecure7 (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@JGrammerSecure7: Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure what you mean by "waiting out" (as some articles have been indefinitely protected), but you're welcome to leave an edit request on the article's talk page stating the typo found (providing the sentence it's found in would be helpful) and what it should be changed into. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.

I New Wikipedia Author. I Have create a User Profile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amitava_Nag. After the publish my profile showing error. Please help us. NKwisi01 (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC) Nitin

NKwisi01, Wikipedia does not accept "profiles". It has unbiased articles, reporting what reliable independent sources have said about the subject. The sources currently cited in Amitava Nag report what Nag has written or said, and so are not independent. The article is in danger of being deleted, unless someone can find and cite some independent sources. Maproom (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi NKwisi01. This is not an error. The headline text you excerpt comes from the articles for deletion discussion banner, informing anyone seeing the article that it is being considered for deletion, with a link to the deletion discussion being held at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMITAVA NAG. You can explain there your reasons as to why the article should not be deleted (I recommend reading Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions before visiting that AfD). One overarching tip is that such grounds for keeping this article should be based in applicable policies and guidelines, such as that the subject is actually notable, based on the existence of suitable reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail, and that the subject thus warrants an encyclopedia article. Please note that your use of the word "profile" can just be a manner of speaking, but it is often used when people have a misunderstanding about Wikipedia, conflating it with social media; and it often correlates with the writing of promotional articles that read as commercials for the subject, rather than neutral encyclopedia articles, summarizing (in proper paraphrase) what the world had previously written about the subject, in the types of sources I referred to previously. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Rejection of article

The article on Abdulkareem Moh'd Jamiu Asuku was rejected for publication for "not having enough coverage". This to me is not correct. The article cited independent sources and linked them appropriately. Some of the articles I saw on the Wikipedia do not even have such coverage.

Please can it be reconsidered and published? Shadrachlaw (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Abdulkareem Moh’d Jamiu. Clovermoss (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
@Shadrachlaw: Welcome to the Teahouse. The reviewer is stating that the references used do not provide demonstrate notability of the subject. Another issue is that the citations are being done improperly; please see WP:EASYREFBEGIN for help on how to properly cite. The Philanthropy section is also inappropriate for an encyclopedia, which is why I'm assuming the reviewer mentioned a tone issue in the draft. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I want to edit a biased section in a page

 Courtesy link: Shlomo Rechnitz

I discovered what I think is a negatively biased section while I was researching something else. So I investigated that, made what I considered to be changes that made the entry neutral and someone else came and undid them. I wrote back but got no response - maybe he didn't see it or is too busy? I'm not happy that the entry makes Wikipedia into a hit job on a living person, so I want to change it. - it is the worst thing I've ever noticed since I started using Wikipedia - I think that was the end of 2001.

And in that page, a Wikipedia note says this: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous."


So now to my question. Should I write a note in the Talk page of that entry, announcing my intention to do this and provide evidence and ask for comments? (I have already written that, but although I've corrected a lot of things on Wikipedia over the years, they've all been minor tweaks, so I don't recall ever using a Talk page, but I saw someone else do it. And I've never asked a question here before.) So what's the right protocol and how can I know that anyone will see it? What's the best way to see if anyone is interested in helping to correct what I consider is egregious bias. Photoloop (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Photoloop, you removed extensive well-referenced content from the article, in an apparent attempt to whitewash it of criticism of the subject. Smntstatus restored it all, rightly in my opinion. If you think that the criticism is unwarranted, and can provide references that outweigh those already cited, you should argue your case on the article's talk page. Maproom (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Maproom, for commenting and for confirming that I should put my suggestions/arguments into the relevant Talk page. Yes, I did remove those items because they applied to the company, not the person, in a page about a living person. Surely that extensive chunk of information should be in a page about the company? It would have been good if the rigor applied to my edits had been applied to the additions of that information.
When the subject of a BLP owns a company, what the company does is relevant to their biography.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Cant Figure out Userboxes

Yeah so I want to add userboxes to my talk page but I cant figure out how to do thme — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarInTheDesert (talk • contribs) 15:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

You'll find advice at WP:Userboxes. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Note that userboxes would go on your user page, not on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Coordinates displaced

Why has the "coordinates" display at the top of article pages been moved down so it overlaps infoboxes and maintenance boxes? It is very confusing. For example see Guildford where it overlaps the disambiguation note. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Murgatroyd49: This is being worked on. See (among other discussions) WP:VPT#Coordinates in title dropped down. It's apparently a problem only with the Vector skin, since I use MonoBook and I'm not seeing it. Deor (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
This has persisted since Thursday and is quite annoying on pages like this where the coords are practically overlapping the infobox image. This may also be related to several font sizes being altered the same day: Category text, redirect notes, etc.
@Deor: Should it be recommended that users switch from Vector to MonoBook if they are tired of seeing these errors? --DB1729 (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
@DB1729: I don't really know how long it's going to take to fix the problem, having little insight into the workings of the "guts" of Wikipedia. I guess one could always switch skins now and switch back when things get sorted out. Deor (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

New word

Hello and thanks for having me. I would like to add a new word that is commonly use among friends and is catching up and would like it to be found in Wikipedia. So when we say it we can refer them to wiki and what it means. Like a slang word. Naningkamot2021 (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't do that Naningkamot2021, as it will simply be deleted as per WP:NEOLOGISM - Arjayay (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
A more appropriate site for you might be Urban Dictionary, to which there is a link at the bottom of that article. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.105} 90.197.27.217 (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

How to use My Sandbox for creating a new second article

Gentlemen,

I find the old article already there. Can select and delete the contents and go ahead creating a second second new page. Will this effect the first article by any way? Valliappan Kannappan (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Valliappan Kannappan: I have reset your sandbox this time. In future, you can use the procedure described at Wikipedia:Redirect#How_to_edit_a_redirect_or_convert_it_into_an_article to remove/edit the redirect left behind by the page move when the sandbox draft was promoted to an article. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

requesting inputs

Hello all,

Many or most wikipedians seem frequently failing to understand when I begin a new article I just want to be inspirer/motivator/coordinator/propeller of that topic and find and motivate other users for article expansion tasks.

Is it possible to have an additional user name? One of the activity I am doing and want to continue doing is of 'article expansion inspirer/motivator/coordinator/propeller

If allowed which user name will be more apt?

  • article expansion inspirer
  • article expansion motivator
  • article expansion coordinator
  • article expansion propeller
  • Or suggest some thing more apt

thanks

Bookku (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Your goal is to create a start of a draft for someone else to finish? I'm not sure how helpful that is. There is already a huge list at WP:RA of topic ideas that people can work on. RudolfRed (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Bookku. I'm sure many of us would love to write novels or symphonies, if we could just set them going and somebody else would do the tedious bit of actually writing it. Unfortunately, life doesn't often work like that. It could happen - but if you want it to, it is up to you to enthuse somebody to want to complete what you've started. Good luck. --ColinFine (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
While there can be valid reasons to have more than one account, hence more than on User name, that is never to use both names to work on the same articles. You have a history of starting drafts that are tagged for deletion because you have abandoned them. General advice is reference as you write, and finish what you start. Even if that is to create a valid stub article. There is currently a backlog of more than 5,000 drafts that have been submitted to Articles for Creation. Wikipedia does not need a cohort of unsubmitted drafts, hence the auto-delete process for zombie drafts. David notMD (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


Bookku I have mixed feelings about this. There's not much doubt that in the early days of Wikipedia, it was not uncommon for someone to start a stub article about an important topic, and other editors will come along and expand it. I think that happens much less often in recent years. While I will occasionally be pleasantly surprised at a stub article that gets expanded by others, for every one of those I see, I think I can find 99 others that were started as a stub and still remain a stub. While some of this will still occur, I don't feel comfortable encouraging it.
I do happen to be a big fan of collaboration, although accomplishing it hasn't been as easy as I'd hoped. I recently started User:Sphilbrick/Kamilla_Cardoso, and reached out to in the hopes that I could manage the MediaWiki specific issues, while someone else could help with the text, this experiment isn't working as well as I had hoped. If it works I will turn it into a proper article, but I am deliberately not trying to get a basic stub up, and hope that someone will clean it up. If you really are interested in being a motivator, not creating full-fledged articles, I would say go for it if you can identify collaborators in advance and work with them, but simply dumping a stub article out there and hoping that others will find it in make it better is, in my opinion no longer a recipe for good contributions.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Hi I'm Sumit recently I'm trying to make changes in Banaphar and i only did two edits on that article and one get revert because the source i provide was not reliable in Wikipedia and i ask three times in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that is my source is reliable or not. And one administrator (which i think he/she is baised) talking rudely with me and put the warning to block me in my talk page by reason that I'm doing disruptive and tendentious editing[2] and I'm here to ask that, can i still ask my about my source in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or not, that's it.Sumit banaphar (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

It looks like you have already received an answer at the noticeboard that your source does not support your claim. RudolfRed (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah,I know that I'm not talking about that i just want to know can i still ask about my source in RSN?Sumit banaphar (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

What do you want to ask about the source that does not support your claim? asked and answered, multiple times. -Roxy . wooF 19:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean can I ask about of any book is reliable or not after this? I am not talking about any book that I have asked about before Sumit banaphar (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sumit banaphar: Since you have already been given a warning about this, no. Work on something else for awhile instead. RudolfRed (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Heading text for really old talk page discussions that lack a heading

Sometimes I find ancient 2007-2009 messages on talk pages that have no headings. At one point I just separated them off with a blank heading, but then later (maybe from another user's edits?) I got the idea of giving them a relevant title so other users could quickly know what the topics are. Then I noticed some headings that simply said "Untitled" and found Wikipedia:Talk page layout#Talk page layout, which says to use == Untitled == or == Comments by IP 192.0.2.1 ==. What is best here, and was my previous method of giving relevant titles inherently bad? (I've been putting "Untitled"s more recently.) Undead Shambles (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Undead Shambles: Welcome to the Teahouse. There's nothing wrong with what you're doing. Sometimes I come across new sections on here that lack their own heading, so I usually give a descriptive one and slap an {{FYI}} under it saying that I made it, and not the OP. A suggestion I'd make if you come across multiple untitled sections would be to differentiate them if possible (I usually see people add a number in parentheses at the end). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
@Tenryuu: Okay, thank you for the tips! :) —Undead Shambles (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

camera2

 154.159.238.0 (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. Did you have a question about using or editing on Wikipedia? RudolfRed (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

List of people with Locked-in Synrdome

I am trying to add my boss who has locked-in syndrome to the above page but it keeps being undone by the same user. I have asked him previously why he considers my boss not notable but he has yet to answer that question. Despite having locked-in syndrome, my boss has started his own company which employees 10 people, myself included - but most importantly he has set up a trust to help other people with locked-in syndrome. This is a REGISTERED charity and yet this user still claims that he is not notable. With all due respect to the great Nick Chisholm, who does appear on the page, I fail to see why he is notable but my boss Howard Wicks is not. I have used sources where Howard is featured as credentials. In any case, if you have to be 'notable' should the page not be renamed to 'List of notable people with locked-in syndrome'? Please can someone indicate what is required to be considered 'notable' and who is the arbiter of that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bracherama (talk • contribs) 20:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bracherama: Hey and welcome to the Teahouse. You can find an overview of our notability criteria at Wikipedia:Notability. Basically, since Wikipedia is not a directory of everyone or everything that exists, we only cover subjects that meet the relevant criteria for notability, usually substantial coverage in reliable sources. As such, all lists of subjects are by default considered to be lists of notable subjects because otherwise we would not cover them. Also, since you are writing about your boss, you have a conflict of interest, so I recommend you read our plain and simple conflict of interest guide before making any further edits about your boss. Regards SoWhy 20:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback - bit strange, we have a man who is trying to do good for people with locked-in syndrome, he has started a charity, been in the newspaper, been featured on another charity's website and yet he is not considered notable but just because another person with the same condition is related to a news presenter in NZ and happens to have had a couple of news articles about him in the tabloid press he is more notable? I don't want this to feel like a personal attack on someone I am aware of and greatly admire, but I am just trying to understand. As for conflict of interest, I get that but surely that is not reason enough on it's own, would Stephen Hawking have been taken down if it was his wife who had made the entry? Would he have remained off Wikipedia unless someone who was not working for/ with him or related to him made the entry?
Not enough is known about locked-in syndrome and not enough is done for those with the condition as a result, that is why I feel it is important for the trust to be featured and yet that is not 'notable' enough for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bracherama (talk • contribs) 21:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey, Bracherama! (Make sure to sign your messages by adding ~~~~ to the end.) The best course of action due to your conflict of interest would probably be to make an edit request. This lets someone else take a look at the change before it's made to ensure your boss is actually notable. Also, note that other stuff exists here on Wikipedia and comparison to other subjects isn't always a valid argument, and keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't the place to promote a cause. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 21:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm very new to this. I was not aware of the edit request or I would have done that from the start, so thanks for that. It was not a comparison to another subject, this fell under the same subject as someone else listed was considered notable for appearing in tabloids from what I can see, and having a brother who is a recognised presenter in New Zealand, which is totally irrelevant to the subject. As for promoting a cause, it's not about promoting a cause it is about information, which is what Wikipedia is about right? If I had locked-in syndrome I would be interested in someone who had set up a trust to help people like me. I find it interesting that tabloids are enough to make you notable but actions less so. Well, we have an interview on Tuesday about making a documentary for TV about Howard - maybe he'll be notable enough for Wikipedia then, my boss or not my boss.Bracherama (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be all information, so it has definitions of notable. Short answer - get an article accepted about your boss, and then he can be added to the list. AND, you have to type four of ~ to 'sign' your comments David notMD (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that David, but in this instance it was more a case of the particular arbiter of that notability, he didn't state why the references and articles I shared were not notable enough, guess he didn't feel the need to. It has been an eye-opener to see how Wikipedia works.Bracherama (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I will be more clear: An attempt was made by User:WicksHoward to create an article about Howard Wicks. The draft (Draft:Howard Wicks) was declined because the references clearly did not reach Wikipedia's requirements for a biography of a living person (WP:BLP). Separately, WicksHoward and you have attempted to add Howard to the list article, and have been reverted by two different editors (neither being the reviewer who declined the draft), because no article exists about Howard. David notMD (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Also, I am guessing that you and User:WicksHoward are the same person, two accounts. While more than one account is allowed under certain circumstances, both should never be used to edit the same article, in this case the List article. Going forward, use only one account. Multiple accounts is called sockpuppetry, and is grounds for being indefinitely blocked. David notMD (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
@Bracherama: Popping in here to add that if you are indeed using two accounts and you are not Howard Wicks, stick to this one, as WicksHoward could be considered impersonation and may end up being blocked per Wikipedia's username policy (relevant subsection). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Howard Wicks has his own account, he has locked in syndrome which means he cannot use his hands as he is paralysed, I started the process under instruction as his personal assistant. This is not a duplicate account, I set my own account up at home to try and iron out the problems, something I undertook in my own time and on my own initiative because I think that what Howard has achieved and is trying to do is notable. Please understand this is a paralysed man and I type for him before you make your judgements. If you look at the original article you will see if differs greatly. This is because the article on Howard Wicks was dictated by him, while the article under my username was one I wrote at home. I'm sorry but this really annoys me, this article is about people who are paralysed and the assumption is that this is a case of sock puppetry, it's as if you can't recognise that a disabled individual is separate from myself - as if he is a non-person. Bracherama (talk) 09:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This can be rectified if on your Talk page you create a new section and state the situation - that the account WicksHoward is Howard Wicks, and the account Bracherama is you, a personal assistant to Howard Wicks. This still means you have a COI, which should be described on your User page, but it resolves the suspicion of sockpuppetry. David notMD (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I will do this thank you.Bracherama (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I find it a sad indictment of our age that you can be considered 'notable' enough to be included in an on-line encyclopaedia if you are a vacuous minor celebrity from a reality TV show but not if you are a person who overcame one of the most adverse conditions at just sixteen which left you only able to communicate by using your eyes, but despite this you founded a charity to help others who shared your same devastating fate.Bracherama (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it is, but you may be misunderstanding what in terms of Wikipedia procedures is meant by "notable." It doesn't mean outstanding, or important, or influential, or praiseworthy, or inspirational, or famous (or notorious) or any other quality. It only means "has been written about at significant length, by people completely independent of the subject, in at least two or three different pieces, published in recognised Reliable sources known to have rigorous editorial fact checking standards.
Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which means it only summarises material from secondary (and to a small extent primary) Reliable sources, to which all statements in the article should be cited. If those sources don't exist, there is nothing on which to base an article.
It seems quite plausible that suitable sources about the person in question do exist, but if so you need to find them (remembering that they don't have to be online and linked, merely accessible via libraries, archives, etc., and described with the usual bibliographical details).
We say that "anyone can edit Wikipedia." Really that means anyone may, but writing an article that meets all the required standards is hard. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.217 (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

From?

Quick question: in the "Category" links on a subject / BLP's page, what are the criteria for including where someone is "from"? Recently I saw a long list of places a certain BLP was from and had to read the entire article to line-up why the categories placed them there: 1. born, 2. family moved shortly after birth, 3. went to High School, 4. attended college, etc. Just how many places can someone be "from" on account they lived there for a period of time? Shouldn't it simply be: where were they born? (all encompassing) Maineartists (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Maineartists: Hey there – welcome to the Teahouse! According to WP:COPPLACE, it looks like these categories are based on "notable residence". So possibly more than just the place of birth but probably not every place a subject has ever lived. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 21:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Bsoyka Thank you for the welcome; but unless a user states: "first time here", assume they are old hat. Maineartists (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, I noticed your edit count and was just erring on the side of kindness in case you hadn’t stopped by the Teahouse yet – a lot of new users ask questions here without saying they’re new. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 23:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
"From" is abused in articles about towns and cities that want to claim lists of Notable People. Often, the person lived there only a short time, or lived there while young, but became notable for adult achievements. Or lived there briefly, while notable, such as professional athletes. David notMD (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Maineartists, It sounds simple but it can be complicated. For example, I was born in a different state than where I grew up, simply because the town did not have a hospital in the closest hospital was in the next state. (Interestingly, I just noticed your user name; I was not born in Maine, but that's where I spend my first 18 years, so that's where I say I am from.) S Philbrick(Talk) 22:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Hm. Well, I guess there is no definitive answer. Which is why there are so many discrepancies found here at WP. I would agree Sphilbrick that if you spent the first 18 years of your life in one place; that should constitute a strong "from" in my estimation and not be defined by simple birthplace (which is what the infobox is for). The article in question, as David notMD referred to other articles, abused this option and ran amuck with it by "from" categorizing every location associated with the BLP. Which I find ridiculous. Maybe this discussion will spark a deeper conversation into curbing the overuse of this type of categorization for subject and BLPs. Maineartists (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Example of severe abuse of defining "from": List of people from Concord, Massachusetts David notMD (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
It surely can be complicated, but to show how silly similar issues can get, this seems appropriate. I'm not saying that any dispute about similar matters (probably more local than ethnical in this case, BLPs may have additional issues) should be ignored, but often in these cases improving the rest of the article is way more productive. I'm not notable, but officially my residence has always been more than 50 km away from the place where I was born. Personuser (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I found a typo on a semi-protected page

I cannot access my now long-dormant Wikipedia account, and a new one doesn't give me access to correct this typo. If someone is interested in fixing this one, please do.

Under Genghis Khan, the first line has the word "after" as "ater".

Genghis Khan[note 4] (c. 1158 – August 18, 1227), born Temüjin,[note 1] was the founder and first Great Khan (Emperor) of the Mongol Empire, which became the largest contiguous empire in history ater his death.

Thank you! Justsaynoemorereturns (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Special:Diff/1024558030
 Done! In the future, you can make an edit request on the article's talk page if you don't have the ability to edit an article. (And welcome to the Teahouse!) Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 21:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Is the theoretical concepts of "dignity taking" notable?

Hello! I am interested in writing articles on reparations. Recently, I found there is no Wikipedia article for "dignity taking."

This is a new theoretical concept that's recently grown in academic circles. I think since 2014. Below is just a sampling of scholarship discussing the concept.

Dignity taking (2014 seminal work, "We Want What's Ours): https://global.oup.com/academic/product/we-want-whats-ours-9780198714637?cc=us&lang=en&

Dignity taking & war on drugs (2018): https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3243894

Other examples of theoretical application (2016): https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/fac_schol/937/

Do you think I can start drafting an article on this? Or is it too soon to be notable? Thanks all. Aequitas217 (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Aequitas217: This sounds like a genuine subject. It is hard to say what is notable before writing the article, but seeing many good sources that mention the term is a good indication. For the draft, in general you do not need to ask permission to create a draft. The only times there would be an objection to a draft would be for obvious problem areas like self-promotion, attack pages, advertising, non-encyclopedic social-media style pages and so on. Someone would also likely tell you if there is a problem after you start the draft, or once you submit it to WP:AFC. Your topic sounds fine, since you are asking. So, see Draft:Dignity taking. You can also create any draft title by typing it in the search box with the draft prefix ("Draft:Something New") and then clicking the red link that comes up in the result. --- Possibly (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
@Aequitas217: I see now that you have already created a draft at Draft:Dignity Taking, which you started two years ago. Do you have a question related to that draft? It does look like it may need some changes to become encyclopedic, but if you press the submit button you can get some feedback on it. --- Possibly (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Why text under Locke as italics, and so much of it without citations? A suggestion, although it would change the article from generalizations to specifics, would be to have content about how colonization and slavery are examples of dignity taking. Across North, Central and South America, Native Americans lost land and self-government. David notMD (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This is helpful, thank you! Aequitas217 (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Please review trimmed and updated page of Sonu Goel

Hello Teahouse, As per your suggestions, I trimmed and updated the Sonu Goel page. You are kindly requested to review, check and give me the feedback! Rakeshsipher (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Rakeshsipher, thank you so much for your contributions, your article sounds promotional for the person. Heart (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Signature text white

Hello I was wondering why I can't make my signature text white, I put color=white in the relevant span? Thanks for your help --{{u|ALMATY}}✉ 03:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Almaty: Wikipedia:Signature_tutorial#Getting_colourful... gives an example of white text on a blue background. I think it needs to be "color:white" not "color=white".Maybe give that a try? RudolfRed (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
RudolfRed giving advices on white text seems kind of funny/inspirational, but probably shouldn't be overthinked about (I am sorry and apologize for this comment). Personuser (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@Almaty: RudolfRed is correct if you're using the HTML span element. If you want something a little easier, there's {{white}} that you can use. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your help I think I got it now! --{{u|Almaty}} ✉ 06:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Biography

How can I show myself in Wikipedia, so that anyone search my name than could find first? Sandeep A Choudhary 06:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sandeep A Choudhary: - I think you have misunderstood what Wikipedia is all about. It is not a place where people can promote their autobiographies. There are other platforms such as LinkedIn which are suitable for that.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Sure, Thank You. Sandeep A Choudhary 07:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Dorian Popa

Hello, why was my page that I created, Dorian Popa, was deleted? Soby • Talk • Edits 09:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello SobySobea! If you click the redlink in your message, you'll see who deleted it and their stated reason why. In short, the article failed the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
May I recreate if there is more sources about him? Also, what does BLP mean? Soby • Talk • Edits 09:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
SobySobea, BLP = WP:BLP, WP:s rather strict policy about how a bio on a living person is to be written. If you have read Wikipedia:Notability (people) and concluded "Yeah, I have those sources, no problem", then yes, you can try again, see WP:YFA for guidance. See also WP:TUTORIAL on how to add references correctly, that is essential if an article is to "stick". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for noticing this. Soby • Talk • Edits 10:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
SobySobea, when assessing whether a subject is notable, the quality of the sources is more important than the quantity. Four reliable independent published with extensive discussion of the subject is enough. Fifty sources that each fail in one of those criteria will count for nothing. What you need is better sources, not more sources. Maproom (talk) 07:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
There may be good sources on his Romanian WP-article, but I don't know the language and can't tell the good from the bad. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I am from Romania, so I understand the language. I might gonna find these better sources soon if there is a better source. Soby • Talk • Edits 09:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

How can I apply for arbitration (edit-warring)?

I would very much appreciate a simple, direct link, where I can fill in the data for the case; I hope the main instructions would be included there. Thank you! Arminden (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

ArmindenIf you are asking how to report edit warring, you do so at WP:ANEW, and instructions are there. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@331dot:Thank you. Arminden (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Not receiving update about pending article

Hi Wikipedia Family, my first article is currently pending review. However, I do not receive any update about my article yet. I just want to know is there anything else I missed in my article?

Thanks, Lorheng (talk) 05:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Chip Mong. "This may take 5 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 5,118 pending submissions waiting for review.". Thank you. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Lorheng, your draft Draft:Chip Mong won't be reviewed until you submit it for review. (And as TheAafi says, you may have to wait for months after that.) ¶ On your user page, you write I work for Chip Mong Group, a Cambodian conglomerate company. I will declare the COI right on the article that I involve. You have to do that on the draft. (You haven't done so yet.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Hoary, The draft is submitted for AfC review AFAICS. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
And it was when I wrote my comment, too. (It seems that I need more sleep.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Hoary, lol no. It was submitted earlier but the notice was at the bottom of the draft and when I added an AfC comment, it cleaned it up and formatted it to the right place. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Also, did the company really authorize releasing the logo under CC-BY-SA? RudolfRed (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for taking your time to review my article. However, at the bottom of article I saw a part called Categories containing 3 messages:
  • Pending AfC submissionsAfC
  • pending submissions by age/20 days ago
  • AfC submissions by date/04 May 2021

Is there any action I should complete toward these messages? Lorheng (talk)
RudolfRed (talk) Yes, the company has authorized me.

As mentioned above, there is a backlog of more than 5,000 drafts. The review system is not a queue. Reviewers select what they want to review next. Thus, could be days, weeks, or (sadly) months. There is no action on your part that can speed a review. David notMD (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I have summited my article for review, However, at the bottom of article I saw a part called Categories containing 3 messages:

  • Pending AfC submissionsAfC
  • pending submissions by age/20 days ago
  • AfC submissions by date/04 May 2021

I don't understand about these tags honestly. May it cause any harm to my article? Is there any action I should take? Lorheng (talk) 09:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

(Question also asked above). Lorheng. Wikipedia categories are there to help people find things. In the case of a new draft, it just helps reviewers see which ones are awaiting review and how long they've been in the queue. there is no need for you to do anything about them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC), for your response.

Blanking my talk page of old messages.

Hello! This is my first time posting on Teahouse, so I hope I'm not doing this incorrectly. I'm a fairly new editor who's learning the ropes of editing. I'm currently getting some formal training in editing, but I had a question regarding editor talk pages and when/how to blank them appropriately. I've seen a number of more experienced editors removing old conversations and messages on their talk page, and I've never been sure if its okay to do that, or how to do it properly. Is it just as simple as just deleting all the text of older discussions? Or do we have to archive it in some way? Or do I have it totally wrong? The reason I'm asking is because I have a bunch of old discussions on my talk page that aren't active anymore, and I would like to clean up my talk page and make it more organized to avoid the extra clutter. What should I do? And how should I do it? Thanks in advance! Kalariwarrior (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kalariwarrior, hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The blanket answer to your question is yes, you may remove any content you do not want from your talkpage. However, it is good practice to archive the old discussions instead. Celestina007 (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@Celestina007, thank you for the answer! I think I'll follow your advice and archive the old conversations, but I'm afraid I don't know how to do so. Can you tell me how to archive them? Thanks. Kalariwarrior (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey, Kalariwarrior! You can see H:ARC for more details, particularly the section on automated archiving if you'd like a bot to take care of it for you. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 12:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Kalariwarrior (ec) There are a very few limitations on what can be removed from a user talk page, but none of those are particuarly relevant to you. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@Bsoyka and @331dot Thanks for the advice you two! I really appreciate it :) Kalariwarrior (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

DRAFT Rejected

Hello guys, my name is Dalila. Last year I submitted a draft for review about a duo of music producer that I love but has just been rejected. The comment I received is that does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. I just checked though and I believe the page does meet those criteria. The guys that I follow have got 2 gold records in Italy, they're last production for Ed Sheeran reached Silver in the UK and several other certifications around the world, so I don't understand why the draft has been rejected. They've also been grammy nominated musician for other work with Ed Sheeran. Can someone please help me or explain? I would like to move this page in the article space as I believe these guys deserved to be known.

This is the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:PARISI_(Music_Producer)

Can I get help please? Dalicnc88 (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Dalicnc88 You asked at the AFC help Desk, please only use one method of seeking assistance to avoid duplication of effort. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh ok, sorry about that! I thought I could ask in different pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalicnc88 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

My articles

Why are my articles not approved whereas others own are given approval — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikidexoo (talk • contribs) 07:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Ikidexoo, these links may be of help to you: Help:Your first article and WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ikidexoo. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not in addition to the two links Gråbergs Gråa Sång mentioned above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello @Ikidexoo, even better was for you to link the article's in question here, doing so would have enabled us give you a more precise response. Celestina007 (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ikidexoo. Have you submitted these draft articles using some other user account? I ask because, as far as I can tell, your sandbox and the draft you have created are the only content you have created. and neither has been ever been submitted for review and not approved. (If they had, however, they would be declined for a variety of reasons, such as that they have no references to verify the content or to demonstrate the notability of the topics. They also read as personal essays, referencing yourself, and not as encyclopedia articles about topics of knowledge, already the subject of publication in the wider world in reliable, secondary, independent sources ). By the way, we have many articles that we should not, or that have not been edited to fix poor and/or inappropriate content, so the mere fact that you find an existing article that might be similar to one that was rejected or declined is usually irrelevant. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

what to do?

I have been working on list of Crayola colors but there was a mistake someone made and I fixed it but was rejected and the mistake was accepted and i tried to fix it again but got rejected so what can i do to have a better chance of my work being accepted? Thememe420 (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Thememe420. You have noted some of your concerns on the talk page of the article. That is an excellent start. One "mistake" you made when you first added some of these changes was to not explain the reason for your changes in the edit summary accompanying your edits. If any edit is not self-explanatory, you should always use the edit summary to note what you are doing, This makes a revert far less likely than otherwise. However, it looks like you figured this out on your own, leaving an edit summary for some later changes. Keep doing that. The most important thing though is that Wikipedia runs on sourcing. All of our content must be verifiable in reliable sources (most of those sources should be secondary and independent in character), and it is best practice (and is highly likely to insure against being reverted, if your edit is otherwise correct), that you actually cite a corroborating source in the article text, using an inline citation, for every edit you make that adds or changes information. (In addition to the link for "cite" in the last sentence, see also this how-to guide to the basics of citing references). To summarize: yes, discuss on the talk page; always use an edit summary to explain your edits; cite reliable, secondary, independent sources to verify your changes, and proposed changes – and take in that implied focus: ultimately, sourcing is the key to the gates of Wikipedia. Finally, as to the subject of reverts, you might find the essay Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle of interest. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Correcting

Correcting an incorrect entry in a Formula racing car drivers biography: the user Bbb23 reverts my entries to F2 and F3000 Race car driver Fritz Glatz, albeit you find the correct information on Wikipedia (e.g. that he has participated in 1985 in 4 F3000 races with Oreca, eg. in the race in Curacao on Oct. 13th 1985. Also, there is a biography that shows that his racing career started in 1965, not 1980, He also had a documented accident on the Nurburgring in 1966. And so on. And every time Bbb23  Plasonig (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Plasonig I think you placed your comment in the section header window, which is why it was cut off. Please edit this existing section and place your comment in the larger edit window. 331dot (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Plasonig, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edits to Fritz Glatz do not appear to be vandalism, as Bbb23 said on your user talk page. I'm guessing that they thought that because your second edit was to remove material, and you didn't give an edit summary - but I don't know. Either way, once they had undone your edit, the thing for you to do then was not to reapply your edits (that is edit warring, and is regarded as disruptive, irrespective of whether the edits are good ones) but to engage in a discussion with Bbb23, either on Talk:Fritz Glatz or on your user talk page where Bbb23 had already communicated with you. See WP:BRD for how this is supposed to work. I have pinged Bbb23 here, so they should see this item and might respond. --ColinFine (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Plasonig, the substantive content you added about the driver's early career is not supported by a reliable source, which is required by the core content policy Verifiability. One Wikipedia article can never be a reliable source in another Wikipedia article per the section of that policy WP:CIRCULAR. So, you need to provide a reference to a reliable source that verifies any new information that you want to add about Glatz. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Archived Talk Page

Hai. I'm Ken. Just now, I created an archive for my 2020's talk page discussions. I placed every tags as instructed in Help:Archiving a talk page. After the creation, there is no shortcut link in the talk page header in my main talk page for the new archive. How to resolve this? Ken Tony Shall we discuss? 17:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC) 

Resolved in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
It is, of course, normal to delete messages from your main user talk page when you've moved them to the archive. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you David Biddulph. I kept it because if I was to delete that archive, everything would be in a mess. That's why I kept them. Anyway, now I'm gonna remove them as the problem is solved. Thank you once again. Ken Tony Shall we discuss? 18:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

article in sand box how can i move and edit?

i have my article in sand box how can i edit and publish? Gomba 80 (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

You don't yet have a draft in your sandbox. You will find advice at WP:Your first article. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Please also read the advice which you have received on your user talk page (and at the section #Paolo giani margi page my contribution above) about the edits which you (and various IPs) have tried to make to an existing article. You need to understand about verifiability and referencing. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Infobox for Comunidad Bet El?

Hi! I'm working on the article Comunidad Bet El, and choosing an infobox has me stumped. Strictly speaking it's about the congregation and not the synagogue building, so Infobox religious building doesn't seem right, but Infobox church is designed for Christian churches, and I don't think Infobox organization fits either. Any tips will be appreciated, or anyone is welcome to set up the infobox if they'd like! ezlevtlk
ctrbs 03:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

You're looking for a solution to a non-existent problem. Infoboxes can be helpful when they point out oft-needed information that would otherwise need time to find within lengthy articles (although all too often they prioritize easily tabulatable trivia). By contrast, Comunidad Bet El is a mere stub, so an infobox would be pointless. (Gratuitous comment: Even the monoglot reader should guess that comunidad has some relation to "community"; but "Bet El"? Related to Beth-El, perhaps?) -- Hoary (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Ezlev, thanks for translating that article! I did the translation for Comunidad Amijai! Yes, Infobox religious building is probably the best option, and on the page with that information are ways to make it applicable to synagogues. If you'd like to play with it a little bit, copy the source code for the infobox from the Amijai page and try and put in Bet El's information. Hoary, I'm not sure that the Manual of Style has a specific guideline as to whether a foreign location is required to be translated. Bkissin (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Hoary and Bkissin! When I get around to building up the article to a point where an infobox will be useful, I'll add Infobox religious building, and the one on Congregation Amijai will definitely be a helpful starting point. (I'm also planning to look for more information about the name, since that interested me as well.) ezlevtlk
ctrbs 18:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

How do I clear undisclosed paid editor comment from my draft after clarification

Some days ago the comment undisclosed paid editor was placed on my Draft:Elijah Chinezim Onyeagba after which I have clarified that I am neither a paid editor nor receiving any incentive for my work. I thought since I have clarified that, the comment would have been cleared from my draft. Am I permitted to remove it or await for it to be removed when the draft has approved? Thanks. Bibihans (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Bibihans Bibihans (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Bibihans If the reviewer accepts your draft and is satisfied, they will remove tags like that. You shouldn't remove that particular tag yourself. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@331dot: Thank you and much appreciated. Bibihans — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibihans (talk • contribs) 08:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@Bibihans, Although I have removed the {{UPE}} tag from the draft article because I’m choosing to assume good faith, it is one thing for you to claim something and an entire different thing for your actions to indicate otherwise, I have re-added you to my watchlist because your edit pattern appears to be in variance with what you claim. Remember, that although frowned upon, accepting money to create an article is not against our policy, what is, is failure to disclose it. Celestina007 (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Richard B. Sobol American civil rights lawyer

 Annesobol (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Annesobol Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have a question? 331dot (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Have I now posted Richard B. Sobol American civil rights lawyer as a draft? I do not see "tildes" on my computer keyboard, where are they? I am trying to publish a new article. This is my draft. Is this ready for submission, or should I do more first? Annesobol (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Annesobol

Annesobol Tildas are to the left of the 1 number key. Can you provide a link to the draft? TigerScientist Chat > contribs 15:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I think I may be having a problem because my wiki draft is stored on my computer as "RBS wikipedia.docx" and this is what I've tried to upload to Wikipedia, but on Wikipedia my article is called "Richard B. Sobol American civil rights lawyer". Does this cause a problem? I'm so leery about losing my draft, but it occurs to me the solution here is on my computer I change the document name to "Richard B. Sobol American civil rights lawyer.docx". Then, too, I've wondered if there is any glitch between whatever word processing software wikipedia uses and Word? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annesobol (talk • contribs) 15:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Annesobol It doesn't work that way- you need to type in the text, not just upload a file. You may draft a new article at Articles for Creation; new users cannot directly create articles and must submit a draft that they create for review. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Annesobol Instead of creating a new section, please edit this existing section to follow up. 331dot (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I am so confused. Have I or have I not at this point inserted my draft? I tried to disclose my COI but now I can't see it anywhere. Annesobol (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Annesobol

Annesobol You have created a draft located at Draft:Richard B. Sobol American civil rights lawyer. You may add a COI declaration to your user page, User:Annesobol. Your draft, to be frank, is a long way from being a Wikipedia article, as it seems to be lacking in citations. All information in an article must be cited to an independent reliable source. Wikipedia has no deadlines, so your are welcome to take your time before submitting your draft. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I understand and agree about the cites needed. I am assuming citing to published (online) judicial opinions is valid cite. Thank you for your help. Annesobol (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Annesobol

I copied my draft and inserted test, don't see it anywhere. Did I disclose my COI adequately? Annesobol (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Annesobol

Annesobol I don't see an edit of yours where you declared a COI, so whatever you did didn't work. You should click the following link, User:Annesobol, and simply type in a description of your conflict of interest(don't worry about wikicoding it, just type it). 331dot (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Annesobol. "I am assuming citing to published (online) judicial opinions is valid cite." There might be goods reasons to occasionally cite a legal opinion in an article on an attorney involved in the lawsuit, but I think you probably mean by this that you intend to use legal opinions as the chief type of reference to cite for verifying the proposed article's prose and to establish the subject's notability. If that's what you intended, then: No, we require reliable, secondary, independent sources; ; independent sources directly about him. Legal opinions are a type of primary source, that do not directly contribute towards establishing notability – though if he was the attorney representing a side in cases resulting in a well known legal opinion, that makes it likely useful sources do exist – third parties writing about his involvement as counsel (e.g., newspaper articles). Though the mere fact we have an article about an individual doesn't necessarily mean it meets our standards, you might get some ideas by browsing the [better] articles in, say, Category:American civil rights lawyers. By the way, addressing your use of "(online)" above, please note that source do not have to be online. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, very thought-provoking. If you've looked at my draft you may see that I have thought there might be interest for readers in understanding what it means to be a civil rights lawyer, the nitty gritty, thus the extended discussion of some of the cases. Very much appreciate direction to look at Category: American civil rights lawyers. I see that few of those I looked at trace their work in anything like the detail I propose. NY Times did do a lead obit on Richard, and his obit was carried by the AP and published all over, his work on Duncan (the S.Ct. case that established right to jury trial in State courts) was documented in national press at the time, there is a book about Duncan and his work, and now a documentary film. I listed several books which refer to his work in the South. He was interviewed by the staff of the African American History Museum, interview stored on Library of Congress site. He did write a book about the Dalkon Shield Bankruptcy which won the ABA award for a book explaining a complex legal case to laymen (not yet covered in my draft). I really don't think there is any question that he was notable (I don't think it's just that I'm his wife and co-worker). He argued in the S.Ct. in hot button cases, the decisions in his cases (won and lost, or sort of lost) are cited all over. But I hear you about primary sources apparently not thought appropriate for an encyclopedia. I have to think about this. I suppose it would be a lot simpler for me to drop back to the secondary sources you prefer, but I do believe much less enlightening for your readers. Again, thanks for input. Annesobol (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Annesobol

@Annesobol: My condolences for your recent loss. The draft you have right now has bones that could be useful in writing a good article, but it has a lot of content that needs to go. You have a great advantage over many people submitting drafts: you essentially write for a living; as is evident from the draft, forming a coherent sentence is second nature rather than an insurmountable hurdle (that bedevils many people attempting a proposed article here). Another advantage is that you're also, I expect, steeped in tailoring your writing for a particular audience, for a particular purpose (part of the art of motion practice;-), so shaping your writing in new ways is de rigueur. Nevertheless, there's a rather steep learning curve here that, as is also evident from your draft, you're at the beginning of. My best overarching advice to you at this point is to (ruthlessly, with discipline for cutting) rewrite the draft using the following rules:
  1. (well, this is not really a "rule", but...) gather a list of reliable, published sources, concentrating on ones that are secondary and independent (this is like surveying the land you are about to build on, and buying the lumber and other building materials);
  2. You can only write by summarizing based on what these reliable, published sources contain (obviously, digesting the material and summarizing in proper paraphrase (note that we are constantly deleting material as copyright violations, including for too close paraphrasing);
  3. You can use published, primary sources–judiciously–only for "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge", and specifically not for any analysis, synthesis, evaluation or self-serving content (so put these types of sources in a "separate pile");
  4. You must do your best to forget everything you know about the subject; pretend you are a person who is writing solely from these sources, with the restrictions mentioned), and could not include one word you do not learn from these sources (after all, everything you know about the topic comes from the sources you've read and digested, right?)
  5. Reinforcing the "rule" above, anything you write that isn't based on these sources, or is an interpretation, or analysis, or synthesis not directly contained in them [but for matters that are utterly obvious...], is forbidden, original research);
  6. (This one is especially difficult for someone deeply involved with a subject [see WP:COI]), but: as part of that pretending exercise, you also must dispense with your positive feelings, and attempt to write in a just-the-facts, neutral manner as to both content and the language used. (Look for adjectives betraying your underlying lack of neutrality; remember the writer's mantra, show, don't tell.); and
  7. If you haven't done so, you might take a tour through Wikipedia's tutorial, to get some seal legs on both the variety of markup and the concepts we commonly employ here (by the way, once you do so, the cheatsheet may be a good page to quickly refer to for ministerial formatting issues).
Hope all this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Annesobol Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is NOT about what might be of interest for readers, or understanding what a civil rights lawyer is, or extended discussion of cases. It is not about enlightening. Delete all that. Ditto any content that is verified by interviews with Richard, as Wikipedia does not consider interviews as reliable sources (I may think that I am strikingly handsome, but my opinion counts for nothing.) A book he wrote can be listed in a section Publication. The ABA award (properly cited) can be in an Awards section. David notMD (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that at least 80% of the draft needs to be cut before this can be submitted as a draft with any potential for being approved. What is essential is what people have written ABOUT Sobol, not documenting nor describing his accomplishments. David notMD (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Indigenous

Indigenous meaning Davebeau (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC) The definition of indigenous is naturally existing in one place rather than arriving from somewhere else . Yet we have for example the Maoris from New Zealand called indigenous and yet they arrived from the islands of the Pacific in the 1600s

Actually, the Māori arrived in what is now New Zealand approximately 1280 to 1300 CE. New Zealand was not settled by humans previously, so they are the indigenous people. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@Davebeau: The best place to discuss this would be on the talk page. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
See Indigenous peoples. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

:( another unhappy newbie

So sad, since admins attack me constantly. goodbye cruel wikipedia. Perez f vivant (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Perez f vivant: Hey there! I don't see that you've been attacked by anyone, much less by admins. One of your edits was simply reverted with a helpful message since it was deemed unconstructive. Do you have a question we can help with? Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 17:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Perez f vivant don't quit! We want everyone to benefit Wikipedia. One of your edits might have been unconstructive. Don't make it hurt you! I want you to keep editing and help us. Don't call us cruel. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 17:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I have looked at some of your edits. If they were intended to be helpful, then you went about it in a manner that was sure to be unsuccessful, such as contextless unexplained, massive changes to SES S.A., that, in the absence of explanation, gave every appearance of blanking of sourced content and the indiscriminate dumping of swaths of content written in French into an English article. You could not expect any other result but to be reverted, and thus have nothing to complain about.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies. Yes they did make a unconstructive edit maybe try to convince them to stay? TigerScientist Chat > contribs 18:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
"We ought to wring his filthy little neck. Kill him! Kill him!" Ooops! Apologies, my Gollum persona got the best of me for a moment. As best I can see, Perez had an edit reverted back in 2020, and a deletion edit reverted today. The latter appeared to be in good faith - deleting what a company had promised to achieve but had failed to do so. What a company promised, referenced, can be valid history, even if it did not come true. There was a small bit of apparent vandalism involved (Perez changed Bloon to Bloop). David notMD (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
TigerScientist. You cite a policy to me I strongly believe in, quite inaptly in my view here. Our "don't bite" (and civility and assuming good faith) policies and cultural mores are not suicide pacts. They do not require us to pretend or lie; to swallow nonsense that reverses the equities, to not acknowledge or state the facts when they're relevant, etc.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I just thought it was a little hostile (though it did say what was wrong perfectly) and especially due to them wanting to quit. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 19:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Okay. But I invite you to read the language of the OP (in conjunction with the edits actually involved), and think about what is fairly clearly really going on here (yes, I am intentionally being vague; I don't think discussing that here would be at all useful, and that doing so would actually implicate another policy about ... nourishment).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

templates

 Courtesy link: Portsmouth and Arundel Canal

How do you create a template map in a page ? I want to add a line map to the Portsmouth and Arundel Canal Page. I can edit an existing one no problem just dont seem to be able to create it in the first place can someone help or even set it up with a start point at Portsmouth Harbour Hampshire and a Finish point at Ford West Sussex Southern Canalman (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone delete my page

I have a subpage that I find now useless. Can someone delete it for me? It is at User:TigerScientist/New signature. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 20:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No such page. Did you mean User:TigerScientist/New signature? (Page names are case sensitive.) If you want it deleting, tag it with {{db-u1}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you TigerScientist Chat > contribs 20:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Please Give me IP block exempt right

Hi. I'm use to VPN please Give me IP block exempt right Gorning1 (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gorning1: See Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption for instructions on how to request this. RudolfRed (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Old-accessdate

Hello, anybody hanging around being able to explain the old-accessdate? RedWolf did not come back on that and I am in the honest opinion the originale date of access to the site should be kept. Thank you for your time. URL access date The full date when the original URL was accessed; do not wikilink Lotje (talk) 05:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Lotje, Appears to be an old/ now invalidated parameter. It is just access-date now & archive-date now. "oldaccessdate" shows "ignored" in some articles where it is used. Just few in number.─ The Aafī (talk) 05:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you TheAafi, better to remove these, so they wan't show up in the Category:CS1 errors: unsupported parameter anymore. :-) Lotje (talk) 05:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Lotje, I see it is the Template:Cite peakfinder used for all of these citations. You may check with this. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
TheAafi, thanks, I'll @RedWolf: on this Template:Cite peakfinder Lotje (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Peakfinder went through a major update in mid 2019 which broke all of it's old links. The peak name used to be part of the URL but this was changed to an id in the site update. So then what to do about the accessdate/access-date? The description of this parameter in "cite web" was not clear in what to do in this scenario. I think I updated the accessdate but still wanted to be preserve the original access-date so old-accessdate was used. I cannot recall if this was a valid parameter for "cite web" at the time. I would prefer this parameter was preserved so as to retain an historical link for the reference. RedWolf (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • {{cite web}} supports orig-date so old-accessdate could be changed to that to preserve the fact that the site was first referenced on that date. {{cite peakfinder}} does not currently pass that parameter to "cite web" so it won't be displayed which is probably preferable. RedWolf (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Grammar pages

Most languages have sections for grammar and syntax. Major languages have seperate pages for grammar. My question is that, should these grammar pages contain all possible information related to the language's grammar, or should the content be brief?

Most people are not keen to learn from Wikipedia it seems. I can't imagine people going to Wikipedia to learn a language (except me).

There are also other websites fully dedicated to grammar of a language. Should Wikipedia's grammar articles also contain the same quality of information?

Should these pages be enough to make people fluent in the language (if the reader has a structured lexicon)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrightSunMan (talk • contribs) 14:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Forgot to log in... BrightSunMan (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
No, BrightSunMan, Wikipedia's grammar articles are in no way intended to "make people fluent in the language". This is an encyclopedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

MAL reliable for secondary source?

Hi, I'm trying to make a article for Draft:Let's Go! Valtryek!. It recently got declined saying I need more reliable secondary sources. IMDb and Google Play shouldn't be used. But, my question is if MyAnimeList can be used as a source for reception on the particular episode in general? Thank.

WellThisIsTheReaper 10:43 UTC, 24 May 2021 WellThisIsTheReaper (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, WellThisIsTheReaper, and welcome to the Teahouse. While myanimelist.net doesn't seem to have been discussed at the Reliable Sources/Noticeboard (except one mention in passing in 2013), it appears to me to be user-generated, and so not a reliable source. --ColinFine (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Tables

I have been editing on the Google Street View coverage page, I am trying to edit the tables but apparently they are not editable by the visual editor, in the spanish article, these tables can be edited by the visual editor, is there a reason why this happens and is there a possibility that this problem can be solved? Seb { 💬 Talk + 📝 Edits } 22:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@JSeb05: Welcome to the Teahouse. The only ones I can't edit directly via the visual editor are the collapsed tables, which generally shouldn't be preemptively collapsed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Counting Stars

Hello, I made a page called [[3]] but It's now a draft, I'm afraid it will get declined, then my hard work will be detsoryed for that page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JustNickYT (talk • contribs) 01:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi JustNickYT. If you're draft is declined, it won't be "destroyed" or otherwise deleted; it will simply remain a draft. Your draft is likely to be declined, however, because you haven't provided any citations to reliable sources to allow its content to be verified as explained here. You can continue to improve the draft even while it's waiting to be reviewed and can continue to work on it even if it's been declined. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television for some suggestions on creating or editing articles about TV programs. You many also want to ask for assistance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television since that's where you're likely to find editors familiar with such articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Article declined

 Courtesy link: Draft:Multiscale Electrophysiology Data format

My Wikipedia submission was declined. It is an article describing a new open source format (MED) that is actually the next evolution of an existing format (MEF) for which there IS a wikipedia page. I do not understand why MEF was accepted, but MED was declined. I am the creator of both formats, but I was not the author of the existing MEF Wikipedia page.

MED == "Multiscale Electrophysiology Data" MEF == "Multiscale Electrophysiology Format" Mattstead (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

One reason may be that while Multiscale Electrophysiology Format cites three (somewhat inadequate) sources, Draft:Multiscale Electrophysiology Data format does not cite any sources in support of the statements it contains, though it does list some at the end. Another is that as creator of MEF, you have an undeclared Conflict of interest.   Maproom (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Per above, a section on your Talk page explains what you need to do given conflict of interest for both articles. David notMD (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

How do you deal with retaliation?

I am, admittedly, an old fart. And I seem to have trouble stopping digging, when I find I'm digging a hole under myself. But the culture of Wikipedia has changed so radically that I haven't really been able to adjust; I still try to approach it with an eye to the content, rather than as a battle between antagonistic pseudonymous personalities. It seems like any time I try to add any content, or fix anything, or even just argue in favor of something being fixed, some random person comes out of the woodwork and takes offense and goes all PvP and recommends anything even vaguely associated with me for speedy deletion. Not someone who has any connection with, or even opinion about, the actual content. But someone who's outraged that I would dare to touch the content without their prior approval. And they never seem to be willing to engage on the talk pages, they just launch right in with speedy-deletion retaliation.

Is this just what Wikipedia has become? Should I give up on it? Should I give up on correcting errors, for fear of offending gatekeepers? Is there a secret enclave of grownups still lurking somewhere? Bill Woodcock (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey Bill. I say this, without having any idea if it's truly the case, so forgive me if might miss the issue. It is human nature that when we are involved in any type of somewhat heated back and forth, it looms large in our minds. If we have more than one of those incidents that are relatively nearby in time, we tend to assume a pattern, where there is actually a statistical blip. I see the recent discussion that I think probably prompted your post. I really would have to study it far closer to have any opinion at all on a "side", but I guess I was just wondering if what I was talking about above could be playing out to some extent, and help with putting this in some perspective. I actually do think there is a level of bureaucracy that has increased, to the point where I too have been annoyed by certain reverts of my edits that I don't think would have happened years ago, or at least not "inevitably". To give you an example, I have made many edits to our polices and guidelines; years ago, what I wrote that helped form some of those pages, could never be entered anew today if not already there. Instead, when I edit any major policy page, I always get reverted under the terrible idea that you need pre-consensus to change what has become "official" (ossified, strict-constructionist-interpreted, statutes) – very much against a host of our other polices we supposedly hallow (that ironically also can't be changed without a revert), without any regard to the merits of the edit. But then I start to think, and I realize that 99% of my edits actually don't get reverted, and I just try to let it go. So can I offer you a cup of mental tea? Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Fuhghettaboutit, I'm honestly not concerned with someone reverting my edits; I get that, I've certainly reverted other people's edits... But always with reference to the veracity of the content, and I've tried (probably not always successfully) to invite conversation if they think I'm wrong. If someone reverted my edit and did me the courtesy of explaining why, yeah, the vast majority of the time I'd be grateful for the education and leave it at that. What I take issue with is people just leaping in and marking my user page for speedy deletion, because I didn't know to ask their permission before discussing a change to a page that I contributed to long before they joined Wikipedia... I mean... What am I supposed to do with that? I can't seem to get anyone to engage in discussion of the actual content of pages anymore. It's just all ego and vandalism. And it seems to be everywhere I turn. So, specifically, is there anything to be done about retaliation? Just let my user page be deleted, only make edits anonymously in the future, give up on substance? Or does anyone actually try to step in and prevent these sorts of vindictive attacks? Or is there just no structure left to make that possible? Bill Woodcock (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
It's not you. Wikipedia changed. What existed as your User page for 15 years no longer conformed, hence the Speedy deletion prod, which you addressed by removing content that did not comply with the more recently established guidelines. David notMD (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Bwoodcock. Part of the problem might've been that you were writing about yourself in the third person which gave your user page the appearance of being a WP:FAKEARTICLE. Our user pages aren't really ours per se as explained here; moreover, even though we're given some leeway when it comes to them, we're also expected to do our best to ensure they adhere to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There's lots of stuff that's been on Wikipedia for long time, but that doesn't mean it should be here. Perhaps at one point it was OK or maybe it was never OK to begin with, but often inappropriate stuff goes unnoticed for quite sometime until something happens which brings attention to it. It might seem a bit unfair when that happens, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's some kind of retaliation when it does happen. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Advice for helping other editors

hi! admittedly I've caused minor problems in the Teahouse in the past, but as I plan to start helping new editors as well (I work on helping new editors who end up in my talk page), what are some tips in giving advice to new editors? I've been here for a month (I joined a few years ago, but my regular editing started on april 2021). • | melecie | t 02:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

MelecieDiancie, Be kind, explain the details, link to useful things, and know when you can't be of assistance. Its easy to point folks in a direction that can help them more, like the Teahouse or help desk. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

A method to create article didn't work.

I entered a text in the search field that I sought to create a new article.The page notified that no such article exists but didn't provide a red link .The page named- Wikipedia:how to create an article- suggested me so. What's your opinion? Kushal Dev Wiki (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Kushal Dev Wiki. In order to create a new article, an account must be WP:AUTOCONFIRMED. That means an account four days old with at least ten edits. You have over 10 edits but your account is not yet four days old. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
(EC) Your account is too young. I would suggest creating a draft instead of creating an article directly in mainspace, because anything found to be not up to snuff in mainspace will likely either be kicked to draft or outright deleted. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 03:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Kushal Dev Wiki, What are you looking to write about? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Submission of a Page

I had approached earlier for Assistance regarding submission of a Page but despite 48 hours there is no response? What is the way forward? Infantry28 (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Infantry28, You asked about creating a page about yourself. Our advice: don't. See WP:AUTOBIO if you want more. Its next to impossible to write a neutral article about yourself. If you'd like to write about another person, depends on who they. If they're alive, we have special guidelines, see WP:BLP. If they are deceased, it mostly depends on what they did. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Infantry28, there were two responses (and CaptainEek has now provided you with a third).. -- Hoary (talk) 04:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1109&oldid=1134682300"