User:Vchimpanzee/sandbox2

I want to publish Biography of a Film Producer

Rajesh Kumar Singh producer of the movie Anwar 2007 & Fareb 2005 is a famous businessman and social activist i tried publishing his Biography with many notable sources and references but its being cancelled every time please help me publishing the page Rajesh Kumar Singh (Social Activist) (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Rajesh Kumar Singh (Social Activist). You only have three edits with this account. Were you using another account to try to create this article? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Your biography was deleted because you posted it on your personal user page, which is not the place for it. You should post it in your sandbox (User:Rajesh Kumar Singh (Social Activist)/sandbox) or create a draft (Draft:Rajesh Kumar Singh) and then submit it for review. Please also read Help:Your first article, Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Kleinpecan (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see now that you tried to write an autobiography on your user page, and it got deleted. That is a bad idea and highly discouraged. Use draft space and the Articles for Creation process instead, and declare your conflict of interest on your userpage itself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

wikipedia policy on bullying and disruptive editors

Hi I am a new user, havent been able to contribute much yet. One of the articles I contributed to was deleted. I requested it DRV as i was not convinced with the reasons given for its nomination. They were not in line with wikipdeia guidelines and the nominator continued to jump from one reason to another vague reason, it felt like more of disruptive in nature. During the discussion I feel the nominator and the person who deleted it were working as a team, and both have also tried to intimidate me. The account that chose to delete it, is now blocked for sock puppetry. Can someone help me with this? I am open to constructive criticism of my work and also seek guidance on how to deal with disruptive expert editors. Shatbhisha6 (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Shatbhisha6 Swami Avdheshanand Giri is at AfD as of 12 May. This article was previously created, AfD'd on 29 March, then recreated for reevaluation. Confusingly, Draft:Swami Avdheshanand Giri also exists, which was Declined and then Rejected in late April. HOWEVER, the Declined and Rejected recommendations were both actions of User:Kashmorwiki, subsequently indef blocked as a sockpuppet. In addition, at the first AfD, Kashmorwiki had recommended Delete, but AfD decisions, as always, are made by an Administrator, not those expressing an opinion. The article and draft are near-identical. David notMD (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Both draft and AFD exist as after the new draft was created, VV, the nominator for previous deletion objected it with a link to the deleted article. I feel something suspicious with the way VV, Kichu have worked towards deletion of this page. I am a new user and not well versed Wiki ways. Also wish to know if me being a new editor with not enough contribution can be a reason for my arguments to be disregarded? I dont understand why VV has mentioned this in the deletion discussion? Shatbhisha6 (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

An WP:SPA template in an AFD is to indicate to the closer that an editor works on only a limited area of interest. It is not an attack on the editor as it stems from a fact. Your only edits were around this specific article. Best! VV 07:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thats not true, and can be checked from my contribution log both in English and Hindi. This was my first article and truth is being a new user I'm not confident enough and thats why I have not contributed much, learning with baby steps. I only wish to know how does that matter to the subject or the article. And you being a nominator how does your vote count and my vote striked off? If only one vote counts then shouldnt only one of two should have been struck? Hope someone can guide me on that.Shatbhisha6 (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Shatbhisha6, editors will only look at your English wiki contributions to assess your work here. Your other points are addressed under new editor and SPA tagging on WP:SPA. Since you claim to be a new editor, I would suggest that you read thoroughly and understand WP:RS and WP:GNG because your conflicts stem from there. Further, addressing the title of this section, my interactions with you are no where close to bullying or disruptive as your heading states. However, if you feel otherwise you may check out WP:ANI. You would have to provide WP:DIFFS of what you perceive as WP:BULLYING and WP:DE. Best! VV 07:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Uploading more information on an existing table on Wikipedia article

I am not finding an option to insert more information for an existing table on an article that already exists on Wikipedia. ChabbieCee (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Teahouse! First, make sure that the page you want to edit is not edit-protected (e.g., you do not see a lock icon at the top on the right and can see "Edit" or "Edit source" button). There are multiple ways to edit a table. To change the text in a cell, you can just click on it multiple times and start editing. If you want to add a column or a row, you can click on a row/column and a menu will appear, which will let you delete row/column, insert a new adjacent row/column, etc. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables and Help:Table might help you. Vhhhhjhgy (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Article : Virtue Clan

Hi there, so I would like to have this Draft:Virtue Clan be deleted coz, it seems like the last person made this was a sock puppet. So I would like to create a new draft on this and also would like the previous one deleted. Jocelin Andrea (talk) 03:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Virtue Clan courtesy link!

Hi Jocelin Andrea, and welcome to the Teahouse. The person who made it is a sockpuppet of a blocked, so if you want to rewrite the article (without copying any content over) you can CSD the article under the G4 criteria. If you want to continue working on the draft, make major edits or rewrites so it doesn't get G4'd and you still have the draft. I'll leave it up to you :) Sennecaster (What now?) 12:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Sennecaster , Can you explain the CSD and G4 criteria in here? Jocelin Andrea (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jocelin Andrea: CSD is the "Criteria for Speedy Deletion", shortened to CSD. It is a series of strict criteria to skip discussion of an article's deletion and instead move directly to it. You can read more here. G4 is for articles with no other major work created by a user violating a ban or block. I would recommend either tagging it for G4 and restarting with entirely new content, or putting in work on the draft and rewriting it all. Sennecaster (What now?) 12:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Need help to edit my rejected article

The reason why I'm requesting assistance is that my article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Guo_Shiyou) has been declined the second time. At my last revision, I removed all the praises for the scholar I was writing about leaving only the comments quoted from reliable sources. I missed one adjective "ambitious endeavor" which I removed promptly today.

My first question is: Do I need to remove all the positive comments from his critics? I was thinking those comments are from well known scholars in China and will add credibility to his work.

My second question is: The scholar I'm writing about publishes in Chinese. His works have not been translated into English yet, but he is one of the major historians in China. All the works he has published have an ISBN number. All the comments on his works come from major publications in China and I provided the English title for the books and journals. Would you please tell me how I can improve on the sources? There're quite a few non-English speaking scholars in Wiki and I modeled on their biography.

Thank you so much in advance for helping me. This is my first article. I hope to learn from you all.

Hongying Liu from Cupertino, CA Stoptosmellroses (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Stoptosmellroses, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, I did not look nor try to access the notability status of the article, but from a quick glance the article appears to be written like a page and not an article, that is, it comes across as a resumé. Articles that are retained on mainspace have to possess an encyclopedic tone and value. Have you read WP:NPOV? If not, then do and try to re-write the article from scratch(if you can) and re-submit. Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Stoptosmellroses Hi, thanks for coming to the Teahouse. I have a decent understanding of Chinese, and I skimmed through your article. In summary, the article has slight notability issues, WP:NPOV issues (discussed by Celestina007), and other nitpicky things. If you want to rewrite the article, and your preferred language is Chinese, consider doing so in zh.wikipedia.org, if it meets the notability guidelines and passes their equivalent of AFC (维基百科:建立条目) I can translate the article to English for you. I'm also willing to improve the draft if I have any free time, if you want me to, tell me on my talk page. 加油 (good luck), and have fun editing. --Justiyaya (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Notability

Generally, 2 reliable and independent sources that gives significant coverage to the subject are required to prove that an article is notable enough. Excluding the 4 non website sources that you cited, only Asia Pacific Daily might count as a reliable source (detailed break down below). One to two more sources and this article will meet the notability guideline although, if the non website sources are reliable, the subject is probably notable enough.

Other feedback

Maybe remove 出版社 (Publishing agency) from the "Works" section.

Nitpicky things

I've also noticed the occasional comma in Chinese, there is a difference between:"，" and ",".

Sources broken down

Tongji University: self reporting, subject is professor at that university

Baidu Baike: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_305#RfC:_Baidu_Baike deprecated source

爱思想(aisixiang): Written by subject in article

4 non-website: I can't check them

Asia Pacific Daily (亚太日报): "Asia Pacific Daily was launched by Xinhua News Agency's Asia-Pacific Regional Bureau."-Asia Pacific Daily

Xinhua News agency is run by the Chinese government. Reliable?

SinoBook: Not really significant coverage.

The Simpsons

Can we stop making new pages for every single episode of The Simpsons? It was never really necessary for all the other SEVEN HUNDRED EPISODES to have their own unique page. I get that The Simpsons is collectively a very popular show, but the newer episodes are performing too poorly to each have their own individual page. A line should be drawn somewhere. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Trevortnidesserped: This is a content issue that should be taken to the talk page of the Simpsons and frankly I cannot help you there. All articles need to be assessed under WP:GNG and potentially a specific notability guideline, most likely for TV and movies. I also recommend to not use all capitals when discussing, it comes off fairly aggressive. Hope this helped, Sennecaster (What now?) 12:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding on the Sennecaster, if you wish to emphasize text, try using italics or bold instead of typing in all caps. See WP:SHOUT for more information. Justiyaya (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

No, not bold, please. Just italics. And the more sparingly you use them, the more effective they're likely to be. -- Hoary (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Collective Questions

Dear friends) Is there a way to find collectively all the questions I posted in Wikipedia:Teahouse? My only information is through the alerts and my notices if a question is answered. But if there is a question that is not answered how I can find it? In general is their a way to see all the questions I posted?

Antonis Theofanous (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC) Antonis Theofanous (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

When you ask a question, give it an edit summary that summarizes it well. You will then be able to find it easily among your contributions. -- Hoary (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Antonis Theofanous, if you scroll to the top of this page, below the table of contents you will find a search box which you can use to search through all archived posts of the Teahouse. To find questions that were asked by yourself, I would recommend simply searching for your own username. Note that as of right now, this will not give you any results as none of your questions have been archived yet, meaning that they are still displayed on the page that we are on right now. However, once this does happen, this will be a good way of finding your past questions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 12:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

GNG and BASIC

Hello I was getting familiarised with the basic wikipedia terminologies and guidelines. On going through the notability criteria, I saw WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Both of these seems same to me. Can anyone please explain me whats the difference between these two?

Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 05:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla, they are quote similar but not identical. GNG applies broadly to most topics. BASIC is specific to biographies and includes this language that is not part of GNG: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." In practice, many editors expect significant coverage for biographies. Some notability debates come down to the distinction between "significant coverage" and "substantial coverage". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328:, does this mean we cannot apply BASIC to topics other than biographies? Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 06:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla, BASIC is a subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (people) and therefore it does not apply to non-biographical topics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla: in functional terms, one of the few times I've seen the substantial vs sigcov split is that although BASIC is normally harder to meet than GNG, an article with a full biography book will usually pass BASIC while some have a firm expectation that GNG requires multiple sources (which is not actually the case - although it is for WP:NCORP). Nosebagbear (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Valid Television and Author references

Hello there,

I would be grateful for your assistance in editing my rejected submission for title:'Mimi Kwa'

1/ Feedback so far has been that her book is 'insignificant' however I would argue it has been endorsed by notables such as Trent Dalton and Mike Munro and Harper Collins compares it to Wild Swans and Educated. I feel that the feedback that it is 'insignificant' is subjective. Any ideas how to handle this please? The citation link already shows these facts.

2/ Other feedback was that you tube and imbd are not reliable references however the actual footage of Mimi Kwa's 20 years of television appearances are accurately documented on these platforms. If she anchored the news for the ABC for 15 years how can that be proven other than the actual footage of the show please? To my. mind there is no more factual a reference than the actual television footage from ABC Channel 9, SKY and current on air shows on STAN and FOXTEL. How do I verify these sorts of facts without linking to YouTube. please help.

Any help with my submission to get it to a point of being accepted would be greatly appreciated

Thanks, Johnnormanroberts Johnnormanroberts (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Johnnormanroberts, thank you for pointing out on your user page that you have a conflict of interest. What has been written about Mimi Kwa and her work in reliable sources? It can be proven that (for example) she anchored the news for ABC for 15 years if somebody cites an article in a reliable source -- the SMH? the Age? (I'm rather out of touch with the Australian press) -- that states this. -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Can I use Bold Italic in an article?

Please check [my sandbox] for what I mean to say. I am editing in my sandbox and shall later paste it in an article. So in my sandbox I have used bold italic which I want to be in the real article too. Is it okay? Excellenc1 (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Excellenc1, may you elaborate why you think it should be bold-italicized? Cause BIs are sometimes allowed (like for movie titles or painting names) Gerald WL 04:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I am using Bold Italic on the names of members of royal houses and I am bold italicising because it looks prominent and nice relative to the content that follows the name. Excellenc1 (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Excellenc1 Per MOS:BOLD, there are few times one needs to bold anything other than the article title and redirect names. Per MOS:NOBOLD, "Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text." Hope that helps.--- Possibly (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The use of italics for people's names is inappropriate. But if the material in your sandbox is ever to be added to an article, it can easily be corrected. A much more serious issue is that the content of your sandbox is almost entirely unreferenced, and therefore unacceptable for en:Wikipedia.

There are two ways to create acceptable content for Wikipedia. One is to write what you like, and then struggle to find acceptable sources for it all. The other is to start with the sources, and summarise what they say. The latter is very much easier. Unfortunately, the former is often used by inexperienced editors. Maproom (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Maproom I was going with the first method of editing and then adding citations, since I am translating an article so I pretty much believe its content. I'll still look at your alternative. Thank you. Also, is it okay to first edit in my sandbox and then paste it to the original article because it is a huge chunk of information? Will it go against any Wikipedia policy? Excellenc1 (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: It is preferable to 'move' the contents of your sandbox, rather than simply copy it, as that keeps all the editing history and edit summaries intact. A simple copy/paste from your sandbox - whilst permitted - would lose all of that history. Either way, what would be essential to do is to ensure that the first edit gives proper credit to the original authors of the non-English article that you've translated. You can do that by putting into the first Edit Summary the url of the foreign language article and referring to the Edit History to acknowledge all of their work. Hope this helps a bit (and I also use bold text in all the wrong places in my sandboxes to highlight stuff for my own use, though I remove it from content I then put into the main encyclopaedia so as to ensure uniformity of style throughout every article here.) Nick Moyes (talk) 09:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok sure, thank you Nick Moyes. Excellenc1 (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested link to reset my password

Hello - I've been waiting for several days (since last week) to receive the link to reset my forgotten password. I'd much appreciate your help in getting that link sent to my email address so I can continue my occasional editing. My email address is: edsienkiewicz@hotmail.com (which is also my username).

Thanks much & stay COVID safe -- Ed

Ed Sienkiewicz Lt Col, USAF (R) Bonaire, GA 2600:1700:B760:E00:D88A:F511:8D57:FC3 (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey there, welcome to the Teahouse! I would assume it shouldn't take that long to receive the email – have you tried going to Special:PasswordReset? Also, note that no user exists with the username edsienkiewicz@hotmail.com, but one does exist with the username Edsienkiewicz, so perhaps that's your username instead. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 13:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi IP 2600:1700:B760:E00:D88A:F511:8D57:FC3. If you haven't done so already, please take a look at WP:LOSTPASSWORD, Help:Logging in#What if I forget my password? and Help:Reset password for more details. It's highly unlikely that anyone will or is even able to circumvent the system and directly email you a link. So, if your account is edsienkiewicz, then you will need to go to the "log in page", click on the "forgot your password" link, and then complete the rest of the steps in the process because that's the only that I think you can reset your password. Finally, you might want to take a look at WP:REALWORLD because it's generally not a good idea to post personal information on any Wikipedia pages unless you don't mind such information becoming public. Wikipedia pages can be pretty much seen by anyone who wants to see them, and some people might be looking for personal information of others that they can use in some inappropriate way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I am afraid that if you haven't already done earlier today, you may need to reset your password again, because temporary Passwords expire after 7 days if I recall correctly. And a final note - don't forget to check your junk folder. If you set up an inteligent inbox that automatically sorts emails into folders, you might need to check those folders too. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Identify plagiarism Content

What tool we can use to check plagiarism Content Amolkumar (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Amolkumar: I have never tried it, but I think this is one of the tools you can use: [1] RudolfRed (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Amolkumar! The site linked above by RudolphRed usually works pretty well – you can also simply try searching suspicious text on Google to see if any matches pop up. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 17:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hard Rain SoloistEnsemble

I was wondering if I could get some advice on the authoring of my first article that was recently rejected (see subject above). I'm certain that Hard Rain SoloistEnsemble is worthy of a wiki page - it is a very important and significant ensemble, a charity and they run a major composition prize. The individual player membership have international reputations and Hard Rain's Seasons represent the largest season of contemporary music in Ireland. They are renowned in the field of contemporary art music. It is, therefore, obviously my inexperience as an author that is causing the problem here. I must say that I find wikipedia a little intimidating and perhaps some help and encouragement on these pages might help get this article across the line. It there anything you could help me with? Musicologiver (talk) 07:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Musicologiver, to establish that the subject of Draft:Hard Rain SoloistEnsemble in worthy of a Wikipedia article, what we call notable, you'll need to cite several reliable independent sources with extensive discussion of it. I don't see any such sources among those currently cited in the draft. Maybe you can find reviews of their performances? (Praising the ensemble here won't help at all, its the citations that count.) Maproom (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Naming composers they play adds nothing to their notability. Delete. David notMD (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this - I'll have a dig around and see if there's something else I can find - reviews etc (as you suggest). It sounds like all the facts I have given thus far are at least supported by my citations, but I get that you require something more to prove "notability". Perhaps I'm not far from the finish line here?

As regards listing the composers they play - I realise this does not support the assertion that Hard Rain are "notable", but I included that information since repertoire is the best way to inform wiki readers exactly the kind of ensemble they are. Musicians and academics reading this will immediately understand the ensembles aesthetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicologiver (talk • contribs) 19:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Reference a b c, etc.

For the life of me I can't figure out nor find directions for creating references for the same reference used multiple times that shows up in the reference list as 1. abc - each letter linked to a different use in the text of the same reference.

Doesn't happen automatically, can't find directions, help! Vabookwriter (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Vabookwriter (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Vabookwriter, and welcome to the Teahouse. For that you need named references: the first time you cite the work, you give it an (arbitrary) name, and the other times you just give the name, and no content. See WP:NAMEDREF. --ColinFine (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

A practical hint - find an article in which a ref has been used twice (a,b). One of the uses will have the full ref, preceded by the name (ref name=). May not be the first use of the ref. The other will just have the ref name. IMPORTANT that the second, third, fourth... uses of the ref name have a backslash before the closing >. David notMD (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the character before the closing > should be a forward slash (/), not a backslash (which is a \). So the references other than the one containing the citation should look like <ref name=xxx/>. CodeTalker (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. David notMD (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Bingo! abcde Thank you. Vabookwriter (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

rich and famous

It seems that Wikipedia is following the current trend of exclusively reporting about entertainment that already is famous, which is a guideline according to some user.

What I am actually looking for, is a website with information on lesser known musical acts.

Not just the Rich & Famous acts that we can read about anywhere on the webs.

I would be more then willing to start filling those pages, of acts that do deserve more attention despite not being listed with the Rich & Famous acts (modern day 'aristocracy').

I would love it when this discussion piece would lead to the construction of a site like that, not necessarily within the framework of wikipedia.com Basvossen (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Basvossen: Unfortunately you've most likely come to the wrong place. Wikipedia only covers people who have notability, which means that if they're on Wikipedia, they're probably "rich and famous" as you say. Also, Wikipedia doesn't really follow trends, if someone has notablility, they will probably have an article on them. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: your assertion that having a Wikipedia article means you are "rich and famous" is completely wrong. Many BLPs, probably more than 50%, are on people who are not famous the way you make it sound like they are, many barely satisfy the notability requirements. Please be more careful with your answers. versacespace leave a message! 19:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I have stated to Hoary that my poor choice of words lead to some confusion but I will state it here too. My intention was to say that they were notable using the users words, however that was not how it turned out to be. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Basvossen, as the number of articles here about murderers, autocrats, socialites, princes and the like should show you, getting an article is not a reward for merit. But I'm puzzled by Blaze The Wolf's assertion that if people have articles "they're probably 'rich and famous' as you say". Very few were or are paupers, but very many weren't/aren't rich. None are as obscure as, say, any member of my family (myself included) that I know of; but very many wouldn't have been, or wouldn't be, recognized in the street. As for "the Rich & Famous acts", a lot of editors seem to want to write about these, and I'd imagine that a lot of people want to read material about them that is neither ephemeral nor promotional. If you can find material about musicians who've been overlooked, you're welcome to write them up. (As an example, I've always been sorry that Steve Miller (musician) is about some pop guitarist and that there's nothing about the Steve Miller who played with Hatfield and the North, Lol Coxhill and others.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for both answers. While #1 says, find (or start) a site somewhere else, #2 thinks it's a good idea. Indeed Hatfield & the North are pretty good. I've seen so many great musicians that haven't been included here. While music magazines should focus on music, they focus on this 'aristocracy' and indeed readers recognize names and get sucked in. So it's a matter of little demand on the non-famous side. Which can of course be changed, when media put more attention on lesser known acts, and stop playing 'Freebird' for the umpteenth time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basvossen (talk • contribs) 00:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll just start that section here, in my part of the 'Tea house'. NPR has a 'Tiny Desk Contest' every year, that brings these under-the-radar talents to light. https://www.npr.org/sections/allsongs/2021/05/27/1000568488/the-best-2021-tiny-desk-contest-entries-we-saw-this-week-volume-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basvossen (talk • contribs) 19:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Crop an image in the infbox?

Hello! Please help me - how do I zoom in and crop an image in the infobox? I have the image from Wikimedia selected, but it's too large/appears too zoomed out when it is in the infobox. Please help!? Thank you! Filmtv2001 (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The syntax for the image parameter is defined in Template:Infobox person. If you want to crop the image you do that separately, produce a derivative image, and call that up for the infobox. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

You can also use Template:CSS image crop. Kleinpecan (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@ thank you!David Biddulph - how do I produce a derivative image, and create a code to that image, to then add that to the infobox?

Filmtv2001: instead of producing a derivative image, it's easier and more flexible to use an existing image cropped. Somewhere there's some documentation that explains how to do this; I found it quite hard to follow, so once I'd sussed it out I created some working examples, and put them at User:Maproom/cropping. One of them is a cropped image within an infobox. Maproom (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Vincent van Gogh

The Vincent van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam is the most visited museum around van Gogh. However, in North-Brabant (his native region) there are several museums to visit about the life of the painter. The Vincentre in Nuenen, The Van Gogh House in Zundert (his birthplace), The Noordbrabants Museum has a "Van Gogh Pavilion" with paintings from his time in Brabant. Several churches, farms and watermills that he painted have been declared official 'van gogh monuments'. Why is there nothing about Wikipedia? Source: https://www.vangoghbrabant.com/nl/home/leven-en-werk/van-gogh-monumenten/monumenten-overzicht Daan0416 (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Daan0416, we have an article on the Van Gogh Museum. Some of the other institutions may also warrant a page if they meet our standards. If there are enough of them, it might even be possible to write a List of Vincent van Gogh museums page. If you're interested in the topic, I'd encourage you to be bold and go write the pages! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Okay so I found a copyright violation on Columbian Mammoth in the paleobiology section. Do I just delete it and explain in edit summary? Sorry for very nooby question. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 18:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TigerScientist! Have a look at WP:CV#Parts of article violate copyright – in summary, remove the content with the source URL in your edit summary and tag the article with {{copyvio-revdel}}. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 18:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

TigerScientist, first be sure that the Wikipedia article copied from the other source, rather than the other way around. See WP:BACKWARDSCOPY. Earwig's copyvio detector shows a duplication of that section here. That Tumbler post from 2016 is a uncredited copy of material that was already in Wikipedia. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Happens often. Websites copy Wikipedia content and do not attribute. David notMD (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Antifa

Dear sir or madam, In the page of Antifa it says that they are nonviolent. That is true, however, their messages that are put on the peaceful banners inspire the youth to do violent things. I cannot compare them to ISIS as they too make non-violent videos on the computer, only their content is (or was) inspiring the youth to take the violent actions.

As per my intense research in the Middle East I was able to find that the roots (more like pipelines) of Antifa trace back to the middle east. Allow me to give you an example: The Consitution of Pakistan translates the Arabic quran to Urdu and then English language to form a constitution of Paksitan. It ties the religion to the Pakistani constitution to the point that when you are leaving Pakistan and accepting the citizenship of another country (even Saudi Arabia), you have to leave the religion of Quran. The Antifa is following a similar guidelines where it translated those guidelines to English and made all the nonreligion of quranic believes tied to it. The group is, similar to how the people of quranic religion in Pakistan use the quranic people to hurt the minorities in Pakistan rally in the neighbourhoods of mostly minorities do protests in the area where there is a minority living. Kindly reconsider adding the word peaceful to that particular organization as inspiring people to do violence isn't peaceful. Hoping for your kind consideration. Omair Nabeel Omairnabeel1 (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Omairnabeel1, if you have a suggestion, based on reliable sources, for the article Antifa, then you are welcome to make the suggestion within the page Talk:Antifa. -- Hoary (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

And bear in mind to govern yourself accordingly. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Signature

How do you change the colour of the signature when signing talks? Kayree kh (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kayree kh:, hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I think Wikipedia:Signature tutorial will be of help to you. It's very easy to follow-- I myself used it when I was working on a signature. Happy editing! Helen (let’s talk) 22:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

License issues for citing name of CCBY NC SA journal article in Wikipedia subtopic article

I have recently added a subtopic called Pregnancy and epilepsy in Article on Wikipedia called Epilepsy. I have written the text in my own words to convey the ideas about the topic in general to readers of Wikipedia. I have mentioned a 2019 International League against Epilepsy task force article published in the journal "Epileptic Disorders" under CC BY NC SA 4.0 licence and cited it in this subtopic. Is it alright to do so.please guide me . NandanYardi (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi NandanYardi. There are no license issues with using any published source no matter what the copyright as a reference as long as you are not copying or doing close paraphrasing. Medical articles do have other reference requirements. See WP:MEDRS. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

NandanYardi I fixed broken ref. Does the ref cover all content in the preceding paragraph? David notMD (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

David notMDThank.The reference covers all content in the preceding paragraph.--NandanYardi (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

how to resolve citation issues in the page?

I am trying to update a page and resolve all the issues highlighted on the page. Mainly regarding citation. I added a few citations based on what I could find. However, the message is still there but it doesn't highlight what needs to be done to fix it. How do I go about solving this issue? Thank you for your time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AsureQuality_Limited Vikasanandaclick (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Almost all of the refs you added to AsureQuality Limited are to the Asure website, and thus do not resolve why the article was tagged. David notMD (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Vikasanandaclick:, hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I know what’s going on— you seem to be under the impression that the maintenance tag (that’s what the message is called, by the way) automatically disappears when the issue is resolved. That isn’t the case however; maintenance tags have to be manually removed by a user (in this case, you). When you have solved a particular issue, open up the source editor and delete the tag corresponding to the issue you solved. Also, David notMD pointed out that a lot of the references you put in are the Asure website. Remember, only add in references that aren’t connected to the subject. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Independent sources to help you out there. Happy editing! Helen (let’s talk) 02:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Viksanandaclick. The templates you're seeing are called maintenance templates and they can be added by any editor to an article who feels the article has issues that need addressing. What these templates are intended to do is let other editors know that the article has issues (or at least someone thinks the article has issues) that need attention. Ideally, the person who feel there are such issues should try and sort them out themselves, but this is not always possible for whatever reason; so, a template is added on the hope that someone someday will come along who knows how to fix the issue. A maintenance template isn't automatically removed but it can be pretty much removed by any editor who feels they've address the relevant issues as explained here; so, if you feel you've addressed the concerns indicated by the maintenance template, then you can remove. If there are multiple maintenance templates and you've addressed the concerns of only one or some, then just remove the ones that are no longer applicable and then leave the rest.

Most maintenance templates indicated the month and year they were added and sometimes the reasons they were added were resolved years ago and the template was simply never removed. Moreover, sometimes editors just add templates without a really good justification for doing so or understanding of the real purpose of the template, and in those cases the template was never really applicable to begin with. If you come across any articles such as these, you can simply remove the templates as you see fit.

Now, it's very important that if you do remove a maintenance template that you at least leave a clearly worded edit summary explaining why. If you simply go around removing maintenance templates without leaving an edit summary or leaving on a generic edit summary (i.e. removed template), and without addressing the relevant issues (if there are still any), someone else is likely going to some along and dispute the removal and re-add the template. So, before you remove any maintenance templates, you should first try to understand the reasons why it was added (you may need to dig through the article's history or article talk page (including any archives) to figure this out) and then make sure the template is no longer needed. When it doubt, try posting seeking assistance via either the article's talk page or perhaps a relevant WikiProject talk page to see what some others think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Paid-contribution disclosure?

I have read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure about 20 times, and I do not think it applies to me. I was forced to disclose as a paid contributor under threat of article deletion. I have asked other experienced people about this and have been told I am NOT a paid contributor (I immediately declared conflict of interest because I do work for the organization where I am editing an article and that seems to make perfect sense) whereas others insist that I am a paid contributor, even though I am absolutely not in any way getting a dime, a cup of coffee, or anything else for anything I do on Wikipedia, including that article. I work for a non-profit and the article in question that had been around for a decade or more got deleted, and I asked to have it undeleted so I could help fix the deficiencies, but I was told that wasn't going to happen, so start a new article. I understand it is not ideal that I start the article, but it isn't going to happen in some other way, and I am also working with other experienced editors to make sure it has the appropriate tone, sourcing, etc. Can someone help me understand why I had to agree to be designated a paid contributor - and there doesn't seem to be a way to disagree with that, it is take it or leave it - my bosses are a volunteer board of directors, they would certainly sign a document confirming that I am not going to get any compensation for this, directly, indirectly, they don't even know about it, I just noticed the article was gone, saw the talk about why it was gone, and wanted to help fix it, because yes, I do care about it because I have a direct connection, but no, I am not doing it to get money or become famous with the hopes of getting free shampoo sent to my house, and I really am capable of neutral writing and editing, even about topics I am passionate about (I have degrees in history, education, linguistics, and have written many articles for journals, etc.) Again, I understand and respect the ideal of detached writers and editors - and that is why I declared and do not dispute conflict of interest so others are aware of this connection and can provide extra scrutiny (which has definitely occurred) but I would appreciate help as regards the requirement to say I was a paid contributor - it seemed very aggressive, and I have been told not to "take it personally" but it is more of a professional question - it doesn't seem in the spirit of Wikipedia to force someone to agree to a designation that in reality doesn't seem to apply. Thanks. Iamthekanadian (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Iamthekanadian, hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Whilst I haven’t looked into anything, based on what you just stated. You have a conflict of interest with the article in question, our blanket response to this is we strongly discourage an editor with a WP:COI to directly edit or create articles they have a COI with. Why exactly was the article originally deleted? was it notability related? in any case I believe you may request for it’s undeletion and use the tp of the article to suggest what you want written in the article. Furthermore it is not plausible nor probable that an editor here would force you to agree to something you are innocent of. Do you have diffs to substantiate this? Celestina007 (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Iamthekanadian. You are definitively a paid editor. Full stop. There is no ambiguity whatever. You are compensated by an organization that the article is about, and are indeed someone seeking to "write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship." You seem to be objecting to an implication that is not necessary to be part of the set – that to be a "paid editor", one must directly receive compensation, over and above your salary or stipend or whatever, specifically for your edits to Wikipedia. But that is just a specially scrutinized subset of the general class of paid editing. A second issue here is that you seem to have taken the idea that the fact you had to declare that relationship has or will have some significant affect on matters relevant to the underlying issue of the article's revival or lack thereof, But it is essentially just is a way of making sure a COI is known, and that especially egregious types of COIs, those conducting paid editing scams, for example, have an enforcement mechanism.If you make neutral edits; if you create a neutral draft, then you're just the exception to what we usually see, the proof in the pudding of the underlying policies – which is that 90% of those with a COI are incapable of not acting, in part or in whole, in a manner incompatible with our policies and guidelines and underlying goals—from fairly neutral write-ups but just not quite what would have been written by a truly uninvolved editor, to the most blatant bad faith commercials with layers of deception involved—and everything imaginable between two ends of that spectrum. But the edits are supposed to be and usually are judged on their merits. So if you're part of the 10% self-aware, clueful people: "Great!" The end result is no different. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy note: the article (draft) was deleted following an AfD discussion due to terrible sources (from what I can see there). Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 21:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Iamthekanadian, hello once again, could you please remove the statement on your page? It comes off as passive aggressive, whilst I’d have to contact Fuhghettaboutit about other intricacies, you are a self acknowledged COI editor and also have agreed to be paid editor, and these are very sensitive areas, we want to help you, but you must be honest with us and assume good faith. Celestina007 (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Iamthekanadian I second this. Your user page is basically saying "I'm declaring as a paid editor but only because I was made to, I'm not really a paid editor". You either are one or you're not. You shouldn't say something you don't want to say. I do think you are a paid editor, and others do as well, but if you want to make a case that you aren't, then do so, probably at WP:COIN. You seem to be taking this as a sleight against you personally when it is nothing of the sort. COI and paid editing are about perception and appearance just as much as they are about actual influence. We really do want to help you, but you need to meet us halfway. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. To keep it brief: the article that was originally deleted, I had nothing to do with it, but wanted to fix it. My sense of it is that most of the original sources no longer existed (this happens whether a newspaper, TV website etc.). Anyway, I don't dispute that there were problems with it, I just wanted to be a part of the solution, and it seemed clear to me based on what I was told by experienced people that the only option was to start over. I guess I am saying the policy on "paid contributor" is not as clearly written as people think it is - but I keep getting told I am taking it personally - I just can't make the leap from what the policy says to what seems to be the reality, that if you work for an organization, period, writing about it, period, makes you a paid contributor. Why not just say that - or did I miss it? I am happy to be the exception to the assumption that working for the organization means I can't be a neutral contributor - I think the article speaks for itself, several experienced people have had a go at it, and I don't see any major issues, I am only interested myself in being factual, if I want to brag, boast, promote, whatever, I have plenty of outlets to do that, and I will make more money collecting a pop bottle. I will delete my statement, but I stand by my experience that I was forced into it - that's what happened. I didn't even put it (the paid editor declaration) there myself. Iamthekanadian (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey, just FYI, from WP:PAID: Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia.

(Also, you did add the statement on your page yourself: Special:Diff/1026233818) Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 22:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Iamthekanadian As I said, COI and paid editing is not just about actual influence, it's about the perception of influence. I actually happen to believe you regarding what you are paid to do. But it could still be seen as a conflict of interest, that your job is influencing your editing(even if it isn't), and readers and editors need to be aware of that. That's the reason for the policy. As I said, you shouldn't say something that you don't want to say- and if you truly believe as you do, then you should let the chips fall where they may. But I would ask you to consider the spirit of the policy, and not just the letter. Thanks. No need to reply to this. 331dot (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, so, I declared a conflict of interest, from the moment I learned how to do it, and before publishing the draft. Am I the first person to seemingly "take this personally" when told to declare as a paid contributor? I am guessing not, because my next guess is, people who are just fundamentally logical thinkers will see "paid contributor" as meaning "paid to contribute." So, to me, what makes sense is that I declared a conflict of interest, which is fair, and I said I thought that was fair. But I'm not going to get paid, directly or indirectly, for anything I do here, so to most logical people, that means "No, I am not a paid contributor." I understand that if one learns to ignore what the phrase should mean, and accept that it is used differently here (although somewhat subjectively, from what I have observed) then it might make sense to some people. It doesn't make sense to me (understanding, once again, that I declared a conflict of interest and feel that is a great policy). When one is referred to a policy, one tends to view it in a literal way. In the spirit of things, the policy as labeled and as written doesn't make sense to me (lack of experience with Wikipedia doesn't mean I don't have the skills or experience to know about policy writing) but I will go ahead and remove my sad little protest against being forced into saying something I did not believe, and simply accept things as they are, and hopefully, someone can just verify that the article is highly encyclopedic (noting that I have taken every suggestion made). It is just as I said - an article was deleted, I am sure it is true that the sources were broken links or otherwise deficient, yes, I care about the subject of the article and thus wanted to see if I could fix what was wrong - but only by contributing facts and proper sources - and that's it - I didn't wake up determined to be undertake a black hat operation (as a term I was also introduced to in this process, I am sure I took that too personally, it's just my character and entire career being questioned) or to launch my new career as a social influencer. It's just an article about a charitable organization that has done some good and notable things for a marginalized population. Cheers. PS: There was a misunderstanding where I said I "did not add it myself" I did not add the declaration of paid contributor myself - my objection to it, yes, of course, I wrote that myself. Iamthekanadian (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I am the user that fixed their paid-editing disclosure on User:Iamthekanadian user page, as they had the wrong template. They said "thanks" on their talk page, then added the snarky "I was forced to do this" message on the user page. I came across this Teahouse thread by accident. I'm surprised this is still going on, as it's an utter waste of editor time. The user appears to be only here to promote the organization they work for, and to complain about having to follow our policies. It's not that hard to follow our paid editing policies. A paid editor might even throw in a word of gratitude for the time of the numerous unpaid volunteers who are (within our policies) helping the paid editor to achieve their goal of getting their organization onto Wikipedia. --- Possibly (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

"Welcome to the Teahouse!A friendly place where you can ask questions to get help with using and editing Wikipedia". And here we have some truth from Possibly, here in the friendly place, that sheds some light on what has occurred. "Appears to be only here to promote the organization they work for" sounds like a personal opinion, and a biased conclusion, not neutral editing, and not neutral discussion of the points I have raised, but rather a questioning of another person's character and motives. I have questioned the wording of the policy and the process by which I was required to accept being labeled a paid contributor. I am not paid. This is not a black op. This is a Wikipedia user who noticed a deleted article, who does care about the topic, and wants to correct the problem. There is nothing in that draft article but basic facts, and I have followed every piece of advice. I do not have to apologize for where I work or being dedicated to an important cause in my own community and across the world (I am more than my workplace, and while I can't claim contribution to Wikipedia in my list of contributions to the world, I am pretty confident that my level of volunteerism is well above average, and it does not make me a bad person to care about a cause I am close to, including noticing that there was a problem on Wikipedia and wanting to correct it). It doesn't render me incapable of making an appropriate contribution either. Thank you for showcasing the reality that this involves your ego, and not neutral or objective engagement, and definitely not about providing support. You having "accidentally" found this and commented for what reason? It is quite clear, and I thank you for the clarity. Iamthekanadian (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Iamthekanadian, here you are, an editor employed by an organization you hope to write about, with a quite glaring conflict of interest, arguing with and berating highly experienced volunteer editors who do not have any conflict of interest, and nitpicking about your inexperienced perception of the definition of a paid editor. Are you trying to convince us, that if you are successful in getting an article written, and your supervisor asks you in a performance review, "what innovative things have you done for the organization lately?", that you would not mention the Wikipedia article? Gimme a break. You may not have a specific job assignment to edit Wikipedia but your PAID conflict of interest is obvious to others. Please drop this subject 100% and focus on complying with all the relevant policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, my reading is that they are complying. The WP:PAID policy defines payment as for "any publicity efforts" making someone a paid editor. I am going to ask you directly to provide your policy justification for the following statement: You may not have a specific job assignment to edit Wikipedia but your PAID conflict of interest Where is the policy that states someone being paid by a company for something that does not qualify as "publicity efforts" is a paid editor? You are applying criteria that are not in line with our actual PAID editing policy. Nowhere in our policy does it state that any employee of a company is automatically a paid editor with respect to that company - nowhere at all. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Berchanhimez, I have been thinking all day about how to respond to your question while I was earning some money and not able to edit. This person told us that they were analogous to a ticket taker at a Disney resort working on articles about historic Disney characters in their spare time. It turns out that this person is actually "director of public communications and co-founder of the organization". So, they are more like Roy O. Disney in this analogy than a ticket taker. We were mislead for the ten thousandth time (maybe more). You are claiming below that this person was mistreated. I disagree. They were treated in a way commensurate with their deception which became increasingly obvious as a result of their truculent and evasive responses to reasonable questions. It is very disappointing to me as the father of an adult son with developmental disabilities who receives services from organizations quite similar to the one that this editor represents. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I can guarantee, and will sign a document, testify, ask my nonprofit volunteer board of directors for a signed letter, that although they probably think it is positive that I discovered a deleted article about our organization and helped (or tried) to get it back online, that it will not in the least be a part of any performance evaluation, has zero chance of influencing my salary - because it doesn't. Not only because I am not going to be mentioning it to them (because although I think Wikipedia is awesome, they have a billion more important issues to deal with) but also because I don't have a salary that fluctuates, and my continued employment is definitely not tied to this Wikipedia article. All along, I was only asking if it is true or false, that any person who works for an organization is automatically considered a paid editor, and I have had a mixed response - this seems to only prove my point that the policy might lack clarity, and isn't that part of making Wikipedia better? And then, on the individual level, if it is not in fact the case that any employee of an organization must be considered a paid editor, then forcing me to accept that designation wasn't the right approach, and certainly berating me for questioning that process is not in keeping with the intent or spirit of this community. I also keep getting told not to "take it personally" but many of the comments above - made in this "friendly place where you can ask questions" are actually being addressed in a very personal way, and constantly referencing my newness here, rather than addressing the points being made - sure, my newness means there is a lot I do not understand, I made numerous technical errors - but also, my newness (and my experience and skills that can be relevant to the experience of a policy or process) can provide a useful perspective, and might call for a response other than defending, attacking, punishing - I think it remains fair to say that the policy and its application is unclear, and that the aggressive way it was interpreted and imposed, in my experience, personal feelings aside - might not be what is intended. Iamthekanadian (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Iamthekanadian I think it's time for the rubber to hit the road here, and if you truly feel that the paid editing policy has been misapplied to you, that you make that case in a more appropriate forum such as WP:ANI. Personally I don't think such an effort will work, but this isn't really the right place for it. 331dot (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Super helpful, thanks for listening. Message received. Iamthekanadian (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

For those interested, Iamthekanadian has now publicly described the nature of their position, and they are unambiguously a paid editor. 331dot (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Given they've publicly admitted it, I agree. However, this would not be the case had they been who they tried to claim to be prior to this, and I think all the respondents here should re-evaluate how they handled this - because had this been an editor who did not meet the definition of PAID, this would be a horrible way to treat someone. The fact this person was misleading does not make it okay to treat them the way they were treated. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm always willing to reevaluate- as everyone should be- but as this thread is lengthy I'd suggest doing so, if desired, on the talk page. 331dot (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Constructing a draft for AfC for Mary Setrakian

Hello! I am currently helping a friend write https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mary_Setrakian (we have both met the subject of this article and have thus disclosed COI on our user pages). This is a purely volunteer project and we want to make it as neutral as possible. Though it has been difficult to construct an article purely using secondary references. I do want to be able to assemble evidence that the subject meets the special notability criteria for musicians based on primary evidence, and will need some assistance with that and cleaning up this article to make it ready for submission. What is the bare minimum amount of info I should include to keep it more in line with what Wikpedia IS vs what it is NOT? What should I cut out? Am I missing anything? I’m hoping the rest will be fleshed out once it’s submitted and more people start contributing to it, less is more when first creating the draft, I should hope. There is also some confusion as I've stumbled upon this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Concordia/Media_Arts_and_Aesthetics_%28Winter_2021%29 - how difficult is this going to make the submission process for this article? Any help is appreciated! Thanks! Menklife (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Your draft cites a fair number of sources. One of them is IMDb: this is not reliable and should be removed. Others, too, perhaps aren't reliable (I haven't looked through them). Among those sources that are left (after weeding out IMDb and perhaps others): which would you say are the two or three best (most informative) sources about her? (NB A good source is not one that's based on an interview.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary Thank you, I have now removed both the IMDb and IBDB (International Broadway Database) links, as well as the Playbill link. I think the best sources I can find are independent reviews by press & theatrical publications of shows she's been in that mention her name either being in the cast or directly reviewing her specific performance/role. I do still want to include that Stanford Magazine link, since a lot can be sourced from it, but I know it's a bit dicey since half the article is an interview. ~ Menklife (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Menklife, please put aside sources that merely "mention her name". So which are the two or three best sources that "directly [review] her specific performance/role"? -- Hoary (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hoary, I think the best sources that meet that criteria of directly reviewing her stage performances and not solely listing her name in a program nor conducting interviews with her directly would be the independent reviews from Backstage, LA Times, BroadwayWorld, and JazzItalia. The Daily Telegraph article with Sierra Boggess also includes some information about their student/teacher relationship. The Stanford Magazine article may also still be useful, at least the parts that are not an interview. Are those enough to make this draft able to be submitted, or not quite yet? Anything else I'm overlooking? ~ Menklife (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Menklife, you say "the independent reviews from Backstage, BroadwayWorld, and JazzItalia", and therefore:

this at Backstage. This is very usable. (As it happens, it's also very favorable; but this is by the way.)
this at BroadwayWorld. It's very informative; that's good. (But I have to say that its informativeness reads oddly, as if it's recycling material compiled elsewhere.)
this at Jazzitalia. It's an interview and therefore unusable for most purposes.

With the first two of these three sources, and bits and pieces elsewhere, it seems likely that you have enough material to work from. Others here may wish to agree or disagree. -- Hoary (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hoary - great, thank you for this! I added an LA Times review for her one-woman show "A New York Romance". While skewing favorably in some aspects, it does give a fair critique as a whole, so hopefully it can be usable as well. I mistakenly forgot to include the JazzItalia article I was actually referring to, not the interview. This one is a concert review of a performance of hers in Italy. Besides getting rid of the sources that are unusable, is there anything else I should make sure to do before submitting so that it's good to go? ~ Menklife (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

There are formatting niceties to attend to. Please see my two tiny tweaks, and do similarly elsewhere. (Subheaders in "sentence style", references after punctuation.) Good luck! -- Hoary (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Assistance with an article

hello, I am working on creating an article on behalf a race driver and the article was rejected. I wrote to be more neutral and to include more links to publications as references and it was rejected a second time. I would love any suggestions to improve and get it approved.

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

Thank you in advance, Megan Hoffman John Delane (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

You're right, it was rejected. Rejection means "Stop". It's as simple as that. -- Hoary (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@John Delane: Please create another account with a different username if you wish to continue editing on Wikipedia; it contravenes Wikipedia's username policy and may be blocked. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Separate from discontinuing to use the account John Delane (the assumption being you are not John Delane) you were advised to ask for guidance at Teahouse. The advice for the Rejection (after two Declines), was "If there is to be an article on this topic, this draft must first be blown up and started over." What might make Delane notable is his racing career. What is needed is references to stuff people have published about him. What cars he owns or has driven, and naming famous driver who drove them in the past, has no part in the article. Consider doing major surgery on the draft, and then contacting the editor who had Rejected it befor resubmitting. David notMD (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Plus it violates WP:COI. Wingwatchers (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Evocazione e shinigami

Ciao a tutti, la mia domanda è: come attirare uno shinigami e soprattutto dome riuscire a vederlo? È possibile mettersi in contatto con loro? Se sì, come??

Sono seria plz rispondete

This is the English language Wikipedia, please ask in English. Or, try the Italian(?) Wikipedia help desk [2] RudolfRed (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Se vuoi una risposta in italiano, prova il Wikipedia in italiano. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

This is the help desk about using Wikipedia. We can't help you with this query, and I doubt that the users of Italian Wikipedia will be able to either. You can read our article Shinigami (or it:Shinigami) for general information. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)