This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.
Hi I am looking for some help on my first wikipedia page. Its about one of the companies i started and i have a few sources that have written articles about us and i wanted some help. Apparently my references are not helpful to the editor. I was seeing if anyone can take a look and help me out. Thanks
Don't. I know, it's a bummer, but it's best in the long run if you pretend Wikipedia doesn't exist at least as it relates to your company. Sidebar rant: Sometimes I think life would be better if Google never put Wikipedia articles on the top-10 results. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
“The biggest problem with Wikipedia,” an avid editor involved with the online project once told me, “is that people write it and that people read it.”" - Omer Benjakob Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia's concept of notability calls for people not associated in any way with the topic to have published stuff. Interviews don't contribute to notability. See WP:TOOSOON. David notMD (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
COI
Good morning All, a couple of months ago I tried to edit my husband's Wikipedia. Unfortunately, much of the data is incorrect, and upon changing it I was "told off" by admin. I have a new article and would like them to erase the existing one, is this at all possible and how do I do it? I find navigating this portal is like a maze!
Thank you Finlaykate (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Finlaykate Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There is not "a Wikipedia" about your husband, Wikipedia is the name of this entire website. There is a Wikipedia article about your husband. It also appears that he or someone else using his name has attempted to add information. Either you or him should submit a formal edit request(click for instructions) detailing changes you feel are needed to the article on its article talk page, Talk:Marco Augusto Dueñas. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I happened to see a number of users user their talkpage for self-promotion. With what I know, self-promotion in talk pages are not allowed. Are we allowed to undo other people's talk pages without prior notice if seen as inappropriate? AlphonseOop (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC) AlphonseOop (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi AlphonseOop. User talk pages are subject to Wikipedia:User pages just like any other page within the user namespace; however, users are given a bit of leeway when it comes to the type of content they may put on their user pages and as long as it's not something that clearly isn't allowed per Wikipedia:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages?, then you probably should avoid removing it yourself and instead seek assistance from a Wikipedia administrator at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard as explained in Wikipedia:User pages#On others' user pages. Even if you really think the content is a problem, you should be very carefully about editing another's user page because it could create lots of problems if it turns out that you're wrong. Asking for advice from administrators is usually a good idea, especially when you're a fairly new editor like you seem to be, since they will know what to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, DeepGlow2009. There's several ways but the easiest is to click on 'Preferences' in the top right of the page. There you can see when you registered and also your edit count. Regards, Zindor (talk) 12:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
How to deal with nonsensical* drafts
I'm asking for my own learning purposes rather than to point any fingers, but this will make more sense if I do point to the draft in question, so here goes: please see Draft:Teenagers and sex. What would be the most appropriate way of handling this? If it were a user page, I'd request U5 speedy; if a published article, maybe A11. But presumably neither of those applies to drafts, and PROD isn't an option, either, so what should one do (other than just leaving it and moving on, that is)? Thanks.
PS: * I assume this is nonsensical, and not the first draft of an article on some well-known (to all but me) poem titled Teenagers and sex! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, we'll have to see what the admin reviewing the tag does. Hopefully the page gets deleted under G1 or perhaps G2. Nsk92 (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
It was a good call to speedy it. It was nonsensical to me, with no hope of making it to mainspace, and so I have deleted it. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Asking for advice to use a Journal as info source
I want to add some informations from a journal(non-research), Which I found on Internet, that journal is in bengali, can I use those informations in English by translating them? if direct translations are prohibited, then how to use them properly? Soumyadip Dewanji (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Greetings Soumyadip Dewanji, yes, in general non-English sources are allowed, as you can see here: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. However, you will need to make sure that the journal qualifies under the normal criteria as a reliable source!
I personally use a lot of German sources where there are no English ones available. The information I obviously put into the articles here in English, so I translate them. Do not write Bengali text in English articles, or if you need to (for a quotation), best also give an English translation.
If you use a cite template (which anyone should) like this one: Template:Cite journal, there is an option to specify the language of the source. You can check the example there for "To cite an article written in a foreign language" which gives an overview over what you can specify. But yeah, if it is a good source, it can be in Bengali. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Sorry to be repetitive- I asked this question on 11/20 but never got a response so I'm trying again!
I am writing an entry for a living person in the field of medicine. Is it appropriate to add a section listing some of their scientific/peer-reviewed publications? And if so, is there a rule of thumb for how many I can list? Thank you for any guidance! Jcollinsycc (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
There aren't any hard and fast rules in these kinds of situations. It is OK to add a few selected publications by the individual. I'd say list 5-6 most important ones. Nsk92 (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Articles of this nature may list a few of the author's significant journal publications, and books, but those do not contribute to confirming notability. David notMD (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I’ve added a page for a tv presenter and it hasn’t appeared in the search list at all how long will it take for the page to be submitted approved and uploaded? Kruzepatrick (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Kruzepatrick: I hesitate to offer advice when I know so little myself, but it seems you've only been editing your own user page User:Kruzepatrick, which would explain why it's not showing up on searches. Having said which, looking at the said page, it's perhaps better that way, because that would not stay published for very long, IMHO. HTH, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Kruzepatrick. Please study your first article to understand how to go about the difficult task of creating a new Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not interested in what you know or think (or what I know or think). It is only interested in what reliable published sources say about a subject. If you haven't researched and found sources to establish that the subject is notable, then you are probably wasting your time. --ColinFine (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I have moved your draft to here Draft:Rhiannon Dollar as you had created it on your user page. The draft has no sources and is not written in a neutral tone so would be rejected if you submitted it. Please find multiple reliable sources that are independent of her and discuss her in-depth, then report on what they say. Theroadislong (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
It's an encyclopaedia that we've built from scratch with now more than 6 million articles, and top-ten ranking in the world. What have you done with your life that's so great, Eddie? Nick Moyes (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@Eddiedeedeedee:what would you expect me to achieve There are a lot of things someone your age can do to make the world a better place. Be a mentor for younger kids for one, either in person or online. When COVID clears up work at a summer camp or coach youth sports. People your age are much better able to "relate" to younger kids than most people who started school in the 20th century. Yes, I just said people your age are on average better at relating to younger kids than people my age are because of your age. Take advantage of that while you can. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Very seriously. I've been a Wikipedia editor for over a decade. I've created articles for projects, I've looked after AfD, I've helped out in areas hitherto alien to me. It's fun. It's relaxing. It's a good way to wind down. There have been frustrations and disappointments, and occasional moments of temper tantrums, but it all works out in the end. doktorbwordsdeeds16:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Ricardus Cibarius Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It is rare for articles to have only a single contributor; as Wikipedia is a collaborative project, most articles have multiple contributors. However, every article has an associated talk page(in this case, Talk:RNAIII) where you can discuss any changes you are considering for the article. Other editors that monitor that article should see your comment and, if they wish to, weigh in on it. I would give it a week or so. 331dot (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi! Multiple IP address guest users keep reverting the same sourced, factual piece of information I added on Frogmore Cottage. The page is appeared to be already protected, but no matter how many talk page attempts or reversions by me or other editors, it keeps occurring. Is this a serious enough incident to take to the Wikipedia administrator boards? I can't think of how else to stop this. Thank you so much.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the page has never been protected. Page protection is usually not used for content disputes until other avenues, such as discussions on the talk page, are tried first. Even then, if it's a legitimate dispute and not a case of vandalism, page protection may not be the best answer. Good-faith non-logged-in editors have just as much of a moral right to edit Wikipedia as you or I. Granted, due to page protection, they don't have the same practical rights, but from a moral perspective, a good faith editor abiding by the rules should be treated the same whether logged in or not. By the way, I have not examined the edits in question, I'm just making some general statements about how Wikipedia tries to be open to everyone.
My article from my sandbox has gone completely missing, help!!!!
Hi,
I submitted my article for review and had accidentally asked to be reviewed for article creation when the original intention was to merge it with an existing article (Yued). Now my entire sandbox with my draft is missing and I would really love it back as it!!
@Sunlew30: As far as I can tell, if this is about Yued, there is one version at Yued, and another, IMO less complete version at Draft:Yued's history. Nothing got lost, its yust located "somewhere else". Whichever version you choose for your teacher, both of them have a history allowing everyone, including your teacher, to look at different states by clicking the date links on the page history page. Maybe @UnitedStatesian and Robert McClenon: can tell you a bit more. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Edit: Sunlew30 I can see that you also posted to Robert McClenon's talkpage. Please use yust one method of getting help at a time, otherwise you waste everyone's time, especially when A complex mix of moves, history swaps and such have to be sorted. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Victor Schmidt - I have already explained to User:Sunlew30 that it appears that User:UnitedStatesian made a good-faith mistake in redirecting the draft to the article. The draft contains much more information than the article and should be folded into the article. I have restored the draft. I have also asked for class information about the educational project. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Just saw THIS article isn't available in German yet. Thought I could help out since I translate texts on post state examination level and I am more or less familiar with this vocabulary.
I'll read through all the rules and whatnot, but just to get started I thought I'd post this here. What do you folks think? Mystischer (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@Mystischer: Since each Wikipedia has its own rules and guidelines for acceptable articles, I suggest you ask at the German Wikipedia for their advice. [1] is the place I think. RudolfRed (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
How do you properly format an article to work with Google's snippets? When I search for Wadsworth E. Pohl's birth date, it says the correct date, but below says he's 112 years old. I believe it's a problem with how I said when he died, as when I search for his date of death, it says the correct date, but shows the article instead of age or similar. What am I supposed to put there that'd show it properly? JMVR1 (Communicate) (Validate my actions (for my ego, ofc)) (Email me) :)15:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
JMVR1 The problem is on Google, so you'd need to contact them about it. Wikipedia has a death date, but for some reason, Google hasn't picked it up in their knowledge graph. Joseph2302 (talk)15:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
JMVR1 It would probably help Search engines if the article had a Template:Infobox person added to it, as the birth and death dates would then be formatted in a standard way that these snippets understand. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
JMVR1, Google's knowledge graphs seem to sometimes go by Wikipedia and sometimes by Wikidata, a sister project. Try clicking on "Wikidata item" from the left sidebar from Pohl's page, adding the death date there, and waiting a few days. {{u|Sdkb}}talk16:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, JMVR1. The simple answer to your question is, if you think it is uncontroversial, then just move it; otherwise open a discussion on the article's talk page. However, COMMONNAME says that we use the form of the name in the bulk of the sources, and every one of the sources I've looked at says "Wadsworth E. Pohl". However, there is a far more important issue: not a single one of the sources does anything at all to establish that Pohl is notable, since not one of them is either independent or has significant coverage of him. What you are doing is the equivalent of getting the photo of a house just right when the house has no foundation and may be about to fall down. (That is why I have tagged the article). --ColinFine (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd suggest creating an account first, so people can message you. Also, it was denied because you need to cite sources. I'd suggest finding reliable websites or the such to cite with this policy. Slykos (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Sara Radstone article contributed by RSLLX
Some questions regarding article Sara Radstone, written by RSLLX. 1. Why has the ‘publications’ section been removed- ie all the books and monographs that feature her work? References were given ( page numbers were not given, although I have them.) 2. How does one create a dedicated section eg ‘Exhibitions’.?. this has also been removed. 3. Why is ‘conflict of interest mentioned? I have not bought any of her work and have no connections with galleries. 4. The importance of Verification beyond the ceramic world is mentioned by some wiki editors. Anyone who has awareness of ceramics knows how difficult a fine art definition for ceramics is, to quote Sarah Kent, ex Time Out Art Editor, ‘ it is clay, it is not art’. 5. How does one email scans, ( of periodicals that write about Radstone) to wiki editors, eg ‘Ceoil ‘
RSLLX (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC) RSLLX (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The Publications and Exhibitions content is parked on the Talk page. If there is intent to move any back to article, I recommend Selected publications and Selected exhibitions, with a few in each. David notMD (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I want to create an article named "George & Willy" for George & Willy as a paid editor.
This is a company situated in New Zealand which produces signs and furniture.
Please let me know if it is eligible for being a Wikipedia article?
I've got several websites and newspapers mentioned this company's name. Some of them are given below. Please have a look.
Kudos to you for starting with declaring paid on your User page. I made you list bulleted. FYI: interviews and brief mentions of awards do not contribute to Wikipedia's definition of notability. David notMD (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Article on Sat Pal Rattan
I would like to submit an introductory article about Mr. Sat Pal Rattan. Need guidance on how to go about it.
Shalu R. Darshan Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I've posted some introductory information to your user talk page. Successfully writing a new article is the absolute hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice. You will greatly increase your chances of success if you first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. It's also a good idea to use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia.
If you still want to attempt to create a new article right now, you should first read Your First Article, then use Articles for Creation to create and submit your draft for review by another editor who, if they accept it, will formally place it in the encyclopedia.
Hello - I think I just noticed a problem with a link in an article. The page is for "Dennis L. Montgomery" and if one scrolls down to the section entitled "eTreppid Technologies, LLC" then hovers over the link to "Warren G. Trepp", instead of getting the page for said "former chief junk bond trader", one gets this page:
Hundley's Wiki page says he was a "criminal defense attorney" and mentions nothing about "junk bonds" so I assume it's safe to say that the link is wrong. But I don't know anything about these people, so I wouldn't feel comfortable just making a change myself even if I were an editor. Thank you. NoviceWikiUser (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, NoviceWikiUser, and welcome to the Teahouse. You are an editor! But this one was a bit tricky to find. The problem is not in the article Dennis L. Montgomery, but the fact that there is a redirect page called Warren G. Trepp which unaccountably points to William G. Hundley. (At least, I presume it's unaccountable: I've never heard of any of these people). That redirect was created four years ago by BarrelProof, who is still editing, and can perhaps explain to you why they did so. (I have just pinged them, so they should see this item). --ColinFine (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The redirect was valid as there used to be text about Trepp (Hundley represented Trepp), but it got removed. Given the principle of least astonishment it's not an ideal situation. Preferably the legal career section can be rewritten to remedy this. Zindor (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi all! The Halo Infinite page details how a screenshot of the gameplay footage was created into a meme and how its developers embraced it. What are the CC rules on linking/uploading that picture to the article? SuddenlyMangoes (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello editor, Wikipedia is much more professional than being a meme page. Unless a news agency reported on it, please post the memes on reddit instead. Thanks 162.245.178.141 (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
If you mean translating an article from another language's Wikipedia, read Wikipedia:Translation. If you are new to Wikipedia, definitely submit your translation through WP:AFC. If you are brand-new or not logged in, that will be the only way to create the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Find Wikilinks Quickly?
Hi, I have a question with wiki links today.
People says that I cannot add a wiki link to an article that already been added before. So can I find a wiki link quickly with a gadget?
Then I will know if I can add the link. Larryzhao|Talk|Contribs17:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I just use CTRL+F to search the page for the linked instance of a term, which will work in most browsers. I agree it's sometimes frustrating that a wikilink shouldn't be repeated. I've seen plenty of instances where it has.--Shantavira|feed me17:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
On the odd occasion I will go to a Wikipedia page to be greeted by a nastily worded admonition that my changes have been reverted and flagged as vandalism and that I have been blocked for 2 days. Or something similar.
Given that I haven't changed a wikipedia entry in YEARS this is rather offputting.
I have in the past advised these over eager users not to rely on IP addresses to send these messages. In Australia where I live most internet users have dynamic addressing and unless the message is sent pretty much immediately after any changes have been made, your message will arrive on the screen of any one of 20 million random different people.
I have also advised these over eager users that if they do feel the need to send messages, and the why of this makes no sense to me at all, to at least assume good faith and to keep the message respectful and polite.
I stopped donating to Wikipedia because of this, despite it being one of my go to websites for information. I simply cannot financially support an organisation that allows users to send unwarranted and abusive messages to visitors to the site.
Wikipedia either needs to fix this at a structural level or registered users and moderators need to adopt a culture that considers this every bit as bad as the vandalism it seeks to prevent. 220.253.71.58 (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately this is a difficult problem. Probably the best solution is for anti-vandalism tools to be more aware of large dynamic-IP address ranges and, when applying warnings to those "user talk" pages, using language that includes prominent "this message may not be for you, especially if it's more than a few hours old." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello IP editor. I am sorry that you find these messages so irritating. Warning and blocking IP vandals is an essential part of the ongoing fight against vandalism. As for being "every bit as bad", we get vastly more complaints about vandalism than about these messages. You can avoid all such warnings by taking the simple step of registering an account, which provides a higher degree of anonymity than disclosing your (current) IP address, as you have done with this post. As for the donations you stopped making, they went to the Wikimedia Foundation, which has no day to day editorial control over Wikipedia which is highly autonomous. Wikipedia editors have no knowledge of who donates and who doesn't donate. We are unpaid volunteers who totally ignore any comments about stopping donations. Cullen328Let's discuss it00:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The messages you are talking about are on user talk pages, like User talk:220.253.71.58. If you know that your address changes routinely, your user talk page for your current address should be regarded simply as a feature you don't have access to, and be ignored. Anonymous visitors to the site should not have any reason to go to those user talk pages. Also, I've seen the disclaimers mentioned by Davidwr above, though I'm not clear on when/how they get added. There is one on the first warning on the talk page I referenced. Perhaps the block template message should include the same disclaimer, or just be worded differently for IPs. Lastly, I'd say the Twinkle templated messages are fairly non-aggressive at the first couple of levels – it's only the higher level ones given to repeat offenders that use more direct language. I don't see a way around that, and believe that the majority of such usage is probably correctly used by experienced editors. Newbies (and even old hands) will sometimes make mistakes, though. There are a lot of reasons to give or not give to the WMF; this wouldn't be on either list IMO. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—04:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I want to write my first article but I'm not sure if my content is notable
Hi! I've never written an article for Wikipedia before, but I would like to write one. I'm not sure if the content I have in mind is notable, so I'm looking for some guidance.
I would like to write about my grandfather, Artur Müller. He was a Polish composer who emigrated to Brazil after the Second World War. He left an extensive musical output, some of which was published by independent editors and performed in theatres and concert halls, both in Brazil and in Poland (including a small opera). Much of his work explores and combines Polish and Brazilian themes and rhythms. I have in my possession a lot of material about him and his life, including newspaper and magazine articles and most of his scores. My goal is to give his life and work more visibility.
Hi Arthur. The first thing you probably should take a look is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Writing about yourself, family, friends. Although it's not expressly prohibited to try and create or edit content about someone or something you have more than a casual connection to, it's something that's highly discouraged because it often leads to problems since it can be hard to write about something in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines when you're closely connected to it. The next thing you probably should look at is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (particularly this part), and Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything to give you a better feel for what a Wikipedia:Article is intended to be. Bascially, Wikipedia articles are only intended to be written about subjects considered to be Wikipedia notable and the way this is typically assessed is by determining whether the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia) that are WP:SECONDARY and WP:INDEPENDENT in nature. For composers like you're grandfather, this is explained in a little more detail in WP:COMPOSER. You're going to need to establish that you're grandfather at least one of those notability criteria to even give a possible article about him a chance of being accepted. Perhaps you should try asking about him at Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland, Wikipedia:WikiProject Brazil or Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers because those WikiProjects are where you might find editors who might be able to help you ascertain your grandfather's Wikipedia notability or have even heard of him. If you can establish that your grandfather is Wikipedia notable, then perhaps a member of one of those WikiProjects will even create an article about him. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Edit-a-thon articles
Hello! We recently had a Shakespeare edit-a-thon in Hungary, where we also created English articles. I would like to ask your kind help in the final process, namely polishing them a bit and renaming them.
For those who might pursue this, the AHF and EA drafts are each about a poem about Shakespeare, written by a famous author. The GB and HS drafts are each about a production of a Shakespeare play. The RT draft is about a annual Shakespeare festival. David notMD (talk) 10:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I have done a small bit – ran each of them through a peer reviewer script that fixes MoS issues (and manually replaced non-standard quote marks).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I am not impressed by the idea of having articles about theater productions of one of Shakespeare' plays (the AHF and HS drafts). David notMD (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I would like to correct some information which they are not accurate and also to add more details based on reliable sources for Central Bank of Kuwait page, however It’s too difficult to add the sources, they are different than the Arabic version which I know how to add one there.
I appreciate If someone can help me and I can provide all the information needed including the sources.
Hi North wiki. It's not clear what you're asking, but the Teahouse isn't really the place for reporting editor behavior issues. There are quite a few administrators who are also Teahouse hosts and maybe one fo them will take a look, but generally a detailed discussion of editor behavior is not really within the Teahouse's scope. Anyway, it looks like the editor in question has been issued a number of warnings by other editors, and if they continue to repeat the same mistakes eventually someone will end up starting a discussion about their edits, etc. at one of the administrators' noticeboards depending upon the nature of the problem.While I haven't looked at all of the this editor's contributions, I wouldn't call this edit vandalism per WP:NOTVANDAL; it might not be an improvement per se and too WP:BOLD, but it's doesn't seem to be vandalism either. I'm sure you meant well by reverting it, but be careful about just automatically assuming that every edit this editor makes is vandalism since that could be seen as bit WP:BITEy, especially when the other account is only a few days old and might not be as familiar with relevant policies and guidelines as a someone who has been around longer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I would like to point out that the edit you referered to was not based on facts and based on the editor's previous behavior, it is most likely vandalism IMO.~ North wiki (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) North wiki, that user hasn't edited in a few days, but they look to be on their last legs, so to speak, as they have a level-4 warning on their talk page, which is the final level before they're blocked. Given that, based on the reversion pattern, they seem to be pretty clearly a net negative to the project, others have been perhaps been a little too lenient, but there is a fairly strong culture of second chances here. If you see them making any further bad edits, report them to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism where they'll likely be blocked. {{u|Sdkb}}talk07:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@North wiki: Whilst all of this editor's contributions were unexplained without any form of edit summary, not all were validly reverted, such as this one that you made. Uncited? - Yes; Vandalism? - No. Quite often, the best way of dealing with a mixed bag of overzealous editing by a new editor is to drop by their talk page and clearly explain what changes in their editing behaviour you think is needed. You don't need to be an admin to do that. Simply explain and encourage them to ensure they include a rationale for adding or removing content via a clear WP:EDITSUMMARY and, of course, citations for all new content if they want to ensure they don't get reverted again. (@North wiki: Fixing bad ping. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC))
Hi MichaelSali132. The draft article was not removed but declined, with the comment by the AfC reviewer: "Fails WP:NFILM, lacks any sources or references." If you read the template above that comment, it provides a number of links to additional pages that explain what we are looking for with regard to citation to reliable, secondary sources, written by independent third parties, unconnected with a topic, who have written about it in substantive detail – in order to demonstrate that the topic of the proposed article is notable and thus warrants a stand-alone encyclopedia article. The only way the draft will be accepted is if those sources both: 1) exist; and 2) are added to the draft in a suitable fashion. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Adding short descriptions to articles
Hi everyone! I recently added a description to the "Edward Scissorhands" page (logged into my account Andy J Gallo", and a few weeks ago I added a description to the "Road to El Dorado" page. The problem is, within my Wikipedia app I cannot see the added descriptions in the article pages (but when I made such edits an on-screen message told me that the descriptions had been "published". Please help me because from time to time I like adding descriptions to my favorite pages, but I keep not seeing them published. What should I do? Thank you very much in advance, guys! Andy J Gallo (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Andy J Gallo Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The app does not have the full functionality that the desktop version of Wikipedia has; you will see your edits if you use the full version of Wikipedia in a browser on your phone. I don't use the app so I'm not 100% certain, but I don't think there is a way to do what you are asking. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@Andy J Gallo: I agree. I recently installed the Wikipedia app on my iPhone. Whilst it's fine for viewing content, it is useless for any sort of editing. I shall be deleting it shortly, as it offers nothing over editing on a mobile phone than simply using my phone's browsers. Whether I'm editing on a PC, laptop, tablet or tiny iPhone, I always keep it in 'Desktop view', as 'Mobile view' on a phone also gives restricted functionality when editing. I'm not aware of any comparative table which shows the differences in functionality between the three viewing formats, but it would certainly be very useful to know, should anyone have a link to one. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Andy. Your edits to these Wikidata items were published. However, please see Wikipedia:Short description, where it is explained that: "Initially, short descriptions were drawn from the Description field in Wikidata entries, but because of concerns about including information directly from another project, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) made provision for these to be overwritten by short descriptions generated within Wikipedia." I think that may explain what's at issue here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I really don't know if this the correct way to write a response to your comments, but I sincerely hope so... THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH,THE THREE OF YOU!!! You've been outstandingly fast in answering my question, but most of all, in clearing my head! I'm truly glad of this, and deeply thankful to all of you! Stay safe and healthy, and have a great continuation, guys!!! Yours, Andy J Gallo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy J Gallo (talk • contribs) 12:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
creating a new page
Hi I created a new page - but it is still not showing in Wikipedia. How long does it take to get approved and for it to go public? Wardaraza7 (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
How many references should I list for a particular item I am including in the draft "Karen Earle Lile" when there are archives on multiple platforms? Is listing a source on one platform enough?
I have just finished adding about 35 references on the Karen Earle Lile Article. This is the article where I am learning the best approach with references and writing, before creating any other articles. There are several references to interviews that were done by Karen Lile and Rick Tittle of sailing celebrities listed in the article, but I have only added one reference citation per interview, the one that has a dedicated page on Sail Sport Talk.
But, because these interviews are broadcast on multiple completely independent platforms and the archives are held by those platforms (iheart radio, tune in, etc), I could add additional references for each interview. But, it would mean adding about 30 more references. I was just trying to touch on a representative sample and the easiest way to find the recordings is through Sail Sport Talk, because it embeds some of the archives from iheart radio and vimeo inside a dedicated page that has the title of the person being interviewed. In contrast, iheart radio only preserves the date of the broadcast under "Sail Sport Talk with Karen Lile", and not all the guests interviewed are mentioned in the written text. So someone reading the wiki article would need to listen to the interview to confirm it is a reference. By listing the SailSportTalk.com page for the person being interviewed, all the interviews are embedded and listed by the names of the people being interviewed, so it is quickly apparent that the reference is connected to the claim in the wikipedia article, without the reader having to go to a lot of work to confirm it.
Do you think this is necessary and recommended to add several references to each item on the page, just for showing the many platforms that archive the syndicated show and the breadth of its reach on the web? I am thinking it might be more references than needed for this article (and a lot of work). I was just trying to touch on a representative sample. I would be willing to do it, but only if you think it is necessary.
I would welcome your guidance. My intention in listing these references and interviews is to show the historical context of Karen Lile's work, n in the broadcast history for Sail Sport by mentioning just a few highlights. Other's could add to the article if they think something important was left out.
User:PattiWindSpirit PattiWindSpirit (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Courtesy: Draft:Karen Earle Lile has been Declined, more references added, Resubmitted. For references, quality over quantity. Listing people she interviewed does not belong in the article. Ditto listing where the show broadcast. Accomplishments of family members do not belong in the article. "In name only" references (content only briefly mentions her by name) do not contribute to Wikipedia's definition of notability. She may be notable, but there is too much clutter. Less is more. Also, section titles should be short and in sentence case, i.e., only first word capitalized. David notMD (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, PattiWindpirit. The question you need to ask is "Have people wholly unconnected with Lile, and not prompted or provided with information on her behalf, chosen to write about her and been published in reliable sources?" If you can find at least three such places, then an article is possible, and it should be written almost entirely from what those sources say. If that gives you a reasonable article, then you can add a small amount of material from other sources: from non-independent sources for non-controversial factual data such as places and dates, and possibly extra information from sources which have only passing mentions. Basically nothing she has said, published, or done, belongs in the article unless it has been reported or commented on in an independent source. Each claim in the article should be backed up by one of these sources, but there is little point in adding further sources that support something already adequately referenced. Does this clarify things? --ColinFine (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I'm new here. I was wondering where I could find articles that need copyediting? After signing up, it gave me articles that need copyediting. After I did my first, I clicked out to edit my userpage. I don't know how to get back to it. MagicaEnchantsia (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, KSHETHRASUVIDHAM, and welcome to the Teahouse. You appear to be trying to create an article on your user page: this is the wrong place for it. Your user page is a place where you may if you choose, share some information about you as a Wikipedia editor. While a small amount of material about yourself unrelated to Wikipedia is allowed, it may not be used for any kind of promotion - in fact, nowhere on Wikipedia is promotions permitted.
Your user name is the name you have chosen for your personal account as an editor (accounts may not be shared) and will not normally have any connection with the names of any articles you may edit or create. If Kshethrasuvidham is the name of a company or a piece of software, then you should change your account name to something that does not appear promotional (or, more simply, abandon this account and create a new one, personal to you).
If you wish to embark on the extremely difficult task (for a new editor) of creating a new article, please study your first article. Please be aware that, in an article about a piece of software, Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything which the developers or distributors say or want to say about it: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with it have chosen to publish about it in reliable sources. If there are not enough such independent sources to ground an article, then the software does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article will be accepted.
Finally, please note that if you personally are in any way connected with the software developers, you have a conflict of interest in writing about it, (please read that link), which makes the task even harder, because it may make it difficult for you to write in a sufficiently neutral way. If you are employed or otherwise paid in connection with it, then you must make the declarations specified in paid editing.
My general advice to you would be, if you wish to help us build the world's biggest encyclopaedia, then forget about creating a new article for a few months, and spend the time learning how Wikipedia works and improving some of our six million articles. If the only thing you are here for is to tell the world about Kshethrasuvidham, then I would remind you again that promotion is not accepted (whether commercial or not) and you are likely to have a frustrating time. --ColinFine (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Help on Scholarship - where to find reliable sources?
Hi, I asked a question recently on an article that had been identified for help with clean up: Jennie Hwang. The article is still a little rough around the edges and there's clearly a sourcng issue but it's a Women in Red article so I'm interested in helping improve it but hit a practical roadblock.
I asked this question on the talk page but I think this might actually be the better forum: how do you find reliable sources to support how much academic work someone has produced? Are there preferred repositories?
@A wizard did it: Before I saw your post on the talk page, I was going to direct you to look at Google Scholar to see who is citing the subject's academic work. But you already figured that out. What you need is a search term to filter out the results that aren't Jennie Hwang's. Perhaps you'd be better off asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. They may be more familiar with how to use Google Scholar. TimTempleton(talk)(cont)00:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I am working on the Poggioreale article and I wanted make a hyper link to Ghost town, but it come out as the disambigous page instead of the proper wikipeida link. Can somone either change it for me or give me directions so I may fix it? Both are using the url ghost town, but there has to be a way to tell one from another. Ty78ejui (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
@Ty78ejui: Not in general, if that's what you meant. Any title can technically be used for a dab page. In this particular case, it happens that Ghost Town is a dab page because it is the (properly capitalized) title of several works that need disambiguation, while the lower-case version ghost town is a common noun and can only refer to that article on the concept.
Article titles (and therefore wikilinks to them) are case-sensitive, with the exception of the first letter, which is always capitalized in the title, but can be linked to with either a lower- or upper-case first letter. So, north and North both refer to the same article, and either can be used, depending on the need. For example, "North is one of the cardinal directions" vs. "The building is north of ...". In contrast, Rattlesnake river refers to a non-existent article; it does not exist because it's an improper (non-) capitalization of Rattlesnake River. Depending on the exact situation and need, the former article may sometimes be created anyway as a redirect to the latter for convenience.
I can see your point in terms of grammar but would that cause it go to the wrong link? Its working now and its more important the link work then it be Grammarly perfect.Ty78ejui (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Ty78ejui, you can use a pipe character ('|') to make the display text different from the link name. So if you did want to link to, say, the 1988 film, you could write [[Ghost Town (1988 film)|Ghost Town]] and it would appear as Ghost Town, but link to the article about the film. --ColinFine (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
@Baratiiman: You created an article about something that does not exist, yet you expect it to remain untouched. You have been warned twice by admins about forum-shopping. ([2], [3]) Do you want to continue? Pahlevun (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm having trouble with my Draft:Bhartiya Group (Conglomerate) article that I wish to publish. Apart from the given comments, can someone please let me know what am I still missing? Imdavid21 (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The comments pretty much summed it up, but I would go further: MOST companies do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If you haven't done so already, please read Help:My first article, paying careful attention to anything it says about notability and to any page it links to about the same. Basically, if you see something in the press and that information originated from the company then it will probably be ignored when the reviewer assesses the company's notability. You can write a nearly-featured article-quality draft but if the company itself does not meet the requirements, then the draft will be - or at least should be - declined or rejected. If it is accepted, it should be nominated for deletion for being "non-notable." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
so I have another technical question: I've been pretty randomly messing around with a few articles, and came across Catsuit (indirectly from "Did you know..."). There was an old discussion on the talk page there that disapproved of the lead pic, and since I agree, I tried to change it. However, although it is now no longer in the top spot, it still appears in the "short preview" when you hover over the wikilink to the article. I just checked the page info [4], and it still shows the old pic there as "page image". My question is, why is that so, and how could I change it? -- LordPeterII (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Hey LordPeterII. Which image displays when the page information tool is invoked is governed by mw:Extension:PageImages#Image choice, which apportions a score to the images on the page and displays the one with the highest score. I do not have time to work out the specifics of how it operates with respect to this page and its images (nor is that a task I would consider in my "wheelhouse") – but some other responder might be able to clarify further. (By the way, good working with you on the genocides in history issue.) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
That was just the info I needed, as it states there that "If $wgPageImagesLeadSectionOnly is true, only images in the lead section will be considered. Currently it is true for only Wikipedia projects, all other projects can pull images from outside the lead." In the catsuit article all pics where in the lead section, so it probably chose the one with the highest resolution or sth. Moving all but one pics out of the lead did the trick, and it now shows a more "catlike" catsuit. Thanks! --LordPeterII (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I was wondering as I just recently submitted my article to be reviewed I see there is an option for adding WikiProjects tags what is that and should I add tags as I see it helped the reviewers review and go through that process quicker? PKUpdatesBllrd (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@PKUpdatesBllrd: Welcome to the Teahouse. WikiProject templates ought only to be placed on articles already in mainspace, and not on drafts. But it does help to tell the reviewer which projects you feel it might relate to. To that end I have temporarily deactivated the two templates you added. That edit can be reverted once the article is accepted into the encyclopaedia. Hope that makes sense. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
"To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags."Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Well, blow me down. Yes, I was clearly labouring under the wrong impression there, and have immediately reverted my edit. My (clearly wrong) understanding was that it wasn't a good idea to have drafts skewing the WikiProject article assessment tables with non-mainspace pages. Not sure where I got that impression from (perhaps extrapolating it from Categories, as you say above), but I've clearly blown my chances of a successful RfA anytime soon! Thanks for pointing out the error of my ways. (@PKUpdatesBllrd: please disregard the advice I gave you above. I was wrong.) Nick Moyes (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello Teahouse hosts. Tribe of Tiger has been very helpful to me and edited articles on which I've been active--particularly with archiving sources. She explained [HERE] on my talk page how I might go about it, specifically by accessing the Page tab. However, I find no page tab where she does. In fact, I find no page tab at all. Complicating matters is that depending which device she uses, she discovered she does not always have the Page tab on her screen.
I do desire to archive internet sources and I would like to know about the mystery of the Page tab. So, might you be able to assist with the matter? I look forward to hearing from you and kind regards.Hu Nhu (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC) Hu Nhu (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@Hu Nhu: I'm unfortunately not familiar with the page tab. I read the instructions you were given, and I don't have it on my menu and can't find any documentation about it. It may be a plug-in like Wikipedia:Twinkle that has to be installed, but hopefully someone else here will be able to help you. TimTempleton(talk)(cont)00:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I am puzzled by this. I began editing in Feb/March 2018, (on a 4 year old IPad, "inherited " from my niece) and had the Page tab back then, to the best of my memory. I still have it on my new IPad. But, when I checked my desktop computer yesterday...no tab. Timtempleton and AlanM1, if you don't have the Page tab, how do you access the following features? Under Analysis I have things like authorship, copyright vio detector, traffic report, plus others. Search provides Search history- Wikiblame, plus others.Tools provides Expand bare references, fix dead links, and others. The Page tab is truly marvelous! Could it be something that I set, long ago, in my Preferences? Or Gadgets? I am using the Vector skin, but a box is checked for "Legacy Vector".
I can see "fix dead links" under the history page, but that's not the exact same function as "expand bare references". Fix dead links will archive the links, @Hu Nhu:, I am sorry that I did not realize/remember that it could be accessed from the History page, my bad. But the Expand bare references will populate a slew of bare urls. We will figure this out, then you, Tim and Alan can experience the joys of the page tab (if desired). I am wondering if this is something available only on small devices, like an IPad. Truly, I do think that this might be the case, as the tab doesn't appear on my desktop computer.Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!06:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, AlanM1, this is it! I have "MoreMenu" enabled under Gadgets...Appearance. So, this is why I have the Page tab. Thanks so much for figuring this out! You are a true friend and very helpful editor. Respectfully, Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!02:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Mentor needed for first article draft
Hi -- I'm trying to create my first article -- it was rejected once and I made improvements -- I added better sources, more citations and more details. I also added headers and reorganized the content. Is anyone available to look at it? I would like suggestions and guidance on content, headings, formatting, citations, etc.
Also, when I click "add tags to your draft", it says my draft doesn't exist. However, I was able to link my draft above.
Can someone help me? This user Komoonyoung, always making disruptive editing on Korean drama page changing the rating so that this user favorite dramas is at the top of the list. It's really annoying how much this user is imposing on it's own. Thank you in advance. I think this user won't be stop until blocked. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
You have edited this article literally hundreds of times over several years, and now a new editor has made four edits in the past 48 hours. Perhaps best to invite that editor to the Talk page of the article for a discussion. David notMD (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
IP address insists on removing diacritics/accents from multiple pages
Hello! I have a question on what I should do regarding IP address 72.191.93.134. The user insists on removing diacritics/accents from cast lists of various television series pages. I have left messages on their talk page and so have other users but the IP address refuses to pay attention to the warnings and continues to remove diacritics from the pages. Should the IP address be reported and investigated? or should I wait and see if the IP address continues to remove diacritics? Telenovelafan215 (talk) 05:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Editing from this address started in January 2019 and has consistently been doing this and repeatedly been warned about this behavior. Action needed. David notMD (talk) 08:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Is it okay to change a list of books from release date to author?
"The Collector's Library"
There are missing titles and there are books that are listed twice, these books have more than one story in them but it is the same book.
The problem is that I have no idea when the books were released. I own the whole series of 58 books, so I do know what I am talking about.
So my question is it okay to list the books by author, get rid of all of the release date info, add the missing books, remove the incorrect listing of one book and remove the duplication of some of the books???
Courtesy: The Collector's Library. I agree that listing the books by reprint date is not useful information, but leave to you a decision to alphabetize by author or title. As there are articles about almost all of the books, my personal preference would be by title. David notMD (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
SR new article
I am doing a write up on Senaka Rajapakse. How do I upload a picture?
I uploaded a picture yesterday, but can't find it anywhere. how can I find it and upload to image on infor template.
Hello, Agentukaya. I'm afraid there is more bad news: your draft Draft:Senaka Rajapakse is indeed a "write up" - which is a very different thing from an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the subject, or his associates or institutions, say or want to say about him: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with him have chosen to publish about him. Writing an article begins with finding independent published sources about the subject, because if you cannot find those, the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and all your effort will be wasted. Please read your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
With the U.S. presidential transition in full flow, would it constitute a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to add (sourced) information regarding the possible appointment of someone to a Cabinet post? I initially thought it was acceptable before being tripped up by Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.Sdrqaz (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I think it goes without saying that after the appointment has been announced, concerns about its inclusion would be moot. After reading both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOMUCH, I'm not as certain as you that they apply here. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Sdrqaz, if there's been speculation about the possible appointment of someone in reliable sources, it's not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to say that; you'd write something like Smith is considered a possible candidate for Secretary of Agriculture in the Biden administration.[sources]. While the appointment itself would be in the future, the speculation about it is in the present, and the speculation itself is potentially notable. {{u|Sdkb}}talk04:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Someone would like to help me to understand how can I develop a GLAM Project ? Thank you.
Hello. Kind Greetings.
My name is Ra'al Ki Victorieux, from Atma Unum, in Mexico City, Mexico.
I have a file of images, which I own the rights. Among the topics covered by these images are art education and personal development. Also documentation of visual and scenic works of art. As well as book covers, documentation of newspapers and cultural magazines, among others. However, I am not very clear about what the process should be to upload the information in an orderly, well categorized, and so on. Does anyone have experience with this and could help me? Thank you AtmaUnum (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, AtmaUnum. If what you want to do is simply to upload some images for general use, you'll be uploading them to Wikimedia Commons, not to Wikipedia, so you're best asking for uelp at C:Commons:Village pump. Commons accepts any material with is licensed in such a way that anybody in the world can adapt and reuse it for any purpose, and which has a conceivable use in one of Wikimedia's projects, so if you do own the rights and are willing to license them in this way, I think they would be welcome.
Hello, ColinFine. I understand that GLAM is mainly related to commons, so I will follow the link you suggest. I also understand that when working on an archive in GLAM, one generally accesses not only commons but other areas of Wiki as well, although maybe that is later in the process. Thanks, greetings. AtmaUnum
Thanksgiving
THANKSGIVING
Please help updating the post
The poster admits to making a mistake !
link 17 "6 Thanksgiving Myths and the Wampanoag Side of the Story". IndianCountryToday.com. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
has been updated by its creator to reflect the IMPORTANT TRUTH that greatly affects everyone in AMERICA.
IndianCountryToday.com "Correction: Previously ICT listed William Bradford as the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. John Winthrop was the governor"
It is vitally important that the Pilgrims are absolved immediately from this quote.
The Pilgrims were not responsible for this attack and therefore these indian country today quotes need to be removed as soon as possible so we can heal this country. The Pilgrims are not responsible for these atrocities, the puritans were. The Pilgrims were separate from the puritans.
John Winthrop is a puritan NOT a pilgrim and NOT related to the THANKSGIVING holiday page 66.228.255.138 (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I think this relates to our Thanksgiving article, but I'm no sure what you're saying. If there are changes you would like to see made, please open on a discussion on the article's talk page, with citations to reliable published sources. Note that Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say, and that others may not agree with you as to what is "vitally important" or whether a change needs to be "as soon as possible". Also see WP:NOT#Righting great wrongs. --ColinFine (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
There is no mention of John Winthrop in the Thanksgiving article, and the John Winthrop article clearly states that he was a Puritan. Please look again and determine exactly which webpage you are referring to. Then open a discussion on the talk page of that article, citing reliable sources for any suggested change.--Shantavira|feed me14:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Difficulty Adding Photos to an Entry
Caption goes here
I am having a great deal of trouble adding two photos to an article. The uplaod function takes me round in circles and I can't find out whether the photos have actually been uploaded to Wiki or not! I want to add the photos to the article on the author Wei Wu Wei as we have two of him taken in his garden in 1976 (!). Any help would be much appreciated!
Also, I can't seem to access VisualEditor, even though I have followed the instructions about unchecking the box in Preferences about "temporarily disable visual editor while in beta", so I've been working with 'Edit Source'.
@Dylife: You did successfully upload two images to Wikimedia Commons ([5] and [6]). You'll find that a "Use this file" button on top of the images with a Wikipedia logo next to it. Click on it and copy the code in the "Thumbnail" line to use the file. I've added one of them here; notice which part of the code I changed to make a custom caption. Help:Pictures has more info on how to format the image to how you would like it. About VisualEditor: do you see a tab saying "Edit" next to "Edit source"? That button should take you to VisualEditor. You probably want "Show me both editor tabs" selected in "Editing mode". ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 17:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, before I created drafts of my article for editor review in my sandbox. Now I'm being instructed to create a Userspace Draft. Has something changed? What is the difference? Can I request to have a Userspace draft deleted when the article is published? And what is the sandbox used for now? Capt. Quinlan (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Capt. Quinlan: "userspace draft" and "sandbox" are two words with slightely different, but not mutally exclusive meanings.
a sandbox refers to a intentional testing spot or on occasion to a specific place in userspace. There is a sandbox for everyone at Wikipedia:Sandbox (you shouldn't be drafting articles here as it is regularely cleared) and user-specific ones at User:username/sandbox (you can also prepear articles in there. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
the mentioned page, User:username/sandbox is also linked in the toolbar at the top of every page. You can request to have any userpsace draft deleted by putting {{db-u1}} or {{db-g7}} on them (as it appeas when viewing this section), howewer, it is common pratice to move finished drafts along with their history to article space. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the case, but I would start with the closing remarks at the 2018 block review here, which said Clockback is therefor now “community blocked” meaning that only a future community discussion can result in their complete unblocking. They may still use UTRS to appeal the revocation of talk page access unless and until UTRS admins find their appeals disruptive. User:Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC). That is, have HIM - not you - start with UTRS to have talk page access restored, then HE can use that to talk to Beeblebrox or use {{admin help}} to figure out what the next step is. At this point, the ball is in his court, not yours or mine. Oh, and one if the issues I noticed in the deletion review is WP:CANVASSING. He should take particular care to avoid anything that even resembles whatever it was that got him into trouble in the past.
davidwrThank you for the quick reply. How can I ask him to request UTRS, when I can't contact him on his talk page? I think unblocking the talk page would do no harm. J.Turner99 (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I assumed you knew him either on- or off-Wiki or you wouldn't have advocated on his behalf. If you do not know how to reach him, then just drop it - for all you or I know, he may have moved on with his life and not care about Wikipedia any more. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I suppose so. He is Peter Hitchens. It is not about if Mr Hitchens would use Wikipedia (although, he was using it for 12 years' prior). It is about the principle of him not being able to defend himself on the talk page. He has written many extensive, article length arguments on his talk page prior. People pay to read his books, and he was doing this for free on this site. What harm could he do to his own talk page? J.Turner99 (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
(e/c) @J.Turner99: Administrators don't revoke talk page access without a good reason. He presumably knows he is not "completely shut out" - he can use the UTRS process. I see nothing to be gained by trying to do something for him that he can do for himself. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Davidwr: I could not find the reason why they removed the talk page access. I would like to advocate for the user @ClockBack: to be able to use his talk page. He did make two UTRS requests but these were rejected much too quickly and I fear they may have been reviewed by one of the admins who blocked him, or someone under their influence. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I think it is up to the editor to read it or not. Besides, people pay to read his words in the newspaper and in his books, paying with both their time and money. [1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by J.Turner99 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Fully agree with davidwr. Absent any indication that Clockback/Hitchens wants their block appealed, there is no reason to pursue it at all. This is not all that unusual in the case of a notable-ish person who ends up blocked, people just decide to advocate on their behalf because they like their work or whatever, but generally speaking, third-party unblock requests with no participation from the blocked user are a non-starter. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories like that are a pretty poor reason to want a community-banned user's ban to be looked into. FWIW, admins that already reviewed an unblock request can't handle another, and the blocking admin can't decline unblock requests on their own block. I believe this also holds true for UTRS. —A little blue Boriv^_^vTakes a strong man to deny...21:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
It is something of an unofficial rule that after three bad/clueless/etc unblock requests, talk page access is revoked. Clockback, in between massive walls of text, had five requests rejected. Regarding the UTRS requests, I'm only seeing one, it was filed while the community discussion was still underway, and closed as rejected the day after that discussion was closed. It had to be rejected as he had just been community-blocked and a single admin at UTRS cannot overturn a community block. There are substantial notes from myself and two other admins, none of whom were involved in the original block, when deciding what to do with it. (I can't speak for everyone but I'm pretty sure my mind was not being controlled by the blocking admin, although of course if he was really good at mind control I'd be sure it was all my own idea. I guess we'll never know.) He could still ask via UTRS for talk page access back but without a community discussion this block isn't going to be lifted. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@J.Turner99: If I can summarize how I see it: Step 1: He decides he wants to have talk page access back. Step 2: He appeals to UTRS. Step 3: They say yes or no. If they say yes, then Step 4: He decides he wants to appeal his block. Step 5: He uses his talk page to ping an administrator, or he uses {{admin help}} for the same purpose. Step 6: The administrator tells him the remaining steps. Neither you nor I are involved in steps 1-6. One of the steps after step 6 will probably be a community discussion, that's when you or I can start participating. @Beeblebrox: Did I miss anything important? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Photo to upload for "stub" article on George Arthur Hunt
Photo to upload: I have an autographed photo of George Arthur Hunt that I'd like to put in his article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hunt_(American_football)
It is a professional photo of him in his UT uniform in the kick position.
There are no copyright stamps or emblems on either side of the photo.
George sent the photo to my mom back in 1970. She passed away in 2014.
When I tried to upload the photo, I got a message that said I was not verified or confirmed yet.
I set up my account a week or so ago: definitely more than the requisite four days indicated.
Please advise how I might get this photo into the article.
Thank you - ParksPlace78 (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@ParksPlace78: the requirements for being able to upload media files (including images) requires both being registered for 4 days (96 hours) and having maked at least 10 edits (Remember WP:GAME though. Let those 10 edits be something usefull). Howewer, I feel that we cant have the image anyway. Since George sent you the photo, he (or the original photographer) are the legal copyright holders, which means that only they can license the image in a way siutable for Wikipedia. Since George is still living, WP:NFC is very unlikely, as one could in theory make a new photo an license it under a siutable license. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, Wikimedia Commons is the best place to upload pictures which are free to reuse, and there is no autoconfirmation required to do so. But I agree with Victor that from your description, it is copyright, and not acceptable for Commons. (Commons requires a positive statement from the copyright holder that the material is licensed in such a way that anybody can reuse or alter it for any purpose). --ColinFine (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Question about sources on an article
My most recent, and first, article just got denied. It said something about listing sources, but everything in the article I made up (it was about my conlang). So in that case, what do I list as my sources if I am the only one with the information? Noaj'Pel (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Noaj Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If the subject is not written about by independent reliable sources with significant coverage, it would not merit a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a place for you to tell the world about something you created. There may be alternative forums where you can do that. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm really sorry, Noaj, but I'm afraid that your constructed language (as interesting as it is) has no place in a global encyclopaedia of notable things. To that end, I have to tell you that I have responded to another senior editor's request that your sandbox page be 'speedily deleted' on the grounds that Wikipedia should not be used as a hosting site for non-relevant content. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Is there a logical reason why there is not, and hasn't been an article on SuperMarioLogan? He's an extremely popular YouTuber who has been written about by trusted, popular sources such as Good Morning America, The Washington Post and Yahoo News! and is notable for many things including his bizarre medical history, controversy in mainstream media, and winning of an $800,000 auction for Tom Brady dinner. I tried creating an article about it which can be found here, and it was rejected for citing articles that apparently "did not focus on the subject enough." I am fully aware that my editing skills aren't always up to par, but it's kind of ridiculous Logan doesn't have a page after all that he's been involved in, and I am not a hardcore fan of his by any means. I know the answer definitely isn't "he isn't popular enough." He has twice as many subscribers as Corpse Husband. I just need some help and ideology on this issue. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
One thing that is important to note is that, on Wikipedia, "notability" has a very specific meaning, as defined by our guidelines, that is different from the general understanding of the term as a synonym for "popularity". So the subscriber count isn't what's important but rather the media coverage. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk07:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, thanks for the feedback! I'm glad I got to hear from a more experienced user on this one (and it's rare that one actually thinks I have a valid point)
On another note, I just recieved another note about the article which links to the sandbox (has different content on it than it did yesterday, but that's beside the point) I'm still a bit frustrated about this and I hope this can be worked out TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The article SuperMarioLogan has been created and re-created as pure promotion for the person, so many times that the title has been protected from creation, and there have been plenty of attempts over the past few years to insert his name into Wikipedia articles as well. This is very common for YouTube creators of various nationalities; as the reviewer pointed out, notability is not proportional to popularity, in fact popularity is not a factor at all. The draft linked above is not as promotional as some have been, though everything that is sourced to the YouTube channel itself has to be removed (such as the unsupported claims of a "long YouTube career", and the entire "Early life" section, as well as the person's siblings). It looks like there is in fact a stronger claim to notability for the channel than for the person, since all the independent sources discuss the controversial content of the channel, not the person behind it. (Also keep in mind that it is never the case that a person "has a Wikipedia article". A Wikipedia article does not belong to the subject and the subject should have absolutely no say in whether an article exists and what it contains.) --bonadeacontributionstalk08:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: If you determine it meets the criteria, you're fine to accept it over the top of me. I am pretty sure I was involved with AfD/Salting pages on the subject in the past and didn't see too much more in this from other drafts. I guess I just didn't see people reacting to objectionable content as too much more than just WP:1E albeit yes close to the line. But again, feel free to go ahead and accept if you believe otherwise
So, I have just joined and asked a question on a talk page. I am currently in a debate with an admin and I think I may be operating under some false assumptions on how Wikipedia works.
The edit that I am discussing is whether someone can be described as being a former member of a group when there is no available reference to say they have left said group. This is in regards to a terrorist organisation so I appreciate that it’s a topic which is sensitive. What proof would be required to definitively state that a person is still a member, or not, of a particular group?
In this particular case, the person in question is described as a former member. To me that means the person must have left at some point. If there is no reference to them ever having left, should we describe them as a former member? The admin in question is stating that the group no longer exists which means de facto no one can be a member. However I have cited a government report that states the group does exist. The group itself states it does not exist, despite the government stating otherwise.
Genuinely would like to understand where I am going wrong in my logic.
Thank you in advance. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I assume your question relates to Talk:Carál Ní Chuilín#Former IRA member. The issue in that thread involves a fairly complicated content dispute that requires a detailed analysis of sources. There are no hard and fast easy answers in such cases, and Wikipedia:Teahouse is not the correct place for adressing these types of disputes. You might try filing a request at Wikipedia:Third opinion or you could file a Request for comment at the article's talk page. Note that the editor you are engaged in a dispute with, User:FDW777, is not an admin. Nsk92 (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I recommend that before you start editing these articles, look at the Talk page discussions, including archived, older discussions, to see if what you intend to do has been covered earlier. David notMD (talk) 03:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Adding alternate name/title to an article
Hello,
I would like to add an alternate name (title) to this article. The alternate name would be "Avarih", so if someone searches "Avarih" he would be redirected to this article. How do I do that?
Thank you.Serv181920 (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Serv181920 (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, Serv181920, I don't understand that last question. There is not currently a page called Avarih, but if you pick that red-link you will be offered the option of creating it; and you can create it as a redirect page by following the instructions that Ganbaruby linked to. --ColinFine (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, may I ask why is that my edits are being reverted? What I've been writing is based on a legit article (I make sure that I attach the links) and the things I've been writing are based on facts (history of a company). Also, I've been neutral when it comes to editing. Please help me.
@Pirategads: welcome to the Teahouse. Your edits to Behringer, for instance this one, had a couple of issues. You rewrote almost the entire article, removing more than 20 sources (most or all of them secondary) without explanation, and instead you based your re-written version almost entirely on primary sources. You also removed quite a lot of sourced information. Thirdly, I'm afraid your version was not neutrally written at all; compare this version by you with this current version. The current version is not entirely neutrally written, but you added phrases such as "The appeal of Behringer's products was..." and "Behringer makes efforts to help its employees to improve", as well as a number of awards that don't look notable, with descriptions such as "prestigious" and "reputable". And finally, when your major changes were reverted, you reverted them back (four times over a period of a few weeks) – thank you for discussing the edits instead of restoring your version again. In future, please go to the article talk page (Talk:Behringer) and suggest changes to the article there, when your edits have been reverted.
Some person named Jacob Gotts messaged me to roll back my changes to the Spectacle Theater wikipedia page. Specifically, the old version claims the theater is BYOB and cites a link that makes no mention of any BYOB policy. Being incorrectly listed as BYOB is a risk to any small arts venue in New York City.
I'm so disappointed that the Page I'm creating for the music collective Kitten Pyramid has been deleted. As a collective it is very difficult for anyone faintly connected to create it in the first place.
I am currently the main artist's manager but obviously the story goes way back and involves many contributing artists.
Please can someone advise me how best to continue with trying to start a page for Kitten Pyramid?
All help gratefully received.
Hello, AngieArtisticIndustries. Your use of the phrase "a page for" suggests that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. What you are trying to create is "an article about" KP. This might sound nit-picky; but note that if you succeed in creating the article, it will not belong to the subject, its contents will not be under your or their control, and it will not necessarily contain what you or they would like it to. Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything that the subject or their associates say or want to say about themselves: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with them, and who have not been prompted or fed information on their behalf, have chosen to publish about them in reliable sources. Almost 100% of the article should be derived from such independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you all so much for your wisdom, help and guidance. It is very much appreciated. I understand your vigilance.
I have no financial interest here.
I would still like to contribute to wiki now that I have more understanding of the process.
I hope very much that someone else picks up this opportunity from the existing mention that Kitten Pyramid received in the article about Tom Robinson musician and BBC Radio6 music presenter.
Hello, I'm a new user here in Wikipedia and I would just like to know if how many days should be considered before publishing an article? and will it be limited? I really have no idea so I'm hoping for your response. Thank you! Disruptxio (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@Disruptxio: there is no definitive answer; sucessfully creating a new article can take a few hours (for small articles) or months (for bigger ones). It also depends on your experience. The more you need to look up, the longer it will take. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 08:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Disruptxio, and welcome to the Teahouse. I liken creating an article to playing a concerto, or cooking a complete meal: it requires a lot of skills that newcomers don't usually have. I recommend spending a few weeks or months improving some of our six million existing articles (many of them need a lot of attention) and learning how Wikipedia works. When you want to try it, start by reading your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Copyright and Permission
COPYRIGHT and permission
I need help because I wrote an article twice on Wikipedia and both times it was deleted for copyright infringement.
This is the last
15:34, 20 Nov 2020 Primefac discussion contributions deleted the User:Gabriellainberlin/sandbox page (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://christoph-winkler.com/en/vita/, http://christoph-winkler.com/en/productions/baader-en/
I have read among the many pages of Wikipedia that it is possible to receive permission from the author of the text permission that I would like to use and make the contents available.
I hereby affirm that CHOOSE ONE: [I, (name), am] OR [I represent (copyright holder's name), ] the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of CHOOSE ONE: [URLs of the content] OR [attached images/text] as used here: [Exact URL of the page or file on Wikipedia], and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.
I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). (THIS IS THE STANDARD CHOICE; YOU MAY CHOOSE ANOTHER ACCEPTABLE FREE LICENSE IF YOU WISH TO)
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
I am aware that I always retain the copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
and send it to permissions-en email
Once I receive a response, how should I proceed?
Do I start writing my article again in my sandbox? my sandbox is now empty.
How do the users who will revise it know that the texts are copyright free?
@Gabriellainberlin: if you mention the Article Name (User:Gabriellainberlin/sandbox) in your email, the OTRS members are able to restore the page once the permission stuff is resolved. But please check the response from permissions-enwikipedia.org, as the OTRS members may have additional questions. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Gabriellainberlin: Even if you get permission from the copyright owner, that does not necessarily mean that you could use it on in a Wikpedia article. Wikipedia articles must be written with encyclopedic tone and from a neutral point of view, but the articles you want to use (particularly the second) are not written that way. And facts in Wikipedia articles must be verified by references to reliable sources, but your articles are completely unsourced. Furthermore, the notability of Wikipedia subjects must be demonstrated by references to independent reliable sources. —teb728tc12:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Teb728: thanks Teb728 Could you explain to me the question of the source?
if I write in my article: (example) in 2012 produced the theatrical piece XY .... according to what you say, I should quote the source and in this case, the source is the website of my subject. So I'm quoting his internet site? If in more points of my article the source is always the internet site, will I continue to quote the website?
Have you been able to see the article I wrote? How? I can no longer see it, I think a user has deleted it. Thanks, Gabriellainberlin (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Gabriellainberlin: Winkler can be used only to a limited extent to verify non-controversial information about himself and his productions. For most things an independent secondary source with a reputation for fact checking is required. And what he says is of no use to demonstrate his notability or that of his productions. —teb728tc00:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello. It's my first time writing an article about someone. It was declined because she was not notable. It is supposed to be a biography. How do I fix it? Nenjie1991 (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Cri6 was accepted by by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation on 11 November but I've noticed that it's not indexed yet on Google while Talk:Cri6 indexed! Could anyone please help to index it? Many thanks Artinnit (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Artinnit Hello. It takes time for search engines like Google to index pages. It appears the article you wrote has been marked as reviewed, so it should not be too much longer. We have no control over how quickly search engines index pages(beyond marking articles as formally reviewed). 331dot (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Ask a help for user making disruptive editing
Can someone stop this user Komoonyoung? always making disruptive editing on Korean drama page and said my revision is untrue revision. This user making edit without evidence from trusted source AGB Nielsen website and manipulated the reference with modificate the real reference (just change the date but when reference clicked the date and the drama name not true. Always want this 3 dramas on top list : It's Okay To not Be Okay, Crash Landing On You, Abyss. Maybe that 3 dramas are this user favorite drama but when you check the reference from AGB Nielsen website, that drama doesn't have the ratings like what this user manipulated). Can administrator just help with this? I already ask a help but no one help until now. Where is the administrators? Thank you in advance. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 07:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Michaelelijahtanuwijaya and Komoonyoung The two of you are now in an edit war, which should result in both of you being temporarily blocked. Neither of you have attempted to resolve this by starting a discussion on the talk page of the article, nor have either of you reached out to the other editor's Talk page. David notMD (talk) 08:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
i reverted to the version which sourced by trusted source. can you see that reference? ok i will let this user when this user making disruptive edit again. i won't correct that again. you didn't give solution but just punish people. surely this user making edit without use trusted source but you didn't wanna know that. Thanks i will give up and whatever this user did i won't wanna know again. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 08:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Michaelelijahtanuwijaya, the recommended solution, as mentioned by David notMD above, is for you and Komoonyoung to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. (If you try to start a discussion, and Komoonyoung continues to edit-war without responding, your allegations are more likely to be taken seriously by administrators.) Maproom (talk) 09:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Michaelelijahtanuwijaya, I had a look at those articles, intending to revert the edits myself, and explain my reasons on the articles' talk pages. But I found that all three had already been reverted, by an IP address with no other edits. If that IP address is you, you are engaged in sockpuppetry, which is against Wikipedia policy. I can't tell if it's you, but some admins will be able to. If you are keen to get an admin involved in this issue, it's a really bad idea to be found violating Wikipedia policy yourself. Maproom (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Well i really dissapointed and tired cause i have a good will but seems i always judged and not helped. Well,i give up and i will retire from editing on Wikipedia. I always judged as wrong person and the disruptive editing just let be happened until now. Too focus to search my mistakes and doesn't take action for disruptive editing until now. So yeah just let that disruptive editing still happened. Thanks it's enough for me. I know i'm just ordinary people doesn't have power so i will retire from being edit on Wikipedia. Thanks a lot. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Sara Radstone article (me RSLLX) //photographs
Yesterday I raised 5 questions raised by editors regarding my contribution art5icle 'Sara Radstone'. Today 'Vexations', kindly responded to one question, namely potential conflict of interest, due to the photographs contained within the article. These photographs were taken by me whilst there was an exhibition and Radstone's work was on show at York Art Gallery. There were no copyright issues involved and it was with the agreement of York gallery that photographs could be taken. I also used the wiki article 'Julian Stair' another modern ceramacist as a kind of template. This article similarly has a photograph of work near the beginning. RSLLX
RSLLX (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC) RSLLX (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello RSLLX. When you uploaded "File:'Untold' (detail) 2017.jpg", you listed yourself as the author and released the image under CC-BY SA 4.0. The problem is that your photograph is a derivative work depicting a piece of art and Sara Radstone holds the copyright to that artwork, not you. She is the author, not you. Only she can freely license photos of her own work. Please remove improperly licensed photos from the article. Cullen328Let's discuss it17:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Sara Radstone article (me RSLLX) //photographs (2)
'Cullen 328' has removed the photographic images from from my article 'Sara Radstone'. Without them the article is diminished almost to the point of being meaningless, because her work is so individual and certainly is far removed from most people's assumptions about clay, pottery, ceramics. This is compounded by the fact that the paragraph which is descriptive of her work and its content has also been removed.....I have no idea why. What matters to you, and to me, is the important issue of copyright. Please believe and understand that copyright agreement has been reached with Radstone. If I knew how to scan things in, which I requested previously on Teahouse talk page, I would do this. Agreement was reached with Radstone, and also discussed with her representing gallery, as well as York Art Gallery where the photos were taken. My frustration regarding the images and the removal of writing is increased when I remember that I referred to the Wikipedia pages of some of Radstone's ceramic colleagues, indeed peers and I believe friends, namely Julian Stair and Edmund de Waal. They quite rightly include images and detailed descriptions of their work; indeed, de Waal's page contains a photograph of the artist himself. Cullen 328 mentions the fact that images could be taken and reproduced on mugs, t-shirts etc. I imagine, when giving copyright permission, she would have thought about these issues and decided she would welcome such potential exposure, not least because it would raise her profile along with the value of her work.
RSLLX (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC) RSLLX (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, RSLLX. If Radstone is indeed willing to license images of her work in a way compatible with the needs of Wikimedia, she (not you) needs to carry out the process explained in donating copyright materials. She needs to understand that she will be issuing them under an irrevocable licence that allows anybody in the world to reuse or modify them for any purpose, commercial or not, as long as they attribute them properly. --ColinFine (talk) 14:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
You have mentioned Ayurveda as a pseudo science.Need you to correct the statement.
Ayurveda ia ancient science.we have references of surgeries and mentions of multiple diseases which were recently discovered.Also, it emphasis more on prevention than cure philosophy.Need you to thoroughly review and edit articles before publishing it. 103.130.108.189 (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi person editing from ...189. This is not going to happen, plain and simple, and discussing it will not work. Please don't waste your own time.
You can believe it's not pseudoscience all you want, and try to make the world reflect that agenda elsewhere, but Wikipedia articles reflect what a dialectic survey of reliable sources hold when it comes to the state of empirical scientific and medical reality, which, here, is that Ayurveda is indeed a pseudoscience.
The only way that could ever properly change is if you were to demonstrate Ayurveda's underpinnings as a science, and prove its efficacy using rigorous application of the scientific method, in a manner such that the wider world of mainstream, reliable scientific- and medical-based sources took note and changed their view of it – and not only that, but did so in such proportion, that calling it a pseudoscience would no longer reflect the mainstream view.
I do believe that that is an impossible task, because the empirical reality is otherwise, but in any event, that is the only way the article can be changed in the manner you desire. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Where to put paid disclosure information?
Article rejected but not explained why.
I am very confused as to where I am supposed to write my paid disclosure. Told to put
on talk or user page. I put it on my talk page along with the article I hoped to post.
The message back was that it was not put in the right place. A further read of instructions
point to posting the disclosure only after having edited an article. However, a previous
message said that I should not bother with the 10 edits, which I had also asked about. So now I am
even more confused. Am I dealing with a robot or a human being here?
I also referred to my "article" as a "profile" which also seems to be prohibited. It is no
different than any other encyclopedic entry anywhere else. I sent the article along with the
paid disclosure. Can someone explain to me what is wrong with it and the proper procedure? What
are notable people supposed to do to be mentioned in the encyclodpedia? It is not advertising
anything, it is strictly factual and neutral as per your specifications. If not, please explain
what's wrong with it. If I put it in the wrong place, can it be removed? Scientrep (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The information about your paid relationship belongs on your User page, not your Talk page. Your working draft of content belongs on your Sandbox or as a draft, not your own Talk page. On your Talk page, editor Theroadislong provided a form to use on your User page to explain your paid situation. Your "draft" has no references yet, so please do not submit it until it looks more like articles about other science entrepreneurs. David notMD (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@Scientrep: For reference, your "user page" is User:Scientrep, your "[user] talk page" is User talk:Scientrep, your "sandbox" is User:Scientrep/sandbox, and your "draft article" should probably be at Draft:Sam Molyneux. I'll note there is already an article about a company he founded, Meta (academic company). If you do move forward with this, in addition to the links to policies and style guides provided earlier, you might want to look at other biographical articles in edit mode for some of the formatting and structure details. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—17:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Morning everyone, I posted this on the chat earlier but it was disconnected so I don't know if anyone saw. I was wondering if any of you could properly check through an article I submitted yesterday. I had created it for my client (disclosed) and it was originally declined as sounding too much like PR. That's fair, so lots of editors then assisted in making it sound objective, which I appreciate, and suggestions on how it could be improved, which I followed. However, because I then made quite a few of the suggested changes, the person who originally declined it flagged it as COI, and one of their notes was that further external editors need to check through the article before removing the COI tag (and presumably, accepting the article). Can someone help here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tim_Grayson_(poet)
Oh, and for full disclosure we also had a trust/impartiality issue with the editor who declined it yesterday, as they had tracked down my client on Twitter and called them a 'parasite' for me creating this, but I believe has been raised as a complaint with Wikipedia already. You can see this here: (Redacted)Blackjackm1990 (talk) 11:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Blackjackm1990 You need to disclose the paid editing on the talk page with {{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=Username of the paid editor|U1-employer=Name of person/organization that is paying for the edits|U1-client= Name of client|U1-otherlinks=Insert diff to disclosure on your User page.}}. About the editor, contacting your client on Twitter is harassment. Firestar464 (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Firestar464, disclosure on article talk pages, while good practice, is not a requirement; disclosure on the userpage is enough. If you feel that it is needed, you can insert that template yourself, however. Blablubbs(talk • contribs)12:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, the policy says "Editors who are or expect to be compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions. They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries." So needs to be in at least one of those places, but no obligation to post to all of them. Joseph2302 (talk)12:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your help everyone. Just trying to prove notability to take it over the line now. In addition to the wayback machine link to the city council website, detailing his position as Cultural Ambassador for Poetry & Creative Writing, I believe I've now provided enough links to prove 'he is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors' (according to WP:Author anyway) - the references I've provided are from Dr Corinne Fowler, Dr Jessica Gossling, and Kathleen Rooney. He is also known for founding the Brothellian movement, which doesn't have a Wikipedia page in itself (yet) but its main show 'the Poetry Brothel' can be found all over the internet. As for details of the movement itself (with a direct link to Grayson), it has been referenced in a national newspaper (the Independent), the University of Leicester and Goldsmiths University, London. Would that also be included in originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique, too? The original tag was WP:Author but it looks like that was removed by another editor. If not, do you think it would be more preferable to resubmit using the entertainer tag, as he 'has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment'. I want to provide as much detail as possible so it doesn't get rejected again! Blackjackm1990 (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Declined (not Rejected, which is harsher) three times. Resubmitted to AfC. I suggest that while awaiting review, the submitting editor work hard to provide references for all factual statements, and remove/replace references that are not considered reliable sources valid toward establishing notability. I removed content (political) that in my opinion did not contribute to his possible notability as a poet. David notMD (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Shalu R. Darshan Just so you know, if we don't know the name of the user who created a page in order to look at their deleted contributions (and per above, there's nothing for your username), in order for us to find a deleted page to see what happened to it, we have to know:
1) exactly what name (or IP address) you created it using; or
2) the exact title to search for it in the deletion log (or using the undelete tool); or
3) use our computer's find function at the raw deletion log to search for a partial title, among a maximum of 5,000 pages at a time—but a 5,000-page view only takes one back a few days—so if you don't know the exact title but can confirm a partial match that we can search (e.g., that its title contained "Rattan"), and tell us the approximate last date you know the page to have been "live", we can then target the deletion log search around that date.
Hello, GermanKolmakov. As you may have noticed, the list "has no precise inclusion criteria as described in the Manual of Style for standalone lists." If you wish to add one company and you have a news article or even a press release you can cite as a source, go ahead and add it. Until the inclusion criteria are formalized, your entry will be able to stay on the list. After that point, who knows?--Quisqualis (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi! So, I want to create a table for the Lil Mosey page, talking about his mixtapes, but when I opened the template, I immediately closed it because I didn't know what to do. Can someone help with that? Any feedback will be GREATLY appreciated. Mr Mosaic (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I usually copy the table from from another article that has a table like the one I want to my sandbox (your sandbox is User:Mr Mosaic/sandbox, it has not been created yet, you may create it by clicking on the red link), play with it until I get it the way I like it, then put it where I want it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I wish to use File:UFC 225 Event poster.jpg in Yoel Romero. I found out that I have to undertake certain steps to prevent copyright violation, and visited certain help sites. I could not intake the idea properly. Could someone help me?--Atlantis77177 (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Can a section title of an article's talk page modified if it may give a false impression to non-involved editors? For instance, a section title "Unnecessary Tagging" suggests that baseless tags were placed in the article. Especially, this is the case, if edits fixing the problems (that the tags indicated) are followed by edit summaries like "tag removed" and questions relating the tags are summarized in the edit summary (after the title "Unneccessary Tagging") as "another". I specifically write of cases, when the tags (or more than 90% of the tags) refer to actual problems. Thank you for your thoughts. Borsoka (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC) Borsoka (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Borsoka. It does not give a false impression. It is absolutely accurate. Even if it did not have the question mark, every single person looking at it would understand it is posted by a person questioning whether tagging in the article has been unnecessary. With the question mark, the tacit idea that it indicates the poster's questioning on that issue, becomes explicit. And whether the questioned issue has been addressed, or was not accurate in the first place, would never be addressed by changing the title. The section will have always been posted by someone actually questioning that issue. (The only imaginable scenario where a section title like that would not be accurate is if the person posting underneath it, actually talks about something entirely unrelated.) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
AlanM1, I think that this is instead about the matter explained in Democrat Party (epithet). Person objecting in CAPITALS: The content of Wikipedia is, as AlanM1 says, based on material from reliable sources; if you can present other reliable sources that say something different, then feel free to do so on Talk:Democrat Party (epithet). Note that use of CAPITALS does not make a disputant any more persuasive: rather, the reverse. -- Hoary (talk) 06:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't think my edit was fairly reverted.
So I made an edit to the page Kirby Star Allies that was reverted almost immediatly with the reason "Not adhering to manual of style". I had rewrote the text below to what I thought was a better description that read better.
Collapse for brevity, available in page edit history
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Before my edit:
In Heroes in Another Dimension (takes place after the main story), Hyness and the Three Mage Sisters are corrupted and went to another dimension. So Kirby and his heroic Dream Friends have to travel four dimensions in order to unlock the final dimension and battle a corrupted form of Hyness and the other corrupted mages. If the player collects all 100 or more hearts, they can make Francisca, Flamberge and Zan Partizanne friends and send Kirby and his friends back to Dream Land.
After my edit:
In Heroes in Another Dimension, a challenge mode taking place after the main story, Hyness and the Three Mage Sisters become corrupted and are transported to another dimension. Kirby and his allies have to travel four dimensions in order to unlock the final dimension and battle a corrupted form of Hyness and the other corrupted mages. If the player collects 100 or more friend hearts (collectable versions of the hearts that Kirby throws), they unlock Francisca, Flamberge and Zan Partizanne as Dream Friends.
I genuinely do not see how how my edit was not adhering to the manual of style. Could someone point out how my edit was incorrect?
Thanks,
185.73.65.98 (talk) 10:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, IP editor. Looking through the "history" tab of a page, I see the links to your edit and the revert. The first part of the change ("Kirby and his allies" instead of "the player and their friends") is debatable, but the second part is in my view a clear improvement (better grammar in particular), so I do think the revert is strange. At any rate, if the edit contradicts the manual of style, the reverter should point to which section of the manual is violated.
My sincerest apologies IP editor, this revert was done in complete error. I have since undone my revert. Thanks for notifying me Tigraan and I will add an explanation when doing reverts not complying with WP:MOS in the future. Cairo2k18 • (talk) • (contribs)10:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Level of skill required to translate small articles?
(Not necessarily just for English Wikipedia, but since my native language is English I figured I'd post it here.)
What level of skill should someone have with a language before translating articles from English Wikipedia into another language's Wikipedia (or vice versa)? I feel like I might have enough experience to translate some smaller articles into other languages (L2s, I'm not a native speaker) but I'd likely need a dictionary, and I can't find anything mentioning how skilled you should be before trying to translate (since I don't want to just write bad translations and hope they get corrected later on). Tymewalk (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm surprised that you're asking about this here, rather than at some suitable page of the Wikipedia of a target language. Suppose one of these L2s is Romanian. One can expect that a significant minority of active editors of ro:WP will be sufficiently proficient in English to read and understand paragraphs of en:WP, if given a reason to do so. Suppose further that marbles interest you. Romanian-language Wikipedia doesn't obviously have an article about marbles. You could translate the first paragraph (skipping the pre-Enlightenment units) into Romanian, and ask at ro:WP whether a translation such as yours would be helpful. -- Hoary (talk) 06:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
@Tymewalk: You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Competence is required; it's good advice that applies to other languages as well. If you're comfortable with it, there's no harm in giving it a shot, and I think other editors will appreciate the effort. Most of us don't get an article right on the first try anyways, and every article needs some form of revising. Worst case scenario is it just gets deleted, in which you just move on. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 11:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Organizing layout of badges on a userpage
Hi fellow Wikipedians! I'd like to have my badges organized into tables or something else. Maybe something similar to {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}} for Userbox tables. Are there any templates for that purpose?
I've also seen some userpages that have all the badges shown as small icons and on the same line as the page title. How do I do that?
If you've seen other people do it, "edit" their user page but don't save the edit. This will show you how it's done. As far as templates, I don't know, maybe someone else does. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I would’ve done that too, it’s just that I don’t remember whose userpage it was... Perhaps I’ll get lucky and bump into another userpage like that. -Colathewikian (talk) 11:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I need to help understanding exactly what I'm missing in this article. Is it the subject, reference, or the person of interest? DECLINED this reason -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 people). 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.
Collapse for brevity, available in page edit history
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article reads and cites references- Aaron Griffin (born November 18, 1970),[2] professionally known by his stage name Aaron “Babyboy” Griffin also known as Jeda is an African American composer, singer, songwriter, rapper, manager, record/film producer, entrepreneur, business strategist, activist. His first commercial success was 1997 signing on with a major record label.[4] and the hit song "The Breaks", a single from the 1998 Worldwide debut album by Nadanuf with single reaching number 10 on the Hip-hop Billboard Charts.
Hello, Roundtable2, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not going to plough through that list of URLs (though I notice that the first two are to Wikipedia and IMDB, neither of which is acceptable as a reference, since they are both user-generated). For people to help you, please sort out the three most solid references: that is to say, three places where somebody who has no connection with Jeda and has not been prompted or fed information on behalf of Jeda, has chosen to publish material about him in a reliable source. Please understand that Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything which come from him, his agents, his associated, or people distributing or selling his work: the article should be based nearly 100% on what independent people have published about him. --ColinFine (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Roundtable2. I am hoping to point you at a very few, relatively compact pages that I hope will explain the main issues you are facing in depth – the lack right now in the draft of the right type and manner of citations to reliable sources – all of our core policies and content guidelines run on sourcing, and, in order for your draft to be accepted, the most key issue is to demonstrate notability through the draft's references. Please visit: Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability).
One more thing is the presentation. While it's true that presenting a general reference at the end of the draft to a naked URL – but one that is a reliable, secondary, and independent source that treats a topic in detail – is better than formatting a beautiful looking citation, but to to an unreliable, primary, connected source that only mentions a topic in passing, nevertheless, the naked URLs, only used in the form of general reference, are not helping either.
The ideal is the use of citations in the form of footnotes, associated directly in the text of the article with specific statements, so that a person can see which references cited are being use to support what statements, and that those references are presented with better attribution than is imparted by a naked link. For help with that, please visit: Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1.
Lastly, as an example, I'm going to end my signoff after this sentence with a footnote that will display below using a well formatted citation, and then a second footnote to the same source using its naked URL, so that you can compare for yourself. Best regards[1][2] --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Status: Draft:Aaron "Babyboy" Griffin Declined second time. The declining reviewer deleted all refs as unhelpful (not considered reliable sources) or false, and asked that any refs that will be used be in a proper format rather than as a naked URL. David notMD (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
It has been criticised as spam-y, lacking citations, and as written as an essay. I agree with all that. But I am surprised that no-one has pointed out that it is strongly promotional, and promotes the use of social media to influence consumers – a technique that many disapprove of – see e.g.Cambridge Analytica. Maproom (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Help With Editing If There Are No Sources for Figure Skating Programs
I have just started reading the Wikipedia policies on adding reliable sources, biographies of living people, and editing, but as of today, I am still nervous about editing with additional information for figure skaters because even if there are no sources, multiple programs are missing and I don't want to get into trouble again just like I did a couple of weeks ago, which caused me to worry about editing more and more. If a figure skater has a blank short, free, or exhibition program, should I leave it blank and ask for help on those pages getting more information? There are some YouTube pages that feature music that we all have never added on those pages, but I just want to make sure that if some of those pages don't have reliable sources for the programs I should just leave them alone or receive permission to edit that page. I am very sincerely sorry about my activity lately, but I just felt that some of those pages needed more information and I was only trying to help. Hope I hear from you soon! - Signed, Meaghan Brown, Holliston, MA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.100.163 (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If a subject does not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources, it would not merit a Wikipedia article (or inclusion in an existing article). This is irrespective of if other similar subjects do merit articles, see other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Appreciation that you returned to the dozens of article you added unreferenced content to, and reverted your own additions. Do not add content to articles unless you can add reliable source references at the same time. Asking for help on the Talk pages of those articles is not likely to find someone else who has access to references. There is no "receive permission to edit that page." No references, no new content. Wikipedia wants truth, but requires verification. David notMD (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I'm looking at a page where a citation does not match previously made claims. The citation is not relevant to the topic at hand and I believe was inserted by mistake. I do not have a suitable replacement citation. What should I do? 2601:681:4B00:CB80:DD79:67E8:A8DC:7718 (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Template:Failed verification may be of some use. If the source is totally useless anywhere in the article, you can remove the source and use Template:Citation needed instead. Be sure the source 1) isn't being referenced more than once in the page and 2) doesn't have anything in it that would be worth keeping. If either of those apply, it's a little more complicated. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Each of the items Victor Schmidt mentioned has a link to a page that explains how to use it, Spamfighter247. I don't use an iPad, but my guess is that you need to be using the browser rather than a Wikipedia App. --ColinFine (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
recent changes patroling can be dangerous, especially if you are not good at hitting small buttons. My recommendation would be to use the desktop version (en.wikipedia.org, not en.m.wikipedia.org) and use a responsively skin, such as "monobook" or "timeless". The default skin (vector) is more or less bad, especially in its legacy version.
Huggle is a program that needs to be installed, and therefore is currently only available for Windows, Mac and certain unix-based operating systems.
RedWarn is another browser-based tool, but I haven't used it so far, so I cannot give you advice on its pros and cons. Wikipedia:RedWarn#Installation probbably has more. As with RC, I recommend setting a responsive skin.
Side note: Notification templates go at the start of your comment, or somewhere on the middle (if you embem them into your text context) but not at the end. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
@Spamfighter247:Here are my preferred settings for monitoring Recent Changes for bad faith edits. Others might have different settings they prefer, but they do me OK. As well as a desktop and a laptop, I also edit and do some vandal patrolling from a tiny iPhone 5S screen. Never use the Wikipedia app, and always use Safari or Chrome in 'desktop mode, never in 'mobile view'. Enable Twinkle via your Special Preferences so you can easily revert bad faith edits and at the same time open a new tab to give low-level warnings first, then increase them if the person continues vandalising. Only after exceeding your final warning should you report them at WP:AIV. Twinkle lets you do that easily, too. (I get cross with experienced editors who revert, warn and report at AIV all at once, and decline to block an editor for vandalism if they've not been sufficiently warned. That's a waste of their time and that of the admins who have to investigate the reports.) The only thing I find impossible to do on a mobile is to show a an IPv6 editors contributions across the full /64 range as I simply cannot fit the full url on my browser to add on the extra /64 to see them. But that's a fairly specialised area. At Recent Changes, don't sit at the top of the list of latest edits and aim to revert bad edits; instead, go lower down the page looking for clues like "fix typo", "I fixed it" or any edits to school pages or to college/university notable alumni, and keep an eye on the colouration of edits (known as ORES), which uses artificial intelligence to helpful suggest likely bad faith edits. I might try Victor Schmidt's suggestion about changing skins as, whilst I like the default one on desktop, I do struggle with tiny text and fat finger f*c*-ups on a mobile. Good luck: you've got the right username, now you simply need to develop the superhero skills to go with it! Always err on the side of caution - especially at first, and then it's best only to revert those edits that are clearly vandalism. You can always add 'iffy' users to your watchlist and check out all their edits later. (If I have warned a user a couple of times for the same bad faith edit, I often keep a tab open on them for another 20 minutes so that I can monitor any further edits. Most vandals have tiny minds and low attention span, so have normally wandered off to do something else within that time. If they haven't, then I'm happy to see them reported and blocked!) Nick Moyes (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Good article
Hello Teahouse hosts,
I would like to bring up the article Dog to become a good article. I don't see any major issues that could prevent it from a good article. I haven't worked on the article much, but I checked the criteria here and I think it satifies all the criteria. I'm new to good articles, so I would someone to check for any major issues that could prevent it from being a good article so that I can try to work on them so it can be a good article. Any help is appreciated. Interstellarity (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Interstellarity. The lead section immediately jumps out as insufficient to provide a suitable "introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents" etc. Given the article's breadth, I would expect it to be the average "four well-composed paragraphs" for a lengthy article.
The article contains unsourced statements—not just obviously, where a paragraph is stated with no citations—but a spot check immediately revealed paragraphs where citations appeared, but they each verified the preceding sentence only, and not other sentences interspersed (I also just removed from it an unsourced statement that sounded dubious and may very well be unreverted vandalism). I would expect before nominating, under basic due diligence, that you would take on a careful review that the current sourcing verifies the current content – which is no small task given the size (and if the deficiency in that area, upon my quick look, is at all representative).
Also, have you read its GA reassessment, where it was removed as a former good article, and multiple subsequent failed good articles nominations? (see the drop down list on the talk page template in the section with the symbol ). Certainly you should carefully read those and address anything left unaddressed. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Interstellarity: The best place to get this sort of feedback is at WP:PEERREVIEW, and subsequently, of course, by following the guidance at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions and associated pages. But if this question relates to the point I raised at ORFA about being able to demonstrate significant practical experience, I suggest you might find it far better to start with a shorter, lower quality of article (and probably a more esoteric one) and work on it intensively by yourself, without seeking the input of others, until such time as you believe it is ready for Peer Review. By then, you will have become deeply familiar with the topic, with WP:MOS ( and with those irritating em- and en-dashes) and every one of its sources and know it sufficiently will enough to follow the review advice to get it ready for GA nomination. Whilst there's absolutely nothing to stop you simply putting it forward for a GA if you think it's good enough, that simply won't cut the mustard with those who !vote at RfA who expect candidates to demonstrate in-depth editing experience, and to have done a lot of the work themselves. So, don't rush, if that's your aim, but find something that really interests you that you can throw your heart and soul into over a prolonged period. There are no shortcuts to demonstrating that degree of editing experience, I fear. All the best, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you all so much for your replies. I don't think becoming an administrator should be my ultimate goal on Wikipedia and its absolutely not a goal I should rush at. I feel I should devote my time editing the encyclopedia. I'll try to find some stubs on Wikipedia and work to try to expand them so I can develop an article so it can be at its best. There is a saying that you can never get too much experience because the more experience an editor has, the better. I know I can do good here and I will certainly take this advice to guide me. Best, Interstellarity (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Table that seems to defy the rules
There is a substantial table at Messier_object#Messier_objects, and I am struggling to understand how it works.
According to Help:Introduction_to_tables_with_Wiki_Markup/2, a table starts a new row when there is an entry starting "|-". Yet the second row of this table, final column (Declination) is coded as "|−00° 49′ 23.7″". So my question is: how come that codes as a cell, and does not start a new row? Every time I try to code a cell with a negative value like this, it starts a new row instead. Gronk Oz (talk) 11:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
@Gronk Oz: Row and cell creating code must be on a new line to be able to start a new row/cell. Otherwise it is interpeted as a new cell containing a dash. For example, compare the output of
@Victor Schmidt mobil: I'm not sure I follow. In that table, each one is on a new line, as you say. Beside that, your first example seems to rely on having a space before the minus sign. If I remove that, as was done in the Messier table, it renders like this:
Caption text
Header text
Header text
Header text
Example
Example
Example
Example
Example
Example
So the leading space is a work-around, but I can't see how it explains the different behaviour in the Messier table. --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
@Gronk Oz and Victor Schmidt mobil: It's not the spacing, it's the dash itself. The one used in table syntax is a hyphen-minus (U+002D), while the one in your example is a minus sign (U+2212). Notice how these two are slightly different lengths:
@Ganbaruby: You got it, thanks! That is so subltle it almost looks like somebody is playing a practical joke on the Wikipedia community. I imagine there is probably some magic keyboard shortcut to produce the different characters, but in practice I think I will just copy and paste from an existing cell. Thanks for taking the trouble to explain it. --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Shared IP address
Hi there,
Is there a template that basically says "This is a shared IP address"? I'd like to put it at the top of the talk page that my IP address uses,so that people know that all the vandalism reversion notices aren't for me, they are for other people who are using the IP address.
185.73.65.98, Maybe it would be a good time to create an account, so that all your edits will be assigned to your user name and not your IP address. While it's not mandatory that you create an account, it's helpful to have your own talk page where you would only have messages that pertain to your edits, and not those of other IP users not connected to your edits. CoryphanthaTalk04:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
... and you would get the ability to be notified when people respond to you, better anonymity, availability of gadgets and customizations that make your experience here more productive and entertaining, etc. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—01:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@Mpadilla0139: Please see Wikipedia:Administrators. Step 1 is "candidates should generally be active, regular, and long-term Wikipedia contributors, be familiar with the procedures and practices of Wikipedia, respect and understand its policies, and have gained the general trust of the community." (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.) GoingBatty (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello Mpadilla0139. Thoroughly familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Write several new articles and take a couple of them to Good article status. Improve and expand other articles, and fight against vandalism. Participate in the various dispute resolution processes in a constructive way. As you gain more experience, help new editors, either here at the Teahouse or at the Help desk or at the Articles for Creation process. At all times, do your best to be constructive, level-headed and helpful. Edit frequently. In a few years, you will be ready. Cullen328Let's discuss it01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
No @2601:181:C381:6C80:3473:20C6:64B7:5B9C: asking questions is a good thing. See the considered, respectful answers given above as an indication of how the question was treated seriously. That is not the reason for the ban. Instead, administrator TonyBallioni banned this user on the basis that their editing history showed they were "clearly not here to build an encyclopedia". This was challenged, and reviewed by an independent administrator who upheld the block. I don't know all the details, but I imagine the admins concerned would be willing to have the discussion with you. --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I ran a check because asking an SPI clerk about a block immediately after asking how to be an administrator is usually a sign of a previous account or IP that has been blocked. I discovered a previous account and an IP that had been behaving disruptively creating hoaxes and had previously been blocked for vandalism. Taken as a whole, the contributions on all the accounts and the IP, it showed a user who wasn’t here to contribute positively. Ponyo reviewed it and agreed. As I said, if they make an unblock request that addresses how they plan to positively contribute, I don’t mind them being unblocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Help Request needed and urgency
I had posted a help request in a talk page weeks ago but there was no help, neither was a reply. I want to push or urge editors to help with the templates for American Idol results table and performances table, changing from a monochrome to the colorful one; this is because of consistencies and good clarity, and it has even been used on one other article. The last time the edit was on August and no progress was done ever since, and I was busy on real-life matters as well. This has to be done for other Idol seasons as well to further improve the article. I had asked the editors as well but neither action was taken because of other commitments. TVSGuy (talk) 09:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
TVSGuy Wikipedia editors are largely volunteers who do what they can when they can. In addition, the WikiProject page you posted to may have limited attendance. Other editors are more likely to see your requests if you make formal edit requests on the talk page of the relevant article or template talk page. There are no deadlines here, so what is the urgency? 331dot (talk) 09:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I just created a Wikipedia account, and I would like to know if any experienced Wikipedians would like to teach me the basics of Wikitext editing. I would greatly appreciate it if somebody was willing to guide me through my first couple of days on Wikipedia. Hairy but Whole (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Fuhghettaboutit: I have felt it appropriate to give a WP:NOTHERE block to this editor, subsequent to their initial post here, based on the probable inuendo of their username, combined with this this and this edit being indicative of their approach to being here. (Personally, I would never suggest adoption to a totally new editor, and always suggest they use the Teahouse or WP:HD until such time as their edit history shows they are genuinely committed to contributing and to learning more about the intricate ways of Wikipedia. Only then is it really worth an adopter committing their time to support a relatively new user.) Nick Moyes (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Zindor: No worries. One thing that I use all the time now for antivandalism work, and quickly checking out diffs etc (but hated at first) is 'Navigation Popups', which can be set from one's Preferences. It disables the much simpler hovercard popup, and displays so much more. It allows you to check diffs, talk pages, page history etc, simply by placing your mouse over a link. I spot a lot of dubious edits that way - especially at Special:RecentChanges, and it avoids having to open up lots of new pages. If you haven't tried it, do give it a go. I only wished it worked on a mobile). Nick Moyes (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Indeed; agreed; you know from my posts I usually look carefully at edit histories and tailor to the user; an end of the night, tired posting; not one of my better ones.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)
Advice
Hi everyone! It's my first time asking a question in the Teahouse! On my personal talk page I was suggested to do so if in need... Me and some other university students are creating the page Palazzina Appiani and I wanted to ask you experienced editors some advice on what to change/add. Thank you! Marchesa02 (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse Marchesa02 I'm no expert on Italian buildings but the article looks pretty good already and has been rated "C" class by the relevant project, so well done for that! Maybe you could take a break and see if anyone comments on the article's Talk Page. Meanwhile there are loads of other poor articles you could improved. For suggestions, look a the Project pages of topics that interest you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Incidentally, I couldn't find a corresponding article on Italian Wikipedia, so creating that should be easy for you now, assuming you are all fluent Italian speakers. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
If you do find a file without "NC" in its license, the actual procedure is described in detail at "in the Commons Help files".. Note that for files not your own work you would say so and provide the URL (at minimum) for where you obtained it, plus a statement about the license. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Including Information About Nawab Khan Bahadur Sayed Nawab Ali Chowdhury
Dear Authority Of Wikipedia, I AM Nawab Sayed Sujaul Karim Chowdhury . MY Father Late Nabab Sayed RMK Bashar Chowdhury and My Grand Father Is Nabab Sayed Hamid Ali Chowdhury who is Son Of Sayed Mohammad Ali Chowdhury(3rd Prime Minister in Pakistan) your authority Added Wrong Information about my family. I Am giving Objection or i will apply int'l tribunal in heg. if you need any information about nabab khan bahadur Nawab Ali chowdhury then(contact details redacted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayedsujaulkarimchowdhury (talk • contribs) 16:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Sayedsujaulkarimchowdhury: Hello sir! First of all, we have twice deleted your post here because it contained personal contact details for you, and that is a very inadvisable thing to post here. However, I have redacted them to protect you, and have pasted your post above. Secondly, we do not come to individuals to check their family histories; instead, we rely on published Reliable Sources. I am sorry if there is content on these articles that has not been cited to such a source. My advice is to go to the talk page of the relevant article and very clearly explain your concerns about errors, and give citations (references) to support those concerns. But please DO NOT post emails or phone numbers here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Then, I am sure another editor will be happy to look at your sources and make changes. If that does not happen after a week or two, you could either come back here or follow guidance at WP:EDITREQUEST to leave a special sort of alert which will attract the attention of editors to that page. Thirdly, please do not simply add or remove content from articles without giving a properly published source to help other editors understand your reason for making those changes. Finally, I should mention that we do have a policy called NOLEGALTHREATS. It doesn't stop you from taking any legal action you wish, but we will remove your editing rights on Wikipedia until such time as that threat is either withdrawn or concluded. I see no reason for you even to consider such action, so let's just shrug it off as the words of someone who wants to see Wikipedia correctly reflect what they know to be correct. Unfortunately, Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources have stated, and not what people personally know to be true, so sometimes there can be an unfortunate mismatch of information. We're always keen to help get articles better; your role is to help us understand precisely what's wrong with it and to point us to better published sources to get it improved. Personal testimony cannot be used, I'm afraid, no matter how close the family connection. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Sayedsujaulkarimchowdhury. There is no "Authority of Wikipedia" in that sense: we are a community of volunteer editors, who work by consensus. Please make edit requests on the Talk pages of the particular article which you want changed (see the page that that blue link points to for the procedure). Be specific as you can, eg "Please remove the sentence .... in the third paragraph". If the material you want removed is not cited to a reliable source, that should be fine, and somebody will do it. However, if the material is cited to a source, then you will need to join a discussion, explaining (with reliable sources) why it should be changed.
However, before any of that, you need to withdraw your legal threat. If you wish to go to law, that is your prerogative; but you may not edit Wikipedia while you do so, so if you do not withdraw the threat, you are likely to have your account blocked. --ColinFine (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Hyperlinks to Other Wikipedia Articles
Hello! I'm very new, trying to write my first original article.
I've noticed that Wikipedia articles often include hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles that are pertinent to the original subject and/or illuminating with regard to esoteric words and phrases.
Hello, HilarityEnsued, and welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia. I don't want to dampen your enthusiasm, but the truth is that writing a new article is not easy for a beginner: I liken it to trying to play a concerto after one piano lesson. I suggest that you take The Wikipedia Adventure to learn the basics (including about wikilinks), and then spend a few weeks or months improving some of our six million existing articles before you try it. In any case, please read your first article before you try, as that is likely to save you a lot of frustration and unhappiness. --ColinFine (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, HilarityEnsued. Checking your userpage, I think you definitely need to read WP:PAID before you think about creating an article about one of your clients. This is an obligatory policy and, to be frank, I expect anyone who is being paid to edit Wikipedia to be sufficiently competent that they don't need to be a drain on our volunteer resources, or need hand-holding. I don't mean to sound rude by pointing this out, but Colin's advice is spot on. Learn the basics of editing across multiple topics unrelated to your employment, and discover the pleasure that helping to build this encyclopaedia can bring. We'll be happy to help you with that. But only then should you even think about applying your excellent copywriting, but bad spelling skills to help your clients here. I will pop by your user talk page and leave you a shed load of links to all sorts of helpful stuff. But Help:Introduction is an excellent place to start. Then WP:EXTLINKS will explain where hyperlinks should and should not go. (PS: I suspect you are not as old as either Colin or me. I was building 5-valve superhet short-wave radio receivers in my bedroom around the time Bill Gates was working away in his garage. His plan worked out; mine didn't.) Nick Moyes (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
One more thing, HilarityEnsued (I hadn't read your user page). You should be aware, and explain to your client, that if you do succeed in creating an article about your client, it won't belong to her, it won't be for her benefit, you and she will not have any control over the contents (you will be limited to requesting changes on the talk page), and it should be almot 100% based on what people who have no connection with your client have chosen to publish about her. Please see an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. --ColinFine (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
What is the difference between deletion review and requests for undeletion?
@JJPMaster: If you read the opening paragraph on the two pages you link, it will explain the difference. One is for most speedly deletes and contested deletions done via AfD, and the other is for uncontested deletes. RudolfRed (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
JJPMaster, Requests for undeletion usually has one person requesting undeletion, and one administrator granting it. Deletion review is done by consensus as it is controversial and must meet the wishes of the editors of Wikipedia. After a set amount of days, consensus will be stated and a result will become implemented through closure. Enjoy your stay at the Teahouse! Heart(talk)18:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Wname1. I think that would be a very bad and confusing idea, but expanding the English template to include more links to a wider range of articles in English seems a more logical approach. I note you also asked the same question at Template talk:Nervous system tumors, so one hopes you might receive a reply there. However, that page has very few watchers, so I suggest you ask a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, linking to the template talk page discussion so that you don't get answers spread around different discussion pages. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Lately I am working on a Pixar-themed draft which submission was declined and I am very concerned that within six months it will be deleted if no one edits the draft. I have many doubts about how to improve a draft, but I will just ask about the sources: Are Bloomsbury Publishing, Oxford University Press, The MIT Press, Chronicle Books and ECW Press reliable sources? Do visual sources (for example: concept arts, videos...) count?
Thank you for answering one of my two questions, but I wonder if books published by book publishers (such as Chronicle Books and its The Art of... art book series) or university presses (such as Oxford University Press and its The Oxford Handbook of Sound Studies book) act as reliable sources. For a reason, I'm considering adding them to the draft as references in the near future. - AndrétheAndroid (talk)19:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Much/most of the draft content that is actually about Andre is unreferenced, and reads as if it is your own description of Andre's actions. I agree with the reviewers' comments on the draft. David notMD (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
As you have probably figured out by now, asking for help on your own Talk page (or on the Talk page of a draft) unlikely to get any responses. David notMD (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello André the Android. It is not possible to assess a book's reliability simply by knowing the name of the publisher, although there is a pretty strong presumption that books published by major university presses are reliable for most purposes. But a history book published by Oxford University Press that makes passing mention of a medical condition that someone had is not a reliable source for that medical condition. We have much stricter standards for sources used in medical articles. Consider ECW Press, which publishes both fiction and non-fiction books. It should be obvious that something a fictional character says cannot be used as a reliable source even if the publisher is fine. So, in addition to the reputation of the publisher, you need to assess the author and their qualifications, and in many cases, how the book was received by competent reviewers. Books published by major presses are sometimes widely panned by other experts in the field, and therefore should not be relied on as sources in Wikipedia. You also need to consider the context, and how the reference is used in the article. Does the book devote in depth coverage to the topic, or just mention it briefly while focusing on another topic? So, the process of assessing reliability is not as simple as looking at the name of the publisher. Cullen328Let's discuss it21:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I already know that many experienced editors (including administrators) had complained about the draft's content and I understand that it is not easy to write a draft about an obscure fictional character, as well as I see Wikipedia's rules are obviously complex (that is to say, I am an inexperienced Wikipedian regarding to article creation). There is no doubt that the answer in a talk page will not be instant (and may even be never).
As for the draft, I'm looking for the appropiate, reliable sources as much as I can while I reject sources which don't mention André himself (including, but not limited to Pixar's feature films, Star Wars and unrelated people with similar names). I have to admit that it is not an easy task to search for references, as I am doing it through Google Books. But I must confess that at least I haven't put a source that talks about medicine, as I am not interested in medicine. - AndrétheAndroid (talk)22:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
It has been refused once for insufficient citations, which is understandable. There were relatively few in the first interation. I have now significantly revised it adding citations to a variety of resources at least a few of them I believe meet the standards.
I am wondering if someone would mind taking a look at the reference list and telling me if it appears those are sufficient for establishing notability?
Thank you.
And of course if you have other notes on changes that should be made those are welcome as well. I wanted to keep my first question fairly simple. Mystixa (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Mystixa, it's the quality of the sources cited that matters, not the quantity. Some of the sources you've added don't even mention Lockhart. Citing such sources doesn't fool anyone, it just wastes the time of reviewers. Maproom (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The article - not just the Infobox - needs to establish the names he used as a DJ. Otherwise, some of the refs do not appear to be about him. Still doubtful he achieves Wikipedia definition of notable. David notMD (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
On the infobox gotcha, I wondered about that. I'll get those citations moved. After citing the breadth of publications he was involved with over the past many years, commercial success, and gaining notability in the music world, I have a hard time seeing him him not being notable enough for wikipedia. He meets at least a few of the musician notability standards like being signed to multiple large indie labels. Thank you for your input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystixa (talk • contribs) 22:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
how to change article title
There is a title that needs adjustment. For Sue Thomas (agent) she was not an agent. As a deaf person she was not medically qualified to be an agent and even the article does not say she was an agent. She was an intelligence specialist. The best adjustment for the title would probably be FBI Specialist. When doing edit the title does not show, or I do not see, how to edit it. I went to the disambigous page and don't think that would do it either. Can someone point me to the correct place? Thanks. SailedtheSeas (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi JennilyW Here's a little trick for navigation. Just about anything you see in the interface or featured behind the scenes that has a fairly standardized name it's designated with, or called by by many users, will almost always have a page at "Wikipedia:Name Used" (often these may be in the Help: or other namespace, but the format "Wikipedia:Name Used" will still work as invariably redirecting to the correct page). Another trick to combine with this is that "WP" works as an alias for "Wikipedia", saving typing time.
I have in a way proved the point already in this post – because the (piped links <--- I just did it again, with this link) I've provided before (and in) this sentence (to namespace, redirect and piped links respectively) were typed by me, and I knew would point to the right places without having to think about it, using: WP:namespace, WP:redirect and WP:Pipe.
So, all that is to say, information about userboxes / user boxes can be found at the name you asked about, "userboxes" (or "user boxes" or "USERBOXES" or any of them in the singular, and others) by searching Wikipedia for any of WP:Userboxes / WP:User boxes / WP:USERBOXES; etc., which each link to the main information/instruction/help page at the title Wikipedia:Userboxes. If after visiting that page you have any follow-up issue, please do advise here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Article lost in redirect
Hi! I was attempting to upload my completed work from the sandbox to live space. My page redirected when I clicked on "Move", but I do not see it live in Wikipedia. How do I resolve this? Thank you for your help!
Excuse me, what's the method of joining CVUA? Now that I have 200 mainspace edits, I want to join to advance my antivandalism fighting and possibly get rollback. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@HurricaneTracker495: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to fight vandalism. On the page you linked is a list of trainers. The instructions say "Find a user who is in your time zone or otherwise has student slots open and leave a message on their talk page to request training. If you don't receive a reply within 48 hours, please choose another trainer." So, that would be your next step. RudolfRed (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia advises people to not attempt articles about themselves (see F's link to autobiography). Also, your User page is for information about your intents as an editor, NOT a place to create a faux article about yourself. David notMD (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Here is the easy three-step process for successfully creating an autobiography on Wikipedia. First, be thoroughly familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which will take you many months of work. Second, accomplish something really amazing, like winning a Nobel prize or an Oscar, or getting elected to a seat in Parliament or Congress, or setting a new world record in an Olympic event. Third, submit your draft to the Articles for Creation process, so that uninvolved editors can review your work. Cullen328Let's discuss it02:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
My edit was reverted - please help to restore
Dear Teahouse Forum
Please help :-) I am a novice at Wikipedia and when I attempted to edit an incorrect website, Materialscientist removed the section that I had edited.
I have written to him, but no response so far. How should I edit something like this correctly and how can we restore the section back to how it was?
I am writing on behalf of Diamond Way Buddhism Cape Town and Diamond Way Buddhism South Africa.
I am new to editing Wikipedia and I noticed that the hyperlink on the Buddhism South Africa page [13] for "Diamond Way Buddhist Centre Cape Town" was incorrect. It was listed as http://www.buddhism-southafrica.org/en/ (incorrect) and it should be http://www.buddhism-southafrica.org (correct link). I simply tried to correct the website address.
It seems however, that when I made this change, you have reverted/deleted the entire section which listed all the Buddhist Centres in South Africa (not just ours).
You say that I must add a source, but I'm not sure exactly what you need, as I am new to this.
What do I need to do in order for this section to be returned and for our correct webpage to be displayed?
This is in reference to your message:
"Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Buddhism in South Africa, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 11:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC). [14].
Please help to restore this section and advise how to proceed.
@HighestJoy: It appears that there are a couple different edits. Materialscientist did in fact remove your mention of Lama Ole Nydahl, but it was Greyjoy that took out the external links. Neither of these edits seem to be accidents. Wikipedia's policy about external links generally discourages long lists of external links like what was in that article. It's likely that Greyjoy just noticed that the page had a list of links that shouldn't have been there and deleted them. Materialscientist's revert was because there wasn't a citation for the specific mention of Lama Ole Nydahl; if you have a source for that, you're welcome to re-add it.
Image Permissions: Current Wikipedia Policy/Instructions
Good morning. It has been a little while since I created a page or even added an image. A friend has asked me to work on a company page, but I am not sure how to go about adding the company logo and other images that do not belong to me personally. Please could you guys help "shove" me through this bout of unknowing?
Philbutler Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You will need to review the conflict of interest policy to learn how to formally disclose that you have been asked to edit by your friend with the company. If they are compensating you in any way(not just money), you will need to declare as a paid editor. Information on uploading images can be found at WP:UPIMAGE. You will have to upload the logo to Wikipedia itself, and not Commons, since Commons does not allow fair use images. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
You guys are great. Thanks 331dot and teb728, I am going over the resources you suggested. Less confused now, but still feeling dumb. I am retired and since I have a "fraction" of experience editing and making a couple of pages on W, friends asked me to help them with tasks. I'll come back after reading your suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philbutler (talk • contribs) 09:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Philbutler. I suggest you replace "company page" in your thinking by "neutral article about the company". It is very easy to get into thinking that an article is in some way for the benefit of its subject: it is not. If the subject gets some benefit from it, well and good, but that is no part of the purpose of Wikipedia. --13:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
More info needed to change Hathway article
The Hathway article contains this sentence: In the second half of 2011, Hathway launched its HD services in Mumbai, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Indore, Kolkata in 2013, Gujarat, and Odisha in 2015.
The problem is it gives both 2011 and 2013, for the places between them. Not enough information in the article to show which places were in 2011 and which in 2013. Bird Flier (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I'm viewing this in "mobile mode" on my phone. Since topic "Vorlage:..." topics don't separate anymore. I tried to put "br" between, to no avail. Any clue? Thanks! Maresa63 (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Victor Schmidt: Hello Victor, I'm german, like you, so: Das Problem tritt hier im Teahouse auf dieser Seite hier auf, ein paar Topics weiter oben. Bis zum Topic "Vorlage:Navigationsleiste" ist alles in Ordnung, kann die Topics aufklappen. Danach nicht mehr, kannst an meinen Bearbeitungen sehen, wo ich das "br" eingefügt habe, das nichts half. Danke --Maresa63 (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Maresa63: I have no Idea /Ich habe keine Idee. Auf meinem Bildschirm sieht alles ganz normal aus (desktop). Die Mobilversion sit manchmal etwas seltsam, es kann sein, dass die irgendwo nicht funktioniert. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right message board but I don't know where else to ask. :) I've written an article about anti-BDS laws in the United States. Now I want to add an infographic to it showing what types of anti-BDS laws each state has. I want it to look like this map except with more colors. I wonder if anyone can help me create an infographic like that? ImTheIP (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC) ImTheIP (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@ImTheIP: You probably want to start out with File:Blank US Map (states only).svg (or something else in commons:Category:Blank SVG maps of the United States). Download the SVG (with the "original file" link) and open open it in an SVG editor (if you aren't familiar with one, I would recommend Inkscape). You should be able to select and change the color of each state individually, as well as add a key. Upload the resulting image to Wikimedia Commons, making sure to mention any sources for the information on the map, as well as including a link to the original base map. Then, you should be able to include the resulting image in the article.
@Geebei1988: Welcome to the Teahouse, but please be advised that this is a help forum for those encountering difficulty editing Wikipedia. Do you have a particular question you need to ask? Wikipedia, itself, is a serious project to build an encyclopaedia. You are welcome to contribute to that, but the edits made to your talk page so far don't seem appropriate to that goal. So please make sure you're here for the right reasons. If you are, then we are here to assist you. (If you're not, then please read this) Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I will add that your Talk page is not a place to mimic a webpage profile about yourself or your thoughts on topics outside Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Coolie No.1 (2020 film)
Hello Fuhghettaboutit, both the films Coolie No. 1 (1995 film) and Coolie No. 1 (2020 film) are the remake of 1991 Telugu film Coolie No. 1 (1991 film). I made this edit in the Coolie No. 1 (2020 film) article. I have also added a reference to that. It is not a Tamil film. I reviewed the plots of the three films i.e, Telugu, Hindi and Tamil and found that Telugu and Hindi versions are similar. So, then I found that the Tamil film was remade only in Telugu with the name Chinna Alludu. So, as the article is semi-protected, please consider my edits or you may edit it. Looking Forward for positive result Tarunq (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Tarunq. I have relocated your post to here, as I think you intended (and I hope you don't mind but modified it solely to fix italics that had opening but no ending markup). The page at which you originally posted the above question was Wikipedia talk:Teahouse – which is the talk page of the Teahouse (i.e., it's for discussing this Teahouse project itself).
Regarding the topic of your post, before studying the issue in any detail, I can advise that when you wish to make an edit and others have reverted you, the usual best thing to do first is to open with discussion (see also WP:BRD), usually best initiated at the talk page of the article at issue – here, seemingly, Talk:Coolie No. 1 (2020 film). By the way, you mentioned that the article is semi-protected. That's true, but just means one needs to be autoconfirmed in order to edit – and you are.
At such a discussion, you can always "ping" targeted users to your post, such as those who have reverted you, by linking their usernames – just as you will have received a notification to this post because I started it with a template that provides such a link – i.e., "Hi {{U|Tarunq}}". (Make sure you sign correctly (~~~~) in the same edit that you link the username(s) and "publish changes", or the notification won't work.)
Turning to the specifics, I'm sorry but I'm not clear on the issues involved. The 2020 article, for example, already says that both are remakes, though it provides the nuance that the last is a remake of the 1995, which is itself a remake. There also appears to be an issue regarding the languages involved (Hindi, Kannada and so forth). In order to offer my opinion on a content issue or wade in – to support one side or the other; to take any action and to even know what action is proper, if at all – I really need to understand it well. For me to do that here would require a more time than I am willing to devote. I will say though (though I think you already know this), that often such content issues resolve on demonstrating that reliable sources support any desired change. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, this page Revathi Pillai was redirected incorrectly and so I wanted to remove that. It looks like removing the redirect wiki-markup won't do the trick and the page would need to be deleted? If so, what's the usual process to do so? Thanks. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Murtaza.aliakbar: it would be helpfull for the teahouse hosts if you were to give some more information about what you want to do with that page. Do you want...
@Victor Schmidt: Thanks for looking in to my query. Yeah, I wanted to delete the redirect, which I did so by removing the redirect wiki mark-up from the page. The result of that is, that page stands empty. And so, my question is, what's the appropriate thing to do in such cases? Delete the page altogether? If so, what's the right way to go about doing so (in terms of tagging the page for deletion with appropriate reason), that is, deleting a redirect wiki page.
The redirect link for the actor that I removed was pointing to a TV series the actor starred in but that wikipage didn't have any section on the actor.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Murtaza.aliakbar (talk • contribs)
@Murtaza.aliakbar: deleting a Page (no matter if redirect or not) requires admin rights. Howewer its not that uncommon to redirect actor pages to the respective show if there is no article on the actior yet, but one could possibly come (yust my observation, not a rule - WP:R#CRD has more on reasons to delete redirects) though the redirect target could be better in this case. Also, {{re}} only works if you sign the edit within the same post. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
If your YouTube channel gets significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notable web content, a viewer will eventually take note and write about it. Wikipedia has no interest in helping you promote your channel. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi I moved my article back to my sandbox to edit just two things, a subtitle, and the title, and when I did it that and then tried to move it back to article instead of user, It said it could not be moved because of vandalism. ?. so yeah I need help with that. Archietucker99 (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Archietucker99: there is a page move throttle for new users. AFAIK the article is currently at User:Haitian Deportation in the United States. Please think of where you want to have it, and one of the Teahouse hosts will move it there for you. There is no need to hurry, as the new title should be the final one, as moving a page hit the server a thousand times more than reading pages. Note that you can alter the text of a page without it being in user space. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Assessing bias in Authoritarian govt and obfuscated party-sympathetic sources
Hi all! This is such a blessing. I'd love to start contributing in cleaning up some of the space-related articles as I have some limited experience in proofreading and copy-editing. To this end, I was poking around some rocket launch pages and identified something that felt "off" to me as I read, so I checked the source and after doing some googling and digging (on the source's background; not sure how much of this is allowed. I don't think it's OR, just verification), it turned out the source had presented as an "independent fan site" but was run by a prestigious academic in rocket science at the premiere university in an authoritarian single-party country. It would seem to me NPOV is being violated here but I've only just started poking around at what the rules are and how to get someone with a little more experience to come along and take a look. But it looks like this is the real world and ain't nobody gonna help unless you start trying to swim first (invitation to The Teahouse notwithstanding ;]), so I'm reaching out here. Should hard assertions (around things like death count, hard science, etc) be left to the purview of a shaky source like that? Is it better to compare the authoritarian govt's official report to a UN/US/UK or other govt report?
It would be easier to assist if you provide the page and source so we can refer to the content specifically. However, briefly as an overview: being in the employ of a government, or from a single party country doesn't invalidate your credentials. It would perhaps temper specific claims and or necessitate attributing claims to an individual if they are controversial. I.e. if a scientist devises a piece of rocket tech and is generally recognised as having done so, there's unlikely to be any issue. If however their design of the tech is disputed, or its existence is in question, then it should be clearly attributed to the source making the claim with relevant counter-claims from other reliable sources. If the claims are designed to be promotional, or intentionally glorifying, that can also draw some attention as if it is presented without any editorial oversight it can obviously seem like Wikipedia is promoting a particular worldview. Koncorde (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I want just to add an Italian version (translate) an already existing page of a well-known business.
Dear,
I want to translate an already existing page of a well-known business, from English to Italian. How can I do that in the easiest way possible?
Note: my text is ready. Lorenzo Alite (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I made some edits to the article regarding Yahwism to remove intenal inconsistencies, inconsistency with other article and wording that sounded biased. It was reverted and I was asked to add sources. Which I did. Two people ket dismissing my sources (well admitting they hadn't read them) and reverting my edits because they openly disagreed with the viewpoints expressed by these historians. Tey asserted that either these historians didn't disagree with them and that if they did, the historians had to be apologists. Iadded 5 sources, yet it got reversed. They asked for links and page numbers which I provided. Yet they kept saying I needed to establish consensus. What should I do? Sergius125 (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC) Sergius125 (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
@Sergius125: Wikipedia has a general method of working that is described as "Be bold - revert - discuss". You have gone through the first two phases: you boldly made some changes, and other editors who disagreed reverted them. The third phase is next: to discuss those changes at Talk:Yahwism. Explain what changes you suggest and why, with the supporting citations. This allows everybody to go through those cycles of debating which sources are acceptable, how best to phrase opposing views etc., without making the article itself unstable.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I see how you guys are of course correct in how things do work around here. It sure does seem that this is a method which invites the biases of the more entrenched editors. When there are dueling points of view both should be presented, not one over the other. For them to do otherwise turns the editors of wikipedia into the arbiter over what is correct over the cited 'experts' who study the material professionally. Note I'm only saying this for the times when there are citeable experts for both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.124.216 (talk) 02:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Report hoaxing behavior?
An editor has recently modified Admiral, Carte de visite, Sword, and Epaulette by replacing images with other images depicting the "Lauwiner Empire". I see that this is a hoax, and all four articles have been corrected (but not by me). Is there some notice board that I should be reporting this on? Should I be saying something on the editor's talk page? Bruce leverett (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I wish to change the page name of 'Netball in Hong Kong' to 'Hong Kong national netball team' to better reflect the content of the page - how can I do this? Lbol10 (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Since this could be controversial, I followed the instructions at WP:Requested moves and started a discussion on the article's talk page. The discussion will be open for at least a week. Continue editing the page as normal during that time.
As an aside, non-controversial moves can be done using the instructions found at WP:MOVE. New accounts and non-logged-in accounts are not allowed to move pages themselves, but they can request non-controversial moves at WP:Requested moves. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
why is the views of a single editor able to remove my edit. it has been brought up to me that many times wiki editors will remove posts if they don’t like an edit, no matter how well-sourced or accurate the information is, it doesn’t go in. this is disturbing to me that this free encyclopedia is so censored.Wikipedia should be not be allowed to call itself an “encyclopedia” if this continues.why after all of the years wiki has been running is this still a common fear and problem the would be editors face. umbrella stops reign (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Faceless-doe-11.22.63. It is never going to be the case that everybody agrees about what should be in an article, so Wikipedia has procedures to reach consensus. If you make an edit, and somebody reverts it, all that means is that you disagree - it doesn't mean that they're right, and it doesn't mean that you're right. At that point you have two choices: either decide it's not that important to you, or else open a discussion with the other editor, and any other editors who are interested, on the article's talk page. See BRD. In this case, as Nick Moyes says, there seems to be no justification whatever for the redirect, and he has redirected it somewhere more suitable.
So your edit was right in principle; but the problem is, that you were effectively trying to create an article by typing some unsourced text in, and that's not how we work. It's quite possible that an article on bone-thro0wing could be written, but it would require reliable published sources, and should be properly developed as an article, eg by using the articles for creation process. --ColinFine (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Ye gods - there's absolutely nothing I can find online that suggests Bone throwing should ever, ever be a redirect to anything other than something close to Divination or the I-ching, and certainly not quid pro quo. Noting that it is a term not mentioned in any of them. Am I missing something blindingly obvious, or ridiculously obscure? Sounds like this is a case for an RFD. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Ricardus Cibarius, and welcome to the Teahouse. Like any other edit, you simply edit the section and remove the line that you think doesn't belong there. Two caveats: 1) especially when removing material, make sure that you give a reason at least in the edit summary; 2) calling some papers "erroneous and partially fraudulent" seems to me likely to be controversial (after all, somebody added those), so it might be better to discuss the question on the talk page first, and get consensus. See BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
All the references in "Further Reading" for that article are on PubMed and freely available. They all seem to have been peer reviewed at the time and hence any allegation of fraud seems quite a strong assertion. You should probably discuss the ones you wish to remove via the Talk Page of the article before you remove them. If you do go ahead and remove anything immediately, as you can under the WP:BRD policy, don't get into an edit war but explain your actions if someone reverts your change. You could use the edit history of the article to see which editor added the papers you object to and ping them to comment on the Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Ricardus Cibarius: What was your rationale for removing and not replacing the Infobox from the article? If you do feel that a source journal or further reading is flawed in some way, I repeat my earlier suggestion to you to mention your concerns over the article's contents on its talk page, and then go ahead and make that change if you feel you can honestly defend it. You didn't do that then, I see, but I always feel that keeping a record of concerns and editing proposals closely associated with an article is a very wise thing to do. Listing the sources or reading material you are doubtful about, and your reasons for those doubts would be very sensible. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Dear Nick noyes, I have figured out how to delete these references, but have decided not to do so because it might cause a tempest in a teapot.Instead, I will post a note in the article's Talk box warning readers about the questionable nature of some the information in the referenced papers. Thanks for your input Ricardus Cibarius (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
On second thoughtI have deleted them after all, the reason being that their references to RNAIII are erroneous ands they do not contribute to the article. There is a long and complicated story here, which I could tell you if you wish```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardus Cibarius (talk • contribs) 13:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Ricardus Cibarius, Nick Moyes I don't think that we need the whole story at the Teahouse but part of it should probably go into your comment on the Talk page of the article. I looked at the first (Simonetti et al, 2008) article you deleted and it was still being cited in April 2020 in a large review article (DOI:10.3390/microorganisms8081222, PMID:32796745). Could you add just one reference each (on the Talk Page) where the articles in question have been debunked by reliable sources, as your edit summary gave no such source? I, too, noticed the removal of the Infobox. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Dear Mike Turnbull and Nick Noyes, Guess I have to fish or cut bait here. The easiest place to begin is with the following paper:
RNAIII inhibiting peptide (RIP), a global inhibitor of Staphylococcus aureus pathogenesis: structure and function analysis.
Gov Y, Bitler A, Dell'Acqua G, Torres JV, Balaban N.
Peptides. 2001 Oct;22(10):1609-20. doi: 10.1016/s0196-9781(01)00496-x.
PMID: 11587789. In this paper it is reported that a heptapeptide, YSPWTNF, is an inhibitor of RNAIII synthesis. The following story negates this claim, as follows: Most staphylococcal species contain a global regulatory locus known as agr, discovered in parallel by Staffan Arvidson (Karolinska) and myself (see my recent wiki article "accessory gene regulator"), which acts by a quorum-sensing two-component signal transduction module that is induced by a peptide whose synthesis is also encoded within the agr locus. Variant homologs of this peptide are produced by all strains that contain an agr homolog. In general, the AIPs are cross-inhibitory in heterologous combinations. In our strain collection was one strain, RN833, whose peptide was a very strong inhibitor of all S. aureus strains tested and was therefore worthy of investigation. This inhibitory activity was readily demonstrated with culture supernatants, and was purified in the late 90's and sequenced by Edman degradation. The sequence came out YSPXTNF, where X could be either cysteine or tryptophan. By cloning and DNA sequencing, the agr AIP of R833 was found to be YSPCTNF and its activity highly alkali sensitive. suggesting a thiolactone ring. This was confirmed by in vitro synthesis by Tom Muir, then at Rockefeller. This structure is conserved in all but one staph species (The S.intermedius AIP has a serine, forming a lactone rather than a thiolactone ring). In the Gov, et al paper, YSPWTNF was synthesized and purportedly shown to inhibit RNAIII synthesis; however, a careful reading reveals that in the key experiment, demonstrating inhibition of RNAIII synthesis by Southern blotting, they used the native peptide (obtained from a strain RN833 supernatant) rather than their synthetic peptide - which can ONLY mean that the synthetic peptide did not work (incidentally, linear peptides generally do not inhibit RNAIII synthesis). Going forward, they have insisted that their peptide was not, in fact, an agr-coded AIP but was encoded by an unlinked gene. However, there is no coding sequence for YSPWTNF in any staphylococcal sequence in GenBank and we actually sequenced the RN833 chromosome and found the coding sequence for YSPCTNF in the agr locus but not the W variant; and RN833 produces a typical agr AIP. (incidentally, RN833 is actually a strain of S.warnerii, rather than S.aureus, though it had been sent to us as S. aureus) . On the basis of this dishonest experiment, these authors and their colleagues have developed a spurious and wide-ranging enterprise based on "RIP, the RNBAIII-inhibiting peptide". There is much more to this story, but I think this should suffice for the moment. In any case, I am always deeply concerned when I see references to these papers (although some of the findings may be legitimate, the intellectual basis - RNAIII-inhibiting peptide - is not). Three papers debunking part of this enterprise were published a few years ago, but this has not inhibited continued referencing. I will shortly add these to my comment.Ricardus Cibarius (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I created the draft back in October so I could have people edit it. I left it for a little bit but today I saw that the draft had been heavily edited by someone else (as it should) and subsequently rejected three times in a row with lots of errors and little to no improvement back in November 26 and earlier in November 24. I don't want the draft to be deleted, I really want the chance to show that this is the article page that I created.
So I have three questions—what do I do to further improve the draft, how do I prove that the subject is notable, and how do I persuade the other editor to hold on before it gets submitted if they can't see what need to be improved? — beetricks ~ talk · email21:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Beetricks: The relevant notability guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (music), so I'd read that if you haven't already. The easiest way to get the article approved would be to find three reported news articles about the group from reliable sources (they can be in Korean, but ideally they'd be to media outlets that have a Wikipedia page) and add those right after the first sentence or share them here. {{u|Sdkb}}talk21:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Beetricks, I tried looking through those, but I'm not familiar enough with Korean media to tell. Chosun traces back to TV Chosun, which looks fine, so that's one source. I'm not sure about a second source, though. Naver is a search engine, not a news outlet, and I'm having difficulty telling whether they're republishing work from reliable news outlets or just from PR agencies/self-published sources. As for the hellokpop source, it says it's from DongA, and I can't find information about that source. {{u|Sdkb}}talk07:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I just wrote an article here and I see that it said that I had some bad sources (I think it said deprecated sources). I know there are sources that we should use, and ones that we shouldn't, but I am not fully clear about which are which! Can anyone let me know which source in this article (or sources) aren't good and perhaps explain why? I want to do a good job and do things right, but I just don't have the knowledge to do this right yet. Thanks! Dougles.Green (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello Dougles.Green. A lot of the references appear weak in Jim Wigginton. For example, I see no evidence that www.worldrecordacademy.org is a reliable source. They pretty much market themselves as being lenient about world's records. Then there is the reference to the Belleville Independent, an online publication that purports to speak for a Michigan town of less than 4,000 people. That source and several others appear to be reprinting press releases by Wiggonton's promotional campaign, and are therefore not truly independent sources. Cullen328Let's discuss it08:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
But the main part of the formula, as two different editors have told you on your talk page, is to improve the encyclopaedia. That is what we are all here for. --ColinFine (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Is a reliably sourced section with sufficient information considered good encyclopedic content for an article?
I created a new section for the Sabaton Official Website with reliably sourced information as well as multiple references on the Sabaton (band) page, however someone deleted it saying it was not 'good encyclopedic content'. Is that fine? Because the section met most requirements of notability and sources. SenatorLEVI (talk) 05:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, SenatorLEVI. If you disagree with somebody's reversion of your edit, the next step is to engage with them in a discussion on the article's talk page, per BRD. But personally I agree with the deletion, for the reasons given. Only if an independent source had written about what was to be found on the website would it be even worth considering (and even then, it might not be encyclopaedic). --ColinFine (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I request someone to visit [(The Mummy)] and also Imhotep. I don't know for sure, but a part of it is a just copy and paste, I doubted if its vandalism, even if the link to the main article is given above. The reason I took forward the issue is because, I created an article named Molly Weasely, and the article was deleted as I had used some lines from another page. If I am mistaken, I apologize in advance.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@Atlantis77177:, H:WIKILINK has some advice on writing links. If you're linking to a Wikipedia page on Wikipedia, you don't usually need the full URL (which starts with https:// and so on) - just put the name of the page between double square brackets like this: [[Imhotep (The Mummy)]], which looks like Imhotep (The Mummy). If you want to link to a section, add a # and the name, like [[Imhotep (The Mummy)#The Mummy (2000)]], which looks like Imhotep (The Mummy)#The Mummy (2000). As for the incorrect year (that said 200000), it was vandalism and was fixed. If there are other incorrect changes, feel free to fix them yourself or tell someone about them. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@Atlantis77177: I think that perhaps you are asking about whether the section List of The Mummy (film series) characters#Imhotep is vandalism because it is very similar to Imhotep (The Mummy)#The Mummy (2000)? First of all, no, that is not vandalism. Vandalism is when people deliberately try to mess up an article, for instance by adding incorrect information or childish jokes, or by removing text to destroy the article. (More about the definition of vandalism here.) There are also types of editing that are not helpful or appropriate, but are not vandalism, for instance when somebody bases an edit on their own personal opinions in good faith, violating the neutral point of view policy because they did not understand it.
If two Wikipedia articles contain some text that is identical, it might be appropriate, or it might not be. (Copying text from one article to another has to be done in a certain way, but it can be done.) I can't really think of any situation where it would be helpful to have a whole article (or most of an article) that is a copy of another article, and maybe the text in the "list of characters" article should be trimmed down a bit. You could ask the question on that article talk page, or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, which looks pretty active. People there will have more insight into the guidelines on characters in films. Regards, --bonadeacontributionstalk11:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
assist upload picture
Hi Cullen, I am doing an article on family. I have uploaded a picture planning to use in on the content box. can you help me locate it and place it on the correct place? thank you Agantukaya (talk) 09:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, fellow Wikipedians!
I can't seem to find any stats such as Article Creator, Contributions, Date of Creation, etcetera using XTools since yesterday. Is it just me or is everyone experiencing it? I added a screenshot for your convenience. Thanks a lot! Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Victor Schmidt: The tool is enabled in the preferences as you can see in this screenshot. There is a dot moving back and forth in the place where the toolbar should be. I did try disabling and enabling XTools but still no luck. Your help is really appreciated. - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs)
@Kartsriv: Likewise - although I've never activated Xtools from Preferences before, I have just a few moments ago enabled that gadget and it works perfectly on Chrome, even with an active adblocker running. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I created an article, and got an information that it will be placed in the sandbox and approved. It's been almost four months since then... Is there anything I can do in addition? A bit lost in all this... izabela joanna barry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biblioteko (talk • contribs) 13:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Biblioteko, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft is indeed in User:Biblioteko/sandbox/Hanna Lachert; but you have not submitted it for review, and until you do, no reviewer will see it: there is a button at the top to do so. But please don't do that at present: it will waste your time and everybody else's as your draft is nothing like a Wikipedia article. The problem is, that like many beginners, you have written what you know. Wikipedia has no way of telling who you are, or whether your knowledge is reliable (or who I am, or whether my knowledge is reliable) so it insists on every single piece of information in an article coming from a reliable published source. Creating an article begins with finding the sources - and if you can't find enough indpendent reliable sources, that indicates that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. I suggest you read your first article, and then start again. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
See List of contemporary classical violinists for many examples of existing articles about violinists. Some of these may be from Wikipedia's early years, and thus not meeting current standards, but in general, these articles should give you models for how to create and reference a draft about Hanna Lachert. David notMD (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
My page was today deleted by user Maile66, it was also reviewed by other user before.
There was no explanation besides that : Wiki does not support. Wiki is MAIN sourse of free knowledge. And that information does not exist.
The post was well documented and it does exist as documentation.
They mention that wiki is not a place to Host information, and that it is 'my responsibility.'
Is it possible to contact VPN head or (VIP ADMIN)?
Hello, and welcome to the teahouse, what page did you create? Looking at your contribs, you've only made 3 edits to a mainspace page in 2017. Heart(talk)15:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Victor Schmidt: Having looked at the deleted (and totally whacky content) of Draft:Electronics the Religion, I can advise that it was created by various IPs since 10th November, and was submitted to WP:AFC 5 days ago and rejected as "...contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia"! An experienced admin (Cullen328) subsequently proposed it for speedy deletion under CSD U5, and a second admin (Maile66) then acted on that CSD nomination. I would have done exactly the same thing to such nonsensical content - and clearly it is linked to Orangmatter as they uploaded the images used by various IP addresses whilst creating that draft. It stood 0% chance of ever going beyond a draft, and had no place here on a serious encyclopaedia. According to Template:Db-u5, applying it to "plausible drafts" is not acceptable, but - honestly - that situation did not apply here. A further rationale for keeping Wikipedia clear of nonsense such as this by applying CSD U5 after being rejected is, quite simply, WP:IAR. But I can see there might be a case for clarifying and expanding the guidance for that speedy deletion category to include such ridiculous content, or clarifying that CSD G11 can apply to WP:NOTWEBHOST content, and not just routine advertising or promotion. Hope this all makes sense, even if you are unable to view the deleted content yourself. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Orangmatter. I am just as confused as HeartGlow30797, above. I cannot even find any deleted contributions that you might have made. This link shows every single edit you've ever made across all Wikimedia Foundation projects, and this link shows all of User:Maile66's actions as a deleting administrator. I can see nothing that might match your concerns expressed here via this account name. Which page are you asking about? Was it a userpage or an article within the main encyclopaedia? Perhaps Maile66 could comment on this, please? Nick Moyes (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I relied on the word "plausible" when deciding to tag with U5. As I see it, this is not a plausible draft. It is pretty much disturbed nonsense. Cullen328Let's discuss it19:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Generally speaking, and this is just my POV, I don't have a problem restoring something I deleted as a result of a Speedy Delete. Unlike AFD where consensus is required, CSD relies on one lone editor tagging something, making it one lone editor's opinion. Some CSDs are obviouos non-starters as an article -vandalism, test edits, nonsense, self promotions, etc. - but I don't recall any of those being questioned. With the scenario of one lone editor being able to tag an article, and who knows how experienced the tagger is, I think there is always room for questioning. Questions over such a delete seldom happen, but I don't have a problem restoring when questions arise. — Maile (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Just noting that, in this instance, it was actually one very experience administrator who tagged the article, and another who subsequently decided it was OK to deleted it (which was fine by me). But it's nice that people can see what the fuss was all about - thanks for that - and I imagine another CSD U5 or G11 may appear soon.Nick Moyes (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Cullen328 took out images of Sara Radstone’s work, them having been on for a couple of weeks and seen by a number of editors, on the grounds of image copyright release from the artist, namely Sara Radstone. I have been informed that she has sent a personal email to that effect, including such issues as OTRS and releasing such copyright under the standard CC-BY-SA-4.0 licence, therefore I presume the two images and captions can now be restored to the article. Also I noticed that at present there is no ‘google’ link to Wikipedia when one googled Sara Radstone, how long does it take for this to occur? Thanks! RSLLX (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC) RSLLX (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
RSLLX No, I think you should probably wait until the OTRS team have acted upon her email and actually flagged each image as approved by OTRS. That happens via volunteers on Commons, not the volunteers here. There is a backlog. If you have an OTRS ticket number related to the correspondence, I believe there is a way to indicate that an email has been sent. If you can do that, then adding the images in would be fine.
Articles that have passed WP:AFC do not get indexed by Google until they pass a 2nd review process, called 'New Page Patrol' this is often stricter, and pages get reviewed in no particular order. If a page waits for more than 3 months, then we automatically let Google index it. Does that help? Nick Moyes (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Putting an OTRS ticket number into the edit history of the article when you add the image is fine, but it would be better all round to wait until the image e.g. [15] gets the explicit extra information, as I've explained at your talk page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Reference Help
Hi! I'm stuck. I want to cite one source more than once but don't know how. I read the page and don't understand it. I don't know how to put in a ref name, and I'm using cite web. Please help! Dswitz10734 (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Dswitz10734. The process is not difficult but a little lengthy to explain in full. I'll do that on yout Talk Page shortly so we can get into a dialog if we need to. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
ARIA Music Awards: handling multiple cluster refs
Check the article ARIA Music Awards, specifically the section Most Awards/Nominations. This table shows the highest awarded artists (provided they have won at least six). The References column contains 41 cluster refs with some artists (e.g. Paul Kelly) requiring some 30 sub refs. These same sub refs are used repeatedly in the table thereby causing the article to become far too big. I get the idea that this was done so that the each artist's articles could use the relevant cluster ref to support claims of their wins/noms.
Didier Landner, Sdkb: It is certainly a significant problem. From my memory I changed the awards/nominations listings into a wikitable with a single simple ref per artist back in 2009. Later I found that an ARIA search per artist did not necessarily deliver all of the awards and noms that each artist had received. So I went for a year by year search and started using cluster refs.
The ARIA website has changed a lot over the years and some information has been lost from their current website, some is available in archives but even archive-urls have proven unreliable. Currently the website does not permit search per artist, per work or per year. It only has Previous winners shown per year and you have to scan year by year per each category (you can't see the final nominations until you click on a particular tab).
I agree with Didier that I used those cluster refs for the artist's main page (or List of awards and nominations... page) to verify all their wins/noms.
I also agree that there should be a better way without all that duplication and thank Didier for pointing this out. I am open to any reasonable way of reducing all that ref clutter.
Shaidar cuebiyar, not particularly. I'm not all that familiar with music awards pages. You could probably ask around on WikiProjects and find someone more knowledgeable, though. {{u|Sdkb}}talk09:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I used to use Fandom/Wikia a lot, and you could have multiple sandboxes. Mainly, I always wanted to have this whole collection of sandboxes, probably about 10 pages, but I'm assuming that's not possible.
Xiphactinus A (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@Xiphactinus A: yes! You can have any number of sandboxes, though you should actively work on them. Yust use the input box below:
@Heeheetickletime: Welcome to Wikipedia. According to [16] it is free to anyone using certain browsers. This help page is for asking about how to use Wikipedia. In the future, questions like yours should go to WP:RD instead. RudolfRed (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Writing abd article
I am trying to write an article. But cannot find basic commands/instructions. Such as how to save what I have written. All the things I am used to having in Word, where I have written a lot. Where'sBenton? (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
He was born George William Hopkins.
Was known to friends as Bill Hopkins and published his compositions (his most important work) under that name.
He wrote professionally as a newspaper critic and used there the name "G. W. Hopkins", whom he said 'never wrote a note in his life'. So definitely a professional pseudonym.
'G.W. "Bill" Hopkins (5 June 1943 – 10 March 1981) was a British composer and music critic.'
doesn't seem at all right.
If I ask a question in a talk page and I receive an answer is it okay to delete the section, reformat the question and answer, or move it to a different location in the talk page? I assume I should only ever change the text of my own comments, but what about reformatting a whole section to summarize the conclusion of the discussion and simply sign it myself? TipsyElephant (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
TipsyElephant, In general, don't move/change other editor's talkpage posts. The same applies to your own posts after someone has replied to them (WP:TPO and WP:REDACT). So deleting a post after a reply is not the way to go, but if you want to do that on your own talkpage you can. WP:HATTING can be done if appropriate, and like with everything else on WP, if someone disagrees with hatting they can undo it. Hope this helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
How do I change my article's name after it has been re-submitted for review?
Hi there,
I re-submitted by article for review after it was declined, but for some reason, it didn't keep the same title as before. How may I edit the title now?
Hi Mr Hall of England. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Edit requests for more information, but generally the best place to request changes be made to an article is on its corresponding talk page. Posting such requests as a general forum like the Teahouse sometimes works, but you often get a better response posting on a talk page. From your question, it's not clear which article and which links your referring to, but you should be OK fixing things yourself per WP:COIADVICE if its only the link syntax that needs "fixing". -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Notability of NFL Podcasts
Hi there,
I noticed that the official NFL Podcast network does not have any Wikipedia articles and after searching around the internet for a while, think that they really belong on here. Would these be considered "notable" enough to add?
The Flagship, "Around the NFL" typically rates highly on Apple Podcast charts, as do "Move the Sticks" and "NFL Fantasy Football Podcast". I'd love to work on these articles, but don't want to if they're likely to be removed. Any thoughts on whether these are worthwhile?
Hello, Smanney, and welcome to the Teahouse. The question, as usual, revolves around whether there is substantial independent material published about the Podcast. Have several people, unconnected with NFL or the podcast, and not prompted or fed information on behalf of these, chosen to publish significant coverage about them in reliable sources? If the answer is yes, then there could be an article, or more than one. If no, then there cannot. High ratings on charts and numbers of subscribers don't in themselves contribute in any way to Wikipedia's criteria for notability, only if somebody independent has written about the ratings or numbers. --ColinFine (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Banning Conservative Sites??? I'm sorry I ever donated to Wikipedia - never again!!!
Some sources are deprecated, mainly because they are not considered reliable. Yet other websites are banned via a black list, so that links to them cannot be added. Often these are being used to spam, or are otherwise harmful. It would be best for you to mention the actual site you are interested in to get a more specific answer or reconsideration of what you would like to achieve. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Creating a new category
I just created a new article, Deerfield Society of Arts and Crafts, and it struck me when I was considering categories that it might be appropriate to have an Arts and Crafts Movement category, just as there is a Colonial Revival Movement category. But before I rush in and add this, I thought it best to ask if there might be a reason there isn't such a category (such as it being too broad)? If it is a feasible addition (I can think of other articles where it would be appropriate), would some corresponding page listing the articles so ctegorized be needed? Does something like this have a go through review by members of a project? I appreciate any guidance I can get, so I can learn for the next time! Thank you. TrudiJ (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Some times it says that we canˈt edit the article because you do not have sufficient privilliɡes Please help me someone. IPAexpert (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
IPAexpert, check to see if the articles in interest have lock icons of some sort in the top-right corner. If you hover over it you can see what level of protection it is, and if you click on it, you will be taken to the appropriate section of WP:PROTECT for more information. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi guys, I was wondering if there is some way to know when a new "wikipedian" joins. I would kind of like to be the "welcome wagon". I like welcoming people, and bringing a little joy to everyone is what I like to do.
Hi! I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this question (please let me know if its not!) I'm hoping to write a more substantial page on the US Government's 1837 treaty with the Ojibwe people in what is now Minnesota and Wisconsin. This treaty is currently referenced in a page about a few treaties that share their most formal name, Treaty of St Peters. I would like create a new page and move the existing text about this treaty to that new page where I'll refer to it by its distinct, more informal, but widely recognized title "The White Pine Treaty." I know that in moving entire pages you're not supposed to copy and paste the content so that the editing history is preserved. In this case, however, where I only want to move some sections of an existing page to a new one I'm curious what the procedure is. Additionally, is the sort of thing that other Wikipedians with more experience could help me sort out so I don't lose any content in my learning? Eharris33 (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I was wondering what counts as notable, especially in the case of YouTube channels. What amount of following or media attention is required for these pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lurker no more (talk • contribs) 04:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi - I'm O.A.P. without banking facilities but would like to make donation - What do I do ? Can I send cash or postal order to a Wikipedia address ? 79.71.10.116 (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
One way to do this donation is to find another person who can do this, perhaps with a paypal account. You give them cash, and they make the donation online. This has proven to be a working method. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Adding an image of a document for a citation refrence
I have a scanned image of Warranty Deed for an historic building that I am trying to create a page for. I need to upload it as a citation. I have managed to upload it to wikipedia files, but when I cite the information from the document it flags for a circular reference. Without it the entire article is flagged for not being cited by reliable sources. How do I need to do this properly? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Warranty_Deed_for_Barth_and_Walker_Building.jpgMollyblew (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@Jéské Couriano: It establishes the names of the original commissioners of the building, the age of the building, the tenants that are referenced later in the article. As far as notability goes, many articles in the newspapers refer to the building as "the Barth and Walker building" and "The Old Eagles Hall." This document is verification that the two are one in the same along with the other business listed. The existence of the building was never in question only how to use a scanned document image as a reference. — Preceding (Mollyblew (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)) comment added by Mollyblew (talk • contribs) 20:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Mollyblew, do I perceive correctly that your image was scanned from a bound book in a public registrar's office, which a researcher could see (as you did) to verify the deed? If so, then cite the book, page, and perhaps title that the researcher could use. Wikipedia (including your scan) is not a reliable source. —teb728tc11:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
To answer your question, Mollyblew, the link you supplied above goes to a file on English Wikipedia. That's why you get the "circular reference" error when you try to add that to an article. The actual file is stored on Wikipedia Commons. The easiest way to find it there is to go to the page you linked and then look for the part that says "Information from its description page [meaning on Commons] there is shown below". Click on that and you'll be within Commons. Now you should see a series of icons above the image that provide the correct links to download the file, use the file on the web or (as you need) to use it on Wikipedia itself. There may indeed be an issue of copyright — I'm not sure for a 1915 document — but that's another discussion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
New York Food Truck Association
Need help for my article
Hello, I have been seeking help for my organization's article on Wikipedia. It can be found at Draft:New York Food Truck Association. I have put all necessary disclosures as I was asked. Have ensured compliance with WP:GNG, WP:NPOV, WP:TOOMANYREF etc. Still can't seem to get through the review phase. I have tried contacting the reviewer too but I think they have been occupied in other places. Can one of the other reviewers help me out here? Thanks DavidfromNYFTA2 (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC) DavidfromNYFTA2 (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@DavidfromNYFTA2: I am confused by the 'History' section in which you've used three references to simply state that this organisation approved what someone else voted to do. You also seem to be writing for a New York audience, not a world-wide one. You might know what 'posting letter grades' means - the rest of us are left totally clueless.
The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to inform, not to befuddle or promote, and I'm afraid I don't come away with the feeling that this is an association which the world has taken special notice of, above the hundreds of thousands of other such bodies. I'm sure your members do a fine job in feeding that part of your nation at a difficult time, but I would expect to see wider national coverage from non-insider and non-local sources if I were reviewing this article for inclusion on Wikipedia. See WP:NCORP for our notability criteria for organisations. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello @Nick Moyes:, thank you for the detailed response. I understand that a lot of the coverage has been on local sources but we have also been covered by highly reliable platforms such as NY Times, BI, and Forbes. This, I believe, has been due to our works for the food truck industry. To clear your misconception about letter grades, this is simply a mechanism to ensure food trucks in New York are adhering to the requirements by authorities such as the FDA, the Department of Health and others. Basically an attempt to ensure that there is no difference between how restaurants and food trucks in the city are being run. Food trucks are a large part of NYC's culture and economy and an association that voices the opinions of these businesses, that operates on a scale as big as ours, should be part of an encyclopedia. I have removed anything that points towards promotion for this very purpose. The goal here is to ensure that people know about this association just as they should know about United Food and Commercial Workers or the Writers Guild of American, East.DavidfromNYFTA2 (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Greetings, Jnhmunro, and welcome to the Teahouse. I did some testing, and it appears that section links work on my iPhone using Safari in both desktop and mobile modes, but within the Wikipedia app they only navigate to the top of the article. Is this your experience as well? If so, I've opened a Phabricator ticket for someone to take a look at it (T269054). CThomas3 (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Cthomas3. Yes, that is what I experience but only on my iPhone. My MacBook is fine. I always check Wikipedia on my iPhone because I believe most people access Wikipedia with a smartphone these days. Thanks for your help. John NH (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
How to find authentic citation !
Thanks User:HostBot (talk·contribs) for the invitation,
I am feeling lucky here and my greeting to all the members of The Teahouse.
I Have a little doubt, please guide me if possible.
Which type of citation accepted on the wiki? I am trying to write an article the first time so a little bit nervous about it. Visit too many guidelines but can't understand the same subject. My real confusion is how do I find the citation is authenticated and real. Micromadmonkey (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Micromadmonkey, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. You may find an answer to your question at citing sources; but I want to give you more general advice. I understand the desire to make your mark by creating a new article - I remember feeling that way myself back in 2006 - but in all honesty, creating a new article is one of the worst ways for a new editor to contribute. Creating an article is not easy, and for an editor who hasn't got used to Wikipedia's unique requirements it is often very frustrating, as other editors can seem to be cruel as they try to guide you to understanding Wikipedia's policies: you might find all your work thrown away if you haven't understood the foundations of an article. We have over six million articles, and tens of thousands of them (at least) are in a sorry state; almost all six million could be improved. I would strongly advise you to put creating an article on one side for the moment, and find some existing articles that you can improve. You might do that by finding articles in an area that interests you, or perhaps by going to the Community portal. If you haven't already, I suggest you take The Wikipedia Adventure, and that you read your first article before you try to create one. Happy editing! --ColinFine (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Working on stubs is fun! But what happens next?
It's quite easy to find stubs to work on, but is there a guideline for de-stubbing? Is it only the jurisdiction of affiliated Wiki-projects? Is it poor taste for the person who added refs/material to 'rank up' an article themselves? Or is removing stub notices considered a low-priority task?
Estheim Hello and welcome. If you have improved an article and you feel that it is no longer a stub, you are allowed to remove the stub tag. It isn't something you have to wait for a WikiProject to do or anyone else. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I feel comfortable upgrading Stub to Start, and perhaps Start to C-class after having worked to improve an article, but not C-class to B-class. If not sure, you can create a section on the Talk page to ask another editor to assess the quality of the revised article and decide to upgrade or not. David notMD (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@Estheim: See WP:DESTUB and WP:RATER for advice and a useful tool, respectively. Don't forget to remove any stub template from the bottom of any article as well as the stub rating on the talk page (I so often forget about the article templates!) The fantastic things about improving and simultaneously removing stub templates is that not only enhances the encyclopaedia in a fast and effective way, but it also helps other people who like to work on groups of articles in WikiProjects. One good tip is to work through all the most important articles within any given WikiProject that interests you is to check that they genuinely still are Stub-rated. They might well have been improved but never upgraded. See this guidance which I wrote on using the Quality Assessment Table to help you find the most worthwhile stub articles to work on. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you 331dot, when I am ready to put on my Assessment Cap, I will wear it with confidence.
That is a good rule of thumb, David notMD. That's roughly how I feel about WP:Assess, sticking with obvious stub-to-start as I learn.
Thank you for the resource links and tips, Nick Moyes. I have been using the Project Ratings grid and indeed it makes the efforts feel more rewarding.
Cheers all, Estheim (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@SuperSonicPlus: From meta:Research:Teahouse: "The name Teahouse is meant to evoke the idea of a comfortable social space for meaningful personal interaction among peers. The name Teahouse is also a nod to the English Wikipedia essay a nice cup of tea and a sit down, which urges editors to acknowledge one another's good points, and is often used to nudge people towards being congenial when things get heated." It's a name that feels nice and cozy; I like it a lot. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 14:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm doing a page biography for my teacher, I have all the text in the box, but I have a couple of questions: a) I misspelled his last name and it seems I can't change it in the title; b) it says my contribution is not submitted for review
@MMilanezi:Draft:Vidar Halldorsson is submitted for review. However, in it's state, it is unlikely to be accepted because it fails to show that the subject is notable enough to have an article (WP:NBIO). The article must have multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject to demonstrate notability. Right now you only have links to Halldorsson's university, which is not independent. You're draft's sourcing is also not in the correct format; see Help:Referencing for beginners for how to do it correctly. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 14:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Question about my first submission
I believe I managed to submit my first draft for revision today, but I didn't get any confirmation which I could see. How can I know the submission was successful, and what's next? Also, I added an image to go with this submission but I didn't see it added to the draft copy. And, how do I add tags of WikiProjects, which I read it's advisable in order to speed up review? Thanks for any help you can provide. - Susan Wrote This (talk) 12:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Susan Wrote This (talk) 12:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Susan Wrote This. In answer to your first question, there is a big button near the top that says "Submit the draft for review!". But in my opinion it has very little chance of being accepted at present, because I cannot see a single source that is all three of Independent, Reliably published, and has Significant coverage of McGarry. Please understand that Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything that McGarry says or wants to say about himself, or that his associates or employees say about him: Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with him, and who have not been prompted or fed information on his behalf, have chosen to publish about him in reliable sources. Unless you can find at least three separate publications that meet this, he does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and all your work will be wasted. See also CSMN.
On the image, I'm afraid there is bad news there, too: the image you have uploaded has been nominated for deletion, on the grounds that it does not appear to have been licensed by the copyright owner. I suggest you leave this unless and until you can demonstrate notability, and then you need the copyright holder either to upload the picture themselves, or to send the mails specified in donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
David Ullman
I was declined on this very accomplished engineer because of 'tone.' I am not sure how I could have written this any more dry or non promotional and in compliance. I am wondering if it is because I wrote "internationally recognized expert" in the lead?
I have this issue often and have tried many times to comply with all the help articles referring to 'tone' but can never seem to satisfy. Guidance would be greatly appreciated as the subject is notable and deserves recognition.
LassoLaneFolks Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I think the tone issue comes up because what you wrote reads like a resume or list of accomplishments, and not an encyclopedia article. I might suggest that you review other articles about people to get a sense of how they should be written; fewer lists and more prose would help
Also please understand that Wikipedia is not a place to provide recognition for people; we're only concerned with if they meet the Wikipedia definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
For Draft:David Ullman, delete the list of patents, and refs to those. Delete the list of journal articles, and refs to those. A Wikipedia article is ideally about the significance of a person, not a list of their accomplishments. With a few exceptions for simple factual information, delete all refs which cite Ullman as the source of the information. Only then, see if you have at least three strong refs that are about Ullman. David notMD (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi All! Quick and easy question (I hope): I currently use Wikipedia to edit on behalf of my employer, and have disclosed on my talk page as well as the pages I have been paid to edit. However, I would ALSO like to contribute as myself and to not have my edits associated with my employer.
Is it appropriate for me to simply create another account with my personal email address? I worry that my IP address will be flagged, since I access Wikipedia mainly from one location. Just want to make sure I'm doing it right.
Thank you for any guidance! Jcollinsycc (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Jcollinsycc. The use you are describing is not specifically mentioned in VALIDALT, but in my view it would be acceptable, provided you were open about it - i.e., disclosed on both user pages the fact and the reasons for having two accounts. I'm not an expert on username policy though, so others may disagree. You would need to be careful that you never edited anything remotely connected with your employer using the other account. I'm not sure what you mean about your email address. If you're talking about the address you may optionally associate with an account, nobody ever sees that address (unless they email you and you choose to reply by email from that account). --ColinFine (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@Jcollinsycc: I would agree with ColinFine. I read the shortend version (WP:MULTIPLE) amd feel that declaring the link between the two accounts and you, their one user, plus the purposes of each account would be fine. The one no-no would be if you ever used both accounts to either edit one article, or to add two !votes to a discussion, as this would be seen as sockpuppetry, and both accounts would be liable to be blocked if that were detected. But for honest, open editing, I think your approach would be quite acceptable. Transparency is the key, and it seems like you already appreciate that. I run two accounts, and have declared the linkage between them and me on each of the userpages. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Nick Moyes, for the added detail - it helps to see an example of it as well!
Traslation
I am attempting to translate the page Zhang Jike into Tagalog. I modified the translation and attempted to publish the changes, but it said it contains a total of 100% unmodified text. Why is this? D4135t16:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Tagging accounts of sockpuppeters who are temporarily blocled
Temorarily blocked sockmasters
Many times, when a sockmaster is blocked, such as Destroyeraa or 3Oh Hexelon, they aren't tagged. Sometimes though, like with Leahmerone, they are tagged. (Or CPHL, before it became an indeff). I am confused-what's the norm? To tag(using parameters like timeblocked, or just not to even bother at all? HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to leave me a Teahouse talkback-it's more effective then pings. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
HurricaneTracker495, sometimes discretion comes into play. While the templates are for clerical reasons, and there's standard instructions for their placement, there's courtesy and etiquette that ultimately determine what happens. There's little point in tagging the user page of a productive non-LTA editor who is expected to return shortly once they've realised their mistake. The previous history will be in the block log should issues arise again, so rather than branding the editor they should be given the chance to get back into good standing. It's possible for the user to clean start but there's many reasons why they might choose not to.
I see you've pinged several blocked editors, how do you expect them to respond to this thread? It's possible to use noping, but honestly it would have been better to ask a more general question rather than linking specific users. Zindor (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@HurricaneTracker495: In practice, we never add sock tags to temporarily blocked accounts. I'm aware there is a "timeblocked" parameter for {{sockpuppeteer}} that may have been used in the early days of Wikipedia, but nowadays the user pages of temporarily blocked accounts are left as is. I agree with Zindor that there's little point in doing so, as it amounts to nothing more than a badge of shame, and that is not the purpose of tagging. Mz7 (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@HurricaneTracker495: the standard offer is six months, yes, but i dont know the exact determination used for tagging; I suspect it's less clear cut than that and requires good judgement. An indef can be lifted earlier than six months or left in place longer, depends on the user's track record and the sincerity and understanding displayed in their unblock request. You can get a good idea about whats gone on from a user's talk page and the block log, and any relevant AN discussions. Beans might apply too, especially with LTA socks, so you might not see the full picture. Mz7 will know more about this subject than I do. I mainly responded because I didn't want to leave your question sitting un-answered. Regards, Zindor (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@Zindor: no, the facts are wrong. 06:47, 5 April 2020 Callanecc talk contribs blocked CPHL talk contribs with an expiration time of 6 months (account creation blocked) (Continued disruptive editing including persistent addition of unsourced content after previous blocks). So he was blocked previously. The indeff came in 04:21 April 21, 2020. ST47 came in and tagged them 01:52 April 21, 2020, before the indeff came in. The six month block was for copyright violations. I even quote this from ST47-Confirmed, tagged. The master is already blocked 6 months for an unrelated matter by @Callanec:, so they were evading / trolling. I'm not going to extend it, but maybe someone else will want to. Otherwise, please close. ST47 (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC). ST47 has been pinged for input. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@HurricaneTracker495: I don't know the background behind those cases, but as I said before, in practice we only tag indefinitely blocked accounts. In general, sock tags should only be added by administrators or SPI clerks, so if I were you I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about this issue. Mz7 (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@HurricaneTracker495:, ive already read that log thanks. In my post i was speaking in general. Hashing over a specific case isn't something I'm prepared to do, especially on a highly visible board such as this. Zindor (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
To donate
To donate I do not have any money in my checking account so when I get some I can give a little then, if that is ok with you? I get paid on 12/ 3 / 2020 will that be ok? Debnan (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@Debnan: I am pretty sure. You are by far not the only donator, I am pretty sure that Wikipedia won't run out of money to pay the server bills yust because you didn't donate. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Debnan, as much as the Wikimedia Foundation would appreciate a donation from you, it is not required to edit or read Wikipedia or any of its sister projects. As far as I know the Foundation is doing fine from current donations so there is no rush to donate (or at all). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello Peterrivington. Welcome to the Teahouse. Unlike Hotel California, it is quite possible to checkout and leave draftspace. I have added a button for you to submit your draft for review and feedback when you're ready. It looks to have potential, but if the collection itself is notable, it probably needs some good reliable sources that talk about it, rather than the two generations of photographers, who may well be notable themselves if they've been written about. These references really need to be inserted as inline citations- at least one per paragraph. See this guidance page for easily adding references. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Question regarding a page I edited for someone I know
Hi, I edited the page- Alexi Lubomirski - and it has been reverted to the version before I edited. I am directly connected to him and curious why my page was reverted as everything is factual. Any chance someone can help? Azimmerman333 (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Azimmerman333. That can seem really annoying when you know something to be true, but another editor removes it. The problem I see with this edit you made is that there is absolutely no way for anyone else to VERIFY what you said by checking with publicly available RELIABLE SOURCES. Anything that can't be verified should not go onto Wikipedia - that's our mantra. So you will need to address this. There is guidance HERE on how our editing tool can help you easily add inline citations, but the work of finding those sources in the first place is up to you. You then ought to declare on your userpage that you have a bit of a 'conflict of interest' - we have guidance here on how to declare a CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC).
Azimmerman333, Wikipedia depends on information from verifiable sources, not on things personally known to its contributors. Your edits not only added things based on your personal knowledge (which you might get away with in a small way), they removed statements based on cited sources, together with the references to those sources; that is not acceptable. Maproom (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Regarding Music Articles
Hello, Teahouse editors. I'm currently trying to create an article for a Juice Wrld song. While looking around the internet for an acceptable cover image, I found several of them that are the same (they're all for the same song, obviously). However, I'm not sure what sites are considered OK to use (I considered using the SoundCloud image, but I'm wary of doing so). Can someone help me out with this, and can anyone also give me any website recommendations? TheKingCartii (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, TheKingCartii, and welcome to the Tewahouse. Album covers are one kind of image for which it is often acceptable to use non-free content: see NFCI. If your proposed use meets all the criteria in the non-free content criteria, then you don't need any kind of permission, but may upload an image (to Wikipedia, not Commons). Note that if you're creating the article as a draft (which I would strongly recommend) then you may not use a non-free image in it, but only in an article in article space; so you should hold off uploading it until that has happened. --ColinFine (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Permission to publish a translated page/ issues with the Reference list/ Need of a mentor! :-) Many thanks
Photographer uploading a picture
Hello, I was trying to upload a picture for the artist, Kobenz, I have done a few of his shoots. It's blocking me from uploading, any recommendations? I have also noticed there is a city of Kobenz and an artist Kobenz. I feel these two should be differenciated. Soundcloudlegends (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Soundcloudlegends, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you own the copyright to the pictures, and you are willing to license them under CC-BY-SA (which will irrevocably allow anybody to reuse and alter them, for any purpose, commercial or not, as long as they attribute the source), then you can upload them to Wikimedia Commons, which doesn't have a restriction on new editors uploading. If you want to do that, go to Commons:Commons:Upload Wizard.
As for the disambiguation: yes, this is a common occurrence which we have standard ways of dealing with. Unfortunately, what you did was to trash the existing article about the city. It looks as if Davidwr is sorting this out, and will put the material you tried to add into a new draft page where you can work on it, and submit it for review when it is ready. Have you read Your first article and WP:NMUSICIAN? --ColinFine (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey, I am not sure if my thinking is correct, but is there a way to archive a section on a talk page? I am wondering this for my user talk page. Thanks for the help. Mulstev (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I dont know all the lineage but I know what is listed is wrong and/or incomplete for the 20th Infantry Regiment.
My father was in this unit during WWII and Korea.
I dont know how to fix it so I wanted to make you aware. 160.2.17.170 (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. We will need more information than "it is wrong" in order to be able to help you. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and is not based on personal knowledge, this is necessary for verification purposes. If you have independent reliable sources that say something different than the current article does, please offer them and what changes you want to make, on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi IP editor. If you are at least able to suggest key elements which you suspect might be incorrect or need some attention, you could post a list of concerns on the article's talk page in the hope it might spur other editors to investigate. But, as 330dot says, we can't change article content without having sources we can reference (cite). Your prompting on the talk page might get others to do some checking, but we can't incorporate hearsay, no matter how correct that might actually be. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Question from Borbe64
can you please contribute to the article called borbe64 it is a motivational thing so people can feel better about their selves Borbe64 (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Borbe64 (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Borbe64: You have not created an article. Your User page, where you have written "hi this is a page that you can type encouraging messages below because we all need that extra light in our day in this pandemic you all are amazing" is supposed to be a place where you create content explaining your intentions as a Wikipedia editor. Other editors are not supposed to write anything on other editors' User pages. Your Talk page is for communicating, but only about Wikipedia-related stuff, like edits on articles. David notMD (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
This is the Teahouse - a friendly help forum for people needing assistance in understanding how to contribute to, and edit, Wikipedia. Do you have an editing-related question for us? Nick Moyes (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The Visual Editor will save your edit summaries to save you time, which is useful, but the list can get to be cluttered. I can find no way to clean up the list, though they do seem to expire after a certain amount of time.
Something so simple would have been nice, but, unfortunately, that is not true, for two reasons: 1.) My browser has form autofill expressly disabled. 2.) I have just verified that this behavior cannot be browser-side, by logging in to my account on a computer from which I have never logged in to Wikipedia before. Every one of my entries were there when I did an edit.
1980fast, I think this thread on MediaWiki may apply to you. It doesn't seem there's a way to remove them manually, but they'll be forgotten if left unused.
Thanks for the ping, @Tenryuu. VisualEditor (both its visual mode and the 2017 wikitext editor) checks your most recent 200 edits (at this wiki) for edit summaries. There are no plans to change this, although it may be something that the mw:Editing team will look at in future years.
Since it only checks your most recent 200 edits, then obviously if you make 200 more edits, it won't find any older edit summaries. I'm personally not dedicated enough to make 200 edits just to clear out my edit summary suggestion list, but it would work. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello,there is a certain article which's unneccessarily extended confirm protected and it's mismanaged due to lack of editors. Is there any way to lift it off?Falcon with appendix (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nynewsguy. Often reliability depends upon WP:RSCONTEXT and the type of information the source is being used to cite. Some of the sources your citing in the article mention Tepper only by name as part of some other story; so, they are not something which is going to be considered WP:SIGCOV of Tepper himself. Some of the other sources you've cited don't seem to mention Tepper at all, which means they have pretty much zero value in establishing his Wikipedia notability. Try to focus on content and sources that clearly establish Tepper's Wikipedia notability. Perhaps also try asking at WP:JOURNALISM for some feedback as well. It kind of seem that Tepper might meets some of the criteria given in WP:NJOURNALIST; so, perhaps focus on those things and finding sources for those things will help better clarify his Wikipedia notability. You can also try asking for clarification on the user talk page of the AfC reviewer who declined the page or WP:AFDHELP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Editing Developing Stories
Hello! I'm new to Wikipedia. Should I wait to edit pages on developing stories or should I edit them as new information comes out? Specifically I was trying to edit the Volga Maniac article because a man just confessed to being the killer. Thanks! PGaz05 (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, PGaz05. That's a very sensible question, so thank you for asking it. Wikipedia only reports on what Reliable Sources have written about a subject. Developing stories, rcent deaths, major incidents are all very changeable subjects, and require considerable care and experience. (We recently indefinitely blocked a young editor for linking an American journalist to that of a child murderer with zero justification - and they or their parents were lucky not to have been pursued in the courts) Reporting on criminal accusations needs extreme care, and I see your account is just two days old. So my advice is to do yourself a favour and find less challenging areas on which to learn how to edit. You might like to read some guidance on these topics. Here are some shortcuts to them: WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP and WP:RS and, of course, Help:Introduction. Does this help? Nick Moyes (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm editing the page for John Yellow Bird Steele, who was president of the Oglala Sioux Tribe 6 different times.
Right now I have the list of dates when he was president as term_start / term_ends 1-6 in an {{Infobox officeholder}}. There's also
a succession box ({{S-start}}). If I put all six terms in both, and include successor / predecessor for all 6 in the infobox, the infobox + succession box will be huge.
Should I just have one or the other?
Also, how do I find more info about {{S-start}}? I know I've seen a page with info about it but I can never figure out how to get back to it. What's the standard way of getting info about all those {{}} things I see when editing? GeorgeSonOfJohn (talk) 07:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
GeorgeSonOfJohn, while I'll leave someone else to talk about {{Infobox officeholder}} and {{S-start}}, I'll tell you that you can look for template help by searching for Template:Example in the search bar, where "Example" is the name of the template you want more information on. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
AloPeyk
It's about 3 months that I was working on the draft and trying to fix the issues which were mentioned by reviewers (here and here).
I provided lots of reliable sources in English, Persian, and even french to confirm the notability of the subject (AloPeyk). In comparison with Snapp!, the subject has been mentioned by more English sources such as financial tribune,bloomberglaw and daily star, meanwhile snapp! is available in Wikipedia but AloPeyk does not get the permission to published. If the submission would be accepted, other users such as copyeditors could develop the body of the article based on policies. Hispring (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Over-referenced. Should not take nine references to confirm it exists, or six more references to confirm it delivers stuff. Also has content about plans for future action. David notMD (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Creating a page about my former teacher's modality
Hi there. I'm trying to create a page on a modality. It's my former teacher's modality, which sometimes I use. I want to do it right, but wasn't sure what option to choose.
Do I need to pick "this article is about me or somebody close to me"? It is not about me. And that person is not close to me but was one of my many teachers.
@Gamze Cassandra Evren: Please be aware that creating a brand new article from scratch is one of the most difficult task at Wikipedia. For a beginner it's close to impossible. Wikipedia requires us to obey many policies and guidelines, WP:N and WP:VER as most important, also WP:NPOV. It is better for newcommers to begin with minor corrections and expansions in existing articles, preferably in their area of competence, and not start new pages until they reach some basic level of proficiency. --CiaPan (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Ganbaruby, thank you very much for your comment.
I saw that you referred to what was in my Sandbox. That was the old version. After receiving the comments, I realised that there is a different way to how to write things. I changed it and rewrote the whole thing according to Wikipedia guidelines in the best way I could.
Now, my question is; The subject I’m writing about is a modality created by my teacher. I’m not writing about my teacher. I’m writing about a psychotherapeutic process which is in use in the world, created by her.
I was just wondering if it’s still considered writing about a close person, although it’s not written about a person?
Although it’s not the main modality I use,( or you can call it like an intervention technique, with it’s own rules, like Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, Hypnotherapy etc) it’s partially what I do in my profession. My main job is Clinical Hypnotherapy.
So, with this in light, Which option I should pick. Article is not about me, this article is about me or somebody close to me?
With appreciation, looking forward to your reply Ganbaruby.
@Ganbaruby:— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamze Cassandra Evren (talk • contribs)
So I wanted to ask, how can I improve it exactly? I tried to keep it as objective as possible. I'm aware several sources cited are not secondary, but what else could I do in the case of products, for instance, where the most info comes from the company's own pages? Also, are there any sections where the phrasing is too commercial-y? Thank you. Mevpeche (talk) 09:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Mevpeche Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft you have written about your company just tells about the company and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must almost exclusively summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself, only in what others completely unconnected with the company have chosen to say about it. This does not include press releases, the company website, staff interviews, announcements of routine business activities, brief mentions, product descriptions, or other primary sources. Most of the sources you have offered seem to be those sorts of things.
The "mission" and "vision" section would need to go completely, as it is impossible to independently verify what a business considers to be its mission and vision.
As a company employee, in order to succeed in writing a draft about your company, you in essence need to forget everything you know about it, and only write based on the content of independent sources. Most people in your position have a difficult time doing that. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Missvain (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Moved from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse
Courtesy link: List of hobbies § Outdoors 3 I fixed the ref error. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Slykos (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
wikipedia.org, as the OTRS members may have additional questions. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Have you tried the Entertainment section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
). Certainly you should carefully read those and address anything left unaddressed. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Courtesy ping: 1980fast —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wei_Wu_Wei_in_his_garden_in_Monaco_in_March_1976.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Quietus_at_Winchester.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![[15]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%27Untold%27_(detail)_2017.jpg){kind=link}
