Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1086

Archive 1080

←

Archive 1084

Archive 1085

Archive 1086

Archive 1087

Archive 1088

→

Archive 1090

Rick O'Connel

I am an editor part of WP:FCHAR, as I am very interested in movies, books and fictional characters. I spotted that Rick O'Connell redirects to Mummy Franchise characters. But, he is the lead protagonist in all 3 movies of the series. So shouldn't there be an additional article. I myself have created such articles like Dr Smolder Bravestone, which was reviewed and accepted. But the Jack Dawson article was deleted. Also, Imhotep (The Mummy) is an article on the lead antagonist of the series. While Imhotep is in 3 movies and 1 Tv show, Rick is in 3 movies. As I have presented my view, please comment as you are all experienced editors. I have also put the question in Wikiproject:Fictional Characters Thank you. --Atlantis77177 (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Film characters are no different from other topics – they need to meet WP:GNG and there should be significant coverage in reliable and independent sources about the character, not the actor or the movie in general. If there is such sourcing, by all means draft an article about O'Connell and submit it for review! As for Dr Smolder Bravestone, I don't see where it was reviewed. Didn't you create that in mainspace? I don't really think there is any indication of that character being independently notable, to be honest, but that's a different issue. The character of Imhotep has appeared in one film from 1932 and a very different film from 2000, as well as the sequel to the latter film and two separate TV series. These different incarnations have different backstories, different developments, and are represented in very different ways indeed. That indicates that it is more likely to be a notable character compared to a character appearing within a single story arc, portrayed by one actor, but again, if you find the sources, go ahead and draft the article! Imhotep (The Mummy) is abysmally badly sourced, to be honest. It would surprise me if there are no sources available, but they are not in the article – so that's something that might be worth working on, as well. [edited to add: A very quick search found sources about Karloff's Imhotep: a couple of pages in Mummies around the World: An Encyclopedia of Mummies in History, Religion, and Popular Culture, an article from Journal of Evolutionary Psychology called "Tracking the sands of time: origin stories in the mummy films", and it looks like there are also several pages about it in Horror Film Directors, 1931-1990 by Dennis Fisher, though that's not a book I have access to.] --bonadea contributions talk 10:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

How to give titles

I am creating a page and i want to give titles like every page has for example- early life, career etc but i am unknown to the fact how to create those headings. Ibaadat (talk) 09:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ibaadat: You can surrround a text with two or more equal signs to create headings. See also Help:Wikitext. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Like this: ==Early life==. Enjoyer of World^{(bother me...)} 11:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ibaadat: The more equal signs you add on each side, the smaller the

Usage of preferred pronouns?

People who use pronouns such as ‘he/they’, she/they’, or are pronoun flexible only have the binary pronouns used on their page when these pronouns are supposed to be used simultaneously. Are we allowed to edit them as long as they are their preferred pronouns? Sock06 (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, User:Sock06. Welcome to the Teahouse. Are there any specific pages you are referring to? This might be an issue worth raising on the talk pages of the articles in question. The relevant guidance for pronoun use is at MOS:GENDERID.

As your account is relatively new, it might be worth considering creating a new account with a different username. A 'sock' is a term used on Wikipedia for illegimate alternative accounts and having such a name might create possibly undue impressions about your account. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Article Declined - Why?

Why was my article declined? CreepyManMaker (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CreepyManMaker. I'm afraid it was totally uncited and deemed as a blatant hoax so was speedily deleted once it was reviewed at Articles for Creation. In future, try to remember that this is an encyclopaedia of notable things, based upon verifiable, reliable sources. Made up stuff and non-notable nonsense simply gets deleted if it's deemed to have no merit whatsoever. I'm afraid that was the case with 'Carrot Kid', and this isn't a playground for pranksters. Regards. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up to Help to install an edit of an English entry of Wikipedia

Creating References I have revised the draft of my article as advised. Now: please can someone help me create the link of each of the eight references in the text of that revised article to the references list at the end of that article? Merchav1 (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Merchav1. You will find guidance on how you use either of your preferred editing tools to add incline citations yourself. Please either follow the instructions at WP:REFBEGIN or some notes I prepared on the same topic at WP:ERB. You can use one reference to a book at multiple places if you use the {{rp}} template immediately after the inline citation to show which page in the book or journal that cited statement refers to. (More details on that in this section. I would expect at the very least that each paragraph about a person would have at least one reference at the end of every paragraph, or multiple citations within it to support multiple assertions of fact. I hope this helps. If after carefully reading through the guidance pages, and giving it a try, you find you're still stuck, just pop back here and identify one precise statement and one source document that you would like to use as a citation, and someone here will possibly add it for you by way of a demonstration, and then leave you to do the rest. You might find it worth looking at the 'edit source' code of a similar article to see how inline citations appear within them. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Please review and move these articles to main space

I am a new user who created two articles. Please review them and give me feedback.

First article for review and move to main space: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kabul_Model_United_Nations Second article for review and move to main space:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yahya_Qanie Popalzai.diana (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Popalzai.diana. We don't review new articles here, but I have added a 'submission' template to both drafts so that, when you're ready, you can submit them to the review panel at Articles for Creation. Be aware there is a huge backlog (c.3,500) and it can take some months for our reviewers to get around to checking any given article. I would add that it is not at all clear to me what a Model United Nations is. Perhaps you are a little too close to the subject? So, could you try to imagine yourself knowing nothing about the topic and start the article in a simple explanatory way which assumes no prior knowledge? Many thanks. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

As they stand, neither article is likely to be accepted. Youtube, Twitter and the organisation's own website are not considered reliable sources, which you need to provide to establish that the subject is notable enough to merit an article here. It is not the number of sources that matters so much as the fact that they should be independent of the subject. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Can a good article have a tag about references, etc.?

Joe Kennedy III is nominated as a good article, yet it has a tag regarding TMPS. Does that give the article an eligibility to have GA revoked? a gd fan (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@GeometryDashFan12: Simply having a template wouldn't be grounds for removing GA status from a current GA (which that article is – it is listed as a GA, not nominated). A template might flag more or less serious issues; the template here indicates that the article relies too much on primary sources, it doesn't say anything about a general lack of sources. The Good Article criteria don't say anything about primary sources. Secondary sources are preferred (otherwise the template wouldn't exist), but that template on its own is not a sign that it would be delisted if it went through a reassessment discussion. --bonadea contributions talk 15:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Bo-Ying Lee does not show link to wikidata

Hi, I don't see Bo-Ying Lee linking to wikidata (Q102826015) on the left side of the Wikipedia page. Thanks, SWP13 (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, SWP13. I purged the page, and now it shows. --ColinFine (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Reply>>ColinFine, How did you purge the page? Awsome, it shows a wikidata link now. Thanks.SWP13 (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, SWP13. I picked "Purge" from the "More" menu at the top of my page. I don't know whether everybody sees that or whether it's because I have enabled a gadget. See WP:Purge (which I linked to). To reply to a message here just indent with a colon (:) - one more colon than the message you are replying to. --ColinFine (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@SWP13 and ColinFine: Purging has to be enabled by going to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, and then choosing "Add a "Purge" option to the top of the page, which purges the page's cache". Alternatively, you can purge using the commands at Wikipedia:Purge#Purge local browser cache (the commands depend on your web browser). Joseph2302 (talk) 12:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Joseph2302 ColinFine, In Gadgets tab, I added Purge and clock to personal tool bar. I do see the UTC clock on my upper-right-corner now. Will use it the next time I don't see the wikidata link. Thanks again, SWP13 (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Question

What is a "user sandbox"? I was reading The Signpost just now and in the section about paid editors it mentioned it. It also shows on my user page and when I click the thing in the top right corner of my screen when I put it into advanced mode. Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Ex-Borg Seven of Nine. In brief, your user sandbox is a place for you to develop content and test code. Please read Wikipedia:About the sandbox for complete details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Apparently my sandbox is not created yet? And I'm having the same problem I had with my user page. Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Ex-Borg Seven of Nine, if there has been no content on the page it doesn't exist. Once you decide to add content to it and save, it will exist. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Your sandbox will be at User:Ex-Borg Seven of Nine/Sandbox. Just edit it and it will be created. Meters (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

That's the thing. I hit publish, and then it just loads and loads and loads and it doesn't publish. Never mind, is there a sandbox that's been created? Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Ex-Borg Seven of Nine, I wouldn't suggest going to other user sandboxes and adding stuff. I made your sandbox here. You should be able to click the link on the top left corner of your browser that says "Sandbox" to get there too. Le Panini ^Talk 03:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: You created User:Ex-Borg Seven of Nine/Sandbox, but the link at the top of pages Ex-Borg Seven of Nine sees when logged in is to User:Ex-Borg Seven of Nine/sandbox (lowercase s), so that link will still be a redlink. The "Subpages" link at the bottom of the editor's contributions page can be used to find the sandbox, though. Deor (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Editing Reference

Adding .pdf to reference

I'm trying to edit a reference by adding text and two .pdf's. The .pdf's are copies of Court documents so I don't own the copyright. How do I add these references without violating some rule? Ralphwrites (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ralphwrites, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is that you almost certainly don't. If they are public documents, then give appropriate bibliographic information in the reference (most easily by using {{cite court}}; if they are not, then they may not be used as a source. While it's obviously convenient for reviewers and readers for sources to be available online, it is not required; and if there is an online source, it is important that it be a reliable source - not a copyright infringement, and not a document that a random person has uploaded to a sharing site. --ColinFine (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Last question, I hope (I am way overusing the Teahouse)

I'm in my sandbox, trying to make an Infobox. But when I go to publish it, it has a weird message in the preview. Something about an unknown parameter. How do I fix this? Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Templates can be super picky, and usually they don't like capital letters. Try changing "Name" to "name", "Species" to "species", and so on, and see if that helps? (I don't think "first appearance" and "last appearance" are parameters that are supported by that template, either – double-check in Template:Infobox person to see which parameters it recognises.) --bonadea contributions talk 12:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Ex-Borg Seven of Nine, I was just looking there. All the hard work has been done for you, luckily, and you can just fill out a form from pre-existing templates.

I don't know much about Marvel, but it seems you're making an article about a character from the franchise.

Either you're gonna want to use the Template:Infobox character template, or the Template:Infobox comics character template. You might want to use either one of these two. (and don't worry about using the Teahouse too much. Helping newcomers is our purpose.) Le Panini ^Talk 12:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Le Panini: and @Bonadea:. (normally I use the thank button but it will take forever to sort through those revisions 😺) Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Disclosing COI

Disclosing COI RE: Peter Petros Wiki

I have not been able to get a Wiki article through as I have been dinged for COI and copyright issues on my images.

I am wondering how I may amend this and disclose my COI? I have tried following the instructions but I cannot understand them. My relationship to Petros is that I have interviewed him in the past for work. Although in this instance I was not asked to create an article by him or anyone else, nor have I been paid to do so.

I am was extremely impressed by his CV and my interview with him in the past. I believe this man needs more exposure as a researcher in womens health and prolific academic journal article creator as currently there is little to no information on his academic and research achievements -- only newspaper articles over a past controversy that was all over the Australian news at the time making any research on Petros impossible.

The images which were used were taken from his academic articles that are open to the public and I was also given further consent and images to use when I reached out to him to tell him that I wanted to create a Wiki on him.

Please help! I am very new to this all and am eager to create more articles but I need to understand where I am going wrong and how I may disclose my COI regarding this wiki so that it may be published. GW.Pub (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "I believe this man needs more exposure as a researcher in womens health and prolific academic journal article creator", that is exactly the wrong reason to write a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not concerned with spreading the word about someone; we're only concerned with summarizing what independent reliable sources say about a person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person.

There are formal ways to disclose a COI, but a simple statement on your user talk page will suffice. 331dot (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Now at Draft:Peter Petros. As stated by 331dot, add a statement to your User page that you have met and interviewed Peter Petros and decided to create an article about him, an are not being paid or otherwise compensated for the effort. David notMD (talk) 02:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion the draft is far too long, large amounts of content are not referenced, large amounts are not about Petros, cut, cut, cut. David notMD (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The comment above this one suggests that much of the article's material may be a product of the interview with the subject, and unpublished and unusable in the article. Even the published interview, as it is written by the article's creator, seems to be slightly inappropriate as a source in this instance.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Template isn't Collapsing by Default

I have added a template for the works of Brothers Grimm on the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hansel_and_Gretel_(2021_film). However, like other templates, it isn't hidden by default. I can't seem to find a solution to this issue. I want it to be hidden by default as all other templates. Anybody out there knowledgeable on this issue? EnshrineSnowVista (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi EnshrineSnowVista I have made the requested change per this edit. You may or may not know this already, but I'll mention that most templates have documentation explaining various aspects of their use, which is accessed by navigating to the template page itself – here Template:Hansel and Gretel – which explained how to set the template to a collapsed state upon initial view. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much Fuhghettaboutit and Deor for the help. So it is the state=collapsed portion.EnshrineSnowVista (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

You're most welcome--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Editing References

Note: I totally screwed up this response at first—the question was entered twice; the first one got cut off, and the user below reposted with different text; I had looked at the page history and answered the first question only, not realizing the continuation in a new section, but I added an unsigned template for the wrong user from the page history; I have now refactored to combine the two posts together add nowiki tags for certain markup, and fixed the wrong attribution I introduced with the unsigned template.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Editing References (Source)

I'm trying to edit a reference in an article. When I go to edit the reference, a message comes up saying the references were done on a template and need to be edited in Source. When I click on Edit Source a blank form comes up with only— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphwrites (talk • contribs)

==References==

{{reflist}}

in it and gives me no way I can see to edit a single reference. It's almost like I need to recreate the entire reference list to change only one of them. The Article I'm trying to edit is "Staunton Military Academy" and the reference I'm trying to edit is #6. Ralphwrites (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ralphwrites When you are reading an article and see a references section near the bottom populated by a series of numbered citations, you might think that if you edit the page, you will see those citations typed in that section and be able to edit them. However, usually what you will see is markup similar to this:

==References==
{{reflist}} or <references />

In that case, the text of citations is actually in the body of the article, directly next to the first statements or paragraphs the citations support, using <ref>...</ref> tags, which display as Footnotes (e.g.) when you are reading an article. The template code shown above in the references section collates and displays all of the citations within the article in a numbered list in which the numbers correspond to the footnote numbers in the text. By clicking on the ^{^} symbol next to a citation display, you can easily find exactly where in the body of the article the citation text appears in order to edit it. For more, please see Help:Referencing for beginners.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ralphwrites: Pinging correct OP. Deor (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Editing

What is the best tool to find spelling and grammar mistakes in articles?Superace6 (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Superace6 (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! There's an article on that and you can also volunteer for the typo team (see that page). Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

hey was "typo team (see that page)" met to link to something. Superace6 (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

No, Superace6: "article" linked to something, as you can tell because it is blue. --ColinFine (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Superace6: See also WP:TYPO for the Typo Team for hints and tips on finding and fixing typos. RudolfRed (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

How do you edit external Wikipedia tools?

https://wp1.openzim.org/#/ is an external tool used for Wikipedia. I wanted to suggest that https://wp1.openzim.org/#/project/Wildfire/articles?quality=GA-Class&importance=Top-Class should have more entries, because it is missing pages like Valley Fire, Rim Fire, Jesusita Fire, etc. How do you edit such tool? a gd fan (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi , a gd fan. You'd make such a suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. Afaik it's not possible to directly edit the tool. Regards, Zindor (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Harry Clifton

 81.152.204.215 (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Unless you ask your question, there's no way for us to answer your question. We're not psychic. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 21:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

What does an appendix do?

 24.18.33.20 (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP editor. Read all about it here--Quisqualis (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe here. There are numerous ones of this sort at the end of The Return of the King. MarnetteD|Talk 21:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Question for someone who KNOWS this stuff...

How do we post some new definitions regarding a newly forming world industry, there are quite a few new definitions and words forming here. We likely need someone to help us write and publish too. We're NEW to this. (Redacted)  184.67.11.34 (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

You don't. See WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Perhaps Wiktionary? [1] RudolfRed (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Wiktionary, while it is a dictionary, rather than an encyclopedia, the fact that these words are described as "new" may very well mean that they are unsuitable there as well. At Wiktionary, proposed additions (to the English language version) must meet that project's criteria for inclusion – requiring 'attestation' – verified evidence of the proposed word or phrase enjoying: 1) Clearly widespread use; or 2) use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

so what do i do since now that i am new

 Thubgb (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

As a start I would suggest that you stop vandalising articles or you will be blocked very soon. Theroadislong (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Thubgb: Read articles. Find a WikiProject that interests you (they are listed on most articles' talk pages). Don't directly edit pages until you get used to the way things are done around here. Instead, use an article's talk page to suggest a change and ask for input. If you want to practice "technique" consider copying an article to your sandbox then editing it. If you do this, two words of advice: First read WP:Copying within Wikipedia because there are some legal issues involved, you have to maintain "attribution" somehow. Second, remove the [[Category:...]] lines at the bottom and remove any templates that cause the page to be put into categories, such as "stub" templates, because this can cause problems for other editors if your sandbox is "in" a category that is reserved for actual articles. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

List of youngest birth mothers

Maria Tizziano become mother (gave birth to her son) at 11 years old. It is this info eligible to be added in the page? --5.168.17.58 (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Ask this on Talk:List of youngest birth mothers. Be sure you have a reliable source to back up the claim. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Scratch that, I just looked at the list, it looks pretty long even though it's just listing mothers age 10 and under, so yeah, I would say just by eyeballing the list, 11 is too old for it. It might be different if the current list was age 6 and under and you were asking about a 7 year old, then the right thing to do would be to ask on the article's talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Responding to people on your talk page

Hello, I got a question and I'm kinda new to this stuff so; How do you respond to people on your talk page?

Thanks! Mr. Amasballs Mr. Amasballs (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Thank you EnshrineSnowVista!

Please go to the Talk Page. Then click Edit Source button on top-right, scroll all the way down and find the last sentence. Then add a new line by clicking Enter. Then type. Then click Publish Changes.EnshrineSnowVista (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

To make the conversation more legible add a : to the beginning of your comment to indent it. You can find more information at WP:INDENT. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for wasting your time because... well your nice but some people are really rude here.Mr. Amasballs (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Amasballs, It's a difference between "rude" and "passive aggressive, because they've been doing this for so long". It'll become more clear as time goes on. Le Panini ^Talk 17:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Well at lest look at my talk page I mean seriously. Mr. Amasballs (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

No, that's standard stuff (business, not personal, making a The Godfather reference). All new editors have a steep learning curve. Experienced editors with intentions to help can come across too curt. Wikipedia advises "Don't bite the newbies." but sometimes that is forgotten. The volunteer editors at Teahouse are on average a bit more diplomatic. Ask away. David notMD (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the user's talk page, perhaps Guidance for younger editors might be a recommended page to read? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

permalinks usage for non-Wikipedia citations

OhioLINK pages contain a permalink which goes to an info page that has current links to the actual content. See http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1180454140 . In this case, is it preferred to use the permalink or to use a link that takes one to the actual content? Is there a template I should be using? Fabrickator (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Fabrickator, it's almost always better to use the permalink, as it guards against link rot. {{Cite web}} will probably work fine. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Expansion of Major League Soccer

Hello, i'm here to inform you that on the wikipedia page of Expansion of Major League Soccer i found that you had mistakenly put Kansas City in Kansas while it is in Missouri

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Major_League_Soccer_club_locations_2020.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:BE60:DA1:E844:2756:944B:9EC6 (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Note to other editors: The uploader and the editor who changed the picture haven't edited the Commons or en-Wiki in months. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the team is based in Kansas_City,_Kansas RudolfRed (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The team is called Sporting Kansas City and they play at Children's Mercy Park in Kansas City, Kansas. The team's administrative offices are across the river in Kansas City, Missouri. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

ok I won't vandalize anymore but how do I create an article.

 Thubgb (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thubgb, see Help:Your first article. Creating a new article is a tough thing to do, so you may want to try some other tasks first, or to read through the general editing tutorial if you haven't yet. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thubgb We'll let you off messing around with your first couple of edits. But if you'd really like to stay and help build this encyclopaedia, please get to learn the basics first. You can collect 15 different badges by taking our interactive introductory tour called The Wikipedia Adventure, and you can work through Help:Introduction to get a feeling of how to edit. If you let us know the kinds of things you're interested in, we might be able to suggest a few of our 6,100,000+ articles in need of some improving. Most importantly, never ever add any content purely from what you happen to know - even about your home town. We need references to support everything here (see WP:REFBEGIN for how to do that) so that someone on the other side of the world can read Wikipedia and check its accuracy. If you add or make any more silly changes, you're likely to get your editing rights withdrawn. Pop back here if you get stuck. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

look guys I am sorry for vandalizing a few articles and you changed that and I am also sorry or threatening the life of jimmy wales I'm just new because I never read the rules and guidelines.

 Thubgb (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thubgb, I strongly suggest you stop with these before you end up getting blocked. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

There's a limit to messing around as a newbie. This child has gone way beyond what's acceptable and I have indefinitely blocked them from further editing, per WP:NOTHERE. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Good call. Whether you are 15 or 51, editors need to have some degree of maturity. The difference is the 15 year old is more likely to grow up than the "15 year old" in a 51 year old's body. I hope that when he has the maturity to do so Thubgb returns to ask for an unblock under WP:Standard offer and becomes a productive editor, whether that's in a few months or a few years. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Information gap

What is an information gap AngelitaDominguez (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@AngelitaDominguez: it means missing information - information that is missing. Less commonly it could be Information gap task, but I'd need to know the context. This page is for questions about editing Wikipedia - you can ask general questions at the research desk. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome

Can I create a welcoming template to welcome users?  Larryzhao|Talk|Contribs 17:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Larryzhao123: in genral, yes, though you might want to put that a bit further away on your todo list. 395 edits isn't that much and I highely suspect that you haven't seen enough of Wikipedia already to be ready to answer the newcomer's questions, should they decide to ask on your talkpage. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok Larryzhao|Talk|Contribs 17:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

There are already various welcome templates available at Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Larryzhao123: Please have a look at WP:INDENT regarding indenting on discussion pages. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

From WikiBlind.org folks - Is this the Help Desk for wikipedia?

Trying to find the best group of people to refer new volunteers to.

Is anyone here blind or low vision? Anyone who can talk on the phone? DrMel (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Close - This is for new users to seek information on how Wikipedia works in general. There's also Wikipedia:Help desk. As for offers to talk on the phone, you're not likely to see anyone willingly disclosing their personal phone numbers on Wikipedia so as to limit spam calls, SWATting attempts, and any appearance of impropriety/collusion if they work in a volatile topic area. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 20:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, DrMel, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm shocked that I can't find anything much about support for editors with disability, or even much about editors who have disabilities. There is a category Category:Disabled Wikipedians, but only about a dozen editors have put themsleves in that category, and the couple of them I've looked at don't say anything about their disability on their user page. There is a WikiProject Disability, but that is about articles related to disability. It's possible that some of the participants are blind themselves, or experienced in helping people with visual impairment, so you might ask at WikiProject Disability. There is also a WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia which is about providing articles in spoken form. But that's all I can find. I shall go over to the Village pump and raise the topic. As the previous answer says, it is unlikely that many Wikipedians will be willing to post their phone numbers. But there may be something we could organise; for example, a list of Wikipedian's who are willing to work with editors who have visual impairment: the person seeking help could email the editor privately with their phone number. I would be willing to do that, but I have no special knowledge of the needs of people with visual impairment, or the technologies available to help them. --ColinFine (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

DrMel, I've raised this at WP:VPP#Support for editors with disabilities, and mentioned it at WT:WikiProject Disability. I don't know if you want to add anything to my post. --ColinFine (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@DrMel: There's WP:WPACCESS and meta:WikiBlind User Group. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Electronics the Religion

Good day,

My Draft was deleted today by: Wildr, Jimfbleak, Nick Moyes, Maile66.

By calling the page and text Vandalism in matter of being noncorrect. By using words Hoax and "Blatan" Hoax.

My draft can not be edited by IP only anymore.

Any help? 89.205.138.183 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.138.183 (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Is that draft: Draft:Electronics the Religion? Wikipedia articles are based on what is previously published, not on something you made up or created. To prove something is not a hoax, supply references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm really sorry IPv4s and Orangmatter, but I think it best if you seek another internet platform to promote your ideas. Wikipedia is not the right one for you. Of course, if you can find and supply some mainstream media sources that show the world at large has taken notice of this nonsense, then we'll happily reconsider, per WP:GNG. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

If you do find such sources, you'll also need to get some help writing the article. As I remember it (I'm not able to see deleted articles), it was practically incomprehensible. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s Leftist Orientation

We are living in a time where adults in this country are looking for 1st amendment protection, and young people are learning what it means to have freedom of speech. It is critical that forums such as yours not take a political position in reporting or opining. Unfortunately, we have seen Wikipedia take very liberal positions in delivery of information by being subtly critical of Conservative positions, or overtly kind to “progressive” and deliberately articles, “science”, etc.

People really need a place to go to find not just the behaviors of calico kittens, but also fair critique of renewable energy. Please refrain from politicizing details on your website. Be neutral, really really neutral. Don’t nuke the 1st amendment by censoring speech. Don’t do it. Half the country doesn’t want to see Wikipedia compromise conservatism to further your agenda. The other half needs to see that there is truly a place to go that doesn’t always agree with their political positions, in order to truly bring neutral information to seekers. Anyone can spin data. It takes a real encyclopedia to maintain neutrality in providing it’s users with no spin, no opinion, just genuine, unadulterated information. 2600:1702:F71:4430:3017:4BE3:9AEB:87BC (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, not one that is supposed to reflect an American perspective on the world. Please see WP:NPOV for our policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. Anyway, the Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, so do you have a question? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

You may find WP:NOTNEUTRAL interesting. And WP:Content disclaimer. There is politics in this world, so it would be hard to keep all of it off WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I would echo the above, but also add that you can contribute to articles as an IP, or create an account, and help us identify any issues you find or have found already. It is always best to provide Reliable Sources covering the content in question that covers the perspective you feel needs to also be considered. Koncorde (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Which "this country" are you referring to? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

A major problem in this arena is that while there's no doubt that biased left and biased right sources exists, the two "sides" are not at all equal. That is, at least in the U.S., there's a yellow journalism, conspiracy-theory-pushing, any-fact-that-doesnt-support-our-agenda-is-not-a-fact machine on the right, grown very fat over the last few years (though started quite a long time ago). They have grown slick and now present as a cross-reinforcing cadre of organizations masquerading as legitimate news sources that mix truth and fiction as a tactic ala the best of liars. Unfortunaterly, they have successly infiltrated journalism to the point where every source that reports actual facts—empirically verifiable reality—that happens to be in an area in which the right's machine has taken an interest and pushed some up-is-down perversion of reality, is smeared as leftist.

Meanwhile, the number of people who have the ability to winnow out truth from fiction for themselves from source material has always been a minority. With that unequal baseline, to far too many the two "sides" just appear as equal, disputing authorities.

It doesn't help at all that even some of the most stalwart sources of real journalism have been co-opted to some extent – for example reporting on the existence of "alternative facts" alongside reality, even when discounting the lies, when they should not be giving any lip service. Similarly, real journalists fall into the trap of thinking being unbiased is to always give the lunatic fringe a seat at the table, even if it's a small one, e.g., even though approximately 100% of scientists agree we live in a heliocentric universe, every time that topic somehow comes up directly, the unbiased thing to do is plant a flat earth creationist at the table with the adults to give the other side.

So, I absolutely agree with your conclusion, person editing from ...87BC, but since the sides are so weighted in the other direction from your post, I cannot help but wonder if you're mistaking our reportage of facts, including the existence and stance of lies masquerading as fact as pushed by those with a political agenda, as being a left bias, or whether you genuinely have come across the left bias your post regards. If you have, post to the talk page of the article, but back up any issue or change you want with a survey of proper sources.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

To quote our founder "The type of people who were drawn to writing an encyclopedia for fun tend to be pretty smart people."Educated people tend to lean left towards analytical thinking entrusting thier academic peers in different fields for information. Thus Wikipedia has an academic overtone in its writing that some see as bias by default.--Moxy 🍁 04:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Republic TV

Please visit Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to view a discussion started by me on the reliability of Republic TV. Editor @Bonadea: advised me that my actions during this discussion and many other processes were mistaken, and they were either unnecessary or small vandalisms. I accepted his suggestion to concentrate just on normal editing at present. Could any host or member of the Teahouse do the summarizing of the discussion started by me, and then add it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, if they feel it necessary. Thank you.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I created the page Vijilesh_Karayad

I created the page Vijilesh_Karayad. But i could not get any notification on acceptance of the page. After revision i dint even know. How it is possible. Rahul Soman^{Discussions - contribs} 17:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rahulsoman: because the article Was manually moved into mainspace. Moving pages doesn't trigger notifications. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Is it allowed to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulsoman (talk • contribs) 20:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Rahul Soman, it is allowed to do so, but, as a new editor, you would have been better off submitting it through WP:Articles for creation. As things stand, when your article gets reviewed, that will be the first feedback you get on it, but it may get deleted at the same time. You will then have to respond to the feedback to improve the article and go through far more red tape to re-submit it.

If, instead, you have an admin turn it into a draft and you then submit the draft, you might have the article accepted, and if it is not accepted it is far simpler to resubmit your article once you have fixed any deficiencies the reviewers have identified.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I used to submit through WP:Articles for creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulsoman (talk • contribs) 13:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Rahulsoman, Quisqualis I am concerned. The article was moved to Mainspace by editor Vzazjay, who only has 21 edits, all to this one article. Rahulsoman did not move it himself, of course. I think returning it to a draft would be safer for Rahulsoman, who has had good success with the AFC process. Thanks, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Tribe of Tiger, yes, turning it into a draft ASAP is the sensible thing to do at this point.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Quisqualis, thanks, I will put a note on Rahulsoman's talk, and suggest/remind him of an Admin who was helpful with a previous (accepted!) article. Best, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Who was the first country?

 2A02:2F0E:419:6400:71C8:E4B5:564D:217F (talk) 06:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Ask at WP:Reference desk. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 06:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2601:601:9480:BE30:8882:7F4D:D92C:5E40|2601:601:9480:BE30:8882:7F4D:D92C:5E40]] (talk) 07:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Help in Improving Article

Help in Improving Skillhouse Article

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

Good day, I was wondering if anyone can help me improve my article, it has been declined for being read as an advertisement but every fact I have stated properly referenced to a secondary source. How can I make the article read less like an advertisement? Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Shallou Vignette (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Shallou Vignette, I just glanced over the page, and I don't really see any major issues with promotional language. Pinging reviewer Theroadislong—could you comment on why you declined the draft? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb Thank you very much for taking the time to read through my article, is there anything I can do, or should do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shallou Vignette (talk • contribs)

@Shallou Vignette: Just wait for Theroadislong to reply here. I don't personally see any changes you need to make to the draft, but it's considered bad form to resubmit it without making changes, so it's better to just address the concerns with the initial reviewer. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The whole draft reads like it was written by the marketing department, which I presume as you are being paid it probably was. For instance content like this which is sourced to your own website "The company operates on a four-tier fulfillment structure in which there is a specific department responsible for each aspect of the IT staffing process" and the glossy interior shots of the business mke it look more like your own website. Theroadislong (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree, with Theroadislong; there is also some poor grammar that would suggest it was written by a non-English native, duplication of content (Mark Smith is very important) and a lot of the sourcing for basic content is referring to primary sources the equivalent of domestic company registration websites, or membership / affiliation, rather than notable secondary coverage in reliable sources. Not sure the company meets notability. Koncorde (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Shallou Vignette: I see from the malformatted userbox at your userpage, that you have a COI in relation to the company Skillhouse Staffing Solutions. Please note that in the case of paid editing there are are additional specific disclosure requirements that must be followed, per WMF terms of use, before any paid article can be approved at AfC. These requirements are explained in Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#How to disclose and are most easily satisfied by the paid editor placing a filled out {{connected contributor (paid)}} template at their userpage. Nsk92 (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Shallou Vignette:, you asked How can I make the article read less like an advertisement? One key to this is that the article has to be based on what people with no connection to the company are saying about it. As an example, take the last paragraph in the draft, about the colour scheme of the offices and what the colour red and the company logo symbolise. That is promotional content presented in Wikipedia's voice, even though it is actually based entirely on what the CEO, Mark Smith, said in an interview – which, by the way, means that the source is not secondary. I can't see any secondary sources in the draft with the exception of one or two listings such as Bloomberg. The Temple University source which is supposed to support the claim that "Skillhouse is also partnered with Temple University in fostering IT education amongst its working staff and registered candidates" does not mention Skillhouse (and "fostering IT education" is another instance of promotional wording). I searched for "Skillhouse" on the university website in case the wrong URL had been added in the reference by mistake, but the only times the word appears are two editions of the university newsletter where Mark Smith is mentioned as a former MBA at the university. So in addition to the fact that it reads like advertising, it is also not adequately sourced to show notability. Have a look at this information to see what would be required. --bonadea contributions talk 09:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Shallou Vignette: There's a lot of language used here that I would expect to see in ad copy (but not in an encyclopedia). The way the sentence Ever since coming to Japan, Mark has been involved in IT staffing and outsourcing services in Japan, US and Singapore for more than 30 years is worded promotes Smith's achievements. Another sentence with issues is The working staff of Skillhouse is made up of different nationalities to cater to both local and foreign clients and candidates, which isn't noteworthy (in the broad scheme of things) and is phrased to appease potential clients or hires. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone! Thank you very much for your input, I will work on fixing the article especially the promotional language! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shallou Vignette (talk • contribs) 07:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Idea: colorize the black & white photos and replace existing photos with colorized copy of it

With the recent advancement of the automated tools that will allow editors to colorize the photos in just a minute, I am thinking of an idea where to colorize the historic photos that are not in color and replace the original black and white photo in article with the colorized copy of the photo, but not sure if it's a good idea to do or not.

FYI due to copyright restrictions, only colorize the photo that are published in public domain, Creative Commons CC-BY-2.0, CC‑BY‑SA‑2.0 or Flickr "No known copyright restrictions" license. WPSamson (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi WPSamson. An intersting idea perhaps, but probably not something suited for an in-depth discussion here at the Teahouse. Perhaps WP:VPR or even c:COM:VPP would be better places to discuss this. One quick thought though and some food for thought is that colorizing an old image might be something that is deemed creative enough to establish a new copyright as a WP:Derivative work. So, essentially a colorized version of an old photo might make it eligible for copyright protection even if the original no longer is (see [[:. That could be problematic when it comes to WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files and c:COM:L. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello WPSamson. Another major problem with your idea is the fact that original research is forbidden on Wikipedia. Was that old house painted white or light grey or sky blue? Was the woman's dress blue or green? Was the man's necktie red or blue? What colors were all those cars? And that horse? And so on. As I see the matter, it would be impossible to make those decisions in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, I agree. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm also with Cullen328. Wikipedia deals in facts. Intermingling fiction wold not be an improvement. Maproom (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

"Indian" vs "Indigenous" - Wikipedia Standard?

Is there a standard on Wikipedia for terminology used to refer to Native Americans/indigenous people? In the following article, there are instances where "Indian" is used out of necessity, such as linking to the "Yurok Indian Reservation", but the term is also used generically several times. It is my understanding that this is a less-preferred term by the people it refers to, so would it be acceptable to swap these for "indigenous" as applicable?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klamath_River#Salmon_controversy_and_proposed_dam_removal ShepardoftheEarth (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

If you want to change it then go ahead. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Be careful if you're planning on blanket search-and-replace, though. This particular naming dispute isn't settled; there are quite a few high-profile members of the communities (e.g. Russell Means) who dislike the term "Native American" and prefer "American Indian", and also numerous situations where "Indian" is used for legal reasons because something has been defined by one of the Indian Acts—make sure you carefully check the context before making any changes on this particular issue. ‑ Iridescent 08:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia

How do you contribute to an encyclopedia? Are there rules? Admins? Bosses? Caneto (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Caneto. You can find out more about how to contribute at WP:CONTRIBUTE. As for the other part if your question, Wikipedia is owned and operated by the Wikimedia Foundation so I guess it would be the “boss” so to speak; most of the actual editing and monitoring of the site, however, is done by WP:VOLUNTEERs who are part of the Wikipedia WP:COMMUNITY. All editors are for the most part equal when it comes to editing, but there are some who have been chosen by the Wikipedia Community to be WP:ADMINISTRATORs to keep things under control and running smoothly as well as to try and sort out any problems before they get to out of control. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Caneto: Adding to above: your ideas here are equally as valid as anyone else's! This is a Wikipedia written by people like you and me, and you know things that others don't, so we would value your contributions to this project, whatever it may be. Editors are expected to treat each other with civility and respect, and you'll find that most of us are pretty nice people (I hope?) ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 10:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Caneto. Wikipedia's rules are not supposed to be treated as statutory legislation, but we have many policies, and guidlines and essays. In addition to some of the links posted above, the core policies and gudelines that govern article content – what can and should be written and what should not in articles, and what topics we should cover and what we should not, are in large part governed by just a few: Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

A question about alternate accounts

Hello, I frequently forget my password, so can I create an alternate account for that reason? More importantly, does the policy allows me to do so and if I do it would I get blocked? I can confirm that I will not use it for malicious or any bad reasons. Kajjul (talk) 11:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kajjul and welcome to the Teahouse. The policy can be read at WP:VALIDALT. It is obviously OK to create a new account if you abandon an old one, although I would hope you can remember your WP password or note it down somewhere safe so that you don't need to do so. There are quite a few other valid reasons to have multiple accounts, although you should acknowledge on each User Page that there is another account in use. The only real bar is in using multiple accounts for WP:Sockpuppetry, which definitely could get you banned. It is also illegal for multiple people to share one log-on ID Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kajjul if you add an email address to your account, then you can reset your password if you forget it, rather than just creating a new account. You can add an email address on Special:Preferences, section "Email options". Joseph2302 (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

A few questions about Sandbox and moving an article to the Wikipedia main space

I have two questions. If you partially erase Sandbox, does that remove a previous article you've submitted? I've been reluctant to erase a previous article draft for fear it might impact an entry that has been around for two years. So, I've been working on a draft of another article that I've finished and wish to move to the main Wiki page. Should I erase the old one and then move the new one? Since I have an account, does it need to be reviewed before submission? I'm also assuming I can't cut and paste as well in terms of moving the article.

Thanks for any feedback. I last created an article two years ago and it seems like the process has changed a little. Octopus69 (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Octopus69, have you thought about moving your article content into draftspace? You can get it reviewed by a reviewer to see if it's ready for articlespace with {{AfC submission}} (automatically submits for review; add /draft after "submission" if you're not ready yet). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Octopus69. When a page (including a sandbox) is moved, it usually leaves a redirect behind: if you navigate to that page, the software will take you to the target page, but there will be a message at the top "Redirected from xxxx", and you can pick that link to go back to the original page. When editing, you are either on the original page (now a redirect) or on the target page; any edits you make to one will not affect the other. Once somebody has removed the #REDIRECT statement, the link between the pages is broken, and if the original page is a sandbox, it can be reused for a new purpose. Does that answer your question? --ColinFine (talk) 11:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Octopus69: I'll just add that what is in your sandbox now at User:Octopus69/sandbox has absolutely no impact on what is now in the article you wrote about Robert Carli. So you can delete whateveer you wish from it. And, by going to the 'View History' tab, you can look at any past saved version of that page and see long-deleted content, if you wish. You may also work with more than one sandbox. For example, you could create User:Octopus69/sandbox2 or User:Octopus69/sandbox3 if you so wished, and work on different articles in each. Moving a sandbox into mainspace takes with it all your edit history, showing how the article was assembled, which I find really useful. Just copy/pasting the latest version into a new mainspace page loses all that history. Submitting a draft through Articles for Creation means you get feedback and a chance to correct and resubmit an article. Placing a draft straight into mainspace means that, if it's not up to standard, it could be deleted through one of three routes if other editors feel it should not be there. AFC has a 2-3 month likely delay for articles about people and companies, and is a gentler process of review and feedback, with more chances it won't be deleted. The choice is yours. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Why won’t Hollywood carry Wikipedia

I was wondering why havent you all reached out to the satanic narcissistic Hollywood actors to make significant donations to Wikipedia? Or reach out to. athletes? Like LEBRON James ??? He makes millions of millions of dollars just for playing basketball why don’t you all reach out to him and his team and ask him to donate to Wikipedia to cover all your expenses for one year so that us the poor and the middle class can enjoy the benefits being being able to look up educational information while we’re on lockdown!!!!! 2600:1700:DFA0:BA00:B8CF:24DF:4B3E:A55D (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's finances are stable right now so you are free to use Wikipedia as you wish. If you are unable to donate yourself, that's not a problem. Please don't bring class warfare issues or personal attacks to this board. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

2600:1700:DFA0:BA00:B8CF:24DF:4B3E:A55D, It isn't up to us. Currently there is no critical need for money. Besides that begging is not encouraged.SenatorLEVI (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

This is what Wikipedia currently looks like to our readers

SenatorLEVI, try logging out and viewing what Wikipedia looks like to readers at the moment (see right); depending on your monitor configuration between 1⁄3 and 1⁄2 the screen is taken up by a giant begging letter. Until the appeal is taken down on New Years Day, there are going to be a lot more posts from readers who are understandably under the impression that Wikipedia is on the verge of going bust. ‑ Iridescent 10:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

As noted, those readers can create accounts to turn off the messages. You can try asking the Foundation to stop or change their message, but I don't think that's going to happen. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the appeal—I'm just explaining to SL (a new editor) that we always get a flood of confused messages at the start of December, and that there's a reason the OP is talking about begging letters. ‑ Iridescent 10:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

IP user, Wikipedia editors have no say in the placement of those banners, and nobody here knows whether you have donated or not – nor does anybody here care. This is important, because once in a while somebody comes along and thinks that their financial donations to the Wikimedia foundation should give them a say in what is and is not written in English Wikipedia, but again, nobody cares whether they have donated money or not. Also note that editors are not employed by the Wikimedia foundation or by Wikipedia, so you are talking to people whose expenses are not paid by any donations. --bonadea contributions talk 10:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that the appearance of the "begging letter" depends in part on what platform you are using to view Wikipedia, and whether you have donated in the past. Right now, I am not seeing this on my desktop, possibly because I have already donated this year. But I am seeing it on my Android device, which is not logged into my account. (This is just a guess on my part; I have no inside knowledge of this.) Mike Marchmont (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It can't possibly have anything to do with whether you have donated. Your editor account should not be possible to tie to a real-life identity, unless you explicitly disclose it yourself. If the donation system associated your bank account or Paypal account or however you donate with your account here, that would be a major violation of your integrity. Surely you are not asked for an editor name when you donate? --bonadea contributions talk 10:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can make out, the begging letter (white text on a huge blue background as seen here in the UK) doesn't appear if you are usually logged in to your account when you open your browser on the Wikipedia main page. However, anyone not logged in — and most casual readers — will see the letter. Mine includes radio buttons to make donations and states that "the average donation is £10" (presumably Nudge theory). I'm not surprised that this makes people think that the WMF is going bust and is perhaps a little insensitive given the year we have all being experiencing. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if ad blockers might also take care of it? I just tried checking Wikipedia from a different browser where I wasn't logged in, and didn't see it there either. I don't know why, but my guess is that my trusty adblocker is doing its stuff there. I certainly agree about it being insensitive and would avoid Wikipedia during December if I had to see that thing – and I have a lot of sympathy for the OP even though I wouldn't think soliciting donations from specific rich Americans is a good way to go. --bonadea contributions talk 12:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll just add that I was lying back in a nice hot bath a few hours ago, minding my own business, watching the end of series 2 of Battlestar Galactica on an Android tablet, when I nipped over to Wikipedia (not logged in) to discover the bloody Cylons had taken over and had posted a big blue begging notice that virtually implied that if I didn't donate £2 immediately (like everyone else), then the whole of Wikipedia - and all my hard labours over the last 10 years - might soon be taken down. I was not impressed by the messaging. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: If you're talking about the end of the second series of the 2004 show, then you're still in the good stuff. Please advise me when you start getting near the end of season 4, because I don't want to be anywhere near that dissapointment, and my condolences.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

LOL! Maybe I should finish watching now then, and simply cherish my unrequited love for President Roslin. (Don't tell the wife!) Nick Moyes (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Ha! No seriously (but don't actually read this now)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Help with Draft:Amina Zoubi

Hello I need help to edit this article or well known artist Amina Zoubir, it seems that the references I have added on diffreent sources to justify the recognition of the person are not taken in consideration. Can you help me to correct and edit this article, thank you for your help. best

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. You need a lot more sources, cited in-line, to be able to come close to satisfying our biographical requirements. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 13:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The user above copy-pasted a whole draft, so i'm replacing it with this comment. The article referred to was Draft:Amina Zoubir -GoatLordServant^{(Talk-Contribs)} 13:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Danke. I edit-conflicted with you removing the draft chunk. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 13:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

I'm currently working on a submission, but the Infobox isn't showing all the info. Is there a size or info restriction within Infobox? Any way to increase its size to include more info? Thanks! Octopus69 (talk) 13:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It depends on the infobox you're using. There are many topic-specific infoboxen which can have more information than a generic infobox will, but you'd need to read the usage notes for the infobox in question to figure out what each parameter is and what it means. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 13:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Octopus69. Assuming you are talking about the draft in your sandbox, that's currently using Template:Infobox writer. You may not know that this can be used as a module (or sub-template) of Template:Infobox person. The latter has many more parameters. (See writer template page for further details) Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Octopus69 {{infobox writer}} does not have a url parameter but it does have a website parameter (and {{url}} doesn't work with doubled brackets), so I fixed the display at your sandbox with this edit. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Question about blocked IPs and accounts

Hi! I've been editing as various IPs for some time now, mostly while bored at work, but a few of the (obviously shared) addresses which get randomly assigned to me there are blocked for misbehavior by coworkers. I've now (equally obviously) created an account, but I'm not sure what will happen if I log in at work and get assigned one of the blocked IPs. Will my account be autoblocked? Any advice on how to handle this? Thanks! Wikignome Wintergreen (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wikignome Wintergreen: That depends on whether the block on the IP address is hard or soft - see WP:HARDBLOCK. If it is hard then any editing through that IP address even by registered accounts is blocked. If that happens you could apply for an IP block exemption. Nthep (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

So far so good. I guess my coworkers haven't been too troublesome, but I'll keep the block exemption thing in mind. Thanks for your help! Wikignome Wintergreen (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup on draft

Greetings and salutations once more teahouse staff! I've been working on Draft:Jonathan Basile, and was wondering if someone could do a readthrough/checkup/readability test/etc. and also remind me of how to move a draft to the mainspace whenever it's ready. I feel like there is somewhere else I should be asking this so if that is a thing that'd be nice to know, thanks! SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 21:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC) SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 21:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi SnazzyInfinity. Please don't try to move that draft to mainspace. If you do, I will simply WP:REDIRECT it to The Library of Babel (website). You are welcome to do that to, simply by adding the following text:

#REDIRECT The Library of Babel (website) and then preview and save the page.

You seem to be wanting 'two cracks of the whip' here by using virtually the same references in both articles - one about the man and one about the website he created. To me, the latter looks more notable, but I think you should decide which you feel is most notable, and redirect the other one to it. If you think both are, you'll need to find better references that talk in much more detail about him. Let me know what you think, and should you have a connection with this subject you might need to declare a conflict of interest on your userpage. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed a lack of unique references, perhaps I'll leave it for a while and see if anything useful as a reference appears, thanks! SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 23:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be best to merge the two pages. Would I create a section in The Library of Babel (website) for "the creator"? Is this how I would do that? SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 15:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• @SnazzyInfinity: I've come across that website before—it's a very cool thing to exist! I agree with Nick that you'd be better off to focus on the page for the website rather than creating a page for Basile. Have two pages rather than one will slow down the development of both by creating additional duplicative work. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed a lack of unique references, perhaps I'll leave it for a while and see if anything useful as a reference appears, thanks! SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 23:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Move stopped due to triggered automated filter

Please move the page "East Valla" to "Östra Valla". Waazzou (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Waazzou, The correct place for move requests is WP:RMT. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 16:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Why did HostBot ask me to come here?

??? RusherLeBFDIFan (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

RusherLeBFDIFan, you were invited to come here to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, if you had any. As a newer user, you are more likely than most to have questions. The Teahouse and the WP:Help desk are always around, should you need them.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Is the Cold War wiki project still active?

read the headline Annoyingorange150803224 (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Annoyingorange150803224: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cold_War has a note that it is inactive. There is a link there to its parent project Military History that is still active. RudolfRed (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Should I make this page/series of pages?

I’ve recently wanted to make a page for the auctioneer Blaine Lotz, and I’ve read the notability guidelines and I think he does a somewhat good job of fitting the guidelines. Not also that but maybe I could make pages for other auctioneers, mainly pages for auctioneers who have recently won the world championship, as pretty much no other auctioneers gets coverage. Please let me know what you think about if I should make these pages. Jack Ryan Morris (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jack Ryan Morris, and thanks for your question. Rather than making us do all the work for you, would you be so kind as to supply links to those 'Reliable Sources' that you feel would be used to prove his Notability? We'll happily take a quick look at them for you, but we're unlikely to want to delve around the internet in search of sources ourselves. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

There is an article on the World Livestock Auctioneer Championship but it's very thin on details and decent references, so you may like to start by improving it. If you can find third-party reliable sources then they also should help you for the biography to be done later. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Here are a couple of news article I found about Blaine Lotz, I’m not sure if this is enough. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Jack Ryan Morris (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:ONEEVENT probably suggests not, although the citations themselves look OK. My suggestion to work on the existing article and by all means mention him there seems likely to be a better use of your time. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Question

Why does ClueBot sometimes revert my edits when they’re not even vandalism? RusherLeBFDIFan (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

RusherLeBFDIFan, Cluebot makes few mistakes, but, being an automated process, not a human, it lacks certain intuitive abilities and sometimes makes silly mistakes. Still, it is faster, more detail-oriented and more tireless than any human. Please have a forgiving attitude towards the indefatigable Cluebot!--Quisqualis (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@RusherLeBFDIFan: You can report false positives at User:ClueBot_NG/FalsePositives which will help the bot get better. RudolfRed (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up to Expanding and correction

How do you write a draft on a novel you write, and keep it neutral? Theobliviaf (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Theobliviaf. I'm a little confused by your question. If you have written a novel and get it published, then after others have read it and it has been mentioned in reputable sources such as newspaper reviews it may merit an article here on Wikipedia. Until that point, it won't. The very last person who should draft such an article is you as the author of the novel, since you would find it impossible to do so in a neutral way. That's also why Wikipedia is not a place for autobiographies. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link to draft Draft:A Curse so Dark and Lonely. Theroadislong (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Clear now that Theobliviaf did not write the novel, but is trying to create an article about the novel. As Theroadislong, commented at the draft, no references = no accepting of article. Use existing articles about famous books as models. David notMD (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Bot edit question

I was reading the Clue Bot NG FAQ about why this bot's edits don't use the bot flag and it says "Since anti-vandal bots are doing a steady stream of edits that would otherwise (usually and eventually) be done by a human[...]". Isn't this true of every bot? That is, don't all bots exist to do edits that would normally be done by a human? Can someone explain what the difference is here between reverting vandalism and any other edit some bot would do? RudolfRed (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: It's an interesting question, and I think the answer is found in the second bullet point on that page, which states: "Anti-vandal bots do not perform precise, exact work like most other bots do. They act more like humans, with most edits correct and good, but a small percentage of mistakes. Bot edits show up as (unflagged) human edits so they can be reviewed for possible mistakes if necessary, like other human edits." In other words, nobody needs to review the edits made by Signbot when someone forgets to sign their posts here (these are 100% accurate), but we do need humans to review the potentially erroneous reversions that Cluebot and other bots make to earlier human edits. Were their edits flagged as bot edits, it could mean that wrong reversions (and I do see them from time to time) would go unnoticed by an editor who chooses not to be worry about standard, 100% automated and petty changes made by other bots. Does that make sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thanks for the reply and the explanation. Yes, the second bullet makes sense. RudolfRed (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Did my article submit

Hi there! Thanks for helping volunteer here — I appreciate the work you all do! I've previously edited articles on here years ago but with an old account I forgot the login for. I just tried to submit my first article — hoping to write a few more too! Can anyone kindly let me know if everything looks to be in order? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sky_Blossom Jdweikler (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jdweikler. No, your draft was not submitted. Drafts are not automatically submitted when you click on the "Publish changes" button. I've added a template to the top of the draft; so, just click on the blue "Submit the draft for review!" button when you think it's ready for review. Before you do so, however, you might want to take a look at WP:NFILM for some general information regarding Wikipedia notability as it pertains to films.

I also removed the film poster from the infobox. Although I'm sure you uploaded it to Commons in good faith, Comons doesn't accept any type of fair use content at all. You might want to take a closer look at c:Commons:Licensing for more details, but generally most images you find online are going to be considered to be protected by copyright; so, unless you're the copyright holder or can show that the copyright holder has given their WP:CONSENT for the image to be uploaded to Commons, it can't really be kept. One thing about movie poster art, however, is that it can often be uploaded a non-free content locally to English Wikipedia, and that's probably what you should do here. Non-free content though can't be used in drafts which means you should wait until the draft has been accepted before trying to upload the file again. Once the draft has been accepted, you can use WP:UPLOAD to upload the file locally to Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Jdweikler. I agree with Marchjuly's advice about the movie poster. In my opinion, your draft is strong and will probably be accepted. What would be useful is if you can add references to reviews of the film by professional film critics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Marchjuly and Cullen328! Super helpful. I believe it should pass notability due to involvement of notable people, and release by a major studio. Thanks for the notes on the poster too — I'll follow your guidance on that. Re: reviews, I have not yet found any yet, but will add if I can dig any up. Jdweikler (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion: Why?

Pipe Major John McLellan DCM of Dunoon Composer & poet I wrote an article in the draft page about P/M John McLellan DCM but it was deleted in the last few minutes. I added relevant citations to media sources and recieved an email ok to quote those sources but my article about this subject was speedily deleted, why? Baishan17 (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Baishan17: There are a few notes on your talk page User_talk:Baishan17 that explain the deletion reasons. RudolfRed (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Baishan17: Quite bluntly, you have repeatedly broken copyright laws by stealing text content from copyright sources and releasing them here on Wikipedia, which you have absolutely no legal right so to do. You have repeated this infringement and that, too, was deleted. This is one of the most serious abuses you can make on Wikipedia, and you may well have your editing rights permanently withdrawn if you ever do that again.

You need to understand, not only how to properly edit and lay out a page (your deleted version was probably the worst I've ever seen here), but you also need to read WP:COPYVIO and WP:PARAPHRASE to understand that you MUST put content on Wikipedia in your own words and not closely copy other articles. I will copy this instruction to your talk page, lest you forget it. Is that clear enough? Nick Moyes (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

(fixing my failed ping to Baishan17. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC) )

Hello, Baishan17. You also need to read about neutral point of view. No Wikipedia article should ever use evaluative language like "one of Scotland's truly great composers", or "hugely talented individual" (as you did in your edits to Dunoon) unless in a direct quotation from an attributed reliably published source wholly independent of the subject so described. Nor should it say that anything "continues to be in demand" or "is very popular" without a citation to a reliable independent source that says so. --ColinFine (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Why were so many accounts blocked on one day?

I looked at a chart of recent blocks and unblocks and saw a large spike in blocks on November 16. Does anyone know why this is? I'm curious and don't see any other place to post this kind of question. Parrotapocalypse (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

As a guess, Trump or his campaign did something particularly gross, or was stopped from something, that day or the day before, and a lot of people came on here to tell us we were lying. --ColinFine (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Notability threshold

If you are writing an article for a movie and include reviews of the film, how is it not notable? It isn't incidental mention. I feel like the notability guidelines are such that I can't win... MoviesAndMusicFan (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Sno Babies — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Get rid of the cites to IMDb (wiki), j-14 (name-drop), Variety (name-drop), Global Recovery Initiatives Foundation (press release), Cheddar (too sparse), and Rolling Stone (name-drop). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 20:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@MoviesAndMusicFan: As a general rule, not all reviews should be treated equal. Some reviewers focus on the odd and obscure. A low-budget, no-name film might get "lucky" and get reviewed by, say, 3 reviewers who happen to pick, say, the "lowest-grossing film of the week" or "a recent film by a director who has never directed a film with a $100,000+ budget before" to do a review on. Assuming the reviews are the ONLY claim of notability, it would be a very weak one. Likewise, some REVIEWERS don't carry as much weight as others. The movie reviewer from the local community newspaper that reviews every student film from the local community college doesn't carry much weight with respect to those films, even if he might be a nationally recognized movie reviewer. In this case, the movies are reviewed because the movie creators were lucky enough to be attending that community college not because of anything about the film that would otherwise be "noticed" to attract attention from that or any other major reviewer. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello! How do I report someone who is adding unsourced additions that are false? Thank you very much Just Piping In (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Just Piping In (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Just Piping In You should first attempt discussion with other editors to achieve a consensus. Wikipedia does not deal in truth, but in what can be verified. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Just Piping In You can also put a {{citation needed}} template near the un-referenced content. If WP:Biographies of living persons applies and it is "negative/harmful" information, skip the tagging and revert it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

davidwr and 331dot, I did revert it. Is there no way to report someone on Wikipedia? This person’s editing is very unproductive and they should not be editing. I hope there’s a way to report. Just Piping In (talk) 04:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

There is, but you really want to reserve WP:AN and the other notice-boards until after you've tried other options, or for obvious WP:NOTHERE or similar situations. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Well davidwr, could you give them a warning? Just Piping In (talk) 08:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to jump into this unless I happen to run across it through my normal editing. If the person really is doing things that warrant a warning and it's on a page that has more than just a few people paying attention to it, someone will warn him eventually unless he stops doing the "bad behavior" on his own. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

davidwr, so I just have to let them keep doing it? I feel like we should put into place a way that editors can warn other editors not to make unsourced and untrue edits. Just Piping In (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

There is, it's called their talk page. But your original question was about "reporting" a user, not directly communicating with them one-on-one as a colleague of equal standing. If you are new enough to Wikipedia to ask how to warn a user, stick with the "level 1" warnings on Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace or hand-crafted messages that are even more polite than the ones in the templates. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Getting article reviewed

Help please! Getting article reviewed. Hi, I'm new to editing on Wikipedia and trying to get this article published: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Linda_Merrick

Could someone please confirm it's in the line for review. If not, could someone please submit it for review by Wikipedia editors? Thank you very much! Hal.mccollum (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Hal.mccollum: and welcome to the Teahouse. No, the article has not been resubmitted, but you can do that rather easily: simply click the blue "Resubmit" button in the pink box. However, before you do that you have to check that no part of the article text is copied straight from any of the sources. One reason it was rejected before was that it contained copyright violating text, and I see that you have rewritten some parts, but not very much, so I have to ask if you have made sure that there are no copyright violations left. --bonadea contributions talk 15:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

And do note, Hal.mccollum, that, currently, your article reads more like a resume. This poses a problem in that resumes do not sufficiently show notability as Wikipedia defines it. Wikipedia notability arises from in-depth coverage in reliable, published sources which are independent of their subject. Another thing to keep in mind is that, in an encyclopedia, what a person is known for is typically kept short in the lead paragraph. If a musician is a teacher, has recordings, has an academic position, etc. (which are normal for a musician), only musician should be mentioned in the lead pararaph.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your feedback @Quisqualis: & @Bonadea:. I updated the opening paragraph. I am happy it isn't violating any copyright. Could someone please confirm it's been resubmitted for review? (Sorry, still getting to grips with the submit function). Thanks a lot. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Linda_Merrick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hal.mccollum (talk • contribs) 11:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hal.mccollum: Yes, you resubmitted it, and it is waiting for review now! Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 21:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

A question unrelated to editing

What is the category for uncreatable pages, I’m just wondering RusherLeBFDIFan (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@RusherLeBFDIFan: But what pages would that category go on, if it existed? The pages wouldn't exist, by definition. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you thinking of WP:SALT?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Yup. 2604:2000:1500:5BCF:90DC:94B3:A95E:96C2 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

See Special:ProtectedTitles. Is there a reason you're interested? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The first item on the list is a category. Yeah, there's a more polite category for Oedipus and similar people or characters. This one isn't quite as specific as the blacklisted one, but it's close enough to be useful. (the preceeding is for laughs, no, I am NOT advocating unlocking that title, WP:NOTCENSORED be danged!) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

References to get an article approved

What constitutes a source that is considered reliable, and will work to get our article approved. AgileMaster (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:AgileMaster/sandbox/Essential Scrum TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@AgileMaster: Reviews in independent third party sources would be most useful in this case. Check out Wikipedia:Reliable sources. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Who is the "we" in "our article", AgileMaster? Please be aware that sharing accounts is not permitted: if more than one person is using the account, then each should register an individual account. If the "our" means that you are believing that the draft or the article belongs to some "us", then I'm afraid you are mistaken. A Wikipedia article does not belong to its subject, is not for the benefit of its subject, and should be nearly 100% based on what people have published who have no connection with the subject. In my personal view, your current draft is 100% promotion: as far as I can see, it does not contain a single word that is based on what somebody unconnected with the book has published about it. --ColinFine (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for that OTRS identity-verification regarding Her Royal Magesty (User:I'mTheQueenAndIRule?) followed by her asking a question like this, using the royal we. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

To me, this draft is pure promotion by people with a likely and obvious WP:COI in publishing this new book. It is already cited in the article about the software, and I see absolutely no grounds for a stand-alone article, or even a redirect. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Row on Covid 19 in the UK

 Courtesy link: COVID-19 in the UK

As can be seen on the article's history, myself and another editor have been engaged in something of an edit war on Covid 19 in the UK. He wishes to illustrate information about travel restrictions introduced on the Wales-England border in November with an image of a sign reading "Welsh Covid rules apply". I argue that this is inaccurate as the image is from several months earlier when no restrictions were in place. I have tried to remove the image whilst giving my reasoning on multiple occasions but he has reverted it. Llewee (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Llewee, I strongly suggest you ping (as I have for you) John Jones on the article's talk page and start a discussion about the content. This is essentially an edit war and can result in blocks for the involved parties if the three-revert rule is breached. If the two of you can't work something out there, consider getting a third opinion or taking it to the dispute resolution noticeboard. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

font too small

How enlarge font in which articles and edits appear? Eye strain. Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC) TBR-qed (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

TBR-qed, Whatever you type will be set at the default font size. There is a smaller and bigger font, though.

<small>Small text</small> :

<big>Big text</big>

Which looks like this and this.

However, I wouldn't suggest using them, as Wikipedia uses the same font for every article.

Additionally, you can use a ctrl + key bind to zoom in. Le Panini ^Talk 12:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@TBR-qed: In the options of most browsers, you can set the default fonts and sizes (e.g. in FireFox. Tools→Options→Language and Appearance). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Lists based on categories

I decided to try making a list based on a category because I had seen a few in the past and it was declined. The article is Draft:List of comic book podcasts, which I now know is probably an example of the WP:SALAT rule "Lists that are too specific are also a problem. The 'list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana' will be of little interest to anyone other than the creator of the list." Although, based on the comment that was left perhaps I could rework the article based on news listicles of comic book podcasts.

What I'm specifically wondering is whether any of the groupings under the "Category:Podcasts by genre" would be appropriate for a lists article. From what I understand I need something with more content, but it's unclear how much content is necessary for a lists article. For instance, there are already the following lists based on podcasts by genre: List of daily news podcasts, List of food podcasts, List of American crime podcasts, and List of Australian crime podcasts. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

​Probably the best place for you to discuss this would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Podcasting or perhaps even Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists since those are places where you're likely to find editors interested in working on articles about "lists" and "podcasts". -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Bias Ratings

Why doesn't Wikipedia just use AllSides ratings for their bias ratings, e.g. MSNBC would be classified as left-wing, as per AllSides Evil Slug (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Evil Slug. Wikipedia editors are concerned much more with reliability than political bias. Although highly biased news sources may be less reliable than more "centrist" ones, that may not always be the case. Consider the Weekly World News, one of the least reliable widely circulated publications in U.S. history, but not one especially known for political bias. And why would a top ten website like Wikipedia farm out its assessment of sources to a much smaller and newer website? We already have a robust infrastructure for evaluating the reliability of sources. That being said, I am of the opinion that AllSides is a very worthy venture. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

See also WP:Reliable sources/Perennial. In short, the bias of a source isn't as relevant as its reliability when it comes to the subject matter. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 02:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that on the page about any specific outlet, e.g. MSNBC, it should say what bias that outlet has based on AllSides Evil Slug (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello again Evil Slug. Wikipedia does not have any "standardized" or "preferred" or "recommended" references. It is up to individual editors working on individual articles to decide which references are best for that article. Adding a single website as a reference to many articles would probably be perceived as spamming, and would probably get some strong pushback. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Black Flight eligibility

Hello,

I am in a quandary. I am interested in creating an article on B Flight, Royal Naval Squadron 10 during World War I. This flight was known as the Black Flight because they painted their Sopwith Triplanes black and gave them black-themed names. They were all Canadian flying aces and were led by Raymond Collishaw (61 aerial victories) in "Black Maria". William Melville Alexander in "Black Prince" scored 23 victories. Ellis Vair Reid in "Black Roger" scored 19 victories. John Edward Sharman, "Black Death", 8 victories. Gerald Ewart Nash, "Black Sheep", 6 victories. Distinguished Service Crosses all around, as well as some even more prestigious decorations. Collishaw went on to become an Air vice-marshal.

Looks dead-bang notable, right? Well, the difficulty comes in with Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide#Units and formations. To quote their policy: "...sub-units that exist below the level of those formations or units listed above—such as sections, platoons, troops, batteries, companies, and flights—are not intrinsically notable." A listed suggestion is incorporation into their parent unit, but Black Flight and Collishaw were the most prominent features of Naval 10.

What to do? Is Black Flight notable in and of itself? Suggestions are definitely solicited.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

If there exist multiple reliable sources discussing them in detail then they are notable. Ruslik_Zero 20:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Georgejdorner. Under our main notability guideline topics are presumed notable if they have '"received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

The subject-specific notability guidelines (e.g., for books), and advice at Wikiprojects like this one for military history topics, are essentially adjuncts to that standard – usually attempts to isolate certain attributes that, if some some class of topics share, are an indication that the right types of sources are likely to exist, needed to demonstrate a topic's notability. This is essentially the opposite, an attempt to define a class for which sources are not likely to exist.

Stated another way, when the Wikiproject tells you that X is not "intrinsically notable", I would translate that as saying, in effect: "things within class X are not likely to be actually notable, because for most class-X-subjects, past experience tell us you won't be able to locate the right type, quantity and depth of sources to demonstrates their notability.

All this is to say, if the B Flight of Royal Naval Squadron 10 has actually received significant treatment in reliable, secondary and independent sources, and you demonstrate that by writing an article using those sources (i.e., properly citing them as you go), then the topic is notable, and a stand-alone article is warranted. Full stop. If those sources exist, get writing. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Georgejdorner I would add a section 2 after history to No. 210 Squadron RAF. If you complete it and find there's enough to do a content fork, then that's the next step. You could ask on the article's talk page after you are done, to get more knowledgeable military buffs involved than you might find here. If there's not enough for the fork, then you could add a redirect to that section. Happy editing. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I second what Tim has said above. A very good way to approach this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

To clarify...it's not notability that bothers me. It's the policy that says they are too small a unit for their own article that I see as a block. I do not care to write an article on Black Flight, only to have it deleted.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Your sticking point is "intrinsically." Documenting that a small unit existed and did its job is not sufficient. Documenting that a small unit existed and did an extraordinary job likely would be. The fact that the pilots are already article topics suggests the group can qualify, too. David notMD (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The five of them flying together were credited with 87 aerial victories, which is not exactly ordinary. And I agree with you that the flight should easily qualify--except for that darned policy.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Georgejdorner, I think I should clarify the situation; the essay (not a policy) does not preclude anyone from creating an article on the subject. It just says that the simple fact of a subunit existing does not justify an article. In all aspects, a subunit would be treated the same as any other topic in establishing notability i.e. having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Zoozaz1 talk 03:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Coverage? Let's begin with Raymond Collishaw and the Black Flight. And there's the usual Osprey and Grub Street coverage.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk Sub-pages

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and I'm trying to get more involved with my first wikiproject--WikiProject_Podcasting. I want to create a manual of style or guidelines for articles relevant to the project and a place to discuss those guidelines. I went to another wikiproject, WikiProject_Musicians, and checked out their talk page and they've got a super organized banner that I'm not confident that I can recreate. Is there a Wikipedia help page that explains how to create that kind of banner and is it okay for me to just do it? TipsyElephant (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy links: Wikipedia:WikiProject Podcasting, Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi TipsyElephant. I think the best place for you to discuss this would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Podcasting since that seems where you're going to find editors who might be interested in what you're proposing. I wouldn't suggest you try to make any MOS, etc. on your own without estabishing a strong WP:CONSENSUS to do so; it's OK to propose something like this, but implementating it is a completely different thing and will likely be something that's thoroughly hashed out to make sure its done with already existing community-wide policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi TipsyElephant. I would start with the short introductory material at Wikipedia:WikiProject#Creating and maintaining a project; then (as directed there) seeing the more involved treatment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide, which explains things like gathering support/seeking interested potential participants first, and, if you find sufficient interest, then listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals (as noted there: "Sadly, most new WikiProjects go inactive soon after they start" – so finding committed participants seems really key for this to have a chance. [I myself started a Wikiproject that was actually active for a short time, but died on the vine for lack of interest.])

As to the banner, I do think that's probably a bit cart-before-horse at this juncture but you can work on such matters at a subpage of your userspace, such as User:TipsyElephant/WikiProject Podcast-header, taking the code from the banner subpage of the Wikiproject here, and tailoring it for the proposed Wikiproject's use. If you were to create that subpage with the code from there, please be sure to provide copyright attibution through your edit summary when you first save to that subpage (e.g., "Copying content for emulation from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/header]]; see its page history for attribution" (see: Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia). Also, please remember that if at some point in the future the Wikiproject is ready to 'go live' and the banner is ready for use, you have to maintain the connection to the source by moving it to the appropriate Wikiproject subpage (i.e., don't copy and paste to there). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Creating article based on a list

 Courtesy link: Draft: Leiden Manifesto(incomplete)

Hello everyone, I am a new editor who is trying to make their first article. For reference, this is the main reference of the article I am creating:leiden manifesto

Since the source is a list, how should the article be created? Should I insert the list verbatim? I was thinking of having "synopsis", and "reception" headings. Redactedentity (talk) 03:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

If this is your main reference, you have a problem. Anyone may create a list of requests, assertions or demands (or in this case, "principles") and call the result a "manifesto". Not anyone, it's true, but a lot of people can get material published in Nature. The question you should be asking yourself as prospective creator of an article on this "manifesto" is: What notice has been paid to it by people whose opinions matter and did not contribute to writing it? What reliable, independent sources say about the manifesto should be what your article is primarily based on. And if there isn't much, then the manifesto probably doesn't merit an article. -- Hoary (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the reply. The Leiden Manifesto was a list of guidelines to facilitate less biased reviewing of scientific research through better use of Scientometrics. It has been cited in journals several times, as well as endorsed by members of the scientific community, similar to the way the DORA was. I had the introduction reviewed by User:Andrew nyr, their response was that more substantial written content would most likely be sufficient to publish this article. I welcome you to research the article, and its implications on the bibliometrics community. This is my draft so far (the further dialogue with User:Andrew nyr took place on their talk page)Draft:Leiden Manifesto. Any critique is welcome, it helps to further my skills as a good NPOV writer.--Redactedentity (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)]

As Hoary has said, the manifesto alone is not notable unless you examine the many, many online sources which discuss it and its impact. It appears to have been taken seriously in publishing and perhaps elsewhere. There are a ton of articles to go through and winnow to find the most solid sources to demonstrate the obvious notability of the manifesto. You have your work cut out for you. I'm very surprised that nobody has tackled this subject thus far. Good luck.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I have begun research on the manifesto and have drafted the "initial motivations" section so far. Here it is: Draft:Leiden Manifesto. I am still unsure though how I would format the "synopsis" section. Should it be a bulleted list? Or should I summarize similar to the way done in The Communist Manifesto?--Redactedentity (talk) 05:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

A bulleted list of the ten points would work, as most are self-explanatory. I noticed that #3 and #8 may need slight clarification beyond their one-sentence summations, though. To introduce the bulleted list, you might describe several meta-points which the ten points tend to imply, such as quality over quantity and perverse incentives, which I hope your sources will discuss.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

George Harrison photo

Hi. I was looking up George Harrison on Bing.

I see the photograph that accompanies the Wikipedia link is not of George Harrison, but Paul McCartney!

Is there any way to change it?

It seems a bit disrespectful, but also a fairly basic error on a extremely well-known subject. Rickylee369 (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Rickylee360. Wikipedia's article about George Harrison has a picture of him. If Bing is substituting the wrong picture from somewhere else, you need to complain to Bing, not to Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Rickylee369: Providing the imagery at the Wikipedia article about George Harrison is correct, this will be an algorithm error by Bing, and absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia. It is, however, a reflection that Google and Bing both regard Wikipedia content so highly (but never contribute financially to our work) that they take it, mash it up, and serve it back to you on their pages. (Our licences do permit this, of course, but the error is wholly theirs.) I know Google has a 'report this image' button, so maybe Bing does too? Nick Moyes (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Rickylee369: This is Bing being Bing. What they mistakenly grab and display from Wikipedia and how they label it has nothing to do with us. At the bottom you can click to suggest an edit and then click on Paul's picture and let them know. I just did as well. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Worth pointing out is that George Harrison is a Featured article, an example of Wikipedia's very best work. Any reader who takes the time to read the entire article, as I did a few years back, will have a much deeper understanding of that talented man. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Another question

2021 is coming up, is there a way I could archive all of my talk page messages from 2020? Trevortnidesserpedx (talk) 07:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Trevortnidesserpedx. You can found more about how to archive a talk page at WP:ARCHIVE. There are various ways to archive a page which involve a WP:BOT, but you can also manually archive a page as well if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

User boxes

I've always wanted to put them on my page, but they are so confusing. Is there a list of all of them? TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 07:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

You can find some information about user boxes in WP:USERBOX. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding a new Wikipedia page

Hi, I write to you on behalf of Ripu Daman, an Indian Plogger and fitness motivator. Ripu is a seasoned Indian runner and an ambassador of the country's Fit India Movement programme. I would like to know how can I create his page on the website Wikipedia. It would also be great if you could point me towards the person in-charge of the website in India.

Regards Rohit Paniker 2402:3A80:9DB:BB2:17D2:D297:A593:7285 (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rohit Paniker (IP 2402:3A80:9DB:BB2:17D2:D297:A593:7285). Probably the best place for you to start would be by taking a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for some general information about what Wikipedia is and what Wikipedia isn't. Then, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is the person you want to create an article (Wikipedia has encyclopedic articles about subjects, and these are not really "pages" per se) about someone you may somehow be connected to (e.g. a friend, family member, client). Finally, there's no one person in-charge of a Wikipedia website or article as explained here. If you'd like to find editors who work on topics related to India, you can try Wikipedia:WikiProject India. If you want to find someone to help you at Hindi Wikipedia, try looking here. Just for reference, there are many Wikipedia projects in many different languages. All of these project are operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, but they each have their own community of editors and there own policies and guidelines. Sometimes these various project do things quite differently for each other; so, we can try and answer you questions about English Wikipedia here at the Teahouse, but you may need to ask for help on Hindi Wikipedia if you have questions related to it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Sandbox

How can I transfer a page from my Sandbox to the real Wikipedia? Diaz Benson (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Submit it for review with {{subst:submit}}. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 01:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Diaz Benson (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Which do you prefer, what's in your sandbox, or Draft:Oxford University L'Chaim Society (also your creation)? -- Hoary (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes. It is the same. Diaz Benson (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Two comments:

1. Maintaining rival versions of the same proposed article is a bad idea. There are many ways it can cause confusion, and no obvious benefit.
2. (This is not a criticism, it's a question directed at those who understand "reliable sources"): is Alamy, cited for the sixth reference, a reliable source? Maproom (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Article creation

How do I request for a television show article to be created? RJ Jai (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

RJ Jai Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may request the creation of any article at Requested Articles, but there are tens of thousands of requests there, with few volunteers to act on them. and your request might not be acted on for awhile, if ever. The best way for it to be created is for you to do it yourself- though it is admittedly the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. If you take some time to learn about Wikipedia by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, you will get a feel for the process and what is expected of article content. You can then use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft. You may also find it helpful to use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Would it be possible for someone else to write the bio for Donald Trump, it was obviously written by someone who is either a Democrat or someone who just Hates him !!! Could someone who is knowledgeable about how to do this and will not put in judgement like calling him a racist, a liar, accusing him of not replacing aca when pelosi stopped 3 plans and worst of all accusing him of not handling c19 properly when he did FAR more to battle this crisis than ANY president ever in american history, I mean come on the ships, the hospitals, the ppe, the ventilators, Warp speed vaccines and on and on and on. COME on the description of him doesn't give him CREDIT for anything but on the contrary does nothing but try to make him look as bad as possible. Will someone who feels neutral and will just write his bio WITHOUT injecting personal opinion please write this, if I knew how I would. If Wikipedia is going to be like the media and only allow favorable pieces to be written about Democrats then they don't deserve donations except from democrats. This should be a neutral site and only print the TRUTH not personal opinion. PLEASE someone give this the attention it deserves. Thanks; Mitchel 2601:940:4200:38F0:F414:C029:DA8:DAAD (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

If you have reliable, independent sources that say otherwise about his life, please provide them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state; if you don't agree with what they say, you will need to take that up with them. See WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia does not deal in truth, but in what can be verified, because truth is in the eye of the beholder. If you just want to stay in your bubble and be told what you want to hear, this isn't the place for you. 331dot (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP. How're you doing out there in Alabama? I'm sitting here in the UK, listening to CNN live on the internet (ever since Fox News stopped letting me watch it here a couple of weeks ago for some reason). I haven't looked at the Trump article, but right now CNN is literally calling Trump a 'liar' and a 'con man' (over his $170m appeal for donations from gullible people to fight 'election fraud' with something called a PAC, whatever that is), so I imagine there are many other good and well-respected sources saying the same thing, which Wikipedia will, in due course, report. It doesn't report unsubstantiated nonsense. But you are totally and utterly correct in one thing: You said about Covid19 "he did FAR more to battle this crisis than ANY president ever in american history" Spot on. Damn right he did. That's one statement that nobody in their right mind would argue with at this time. As you know, the virus appeared during the final 12 months of Trump's presidency, so no prior president could ever have done anything about it, as it didn't exist then. So, of course he's done more than any past president in american history! From what I'm hearing on this side of the pond, I suspect the next incoming president will be able to easily and quickly match all Trump's efforts and commitment thus far to tackle Covid-19, and I know that Wikipedia will report what other reliable sources say when those things occur. What we don't (or shouldn't) inject, is personal opinion; we base Wikipedia content on factual, verifiable, reliable sources. Thus far, a total of 6,104 different editors have contributed to the article on Donald Trump. It isn't just one person collating this information, you know! Nick Moyes (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Care to mulligan on the topic area you want to get involved in? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 01:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Two comments: 1) As Nick Moyes pointed out, every article is the accrual of content added by multiple editors, so there was no "someone" who wrote the article, nor "someone else" who can place it; and 2) the Foundation accepts donations to keep the Wiki-universe operating, but that is entirely separate from the volunteer editors who create and delete and edit articles. David notMD (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. This is how the holocaust happened you know? The bigger the lie... Gobsmacking.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Articles here are written through the basis of credible sources on the web. We cannot change what doesn't sound right to us, otherwise that would be a "Conflict of Interest" edit. Opting to not include a detail from a credible source because it won't do the subject good is one of the many COI examples. Basically, we can remove it if it isn't backed up, if it is, it stays. Mejorasi723 (talk) 09:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Life Story

Can you change my life story? No or Yes? I want to be a Professional Writer, not a Housekeeper only. Geebei1988 (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

To Geebei1988: You registered your account a week ago, and to date, have made no attempts to contribute to Wikipedia. On your Talk page, an editor recommended Help:Introduction. I second that recommendation. Please cease from asking questions at Teahouse that have no connection to how to be a better editor. David notMD (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

How I can improve article

First of all, I would like to say that I am honored to have a chance to contribute at Teahouse space. Well, I have a query that I just submitted a page for review and it was declined for being read as an advertisement. How I can make that article read less like an advertisement? Should I update the content again with proper external sources? Looking forward to replies.

Thanks Kanwalhafeez (talk) 07:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Kanwalhafeez. You are talking about Draft:Piramal Realty. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what reliable sources that are entirely independent of the topic. You have three references, all to Piramal's own website. That's not acceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

If this is about Draft:Piramal Realty, it was not declined (meaning that the draft is not up to Wikipedia's standard), it was rejected (meaning that the subject does not merit a Wikipedia article, regardless of what you do about it). So, in the reviewer's opinion, you will be wasting your time if you do more work on it. Maproom (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kanwalhafeez, To answer your question, you may want to read WP:YFA, WP:NPOV, WP:ORG & WP:RS. In summary if an article on an organization possesses in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the organization then it merits a Wikipedia article. You need to provide at least three solid sources. I hope I have been of help. Furthermore if you are an employee of the organization or you are to receive payment for creating the article, then to be honest, it’s best to just abandon the article. It isn’t worth the severe stress you’d invariably face. Celestina007 (talk) 11:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

I just found two articles on the exact same thing, just with different titles (Anthologise and Anthologise Poetry Competition), what should I do about this? Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I WP:BOLDly redirected the slighly-newer version to the slightly-older version.[7] They were created by the same editor years ago. They started out identical or nearly so. As of earlier today, they were still almost identical. Thanks for shining light on this duplicate article.

Had WP:CSD#A10 applied, I would've used it instead. A10 only applies to Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic though, and these were both created years ago. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

davidwr Thanks, what should I do if I see this again? Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Omniscientmoose42: A10s are pretty obvious. For non-A10s, it's always going to be a case by case situation. Had these been just two articles on the same topic with different text, I probably would've either boldly merged the contents on the spot and then redirected one to the other, or slapped {{merge}} templates on them and started a merge discussion. Since there wasn't anything worth merging, I just went ahead and did the redirect. The only reason I didn't nominate one for deletion is that I didn't take the time to go through the histories of both looking for things to merge OR evidence that content had been copied from one to the other. When in doubt about the need to preserve attribution history, err on the side of caution and don't delete it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Davidwr: Ok thanks Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Why my draft is declined

Hello my draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Max_Elektro

Published entry of other, similar companies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTV_Euro_AGD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaMarkt

The description of decline is ver vague. What to do exactly for this draft to be published? In my opinion the minimum standards are met, in opinion of moderator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:4thfile4thrank) - they're not.

Please let me know, what exactly to change.

Best wishes - N Nataliagolisz (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Article X does not justify Article Y. The reason your draft keeps getting declined is because your sourcing is completely unacceptable and as a result you have not proven notability. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 13:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, Nataliagolisz, the text of your draft is mostly promotional. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Hector Carlos Lora

Hi, I'm just writing because I'm seeking some help on a "conflict of interest problem." It seems that every time I try to publish, I am tagged as probably working for this person, even though I do not. I simply wanted to represent Passaic's (my hometown) community in a stronger way in Wikipedia for educational purposes, and I thought their leader would be a great place to start. I am planning to go beyond just him, but now I worry that other articles will be pegged as having a conflict of interest too. So what is my next step? How do I ensure everyone knows I am not working for this person? Thank you for your time. Kindly, LMPAJ (talk) 14:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC).

Hello, LMPAJ, and welcome to the Teahouse. Put a statement on your user page saying essentially what you have said above. --ColinFine (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

User:LMPAJ - User:ColinFine gave you good advice in response to the question that you asked, which is in response to one of the comments that I made on Draft:Hector Carlos Lora. There is another issue. You created both a draft and an article, Hector Carlos Lora. Please don't create two copies of the same article, in draft space and in article space. Reviewer User:Praxidicae then redirected the article to Passaic, New Jersey with the edit summary of: 'extremely promotional campaign lit PR, not independent notable'. I agree that there were both notability issues and tone issues. Any further discussion should be about the redirect in article space rather than the draft. So discuss the redirect with User:Praxidicae on the redirect talk page, Talk:Hector Carlos Lora (or here). You put it in article space, so it can be discussed in article space

faulty encyclopedia reference

My sandbox is flummoxed by a failed effort to refer to a section of an encyclopedia article, as distinct from reference to page or chapter. My section on Duhem; Stanford encyclopedia section 1.2 in article by Psillos. Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC) TBR-qed (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, TBR-qed, and welcxome to the Teahouse. Your question was a bit hard to comprehend, but I did find two duff references at User:TBR-qed/sandbox which I fixed with this edit. (You had some spurious characters present in two of the references, and some curly brackets used in the wrong places.) Hope that helps? I am a bit concerned that you appear to be writing an incredibly long-winded essay on a topic about which we appear to already have an article (Problem of induction). Is there a reason for this? Striking final question as I've just found this. It also looks like you're beginning to appreciate that we don't write opinion pages about topics in this encyclopaedia, but report what other reliable sources have written about them, and in in a neutral, non-interpretative manner, which is very different from the style encouraged in academia. Regards,  Nick Moyes (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your corrections and revision warning. I hope soon to finish my sandbox revision demonstrating that the existing Problem of induction is indeed obsolete, and that massive replacement is justified.TBR-qed (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Pipe Major John McLellan DCM of Dunoon

Pipe Major John McLellan DCM of Dunoon I'd like to thank all the editors who have replied to my question. I've learned from this positive experience! And I aim to follow the Wikipedia guidelines in future articles. Keep up the good work!Baishan17 (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC) Baishan17 (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the appreciation, Baishan17. Feedback here can sometimes be rather bruising, so it's good to hear when people have found it useful. --ColinFine (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Can I be a moderator? (JK)

Yeah, just kidding. How do I add tables? RusherLeBFDIFan (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

RusherLeBFDIFan, Try Help:Introduction to tables with Wiki Markup/1. It'll guide you through the steps. Le Panini ^Talk 14:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Click insert and then table. The link above by Le Panini should help you. TigerScientist (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Help editing an article for re-Submission

 Courtesy link: Draft:Gilles J Guillemin

Hello,

I have received a rejection for my Submission for Draft: Gilles J Guillemin for not being encyclopaedic enough/too many peacock words/terms.

I have reviewed it myself and edited as much as I can see, as well as adding some more citations. However, I would love if someone could take a look over it before I re-submit to make sure I have understood the reason it was rejected and made the appropriate changes.

This is my first submission, so I am still working out how to make a good article.

Many thanks :) Rom0011 (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rom0011, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft has been declined (which is different from being rejected—the subject is not suitable to be on Wikipedia). Taking a brief look at the article it reads like ad copy. It currently serves to promote him more than to inform readers about him. I'll let the declining reviewer give thoughts as to particularly problematic spots, but take care to format the article properly, such as references going at the end of terminating punctuation and words should only be emboldened in certain cases. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Rom0011. I cleaned up the first two paragraphs of Draft:Gilles J Guillemin, which had too much resume-type detail. I then examined your references and find that your sources consist of:

1. connected sources, which cannot be assumed to be neutral
2. papers the Guillernin team has published
3. journal board pages for whom Guillermin is an editor
4. a vey local newspaper story
5. Legion d'Honneur
6. a charity event page which did not mention Guillermin at all

Wikipedia notability doesn't come from an enumeration of facts about a subject. Significant coverage in independent, published sources which discuss the subject in depth are what an international encyclopedia needs; Employers and HR professionals are not Wikipedia's target audience. With respect to the biobank, surely there should be something more than a PR notice on line. Neuroscientists all over Oceania must have been excited to have it. Find coverage of that in reliable sources. If you are not familiar with Guillermin's research, be sure to familiarize yourself so you can find (we hope) mentions of its significance to his field of study. Good luck; you have a lot of shovel work ahead of you. Beyond the two paragraphs I edited, I went no further, but some of the remainder of the article needs to be cut, plus find more evidence of significance. For instance, did the Legion go into any detail on the importance of his research? What did the speeches at his award ceremony say, if anything? Etc, etc.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• I would not put much weight on the Ordre national du Mérite recognition - it is a watered-down version of the Légion d'Honneur, and even the latter is not very selective at the "knight" rank. I am not sure fellowship of the Royal Society of New South Wales is highly significant (from the wp article I gather distinguished fellowship would be). So a WP:NACADEMIC pass based on criterion #2 or #3 seems unlikely, although #1 is possible if there are more sources. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

IANI

I'm trying to add a new page for a musical artist that I've come across and I'm completely new to all of this. How do I add pictures and add other relevant sources to have the page approved??

Thanks. 2facediani (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@2facediani: Creating a draft is a very challenging task. I suggest reading WP:PSCOI, Wikipedia:Autobiography, and WP:Notability (music). If you want to continue and declare any conflict of interest on your help page, then try Help:Your first article, MOS:BIO, WP:Citing sources, and WP:External links. GoingBatty (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2facediani (talk • contribs) 18:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@2facediani: Before you add pictures, I suggest reading Wikipedia's image use policy, especially if the images to be used are potentially copyrighted. (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.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Publishing an army unit wikipedia page

 Courtesy link: Draft:242d Ordnance Battalion (EOD)

ARMY UNIT WIKI PAGE I created a draft with hopes of someone reviewing and publishing the page but no luck. You can find the article under " Draft: 242D Ordnance Battalion (EOD) " Can someone please help me get this article published? Panamenoae (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Alex Panameno

@Panamenoae: Welcome to the Teahouse! In order to be published, the draft page needs to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. I'm not too familiar with military topics, but the relevant guideline is probably at WP:NUNIT. It also would definitely help to add inline references to high-quality sources. If you think your draft meets the notability standards there, you can submit it for review by pasting the code {{subst:submit}}. If it doesn't appear to meet the standards, then there is no way to get it published. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

This was also asked at the help desk. @Panamenoae: please only seek one method of assitence at a time. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

just curious, is someone being divorced considered exceptional?

I've watched a couple pages where someone claims that a person's divorce is considered wp:exceptional. I'm not sure but I thought the scarlet letter days of divorce are long gone particularly when about 1/2 of all marriages end in divorce within the US. I think their reason for not wanting it posted is because on the 2-3 articles that exist referencing the divorce one of the couple is stated to be seeing someone. I can understand this new relationship not being posted but the divorce itself I think is fairly fundamental. I've also hear the lady reference being divorced on her tv show. Maybe someone can give some clarity. SailedtheSeas (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

SailedtheSeas, it's not that there's a stigma, it's that we don't want to report someone is divorced if they aren't. So we require a source. —valereee (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

There are at least two online sources (as well as at least one time where she mentioned it on air), so it's not that there's not a source. I think the problem is that it also has one of the people in a relationship which appears to be after separation but before the final divorce. I guess it's unfortunate that the people are not more noteworthy so that there would be a lot of articles. Out of curiousity, if the person does mention being divorced (it was actually phrased by her as ex-husband) on air where there could be a video clip could that be used as a source? SailedtheSeas (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

SailedtheSeas, it may be worth checking out the first example in BLPpubfig and comparing that with the advice for non-public figures. The latter guidance also has a link about using primary source material. Regards, Zindor (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think using ex-husband is definite enough. Divorce proceedings can take a long time and its not too unusual for separated (but not yet divorced) spouses to refer to each other as ex-whatever. Zindor (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

20 years and One Billion Edits

Both of those events are approaching, will there be a wiki for these events? Like Wikipedia 10? Or will there just be some other festival? a gd fan (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything about such an event, though I am pretty sure that due to COVID, there probbably isn't going to be many (And Some of the Ideas I haave are in WP:BEANS teritory) Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@GeometryDashFan12: It's already being discussed in the newsroom of Wikipedia's in-house monthly newsletter, The Signpost. You can see a "best guess" of when this will be at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom#Billionth edit countdown. As of now, the automatic calculations suggest that it will happen around January 11th. My guess is that as the date gets closer, editing will "pick up speed" so we may be looking at a few days before then. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Fake reference

I visited Iyer and found a fake reference . The cite 82 provide a page number 3899 while the book only has 820 pages. Here is the book https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Encyclopaedia_of_Indian_Literature.html?id=KnPoYxrRfc0C

Some one has lied and added a fake reference. Another account (Wikiality123) removed it by saying the same thing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iyer&diff=979904348&oldid=978085470

An older version was restored by Holderlin2019 and it got lost. There is a lock and I cannot edit it. ஆகாயராஜ் (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@ஆகாயராஜ்: The page number is correct. Pages start in the 3000s, as per the Google link you provided. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@ஆகாயராஜ்: Right. You can see on page 3819 that it is the title page for "Volume V / Sasay to Zorgot". The first article page (Sasay) is 3833 and you can see that page number printed on that (upside-down) page. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

it won't let me edit

wiki won't let me edit the page for undertale even though it has misinformation and must be changed please tell me how to edit this page

Thank you, J.S. Rinoking358 (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rinoking358: Welcome to Wikipedia. Please start a discussion on that article's talk page to get consensus with other editors on your proposed changes. Be sure to include what sources you are using for you changes. RudolfRed (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

thank you for the advice I will try to do this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinoking358 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected, meaning that without having made more than ten edits, you were not allowed to edit it. You correctly proposed a change on the Talk page of the article and got an answer. David notMD (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rinoking358: If you'd like, you can tell me what to add on my talk page and do it for you if you'd rather have it up now (I know my share of the game). Rhain has good credit for the article's status as well, so their an option too. Le Panini ^Talk 23:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Userboxes

Do I need permission from anybody to create and publish a userbox? TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

TrevortniDesserpedx no a gd fan (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Trevortnidesserped, generally speaking, no. Adding a userbox may put you in a category for something like a WikiProject that might raise a few eyebrows, but no one really pays attention to those as far as I'm aware. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@TrevortniDesserpedx: Within reason, you are free top make any userbox you wish (see my poor attempt at humour here), but be aware that if you were to try to create a userbox that is deemed as offensive, racist or otherwise unacceptable, it will be deleted. (Personally, I quite like it when users help me by self-identifying as a racist, bigot or misogynist etc., but the consensus here seems to be that we delete offensive userboxes straight away). Nick Moyes (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Greeks wanted :)

Hi! Can anyone kindly let me know where to find users to whom I can ask to check my Greek of https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Τομ_Ζούντμπι ? Thanks! RøedS (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Try WT:WikiProject Greece -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@RøedS: Each language Wikipedia has its own help desk. For Greek Wikipedia, it may be el:Βικιπαίδεια:Αγορά. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 15:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll try those pages. Thanks lots for quick and kind replying!! RøedS (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for articles

Been working on Draft:Cycle of Life (Album), curious if it fits guidelines because I think autoconfirmed users have the ability to move drafts to mainspace but I don't know how. Thanks again Teahouse staff! SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 23:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC) SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 23:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

SnazzyInfinity, I'm not familiar enough with music pages to be able to give you a good answer, but the notability criteria against which the page will be judged is at WP:NALBUM. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Sdkb. Would you happen to have any knowledge on the process of moving drafts and the types of users who can? I'd like to get into making more articles but I'm not 100% sure where/how to start. SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 00:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

SnazzyInfinity, Help:How to move a page has the instructions. Since you're autoconfirmed, you can move drafts directly to mainspace. However, they will still be reviewed by a New Page Patroller, who may nominate them for deletion if their notability is questionable. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! (P.S. I like your custom signature!)SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 01:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome! And thanks! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@SnazzyInfinity: Since the article is so short and has almost no sources, I think you might consider merging it with Ghost Community. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 03:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Not able to edit -- I have only "Edit Source" tab

Please disregard, the problem has been resolved.

Kindest Regards for any advice! W2317 (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Help

FYI

 – Heading added by Tenryuu.

Can you help me edit the page SMG4 please Starkiryu64 (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Starkiryu64: You will need to find sources demonstrating the notability of this person in order to save the article. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Tagging a draft for review

 Courtesy link: Draft:Gabriel T. Rozman

This regards the draft for "Gabriel T Rozman". How do I tag for review my draft submission ? I pressed the "tag" button shown, but an AFC template box appeared with text already in the multiple and numbered white text boxes. Thank you. Kiraly17 (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Kiraly17 (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Kiraly17, if you're looking to resubmit the draft for review, you can click the blue Resubmit button in the latest declined divbox. I would suggest reading what the second declining reviewer (Berrely) has to say before pressing it, however. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Kiraly17, the draft has been declined, so before you resubmit it, you need to make sure you've addressed the concerns that led to it being declined. Once you've done that, there's a resubmit button at the top of the page. Also, if you have any connection to Rozman, please make sure you comply with our conflict of interest guideline. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Inserting a photo into a draft

FYI

 – Making this a subsection of the previous section. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

This regards the draft for "Gabriel T Rozman". I need help with inserting a photo. I have read the help text and have tried to google the info, but when I insert the photo according to the instructions as I understand them, the photo is inserted in the middle of a random paragraph of the draft! Thanks so much for any help.Kiraly17 (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Kiraly17 (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Kiraly17, could you edit the draft so we can see what you mean? We'll probably be able to fix it for you. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

In the infobox, select add more fields and add the image field and then copy the link of the picture you want into that section. TigerScientist (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

In general, however, an image doesn't help a draft get approved, and it's better to save them for when/if the draft is approved and moved to articlespace. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 03:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Kiraly17. I restored the image in the proper place for a lead image, which is immediately before the first sentence of the lead paragraph. You had inserted it in the section of the wikicode that has to do with the Articles for Creation review process. It displays correctly now, although I recommend cropping out those big empty spaces to the left and right. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Requesting teahouse feedback for improvement

FYI

 – Another section merge. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

This regards the draft for "Gabriel T Rozman". I have twice submitted this draft for review. The first rejection stated it was too much like a resume/CV, the second rejection indicated a need for more biographical information. I am working on the latter but would welcome input from the community as for tips for approval. Thanks to all !!Kiraly17 (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Kiraly17 (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Kiraly17, general information on achieving neutrality is at WP:NPOV, and general information on writing a page is at Help:Your first article. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Kiraly17. Here are two recommendations that will improve your draft: Remove every single solitary assertion in the article that is not verified by a reference to a reliable source. Alternatively, add references. Verifiability is a core content policy. Remove all the external links from the body of the draft. External links should be used very sparingly and only in specific sections. They are not for general information about other topics mentioned in the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Saving work while editing a draft

This regards the draft for "Gabriel T Rozman". When editing a draft, how do I save my work if I am not yet ready to publish? I have just lost 2 hours work (but fortunately printed beforehand so all is not lost). How do you save a draft, then go back later and continue working on it before finally publishing? Thanks a million.Kiraly17 (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Kiraly17 (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Kiraly17, whenever you click the blue publish button, the page is saved, and it should be there when you come back to it unless someone else edits it. You'd have to give us a more detailed explanation of what you did and how things disappeared for us to be able to figure out exactly what happened. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, in the future Kiraly17, please don't create new sections when asking questions about the same draft; it causes trouble for the archiving bot. Subsections (with === ===) are fine. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Its here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gabriel_T._Rozman When searching do Draft:name of draft and it will come up. Also that page needs more reliable citations. TigerScientist (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Note that "publish changes" should be interpreted to simply mean "save changes". "Publish changes" does not mean "publish this to the encyclopedia". The button used to say save changes, but the Foundation changed it for legal reasons, to emphasize that all edits are visible to the public even if not formally part of the encyclopedia(talk pages, policy pages, sandbox edits, etc.). 331dot (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

What to do when a possible vandal is detected

What is protocol for an auto-confirmed user when I find an account I believe who's intent is vandalism or unconstructive editing? SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 02:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

SnazzyInfinity up, you can leave templated responses like {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}. If they continue, you can report them to WP:AIV. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 02:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

 Dicesstool (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi SnazzyInfinity. Generally speaking, in order to report at WP:AIV, a user is expected to have received an escalating series of warning templates on their talk page and to have vandalized after the final warning. Please see WP:WARN. You don't always need to give a full series in order, and it is always subject to context, e.g., extreme vandalism requires less or (sometimes even no) warnings before a block, but reports at AIV are often declined if suitable warnings have not been given. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello SnazzyInfinity. It is important to be accurate in distinguishing between genuine vandalism and "unconstructive" edits. It has to do with clear evidence of intent. An edit that is actually vandalism is made with the intent of damaging the encyclopedia. Edits that are misguided, incorrect due to a misunderstanding or unfamiliarity with sources, but intended to improve an article, are not vandalism. Do not issue vandalism warnings for the second type of edit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

What is Endflatlist?

When editing (for example, the article on Friedrich Nietzsche: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friedrich_Nietzsche&action=edit) I see the word “Endflatlist” between brackets, but the list doesn’t appear as a list in the article itself. Thanks. GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 10:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@GümsGrammatiçus: its a template. See Template:endflatlist. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion that I see Template:endflatlist. So, I saw Template:endflatlist, and that page doesn't appear to explain what it is much beyond that it's a template. So I'm interested in knowing what it does? Or Why would it exist in an article? Or why would editors bother with an Endflatlist template? It doesn't seem to contribute to the general reader of Wikipedia, but it must have some purpose. Thanks.GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@GümsGrammatiçus: Are you not seeing the several pages of documentation? The examples at Template:Flatlist/doc#Examples should answer your question. Many templates have two versions: one in which all the values are given directly to the template (the {{Flatlist|...}} example); and another in which there is a starting and ending template with the values in between (the {{Startflatlist}} ... {{Endflatlist}} example). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you AlanM1, I am indeed seeing the example lists (Dog, horse... etc.) But I'm looking for a definition of a device or template with the word “Endflatlist” between brackets -- a list that doesn’t appear as a list in the article itself. What does it do? Why would an editor include such a thing that is invisible to the general reader? If you want to make a list there are many ways to do that, why do editors use this particular device or template? What would be the criteria for including items in such lists?GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 04:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I have explored a bit, and I believe I have found the answer to my own question: “A flatlist or endflatlist (placed between curly brackets) can be defined as an editing device that is used to create a list of words or proper nouns, that will appear in an article horizontally — running from the left margin to the right margin, as opposed to stacking the words vertically. Using another template or device, the content of a list can be hidden, and then caused to appear after a reader clicks on the word ‘show’.” I think that might be a fair definition. It strikes me that if a definition like that does not exist on Wikipedia (as appears to be the case), there might be a need for a general “Glossary for Wikipedia Editors” — other glossaries exist here. It could use some Teahouse questions as a source — I see candidate entries on this Teahouse page. Thanks to all for considering my questions. -- GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@GümsGrammatiçus: Keep in mind that we are all volunteers here. Expecting every template to have precise formal documentation, or to fit within a totally consistent master-desiged grammar, is a bit much to expect from a bunch of loosely-organized volunteers with real lives and day jobs.

Why use {{Endflatlist}} is explained by way of the examples – it's a required/necessary part of the syntax of a {{Startflatlist}}–{{Endflatlist}} pair, in the same way that </ref> is a required part of a <ref> ... </ref> reference. It doesn't display anything to the reader itself, but leaving it out causes the software to render the page incorrectly.

If you look at the end of the doc, there is a (default collapsed) "navbox", entitled "HTML lists", which shows a number of templates that are used to create different types of lists. A more general short reference can be found at WP:CHEATSHEET, which has examples of basic Wikitext and other things, with many links to more detailed docs. I hope this helps. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Thank you very much for the good suggestions, and for the helpful links you provided. GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The elements got pulled right

If you click here https://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeds_United_FC#S%C3%BA%C4%8Dasn%C3%A1_zostava and scroll down, you will see all the elements got pulled right. Tried to fix it, but since I don't know how, I rather did not touch it. I have noticed a few Wiki pages having the same problem. Thank you for advise TomasHvizdak (talk) 09:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@TomasHvizdak: This page is not within the english Wikipedia, but within I think the slovak Wikipedia. Try asking at sk:Wikipédia:Potrebujem_pomoc. My guess would be that the table there is not properly closed. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi @TomasHvizdak: The link you posted is for the Slovakian Wikipedia. You’ll have more luck posting on their help pages. I did a quick search and unfortunately can’t find the link for you. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I conjured my inner Slovakian and I believe I've fixed it. Zindor (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

draft:Wolfgang_Tschacher

 Bety Bannwart (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bety Bannwart: Hello, and welcome to the teahouse. May we start with your question please? I have added a submit button to the draft, however, if it were submitted right now, it would be declined, as Wikipedia is not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim you want to make about a living person needs to be directely backed up with an inline citation to a relible source. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

disambiguation

should there be a disambiguation? Wilayah (administrative) and Walayah (ideology)? Baratiiman (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Baratiiman, according to Wikipedia:Disambiguation, articles that only have one other exact name should have a hatnote to describe it, rather than its own page. I've added this to each of the pages.

WP:NFCC#8

What criteria of WP:NFCC#8 specifies? What comment written for the media files articles? There is misunderstanding with this guideline specifically this bolded word as the following:

• Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. The Supermind (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• I told The Supermind to ask here. This is about File:S.M.I.L.A by Alexander Ozolin .mp3 which was uploaded for Kiev Day and Night#Alexander Ozolin. Me and JJMC89 doubt the song warrants a fair use sample. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz, According to the speedy deletion tag, it seems the reason is that the use of the sound file does not reference a significant amount of the article, rather one trivial sentence. When it comes to fair-use policies, we don't own the contents of these images, sounds, etc., so they must be used sparingly.

Need to get Articles to be Reviwed

Hi there, I earlier created article for CNEEC, as a participant of WAM 2020, unfortunately didn't get my article approved due to its adverts/promo workdings n poor referencing n citations as well. Later, however I really worked hard upon editing, refernced n cited properly, removed promo characters as well. Please anybody here to help me out, that how I can I improve it even further, no prob. if it won't get accepted even at this time also, I am ready to work upon even a 100 times as well. What I only want to know is what's still wrong with the article that it has still hann't got any response or is it still in waiting progress. Kindly go through the below the link and all the page history as well which is to be checked. Many Thanks n Regards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:China_National_Electric_Engineering_Company ~~SB~~ 12:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SB Edits (talk • contribs)

I looked at just one source cited in the draft: this one at protenders.com. Pretty obviously this says what CNEEC pays the website to say: it even points out that miscellaneous information is missing because CNEEC hasn't supplied it. This is not a reliable source (as understood in Wikipedia). Wikipedia articles have to be based on reliable sources. -- Hoary (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I ve' removed that Web Address for not being the correct ref, with improving the existing references also. Thanks.

I know I said that was my last question, but I have 1 more. Asked my last question at the help desk, but I found that you guys answer faster

How do I change my signature to pale pink background, purple words, and cursive font? Thanks in advance. Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Ex-Borg Seven of Nine. Yeah, we're great like that. I'll knock together some sigs for you and drop them in your sandbox. Once you've decided on a design, or made one yourself, go to the preferences tab in the top right of the screen, scroll down and paste the markup in the signature field, then tick the box that says 'Treat as Wiki markup'. Then click 'save' at the bottom of the page. Regards, Zindor (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Zindor: Lol, and thanks. I'll keep an eye out. Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Cross-wiki notifications

Please see this, as yet, unanswered question I have posted at the Help Desk. I would welcome feedback there, lest I've been doing something wrong all this time. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft Samuel Ridwan

Please i need with my article Samuel Ridwan i want to get it approved but am not sure what the problem is so please help me identify the errors and how to fix it. please help thank you Campusfilla (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The template at the top says that the references "do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I see no reference to any published, reliable, secondary source that's independent of Ridwan. If there are good sources, use them; if there aren't, the draft is doomed. -- Hoary (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary So the problem is the references okay sure so i have to change them to a published article about Ridwan online and please how many reference do i need to put in Campusfilla (talk)

And Please Hoary Apart from the references is there any thing that needs to be done Campusfilla (talk)

Hello, Capusfilla. What you probably need to do is to throw away your first attempt, and then start again, by finding suitable references (which do not have to be online, but do have to have been reliably published. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.. --ColinFine (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, the most obvious problem is the lack of any evidence that Ridwan is notable. Unless you can establish his notability, any other work will be wasted. Maproom (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Well Noted ColinFine Maproom. Campusfilla (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

How to submit draft

How do I submit for draft reveiw Iwillbe65 (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, I have added the submit template, but the draft would be rejected if submitted as it stands, there is no indication of notability. Theroadislong (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Iwillbe65. All you need to do is post this to the top of the draft and save it: {{subst:submit}}. (Later inserted note: A template for submisson has already been placed for you—all you need to do now to submit it is click the blue button that says "Submit your draft for review!" – which would be premature at this time, per below) However, assuming this is about the content in your sandbox, that will be declined for a variety of reasons at the present time. Most importantly, what we are looking for are inline citations in the text, through footnotes, to reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent from the topic, which treat it in substantive detail, and directly support the material. It needs those to verify its content and demonstrate the notability of the topic. The current manner of citation – external links, hyperlinked to certain words in the text – is a good start, especially because some of those look to be good sources, but they need to be converted to footnotes, and some of them are not actually about the topic of the proposed article, e.g., the NYT article you linked about Arthur Weinstein has no mention of the milk bar.

It may be that this is a notable topic, but my (albeit quick) survey of the sources makes me think that even if you convert what you have now to proper citations, you will need to find more sources, that discuss the milkbar in detail, and rewrite this to only include information that the sources you cite actually verify. A good place to start for the referencing issue is Help:Referencing for beginners. And please see generally Help:Your first article. By the way, the content of the draft should not also be on your userpage. That is for telling us a little bit about yourself in relation to Wikipedia. e.g. your editing interests, a list of articles you've created, links to useful places, etc. Please see WP:UPGOOD and WP:UPNOT. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Question re autoconfirmation

When can I be a “confirmed” and an “auto-confirmed” user? RusherLeBFDIFan (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Concentrate on making intelligent, well referenced edits to existing articles, the huge majority of which don't need any kind of "confirmation". -- Hoary (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi RusherLeBFDIFan Since you already have more than ten edits, you will be automatically autoconfirmed later today, when 21:30 (UTC) passes, i.e, 96 hours (four days) after your account was created. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Question (again)

Where do I submit page ideas? RusherLeBFDIFan (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@RusherLeBFDIFan: Wikipedia:Requested articles. Or you can be bold and try it sourself. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: Where’s the category for airplanes + how do I join a WikiProjecy? RusherLeBFDIFan (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@RusherLeBFDIFan: There is no specific Category for airplanes, try searching in Category:Aircraft. As for WikiProjects, requirements and join Process is Project dependent. Try asking on the respective talkpage. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@RusherLeBFDIFan: For WikiProject Aircraft, all you need to do is put your name on the list linked. Le Panini ^Talk 17:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Can we use Press release as sources

I have a doubt about using press releases as sources for Wikipedia articles, can we use Press Releases? Nameisthor (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

In limited cases, as described in WP:SELFPUB. Also, Press releases do nothing with regards to notability (as WIkipedia defines it). Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nameisthor: Basically, you may use a press release if it's the subject talking about themselves, like a singer saying where she was born. However, we want to use as many secondary, independent sources to back up our claims. See WP:RS for more. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 17:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there any possibilities that an article is accepted without proper sources and citations.

I recently joined WIKIPEDIA and I am curious and start learning new things from Wikipedia, I have come to know that without proper article sources and notability an article won't be published, but I saw many of the articles on Wikipedia without proper citation and sources. Is this possible? Thank You. Nameisthor (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nameisthor: Most Wikipedians try their best to make sure everything is backed by a reliable source, but sometimes newer editors will add unsourced content and nobody notices. Just because it happens does not mean adding unsourced information is okay. If you write a new draft and submit it through the Articles for Creation process, reviewers will be checking if you sourced every claim; if not, it will get rejected. If you find an article that does not have a source, or has a tag like , go ahead and see if you can find a source for it! That's one good way to ensure that Wikipedia stays as close to the truth as possible. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 17:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Older articles, especially, may not conform with current guidelines. As Ganbaruby noted, New editors are recommended to submit draft articles to Articles for Creation, which then calls for an experienced reviewer to accept or decline, but editors who are auto-confirmed can skpi AfC and create an article directly into mainspace. If flawed, such articles may be nominated to Articles for deletion (AfD). David notMD (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Nameisthor, and welcome to the Teahouse. A new article without references is unlikely to happen now, but in earlier years Wikipedia editors were much less careful about this, so we have thousands and thousands of articles which, if somebody submitted them today, would not be accepted in their current form. (Some of them would not be accepted at all, because their subjects are not notable). unfortunately, improving (or deleting) such articles is not something that many editors choose to spend their time doing, so they tend to hang around, lowering the overall standard of Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Next Steps After "Publishing"

I created a Wiki article for a nonprofit organization that I founded and ran from 1995-2009 (the organization dissolved in 2010). Because I am a conflicted editor as its founder, I'm wondering what I should do after pressing "Publish Changes"? I read that "Now it's time for you to move the article from your personal userspace (as a subpage) to Wikipedia mainspace (where the real articles are)"* but I don't think I can do that as a conflicted editor. The name of the article is Stages of Learning and its page is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Floydrumohr

Does any one have any advice? Many thanks for any help about what to do next.

- My username is Floydrumohr

• Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Editing, creating, and maintaining articles/Creating a new article Floydrumohr (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Stages of Learning

@Floydrumohr: Just leave your draft as is. You've already submitted it for review, so another volunteer will come along and check if it's up to Wikipedia's standards. Be patient, as there's a lot of drafts to review, and they're done in no particular order. That being said, you need to make the paid contributor declaration on your userpage at User:Floydrumohr, not your draft. I've gone ahead and moved it for you. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 17:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Thanks for your help in moving my article to review. I hope you get this post -- I'm not sure if I'm doing it correctly. You mentioned that I need to make the paid contributor declaration on your user page at User:Floydrumohr, not your draft. What does that mean? I think I already disclosed that I am the founder of the organization but I have not been paid to create the Wikipedia article. Floydrumohr (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Floydrumohr, I've moved your reply to the right section here: you added it to a different section at the end of the page. --ColinFine (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

How do I know whether My Wikipedia account is autoconfirmed ?

I have heard that Autoconfirmed is a user group that is automatically given to registered user accounts that are more than 4 days old and have made at least 10 changes. I have a bit confused about changes and contributions, is no of changes is the same as no of contributions, and how do I know whether my account is autoconfirmed. Thank You. Nameisthor (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Nameisthor, you can see your user rights in many ways. I prefer using XTools, which gives me other details (here is a link with your user), but for an on-wiki alternative, you can use Special:UserRights. To access this for you, click on "View user groups" under the tools section in the sidebar when on your talkpage, or go to Special:UserRights/Nameisthor. I hope you have a good December, and thank you for wanting to edit Wikipedia! — Yours, Berrely (🎅 Ho ho ho! 🎄) • ^Talk∕_Contribs 18:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello again, Nameisthor. No, you are not Autoconfirmed, because your account is less than one day old. But when new users ask about this, my reply is, Why do you want to know? Most of the things that Autoconfirmation allows you to do I would strongly advise new users not to do anyway. It allows you to create articles directly in article space: but anybody who does so without experience of already having created dozens of articles is probably going to have a very frustrating experience: use the Articles for creation process to create a draft. It allows you to upload media files; but nearly all media files should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, which has no autoconfirmation requirement. The only files that should be uploaded directly to Wikipedia are non-free media, and it is unlikely that a new editor will understand the application of the criteria for these. The other main privilege is editing Semiprotected articles; but again, an inexperienced editor would be well advised not to try doing so, but to continue making request on articles' talk pages.

On the browser version, you can find out whether you have autoconfirm or any other rights by picking "Preferences" at the top. I don't know if there is a way to do it on the app. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinFine (talk • contribs) 18:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Adding a DFC recipient's name to the following Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Recipients_of_the_Distinguished_Flying_Cross_(United_States)

My father-in-law was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) from the US Air Force and I want to add his name to the Wikipedia page noted in the Subject box above. I have documentation in a pdf file (his original Distinguished Flying Cross certificate) that proves he was a recipient of this award.

I have no clue how to add his name (Francis W. Belanger) to the the list of DFC recipients on the following Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Recipients_of_the_Distinguished_Flying_Cross_(United_States)

Please help. This should be a simple task, but it appears that I do not have access to add a name to the list of recipients. I set my preferences to use the VisualEditor whenever it is available, but that did not give me access to add a name to the list of DFC recipients.

Also, I do not see how to attach a pdf file to this message which contains proof that he is a recipient of the DFC award. He was awarded the DFC on the 11th of October in 1970 accorinf to his DFC certificate.

This is very frustrating, but perhaps Wikipedia editing should not be user friendly for obvious reasons.

Professor Elsdon ProfessorElsdon (talk) 05:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi ProfessorElsdon, and welcome to the Teahouse. Entries are added by designating categories to them on their articles. Your father-in-law would have to have his own article on here before he could be included into the category, which means that he would have to meet at least Wikipedia's general notability guidelines; that is mostly determined from secondary reliable, independent sources. The certificate is a primary source which is great for fact-checking, but it shouldn't be the only type of sourced used; secondary sources are recommended. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@ProfessorElsdon: In other words, the category is not meant to be a list of recipients of the DFC, but instead a list of articles about such people in this encyclopedia. The category has 1,243 articles. According to this site, "No one knows how many DFC’s were awarded but The Distinguished Flying Cross Society has over 6,200 recipient members with possibly thousands more eligible to join our prestigious and elite Society." —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

László Heltay

Hello, I submitted this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Heltay for review, but it was rejected; the reason given was "All sources appear to be about his death." Given that these sources were, in the main, obituaries in world-renowned newspapers, or entries in authoritative works of reference (e.g. Who's Who) I do not understand what the issue is, nor can I see what else I have to do to get this article approved. Can anyone advise me? Thanks! simontcope (talk) 09:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Slim cop, The best place for you to discuss the decline of Draft:László Heltay is the talk page of the reviewer, 4thfile4thrank. I will say that I disagree with his reasoning. The sources aren't "about his death", they are obituaries. Obituaries in sources such as The Guardian, The Telegraph and The Times are well-researched, reliable, and authoritative, and provide excellent sources. Maproom (talk) 10:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Slim cop:. At first sight, this looks to be a seriously flawed decline rationale, as there are a number of national media obituaries upon which this article is based upon. I would be happy to move it to mainspace myself. It's fair to say this decline was made by a brand new reviewer, so I'm pinging Primefac just so that they're aware of any guidance that might need to be given. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Update: Noting that concerns have just been expressed that the draft did contain serious copyright violations which do need addressing. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Glad to see that the issues have been resolved. Original reviewer has been placed on our "probationary status", meaning if such declines continue they will be removed from the project (either contact me on my talk or at WT:AFC to indicate this needs to happen (if you're not an admin, in which case just do it). Keep in mind this is not retroactive, so please don't go trawling through their past declines. Primefac (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Illegally photographed images

Does Wikipedia allow images that have been illegally or unauthorizedly taken?

For example, if someone went inside a religious building, and took pictures and/or videos, when photographs and/or videos are not permitted, then publishes them, does that go against Wikipedia's policy? Matthew.weller (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Matthew.weller: Maybe. This appears to be about photos inside LDS temples, which sounded familiar to me. See the two deletion discussions linked to at c:File talk:Salt Lake Temple Garb In Sealing Room.jpg. There are probably other such discussions both here and on Commons if you search. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable, but Wikipedia is not censored. Theroadislong (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Matthew.weller: The simple and honest answer to your question is "NO!", Wikipedia (including Wikimedia Commons) does not allow any images that have been taken illegally to be housed on Commons, or to be shown on Wikipedia. This is a key approach it takes that all images must be legally obtained and freely available. The problem comes in interpretation of the law in various countries. I have personally uploaded images I have taken myself of public art in England which have subsequently been deleted from Commons because they breach somewhat obscure copyright laws, and pictures of statues in France were deleted because there is no 'Freedom of Panorama' in that country. But if I put a sign up outside my house saying 'No Photos Allowed' that has no legal authority whatsoever. How that applies in a publicly accessible religious building, or an art gallery, where someone shoves up a sign saying 'No Photos' I honestly have no idea, just as a sign saying 'No Parking' may have no legal authority unless backed up by local laws or statutes. So, interpreting what is and what is not legal requires great care and very detailed knowledge, but that consideration is normally not done here, but by volunteers at Wikimedia Commons. For images only on Wikipedia, that is a matter for us, of course (though not me personally!). I note you posted this request, but I would comment that, unless a law were broken, no personal opinion of "offensiveness" would be considered relevant because this is an encyclopaedia, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED.  Nick Moyes (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)    

This isn't entirely accurate! Commons does not allow images that breach copyright, but there are many cases where this is not the issue. For example very old artworks in museums or other places have no copyright, but photography of them may not be permitted (especially if flash is used). However breaching this is usually an offence of trespass only (or the local legal equivalent), and Commons will (or should) accept the photos - there are many uploaded. But wikipedians should certainly avoid breaching the rules, especially where flash can damage the objects. Johnbod (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Matthew.weller and Nick Moyes: I said "maybe", given the subject and the location (i.e. the influence of the LDS church and its members is substantial in Utah law). It may well be that there are Utah state or SLC local laws that deny "freedom of panorama" inside LDS temples and other places, though the previous discussions that I referred to apparently did not look for, or did not find, them, as they resulted in "keep". Anyway, that is the avenue along which to proceed – find something with the force of law that makes taking or publishing the pictures unlawful and then propose deletion of the images based on that. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 18:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Were the images taken in a publicly accessible religious building, or in a religious building to which access is restricted to the qualified faithful? It is my understanding that LDS temples are mostly limited as to who is admitted to them, and in that respect they differ from religious buildings that are open to the public. If so, and if the rules prohibit the taking of photographs by persons who were admitted for religious purposes, then that may be legally different than unauthorized photography in a chapel or sanctuary that is open to the public. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Files

Xanderman016: I want to upload music on my profile page, but Wikipedia isn't letting me. Why? Xanderman016 (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Xanderman016: Why would you want to do that - we're building an encyclopaedia, not running as music station! Anyway, most music will be copyright so you can't release it for free here yourself, as you don't own it. However, there are already some free music files already on Commons that you could embed, and which will play if you click them. Like the one from my favourite musician that I've included here. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Quote from your user page: "So, I created this to promote my Scratch account and to post my book here. I guess I can also use this to promote my followers." I deleted it. Welcome to Wikipedia. It's an encyclopedia. It's not a free web host. -- Hoary (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Xanderman016 you are not allowed to use your user page for self promotion. See WP:USERPAGE for guidance on what is permitted and what isn't. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

You're also not allowed to use your sandbox to create a draft for something that you hope will drum up interest in the project you're working on. I deleted that too. Now, if you'd care to improve existing articles on subjects to which you're not related, basing your improvements on reliable, published sources independent of anyone you're writing about, you're welcome to stay. Years from now, others may publish material about your writings, and others again may use this material to create Wikipedia articles about your writings. -- Hoary (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Xanderman016: That was MY profile page! Why can't I do that on MY profile page!? Whatever happened to freedom of speech!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanderman016 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have "profile pages." It has articles about notable people. Freedom of speech is one thing, freedom to publish at other than social media is entirely another. Regardless of what you think can be on your User page, Wikipedia:User pages says otherwise. David notMD (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Xanderman016: Just for future reference, on a discussion page (like this one), if you start a post with "Someone:" or "@Someone:", that means you are talking to the user named "Someone", so your posts above appear as though you are talking to yourself. If you want to address your comments to the user named "SomeoneElse", start your post with {{Re|SomeoneElse}} .

Also see WP:INDENT for how we use indenting to keep talk pages organized.

Lastly, at the very end of your posts, please add a space and four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which will be automatically converted to your username and timestamp (a "signature"), like I've done here: —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Harry Fear

 Courtesy link: Draft:Harry Fear

Draft:Harry Fear Hello, can someone please view my draft and tell me if there is any adjustments needed before submitting it. Thanks in advance. Engy Badawy (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

His own blog and Twitter (refs #5 and #7) cannot be refs. David notMD (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

How to edit?

How do i edit wikipedia? Chevytruckps (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Chevytruckps, In reference to just editing itself, check out Help:Editing. For a very helpful and broad explanation, try out WP:The Wikipedia Adventure. Le Panini ^Talk 03:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Donations

Hi, I would happily make a big lifetime contribution to Wikipedia if they would quit asking me for donations every time I log in at the end of the year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.21 (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

IP editor, Wikipedia cannot tell if the person at the other end of an IP is the same person as the one that used it the day before. The best thing for you to do is to create an account and adjust your preferences to disable the banner. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

That's funny, they only ask me for donations when I'm NOT logged in. Bookmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:UserLogin and you won't have to worry about those pesky messages. Oh wait, I see you aren't logged in so, yeah, register for an account and set your preferences. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm always logged in and I never see requests for donations. I think they only show those messages to readers, not editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

One would hope so. There's also a "Suppress display of fundraiser banners" option in the gadgets menu to be doubly sure that they won't appear. Zindor (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Side Note:These banners also show when logged in, as I saw the other day using Victor Schmidt mobil, unless you have taken steps to hide them (the afroamented gadget is one option) Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

A doubt

I nominated John Toffan, an article created by me for WP:AFIL. I just wished to know more on the process. Is it important that a person who has edited an article nominate it for WP:AFIL.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Atlantis77177 While AFIL might find help, more up to you to improve this article, which in my opinion is fatally flawed, as the only ref about Toffan is an obituary. All the others are about horses he trained, with only minimal mention that he was the trainer. Delete all the descriptions of actual races and the the horses' deaths and there is no article left. David notMD (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Help with submitting article

I have written a bio about my Grand Uncle (one of the founders of early American silent film comedies). It is in my sandbox. I thought I submitted it for review but I never head anything back so now I'm not sure. Can someone help me verify that I am proceeding correctly? Gwlnl (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Gwlnl and welcome to The Teahouse, I have moved it to draft and added the submit button for review Draft:Louis Anger. Theroadislong (talk) 10:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Excellent effort by a new editor. Given family connection, you should state on your User page that Louis Anger was your grand-uncle. This is about Wikipedia's policy of declaring conflict of interest WP:COI. However, in my opinion your create a neutral point of view draft. I took the liberty of a bit of copy editing. David notMD (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The images are a critical issue, as clearly, most of these are not your "own work" (you were not the photographer). David notMD (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Wish to add to the vaccine page. It seems to be protected.

I'm provax and have had too much experience on twitter and facebook re:vax mis info, etc. I wish to edit the vaccine page to reference the long history of vaccination starting in 1796. Example:14 diseases defeated by vaccination https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/diseases/forgot-14-diseases.html. This may differ from the wiki page that covers this issue. Here is the CDC article https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/prinvac.pdf This site gives the best reference re:vaccinations.Bgordski (talk) 08:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Bgordski (talk) 08:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bgordski: Wikipedia has many articles on vaccines. Which one are you referring to? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Note, Bgordski, that the basic page on vaccine has a history section that goes back to the 10th century and covers much else. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

What if you find something obviously strange in a reliable source

I found a strange article in the AMS(american mathematic society)journal archive. My simple question is that would I be violating some policies if I contribute the fact to the related talk page. To me, it's as simple as 1+1=2, and I believe almost all highschool teachers (and some smart students) can easily understand my points within 10 minutes. It's just that simple. It's (in my opinion) an important article, because it's related to the current (practically one of the)fastest (yet unproven to be valid)computer algorithm supported by a folklore which originates from the paper(by a famous scientist). It's also directly related to your digital signature security strength(isn't that an important fact?)

Should I leave this obviously wrong history best untouched? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquahabitant (talk • contribs) 07:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Aquahabitant. This is a matter that should be discussed at the talk page of the Wikipedia article in question. Your critique of an individual journal article would deserve mention only if published reliable sources made the same criticism. Otherwise, it is orginal research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Aquahabitant, a reliable source is not always a reliable source. NatGeo sometimes publishes articles that are kinda... eh. The New York Times has published bullcrap. Vice versa, an unreliable source is not always an unreliable source. I am unable to grasp your struggle, but just want to give a related trivia there. GeraldWL 08:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I am too coward to write anything to the talk page, so if i am allowed, i would like to do it here. This is a very delicate subject, because many IT funds are believing this (to me, obviously wrong) history, and their beliefs should be very strong, too. The main part of the article is an ALGOL code which is (almost) correct, but the (obviously unchecked) proof part became a famous folklore, and nobody seem to have checked it, and today this (possibly unchecked) proof is used to exaggerated digital risk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquahabitant (talk • contribs) 09:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Aquahabitant: Again, this belongs on the talk page of the respective article, where other editors can give input on your ideas. Wikipedia works through consensus by multiple editors, so you must initiate the discussion yourself to get the ball rolling. Otherwise, you can just be bold and change it yourself, assuming that you have reliable sources of your own backing up your claims. If that gets reverted, then you'll have to sort it out on the talk page. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Delete misspelled November 1866 redirect (Novembe 1866)

I accidentally created a misspelled redirect for November 1866, known as Novembe 1866. Please can someone get it removed? I can't see an option for it. Childishbeat (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Redirection is called "moving", for some reason. If you can create it, you can move it, to "November 1866". This is just one of many similar redirects you've created: July 1866 is another. Has anyone else said that their creation would be helpful? -- Hoary (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I moved it, but it kept the old redirect. I still ask for the old redirect to be removed, and for consistency across the similar redirects I've created. Childishbeat (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I've tagged the page for deletion. Regards, Zindor (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

And I have now deleted the erroneously-named redirect, although they could have requested a CSD themselves. But I really see no value in making such pointless redirects, and I have told User:Childishbeat to desist until they have explained their rationale and gained consensus (or shown a prior consensus) to do this.

@Hoary: would you regard this as potentially disruptive if they were to continue without that? I feel many of these redirects may well need deleting at WP:RfD, as these myriads of month/year redirects only seem to serve to clog up notable entries in the drop-down search results with pointless and irrelevant results, and with no real user gain. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)  

I didn't know my redirects would clog up these results. Childishbeat (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, I think that these redirects, however well intentioned, are a net minus. But I am of course willing to be proven wrong. Yes, I think they should be nominated for deletion. If that's closed as "keep", work on them can be continued; in the meantime, I think Childishbeat should pause. -- Hoary (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

How to create internal page for individual journal

Hi there. I have been working on a WP article for a journal called Frontiers in Nutrition (you can see the article in my sandbox right now). However, after I was done with it I found out that Frontiers in Nutrition redirects to the list of journal on the main Frontiers page. There is a hat at the beginning of that page mentioning that several "Frontiers in..." journal redirect there, though some of the journals do have their separate pages (e.g. Frontiers in Psychology or Frontiers in Physics). So my question is how do I go about creating a separate article? Thanks in advance! Youllneverwalkalone2019 (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Youllneverwalkalone2019, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer, for the moment, is, Don't worry about it. If you submit your draft for review (I added a "userspace draft" header, with a button to do so), and it is accepted, the accepting reviewer will sort out the redirection.

Much more pressing is the fact that, like many inexperienced editors who try the extremely difficult task of writing a new article, you have gone about it back to front. Creating an article starts by finding independent sources which discuss the subject at some depth - because until you find those, all work you put in is at risk of being wasted. At present you have not a single independent source with significant coverage, and until you do, worrying about the name (and, for that matter, preparing an infobox or categories) is like painting the windows of a house that has no foundations and may fall down at any moment. Please see notability, and your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help ColinFine. If you have a look at typical WP pages for individual journals, you will see that proper indexing in major databases is generally enough to establish notability. I appreciate you adding the button to submit a draft, and I am going to go through this route, but please note that that this is not my first article. My question was how to do this operation myself (also so that I can learn something new about WP). If you know the answer to that, I'd appreciate you explaining. Youllneverwalkalone2019 (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Sorry, Youllneverwalkalone2019. So what you're asking is how to replace the existing redirect page Frontiers in Nutrition by your draft, yes? There are two ways. Either you go to the redirect page (by picking that link and then picking the link in the "redirected from" message at the top) and editing it to remove the redirect, and add your own content instead. If you're copying from a draft, that is technically copying within Wikipedia, but as long as nobody else has contributed to the content you're copying, there are no licensing issues. The second approach is to use WP:requested moves to ask an admin to move your draft over the redirect. --ColinFine (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

That's precisely what I was asking ColinFine, thanks a lot for your clear and articulate reply - very appreciated!

can somebody help me please/من به کمک نیاز دارم

Hey there I am a new member of Wikipedia and I really need this page translated in English but Wikipedia doesn't let new members to translate so can you please translate this page for me actually I translated it in English but I couldn't publish it, so I saved it as a public draft This is the link of the Wikipedia page in Persian:https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%B3%D9%87_%D9%86%D9%85%D9%88%D9%86%D9%87_%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D8%AA%DB%8C This is the link of my public draft:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Governmental_leading_high_school If you can help me It means a lot to me thank you for taking your time to read this

سلام ، من عضو جدید ویکی پدیا هستم و واقعاً به این صفحه ترجمه شده به زبان انگلیسی احتیاج دارم اما ویکی پدیا به اعضای جدید اجازه ترجمه نمی دهد ، بنابراین لطفاً این صفحه را برای من ترجمه کنید ، در واقع من آن را به انگلیسی ترجمه کردم اما نمی توانم آن را منتشر کنم ، بنابراین من آن را به عنوان پیش نویس عمومی ذخیره کردم این پیوند صفحه ویکی پدیا به زبان فارسی است:https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%B3%D9%87_%D9%86%D9%85%D9%88%D9%86%D9%87_%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D8%AA%DB%8C این پیوند پیش نویس عمومی من است:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Governmental_leading_high_school اگر می توانید به من کمک کنید برای من معنی زیادی دارد متشکرم که وقت خود را برای خواندن این مقاله اختصاص دادید

Can someone review my draft(Persian to English)

This is the link of my draft can you please check it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Governmental_leading_high_school — Preceding unsigned comment added by ROSE1820 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@ROSE1820: I see you submitted the draft for review today. Please be patient, as Wikipedia doesnt operate on deadlines. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@ROSE1820: Drafts submitted for review are reviewed out of order, so the process could take about 3 days to 3 months. You can improve the article during this time. Le Panini ^Talk 17:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

And indeed, ROSE1820, I suggest you read notability and citing sources. Articles without citation to reliable sources independent of the subject are extremely unlikely to be accepted. Sources in Farsi are acceptable if there aren't English ones; as long as they are reliable sources. Note that just because an article is accepted in another edition of Wikipedia does not mean it will automatically be accepted in English Wikipedia, as each edition has its own rules and policies. --ColinFine (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

it is title mistranslated and add news from google.Baratiiman (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Elize Cawood 1952 - 2020

There is an incorrect photo on the page that the family would like removed and replaced 196.250.128.184 (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to The Teahouse, I have removed the photo not because the family want it removed, but because it is a VERY poor quality illustration. Theroadislong (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Barossa Valley, South Australia

I'm new and not likely to be a regular editor. WOuld you please edit the Barossa Valley page for me. In part it reads, QUOTE The Barossa Valley is a rich source of some of the oldest Shiraz vines in the world. Shiraz vines planted as early as 1847 by Johann Frederick August Fiedler on Lot 1, Hundred of Moorooroo (the township of Tanunda) are still in commercial production today by Turkey Flat Vineyards.[16]

Please edit to include the correction as outlined in this extract from The Weekend Australian.

Bethany Road, 'Ancestor' vineyard, Turkey Flat winery QUOTE The vines were part of an experimental vineyard of more than 70 varieties planted by Johann Fiedler in 1847 in order to see which ones would prove most suitable in this strange new land, Fiedler was the son in law of Pastor Kavel, leader of a congregation of Silesian Lutherans escaping persecution in their native Prussia whose influence is still so strongly felt in the Barossa [Valley] today.... and the vines he planted are most likely second only to the vines planted by Christian Auricht at nearby Langmell in 1843 as the oldest viable shiraz vineyards still in production … “These old vineyards, the oldest still productive vineyards on the planet, pre-dating the destruction by phyloxera of European vineyards and subsequently still on their own roots, ….” [Emphasis added] UNQUOTE Source: The Weekend Australian Magazine, 14-15 November 2020, p24

Thank you for your help Ralph Schwer Ralph Schwer (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Ralph Schwer, you're going to want to discuss this over at Talk:Barossa Valley. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Book

Um... So, I told some people on other websites about my book here before it was deleted. I moved my book to another website yesterday, and I'm wondering if I could post the link to it for a short while so people know that it is not available here anymore? Xanderman016 (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

No, per same answer on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Darn... I told some people to find it here before this happened. I will find some way to do it! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanderman016 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Rollback?

Hi, I noticed that we have a tool named Twinkle to let autoconfirmed users rollback other's edits. But we have a right named rollbacker to let you rollback other's edits. So if I'm not a rollbacker but I uses Twinkle to rollback other's edits, will I get blocked?

  Larryzhao|Talk|Contribs 16:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. Twinkle is a tool to allow all autoconfirmed users to perform counter-vandalism and other actions without needing rollbacker permissions, which fewer users have. Having rollback rights allows you to use other tools such as Huggle. Using Twinkle without rollback rights is fine though; I am pretty sure rollbacker is just a technical user right that gives you the rollback tool, while tools like Twinkle emulate rollback without actually needing the user right. If you have a measurable track record of counter-vandalism edits, then you can request the rollback user right at Requests for permissions/rollback if you wish to do so. Happy editing! PlanetJuice ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Larryzhao123, whoops! PlanetJuice ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

User:PlanetJuice Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryzhao123 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

J. A. Rahim

I am the son of J. A. Rahim and would like to replace the existing article on my father. That article is completely fanciful. Almost nothing of what it says is true and the few facts that are correct are put at the wrong times. I have no idea where this article comes from, but any editing would be a complete rewrite. Please let me know how I can provide a factually correct replacement. Thank you. ALKASSANDER (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

ALKASSANDER Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources state about the subject. If the article about your father does not summarize the reliable sources accurately, we would like to know about it, and you are welcome to make a formal edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page detailing any errors and any independent reliable sources to support the changes you feel are needed. As his son, you should not edit the article about your father directly due to the conflict of interest. Please understand that we cannot accept content based on personal knowledge, no matter how correct it might be; for verification purposes all content must be in a published, independent reliable source. If the sources currently in the article are summarized accurately, but those sources are incorrect, you will need to speak with the sources directly to issue corrections or retractions. 331dot (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Article on 486958 Arrokoth

I noticed a typo but do not have expertise to edit. The article states that the perihelion of Arrokoth is 43.7 AU, but, in a later sentence it states that New Horizons spacecraft reached it at 43.28 AU. In other words, New Horizons found it CLOSER than perihelion. 75.140.194.170 (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing it out. It appeared to be a typo in our article 486958 Arrokoth: the sources says 42.7212447. I have corrected the error. Generally, the article's talk page (in this case Talk:486958 Arrokoth is a better place for discussing improvements to a particular article. --ColinFine (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Professional Audio - Is creating a page on a Company considered wrong per se?

Hello Community,

I’m Italian and I’m a huge fan of the professional audio world. Together with some geek friends of mine I noticed that there are a few pages missing on Wikipedia that would be interesting for pro audio students and all those who share this passion. These include both technical contents, historical references, special applications and some Italian Companies’ information. These companies are not as well-known as multinationals and famous brands and are important mainly for the niche industry in which they are worldwide main players, for the technological innovations achieved in their history, important collaborations etc. Some existing articles should include references to the new pages we have in mind. So, as far as the new articles have independent notable sources and existing articles cross-references, it shouldn’t be a problem to be able to submit the new articles for approval and have them approved - once possible, of course. I’m wondering whether some of this potential work could be wasted since some of the companies to be involved are small local businesses that became important worldwide in this niche; I don’t want the articles to seem promotional in any way. We just would like to give pro audio students and wannabe professionals some more free and independent information filling a gap that we noticed here on Wikipedia. Thank you for letting me know how likely it is to have issues in this mission!

Best regards fp FedericoPupeschi (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)  FedericoPupeschi (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello FedericoPupeschi. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Your first article. What is most important is the quality of the reliable, independent sources that you discover which describe a company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, FedericoPupeschi, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not quite sure what you're asking. It's not a question of whether the sources are "notable": it's whether they are reliable|, whether they are independent of the subject, and whether they have significant coverage of the subject. All these questions can be clear-cut in some cases, but very much a judgment call in others. If all the sources are local press, that probably does not meet the "reliable" criterion; but sources in respected trade journals can be (but watch out for independence: if they are based on interviews or press releases they are not independent). But one thing to beware of is that giving "pro audio students and wannabe professionalas" more information may not be consonant with Wikipedia's purposes: see NOT. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.. A certain amount of information from the subject is acceptable, but large amounts of technical detail, or exhaustive lists of products, may not be. Does this help? In any case, please read WP:NCORP if you haven't already. --ColinFine (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

FedericoPupeschi, There are a couple of articles that go over the exact definition of what's considered notable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Notability is the general list of what makes something notable; If the companies meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), however, it could be included. If you need additional help, you can use the WP:Article Wizard or request some guidance or eyes at a specific Wikiproject (an area that covers specific parts of Wikipedia related to one topic, such a WP:WPVG. Hope this helps, and others might cover stuff I forgot to mention. Le Panini ^Talk 21:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Referencing PDFs

I'd like to source something to a PDF, but it's not on the web – how do I source the PDF itself? (Sorry if this is confusing, I can provide an example if needed.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Greetings Skarmory, welcome to the Teahouse. The fact that a document is a PDF is irrelevant, what matters is that it is a wp:reliable source such as a paper, journal article, newspaper article, etc. If that is the case you can still use it as a reference. Use the Citation tool in the editor. If you use the original editor there should be a "Cite" link at the far right of the top row of the widgets. Click on that and then click on the "Template" link that shows up as the first link in the second row and choose the appropriate kind of reference. But if it is just a PDF that someone wrote but hasn't been published in a reliable source then you shouldn't use it. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Skarmory: Is it a PDF of a work that is either 1) published or 2) accessible to the general public or at least to credentialed researchers, such as unpublished letters of a former United States President that would be available to credentialed researchers who make an in-person visit to the Presidential Library for that former President? If so, you can cite it as you would a paper copy of the same material. If it's an unpublished work that is NOT accessible, such as internal company correspondence, or something given to you privately, then it's probably not going to be useful as a source unless a copy can be made available to everyone. Without the ability to access it, the PDF's contents or in some cases the PDF's existence isn't open to verification.

Here's an example: You can cite most US-university Ph.D. dissertations in the last 50+ years because they are available for inspection from the granting institution and/or available for purchase through companies that specialize in such things. However, you probably cannot cite the unpublished schoolwork done by that same graduate student unless it were available through the university's library or another archive, nor could you cite the unpublished work he did for his employer after graduation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses - it's in a reliable source, I'm asking about how to reference the PDF itself, as it's not on the web, but you can download it from the website. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Skarmory. Please provide the link to the website and provide some identifying details re: the source available there as a PDF (my suspicion is that if you can download it through the website, then it does have an accessible URL, which you may not know the trick to learning. Sorry of that sounds presumptuous, but I've seen that exact issue play out before--where learning the URL was a tricky matter; always willing to eat my hat if wrong). Anyway, in my experience, a great deal of the time, a better, tailored answer can be provided once the specifics are provided. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Question (I know, I know, but I still need help)

How do I submit my draft (Queen Iduna) to be created? Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't want ugliness to be submitted yet, though. Is there was way to submit one and not the other? Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ex-Borg Seven of Nine: Are you referring to User:Ex-Borg_Seven_of_Nine/Sandbox? It is not ready, you have not provided any citations to reliable sources. See WP:REFB for more on this, or follow the guidance at WP:YFA for finding and citing sources. When you are ready for review, put this on your draft: {{subst:submit}} RudolfRed (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ex-Borg Seven of Nine: I guess your second question is based on the fact that you have written about two topics on the same page, User:Ex-Borg Seven of Nine/Sandbox? You can't submit one part of a page and not the rest, so you would have to create a new draft page for Queen Iduna (at Draft:Queen Iduna for instance), and submit that. I'm afraid I agree with RudolfRed that the single line and infobox about the character that's currently in the sandbox would not be an acceptable article, so you would need to add more information, based on reliable secondary sources that talk about the character – and also add the sources. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 21:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Welp, so long, ugliness. I got a message a while back saying g that it was pointless to make it, (see my talk page) but I didn't really want to delete it, it being my only article draft. But I'll delete it now. Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ex-Borg Seven of Nine. Don't worry about asking more questions: that's what this page is here for (as long as they're about contributing to Wikipedia, which yours are). In addition to what the other replies have said, I'd like to explain that if creating an article is like building a house, then images and infoboxes are like painting the windows: there's not a lot of point in doing it before you've given the house foundations, because the house may very well fall down. The foundations for a Wikipedia article are the sources: reliable published sources, mostly completely independent of the subject, and which talk about the subject at some length. If you write one single word of the article before finding the sources, you may very well be wasting your time, for two reasons. First, if you cannot find suitable sources, then the subject is not notable and the article will never be accepted. Secondly, because if the things you happen to write aren't backed up by any sources, they'll probably get removed from the article anyway. --ColinFine (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@ColinFine: thanks, I think. It's just kinda tricky to get citations because my parents blocked my browser on my tablet. (To use Wikipedia I have to go into Overdrive and tap and hold any of the words on the page and hit the "Wikipedia" button. It's one of the reasons I read so many random articles, most of which are disambiguation pages.) Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ex-Borg Seven of Nine: Whether you follow your parents rules or not is up to you (I suggest you do), but if you can't find sources then creating articles is not a task you will be able to do. Consider finding other Wikipedia tasks to work on instead, or wait until the rules are lifted on your internet use. RudolfRed (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

No, I mean they literally put parental controls on my tablet. I can't even check the weather anymore, I'm pretty much holding an e-reader. Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Unexpected Behavior of Reference with External Link

I'm cleaning up the page Uniform_Resource_Identifier Some of the references have links that go directly to external sites within the article which isn't the standard. I'm changing them to be standard inline citations with links in the reference section. But working on this in my Sandbos, I'm getting results that I don't understand. In the History>Refinement section I changed a reference to an external site to an appropriate reference. But for some reason the text which as far as I can tell has no link on it still ends up looking and acting like a link. The new code in my sandbox is:

=== Refinement === In December 1994, IETF RFC 1738 formally defined relative and absolute URLs, refined the general URL syntax, defined how to resolve relative URLs to absolute form, and better enumerated the URL schemes then in use.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Berners-Lee |first1=Tim |title=Request for Comments: 1738: Uniform Resource Locators (URL) |url=https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1738 |website=tools.ietf.org/html |access-date=6 December 2020 |date=December 1994}}</ref>

but for some reason the "RFC 1738" text still shows up as a link. In fact I noticed it even seems to be a link here in the text of my question which also isn't formatted as a link! Is there some magic around using the text RFC? See the Refinement section in my Sandbox to see the behavior. I can't figure out why this is happening, is it a bug or is it something wrong with the code I should do differently? --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC) MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@MadScientistX11: This is confusing, for sure. RFC is one of the Wikipedia magic links and automatcially produces a link. See Help:Magic_links#RFC, for more info. RudolfRed (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: So it is magic! Seriously, thanks, I'm looking at that article and I'm sure there must be a way to use the text without getting a link. Cheers, --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@MadScientistX11: See the example at the end of a page. I think that this will work: "RFC <nowiki /> 1738" RudolfRed (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: That did it! Thanks. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Can an item added to my (user) talk page be deleted?

Hi. When I first joined, a comment was added to my talk page, making unfounded accusations about my first page edits. I would like to remove it from my talk page, not because I feel like I did anything wrong, but because it is the first commentary on my talk page, and I feel like it may negatively impact my reputation in the community.

I have been working hard to contribute and don't wish to see this on my page anymore. It was written without giving consideration to the fact that I was new, and the writer was assuming I was editing in bad faith. Apologies for the length of my post, I just want to be clear as to why I wish to have it removed. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer!Mollifiednow (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Mollifiednow (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mollifiednow. But for a short list of special cases, you can remove anything from your own talk page – and doing so is taken as an acknowledgment of having read the item. See WP:REMOVED. After looking at the item in question (assuming it's the thread immediately following the welcome message) go right ahead. However, have you considered archiving older items on your talk page instead? Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the info! I appreciate your help. I'll go read how to remove. One question, why would I archive? Is there some benefit to archiving rather than removing? Mollifiednow (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Oh! I see why you suggested archive, just read about it... I appreciate you taking the time to help:-) Mollifiednow (talk)

Mollifiednow: I recommend archiving. if you delete it, it will still be visible to anyone who looks at the history of your talk page. By deleting rather than archiving, you make it slightly harder for such a person to find it; but you also raise the suspicion in them that you thought you had something to hide. (The first ever item on my talk page was an admin making an unwarranted accusation. Now, 13 years on, I am very glad I chose to archive it rather than delete it.) Maproom (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Rats =-O I tried to follow instructions on how to archive, but wasn't getting anywhere. I don't know if it's because I use an Amazon firepad, (My laptop needs repairs) but I gave up and just deleted it. I guess it's too late for me to change what I did. :-( Thanks for taking the time to try to help me. I do appreciate it. Mollifiednow (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Can You Verify This Article?

Hello, would someone help me with this article? Can you verify If this article has verifiable sources? I created it on my sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cookiedough23/sandbox

Thank You Cookiedough23 (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Cookiedough23, I have three simple pieces of advice. Don't capitalise ordinary English phrases, such as "makeup artist". Don't use the word "passionate", it will trigger any reviewer's bullshit detector. You will need reliable independent published sources to establish that the subject is notable: reports of interviews with the subject don't count as independent. Maproom (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I will update the draft if I find any better sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookiedough23 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Logan Thirtyacre

{{subst:admin help}}
The page Logan Thirtyacre is currently blocked from creation so there is currently no way to redirect it to SuperMarioLogan without assistance from an administrator. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Pinging protecting admin Ohnoitsjamie. SuperMarioLogan was unprotected to have the article moved there from draft by ToBeFree — IVORK _Talk 02:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It can be unprotected if the article survives the AfD nomination. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Change username

Hi! Sorry, but I am just trying to figure out how to change my username is all  Rachelmarie24 (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rachelmarie24. You can find out more about username changes at Wikipedia:Changing username. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Footnote question

I have been doing a bit of work on the Eureka Flag article and I have a question. You will see that footnote 35 has been used number of times. But how do you deal with a situation such as in footnote 101 where the reference is nested within another reference? Robbiegibbons (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Robbiegibbons. Does footnote #35 even satisfy WP:PUBLISHED (WP:PUBLISH)? If the material cited in both footnotes is essentially the same, then you probably can just use footnote 101. I don't think you can really cite what someone might have said during a talk at some academic conference (unless there's some "published" record of it available somewhere), but you can perhaps cite any published materials that the talk was based upon if that can be done in accordance with WP:RS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

como pasar videos para yuotube

 OSONEGROOSOPANDAOSOELGEY (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

OSONEGROOSOPANDAOSOELGEY, este es un foro sobre wikipedia, no sobre youtube. Para descargar un video a YouTube, haga clic en el ícono de descarga y envíe el video que desea enviar. (for other editors, he's asking on how to upload vids to youtube). GeraldWL 07:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello OSONEGROOSOPANDAOSOELGEY. This is the English Wikipedia. Perhaps you can find some help at the Spanish Wikipedia. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a website to learn about uploading YouTube videos. This is not a how to website. Check out YouTube itself for that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

reopening a rfc

Hello! I intend on reopening a rfc with the permission of the original discussion's author - do I start it directly below the original posts, or create an entirely new section? Thank you! Bettydaisies (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bettydaisies. You can find out more about RfCs in WP:RFC, but generally it's not proper for an editor to re-open an already closed RFC; if might be possible to challenge the close as explained in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, but you can't really just re-open the discussion just because you want it to continue. However, it seems to be possible "re-start" an RfC that hasn't been officially closed as explained in WP:RFC#Restarting an RfC. Sometimes an RfC is started but never ends up (for various reasons) resolving anything and just whithers and dies on the vine so to speak; eventually a bot will show up and remove the RfC template and the discussion may then even be archived after a certain amount of time has past. So, perhaps if you could provide a link to the actual talk page where the RfC in question can be found, another Teahouse host can give asses what happened and provide you with some more specific advice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Offensive Content

Can someone please review the first line of this article as it is offensive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multinational_festivals_and_holidays 82.26.219.36 (talk) 08:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Reverted. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 08:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Point deduction for football league table

Hi, how do you add in point deductions for teams in football league table? Editing Essex Senior League table for 2020-21 but can’t figure out how to add a 6pt deduction for southend manor Platypus88 (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Greetings Platypus88. Sadly, I do not know how to do that either. But unless someone else answers here, you might want to try over at the Wikiproject Football. (btw, consider leaving an edit summary in the future so other Wikipedians can see what you changed more easily!) --LordPeterII (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Need a guide

I need a guide/book for learning the wikitext/wiki-markup language (by mediawiki). Are there any freely available books or websites for learning the complete wikitext/wiki-markup language? Huzaifa abedeen (talk) 09:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Huzaifa abedeen, Help:Cheatsheet has most of the basic markup. Beyond that, most Wikipedia editors just learn through experience or through documentation at specific help pages. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for review

Would someone, or even several someones, be available to review the following page. It is my first and seems to be drawing some conflicting opinions. Thanks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playcrafting Naixa (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Naixa, the page is queued in the new pages feed, and will receive a review from a new page patroller in the next few weeks. There's also some chance it might be nominated for deletion before then, given it's already had a speedy deletion attempt and a draftification which you reverted. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 10:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Article posting

How to post articles online RIPU D SINGH (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

RIPU D SINGH Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Successfully creating a new article is the absolute hardest thing to do here on Wikipedia. It takes much time, effort, and practice. Many new users fail in their first attempts and get frustrated and upset, I don't want to see that happen to you. For that reason, I would suggest that 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. If you gain experience first, you will greatly increase your chances of succeeding at writing a new article. It's also a good idea for you to use the new user tutorial.

However, if you still want to attempt to create a new article, you should first read Your First Article and then use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for someone else to look at before formally placing it in the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

What do I do with an article idea

I think there is an article that should be added to Wikipedia I don't know what to do, should I propose it in some way? Or should I just start one? FatSheeep (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, FatSheeep. You could add the proposed article to one of the lists at Wikipedia:Requested articles, but given the size of the backlog there, it could well be decades before anyone picks up on your suggestion. The alternative is to write it yourself and submit it for review, as explained at Help:Your first article. Either way, it's a good idea to check whether the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines first, because if it doesn't then the article won't be accepted. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Asteroid Mining Corporation

Hello there, my name's Ian Winiarski, and I'd like to talk to you about my draft article that I have written that you have repeatedly rejected. I have written an article draft regarding the Asteroid Mining Corporation, however you have stated that it is not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, I don't know if you'll change you mind on this, but I will still point out the flaws in your argument nonetheless. My first example is another company focused upon space resource extraction, the Shackleton Energy Company. In this Wikipedia which was in fact approved that regards a company focused on extracting resources from space, there are thirteen sources, many of which barely or don't at all mention the Shackleton Energy Company. My draft article regarding the Asteroid Mining Corporation, which you have rejected twice, has seventeen sources, and likely more to come, all of which are focused upon the subject of the Asteroid Mining Corporation, and don't just have passing mentions of the Asteroid Corporation. Another example that I will bring up is Deep Space Industries, which is in fact another example of a space resources company. Coincidently, the Wikipedia article regarding Deep Space Industries also only has thirteen sources, many of which barely or don't at all mention the company. Given the evidence that I provided, it is clear that the article draft I have written regarding the Asteroid Mining Corporation does in fact deserve approval. It has seventeen sources and many more to come that are specifically focused upon the Asteroid Mining Corporation, given the other two examples I have provided, them being Deep Space Industries and the Shackleton Energy Company, it is clear that the article I have written regarding the Asteroid Mining Corporation deserves approval. However regardless of what I believe to be a large mistake, I thank you for your input on the article draft that I have written. All input is much appreciated, and serves for the betterment of the article draft regarding the Asteroid Mining Corporation that I have written, and will play a key role in providing readers with a better article when this article is eventually approved, whenever that may occur. The link for my article draft regarding the Asteroid Mining Corporation and the links for Deep Space Industries and the Shackleton Energy Company are below. I hope you take what I have stated here into some consideration, and even if you don't, I thank you for reading this.

- Ian Winiarski

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Industries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shackleton_Energy_Company --— Preceding unsigned comment added by IanWiniarski (talk • contribs) 2020-12-06T18:33:47 (UTC)

Hello, IanWiniarski. I'm afraid I'm not interested in ploughing through a wall of text to see if there is merit in what you say: please use paragraphs. I will, however, point you to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact that you may have found a couple of the thousands and thousands of substandard articles has no bearing on whether a new one will be accepted or not. Feel free to improve the existing articles, or nominate them for deletion if their subjects are not notable. --ColinFine (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Asteroid Mining Corporation was Rejected (stronger than Declined) and then resubmitted by an editor other than the one who created the draft, with only minor changes in the interim. I agree with the Rejection. Massive amounts of text in the draft are there to justify the concept of asteroid mining. These are not relevant to AMC. The first ref, used 16 times, is by AMC. Wikipedia only cares (and allows) content written by others about a company, not what the company says about itself. Ref quantity is meaningless, and in fact Wikipedia dissuades over-referencing. In my opinion, the only chance for this draft is to blank everything and start fresh. David notMD (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Articles contain only what has been, not what is planned. David notMD (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Ian. What we are looking for when we review a draft is that the content be primarily verified by citation to reliable, secondary and entirely independent sources, directly supporting the information written, and that by the use of those types of sources, if they treat the topic in substantive detail, a demonstration is provided of the topic's notability.

Ideally, then, a good draft would be what would present if someone with no familiarity with Asteroid Mining Corporation, and couldn't care less about promoting it, decided to write only what the could learn by looking at those types of independent sources – possibly, just possibly filling in minor gaps, for utterly straightforward details that present no analysis, opinions, or synthesis, with primary sources.

That is not at all how the draft presents. Let's take a look at the 17 current sources cited. Respectively, in order of their use:

1. Own website - non-independent source ("NIS"); useless for demonstrating any notability, and as primary source has limited use;
2. Does not mention the draft topic at all ("DNMTDTAA");
3. Youtube video by CEO of company and NIS;
4. NASA source – DNMTDTAA;
5. Physics World – a brief mention, i.e., non-substantive treatment ("NST"), followed by a quote from CEO, i.e., NIS;
6. CGTN – seemingly fair source; appears at first blush independent; real news organization; has some substantive content that isn't, on its face, regurgitated press release material
7. NewSpace Index – NST, just a name drop, seemingly misused in draft to support fact not appearing in source (fails verification);
8. Listing site of related companies – regurgitates companies' own material – useless NIS;
9. Repeat of source 7;
10. "Error 521"; "Web server is down";
11. Company's own Twitter Tweat – useless NIS; see also WP:TWITTER;
12. Own Facebook (currently says "The link you followed may be broken"); – useless NIS;
13. Tech Times – seemingly fair source; appears at first blush independent; has some seemingly usable content;
14. Academic paper – DNMTDTAA;
15. Space.com article – DNMTDTAA;
16. Digital Trends article – seemingly fair source; appears at first blush independent; has some seemingly usable content;
17. Crunchbase; mere listing, NIS; NST.

Okay, so as you see, there are three sources above that may be useful for a decent write up. They are buried among the others—for content that mostly should not be included. If, with great discipline, you were to pretend to be the type of independent writer I spoke of above, and started essentially from scratch, citing just these three sources and others like it, for a completely neutral write-up of only what they verify, the draft might have a decent chance of acceptance. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

IanWiniarski, to summarise what Fuhghettaboutit says: You've got three (probably) good sources there. If you want your draft to get through review, make sure the overworked reviewer looks at them. Don't hide them in a pile of garbage. Maproom (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

As the reviewer, I'd also just like to point out that this is the third version of this page that has existed within the past week or so. Versions 1 and 2 were speedily deleted around several days ago, and this third version is pretty much a carbon copy of the previous versions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft deleted and submitting editor blocked. David notMD (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit war

I recently came across cases of disruptive editing on several historical articles. The user makes incorrect ideological edits, using sources already used or adds questionable sources for these purposes. He doesn't discuss his edits after reverting, but simply does them again.

I read the recommendations of Wikipedia, but I still didn't understand what I supposed to do. I would like to know the position of experienced participants on this matter. Please, explain what I have to do in such situations. Also, rate his and my actions and make a revision (if needed).

Revision histories:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_border_conflicts&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol&action=history KiL92 (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

You Canhthuy9 and Kil92 are in or on the verge of having edit war on three articles, which can lead to being temporarily blocked. Kil92 recommended going to the Talk pages of the articles in question to start discussions on how to resolve the disputes, including fact that one of the sources you cite is being described as unreliable. That is the correct follow-up. David notMD (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Yes, I suggested moving on to the discussion. I want to know what to do if Canhthuy9 continues his/her activity without consensus. Then his/her edits can be regarded as vandalism? KiL92 (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Edits in good faith are not considered vandalism, but there are other ways to ask for help with a disruptive editor. David notMD (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

What ways? Please clarify. KiL92 (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Canhthuy9 and Kil92 Wikipedia:Edit warring details what is and what is not edit warring, and how to register a problem with Administrators. Be aware that filing a complaint can boomerang back to the person filing. Strongly recommend trying to resolve on Talk pages of articles first. If it does go to Administrators, they want to see efforts were first made to resolve the problem. David notMD (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia 1.0 Server

I've tried using my wikiproject's table containing lists based on importance and quality, and over the last few days I've been completely unable to get the lists of articles to load or anything else for that matter. Is the server down or something? Am I doing something wrong on my end? I'm currently working on the Wikiproject Podcasting. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: I assume you mean that. I investigated, and it seems like that webserver is down. However, That tool is not provided by the Wikimedia Foundation which hosts Wikipedia, so I assume we cannot help you. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Contact Editor who removed my article

Eddie891 removed my article. How can I contact him to find out why and get him to reinstate it? GeorgeSanders1008 (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@GeorgeSanders1008: You can leave that user a message at User talk:Eddie891 RudolfRed (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi GeorgeSanders1008. The reason why are explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Mt. Shasta. I cannot speak for Eddie891, but the consensus at the discussion was clearly that the topic did not meet our notability requirements, and so the topic did not appear to warrant a stand-alone encyclopedia article. In my experience, the only likely grounds on which a request for reinstatement might be successful, if at all, is if you can and do point to a variety of reliable, secondary and independent sources, which treat the topic in substantive detail, that are in addition to the sources used in support of the prior version of the deleted article, and assure the requestee that if the content is userfied, you will be adding those sources to the content before attempting to return it to the article mainspace. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

GeorgeSanders1008, I am an editor who has visited the Mount Shasta region many times, and have hiked extensively on its slopes. I made it to the summit by the West Face Gully route in 2007 at age 55, a grueling and gratifying experience. I am in complete agreement with the deletion of this article, because this person is not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd pretty much agree with Fuhghettaboutit above. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello

How to block an ip address ? EOLE79 (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Ask a admin on their talk page and give a reason. TigerScientist (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@EOLE79: Only administrators can impose blocks. See WP:BLOCKREQUESTS for how to request one. If it is just one particular page that the IP user is vandalizing, you can request page protection at WP:RFPP RudolfRed (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

TigerScientist / RudolfRed Thx :)

I'am an new ! EOLE79 (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

1918 Influenza Pandemic edit/additional information

Hi. I wanted to edit/add additional information on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu?action=edit to add Disproportionate mortality males vs female. How do I get access to add my information? Lfay002 (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Make sure you cite your new info and it is reliable. TigerScientist (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Lfay002: The page is semiprotected, but your account should be able to edit it. What problems are you having? RudolfRed (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Lfay002. Since you know how to edit the article, given the edit link you posted in your question (and even though the article is semi-protected, that should have no affect on you since your account is autoconfirmed), can you describe exactly what issue you're having when you try to add this information? Is your intent maybe to add it into a template on the page? Or, possibly, to add an image containing a graph? Something else? Please advise.

P.S. I second the sentiment above by TigerScientist. Please make sure, when you work on adding this information, in whatever form, that you are citing (using inline citations) to reliable sources that directly verify your additions (without copying the wording used). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

backlink

how can i put back links in wikipedia Versatileabacus (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Versatileabacus: Welcome to Wikipedia. You can link to another Wikipedia page with double brackets like this: [[Math]] to link to Math article for example. RudolfRed (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

If you are in visual editor, there is a linking symbol and select a word and it will give some articles to select from TigerScientist (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Student's Sandbox Content Deleted

Hello, I am writing to see if I can get some additional information on my student's (User:KS2812) sandbox content which was deleted because of copyright concerns. There seems to be a misunderstanding as the student was simply updating material from the existing Philosophy of Biology article and was doing that work in his sandbox before moving it over to mainspace. The copyright issue referenced is actually an error because the website mentioned actually copied the article text from Wikipedia (not the other way around). We are trying to recover the lost material from KS2812's sandbox and cannot seem to locate it. Could you please advise? Thank you in advance for your assistance. Amyc29 (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Amyc29 (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Amyc29: You can ask at WP:REFUND for the page to be undeleted so the user may continue to work to improve it. If the material in the sandbox was copied from a Wikipedia page, then WP:CWW rules must be followed. That is, the user must say that they copied the page from the Wikipedia article. RudolfRed (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks like User:KS2812/sandbox was deleted by Jimfbleak as a copyright violation of [8]. You are probably better off speaking to that admin, although if it significantly copied from that website, it's unlikely it'll be restored, as we cannot store copyrighted material anywhere on Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Amyc29, after verifying that the linked webpage does indeed appear to be a copy of Wikipedia, I've restored the sandbox, after making a note of the attribution. Just for information's sake, RudolfRed is exactly correct: even for copying content within Wikipedia, there are attribution requirements that have to be followed; as they say, WP:CWW has the details. I've gone ahead and already made an edit summary for the sandbox that indicates this attribution. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: I added {{Backwards copy}} to Talk:Philosophy of biology to document the finding. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 18:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Youtube music video

I was trying to edit a page in Summer Of 69' and I wanted to add a music video link from youtube. But for some reason, a bot named the XLinkBot reverted my edit. I've seen wikipedia editors doing the same, and yet their music video link doesn't get removed from the wikipedia page. Is there anything I can do to prevent the music video link I added to the page from getting reverted? KitsunePV (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@KitsunePV: It depends on what you are linking to. If it is a copyright violation, then it is not allowed. See WP:YOUTUBE RudolfRed (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Webtrees

Can this script be setup to track seed breeding? Thanks in Advanced 98.185.199.152 (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused what you're asking about. The Teahouse, I'll add as well, is for asking questions about how to edit Wikipedia. Le Panini ^Talk 14:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I assume this is about Webtrees (which article I have just tagged as having no reliable independent sources and being probably not notable). If the answer to your question isn't in that article, then the only place on Wikipedia where it would be appropriate to ask is at the Computing section of the Reference Desk. --ColinFine (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

How to report a malicious outlink?

I tried to read a referenced source in Rent control in New York but got redirected to a phishing site. After some more attempts and observations it seems that housingnyc.com has been taken over to redirect to a number of potentially malicious redirect chains. I have marked in all references in that article to the domain as usurped, but I am worried about other pages, and the problem of bad reference urls being taken over in general. Is there a place, maybe a committee or a collective page, where I can report usurped urls and domains? Can we somehow mark a domain as usurped throughout Wikipedia? EdLeMa (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@EdLeMa:, you can use WT:SBL to suggest additions to the Spam Blacklist. The instructions are at the top of that page and in the yellow box under "proposed additions". I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@EdLeMa: WP:URLREQ is the place to report a usurped URL so a bot will fix the existing usage of it. If you can find a new site that the content has been moved to, give that info; otherwise, it will add the Wayback archives to the cites and mark them with |url-status=unfit.

I'll note in this case, the new site appears to be https://rentguidelinesboard.cityofnewyork.us , but it has probably been completely re-organized. Good project for someone to update the article and re-cite. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Please transclude AfD for me.

Hello, I am a newer editor and cannot transclude this AfD into the log. Please move it into the log for me, thanks. RanDom 404 (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@RanDom 404: done. I have also altered Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compsosaurus to include all the stuff. See WP:AFDHOWTO step 2 again. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

i´m sorry that i klene the word

 84.219.207.83 (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Your edit was already reverted [[9]], but please be careful that you preview your edits before saving. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Error in Composer's birthplace

BIRTH PLACE OF A COMPOSER your article on THIAGARAJA,THE COMPOSER IN tAMILNADU,iNDIA SAYS HE WASBORN AND LIVED IN THIRUVARUR THIS IS NOT CORRECT HE LIVED IN THIRUVAIARU HOPE YOU CORRECT THE ERROR SINCERELY G.SOUNDARARAJAN PH.D 2600:1700:3A20:7200:29A8:7A18:51EE:5FBD (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

(Please dont write in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. Its considered yelling) Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: I have taken a look and the post above appears correct. However, fixing the article is not as straightforward as it might seem at first blush, because after looking at some of the sources, it appears the confusion also taints some of them. (I will post to the talk page, and possibly at an appropriate Wikiproject)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Can i have someone with extended autoconfirm add this?

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

I noticed Element is missing from the list. I don't have edit permissions.

Element (software)

type; instant messenger

focus; Live chat and voice for groups Annemaricole (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Annemaricole. If you click the padlock symbol at the top of the List of social networking services page, it will take you to the instructions at Wikipedia:Protection policy#extended. If you follow those (the final paragraph in particular), you can make a request on the article's talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Best suggestions to follow

What should be suggestion for new editors, how can they add value and increase their editing skills? How can we create new pages for new projects? Alisha Azeem (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Alisha Azeem Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating new article(not mere "pages") is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, so it's a good idea to start smaller by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia works and what is expected of article content. A good way to start is to start small with minor edits like fixing spelling, and working your way up to more substantive edits and finally article creation. If you need help finding areas to work on, you may visit the Community Portal where there is a list. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

How can we see article that solely needs spell checks?  Alisha Azeem (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

As I said, the Community Portal has categories of suggested edits. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

BCE Premium TV draft

Please help me edit and complete this article about "BCE Premium TV": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BCE_Premium_TV Bcesoccerus (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Declined because the article is extremely short, and because the three references confirm BCE exists, but do not have any lengthy content about it. David notMD (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Protecting my user page

How do I protect my user page from vandalism using twinkle? KitsunePV (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

KitsunePV Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You cannot use Twinkle to protect any page because you do not have admin rights. There does not appear to be a vandalism problem on your user page; page protection is not done preemptively. 331dot (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@KitsunePV: Why do you think someone would vandalize your user page? Nobody but you has edited it, with the exception of a bot that (correctly) removed an invalid protection template. I've been here 13 years and have had my user page vandalized twice, just this year, possibly by the same now-blocked person. Both were reverted by someone else before I even saw them. Focus on positive contributions to the encyclopedia, and you should avoid any such drama. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Error

Hi, I have a problem today, that when I want to go to anybody's contrib page, it says

[X86uswpAAMMAAyLZVygAAAAL] 2020-12-07 22:37:39: Fatal exception of type "Error"

then I cannot see them's contrib. Anybody know how to fix that? Thank you very much.  Larryzhao|Talk|Contribs 22:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Larryzhao123 and GeometryDashFan12, it seems you are both encountering the same error. I'd suggest raising this at WP:VPT, and describing what's happening (and what operating system you're on, etc.) in as much detail as you can. Hopefully someone there will be able to figure out what's going on. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb Contrib is good now. But if I go to my pref page it says database locked, its in view-only. Do you have the same problem? Larryzhao|Talk|Contribs 22:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Larryzhao123 and GeometryDashFan12: I'd generally wait an hour or four before reporting such problems. They're usually transient and already being worked on by systems people by the time you see or report them. Have a cup of tea, take a walk, or build a snowman, as the case may be. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

What's an internal error?

Sometimes I go to my contributions page and it says [X86t5gpAAD8AAHYXkdQAAABX] 2020-12-07 22:34:14: Fatal exception of type "Error". Why!? a gd fan (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

See below since another person seems to have had the same issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Work and Publisher

For the cite web template, are these two parameters the same thing, or is there a difference between them? For example, if I found a source published by, say, Bleacher Report, is there a difference to use one or the other? If there is, what is it? RolledOut34 // (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The two are not synonymous. The work is the website that has the source, the publisher is the entity that runs the website. For example, using Ars Technica as an example, the work would be Ars Technica and the publisher would be Condé Nast. This is explained in the template's documentation. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 00:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification! RolledOut34 // (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @RolledOut34: |work= is usually the only one that is necessary, unless it is ambiguous or not well-known, so if it goes away, we might have a chance of knowing how to find it (less of a problem now that most everything gets crawled by Internet Archive). For {{Cite news}}, it may be more important for offline sources. If, for example, it's a small-town newspaper named something generic (e.g., The Daily Report), you might want to also include |publisher= and |location= to properly identify it. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Need to know

Does anyone oversee highly-specialized topics to check changes such as these? They are the first two edits by a new user. Is there an easy way to find experts at WP to ask? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FradSer --LilHelpa (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC) LilHelpa (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi LilHelpa. Generally, most monitoring of articles is done by regular editors such as yourself. There are some editors who belong to groups like Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol, but they are just volunteers like you and me. There are also WP:BOTs set up to look for problematic edits like Wikipedia:Vandalism, and there are also Wikipedia:Edit filters in place to catch bad edits as well, but there are limits to what can be done automatically when there are over six million articles to watch. So, bascially it's editors like yourself you for whatever reason might notice an edit that seems questionable, and decide to review it.

So, if you come across any edits that you think are a "problem", you can WP:REVERT them if you think such a thing is needed; however, perhaps first you should consider if there's way to fix things. Sometimes editors who mean well and are trying to make an improvement to an article, just don't know how to properly format or cite the changes they've made. Wikipedia is WP:IMPERFECT so it generally more in tune with the spirit of collaborative editing to try and build on the work of others and make it better if possible than to completely discard it. This is not always possible for sure, especially when the content is a serious policy or guideline violation, but it's good to try to do so. Regardless of whatever you end up doing, you should try and leave a clearly worded Wikipedia:Edit summary explaining your edit so that others will at least why you felt the edit was needed.

Regarding the edits to Multivariate normal distribution that you're referring to above, that seems like a pretty technical article and the edits seem to be to some type of mathematical equation. I don't know anything about the subject matter; so, I can't really say whether they're an improvement. If you are familiar with this subject matter and think a mistake was made, you revert the edits if you like. Just leave an edit summary and possibly follow that up with a post at Talk:Multivariate normal distribution seeking further clarification. If you're not sure, then perhaps try asking for input from the WikiProjects listed at the top of the article's talk page. Start by assuming good faith that this new editor probably meant well (maybe they're a mathematician?), felt there was a problem, and tried to fix it. New editors like this often starting simply because they notice an error in something they're reading and then try fix. They may be wrong of course, but at least start with the assumption that they mean well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Sounds eminently reasonable. --LilHelpa (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Keyboard test

ghdfghdgfdhgh 148.75.127.9 (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC) ghgfhdghghghgfhdghghfgghdghgfhdghdgfhghdghdgfhgfh

It looks like your keyboard is still working. Congrats! Do you have a question for the Teahouse about editing Wikipedia? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

... and please use the Sandbox for such tests – that's what it's there for. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I added the section title to the gobbledygook that was strung onto the last question, with some minor passive aggressive snark. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

References / Press

Hello! The article I created for songwriter/producer Luke Niccoli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Luke_Niccoli) was denied because it did not included enough references about the individual, even though multiple were included citing his contributions to major pop songs/albums. Do the references need to be about him as an individual to count?

Thank you so much for the help!! Haleymegahouse (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Haleymegahouse, and welcome to the Teahouse! In order to count toward notability, references need to be "significant coverage". Editors vary in how they interpret that, but it needs to be more than just a passing mention, and coverage specifically about Niccoli would be best. You can read more of the relevant notability requirements at WP:NMUSIC. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Got it, thank you for your help!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haleymegahouse (talk • contribs) 02:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Real James Bond

I know this may be difficult for you to accept. My great uncle on his deathbed told me his story as a secret agent. It is utterly undeniable that he is the main inspiration to James Bond. One of my edits was removed I suppose for false information. I have a mountain of evidence and I cite the website that I created.

I am not certain that I have a question, except to question your measurement of what is an authentic source. My source is indeed authentic. Chuckxxx (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Citing your own website looks incredibly suspect at best. We require that a source be published if we are to use it, among other requirements. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 01:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Chuckxxx, the type of material you have on offer is valuable, even if it cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. Rather than depending on your website to keep it in the public eye, you may be able to find an additional home for your material at an alternative outlet. See also Wikipedia:Directory of alternative outlets.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Increased rules on articles leading to overzealous article thinning and deletion

I've been a Wikipedian for over 16 years, and I would like to comment here, that over time, many good editors have left due to exhaustion and frustration with what appears to be an ever increasing set of rules being enforced by an overzealous army of editors who seem driven by the unquenchable need to remove every bit of content that they deem unnecessary, non-notable, insignificant, or inadequately cited or sourced to degrees clearly not originally intended by the rules and guidelines. I would dare to say that Wikipedia has become a rather unfriendly place, where the police shoot first, and ask questions later. Sadly. --Thoric (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Thoric (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thoric, you may want to address your concerns over at the village pump (policy). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree Thoric. TigerScientist (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Bang! What? David notMD (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is known to amend its rules and guidelines over time, as it is the world's first ever "Wikipedia". I am probably one of those editors you mention, and can tell you that Wikipedia once wanted to grow (almost) at any cost, but now places more emphasis on quality and encyclopedic tone. Why would that make an editor quit in disgust?--Quisqualis (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Quality edits?

FYI

 – Heading added by Tenryuu.

how do I know why something I added didn't get kept as a quality edit? I edited a page today, but within a few hours it showed that the page had been edited again, and all that content was removed? where are the reasons why it was removed? Economist716 (talk) 04:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Economist716. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project in which people from all over the world are editing at all times of the day. So, sometimes when you're WP:BOLD and make an edit to an article, another editor comes along later on (sometimes even a long time later) and WP:REVERTs the changes you made (either partially or entirely) because they don't think it was an improvement. When this happens, the next thing to do it to follow WP:BRD and try and WP:DISCUSS things on the article talk and seek clarification. Ideally, an editor who reverts another should leave an edit summary explaining why. If you check the page history of Off-track betting in New York, you find that is exactly what the editor who reverted you did here. Now, if you want clarification about that, you can start a discussion about it at Talk:Off-track betting in New York. My personal assessment is that the content you added was done in good faith, but it probably wasn't something really needed per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:Namechecking; so, it's encyclopedic relevance to the general reader seems a bit questionable. If you disagree with that assessment, you're free once again to discuss why on the article's talk page. Why it can be a bit of a shock to have an edit reverted, it's really quite commonplace and as part of the way articles are improved over time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @Economist716: If you look at the "View History" tab of the article, you can see who edited it and the edit summary they provided. In this case, Special:PageHistory/Off-track betting in New York says that Toohool edited it with the summary "unnecessary excessive detail". The next step, if you disagree, is to start a discussion on the article's talk page Talk:Off-track betting in New York, being sure to PING the user (e.g., by starting your message with {{Re|Toohool}}). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Too much detail?

Hi there, I have recently been reading the article on PvZ, and it seems to me that the "gameplay" section has way too much detail. The article itself says it is in the process of a major restructuring, but it seems like that the restructure is actually making the article worse. Should anything be done about this? 185.73.65.98 (talk) 09:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems User:Lazman321 is the one doing a major expansion of the article, so you can contact them on their talk page and make suggestions if you want to. I'll look through the gameplay section and do a copy-edit. Le Panini ^Talk 11:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request - New Section - Niall Dunne

Hi, I am trying to add a section to Niall Dunne's Wikipedia page however because of COI (I know Niall and am an employee at the company at which he is CEO) I am unable to make the changes myself. I've created an edit request on his page, I did this a couple weeks ago but there has been no movement or update. Is there something I am doing wrong or could do to make the updates get approved quicker?

Really appreciate any help or tips! Thank you :) SophieStromback (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC) SophieStromback (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

SophieStromback Your edit request was properly made and is pending; as noted in the request box, there are 108 requests pending, so you will need to continue to be patient. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your response! I will sit tight :) SophieStromback (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @SophieStromback:, I just took a look at the request. First off, hats off for declaring the COI, that's a lot better than many people around here do. The edit itself reads fine, but I've an issue in that even such a simple claim needs a source to back it up. Is the source for this already in the article? If yes, please point to it so it can be used for an inline citation - if not, please provide a link to the source. (I mean the link you provided [10] certainly is sufficient to prove that he is CEO, but e.g. I don't see the info about the $19 million funding, nor that he has been CEO since 2018.)

PS: Better write links within Wikipedia like this: [[Imperial College London]], and not like this: [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_College_London|Imperial College London]]. There's no need for the vertical bar unless you want to change how the link is displayed, like so: an awesome place (which written in markup reads: [[Imperial College London|an awesome place]]) This also works on talk pages, in case that wasn't clear. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

suggestion for funding Wikipedia

More of a comment than a question. I usually do not give when asked by Wikipedia donor drives since I believe it just burdens those who appreciate the service, but this time I gave the minimum (plus admin cost) since, like everyone else, I really do use it alot. I think Wikipedia should start charging a very small membership fee for use. I think anyone who uses the platform regularly would pay $5-10 per year to have access to the content. You could have special, cheaper student rates too. Just level with people: anything that has value is not free.

best regards Allan 131.111.85.79 (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia's finances are currently stable (though the Foundation is trying to build an endowment to reduce the need for donations in the future) so there is no need to raise funds in such a manner. Wikipedia prefers that the knowledge here be available without cost to the reader. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure charging a fee to use Wikipedia would turn down younger viewers and editors alike that don't have access to money. Although most editors are adults, there is a fair share of people who are young, and that would turn down a lot of people that keep Wikipedia stable. Le Panini ^Talk 11:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

An access fee, even though small by first-world standards, would be a significant barrier to access from poorer parts of the world - precisely where we really need to expand participation to reduce systemic bias. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Editing question

How can I edit the 2017 in Philippine television? Alanconsebido (talk) 09:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Alanconsebido, Yes. If you are to add any new content, be sure it is backed up with reliable sources. Le Panini ^Talk 11:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: I believe the question might be "How". In which case @Alanconsebido: the answer is, like so: Go to the section you want to edit (I assume this one), then click the "edit" next to July. For some technical advice on what to do then, please take a look at Help:Editing. But as Le Panini said, be sure to back up your info with sources! --LordPeterII (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

LordPeterII, Wiat... that says "HOW", not "CAN". Dang. I'm stupid.

"How can I edit?"

"Yes." ~ Le Panini Le Panini ^Talk 12:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, given that it's currently quite popular to answer "How many ...?" with "Yes" [11], I don't blame you ;)

(But seriously, you probably read "who" instead of "how", which would make your answer perfectly legitimate. And confusing these two has happened to me several times as a non-native speaker; and I guess it can happen to natives as well.) --LordPeterII (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources for Article

Hello, This is in regards with my draft – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hello_Mini which was rejected due to not using the proper reliable sources. I have checked the sources and found only one reliable - https://www.iwmbuzz.com/digital/editorial-digital/review-hello-mini-erotic-thriller-ends-justifying-stalking/2019/10/07 can you please help me and let me know if it can work. Also, you have rejected the MX player link earlier. But the Hello mini series is available to watch on MX player only. So I can not understand the rejection reason. Though I think it is not promotional. Mathurrajv77 (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I haven't look at the article; instead, I take your word for it that you don't have any reliable source outside the iwmbuzz.com page. I looked at that. Here's how it ends: Also, 15 episodes is too long, especially if you want to promote binge-watching. P.S. I know I went on and on, but kya karen, the exciting series and story deserved a longish explanation. This writing is at the "lazy secondary student" level. It inspires no confidence in the rest of the review. And sure enough, Iwmbuzz is merely a marketer. If you don't have sources that are a lot better than this, you will not be able to create an article on this subject. -- Hoary (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary for your time. So in this case, I will check if I can collect some other reliable sources.

Can I add MX Player link or https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/web-series/news/mx-player-drops-the-trailer-of-their-first-psychological-thriller-hello-mini/articleshow/71326257.cms ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathurrajv77 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

How to become an active contributor

How does one get to become an active contributor and get to go live on Wikipedia? Pete11DD (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Pete11DD Hello and welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia. By posting here and editing your sandbox, you are an active contributor. If by "go live" you mean create a new article, creating a new article is the absolute hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. Looking at Draft:Sarah Serem, you're actually not off to a bad start. I would still suggest that you use Articles for Creation to submit your draft for a review, so some other eyes look at it. You may find it helpful to read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Pete11DD, I agree - this is a really good start. I like the way you've collated all the key sources you might want to use before you actually start extracting information and supporting statements with proper inline citations. That's absolutely the right way to approach it. You will find WP:REFBEGIN of use in understanding how easy it is to add a good quality inline citation in the relevant place with our editing tools, and for it to magically appear in the 'References' section. I see you've thought about taking our interactive tour of Wikipedia, called The Wikipedia Adventure - there are 15 separate badges to collect as if you complete it all. There is a bit of advice here on things to remember when doing biographies of living people. All in all, a great start, and we're here if you need us. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)  

Tool I can use for WP:TFDH

Hello. I’m helping out at WP:TFDH which involves orphaning templates. Which means I have to go on every page that transcludes those templates and remove them, and copy an edit summary into the edits I make. This can get tedious when doing by hand, and can take up some of my school time. I want to know if there is a tool I can use to help with this process and make it faster to orphan templates. PorkchopGMX (talk • contribs • Merry Christmas!) 14:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

(Comment: @PorkchopGMX: Whilst I can't answer this rather technical question, myself, if you don't get an answer here it might be more appropriate to then ask at either Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion, or WP:VPT. I'd imagine WP:AWB might be suggested, but I can offer no direct guidance. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC) )

How to cite

How do you gather reliable sources for citations? Thanks! TheLAXPlanespotter (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Basically, TheLAXPlanespotter, the process involves such things as making a Web search, going to a library, reading a lot about your topic to find more sources, looking at your bookshelf. I assume you are already familiar with the concept of reliable sources.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@TheLAXPlanespotter: You might wish to read WP:REFBEGIN on how to insert citations once youve found good quality sources. As an aside, I note your userpage is a little misleading. I suggest you remove mention of you not being an admin, but being a bit of a vigilante. With just 8 edits to your name, I'd say you're simply a novice, which is a mighty fine thing to be in and of itself. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

At the request of Nick Moyes, the user page has been updated to reflect a more "current" synonym because vigilante sounds too 1880's. I didn't want to change it, but I decided to because I am not an idiot. (I am referring to myself, not anyone else). Bye for now, and maybe it sounds like I'm not welcome here. :) TheLAXPlanespotter (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Period for consideration

Hi! glad I got your feedback so how long does it take to be given rights to publish upon participating on edit-job on the pre-existing articles? again upon checking my article what significant misdoings did you note kindly thanks Pete11DD (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Pete11DD, You already have the rights to edit and create and submit drafts. However, your account needs to be 10 days old before being able to publish articles without going through the draft process. Le Panini ^Talk 14:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

You can edit pre-existing articles now, unless those are semi-protected or protected (a 'lock' symbol, top right). As to your draft Draft:Sarah Serem, keep on adding content and inserting the references you have identified before you submit it to Articles for Creation (AfC). And maybe seek out other articles about Kenyan government officials before submitting. David notMD (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Harry fear

Hello there, I hope you’re all doing well. Can someone please review my article Draft:Harry Fear and tell me if it needs adjustments? I really want it to be accepted. Thanks j advance Engy Badawy (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I have declined it there is too much inappropriate content such as "As a teen, he was into photography and mass communication" "His favorite food is Malaysian cuisine" "his favorite country to visit is Egypt" etc etc and poorly sourced. There is also content copied and pasted from https://seribulangkah.com/harry-fear-the-british-journalist-who-will-inspire-you/ which is a BIG no no, all content MUST be in your own words. Theroadislong (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Stating his opinions isn't something I'd see in an encyclopedia --a gd fan (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Shaming me to donate

Why bother me for donations when I already pay a monthly contribution of $3.75? Doesn't your system have the capability of knowing when a true SUBSCRIBER's IP address is searching Wiki? Bobbystar80 (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bobbystar80. Teahouse volunteers and Wikipedia editors in general aren't in control of donation appeals - they're run by the Wikimedia Foundation. As far as I know, your Wikipedia account and IP address is kept separate from your personal information supplied when you donate. Here's the advice those of us who volunteer at WP:OTRS send out in response to queries such as yours: Our apologies for the banners causing annoyance or inconvenience. Wikipedia and its sister projects receive over 400 million unique visitors per month, so for fundraising it is important that we keep it displayed during the limited duration of our campaign. To hide the banners, you can click the x in the upper right corner. If you create or already have a Wikipedia account, you can tick the "Suppress display of fundraiser banners" option in your account preferences at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, which will prevent the banners from displaying. I hope that helps. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Bobbystar80: Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse! We're just editors here, not the Wikimedia Foundation staff putting up the banner. I definitely agree with you it'd be better if the banner were smart enough to recognize when people have donated. There might be some privacy concern involved, idk. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

In general I hate the banner. It is up to the readers/editors whether they want to donate. It's a waste if they ask me to, and I click it and it says that donation is not available in Indonesia. GeraldWL 17:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Bobbystar80 The donation system is completely separate from Wikipedia. I think there would be privacy concerns with linking them together. As noted, you can turn off the banner messages in your Preferences. As a fellow editor, thanks for donating. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Non-English query

eu nn consigo traduzir porcaria nenhuma, eu uso a traducao automatica , edito tudo oq esta errado ai do nada em alguns topicos fica em vermelho ai quando eu vou publicar falam que nn foi permitidp TioAldemir (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to theEnglish Wikipedia, your comment translates from Portuguese as "I can’t translate any crap, I use machine translation, I edit everything that’s wrong there out of nowhere in some topics it’s in red there when I’m going to publish say that it wasn’t allowed" so I'm not sure what your question is? Theroadislong (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

(e/c) (Inglês usado abaixo) Oi. Wikipédias em diferentes idiomas têm padrões diferentes para aceitação de artigos, com os padrões da Wikipédia em inglês para atender a sua diretriz de notabilidade sendo geralmente mais elevados do que para a maioria dos outros idiomas. Também pode existir um artigo em outro projeto de linguagem da Wikipedia que não atende nem mesmo aos padrões de aceitação, mas ainda não foi focado e revisado (ou devidamente excluído), onde estaria se alguém tivesse levado o hora de olhar o artigo com atenção.

O que você deve procurar ao avaliar os artigos para tradução, então, é que para a maioria dos fatos no artigo, as citações são fornecidas, usando citações in-line para fontes secundárias confiáveis que são totalmente independentes do tópico (não há problema se essas fontes estiverem em Português). Supondo que esses tipos de fontes citadas também tratem o tópico com algum detalhe, seu uso para fins de verificação também demonstrará a notabilidade do tópico. ((Usei tradução automática para fazer este post no que presumo ser sua língua nativa, então espero que não seja muito confuso). Cumprimentos.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

(e/c) (English used below) Hi. Different language Wikipedias have different standards for acceptance of articles, with the English Wikipedia's standards to meet its notability guideline being generally higher than for most other languages. It's also the case that an article may exist at another Wikipedia language project that doesn't meet even their standards for acceptance, but just has not yet been focused on and reviewed (or properly deleted), where it would be if someone had taken the time to look at the article carefully.

What you should be looking for when assessing articles for translation, then, is that for most facts in the article, citations are provided, using inline citations to reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent from the topic (it's fine if those sources are in Portuguese). Assuming those types of cited sources also treat the topic in some detail, their use for verification purposes, will also demonstrate the notability of the topic. (I used machine translation to make this post in what I assume is your native language, so I hope it's not too garbled). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Finding articles to edit

How would i find articles to edit on Wikipedia? Then how would i know if something needs to be edited? Mekeit (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Mekeit Hello. Some users just click the "Random article" link on the left of the screen to see what comes up and if it needs any edits. Others might start with one article in an area that interests them and branch out into other articles that are linked within it. However, if you would like to be directed to specific articles that need editing, the Community Portal has lists of articles that need various edits. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Mekeit: As 331dot said, there are different approaches. You might want to try the WP:Task Center, or click "articles to improve" at the top of this page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mekeit: You may be interested in subscribing to SuggestBot. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Help

I have tried everything on the Help page for Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text, but it never works no matter what I do. I'm talking about this reference on Draft:Slater and Devil fires, I want to put the same reference without making a duplicate reference, but it doesn't work. Can someone help me? a gd fan (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I've done it for you. Take a look at what I added to the article in my latest edit and you'll see the problem, which was that you didn't name the reference at its first occurrence. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! --a gd fan (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Why I have to edit? Do you mean, the writings are take for granted only? or you're just assuming I am a Scientist? Geebei1988 (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Geebei1988, welcome to the Teahouse. Could you explain further? No one is obligated to edit. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Persistent timesink (see G's Talk page). No article editing to date, only own User and Talk, Teahouse, and other editors' Talk. Either troll or Wikipedia:Competence is required. Time to block. David notMD (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

And, blocked. Thank you. David notMD (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

How can I request an article be written for a restaurant chain?

I would like to add Goodcents to the list of restaurants featured at:

List of submarine sandwich restaurants

After reading about how to create articles, I don't think I'm qualified to do so. Further reading suggests one can request an article be written, but I found the instructions on this topic to be intimidating and complex. I thought it best to simply ask what I should do to request a Goodcents article that I can then link to from the above linked article. Bubbleking (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Bubbleking Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may request that an article be written at Requested Articles; but there is a severe backlog of thousands upon thousands of requests, and very few people to fulfill them. The best way to see an article created is to do it yourself. You are correct to be cautious, as successfully creating a new article is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. However, given time and experience editing existing articles in areas that interest you, it is possible to succeed. If this business is given significant coverage in independent reliable sources and meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable business, it is possible to submit a draft using Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

If you are associated with this chain(other than perhaps being a mere customer), you will need to review conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Bubbleking: Welcome to the Teahouse. You are probably looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles, though from what I've heard activity there is... glacial. I think it would be helpful to find reliable sources for Goodcents to establish that it is notable to merit its own article. My (partial) suggestion would be to to create it as a draft through Articles for Creation (AfC) and use the template {{refideas}} on the associated talk page to deposit those sources for interested editors to peruse. I am unaware of any templates that acts like an RfC (Request for Comment) but for article creation (and it seems to be too much to be an edit request), so if any other editors know of any it would be much appreciated. Ultimately, Wikipedia is a volunteer effort, so the creation of such an article would rely on editors that are at least marginally interested in the topic. I suggest worrying less about feeling unqualified about writing an article, and create a draft via WP:AFC and have reviewers look at the product when you feel like you've done the best you can. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 20:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Help finding a template

Salutations teahouse staff, I have returned to pester you (this shouldn't take long though). Does anyone know the template that reads something like "while there are sources in this article it lacks in-line citations"? Because I was just working on an article that could use that. Thanks! SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 15:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@SnazzyInfinity: {{No footnotes}}. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: Thanks! SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 16:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@SnazzyInfinity: You can also use twinkle --a gd fan (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah I have twinkle, I totally forgot about that! (P.S. GD Fan, I saw your user page earlier and I liked your userboxes and stole a whole ton) SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 23:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Delisting good articles

I'm trying to delist Stephen Fry's Podgrams and I can't figure it out. I'm using this quick tutorial:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_delisting. When I delisted the article on the talk page inside the article history template I couldn't figure out how to include the date I'm delisting it, and I can't figure out how to remove the article from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles/.

I did ask in the talk page and the wikiproject whether it was okay to delist the article, and someone at the wikiproject said it was okay. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: I'm going to start by saying that I tend to agree with your concerns about GA status for Stephen Fry's Podgrams, and would probably have graded it C myself. Now, I've not personally been involved in any downward reviewing of any GA articles, but I feel you could have gone about things better.

• First off, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_delisting is marked as historical, so I would tend to ignore anything there, for start. You should be following the 'Individual' process outlined at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment.
• WP:GAR explains the process, either of community review or of individual reassessment as you're doing.
• That advice is to raise issues on the Talk page and, after an appropriate period of time for feedback, make the amendments.
• You decided (not unreasonably) that, after attempting to improve it, it's still not worthy of GA status - and I tend to agree with you - and you stated that you were going to change it immediately, and mentioned (here, but not on the talk page) that someone on on a WikiProject somewhere supporting that view.
• Rather unhelpfully, you failed to provide a link to that discussion on the talk page itself, and made the change immediately. But there is WP:NO DEADLINE, so I think waiting a few days for feedback would have been preferable.
• You only removed the GA quality status from one of the two WikiProject assessments. - You'll need to remove them both for it to have an effect on the grading that appears on the article itself, below the title. But you will also need to remove the {{good article}} template from the bottom of the article page, too.

If I've missed anything out, I hope someone with more experience of GA reassessments will chip in. Bottom line: make sure you're following the right instructions. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)  

(edit conflict) Hi TipsyElephant. If you look at the top of Wikipedia:Good article delisting, you'll see there's a banner stating that the page is retained for "historical reference". This means it's probably not a good idea to follow the steps listed there since the community might have developed a new approach for delisting good articles. Since articles undergo a formal review process for them to be upgraded to GA status, it seems unlikely that such a status could be taken away without a similar review process. I suggest that you follow the advice given in Wikipedia:Good article reassessment and request a reassessment of the article and simply don't just try to delist the article on your own. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Would it be okay to undo all the edits on the talk page and start over so that I do it all right and get the experience? I noticed that Nick Moyes made a recent change, should I undo that as well or is it possible to just undo my changes? The Wikiproject page that I asked the question is here (I'll add it to the article's talk page as well once I decide whether I'm undoing edits or not): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Podcasting#Consensus_Before_Change. Should I ask in all the wikiprojects that are in the article's banner? Nick Moyes Marchjuly

@TipsyElephant: I'm afraid neither Marchjuly nor I got any notification of your reply as you didn't sign your post, so nothing happened. (more info on this at WP:PING). You are clearly working in good faith, so I'd be OK you following the guidance and doing what you think is best (it can always be undone by you or someone else if you mess up - see WP:BRD) If you do post to seek views on different pages, it's best to direct all comments via a wikilink to just one page, so that all responses are collated there for all to see and respond to. ie. draw them to your post at the article talk page. Good luck. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Question related with Wikipedia timing

So I know there is no time rush on Wikipedia. I got burned a few months ago after asking a question on a talk page, only receiving 1 response (a support) after a 48 hour wait. The article had almost 50 edits done during that 48 hours, so people had chances to reply. When I implemented the change though, tons of people got upset saying I did it too quick. (It was too quick and it was a split proposal and I know that should be a week at least). Too be honest, I was slightly confused why people didn't choose to respond but when the change happened (no one opposing at the time), people got upset.

So I recently asked a question about a new source for an article. I have waiting 24 hours and no responses. (Topic is slightly searched and between the time of my asking the question and now, an article related to it had a closed Afd ending in a merge into this article.

My question is simple. How long should I wait before implementing a change if I hear no responses. I don't want to wait too long, because I would probably forget the change, but if I do it too quick, I don't want to have a ton of people up set with me. Thanks in advance for your responses. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, I'd say give it a few days, but you could make the changes per (weak consensus from) WP:SILENCE. If people object to it, direct them to the relevant discussion at the talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 23:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Categorization alphabetization

Hello! I was looking at the Category Deaths in police custody in the United States, and I added the Death of Chavis Carter article. But on the category page, it lists that article under the 'D' section. Other pages in that category are under sections by the subject's last name. How is this accomplished? What do I need to do? Kirby777 (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I added <s>{{DEFAULTSORT|Carter, Chavis}}</s>. See WP:DEFAULTSORT for more information. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC) Update: It's <s>{{DEFAULTSORT:Carter, Chavis}}</s> not <s>{{DEFAULTSORT|Carter, Chavis}}</s>. Thank you Le Panini. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

When putting the [[Category:Deaths in police custody in the United States]] to an article, put {{DEFAULTSORT:Chosen Name}} before any categories to set a default name. In this case, {{DEFAULTSORT:Carter, Chavis}}. It's been put in for you. Le Panini ^Talk 23:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Proper Names

why do some company names show in blue and others in black. Can I make it consistent? IwTbA4EvR (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

IwTbA4EvR, welcome to the Teahouse. Some companies are linked and have an article due to their notability, which will cause them to appear in blue text. Linked text to articles that don't exist will appear in red. As a general guideline, we don't redlink in articlespace (unless it's possible that they're notable). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 19:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@IwTbA4EvR: The ones in black are not linked at all, either because there is no appropriate article to which to link them, or it has already been linked once before in the article and so does not need to be linked again (see WP:OVERLINK). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

David Burnell IV

Is David Burnell IV a notable subject? David Burnell the Fourth (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

David Burnell the Fourth Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Are you asking if you yourself are a notable subject? What do you do, and is it written about in independent reliable sources? 331dot (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

David Burnell the Fourth, in addition to 331dot's questions, I would caution against writing about yourself; it's not prohibited, but is strongly discouraged. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 20:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Another problem: if you ARE NOT David Burnell IV, who appears to be a film actor, you should not have chosen his name as your User name. There is a name change process. If you ARE him, you may be asked to confirm that. David notMD (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

how to send page from sandbox to live

I moved my page from sandbox but after that I got this error please help me with publishing my page live "This sandbox is in the article namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template." Repairdental (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like you didn't remove {{User sandbox}} when the content was moved from the sandbox to articlespace. Removing it should fix the issue. It appears that NoSandboxesHere has done that already. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 00:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC) (Addendum at 00:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC))

Message on your Talk page requires you change your User name, and provides link to method. David notMD (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Requests instead of Reverts

Some wiki articles such as the Notability article (just as an example) state that when an editor feels articles or edits to articles are not suitable (he doesn't like the sources, the content, the length, or other issue) he should either look for sources himself, ask the article's or edit's editor, or ask for input from others. Yet I find that what generally happens is someone will simply, quickly "revert" or reject without taking any of these steps first. Why? And is there a way to try to ensure that happens instead of sudden rejections/declines or reverts? DogBehaviorPro (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@DogBehaviorPro: Welcome to Wikipedia. Reverting is part of the normal Wikipedia process of being Bold with changes. If someone objects to the revert, they may restore the material and start a discussion on the article's talk page to get consensus. See WP:BRD for more info on this. If you see something reverted and you disagree with it, then you can start that discussion. RudolfRed (talk)

Hi DogBehaviorPro. I'm going to slightly disagree with a part of what RudolfRed posted above. If you're BOLD, and your edit is subsequently REVERTed by another editor, then you shouldn't automatically revert back unless there's a really clear and strong policy-based or guideline-based reason for doing so (e.g. a clearcut case of WP:VANDAL, a clear WP:BLP violation). What you should do, in principle, is (1) look at the page's history for an edit summary explaining why your edit was reverted and then (2) seek clarification from the editor who reverted you by posting a message on their user talk page or by posting a message on the article talk page if you still don't understand or agree with the revert. Bold, Revert, Discuss (or WP:BRD) is good practice most ot the time when trying to resolve any disagreements you may have with others over article content; Bold, Revert, Revert back, Discuss (or WP:BRRD), on the other hand, is usually counterproductive because it can quickly lead to edit warring which is something nobody really wins. You need to be really quite positve that any reverting back of a reverted edit you make will not be considered edit warring by the community at large because you may be sanctioned by an administrator if it's not. Whenever in doubt, try to seek resolution per WP:DR since will likely lead to a resolution that's best for Wikipedia and avoid any problems requiring administrator action. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Need to publish my article successfully

I need my article to be reviewed and successfully published. I have written a article which is verified by me and need to get my article published. Maverick2554 (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused. What is the need? I mean, what bad thing will happen if there is a delay? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Maverick2554. I can say right now that the content in your sandbox will most likely be declined (or rejected) as it is. I suggest you take the time to read Your first article and this beginner-friendly primer for referencing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 03:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You have created a draft in your Sandbox User:Maverick2554/sandbox. It has been submitted to Articles for Creation (the large yellow rectangle at bottom). There is a backlog of thousands of AfC drafts. The selection by reviewers is not a queue, so can be days, weeks, up to several months. In its present state it will surely be declined, as it has no references. Verification requires references from reliable published sources. Lastly, you have a duplicate version of your content on your User page. Please delete all of that. Your User page is for a description of your intentions as an editor. David notMD (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

And based on a Google search (String: "Shalkal carty" singer) there's no possible way we could have an article on them at this time, notable or otherwise. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 03:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I declined it as covering the same person and having a large overlap with a declined draft from a few months ago by another editor, Draft:Shalkal Carty. I also moved your "user" page to User:Maverick2554/sandbox2, submitted it on your behalf, and did a "pro-forma" decline as it is almost identical to your draft in User:Maverick2554/sandbox. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

My article was rejected here. But need to be done in wikitia. Please do help me in wikitia. Maverick2554 (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Maverick2554. There's not a lot anyone here at the Teahouse can do to help you with respect to Wikitia. That's a completely separate project from Wikipedia with it's own policies and guidelnes that nobody here has any control over. You'll find out a little bit about Wikitia by going to their homepage. I can't even add a link to Wikitia to any Wikipedia page because the site has been WP:BLACKLISTed by the Wikipedia community. So, you just have to Google the name and then get the link yourself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Locking Train Robbery article

Hello

I thought someone might want to lock the Train robbery article. It appears people are continually adding the cast of Red Dead Redemption 2 to its list of famous train robbers.

Thanks 84.13.85.156 (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

You can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. However, they tend to only protect pages where vandalism is constant, rather than slow changes or only one vandal for a while. Le Panini ^Talk 10:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor, and thank you for reverting that vandalism. It seems to have ceased now, so the page doesn't merit protecting at this stage. However, I've added it to my watchlist and will keep an eye on it, lest it continues. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Harry fear

Hello there, I hope you’re all safe and well. Can someone review Draft:Harry Fear ? Do I need to edit it more? Thanks in advance Engy Badawy (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Engy Badawy: The Draft:Harry_Fear is already marked submitted for review. You just need to be patient. RudolfRed (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Specifically "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,475 pending submissions waiting for review." You can continue to work on it in the meantime. RudolfRed (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Engy Badawy: Another thing you can work on is providing the licensing info for File:Harry_Fear.jpg, otherwise it will be deleted. RudolfRed (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I’ll work on it. Thank you so much

The current version - refs #2 and #3 are interviews, which Wikipedia does not accept as confirming notability, and ref #5 is his own blog. Try, before the next reviewer gets to it, to find better references. David notMD (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay 👌🏻 Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engy Badawy (talk • contribs) 02:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Engy Badawy: Remember to sign your posts! You can do so by adding four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking the third button on the edit bar. Le Panini ^Talk 10:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Is Articles For Creation mandatory?

Greetings fellow tea enthusiasts,

I've finally finished a non-stub (imo) article (albeit not from the ones I set out to do, but meh... he was redlinked in a random DYI article recently). I intended to go through Afc properly this time (have published 2 stubs before directly in mainspace), but I see that the backlog is currently 3 months.

So, question: Is that process mandatory? I will certainly be going through it with my BLP article once that one is done, as that needs extra care (because living people and stuff). But I'm frankly a bit bored right now and don't really want to wait 3 months, so... can I publish the non-BLP article to mainspace directly? If that's shunned upon I can wait ofc; but if it is acceptable and allowing Afc helpers to spend more time on those difficult cases, I'd go the direct route (as I have done before, but back then I didn't know about Afc). -- LordPeterII (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

LordPeterII Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It is not mandatory to go through AfC, but it is highly recommended unless you have a great deal of experience in article creation. If you are confident that your draft would survive an Articles for Deletion discussion(the primary thing AFC reviewers look for), then you could move it into the encyclopedia yourself. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

LordPeterII (edit conflict, so basically the same answer), Nope! AFC is only required for non-autoconfirmed users. However, I would recommend using it to make your article as good as it can be before it goes live; I see a lot of articles being published where users write about 4 sentences and doesn't visit the article again. If you were to submit it however, I'd suggest expanding it, maybe with an image and expanding the lead section summarize the article more. Le Panini ^Talk 12:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Note that your article will be subject to WP:new pages patrol. The folk who do these patrols tend to be less forgiving of poor articles than would be the case for ones created by AfC, but you can try.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Alright, thanks y'all. I guess I'll go through Afc then, if only to not set a bad example for others. And that it will be work either for Afc or New Page Patrol folks is a good point; so I won't really be reducing anyone's workload.

See you all in 3 months for an angry rant about you wicked Wikipedians unlawfully declining my perfectly best article! ;) --LordPeterII (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

LordPeterII, nah, a lot of us ain't wicked. At least a lot of us. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ GeraldWL 13:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I've tidied up your draft Henry Ehrenreich and accepted it. Theroadislong (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@LordPeterII: Looking at that excellent, now accepted draft—if everyone was like you (and not, instead, like 95% of today's active new accounts – undeclared-paid, SPAs with a COI mostly not here to do anything but promote their one or two self-interested pet topics)—we wouldn't need AfC. It would probably be good if AfC was made mandatory, and then we could exempt the rare new user like you, actually here to build an encyclopedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Here here, a pleasure to help a genuine useful contributor for once. Theroadislong (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh wow, now you folks make me blush! Thanks for accepting it, and for the praise. Certainly helps my motivation, although it'll likely be some time before I finish another article. See you around! --LordPeterII (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

LaTeX funny

I’ve come across a couple of new editors trying to add spaces around negative signs in LaTeX. The complaint is that the negative signs aren’t rendering without increasing the zoom level on the browser. Sure enough, I’ve had to increase the zoom level on my browser to see some negative signs. LaTeX used to render reliably at 110% (Maybe lower, but I’ve used 110% for years). Now I need to go to 150% in some cases. Has the LaTeX engine made some new assumptions about display resolution. My monitor is 1920 x 1080. Maybe it is time for an upgrade.Constant314 (talk) 10:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey Constant314. I have no idea about the answer to your question – and of course it's possible that someone will be along soon with an answer – but seeming arcane technical questions like this sometimes languish here, and are more likely to be seen by someone in the know if posted to the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). So if no one answers below in a number of hours hours, I suggest posting there (and noting here that you've done so). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I posted there. Constant314 (talk) 11:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

shutterstock, alarmy: are their location pictures a reliable source?

shutterstock, alamy: are their location pictures a reliable source? 24.7.56.99 (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Possibly I can guess what your question is about, but I doubt it. Please provide a link to one such "location picture", and specify the assertion that it may or may not reliably source. Then somebody here can comment on that. -- Hoary (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Shutterstock and Alamy are both commercial sites which claim all their images are theirs (or their suppliers') copyright. Images from those sources could not be used on Wikipedia, unless properly and legally released by their owners, which I doubt would happen. Pictures are usually as reliable as their captioning - and that is never 100% guaranteed - and this is equally true of images on Wikimedia Commons. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Picture of Alex Mains used on the wiki site.

Today I found that a baseball card from 1919 of my great uncle does exist. The family has been looking for years to no avail. I am wondering if anyone can tell me where the picture of the card came from and who might have it yet today ? 174.25.168.15 (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place to ask questions about using Wikipedia. You could try asking this at the Reference Desk and hope there is a baseball expert there. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

According to the description page, the image File:1919_Zeenut_Alex_Main.jpg was uploaded from a website tradingcarddb. You can try looking at that website to see if there is more info on the card's current owner. RudolfRed (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

If it helps, a set of 1919 Zeenut cards was auctioned here for $2,370. You uncle was among the cards included. At that website look at the image on the right hand side of the page – see the seven round buttons below it? Click on the last (seventh) one. You can maximize the resulting image by clicking on it. Your great uncle's card is the third down on far right hand side.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Aha. You can purchase the card apparently, here. I say apparently, because the auction site lists the name as "Miles Mains" rather than Alex, but it is the 1919 Zeenut set, and they have every card listed with player names, so I assume this is the one.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

My article was unjustly rejected and i am protesting against this decision.

MY article Jeriq was rejected unjustly. I need to understand exactly what is wrong with that article Fabregado (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Fabregado Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You were told what was wrong with the draft, "A biographical article for a musician must satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Furthermore please our general notability criteria, what Wikipedia is WP:NOT, WP:COI & WP:PAID". Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a musician. Any draft about a musician must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a musician, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician(again, WP:MUSICBIO). If this person meets at least one of the criteria, you haven't adequately shown that with reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Just a note that I've fixed that link, which was doing very odd things. It now links to the draft. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Jeriq does not have adequate refs. The first and last are about him, but near-identical wording suggests taken from a press release of a posted biography. All the other refs do is confirm he has released music. This may be an instance of WP:TOOSOON. David notMD (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

How do I create a page?

I want to create a page for a person. How do I start and where is that link? Rrelangi0310 (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Rrelangi0310 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Successfully creating a new article(not just a "page") is the absolute hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice. If you dive right into it without some knowledge and experience beforehand, your chances of success are low. It is a good idea to first gain experience by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. This is especially important if you intend to write about a living person, which has special guidelines. It's also a good idea for you to use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia.

If you still wish to attempt to create an article, you may create and submit a draft at Articles for Creation after you read Your First Article. If you are associated with the person you wish to write about, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

How to make wikipedia page

How to make wikipedia page??? Muhammad Umer Ali UsmAni (talk) 12:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Muhammad Umer Ali UsmAni Hello and welcome. Please see the section immediately above this one, where another person asked the same question. It helps if you think of what you want to create as an article and not a mere "page"(which has a broader definition). 331dot (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

File:S.M.I.L.A by Alexander Ozolin .mp3

Hi, yesterday this file has been deleted in violation of WP:CSD#F7. What does problem encountered to this file or can you explain "the subject of sourced commentary" mean. I can't understand this term, but can you explain clearly in order to know in the future please? The Supermind (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems that this was a "non-free" file that you uploaded for "fair use" in the article Kiev Day and Night. One requirement for "fair use" is that the file actually is used in the article for which permission is requested. (NB there are numerous other requirements too.) Did it appear in that article? -- Hoary (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Putting images in

Caption goes here

Hello I don't know how to add any images to posts... And why can i coppy and paste things?Mr. Amasballs (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC) Mr. Amasballs (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mr. Amasballs: If you go to any image, like this one, you'll see a button saying "Use this file" with a Wikipedia logo next to it. Click on it and copy that code into the article, like I've done here. Notice which part of the code I changed to write my own caption. For more info on how to do this, see Help:Pictures.

I don't really know what you mean by "coppy and paste things", but see this page on copyrights if you intend to copy the text on Wikipedia somewhere else, or this page for copying text from one Wikipedia page to another. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Message from Cureeight

Hello,

Thank you for taking the time to review my wikipedia page. As I am new to Wikipedia and devoted to have my own Wiki page go live, may I request some additional support please? I was using this page as an example to write my own - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popjustice You reviewed that 'Twitter and the official site aren't reliable sources'. That is understandable, what should I post then to clarify authentication, as I thought my own website would have been authentic enough? Any support would be dearly appreciated.

I look forward to hearing from you,

Yours Sincerely, Mark. Cureeight (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:MarkMeets Media

@Cureeight: On Wikipedia, we want to use secondary, reliable sources to back up the information in the article. This means that the source should not be affiliated with the subject and should have a good track record of being factual, like an established news outlet. An article cannot be completely based on what we call primary sources, which are sources that the subject written about themselves including official sites and tweets. Also, Wikipedia has a rule about notability, which is how we determine if an article is "important" enough to have an article. This means that we need multiple independent reliable sources to go in depth about the subject. Regarding your draft, I suggest you look for these sources first, then work on the draft to make sure it's notable enough in the first place. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mark. In addition, to what Ganbaruby posted above, I also suggest you carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not because it appears from you comment As I am new to Wikipedia and devoted to have my own Wiki page go live that you might be misunderstanding some very important things about Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Update

 Courtesy link: Clifford Sobel

I have been trying to update my personal information and cannot do so. It keeps going back to old information  SOBEL1 (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

SOBEL1 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edit was removed and redacted because it was a copyright violation. We cannot allow copyrighted content to be improperly used here. Please understand that Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources say about a person, not what a person (or those associated with them) wants to say about themselves. If there is information in the article about you that is missing or incomplete that should be changed and you can support it with independent reliable sources, we would like your input in the form of a formal edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page, Talk:Clifford Sobel. 331dot (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi SOBEL1. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself for more information, but basically what you will need to do is propose the changes you’d like made to the article on its talk page in the form of Wikipedia:Edit requests to give other editors a chance to assess them and make sure they are in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Marchjuly (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)