This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.
Hello, everyone!
I am a recently extended-confirmed editor on Wikipedia. Recently, a nonprofit organization that I work with in my personal life called VoteRiders sent out an email coincidentally asking for volunteers to help them with their Wikipedia page. I signed up because I enjoy editing Wikipedia, and they only recently reached out to me with the details of what they actually want to do. Their goal is to get more WikiLinks to VoteRiders in other pages of Wikipedia so that it is easier for their organization to be discovered – for instance, because the actress Amy Schumer volunteers with them, they would like to have a mention and WikiLink included on her page (but they can't do it themselves because the page is extended-confirmed).
The project felt innocent at first, but now I'm starting to wonder if it's unethical – even though some of the WikiLinks that they want to put in actually feel like notable additions to the articles, it seems wrong for an organization with stake in the matter to have control over what content goes in or stays out. Additionally, although I don't have any financial ties to the organization, my personal support for them makes me feel that it would be hard to make decisions around this in an unbiased way. Does anyone have any guidance on what I should do? And if the project is unethical, what course of action should I advice to the people at VoteRiders who contacted me in the first place?
Thank you! Kokopelli7309 (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kokopelli7309. My suggestion would be to try and explain yourself or get the VoteRider people to read WP:NOT, WP:OWN, WP:COI, WP:PAID, WP:NOBLE and WP:NORG because it sounds like they are misunderstanding some things about Wikipedia. You might also get them to look at WP:ALTERNATIVE because there are probably better and easier ways for them to achieve their objective of getting more exposure for their organization. — Marchjuly (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
It might be worth mentioning that the article talk page has old discussions about conflict of interest. At least one past editor disclosed a COI, and a few WP:SPAs appear in the edit history. --Drm310🍁 (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I was hoping for some clarity on off wiki discussions. I see this page: Wikipedia:Off-wiki_policy_discussion which makes it clear that not all discussions need to occur on-wiki. But also see this page: Wikipedia:Canvassing which warns against off-wiki communication. It seems like the dividing line is whether you are trying to rally people towards a goal or just getting the word out of an ongoing discussion so people can participate. So in this vein, off-wiki posting about the edits you make should be fine, since you're not attempting to change anyone's mind. You are simply writing a public diary in a way. Please let me know if my understanding is incorrect. Thanks Nweil (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
@Nweil: The specific forum matters as well. For example, posting about a discussion on Black Lives Matter will have a very different effect posted on Parler versus Facebook. In general, if you are forum shopping to get a favorable discussion anywhere, on or off wiki, it will hurt your standing in any discussion. People will probably find out, and might even report the canvassing on the administrator's noticeboard. Unless the venue is clearly neutral, best to use more common procedures such as posting on project pages, talk pages or using Wikipedia:Requests for comment. TimTempleton(talk)(cont)19:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
The Forum Shopping page [[1]] specifically relates to on-wiki discussion ("noticeboards", "talk pages", "administrators" or "reviewers") not about social media venues. With regards to canvassing, it seems you are referring to the stealth canvassing section. Again, that section specifically relates to persuading people. Posting about an edit or discussion is not necessarily persuasion regardless of the forum it is posted in. That would seem to require a call to action, no? Nweil (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Why was one of my contributions reverted by an unregistered user?
Lionsleeps26 You added a timeline to Incredibox on 15 January and an IP deleted it without an Edit summary on 23 January. One path open to you is add it again. If deleted again, then you could start a discussion on the Talk page of the article. One issue may be that the timeline needs references to confirm the releases in the versions listed, given that the entire Musical styles section is without references. David notMD (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
The Development section is also short on references. The whole article needs to be tagged accordingly rather than sprinkling it with 'citation needed'. David notMD (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm afraid not, KTTcontributesNEW: if there's no email, then there is no way for anybody to recover the account. All you can do is put a message on both user pages explaining and each linking to the other. --ColinFine (talk)
Given that you had started KTTcontributes on 1 March, just give it up for lost and continue as KTTcontributesNEW. It appears you have already recreated some of your User page decor. David notMD (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
First draft published
Good afternoon Wiki editor,
I have just published my first draft for a new page on Wiki. I haven't received a message mentioning it will be reviewed or pending for review. Have I maybe skipped a step?
Thank you! AllisonNellaF (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
It's at Draft:Slow Shiver. If you submit it for review as it is, it will fail, because it doesn't cite any references. Everything that it says should come with a reference. -- Hoary (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Rejection of my draft
Hello. My draft, Wilbur Soot, was recently declined due to me not addressing comments about the subject not passing the criteria at WP:NM. In actuality, I had addressed the concerns, just on the talk page, although the reviewer missed that, which is understandable, as it was the wrong place (which I know realize).
I'll lay out my argument here once again, in case that's helpful. Criteria number two at WP:NM states that subjects may be notable if one of their albums or singles have appeared on a national music chart, which the subject in question, Will Gold, has done with "Your New Boyfriend", which peaked at number 65 on the UK Singles Chart. This, in addition to additional sources existing to flesh out the article, makes the subject, in my opinion, most likely notable.
I was wondering if it was possible to get a re-review, or anything of the sorts. Thanks for any and all help. IanTEB (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
IanTEB not an AfC reviewer, but AfC doesn't own drafts. I'd say it's more likely than not to survive an AfD, so if you'd like me to publish it I'd be willing to. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Can I sample a short section of music on a Wikipedia page without the permission of the artist/group? If so, how long is the sample allowed to be? Castilruiz (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Castilruiz provided it is in an article about the song, a sample of 20-30 seconds would be appropriate. The general policy on non-free content is at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. To upload, go to Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, select "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use.", then select "This is some other kind of non-free work that I believe is legitimate Fair Use.", and finally choose the option "Sound sample of an audio recording". Be sure to fill in all the necessary fields or the file may be deleted. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 23:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I was just wondering, which articles should have {{Authority control}}? I had a brief look at the docs but was wondering if I could get some clarification.
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard vs Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources
If I'm looking to talk about if something is reliable for a gaming subject, which should I default to? Should I go to one before the other? Tyrone Madera (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Tyrone Madera. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (RSN) is a community-wide noticeboard for discussing particular sources and any consensus reached there would take precendance over anything decided at the WikiProject level per WP:CONLEVEL. You can ask for assistance at the WikiProject and perhaps its members will be able to help you out, and then bring things up for further discussion at RSN if no agreement can be reached over the reliablity of a source.Generally, RSN is best for resolving a dispute between multiple editors as to whether a particular source is reliable for the context in which it's being cited, while a WikiProject might be a good place to ask a general question about sourcing (e.g. What types of sources are reliable for gaming subjects?) since the members of the project might have a "list" of sources they generally consider OK to cite for video game articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello!
I found this article, Stephen Totter, and it says he died in 2019. But there is no citation. Still categorized under Living People. I don't know how this is handled when there is an apparent grey area. Can someone help? Kirby777 (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I typed his name in google, and the first result was a news article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reporting his death on May 25, 2019. I updated the article, but article is still mostly unsourced. Cmr08 (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Such pages do indeed exist. There are thousands of them, but the vast majority aren't obviously important -- they're the talk pages of IPs that were only fleetingly active, and suchlike. There are currently under a hundred unwatched articles, I believe. The list is visible to administrators. If you'd like to see it, become an administrator! (If it seems a perk of the job, well, there are very few such perks. No chauffeured limos, no country club memberships....) Hoary (talk) 07:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Hoary I'm surprised you think there are under a hundred unwatched articles out of 6.3 million articles. I think several thousand is more likely, but we don't identify them as that would encourage vandalism of unwatched articles.--Shantavira|feed me11:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Shantavira Good point, though not sure vandals will be looking at some sort of "things to do" list. I suppose my point is not that I particularly want to increase my watchlist, but that if nobody is watching an article, it may well be open to vandalism. I do acknowledge that there are some good anti-vandal bots out there, many many thanks to the people who made and maintain them. Though if Hoary is right, then yes gosh, only a hundred, it's not much. And I know what a tough job, hard work, adminship is, and I thank all those admins who maintain and improve WP and keep us dilettante editors from getting carried away. Brunswicknic (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
@Brunswicknic: Administrators can see Special:UnwatchedPages. It was last updated two days ago and shows 95 articles. All I examined were created in the last month and have 1 watcher now (not me), so somebody may be going through the list to watch them. Administrators can see the number of page watchers when others only see "Fewer than 30 watchers", e.g. here. "Add pages I create and files I upload to my watchlist" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist is enabled by default so most pages have one watcher from the beginning. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: Thank you very much, that is good to know. Again I thank the admins, but also those who set up (no doubt after lots of trial and a little bit of error) such a system. Brunswicknic (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
If anything, declaring that she is related to the subject would hinder her neutrality to the article, and she would be encouraged to submit edit requests on the article's talk page in order to contribute. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
How to
How to completely, thoroughly, totally, and permanently delete a Wikipedia account? If not possible, why not? Please avoid wild, vague, invalid, insignificant, inappropriate, and unprofessional answers; instead, provide us with a logically and scientifically convincing, valid, and appropriate answer. Thank you.
Ala.academics (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
How to completely, thoroughly, totally, and permanently delete a Wikipedia account? If not possible, why not? Please avoid wild, vague, invalid, insignificant, inappropriate, and unprofessional answers; instead, provide us with a logically and scientifically convincing, valid, and appropriate answer. Thank you.
@Elliot321: I just uploaded the new cover image. I don't think I did it in the same way because I can't remember how. Can you please tell me if this is right or how to fix it? Thank you
Pcaabplroa, you uploaded it to Wikipedia as non-free media. The website you took the cover from says "The text and images of this website are available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)." - and the old cover is uploaded to commons as free media under such a license.
So I would like the option to hide images on wikipedia, I have been using the help page on the topic to replace most pictures with the battenburg pattern until clicked on and turned off article previews in my preferences. Unfourtunately however when using the searchbox images for articles still come up and still do in the "related articles" section on many page, is there any solution for this? Thanks!999ThingsToFix (talk) 07:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC) 999ThingsToFix (talk) 07:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
process of providing the copyrights for my company page
what is the process of having Wikipedia copyright for the magazine page? What documents I have to submit and how I have to submit and where i have to submit the documents? please guide me. Sauravgupta7297 (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
@Sauravgupta7297: Is this about File:1 feb 2021 edition cover.jpeg? A magazine cover is considered a non-free image, meaning that we can only use a low-resolution version for identification purposes only, given that a Wikipedia article exists in the first place. This is known as fair use, and you don't need to release copyright for that. However, since no article uses the image, it will be deleted. Also, when you upload a non-free image, do not tag it as public domain or any other license that it is not.
On a separate note, are you affiliated in any way with The Opinion Express Group? If so, you have a conflict of interest; please read that page entirely and make relevant declarations before making any more edits. You are also strongly discouraged from editing anything that you have a conflict of interest with; instead, make edit requests on the talk page. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 08:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Sauravgupta7297: please don't ask the same question in more than one place. I have just given you a lengthy answer at the Help Desk, and I am irritated at coming here and finding you have posted the same question, and engaged other editors' time as well. --ColinFine (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Chapter One: The Hellfire Club
I have written an article about the first episode of Season Four of Stranger Things. It was declined for not having any references (fair enough). I have now added eighteen refrences. When will it be reviewed? And when will it be published? (if you think it is good enough) 146.199.189.161 (talk) 12:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As noted on your draft, "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,787 pending submissions waiting for review." You will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I am just wondering though, because it has been reviewed before, and I have now added eighteen references, if one of the Teahouse editors could review it? Cheers.
I'm afraid that's not how it works. There is no deadline, and in any case, folk are more likely to take a look if you provide a link. I noticed that the first sentence of your draft contains the word "upcoming" which is something of a red flag to reviewers. While you're waiting you might usefully be reading WP:UPCOMING.--Shantavira|feed me13:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Teahouse volunteers are not necessarily draft reviewers (a few are). The system is not a queue - reviewers select what they want to review. So, could be days, weeks, or (sadly) months.David notMD (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
But I can tell you that a draft which suddenly spouts eighteen references, the first twelve of which don't appear to relate the subject, and the next two are to Twitter and Instagram, doesn't inspire much confidence that it is worth a reviewer spending any time on your draft. One of the first things a reviewer does - mirroring the absolutely first thing an article writer should do - is look for the three or four references that are reliable, independent and give significant coverage to the subject of the article (not to the series it belongs to). There may be such sources among your eighteen, but if I were a reviewer, I would probably do what I've just done, and conclude that it wasn't worth my time wading through the rest of them looking for evidence of notability. Note in particular that it is very rarely worth adducing more than one source for a particular point, and when a writer does so it often suggests that they are struggling to find satisfactory references for the rest. --ColinFine (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
ColinFine If you look back through the references, the first nine are about the cast of the episode and the next eight are about the season and the title's announcement. I would say these are references to do with the episode. Reading these, you would know the history behind the season and episode, and the cast. But what do you want me to do with the draft, if it isn't worth a reviewer looking through it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.189.161 (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)146.199.189.161 (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Is it possible to take extra action against someone who is deliberately adding WP:OR (in the form of spoilers for future episodes of a web series I like, which is annoying me)?
There is this IP at 41.58.xxx.xxx who has twice added thousands of bytes worth of (possibly fake or stolen from the production company) episode summaries at List of Talking Tom and Friends (TV series) episodes, and as someone who is interested in the show but doesn't have the time to frequently patrol the article, I am getting really annoyed by that person (to be honest, it's not so bad if the plots added are fake, but if they are real and stolen from the production company, I am definitely going to hate that person more than anyone else for spilling the beans very annoyed). Since it's not just a single dynamic IP range, an IP block won't help, and since this is the second time in 4 weeks, it is also probably a slow-motion vandal. I've warned the address that most recently did this, but I don't want to have to wait till he does it 2 or 3 more times to warrant protection.
Is it possible to have someone either:
add Pending Changes Protection till either:
the end of May (which is when each new season of the web series usually starts)?
OR
add the page to their watchlist and revert anyone suspiciously adding a large amout of unreferenced text to the article?
And by the way, would a revdel be necessary for all the "fake" episodes just in case the plots are real and the production company responsible for the series complains? Ignore the struck-out request, I should have realised that this was overkill.
Thanks, 45.251.33.129 (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
First of all, you seem to be getting worked up, which you shouldn't be. Second, please remember to assume good faith. I'm not sure what you mean by "I am definitely going to hate that person more than anyone else for spilling the beans". If they are adding summaries for future episodes then they are obviously fake. Try requesting page protection. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs17:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
45's statement that someone is leaking future episode content is plausible. Page protection with a time limit can be proposed. David notMD (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I guess I did let my feelings get in the way of my reasoning, so I suppose I could have written this in a more polite way... And I personally don't think that WP:GOOD FAITH could be applied when someone adds spoilers for future episodes, since I don't know why anyone would like spoilers. (By "I am definitely going to...", I meant that I hated them a lot (though now that I think of it, hate was definitely too strong a word)). As for requesting page protection, I chose not to directly ask for it at WP:RFPP since this was only the second time that person added the content, while many of the requests I've seen have been declined for more active vandalism. But I would appreciate it if someone here added the protection till the end of May. 45.251.33.24 (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC) (I'm on a dynamic IP range)
This appears to be a case of good faith, not vandalism - there is no intention to disrupt the encyclopedia. The extra content seems to have come from the Talking Tom Wiki - see this entry for "Roy to the rescue" which matches the text entered into Wikipedia.
Requesting revdel, page protection and blocks seems overkill for what should be a good faith insertion. An accusation of vandalism just because somebody fills in a plot summary when you haven't yet seen the episode is frankly just silly. Nobody has properly reached out to the IP - apart from an L2 vandalism warning left by the OP (which I've struck, because it's inappropriate). Let's also remember that although WP:OR may be viable, there is also WP:SPOILER - a plot summary is expected to tell the plot which by definition means spoilers. There is a very real likelihood that this information will be applicable at some point - before the actual airdate, or certainly before the OP has seen the episodes. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
All I want is for someone to either add pending changes protection till the end of May (which is when each new season starts) or to add the page to their watchlist and regularly check and revert if anyone tries to add those unverified plot summaries. 45.251.33.205 (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
PS - I just wanted to point out that I struck down my own revdel request already and noted that I realised that it was overkill. I also did not request blocking that IP. I just requested for PCP which will let that person edit and will let that person's edit be publicly visible if it is a proper edit. 45.251.33.205 (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Did "SenatorLEVI" reply only to mock the fact that I was trying to get someone's attention to this? Because that is what i interpret his response as. 45.251.33.205 (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC) Redacted after I thought a bit more about what he could've meant. 45.251.33.205 (talk) 11:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
The fact that the episodes haven't aired has little bearing on the issue. I know we don't consider user-generated forums to be reliable sources, but neither should we automatically consider them to be intentionally deceptive and misleading.
I suggest you re-read WP:CRYSTAL BALL, as your current understanding of it is completely wrong. Crystal is about attempts to use Wiki to predict or make claims about the future. A plot description for a TV show that hasn't aired is a far cry from that. We absolutely do allow plots to be outlined even if the book/movie/TV show/etc has not been aired - although we do also generally require sources for them which is why they can be classed as WP:OR without.
Given that the editor in question has not tried to re-add any of the information, I would strongly oppose any kind of sanctions - especially page protection, where you want 2 months of Pending changes protection just because of a plot summary? That's completely over the top. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Page I created has disppeared
A few weeks ago I created a page (titled Ran Namerode) and understood it requires several months to be approved. I looked now to check how it's doing, and now I can't find it anywhere, can someone please help me find it? Wikinamerode (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Wikinamerode, welcome to the Teahouse! This means unfortunately that your page may have been deleted however it's not permanently deleted and can be restored. Search up the exact name of your article and see if you can edit it then look in the notification bar and see if you can find the user that deleted your article and ask them further questions. SoyokoAnis12:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
SoyokoAnis I checked and the page has never existed, deleted or otherwise, under the title given(as well as in the Draft space). Either it's under another title, or possibly on another language version of Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
What if the article of of a village already exists and I want to create article with that same name but about village from different district ? 106.220.85.12 (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, IP editor. Create it as a draft with a title like "Village, District". I think some Indian states and other areas have local conventions like "Village (District)", but the Manual of Style (here) recommends the style with the comma, for instance Tanur, Malappuram. If and when the draft is accepted, the reviewer might move it to a differently-styled title if that conforms to the local convention, but you don't need to be concerned about that when you create the draft. Regards, --bonadeacontributionstalk08:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång Hi and what about if in a district two villages have similar name ? For my instance I want to create a article about my village ' Ghodasgaon' which is present in Jalgaon district of Muktainagar taluka but already a article about different village of same name existing on WP - Ghodasgaon it's a village in Shirpur taluka of my district. 106.220.85.12 (talk) 10:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Not sure. Can you add another subdistrict, or east/west/north/south? Perhaps this list of places named Washington can inspire you. But even if you should pick a "wrong" title, that can be changed later. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse! In my opinion, the draft might be rejected, as Tony Jazz appears to be only notable for one event. Obama's 2012 reelection song is not exactly that notable, wouldn't you think? Basically he needs to have significant coverage to deserve a Wikipedia article. See WP:BIO for details on this. I feel like it's kind of on the border here... Sungodtemple (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Article not published
An article written by me, is still not published. It's been close to a month. How do I gather details about its publishing?
Be advised that once you submit it, it likely will take many weeks if not months to be reviewed, due to a backlog. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
106.220.85.12 Teahouse hosts volunteer to answer question on how to edit Wikipedia, but are not here to help improve drafts. You are likely the person most knowledgeable about Jalgoan, Kothadi and Ghodasgaon. The responsibility falls on you to improve these drafts while waiting for reviewers. David notMD (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
David notMD Okay , I got it ! I also naive.New to WP , learning by mistakes.But I thought some editors if looking for some article to contribution then they can edit them. Cheers 106.220.85.12 (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia does have a place to request articles get written by other editors (see Wikipedia:Requested articles), but there is a HUGE backlog. And, as you can see from above, sometimes a Teahouse volunteer will aid with more than just advice (at times, me too). David notMD (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I have a predicament and I don't know how to go about this. My last name is Ziade, I have recently changed my user name from Elie plus to my current one. I am afraid now of being accused of COI for that. This is my problem: a while back I noticed that one of the articles on my watchlist was being written over (Philippe Ziade the journalist) I created a disambig page and moved the new page (that of a politically involved entrepreneur / consul) for other users to edit and left it at that. I regularly review articles related to the Ziades (Ignatius, Phil the journalist and May) and I came upon the AfC for Philippe Ziade when I had thought the disambig and overwriting issue was resolved.
I have reviewed the sources for the said AfC and I have created a draft but I am reluctant to edit the AfC submission because of my fear of being accused of COI. I cannot find a tag to declare non-COI and I am here to declare that I don't use Wikipedia to promote any person with my family name. I have interest in these people but I have no relationship whatsoever with any of the Ziade article subjects on Wikipedia. Please tell me how to go about this. I also declare that I am not related to Philippe Ziade (neither the journalist nor the consul) nor affiliated to him, or his business (any of his businesses). I am not in contact with him nor with anyone from his side. I will not edit this article before hearing your counsel. _Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
There's no requirement that announcements of this kind must be made via template. You might write something on your user page. ¶ I note that both Draft:Philippe Ziade (businessman) and Draft:Philippe Ziade (entrepreneur) are about the same person, and that they use the same photograph: a photograph clearly taken with the cooperation of the biographee. Furthermore, the photograph first appeared for use in Philippe Ziade Real Estate Developer, an article subsequently deleted as unambiguously promotional. (The new "businessman" draft says that Ziade "is the founder and chairman of Las-Vegas based Growth Holdings"; the photograph was uploaded by the user "GrowthHoldingsPZ", later blocked for promotional activities.) There seems to be something fishy about all the activity on Wikipedia surrounding Ziade, whose notability is not obvious to me. -- Hoary (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Hoary I am not aware of the deleted article's edit history; I was only made aware of the article of this person when I noticed the edit conflict on the journalist's article. If the image is problematic why not delete it altogether? (For the record I don't think it's Wikipedia-appropriate because it looks like a promotional posed corporate shot, I only kept it because I saw it on the AfC page and assumed it was okay-ed). I have written an article from scratch and supplemented every primary source (interview video) with a secondary one. As for the notability issue, the person is notorious due to his alleged political connection with the ruling class, and shortly thereafter for his paradoxical refusal to participate in a cabinet dominated by HA after the liquidation of a regionally influential Iranian general. After that he was targeted by what people here qualify as a vengeful smearing campaign on a political background which (I only included a part of it). Other accusations include his relationships with Lebanese singer Yara (singer) and Najwa Karam, both of which are Arab divas, while being married. I found these bits of information irrelevant and ill-sourced and I did not include them in the article. Ziade is also popular among young graduates for obvious reasons. I am not responsible for paid or edits made by connected contributors (GrowthHoldingsPZ) or others. I raised this subject here because I worked on the article and found that there's a pending AfC. I am interested in Philip's story but I am in no way connected to him and refuse any insinuation of the sort. I have been here for the third of my life and I have never even considered breaching Wikipedia code and mission. _Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)\
While here I would like to inquire if starting an article for an MP with the same last name as mine will raise COI questions. I am also not related or affiliated with that person (Camil Ziade). _Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Given your extensive and stellar history of improving Wikipedia articles (Wow!!), I see no reason why anyone would doubt a simple declaration on your User page that you are and will be editing articles about people with the same last name as you (Draft:Philippe Ziade (businessman)), but that you have no COI with any of them. David notMD (talk) 10:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Elias Ziade, the image is fine. Its uploading and initial use raised my eyebrows; but now that it's at Commons you're free to use it. And yes, I agree with what David notMD has written immediately above. -- Hoary (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I am sorry if anything I wrote was defensive in any way. I am very humbled by your words of encouragement David notMD and Hoary Words don't convey intentions well but I am very impassioned and I take starting and improving articles very seriously. I was afraid that my family name would impede my plans to publish more articles about known Ziades that I am not related to. Now how can I proceed? Is it possible to delete the AfC article so I can publish the draft I wrote? _Elias Z. (talkallam) 13:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
There's nothing to apologize for, really. I suggest you just ignore the "entrepreneur" draft. As for the "businessman" draft, unfortunately I don't read Arabic (and don't trust Google Translate) so can't judge whether your man is notable (in the odd sense that the word is used here in Wikipedia). Unfortunately it's past my bedtime and my brain cells are dying even as I type, so I just hope that David notMD (or somebody else) will give you an intelligent response. -- Hoary (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I would like to do a two-dimensional schematic diagram to represent a streetcar network of 3 north/south lines and one interconnecting east/west line. I would like to use Template:Routemap but I would want the east/west line to be a horizontal line instead of twisting it into a vertical line. Thus, the schematic would resemble the city street grid. However, I suspect I would have problems indicating and labelling east/west stops. Is there any existing examples of doing this?
I use Inkscape and find that the learning curve isn't too steep, especially if you can find something it can input as a starting point (such as the .svg map you mentioned). In my case as a chemist, I create drawings in a chemical drawing package (which can't do .svg directly) and use metafile formats like .emf to swap into Inkscape for final tweaks and conversion to .svg. Note that Wikipedia has an .svg Help Desk at WP:SVG help where there are real experts. Good luck, TheTrolleyPole. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Really weird vandalism
I found a really weird instance of vandalism. First he called a user an idiot here, and then he replaced the page here. I reverted it, but do I put two user warnings, or just one? And if the former, which one? Help! MEisSCAMMER(talk)Hello!14:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleting content on the Talk page of an article is indeed vandalism, so you were right to revert it. The vandalizing editor is an IP address (not a registered account). I suppose you could watch the article and the talk page to see if the editor returns, but otherwise don't bother. IP editors often show up once - edit or vandalize - and then never return. David notMD (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello Gandalf the Groovy, if you're looking for requested articles you can find them here. If you want to created a draft just create a page in the following format Draft:Insert name of article. You can then submit it to WP:AFC, or move it directly to the mainspace when you're done. For a clearer image you can refer to WP:YFA and WP:DRAFT. SenatorLEVI14:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Given that this appears to be your first effort to create an article, I strongly recommend going through AfC versus moving a draft directly to mainspace. And see WP:YFA. David notMD (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Red Links
How can I find red links which are pages that don't exist. I am wondering if there is a list of them somewhere or if I have to seek them out somewhere. Any help would be appreciated. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Someone made a wiki page for me. Thanks! How do I take complete control. My name is KOKUMO. Also, how do I capitalize my name all over the page? From the header to the body.
Sorry MommaBaker60. Nobody controls their own page on Wikipedia. We have a style for content which does not include upper case names.Charles (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
(NB. I've merged these two sections). KOKUMOTheQueenOfQueerSoul, MommaBaker60 - is there a reason you're using two accounts for this? We're not keen on individuals using multiple accounts without good reason, especially when navigating something like a Conflict Of Interest. --Paul ❬talk❭ 11:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
That is very unlikely to happen. I suggest you take the time to read WP:BLP and WP:COI carefully, and then make suggestions and provide sources (WP:RS) at Talk:Kokumo, which is the place to discuss changes to that article. If your suggestions are inline with WP:s policies and guidelines, they may be acted upon. You don't control the article (it's WP:s article about you, not your WP-article), but it's possible you can have influence. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Based on what I can find in a Google search, I don't see any way to improve on the sourcing the present article has, and the present article's sourcing is barely adequate. Any attempt at an autobiography would likely go nowhere fast. —A little blue Boriv^_^vTakes a strong man to deny...16:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
Having made all the required changes to my draft, it has been pending re-review now for nearly two months. Is there anything I can do to alert the reviewer, who initially declined it, or another reviewer who can take a look?
Many thanks Ukuser691 (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Ukuser691 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As noted on your draft, "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,829 pending submissions waiting for review." You will need to continue to be patient. You can contact users who have previously reviewed the draft, their names are linked to in the decline notice) but it may or may not help. 331dot (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Bahman Panahi Declined in January and now Declined again March 2. See comments left by reviewers. My comment is delete the Exhibitions list. Wikipedia articles are not intended to contain all mentions of a person's accomplishments. The text already mentions major solo exhibitions. David notMD (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I want to write an Article about the CEO of A company
Hi,
I recently searched for The CEO of Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Kenichi Ayukawa, but could not find any information about him except here.It is stated that he is here that he is the CEO but He did not have a Page dedicated to Him. Can I create one on him? It is written on the creating your first article that I should check for notability of Topic In the Teahouse.
Regards, Wikiedit (talk) 12:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Wikiedit01995 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The CEO would not necessarily have a dedicated article(not just a "page") about him, unless there is significant coverage in independent reliable sources about him personally, and not just having to do with his job. If all the coverage about him is just related to his being the CEO, he probably would not merit a standalone article, as he would not meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
@Wikiedit01995:, to determine the gentleman's notability, which must be separate from the corporation's notability you need to find material about him written by others.
He is a living person. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
Your approach is a process.
find references
select the facts form those references that you wish to use (you will cite the facts with those references WP:CITE is your friend here
Create a storyboard from those facts
Using WP:AFC use the article wizard to start a new draft. It is not mandatory, but it guides you
Write very neutral, flat prose, citing the references for the facts
Double check your work and submit the draft when happy
While awaiting review, continue to enhance your work
Note that an inability to find references means the draft is unlikely to be accepted (0.9 probability). We want new articles here, and we try hard to maintain high standards. Welcome to a consuming new hobby FiddleFaddle12:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
There is an article about the chairman of the company R. C. Bhargava which you could use as a template for any draft, Wikiedit01995. Although that article has been around since 2014, it still debatable whether it passes the WP:BIO notability threshold, in my opinion. However you will see the sort of article Wikipedia expects as a minimum. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Michael D. Turnbull, Were three of the references not dead links we could probably make a better determination. I am leaning towards Bhargava being a decent gentleman doing his job well rather than having notability. I am currently 50:50 about Bhargava. FiddleFaddle13:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree but didn't want to go off-topic. Personally I would be pretty certain that article would not survive an WP:AfD but I'm not familiar enough with all the WP:BLP policies to be sure. Go ahead with that if you wish, Timtrent. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Partner to publish first Wikipedia Article - How to find one?
I "joined" ~ 3 yrs ago...in retirement... while researching a subject I hoped to "publish." (It relates to lots of existing content.)
I made a couple edits to related Wikipedia subjects while drafting my original article -- but that was my total actual contribution.
Actual "publishing" seemed too daunting. Learning W's arcane language...
So, I simply drafted in plain English, in the "style" of Wikipedia, but never published.
I did identify all links to existing article.
And there it sits in a word-processing format, for two years.
How do I find a someone actually edit/publish?
And where might I go for any reply? (I don't know how to use "Talk" or "Sandbox" or...
Could I just do email? Is there some way to share the content off-line as a PDF perhaps?)
Oh, and the subject is... U.S. Naval history - pre-Civil War (in case that strikes someone's interest)
Save it as plain text (not in a word processing format). Copy this to the clipboard of your computer. Click on this link. Paste it there. Click on "Publish changes" (which means save what you have). Then ask here about it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I have pictures as well and footnotes. Will convert and post as instructed in the next couple days (it may take that long to convert and purge all the formatting I did to make it "look" like a Wiki document. Appreciate whatever help, advice you can offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Furwood (talk • contribs) 00:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Here, both to fortify you and to demonstrate picture insertion, is a glass of rather good beer. (Apologies for the miscellaneous category confusions.)Good, Richard Furwood, but please do not attempt to upload any pictures until you fully understand the (necessarily stringent) legal requirements. However, you're welcome to insert pictures that are already at Wikimedia Commons. -- Hoary (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
It's at User:Richard Furwood/sandbox. Well done, Richard Furwood! And yes, it looks interesting. First priority: labeling subheaders as such (I've done one for you), and attaching the references to, well, what they're supposed to be attached to (I've done a bogus sample for you). Don't worry yet about the infobox or the pictures: these can come a little later. -- Hoary (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I've converted the remaining headings the best I could (I assumed the order based on the context), correct them manually if they are wrong by adding/removing a =. Don't go below two = (==), and don't go above 5. (=====) Remember that the equals on the left must match the equals on the right! Spacing doesn't matter. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 07:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Thank you, both. This is beginning to look real. I will see if I can follow instructions later today... (and will try not to "break" anything!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Furwood (talk • contribs) 17:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
making additions/changes to my page
Dear Wiki Volunteers,
First, let me say how much I appreciate your hard work and how much I appreciate Wikipedia. That said, I was recently on a feedback board, asking for help with updating my page. I am a dinosaur and was completely confused by the directions I was given. I know it's possible to do, but it is not so clear, nor easy, to make the simplest changes. I, of course was not adding any weird, or libelous information, just updates about me and my career, and of course, since I didn't know how about the protocol of making changes, all my hard work was erased. I don't mind, but I wish I knew how to add info properly. I know I am supposed to go to the "Talk" page, and add sourced backup to any additions, but I have no idea on how and where to do that, specifically. I suppose there's no step-by-step example of how to do this? That would be super helpful!
Any way I could talk to someone about it? I certainly have source press, etc. to back up my additions/changes.
Best, Michael Holman (filmmaker) 2603:7000:4001:E49A:3425:B428:E7E9:83F5 (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Generally, editing your own article is discouraged. What you do instead is use edit requests. Go to Talk:Michael Holman (filmmaker). Click "new section". Type the name of the section you want, like "requested edits to a page about me", then at the top of the section include {{Request edit}}, which will include the template. Then, write your request under it, as well as the references supporting whatever changes you'd like to be made. The clearer you are with your request, the faster it will be implemented.
Where is a list of notability requirements for people categorized under the businessman category? Is recognition by the United Nations / The White House sourced in a major publication enough to qualify notability? Dannyocean99 (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Dannyocean99. I think the guidance that you are looking for is at WP:DEFINING, which says: "For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right or relevant to his acting career."
Similarly, it is very common for highly paid professional athletes to invest in businesses. If the vast majority of coverage of the person is focused on their sports accomplishments and occasionally, somebody mentions "And person Y also owns a business," then that athlete should be added to sports categories but not business categories. Cullen328Let's discuss it18:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Your question has already been answered above. I would add, however, that you will need to continue to improve and clarify the article for it to stand a chance of being accepted. For example, the first line says he's a "songwriter, musician and writer", but under the heading of "career" it says he's "president of the Economic and Social Development Counci" with no mention of music except at the age of seven.--Shantavira|feed me19:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Hatnote Help
What action do I need to take at this point for acceptance? This is the comment I received on my draft. I am confused. Should I move forward with creating a hatnote on the primary page? Thank you.
Comment: The title of this draft has been disambiguated.
If this draft is accepted, a hatnote will need to be added to the primary page to refer to this page.
The primary page is Post-industrial society.
Dawnpalmyra (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC) Dawnpalmyra (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Dawnpalmyra once the draft is published as an article, then a hatnote should be added. You don't need to and shouldn't add any hatnote while your article remains a draft. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
What should I do?
It appears that an edit war has been started on the page Daihatsu Rocky. User TheAafi is removing the images on that page, saying that "this is a set-index article, images should be used on particular related articles, not convenient here, MOS:DABIMG backs my argument." However, the same article also backs my argument that if a reader was looking for the F70 Rocky but didn't know the model codes or years produced, an image might help them differentiate between the F300 and A200 series Rocky. How should I go about resolving this conflict. Thanks! Sagquattro2009 (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Cullen,
I am reaching out to you at Wikipedia Teahouse for both advice and help,
I have always loved vintage fashion, automobiles and music because they represent the classics in their own way, and always find a way to come back. I have always been interested in how the stock Market had an impact on color, automobile’s fashions and music and believe that the stock market with its rise and fall had it ‘s impact in these areas but have not been able to prove my theory. I also want to use any articles I might find on Wikipedia and give credit to their contributing editors.
Why so many articles of biographies of persons are existing without their photos ? 223.178.144.61 (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Possibly because they have the right to refuse to have their picture taken, for privacy reasons. AidTheWiki (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Because no-one has found and added a suitable photo. The problem is often that there's no available copyright-free photo. Maproom (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Very few images will meet these requirements. In particular, with some limited exceptions, images of living persons can't meet the fair use criterion of "no free equivalent", because the possibility always exists, while they are alive, that someone can snap a photo somewhere and release it. Please note also that unlike many websites, where someone can license a non-free copyrighted image for use at that site, we don't allow this. For these reasons, many biography articles do not have any image, and many others have a non-professional quality image because the only one we can use was one taken at some random location by an amateur (rather than, e.g., a professional headshot) who then released the copyright of the image under a suitable license. And even this last is restricted – see Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, for living people, the third criteria mentioned above (fair use) cannot generally be used. Which is why many living people don't have photos. Joseph2302 (talk)18:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
But it is wired and feels like incomplete. when a naive reader like do not see photo of the person related to that article.Many folks paste photos on WP from here and there under fair use policy.But still I don't know how to use this fair use policy and pick photo from somewhere and paste it on WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.178.144.61 (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
The fair use policy accords with the Wikimedia Foundation's interpretation of US copyright law. Please either (A) make sure that you understand this policy (which is necessarily complex) or (B) don't upload photographs or other images for which you claim "fair use". -- Hoary (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@Wikigetsme123: As explained to you last time, we would much rather you improve the current article rather than replace the current one. However, you still need to to put it bluntly, your prose inside the sandbox is not up to Wikipedia's standards. You may try to boldly edit the existing article or propose changes on the talk page. You also mentioned last time that there's another editor that you got into a disagreement with, so please head to the talk page and try to come to a consensus. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 08:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for the feedback. To improve 'this' short article, I would have to add 70% of text, I would consider this a rewriting. I am waiting for feedback on the talk page for weeks now, as it is, there is nobody interested. The other editor who reversed my early small change and then agreed to change it himself (so no 'disagreement anywhere' is saying, he is only part time on Wiki 9what ever that could mean to me), suggesting another editor might help. I contacted him 3 weeks ago, but no response, yet.
That is where we are... in the air. Ok, I will change it, and hope somebody comes up with suggestions without deleting it just because of.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigetsme123 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Help with questions on Steph Korey article
Hi, I'm the subject of the Steph Korey article and have declared that connection. I was having a productive conversation with @Seagull123: about the content of the article but they seem to be on an extended break from editing. I would really appreciate it if someone had a few minutes to pick up the conversation with me where Seagull123 left off. Stephkg (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Colonizor48. There's a bit more to this than what The Aafī has posted above, and you can find out more details at WP:NPP. You might also want to take a look at WP:HATS as well since special user rights are usually only given to those that the WP:COMMUNITY feels will not use them inappropriately or incorrectly. Some special rights do have minimum requirements, but most always require that the editors requesting the right have an established track record of making sound edits that shows they have a good understanding of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This doesn't mean that the editors can never make a mistake, but it does mean that the need to clearly demonstrate that they are WP:HERE and are capable of learning from their mistakes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Template main article
I use to put See main article xyz but I see there is a new template
. My question is “ Is this the preferred way now and thus should I go through all my articles and start replacing with this format? GRALISTAIR (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Well I did an article Draft:Midland Main Line railway upgrade and in the history an editor did an edit that replaced See main article Midland Main Line with the format
Hi Ganbaruby. Templates are just a convenience. If you've written it out the same way, I see no purpose served in replacing with a template, only seen in edit mode (we have had a gazillion discussions, for example, about the fact that bots who just make these types of changes, cluttering up watchlists in the process, have such little utility for the bother they cause...) As to the slightly different format you've used, it serves fine; I suppose "See" is fairly tacit, but if it's at all burdensome, don't bother. I doubt there's was any grand consensus on the exact way it should look; no involved finding that it's massively superior to some trivially different format. (By the way, the template's been around since 2004.) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
@Fuhghettaboutit: They's referring to this diff: [2]. Though I'm not well versed in hatnote discussions and this is not the place to discuss the template's pros and cons, I've always used hatnote templates because of how it indents + italicizes for you. GRALISTAIR, I'd still encourage you to use the template, even if for consistiency's sake. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 01:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ganbaruby: You refer to [3]. Context is often important. There is a big difference between the start of an article and the start of a section. "See main article xyz" is not suitable for the opening line. {{main|xyz}} with its indentation and italics is better but we actually don't generally use any form of such "main" links in the opening line, only in sections (where {{main}} is also preferred). "main" links are supposed to go to articles with more detailed coverage of the subject of a section, not broader articles. Template:Main says: "This template should also not be used in lead sections." Some areas of Wikipedia do have their own practices, e.g. tennis draw articles like 2021 Australian Open – Men's Singles where {{main}} is used in an "invalid" way while 2021 Australian Open#Men's Singles is the valid way. There are thousands of such tennis articles and it may some day give a big conflict. Don't do it unless it's an established practice in the subject area. You should instead look for a way to link the broader article in the opening sentence or paragraph. Your example already does that so the "main" link can just be removed. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I made one edit in Investigative Reporters and Editors, adding the History of the organization, at least its beginnings, which was told in one book I reference in the article. I'd like to ask the members of the Teahouse if they could review my contribution, since I'm not a native English speaker, so I might have made some grammatical errors or repeated some words a bit too much. Thanks! User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 20:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC) User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 20:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Consistent Error in the entries on individual Psalms
I've noticed that many of the pages for individual Psalms from the Book of Psalms has an error in comparing the numbering systems between the Hebrew and Greek texts. Is there a way to do a global fix or do I have to change each one? Here is the text that appears with each psalm beginning with Psalm 9. The wording is consistent but the numbering changes. This example is from the entry Psalm 53, which I have corrected on the WP page.
This article uses Hebrew (Masoretic) psalm numbering. Psalm 52 in Greek (Septuagint or Vulgate) numbering corresponds to Psalm 53 in Hebrew numbering.
Thank you for clarifying this. I went to Template talk:Psalm nr and did not see the template in question. I'm brand new to this so any specific direction you can give would be appreciated. BCPMyles (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)BCPMyles
Another editor reverting changes back to incorrect data
I got a message from another editor that my corrections to the incorrect numbering between Greek and Hebrew psalms were creating some problem. He has reverted the changes back. It has to do with some links that are embedded. I will stop making changes and hope for some guidance because the numbering is incorrect, it doesn't even match the numbering that is used in the text of the articles. Here is the note I received:
Francis Schonken 05:16, 5 March 2021 diff hist 0 Psalm 63 Undid revision 1010376059 by BCPMyles (talk) no, creates a blacklink, instead of a link to the article on the psalm with this number in the other numbering system. current
What are the criteria for NSE listed website that are offering stocks. Does NSE listed contribute to Notability? Sonofstar (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Under the xtools section it has information if our small edits and large edits but only the last 5K edits is there I way ai could find out life time Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
If I understand you question correctly, you can navigate to any user's page, click on the menu item to the left ("User contributions") and then, at the very bottom of the page that appears, click on "Edit count" and you should see a full breakdown for that user. Your personal one is "at this URL". Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah done that and it says ‘’Data limited to the past 5,000 edits‘’ I wanted to know my lifetime total not just my last 5 thousand edits Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
@Fanoflionking and Elli:. Not so. The stats (at the URL I linked) say (top left) you have 15,106 edits. The part that says the data are limited to the last 5,000 edits is next to an asterisk that just refers to the pie-charts nearby. Presumably that's not just for processing time reasons but because most people won't dramatically alter the pattern of their editing over time. Mike Turnbull (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Michael D. Turnbull I'm pretty sure that's exactly for processing time reasons. Some counts are faster to run than others, I'd assume counting byte size is more intensive than just asking for the namespace totals or whatever. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, @Elli:. On any sensible relational database SELECT COUNT * WHERE (condition) is always much much faster than any query that needs to process the individual rows returned. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Adding Citations
I am trying to cite a newspaper Article in my sandbox article on Author David Alexanian. So I did this [4] I put the reference name - SNAPD1 and then added an external link. Is this correct? Thank you Angelalala222 (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, there is this article Charles DeLisi. What possible steps must one take so they can remove this tag forever without it having to appear again. Please assist in this case. Thank you. (Precariousman123 (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC))
Hi Precariousman123. Generally, any editor can remove a maintenance template from which has been added to an article as explained in Help:Maintenance template removal as long as they feel they have addressed the reasons why the template was added in the first place. If someone else disagrees and re-adds the template, then things can be discussed on the article's talk page. For templates added for WP:COI or WP:PAID reasons, however, it's probably not a good idea for the editor who is considered to have the COI or PAID relationship to the subject of the article to remove such templates no matter how good their intentions are. It would probably be best for you to either start a discussion about this on the article's talk per WP:ER, or maybe at a noticeboard like WP:COIN or WP:NPOVN to see what other unconnected editors might think. This might seem a bit unfair perhaps, but it probably best to be WP:CAUTIOUS in a case like this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I’m looking to change the title of Draft:Norman R. Smith (educationist), which I’ve submitted to AFC. Someone previously submitted a badly sourced page on Norman, and I’ve (independently, not working with whoever uploaded the last thing) drafted a new potential entry for the long time college president. But I’m concerned the title of the draft is weird, as he is a university president, not an “educationist” by nature - which doesn’t reflect the thing he is notable for. Can someone please help? (I am reviewing a stipend for this work). 2605:8D80:502:9A8:4C53:4B9D:C323:4C76 (talk) 05:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, IP user. If "reviewing a stipend" is a mistake for "receiving a stipend", then you are a paid editor, and you must familiarise yourself with the page I linked, and make the requisite declaration. --ColinFine (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
User-boxes
How do I make and add user boxes. I have seen them on other profile pages and I have been wanting to upgrade my user page. Any help would be appreciated. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
You seem to have written little, if anything, that wasn't about this one person. It's very important that you read Help:Your first article. A spoiler: please forget about TVS Chelapaty Rao until you have become at least a little accustomed to, and skillful at, improving existing articles. -- Hoary (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
One of the main principles of Wikipedia is neutrality, which means we discourage you from editing about yourself or your friends or family—these are called "conflicts of interest". Most people do not meet the criteria we have for having a biography on Wikipedia, which you can read at Wikipedia:Notability (people), and in the rare cases where they do we need to see evidence of lots of high-quality references. — Bilorv (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
To add to this, most of these rights are only given to users who have significant experience with Wikipedia, can demonstrate an understanding of our basic policies and guidelines, and have a direct need for these permissions in their day-to-day editing. (The exception is autoconfirmed, which you will receive automatically in a couple of days, as it just indicates that you have more than 10 edits and that your account is at least 4 days old.) — Bilorv (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
The last thing I said in a thread now archived pointed out that in an environment where publishing is constrained by political censorship, nothing can be published regarding that circumstance in spite is its existence. I am surprised this does not seem to be of concern. I wonder why that is.
On Wikipedia, this phenomenon strikes me as willful ignorance or cowardice. Wikipedia relies on published sources for everything, so a degradation of the publishing world undermines the value of Wikipedia. The logical extreme would be Wikipedia would contain nothing of value if nothing of value is published.Wikoipedia's health is tied to the health of publishing. That would make political censorship something to really hate if Wikipedia is importantDanallenhtn (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Danallenhtn (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Danallenhtn what would you prefer we do? How do we know anything that we don't directly observe?
Ideally we would just know what's true, but we don't, so we use reliable sources to determine what is true or not. Otherwise, the site would be filled with constant warring as people disagree over every possible fact. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Danallenhtn If the reliable sources in an article are being summarized accurately, but you believe they are incorrect or disagree with them, you will have to take that up with the sources. Wikipedia makes no claims that its content is "true"; Wikipedia only summarizes what can be verified in reliable sources. The sources are presented to readers so they can be examined and judged by those readers as to their truthfulness or accuracy. Only you can decide what is true for you. See WP:TRUTH. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
@Danallenhtn: I think you're wrong to suggest that this is not a concern for us. It's certainly something I regularly think about. However, in order to offer a criticism you need to offer a better solution, because it is often said that Wikipedia cannot work in theory, only in practice. Many users come to this website to maliciously add false information, and it is enormously impractical for us to check whether the information is true or not in every single instance. The site could not exist if the burden were on us to do this. Instead, a rule we can implement in practice is to remove information without a reliable source. So if you think we should not rely on reliable sources only then you need to explain how the site could be rewritten under your new suggestions, and how it would be maintained in the face of day-to-day vandalism without suffering reputational damage or falling into disuse. On the flip side, we have actively opposed some political censorship such as the SOPA initiative or censorship of Wikipedia where it interferes with our mission statement and goals. — Bilorv (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Uploading documents to prove/support an allegatio
I please would like to correct some glaring errors in the Wikipedia article about myself - this includes statements that incorrectly portray my beliefs or cause the public to have a mistake notion about myself. In addition, this page has not been updated in ages, and I have written several new books since it was written, released two music albums, and received additional awards and international attention.
My specific question: I have many physical documents, such as an Award from the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts (and letters written to support my claims and assertions). But I do not know how to upload such an item, even I don't know where I would send such an item. But the physical document is part of the evidence that I received this award. Does Wikipedia accept PDFs, JPGs, and so forth? And if so, how would I make them available to those who review such things for inclusion on my page - do I put it onto Google Docs - and if so to whom do I give permission to view such a document?
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about article subjects. If the sources in the article about you are incorrect, please make a formal edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page, Talk:Laurence Galian, offering independent reliable sources to support your proposed changes. That doesn't include primary sources. Wikipedia does not store source documents, preferably sources that report on those documents are desired. 331dot (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
For clarity: this means that we might mention an award if we have a link to the official website, or (ideally) to a respected newspaper which mentioned that you received the award in an article. The same is true of more recent books, albums and other activities you have been involved with. We do not mention information that has not been published, per our verifiability policy. As 331dot says, making an edit request (by following the instructions at the link they gave) is your best way to go about this, and you can ask me at User talk:Bilorv if you are struggling to follow these instructions. — Bilorv (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
LightningComplexFire to answer your second question, you should upload it to Wikimedia Commons. If you own the logo you should be able to release it under a free license - making this clear on say, your company website, will prevent the logo from being deleted. Provided your company has an article, uploading the logo is acceptable. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Elli, that is not helpful advice. LightningComplexFire, Elli's advice is only correct in the (very unusual) situation that the company is willing to license the logo in such a way that anybody may reuse or alter it for any purpose, commercial or not (or the slightly less unusual case that the logo is simple enough that it does not meet the threshold for being copyrightable). For most logos, you do not upload them to Commons, but to Wikipedia itself, making sure that the use meets all the non-free content criteria: more detail is given in Logos. (Note that the criteria require that the media be added to at least one article, and that it be essential to that article, so in practice, this can be uploaded only to be added to a published article about the company, and not for any other purpose.
Uploading the logo and adding it to the article about the company is technically COI editing: in my view it is acceptable, but I don't know that everybody would agree. An alternative approach is to make an edit request on the article's talk page, giving a URL for the logo, and asking somebody to upload as non-free and add it to the article. --ColinFine (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
ColinFine if it's your company, then you can license the logo however you want, because you own it. I'd advise them to release it under a free license.
It's like if a person comes here and asks "can I add a picture of myself to an article about me?" Yes, release it under a free license. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Most people would never want to release their business' logo under a free license. (Many big companies spend huge sums of money on essentially the opposite; zealously protecting their intellectual property from use by others, their logos, trademarks, etc.) On the other hand, by the very nature of what fair use is, a person who owns copyrighted content cannot claim fair use—only a third party can. There is a catch-22 there, of course.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Trademarks != copyrights. And besides, most photographers wouldn't release their pictures under a free license - but that's what we encourage them to do here, if they'd like to share their images. I don't see the issue with applying the same standard to others. If you'd like your images included, release them under an appropriate license. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Elli, after mentioning intellectual property, I said "logos, trademarks, etc."; do you see the comma? Anyway, the equivalence you're drawing between photos and a business logo is utterly inapt. It's like saying "people give blood all the time; can we have your liver?"--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
@Fuhghettaboutit: yes, I did - my argument is that the copyright status doesn't, or shouldn't, matter to them. Many companies pick logos in the public domain already - like Google - and there is no issue there, they can still go after trademark infringements. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Google didn't choose to put their logo in the public domain; the logo they chose was too unoriginal for copyright protection. That doesn't imply if they had a logo that met the threshold of originality they wouldn't spend a billion dollars protecting it. But the real point is that you're actually, empirically wrong about how the vast majority of those who have copyright protected logos feel about protecting them, and how that interfaces with your advice. Yes, some small portion of people are willing to release their original logo. The vast majority would say are you f*ing kidding?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)
Elli, Ok, I would just put it under a fair use license, or if I'm wrong, any license that allows the image to be on WP, but cannot be used except for the subject page. I'm not an expert on copyright, so I mess up which licenses are which. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥15:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
"Oracle CRM" Wiki Page - Needs Updating
I am trying desperately to update the Oracle CRM, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_CRM, page. All the content is wildly out of date -- not a single product or link is correct. I made a lot of updates but all were pulled off the page from folks that are not familiar with our products. I did not note that I work for Oracle (so think that is "employee" status, but if I note that and try to make updates again -- will that work?
Ghardt13, welcome to the Teahouse. If you work for Oracle, you must declare so on your user page; you may use the {{paid}} template to do so. As someone employed by the subject, it is strongly recommended that you do not edit the article directly, but rather leave edit requests on the article's talk page (Talk:Oracle CRM) and supply reliable sources that support your proposed additions or changes. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
How long does it take to have someone pick it up and make the updates? Do I have to wait hours, days, weeks? Do you have a sense?
Also, I might get paid by Oracle, but what if I am trying to make an update to the generic, Wiki Page - Customer Relationship Management? Can I not update that as well? Aren't most folks employed by someone? Can anyone that is being paid to have a career never allowed to update a wiki page? Shouldn't a Companies Product Wiki Page be something that could be updated by someone that knows the products? Thanks for all the help and insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghardt13 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Ghardt13 As you have been told, if you wish to make edits that are related to your conflict of interest, you may do so as edit requests. I do not make any edits about my employer here on Wikipedia and I don't even visit its article. Wikipedia content is ideally added by independent editors. We don't want companies to speak about themselves and their products here- they have their own websites to do that. Wikipedia is only interested in what others say about them and their products. 331dot (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok, thanks Tenryuu, If I add to the talk page, could you or others review and pick up the changes? Do you have a sense of the timing to update - is there a general amount of time we have to allot, and if not picked up, is there a channel to escalate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghardt13 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ghardt13: This is one of the double-edged aspects of Wikipedia: WP:VOLUNTEER, which means that most edits are done by editors who are interested in the subject (but not connected). There are some editors who patrol edit requests, but there tends to be a backlog, so it can be a while before they get to edit requests related to Oracle. (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 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Tags?
Hi there! I just had a question about tags. I have looked on the Wiki page about tags to try to get an understanding but it just wasn't helping. I don't know how to use them and what tags to use for what purposes. If someone could help me out I would LOVE IT! Thank y'all. 14thReason (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
How do I submit references to support my sandbox entry Collectible & Antique Chair Gallery? Submitted in the visual edition. Thanks Bhartsfield09 (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi - someone able to point me to the procedure what will be published via the official Wikipedia Twitter Account!? I am aware of WP:ITN but found nothing for the Twitter Posts ... do we have any policy/procedure for this? CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I made changes to a persons page which included adding birth_name and other information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Gardenhour Once I saved the changes the picture that was on the page doesn't display now and all of the personal information now reads in paragraph form at the top instead of on the right side of the page with the personal details below the picture. How can I fix this and get the picture back? I was working in Visual Editor on my computer.
Thank you in advance! TruthPR (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
An editor reverted all of the changes you made. Rather than starting over, I suggest you start a discussion on the Talk page of the article. Minimally, none of the content you added had references (but then, the prior version had no references, either). Naming music videos he worked on adds nothing to his notability. David notMD (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
ADDA52
This https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADDA52 page is deleted twice in the tag of [WP:G4] I tried to explain that the page is notable today & created based on 2020-21 news of the ban on it in Few states but people are deleting it due to 2017 discussion. Please let me what to do. To avoid spam I just created the Draft:ADDA52 for the discussion and point of view. Please check my Talk page also, it might be of some help. 1друг (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC) 1друг (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
The most recent deletion was because it was promotional. As for your current draft, the one sentence The company was incorporated in late 2000 and Delta Corps acquired the company in 2017 has eight references. Why? Please see Wikipedia:Citation overkill. -- Hoary (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
@Hoary: Thanks for the feedback. If someone explained me this I would have improved it till now. Can you please tell me what is the next step? I have modified the entire draft and the links. Others are also most welcome to share the feedback 1друг (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Because it's protected to prevent precisely this. The main page can only be edited by administrators. The mainpage is a bunch of transcluded templates and the content in those templates is decided by consensus within the community. CUPIDICAE💕14:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Creative Name 420. Such a major change would need consensus among the community. The current front page is designed to highlight reasonably good-quality articles and serve as a reward to editors who have done work to improve a page. For instance, Today's Featured Article reaches "featured" status by going through a very detailed process of peer review to ensure it's the best article it can be, and Did You Know? shows newly-created, newly-expanded and newly-improved articles. A list of most-viewed pages would probably not fit in with the spirit of the current Main Page and would be subject to manipulation by bots or other malicious activity. However, you can see the most-visited pages in the recent week at the Top 25 Report, see a list of the top 5000 most-viewed pages at User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages and find the pageviews of any particular page here. Thanks for the question! — Bilorv (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
How to bring attention to potential COI article authorship?
I recently responded to a COI edit request on the Laurel Parmet talk page requesting that an unsourced birth year be removed. As far as I could tell, there was no previous published birth year prior to this Wikipedia article, so I removed it. This request was made by a user claiming to be the subject of the article. Although the identity was unconfirmed, I couldn't find evidence of a birth year being previously published so in light of WP:DOB, removing the birth year seemed appropriate.
However, when I was trying to ensure that there wasn't a previous source in one of the other references, I saw that the entire article was written by a user named Ethan Parmet, who appears to be an established editor. I assume the normal procedure for noticing something like this isn't just "post about it in the teahouse", but I'm not sure what the right forum would be. WP:COICOIN seems to be more about getting someone making repeated edits to stop, but this case might mean that this entire article should be deleted? Putterlace (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Putterlace. There are two issues: 1) does that editor know that COI editing is frowned on? 2) is the article partisan? For 1), a message on the editor's talk page pointing this out for future reference (check to see whether it's already been discussed there, or on the article's talk page). For 2) if it's neutral, do nothing. If it's not neutral, or you don't have time to check, stick {{COI}} at the top, and put a note on its talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up. I think there are a couple of guidelines to keep in mind here. One is that it would seem likely that User:Ethan Parmet does in fact have a conflict of interest, as you have pointed out, and should mention as such on their user page, article talk page, and/or edit summaries per WP:DISCLOSE. However, as mentioned by the notes at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, it is not yet necessary to escalate there, at least before bringing it to Ethan's attention. The other guideline I think is relevant is that on WP:Notability, or in particular WP:FILMMAKER. Given a quick Google I think Laurel is notable enough, since she seems to have won some awards for her work on top of her significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources per the general notability guideline. Given that, the page should stand. --Anon423 (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Ethan has disclaimed any conflicts of interest, which I've copy-pasted from my own talk page to his. That should be settled, I hope. @Putterlace:. --Anon423 (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Actually don't worry, I've worked it out. Just thought I'd write something here, but in the few seconds since asking I've found the answer. Thanks anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ButterCashier (talk • contribs) 23:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I have an article in my sandbox which I like to see instead of the one at 'Gympie Pyramid'. I hope someone has the time to have a look, edit or change what he doesn't like and post the remains. I could upload, but in my experience even with the smallest and well founded change someone comes along and interferes, does the change himself.
So I need help if Wiki policy is, that no newbie can change anything. Wikigetsme123 (talk) 07:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Wikigetsme123. There is already an article Gympie Pyramid, and the best course of action is to make incremental changes to the existing article instead of trying to write a completely new version of the article. That may be perceived as disrespectful to the previous editors who worked on that article. That could possibly lead to arguments with the prior editors. I suggest that you gradually add impeccably referenced new content, and gradually remove content you believe to be poorly referenced, explaining why in edit summaries. That's the best course of action, in my opinion. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Cullen328, and I would add that if any of the other editors have an issue with the changes that you are making, you should pause and discuss on the article talk page. Giraffer(talk·contribs)07:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
What's new in User:Wikigetsme123/sandbox is largely unreferenced. As you add material to Gympie Pyramid, Wikigetsme123, make sure that each part of it is clearly linked to a reliable, independent, published source. This is slightly complicated here, because as it stands the article cites what we can politely call "fringe" sources. Articles normally shouldn't do this, but it can be permissible (even commendable) in some circumstances. Certainly the reader shouldn't get the impression from the article as a whole that a "fringe" interpretation is the most convincing one. -- Hoary (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks everybody for the input. This a well written article with poor information in it. The photo was wrong and two web links were dead. Nobody cares ... until I change a little thing. So I will add my additions to this existing article and really hope that no one of the experienced editors here reverse it just because of... Lets see. The information comes straight out of online publications, all with references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigetsme123 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I'm trying to understand the rationale of why Draft:Brad_Walls is constantly being rejected based on notability. I have multiple biopic sources (Washpost, CNN, huffpost etc) that make a substantial argument for notability. Please share any insight. Regards. Bradwalls1992 (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Bradwalls1992 (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Bradwalls1992! From your username, it appears you are creating an article about yourself the reason may be because of WP:COI. Please re-review the comments to insure the article passes. SoyokoAnis - talk02:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Bradwalls1992 I think COI editors are generally held to a higher standard than non-COI editors in what is considered acceptable. Do you have any reliable sources giving significant biographical coverage of you, instead of just a project that you've done? Elli (talk | contribs) 03:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Elli. Artists press is centered around released work and additionally will dive into biographical details of that artist, and that is the content within the sources listed on the draft. It is confusing as I cover the 4 main points in WP:ARTIST to be notable, and I am not really getting a good enough answer. It seems there is some bias with the editors? Thanks Bradwalls1992 (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Bradwalls1992 yeah, I feel like you probably are notable (lucky you!) I'm somewhat busy the next few days but I might see if I can publish your article.
BTW, would you consider uploading a picture of yourself - and perhaps an example of your work - under a compatible free license to Wikimedia Commons? Elli (talk | contribs) 03:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Elli, I appreciate that - it's been painful. I did upload an image of myself, but it was removed by one of the editors, should I re-upload? Bradwalls1992 (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Bradwalls1992 as for uploading the image, yes, just make sure you agree to release it under an appropriate license. And yeah, CoI editors are viewed very negatively around here - which is understandable, as most of them are non-notable and write unfairly about themselves, but that doesn't mean that all of them are bad - WP:AGF should still apply.
As for resubmitting, I'd hold off on that - I'll look at it personally soon, submitting isn't necessary for that.
(also, please keep in mind that once your article is published, it's recommended to request any possibly controversial edits with the {{request edit}} template on the article talk page, so it'll be a bit more frustrating to edit it in that case. So if you have more stuff that's received coverage you'd like to add/change, I'd recommend doing that sooner rather than later) Elli (talk | contribs) 04:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Also bear in mind, Elli, that citations are there to verify something in an article — usually some fact. We call it WP:OVERKILL when multiple citations are given to back up just one piece of information. Think about the people who have to review your article. They will be much more impressed by a single good reference to a WP:SECONDARY source than they will to several WP:PRIMARY ones that may all have been based on a single press release. I'm thinking of the references 23 to 27 in the career section! Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Mike Turnbull, I appreciate the feedback. I never received this when submitting the article. The reason I did perhaps move towards WP:OVERKILL, was because I kept getting rejected for the sources not being relevant, hence I added more, which in retrospect wasn't a great idea. Thanks again! Bradwalls1992 (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions
hi. I just got a message from my talk page about me writing things about post-1992 US politics which I am very much interested in. However, I don't know why I was prompted with it Lovin'Politics (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Lovin'Politics probably because you edit in that area. It's nothing to worry about as long as you follow the guidelines it lays out (basically, don't edit war, and be civil). Elli (talk | contribs) 01:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Where you have <ref>{{citation template}}</ref>, use <ref name=":0"> at the front (autogenerated label from Visual Editor) or <ref name="Meaningful_label">. Reuse a citation by simply inserting <ref name=":0" />, or <ref name="Meaningful_label" />. --Anon423 (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
@Lovin'Politics: I assume you're referring to edit summaries. While not required, it's good practice to do it because it lets other editors know what you are doing without having to actually check the diffs between edits. When you go to a long edit history page, the edit summaries help us find the revisions a lot easier. Edit summaries can also be used to provide a short explanation for a change (longer explanations should go on the talk page). ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 02:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I've been directed to seek help here.
It would be really helpful if you send me few links to the following-
1. Userfication-(Zeyan Shafiq's article was deleted so they have been suggested over email to apply for userfication, i want to know what it is and how it works).
2. The Relevant policies for notability guidelines on wikipedia.
3. Any other important wikipedia policy which might be related and important to Stalwart Esports and Zeyan Shafiq.
Thanks @Cullen328, for the information. I have read the Conflict of interest document and the paid contribution as well. According to the document I surely do have a conflict of interest with Zeyan Shafiq, but my motive to be on wikipedia is that I've been asked by Mr. Shafiq to join wikipedia to monitor our presence on Wikipedia because i am a content writer by profession and i am an active editor at liquipedia so i have experience of wiki markup language and also because there's been many vandal attacks recently, also this was suggested to them via email from wikipedia team and since we weren't aware of the deletion discussion and we were unable to defend the allegations raised back then. So as far as i have had an idea there's been content that has had promotional tone and that's not accepted on this wikipedia. So I'd work on the page and try to trim the promotional content and cite the information that can be verified from primary sources. If there is anything else that you think i should read before i start, please let me know. Warm regards Abhayesports (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I know that it is discouraged(not prohibited) to edit pages with a COI and i have absolutely followed this policy. I did not edit the page directly rather suggested it via talk page. But this wasn't my question here as we were already discussing it on my talk page. My question here was to obtain all the relevant policy documents and all the wikipedia guidelines related to Zeyan Shafiq and Stalwart Esports so that i make sure that i am not violating any of them, as for now i have completely read the following WP:COI and WP:RS to understand the sources that can be used to verify statements on wikipedia i will start reading Userfication, living person biography guidelines soon. So if there's anything that you think i should read which is important for me to work on Zeyan Shafiq and Stalwart Esports please share the link to the documents.
Warm Regards Abhayesports (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Firestar464 Hi there, yes and that's how i was diverted to here. As far as the wiki markup language is considered so i am familiar with it since I'm an old editor at liquipedia which is based on MediaWiki and is the wikipedia for gaming, haha. So again if you could read my last response you can understand that what kind of policy docs i am looking for.
Hi, This question might sound very awkward but i've come across two profiles User:Anjumaafi- Who has proclaimed to be here to create Shafiq's article and is a pretty new account so is another attempt to impersonate Zeyan Shafiq.
Another Is User:Jeelanishafiq- who claims himself to be Zeyan Shafiq, while as he isn't. This issue has been reported by Shafiq to the wikipedia via email.
So I'd like to ask what policies to follow for impersonation and how do i request protection for Zeyan Shafiq so that no new editor could harm it because i am currently reading all the policies regarding biography and notability and after I'm done i will be working on that article.
Warm Regards Abhayesports (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Update Take a look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alyo#Help , this person is trying to prove as if he works for stalwart and most probably by mentioning "Paying" part he wants other's to realise that Stalwart Esports is violating wikipedia's policies. Definitely something that is unethical and hasn't been sent by us (Stalwart Esports), definitely part of some campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhayesports (talk • contribs) 23:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Anjumaafi is blocked because of misusing my name. Also, there's huge SP farm associated with this article. Experienced editors shouldn't entertain any such request. Thanks. ─ The Aafī on Mobile(talk)06:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_B-24_Liberator:
"A total of 177 B-24s carried out the famous second attack on Ploiești (Operation Tidal Wave) on 1 August 1943. This was the B-24's most costly mission. In late June 1943, the three B-24 Liberator groups of the 8th Air Force were sent to North Africa on temporary duty with the 9th Air Force:[13] the 44th Bomb Group joined the 93rd and the 389th Bomb Groups. These three units then joined the two 9th Air Force B-24 Liberator groups for low-level attack on the German-held Romanian oil complex at Ploiești. This daring assault by high-altitude bombers at tree top level was a costly success."
The raid was a costly FAILURE. 30% of the attacking force was shot down, and another 30% was damaged. Oil production was nearly unchanged after the attack. The article should reflect that fact. While wartime propaganda depicted the raid as a success, neither side's leadership considered that to be true. Brucelucier (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Brucelucier the Teahouse tries to help with issues with regard to wiki-related problems. we don't work with factual errors. you could help edit it. (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
If you dispute the accuracy of sourced content in an article, start a discussion on the article talk page. You'll need to provide reliable secondary sources that back your position, and attempt to form a consensus for what to say based on what all sources say. Ypu may or may not succeed. Content is based on a consensus view of how to treat the applicable sources. 174.254.198.242 (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Brucelucier I agree with Brucelucier. The article in question Wikilinks to Operation Tidal Wave - about this specific mission - which clearly states (with references) that oil production was not significantly impaired. A ref or refs can be copied from there to justify a change to "costly failure" without a need to discuss at Talk first. David notMD (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
CHARLES SWAINSON article for review
I've added all my references. Thank you for all the feedback so far, is this ready to publish on the mainframe or do you have any advice about any further work I need to do? Paranoid Numanoid (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC) Paranoid Numanoid (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
@Paranoid Numanoid: The structure seems a bit odd. There are four sections about books that mention him, but no section on his book. I get that you are trying to demonstrate notability, but I'd like to see his book a bit more prominently. TimTempleton(talk)(cont)01:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
The draft in your sandbox does not appear to have been submitted to Articles for Creation, for a review. If you believe it is ready, someone here will explain how. David notMD (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh dear, thanks for letting me know. I don't know what step to take next in that case. I shall wait and see who drops by the tea-house! Paranoid Numanoid (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
PS there's a "warning" (on the "Article Submitted" box) to move it to Draft:Rev.Charles Swainson, M.A. Should I press that button? I'm inclined to leave it as I know you editors now know where it is! Paranoid Numanoid (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
"Season 15" (of what? — you may well ask!)
I came across this Season 15 in the uncategorised articles list. I think the name is far too generic, and I wanted to move it to Bigg Boss (Hindi season 15) instead, so that it's also in line with the previous seasons. However, there's already a redir at that name, pointing to the parent article of the programme in question, and I didn't want to go ahead and remove the redir as there's been some to and fro regarding it already. In any case, the Season 15 is just an unsourced stub, so I'm not sure it's quite good enough to replace the redir. Any ideas? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC) DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I've moved this to draftspace because it appears that the season has not begun; rather, it was just announced after the recent season 14 finale, and there's no real production that has started. In this case the usual outcome is to find the topic non-notable per WP:CRYSTAL. If this were a season that had begun, I might still move it to draftspace due to a lack of sources (though the program looks big enough that sources should exist when the season begins, and the ideal would be to find and add those sources), or move it to Bigg Boss (Hindi season 15) and then redirect it to Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series). — Bilorv (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
27.57.240.61 first of all they did not say that you needed big copy-editing. under the Jalgaon District Court draft that you submitted the reason for which it was rejected was because it was copy and pasted for the most part, under my understanding Lovin'Politics (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
To recycle the section header directly below this one, Lovin'Politics, "what are you talking about"? The chief draft they are here about, listed and linked by the person, says in its decline: "Major copyediting required" and having looked at this person's various drafts (having worked at great length with one of them), there are no copyright violations whatever, so seriously, why would you invoke something like that, when not present? We have enough real copyright violations. Yes, 27.57.240.61, you have done a great job in all the drafts I've seen of citing your sources, but they all require a copyedit by a native English speaker. Per your request at my talk page yesterday, I will try to do a basic copyedit pass, if no one else does, but it may take me a fair while. Having said that, please don't expect me to do what I did at the housing scam draft. I decided to do a deep dive on it, and did, burnishing it to a high level. I expect on these others I would do something much more basic. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Fuhghettaboutit Thanks sir , Your editing at Jalgaon housing scam draft was great. I learnt lot from your editing. I didn't did any copy paste. I am not that new ON WP. I know rules and regulations of WP. Infact at my one Draft: Maroti Temple of Shirsada I added a photograph of Idol. Which I took in 2020 by my smartphone camara. But problem was that I uploaded that photo on Google maps. Yesterday I took screen shot of that photo and uploaded ON WP commons and uploaded on that draft. But I thought Is I'm doing some copyright breach. B'cause the photos , I think Google maps property.so I removed that photo from that draft. I do whatever do with good intentions and it takes lots of time to do. Lots of research , understanding of subject. If someone interested feel free to edit. 106.195.7.13 (talk) 09:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
IP editor, you have contributed using several different IP addresses over the past couple of weeks; have you also had a registered account with a username in the past? --bonadeacontributionstalk10:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
contributions Nope , What is copy-editing can you explain?Is that mean I copied somewhere and pasted on WP? You can check citations I added and decide your self , Is I copy pasted? Cheers106.195.7.13 (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
under my understanding Lovin'Politics Hi , I think your speaking without looking my Draft: Jalgaon District Court , the reviewer clearly saying that "The draft need major copyedit" thy did't mention anywhere that "You copy pasted in this draft" .I think Copy paste is different thing & Copy-editing is different thing. Do not mis lead new editors. At least now take a look , these drafts. 106.195.7.13 (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Copy editing is basically proofreading written content and making corrections. Most of the time it's spelling and grammar mistakes, but it can sometimes involve some rewording to make the sentences read better and sound more natural. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello Maharashtra-based IP editors! I spent a few minutes working through the English at Draft: Jalgaon District Court. The English in the original source was so badly written that I ignored it and simply tweaked it and removed a small amount of irrelevant information. I hope this helps. I have only ever once (out of desperation) attempted to draft an article in another language, and don't think you did too bad a job on this one. It's never an easy job. I will leave a welcome on your talk page, and recommend you register for a free account, which makes communication and editing so much easier. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk)
Mr.Moyes if you're mentioning about Eng then you have to see , thousands of articles made by Indian editors and about Indian places,Film stars , Cricketers and politicians majority of them looks like they're written by their fans.The article just glorified them.Not mentioning their arrest , frauds and loan defaulting or crime conviction about them. Ex.Suresh Jain - He is a big Shiv sena politician in Jalgaon district two times minister of state.He was convicted in 1996 Housing scam.Dhule court sentenced him seven years of Jail & 110 Cr.rupee fine.But no Indian or outsider editor wrote about that on his WP article.Why? Why? why? . District Court's conviction in 110 Cr scam is a small thing.He looted public money.But no one wrote about it.I created a article about that scam Draft: Jalgaon housing scam.It these article are WP standards. If you are talking about WP standards and Eng in them. I link some articles see them, watch their writing style , wordit Gulabrao Devkar,Raksha Khadse,Devendra Fadnavis ,Amitabh Bachchan. 106.195.7.13 (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what point you're hoping to get across to me. Yes, I am aware that many people use Wikipedia to promote their favourite people or companies. I, like all volunteers, have to choose which of our 6.2 million articles I work on. I felt it would be helpful to assist you on that one draft. I am sorry if I am unable to address the myriad of other outstanding issues you are rightly concerned about. These are matters you can, and should, flag up yourself by adding appropriate templates to the pages, or by posting your concerns and links on the articles' talk pages. Criminal convictions, if supported by Reliable Sources (and if not irrelevant or UNDUE) can also be included in articles. You will certainly find it easier to automatically watch edits to articles you're interested in if you create a free Wikipedia account. That way you can even choose to get an email to notify you of changes to any page on your WP:WATCHLIST. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi again. Regarding your post above, it seems to me, 106.195.7.13, you're just not taking into account the volunteer nature of Wikipedia and its lack of any central authority – and all that that implies. We each essentially write about what we're interested in. Gaps in coverage of all topics are filled because some volunteer decided to get busy in filling it in. Here, the gap on coverage of this scam, to round out the coverage on the government authorities involved, happened because YOU saw a gap and decided to not leave it unfilled. That's the way everything happens. On the other hand, because a large portion of our editors are from the US, UK, Australia (etc.) and far less from India (and India is huge), India topics get less coverage, on balance, I think. Do you think I, as a U.S citizen, ever saw any coverage of the Jalgaon housing scam to spark my interest, before I saw your draft? It's just the nature of the beast.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Fuhghettaboutit Yeah , I completely understand what your saying. But like you mentioned in housing scam article. Their is lengthy info under Infobox. Similar situation I saw in highly traffic articles like Amitabh Bachchan article. Amitabh Bachchan sir is biggest movie actor in India. But look his WP article. So much info under Infobox. Everything is looking stuffed in small place. And check language of Indian articles. I am sure you will not feel satisfied by seeing them. 106.195.7.13 (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
See WP:RSP for a list of some common sources and summaries of the community's latest position on them. Forbes has two different editorial processes for its staff articles and its contributor articles (you'll see "Contributor", "Senior Contributor" etc. in the byline of the article in the latter case). Bloomberg is generally reliable. However, I gather that net worth is a somewhat amorphous concept which can generally only be estimated rather than measured exactly, in which case providing both figures—and mentioning in prose that they are estimates from Forbes and Bloomberg—or giving a "range" of net worth estimates (e.g. $50–100million) could be the best outcome. — Bilorv (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I know the web animation section on the computer animation article isn't enough, I want someone to an main article about web animation, The history of animations on the internet on the 1980s and 1990s and the popularization of web animations on the internet.
Can someone make the main article of web animation for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmberLovesEverything (talk • contribs) 21:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Is it possible to count my contributions to Wikipedia, and other Wikimedia projects, by a certain timeframe?
For example, if I wished to know how many contributions I did during February, 2021, is there a tool to see how many contributions I did during that particular time? User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 18:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC) User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 18:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I am using the Wikipedia app to browse through Wikipedia. It really annoys me that it saves your search history. I know how to clear my search history in the app, but I would like to how to prevent the app from storing my search history so I don’t have to keep clearing it. Same goes with the article viewing history. I asked this at WP:VPT 4 days ago, but got no response. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: That link doesn’t help. It just gives a list of Wikipedia mobile applications. What I am looking for is the steps needed to stop the Wikipedia app from saving my article viewing history and search history. Interstellarity (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
@Interstellarity: Try scrolling down to the External links section of the article to find a link to the appropriate help page related to the app you're using. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
What do I do about vandalism by an editor named RMSTitanicInc. who is including slander in his edits? Why is this allowed? I had to take out his vandalism on the bio page of Renee Harris, Producer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renee_Harris_(producer). I don't want him coming back every day and changing it back. Gjsfca (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Actually, that content was flagrantly inappropriate and clearly malicious. I've blocked the editor indefinitely. DS (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Hostbot invite to tea house logo
Hi everyone. Apparently my username, as a veteran editor, was included in the Teahouse invitation delivered to Mikeobrianjr's talkpage. He then asked a question on my talkpage (Why is the logo different in the hostbot invite message then on the tea house itself) but I don't know the answer. Help? Thanks. Rosiestep (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Elli. That explains how my name showed up in his Teahouse invite. Hopefully, someone else can answer the question about the logo. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Rosiestep, nice to see you back here again. How are you doing? I think the answer to Mikeobrianjr's question on your talk page is that the graphic was one of a suite of images originally identified when the Teahouse was designed and developed back in 2012. All these design elements can be seen at Wikipedia:Teahouse/The menu and the graphics and colour schemes here. I think it's fair to say that, after the original paid Teahouse development phase was over, we have been run purely in a voluntary capacity since then. This has inevitably resulted in some drifting away from some of those initial ideas; some elements have been removed entirely (guest book. maitre d' etc), as well as some attempts to bring a degree of coherence and colour matching back again to our headers and our template. I suspect this is just a case that no-one has especially been bothered enough, or astute enough to notice and question that difference, so top marks go for observation to Mikeobrianjnr. Whether there is a need to actually change the graphic, I'm not sure. Personally, I found our main 'tree' graphic a bit wishy-washy, but I'm not going to fuss over changing it one way or another. I suspect many of my fellow hosts would not worry too much, either, so long as the core principles of a friendly, helpful welcome at the Teahouse are actively maintained (see also here). Regarding the list of names automatically added to HostBot invites, I'm not actually sure whether they are taken directly from edits made to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts/Database reports/Automated invites#Inviter_list or if it requires a request on Jtmorgan's talk page if you want it added (or removed, as I see you've just done at the automated invites page). Hoping this helps a bit, Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping Nick Moyes. Hi Rosiestep! Yes, I can take you off the inviter list (I need to make the change manually, but it's easy). Is that what you want? Cheers, J-Mo23:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
@Jtmorgan: Just a thought: would it be worth you dropping a note at WT:TH to ask if any currently active hosts would like to add their names to the Hostbot invites? And maybe we could ping and remove some of the inactive editors on your list - I've identified the inactive ones here. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
ForeverBeach has been editing that article - and pretty much only that article - for years - and then removed a COI tag, I agree 100% with your restoration of the COI tag. David notMD (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Furthermore, the article is utter promotional crap of his businesses and books. Most of the references are to stuff written by Teitelbaum or interviews. The science support for his treatment theories appears to be one clinical trial, conducted by him and published back in 2001 (https://doi.org/10.1300/J092v08n02_02). Clearly not WP:MEDRS. Whether he is noteworthy is debatable, but his 'science' does not meet Wikipedia standards. David notMD (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Does wikipedia have a method to prevent advertisers from just undeleting the article? If not, what's the point of even deleting articles?--Annemaricole (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Annemaricole In answer to your first question, drafts submitted to Articles for Creation are reviewed by an experienced reviewer, and then accepted, declined or rejected. However, Wikipedia allows editors to by-pass AfC and create an article directly in mainspace. (An option often used by experienced editors.) There is a safety net procedure, in that nowadays (not in the distant past), all new articles go through a new pages review. Seriously flawed articles can be Speedy deleted, kicked to draft, or sent to Articles for Deletion (AfD) review. There exist tens of thousands of articles that do not meet today's standards for various reasons (example: no references), and are deletion-worthy. David notMD (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Article Rejected.
I'm very old and very baffled. Submission was rejected for no references - but I did provide a reference - an INDEPENDENT Reference to an Oxford University Press book - that, needless to say I did not write......!
Hi, and thanks for the question. The first and simplest reason articles need references is to show that the information is true ("verifiable"). Alright, I'm sure the OUP book does that. The second reason is to show notability—Wikipedia-specific jargon meaning "evidence that the topic is substantially discussed in serious literature enough for us to hold an article on the topic". Articles need multiple independent references for this purpose. The one you have provided looks good to me, so what's needed now is a few more. — Bilorv (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I looked at your draft, and Kyrewood Priory seems notable, you just need some more good references. You should have at least three reliable published sources. If you have access to Tenbury - Some Record Of Its History look at the bibliography or notes section to see if there are any published references that may tell about the priory, and then see if you can obtain a copy of those references. Sometimes old books and articles can be read online, you won't know unless you search for them.
Your draft has many internal Wikipedia links (good job adding those!), so I went to Tenbury Wells, and saw a link to a local museum -- https://www.tenburymuseum.org.uk. You might want to send an email to Tenbury Museum, say you need published references for Kyrewood Priory, and ask if they have any books or articles about it in their collection, or if they know of someone who might be able to help you. It's possible they could email copies of a few pages, plus give you the proper reference citation to use. If you're able to get a few more good references look at your draft where someone noted a citation is needed, and see if you can find what is needed in your sources. You are able to use a reference more than once in your article, if you can find what is needed in a book or article. You've done a lot of good work, so don't give up now. Best wishes in finding some more good references. Karenthewriter (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Help on Reliable Sources When Your Topic is Somewhat Obscure
Hi,
I recently submitted a draft for a new article about a somewhat-obscure so-cal rock band from the late 1980s to the early 1990s, and thought I had a good article submission with two newspaper articles as verifiable sources... but my submission was denied by someone for reasons of needing more verifiable sources.
I am not sure what to do because there is a dearth of "official" sources for this band online... there are plenty of commercial sites with discographies, there is someone managing a "legacy" kind of page for the band on Facebook, there were two articles from the L.A. Times that I had as external links, and one magazine interview.
I really want this page to be published: is there anything that I can do, anyone who could give me some pointers in this regard? Ramborose (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ramborose: I took a look, and Decibel and LA Times are reliable sources and seem to me to provide enough coverage of Tender Fury to support an article. (I note the lead singer, Jack Grisham, already has an article.) It might be that the LA Times links were missed because they were in "External links" and not "References" (with Decibel). I would just raise the question at the reviewer's user talk page and see if they missed the LA Times links, and maybe they think it's a pass on a second look, or maybe there is some other issue with the sourcing. Levivichharass/hound19:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ramborose: Note that reliable sources don't have to be online. You can use magazine and newspaper articles as well as books that are not online. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
References and links
I created a new article for the Swedish company Mathleaks. Twice the piece was rejected even with what I thought were the right fixes (adding more references, some of them from Swedish publications, in Swedish). Can someone help me address and fix whatever errors I have been making? Thanks!
Thanks, GoingBatty. The piece has independent sources/quotes. But they are in Swedish Is that the key ssue?
What the company says about itself does not belong in the article. No vision statemnt. No "Mathleaks understands..." David notMD (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
HermesBaby, I don't see a single source there that is all three of reliably published, independent, and containing significant coverage of Mathleaks. 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. News stories based on interviews or press releases are not independent. --ColinFine (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
If using content (text and refs) from a Wikipedia article, your edit summary should acknowledge the article it was taken from. If a largish amount, consider creating a new section on the Talk page of the article explaining what you did. For example. see what I did at Talk page of Shellfish allergy. David notMD (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Also note SAYWHEREYOUREADIT, Gandalf the Groovy: if the source in the other article is available to you, so you can read it yourself, you can cite it. You should not cite a source that you personally have not seen, even if it appears to support exactly the same information as you are putting in an article. --ColinFine (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
@Treekangaroosandlions 2: You could hand out Template:Uw-vandalism1 and related templates, and if you reach level 4, report at WP:AIV. However, since this isn't the article space, I'd say just revert and carry on and hopefully they'll get bored too. If they are getting more disruptive after the warnings have been handed out, then a trip to AIV would be warranted. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 05:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi BFP1. I attempted to see which article you tried to add this to, but a quick look at your contribution shed no light. I am betting the problem is that you didn't use "thumb". Here's the basic markup for placing an image (used outside an infobox): [[File:Name.jpg|thumb|Caption text]] To force a different image size, you can add a px parameter: [[File:Name.jpg|thumb|100px|Caption text]] See more at Help:Pictures. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @BFP1: It seems to be working here; feel free to go into source editing and copy the syntax. I suspect that you're using the wrong kind of brackets. Images are added using square brackets just like normal links, while curly brackets are for templates. Template:Tlx shouldn't be used here; that's for linking to other templates, not images. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 15:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm glad you got this resolved, but one minor point: you don't actually "download" a picture from Commons -- you simply link TO the picture (which is, indeed, at Commons) from the article. Sorry to get pedantic, but the right terminology makes things a bit clearer. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Compare and contrast list
I want to make a two column list, each with a separate heading, comparing each item in one list to an item in the second list. I've read the instructions on lists and can't get it right, can you help? It's just for my user page. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I was looking at lists and think didn't have the right category which is tables. I will read this - it looks like it will work. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I think you might get some useful information at mw:Manual:Installation guide, though it's a bit technical. The software is free and anyone can install it. There are also wikifarms you can use, such as Miraheze, which provide the hosting for you but still allow you some level of control over your community. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Gandalf the Groovy I can't guarantee you that your submission will be accepted, but here are the main points you want to realise before you start writing it. Make sure you properly cite your sources, and don't just copy and paste it from the articles, try to make the article inspired about it. User:Lovin'Politics (talk) 00:39 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I have been working on articles about Fly fishing and Fly tying. It would help if there was an active WikiProject that covers this subject. This would help keep track of the assessment class and importance of the many articles in these topis. These topics have been under Wikipedia:WikiProject Water sports and Wikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, both of which don't appear to be active projects. Should there be a separate project for Fly fishing? I created a template:Fly fishing to keep track of the important articles and show related articles. There are several wikipedians working actively on fly fishing. Fly fishing is a sport and an artform of sorts. Appreciate any ideas on where to go from here. -- Talk to G Moore 04:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
@G. Moore: You could, but the topic is a little to niche for it to be sustainable IMO. WikiProject Water Sports is a subproject of WikiProject Sports, which is to my knowledge very active. Why exactly would you want the separate WikiProject to do, aside from handing out ratings? (To be fair, ratings don't matter that much) How many active editors are editing in this area? If there aren't that many, just visiting each other's talk pages is a good enough form of communication; you don't need a WikiProject talk page to do that. How many articles are in its scope? I'd say you're better off spending that energy into actually improving the articles and maybe get them to GA or FA status. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 05:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ganbaruby: Thanks for the quick feedback. You are probably right about too narrow of a niche on the grand scale of WikiPedia. There are some missing articles and lists that should be added so that existing articles are more focused. Should I keep using the WikiProject Water sports to put an assessment on the article to let others know how far along the article is? We can use the talk pages to get ideas on how to improve the articles. -- Talk to G Moore 05:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, G. Moore. Here's my impression as a highly active Wikipedia editor since 2009: The vast majority of the WikiProjects have been inactive for many years and are mostly relics of the rapid growth period in Wikipedia's history that peaked around 2007. A small number of WikiProjects are still active, but not Wikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing. Military history and creating articles about women come to mind as currently active projects. Long ago, I joined projects about wine, glaciers and mountaineering. The wine project was somewhat active but died away when the most active editor greatly reduced her editing seven or eight years ago. The other two projects have been inactive for many years although individual editors keep working on those topics. In my opinion, for the most part with a few exceptions, WikiProjects were a 2006 thing and are not a 2021 thing. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Wikiprojects are useful for organizing resources and gathering opinions - even the ones which are less active can be a better solution than dumping stuff in user-space. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Help with adding multiple images
I want to add two images of paintings from Wikimedia Commons to the article Edith Hipkins. I am using the multiple image template. I have been practising this in my sandbox and thought I had cracked it. However, on clicking the images nothing happens (no enlargement, no transfer to the Commons. There is no little square in the right hand lower corner). Can a helper access my sandbox to see what is wrong or do I have to transfer the faulty edit into the article so that it can be accessed? BFP1 (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC) BFP1 (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
BFP1 your issue was keeping around |link1= and |link2= - they overrode the links to expand the image that you wanted. I've removed them, so it should work. (empty parameters override, while no parameters don't, it's something weird but you'll figure it out the more you work with templates) Elli (talk | contribs) 10:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
@BFP1:(edit conflict) I have fixed it in your sandbox. If you want the images to link to the image description page (which is the default behavior) don't specify |link1= or the respective parameter. Specifying an empty param (as it was here) will remove the link. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
How could I go about re-writing an article fully? I would like to keep it private until it is ready to be published/reviewed. Can anyone help with how I can go about that? Mdavies1 (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Mdavies1, welcome to the Teahouse. Unless the article really needs to be blown up and rebuilt from scratch it's generally preferable to repair it piece by piece in situ. That keeps the edit summaries together, shows your thinking and encourages collaboration. If you're convinced it needs to be rewritten from scratch, I would suggest creating a subpage of your userpage to write the draft in.
You can do that by navigating to the non-existent page as if it did exist, e.g. User:Mdavies1/Article draft (but give it a proper title), and clicking 'Create source'. When you've written a draft you're happy with, it would be very sensible to open a discussion about it on the talk page for the original article to ask other editors of that page for their input. I'd say it's important to do that before replacing the original. If the other editors agree, or you get no feedback, you can carry out the replacement. It would be helpful for you to mention in the edit summary when you do so where the replacement was drafted so that people in future can consult the edit summaries you will have given in writing the draft.
Rewriting an article entirely is bold, so it's encouraged but also a big undertaking. If you go for it and have more questions, you'll be welcome here to ask them. I'll add a standard welcome template to your userpage which includes some useful links, e.g. to Help:Your first article. Some of that advice won't apply as an article already exists but, especially if you're new to it, writing an article involves a steep learning curve and there's some very useful guidance there. All the very best › Morteetalk02:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I'd agree with all of what Mortee says. Further, it appears that you have no experience of editing Wikipedia, so you'd be better off making minor improvements to existing articles and thereby getting accustomed to Wikipedia. Having done that, you'd be better prepared to make major edits. (OTOH your very first edit was to your user page, which suggests a returning editor.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I've only done this sort of thing once, Mdavies1 and the process I used was to state my intentions at the Talk Page of the article (Talk:Cobalamin biosynthesis in my case) to see if anyone objected, which no-one did. If you look at the dates of individual edits on the Cobalamin biosynthesis page you'll see how I progressed after that: first adding my nearly-all-new material without removing much that was already there before finally removing most of what had been there. Hence all the previous edit history was preserved and no-one objected at any point over the 4 months this was going on. Even if someone else had been interested, I would have welcomed their collaboration and peer review / copy editing. After all, the whole point of WIkipedia is that it is a collaborative effort. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
How to add ' How to Pronounce🔊' sound files in WP article
Hi ,I saw may international GA on WP have speaker symbol ,and reader can hear sound about how to pronounce a name.can you explain me whole procedure.How to do it ? 106.193.189.54 (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Audio files need to be uploaded first, either to Wikimedia Commons (preferably) or locally. You can then add the name of the audio file to the {{IPA}} template that generates the IPA pronunciation information as another parameter. See Template:IPA#Supported languages and templates to find the template for the language you need. These template pages will also contain examples on how to add the audio file as another parameter to the template in question. Regards SoWhy10:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Barongreylight Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I regret to say that your one-line draft is far from suitable as a Wikipedia article, and if you moved it there, it would be removed quickly. New users are unable to directly create articles, but they may use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review. This is a good thing to do, so you get other eyes on it first, instead of once it is formally part of the encyclopedia when it would be treated more harshly. I would suggest that as successfully creating a new article is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, 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. Then, after reading Your First Article, you would be ready to create and submit a draft using AFC. Doing this will lead to much less disappointment and hurt feelings- which no one wants you to have. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I think you probably mean your User Page, not your Talk Page, since you'll be using the latter to communicate with other editors and won't want to clutter it with general stuff. On your user page, tell the community a little about yourself and what you hope to do here. Try looking at the pages of others who are editing articles of interest to you to see the sort of things you could add. Overall, I'd advise to keep it short: after all we are here to add to the encyclopaedia, not to boast about ourselves. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Mike Turnbull Hi , understood. Yeah I wanted to ask about user page. Can you show me simple coding to do that?
(Edit conflict) Hello Research Voltas, welcome to the Tea House! So talk pages are a place where users are able to discuss things with each other. There really isn't a way to make it interesting. You can make your User:Research Voltas as interesting as you want! For example, on my user page, I have some things about me, some things to help me reference while I edit Wikipedia, and I have some things like barnstars that were given to me by other editors. Your user page can be formatted however you want, and really, it is your preference to what you put on it and how you design it. Hopefully that help! Elijahandskip (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Research Voltas I might suggest that you not worry about any special coding, and just use the page, if you wish, to tell a little about yourself as a Wikipedia user. It's not required that you have anything on your user page at all, many users never create one, so don't feel that you have to. 331dot (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
What is the proper way to write the date? I've seen this 17 December 1938 and this December 17 1938. Is there a preferred way? Does it matter? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
@Bop34: I think it's slightly more complicated than that. See MOS:DATETIES. In the U.S., you would normally write "December 17, 1938" in accordance with their M/D/Y date formatting. In most other parts of the world I gather that D/M/Y is used, so "17 December 1938" might be preferred. As with regional spellings ("color" vs "colour"; see WP:ENGVAR) we generally use a regional version if the topic has a strong connection to one country, and in other cases the choice is arbitrary and just decided by the person who creates/expands the article (and from then there's no reason to change it). — Bilorv (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Anxhela Peristeri
Hallo there,
my name is Aneglos-Philip Mitsis from Cologne /Germany.
I have a huge problem with an editor/administrator(?).
His Name is laof2017. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iaof2017)
I have added documented information to an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxhela_Peristeri) that her father is of Greek origin and this is also proven with the link to an interview with her:
The administrator / editor laof 2017 deleted the change! That was an important information about the singer's biography !! Please help me!
he wrote me that I hade attach proofs in albanian language allthogh I wrote ir in the englisch version of wikipedia!
He attacked also with inappropriate words in german,what you can see in his disskussion site!
I am new here and I thought Wikipedia has nothing with prejudice or hatred.He rejected my amendenment
because I am greek..
I feel desperate,pleas help me..whta can I do..?
Angelos-Philip M., Iaof2017 is not an admin, but I do note that you issued legal threats to them in German, which is a blockable offence. They (as far as I can tell) have not asked for administrative action, so do not do this again. An actual admin has protected the page for disruptive editing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Angelos-Philip M., the user you've mentioned is not an administrator. The majority of people here (admins included) are volunteers who work together to write and improve content. I notice your comments towards Iaof2017 have been quite threatening, though I don't speak German very well. Conflicts like this should be resolved by polite discussion: making immediate assumptions that other people are acting in bad faith or have some agenda against you are not acceptable. If you do not understand somebody's reasoning then you should ask them politely, explaining exactly what you are having trouble understanding. — Bilorv (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Documenting Ebay Antiquities transactions
Hello!, please and thank you accommodate my question which is to develop a Wikimedia foundation system to document artificial bids on Ebay antiquities that may be used in parallells to bump out investments in wartime authentic and counterfeit Nazi literature and memoribilia.
I am interested in knowing more about the trade of counterfeits from an OSS learning perspective. I seek more human knowledge on the NAZI files here at WikiAssange and would consider adding counterfeit information concerning local knowledge of the trade of plates and belts. EntertainingDollopOfGel (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
@EntertainingDollopOfGel: by "WikiAssange" do you mean "WikiLeaks, founded by Julian Assange"? WikiLeaks is not affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation in any way; we have no connection to it. The word wiki comes from a Hawaiian word meaning quick and refers to a type of website which is written by its readers. — Bilorv (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, EntertainingDollopOfGel. That sounds very much too specific for the Wikimedia Foundation to be interested. I suspect that what you are looking for is to create your own Wiki for that purpose. If you have a suitable server, you can download and install the Mediawiki software here. Alternatively, there are many Wiki hosting services, where you can set up your own Wiki easily: see mw:Hosting services. --ColinFine (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
How do I change the title of a draft?
There isn't a "more" thing to change the title of it. How do I change the title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnatas1 (talk • contribs)
I was curious whether some articles that I've started drafts for meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I was hoping to get an answer so I don't waste time making similar articles in the future. I have previously been given pretty vague answers at the Teahouse about needing at least one or two decent articles, and I recently came across WP:100W.
The particular articles I'm looking for answers on are Draft:The Mystery of Easter Island and Draft:The Magnificast. Both articles clearly have sources that have 100 words, but I'm not sure if they are considered reliable secondary sources or not. The Cleveland article has nearly 600 words, The Cleveland Scene article has about 200 words, and the People's World article has over 2,000 words. However, I'm unsure whether these publications are considered reliable secondary sources or not. The Cleveland Scene's and The Cleveland's publishers have Wikipedia articles (Euclid Media Group and Advance Publications) and People's World has their own article as well (I'm not sure how that factor's into their reliability, but I figured I'd mention it). TipsyElephant (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
As you can see, TipsyElephant, opinions on this will differ between editors, but I don't think these two drafts (particularly the latter) demonstrate notability and I wouldn't accept the draft were I reviewing it (and I do review drafts at Articles for Creation). For a self-published, widespread form of often-amateur media such as a podcast (of which there must be hundreds of thousands, and only a small proportion are notable), I'd be looking for two or more reviews in mainstream, national publications. Works like People's World seem a bit niche and potentially unreliable; Cleveland-specific news articles are fine but don't do much for notability due to their regional scope. The Austin Film Festival finalist is a good claim to significance but you need a few of these types of claims for something to be notable. WP:100W looks like an essay which only reflects the view of the editor who created it, and I can see that it could be a good standard for some types of topics but I wouldn't take it as good advice here. I wish there was an easy rule I could give you but these sorts of things take years of experience and learning to get the hang of. I would recommend you look to existing articles, but the problem is that I can imagine quite a lot of our existing podcast articles are in bad shape and many should not have been created in the first place. I can't say much beyond the vague WP:GNG. Perhaps if you take a look at WP:AFD, you can find specific examples of deletion discussions in the last year relating to podcasts and learn more about what the community standard in this area is. — Bilorv (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
What is required to learn to be a good Wikipedia contributor?
also, what are the things one needs to learn to write a good article on Wikipedia.
Please guide me on these questions. Cancersign (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
@Cancersign: Welcome! For beginners, I recommend going through The Wikipedia Adventure, which is an effective tutorial about editing. Help:Getting started is a helpful directory of links to read if you're lost. Help:Your first article is a guide for writing new articles, though I would not recommend trying to write a brand new article yet; rather, you should try to improve existing articles and gain more experience editing around here. Remember, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so always try to reach a consensus if you're in a disagreement with another editor, and also assume good faith. Don't hesitate to ask another question here if you hit a problem. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 15:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
@Cancersign: in my opinion, patience and politeness. Wikipedia can be difficult to navigate in many different ways and it takes everybody some time to learn our rules and where they can help out. This means that you'll make mistakes at first, and people will sometimes undo your changes or say that what you are doing is not right. If you can listen to people who do this and learn from them then you can become a great contributor with time. Almost everybody here is willing to go the extra mile to help somebody who is polite, here to improve the encyclopedia and learns from guidance they have received in the past. — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Johnnatas1! You can sign comments in discussions by adding the code ~~~~ at the end of the comment. Company logos are copyrighted by default, but Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and only uses copyrighted images in a small number of cases. If the company has an existing article then it is possible that using the logo may be acceptable—point me to the specific page and I can give you more information. If this is about a draft then the image should not be uploaded at this point. A rare exception to this advice occurs if the logo is so simple (e.g. if it was just a red square) that it is ineligible for copyright (and if you tell me the company name then I can probably tell you whether that applies or not). — Bilorv (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
How to add reference , citations from physical books ❔
What I meant is that all you need to give the citation expander is {{cite book |isbn=9781138401570 }} and it turns it automatically into the full text ready to go into the references, which in this case would be Rao, V. S. (29 June 2017). Principles of Weed Science. ISBN9781138401570. and then I'd add |pages= to refer the reader to the specific pages where the item I was citing for the article could be verified. Obviously not all readers would have access to the book but that's not the point: they could in principle buy it or borrow it from a library or use Google books to see an extract, for example. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
What is the difference between creating the page via AFC and publishing directly? What type of pages must be created via AFC? 1друг (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC) 1друг (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
@1друг: people who do not have an account, or whose accounts is less than four days old or has fewer than 10 edits (i.e. is not autoconfirmed), are unable to create new articles directly. People who have a direct connection with a subject, such as being an employee of the company they are writing about, are required by our conflict of interest guidelines to go through the AfC process. Other editors can choose. If you've created some articles and you're confident you understand the notability rules in the specific topic of the article, you can create the page directly. I chose to submit my first article through AfC to get some feedback and a sign that it was okay. With AfC, the draft is at worst declined and there is less of a deadline, whereas if you create a page directly it can be speedily deleted (if it's really not up to scratch), proposed for deletion, nominated for a deletion discussion or simply moved to draftspace by a patrolling editor. This is because if you create a page then it's front-facing content immediately (e.g. someone hitting "Random article" might stumble on it). — Bilorv (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
@1друг: I would also not recommend starting a new page from scratch (aka not using Afc) until you get to around 500 edits. That will allow you to get the feel for how articles are + how WP:RS works. I have over 3000 edits and I do occasionally create articles from scratch, but that can get you into problematic situations depending on the topic. For example, if you try to create a new article really quick on a new controversial topic, you might have a lot of editors mad with you (talking from experience). I would recommend either using Afc or just creating a draft directly that in the future could be moved into main space, skipping the Afc waiting time period. Just like how you would search from an article and then create it via the red link where Wikipedia says "You may create the page "(name)"...", just type "draft:(name)" and the red link will allow you to create the draft version of the article you want. But to answer your question, at your current editing status, you can create any topic via a direct creation, however, I don't recommend it until you get some more editing experience. Hopefully that helps! Elijahandskip (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
@Elijahandskip:, @Bilorv: Thanks for the wonderful answer. I feel kick to create a page of what I like. I read the notability guidelines 4-5 times. Wikipedia is much interesting than blogging. I already created 2 pages, which are live. Can you please about Draft:ADDA52 I feel I created properly. Also, who approves or rejects it? What are the other things I can do on Wikipedia?. As of now, I understand adding sources, creating pages, improving grammar, and adding some templates at the top. I am a fast learner, you can tell me any hard thing.1друг (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
@1друг: so the first part of your question was about Draft:ADDA52. It appears that it is a business, so Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) applies in the draft. I personally don't know enough about how reliable the majority of those sources are, so I can't speak about that aspect of the draft. Adda52 (based on a google search) seems to notable due to the amount of searched and new articles on it, so I think you could create it. Since it is a business though, you need to make sure you find the information that is needed to show a business's notability. Read that notability link above to help understand it. I really don't have that much experience in articles about businesses, so I can't be a lot of help in the draft's aspect. So the other question you had was the part about what else you can do on Wikipedia. Well for starters, you might be interested in joining a WikiProject. WikiProject's are groups of editors who want to improve a certain part of Wikipedia. For example, I am a member of The Current event WikiProject, which helps work on the Portal:Current events as well as improve articles that are current events (or topics in the news). There are hundreds to thousands of WikiProjects, and each has a unique goal in mind. For example, The WikiProject of Meteorology has to goal to improve all weather related articles on Wikipedia. They "manage" over 10,000 articles and out of those articles, only 1,300 of them are classified as "good/A+" articles, which is the highest levels of quality that an article can go. So if you want to help out more on Wikipedia, feel free to join a WikiProject. (Small self promo, if you like Current events, feel free to join the Current Event WikiProject.) Hopefully that helps! Elijahandskip (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
カーヤスタ・シロマーニ As noted at the top of your draft, "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,911 pending submissions waiting for review." 331dot (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
カーヤスタ・シロマーニ, I saw your draft (Draft:Niraj Sinha) in the Articles for Creation Feed but I stopped to review it, because it is out for my interest. We've 4k+ pending submissions at the AfC, and thus it could take four months or more for the review. ─ The Aafī(talk)17:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Reviews are made by volunteers, who can choose what they do and do not want to review (e.g. some users might be specialists in certain topics). Volunteers in this area specifically are very overworked and it is not helpful to approach anybody directly. I can confirm that the drafts are in the queue, so someone will get around to it eventually. — Bilorv (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
You submitted Draft:Sachidanand Srivastava and Draft:Niraj Sinha on 7 March. The AfC system is not a queue. Reviews can take place in days, weeks, and (sadly) months. In my opinion, neither of these drafts establish notability, as the people hold appointed (not elected) positions in an Indian state government. However, a reviewer may see differently. David notMD (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Neither of those drafts is likely to be accepted when reviewed. It seems to me that they offer little evidence that their subjects are notable, and it's unlikely there's anything you could do to change that. I would advise against creating further such drafts. Maproom (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Is it okay to ask someone here to create a page for me that I may have a COI with?
Hello,
I am a new Wikipedia editor, and I was about to create my first new article for the encyclopedia when I discovered that Wikipedia would consider me to have a conflict of interest. (I am an active member of the society about which I would like to create an article.) The notability requirement has been met, as the society and it's founder have been noted in the Guinness Book of World records several times. I have already drafted the text for the short article page, complete with a list of verifiable references. I am confident that I have written the text in a neutral tone; however, creating the article with my disclosure of the COI would take up to six months, apparently, due to the review process.
Is there an established Wikipedia editor in this group who would be so kind as to consider creating this article in my stead? I would be happy to forward my short article draft and the list of verifiable references.
Thank you! ThousanderISPE (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
ThousanderISPE I'd recommend posting the article in the Draft namespace, like at Draft:Your organization name, then submitting it for review. While the review process can take a while, that doesn't mean it necessarily would - and it'll be faster than asking another contributor here to write the article from scratch or submitting yours. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
The backlog of drafts at AfC is not a queue. Reviews can happen in days, weeks, to (sadly) months. Declare your COI on your User page, and proceed. David notMD (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't have called it vandalism (rather, it's POV oddity), and I see no wikilawyering. If the IP continues to feud with editors, avoid additional reversions and instead take the matter to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Meanwhile, be careful to limit use of the term "vandalism" to mean wilful destruction. -- Hoary (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Authetication
I am going through my Mother's things and have been updating a few pages as I find information. I forgot my previous name registed at the same email address so I hope that does cause a problem.
Two of the updates i made were taken down immediately. Do I need to upload the doucments I based them on? AnastasiaSeth (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Anastasia, all non trivial information added to Wikipedia must be cited to material that has previously been published in what we call a Reliable source (think along the lines of respectable newspapers and magazines, academic journals, books from well-established publishers with good editorial control, and so on). This is so that an interested reader could in principle check that source to confirm that it does indeed support the information. Unpublished documents cannot be used, nor do we want copies of them uploaded, because on the internet it is so easy to fake things — I'm sure you would not do so, but others with dishonest intentions unfortunately do try such things.
If the information you want to add has already been published somewhere (in what is called a secondary source) then it should be cited to that published source, not to primary sources such as personal letters.
Now, if you were to show your documents to a historian or a publisher, and they were to write and publish a book (for example) that used the information from them, then we could cite that book as a source. I hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.75.168 (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I have a couple things I would like help with.
1. Could a commons administrator please delete this, when I started Wikipedia in November I uploaded it by accident.
2. I was using refill2 a few weeks ago and it changed the title of a url to say "Attack Detected". Does that mean it could harm the device? and should it be removed?
3. What makes My-King Johnson notable? I don't think that being LGBT makes you worthy of having an article.
Assistance Please. I created the page on the actor Tom Willett. During my research I found that WP had a dubious page on a separate "Tom Willett" that I could not find any reliable sources and deemed a "hoax". I placed that page up for AfD and it was deleted: [5]. Since then I published the article on a real BLP: actor "Tom Willett". However, a Bot has placed this: [6] on the Talk Page. What does it mean? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@Maineartists: It means that a bot discovered that an article with the same name was deleted. Administrators will be able to confirm whether the new article is different from the deleted article. GoingBatty (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think the tag would be removed either way, though you could leave a note on the talkpage explaining the situation. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Maineartists (also, about your article in particular, can I recommend using templates like {{cite web}} instead of normal links? seeing the date published, accessed, publisher, etc are all very helpful in examining sources) Elli (talk | contribs) 02:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
With regards to the 11th question at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2021 March 4 (the one about dealing with unattributed content copied from elsewhere), the question was archived without anyone doing the necessary to properly attribute the copied content (which was from a Fandom) due to it being 3 days old.
Since I myself am not in a position to do the necessary due to lack of technical know-how and the large number of URLs, I would like someone else to do it. Can someone here do this or point me to someone who regularly handles unattributed content copied from elsewhere? I think this may involve at least 10 URLs (and possibly more than 100 URLs all linking to the relevant episode articles in the fandom mentioned in that question if someone replaced all the original plot summaries for each episode in List of Talking Tom and Friends (TV series) episodes with ones copied from Fandom). 45.251.33.68 (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello
How is everyone doing? Thanks for inviting me here!
Hello Marathonmutig, Welcome to Wikipedia! Yes there is a place to meet other editors who have similar interests. You can join a WikiProject. WikiProject's are groups of editors who want to improve a certain part of Wikipedia. For example, I am a member of The Current event WikiProject, which helps work on the Portal:Current events as well as improve articles that are current events (or topics in the news). There are hundreds to thousands of WikiProjects, and each has a unique goal in mind. Hopefully that helps! Elijahandskip (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Replicate "Stable release" in Infobox software in other articles
Hi I am volunteering on the Collabora Online article, this article is referred to by several other articles that also include the "Stable release" version number. I would like a central place to maintain the version number, I looked at LibreOffice for a guide and theirs is linked to Metadata. Is there a quick way to set this up, or do I need to roll my sleeves up, as I am new to this? Regards Rob 12think (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: Thanks I had seen those, my brain got scrambled and I retreated, I guess I'll have to take a deep breath and look again. Thank you :-) 12think (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Wiki Page for Johann Blumenbach.
I am a Blumenbach scholar and have published a peer reviewed article on him. When I try to update his wiki page, the updates get taken down. Instead, writings which are now quite outdated contunue to be cited. Also, the discredited English translations of Blumenbach's works are cited with no mention that they have been discredited. Lastly, Goettingen University has a web page dedicated to Blumenbach, yet this important resource gets no mention. I would be quite happy if this web page were to address alternative interpretations of Blumenbach. But there appears to be an effort to eliminate the most recent interpretations. I am concerned there there may be vandalism occurring on this page. Only certain sources are being cherry picked to fit what appears to be an underlying agenda. I simply do not have the time to investigate this, but something very fishy is going on. JohnSMichael (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
It appears a discussion about the contested change had been open since October on the article's talk page. You should respond to it there. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
edindia foundation
edindia foundation is subsidiary company of sterlite group. edindia foundation is working on empowering teachers with innovation to help build great education system. EDINDIA foundation is working in several states of india with 100k+ teachers and 10k+ schools. so i want to ask can i create a wiki page on edindia foundation. Devanshusharma569 (talk) 05:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
You would have to show that foundation meets notability requirements, using reliable independent sources, and write the article neutrally. If you have some connection to the foundation then you should not write the article yourself. See WP:FIRST and WP:COIMeters (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
What are examples of non redundant text I could use? I want to contribute to more articles, but Sandy told me I should use text that isn't redundant, such as :"today" and "still". Any tips? Blue Jay (talk) 06:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@The great Jay: She means to not use words that mean the same thing over and over. From this diff [7], the word "remains" already indicates "in this time"; while not grammatically incorrect, "still" and "today" are completely redundant. For the sake of conciseness, they should be left out. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 06:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm new on Wikipedian and I'm looking forward to know more. Is there a way to this. I'm interested in writing and improving Islamic and law related articles. Browniewikipedian (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Excellent. Read Islamic and law-related articles, and where you know that they can be improved (and can cite specific reliable, independent and published references for what you want to say), make minor improvements to them. Please continue providing edit summmaries. However, if you'd like to make stylistic improvements, you're welcome to do so, but please don't describe these with "fixed grammar": in this edit, for example, you changed from grammatically correct English to grammatically correct English (you didn't fix any grammar because nothing needed fixing). -- Hoary (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Browniewikipedian, That's nice. If you want to contribute towards Islamic articles, I can be helpful on times, if you ever need any help. That said, as Hoary advised above, continue improving articles that you think need improvements related to the two subjects. Anyways, thanks for the edits to Nizamuddin Asir Adrawi and Mamluk Ali Nanautawi articles. The edits were really helpful but please add correct edit summaries in future when you do such edits. Regards ─ The Aafī on Mobile(talk)14:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
The wiki article on William H. Taft states he's the first Supreme Court Justice to be buried in Arlington Cemetery. Actually, it's Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., a Civil War vet wounded in battle. SOURCE: Find a Grave 2601:100:8580:1BD0:48BE:D822:2E70:723 (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey, the place to ask for this would be on the talk page for Taft, so it would probably be best to discuss it there. The article is autoconfirmed, so you should make an edit request. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs16:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey person editing from ...2E70:723. The above is exactly why we require content to be verified by reliable sources, and don't allow user-generated content. Find-A-Grave's content is written by random people. By relying on Find-A-Grave's write-up you found an issue that isn't one, because the random person's writing that you relied on got it wrong.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the heads up GoingBatty. So the OP got their inference wrong. Well, I made an assumption they actually got their incorrect information from the source they explicitly pointed to, and when you assume... but I can't too embarrassed; my point may have been wrong in the specific context, in this instance, but the overarching point is true, as has been demonstrated over and over.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
On top of this, there are some administrators willing to block accounts on request, which would prevent you from editing with that account, but I think the answer to your question hinges on the reason you would want the account to be deleted. — Bilorv (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Sonofstar Accounts cannot be deleted, for both technical and legal reasons. Most people who don't wish to participate anymore just abandon their accounts and stop using them. The other good suggestions above are also options. 331dot (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
My article was rejected. Really need some help!
My write up Draft:Bangalore Sisters was rejected and I really need some help. I have edited the draft again to sound neutral. I dont mean to promote the musical duo. I have included citations from the newspapers and independent sources. The only other sources I have, to prove the content are promotional music streaming websites or Youtube. All their performances have been published online by the production houses for purchase however that comes under unreliable sources as per wiki standards.
I have read the help options and also visited many other wiki pages of musicians to learn. I am just not sure where else I am going wrong. I request help in reviewing my article and pointing out exactly to what needs to be changed before i request for re-submission please. ShravanthiRK (talk) 08:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
ShravanthiRK Ola , Senior I am not admin nor I am a host on WP: Teahouse. But I want to suggest you read first how WP works. Your article is not even close to WP standards of article. You have to look articles about international music artists like Michael Jackson understand this article and then rewrite on WP: sandbox.Read how to write a article on WP :My first article106.195.7.13 (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I have included citations from the newspapers and independent sources.
Do they provide significant coverage of the sisters? If so, they may help show the subject meets English Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Do they merely mention the sisters in passing? If so, you can only use these to support statements in the draft. Those sources do not show that the subject meets inclusion criteria.
The only other sources I have, to prove the content are promotional music streaming websites or Youtube.
The suggestion that you compare this with the article on Michael Jackson seems extraordinary. Jackson was at the centre of an international business; and various, increasingly bizarre aspects of his "private life" became more and more salient. The sisters' fame seems to be local and there's no suggestion that they keep pet chimps, run private fairgrounds, alter their noses, or worse. ¶ The draft looks interesting. However, there are various oddities. Here's just one matter. "They have rendered over 10,000 songs in different languages for private music albums": what is a "private music album"? The "discography" is long, but contains far fewer than 10,000 items. What are these? (What's the format, publisher and year of publication of each?) -- Hoary (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the reply, Rotideypoc41352 and Hoary.
Like Hoary rightly said, the sisters have more of local popularity (although their work has been recognized all over the country), but they are not of international fame. The newspaper articles I have used as citations are from some of the popular daily newspapers in South India. And I can assure that the articles talk mainly about the sisters and their work and are not just a passing mention about them.
I have changed the phrase 'private music albums' (thank you for the feedback). I have updated details for the music albums mentioned in the discography, and will also try to add more albums to the list.
Is there anything else as well, that I need to work on? It would be really helpful if you could point out anything else that may need to be removed/changed. I really am trying hard to get the draft accepted and request guidance from experts like you. Really appreciate your help. Thanks again! :-) Gratitude!— Preceding unsigned comment added by ShravanthiRK (talk • contribs) 18:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
The draft has been tagged in some of the places where citations are missing. For biographies of living people it is policy not to include any fact that can't be verified. As usual with such drafts, the main issue is not really the problem of giving a comprehensive account of their lives (or their work) but showing they are WP:NOTABLE in Wikipedia's strict sense. That needs reliable secondary sources, of which you have some but need to find more (even if not in English-language). Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Ex, from pg; "Are you interested in selling your body parts like kidney, 1/2 Liver, Testicles,Lung, and 30 grams of bone morrow for the sum of $800,000.00 cash hurry and contact us but we need genuine donor,via"
The particular comment was made in 2017. It could (and should) have been reverted then and the user blocked. Since they were using an IP address that wouldn't have done very much. Spam in the article pages is worse, as while lots of people read articles, relatively few use Talk Pages. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@K1401986: If you have the Navigational popups gadget enabled in your preferences, hovering over a user's name also displays the number of edits they've made. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Dead link
Dead link ""2. John Casey (1939– )". Encyclopedia Virginia. Retrieved December 26, 2009." (page not found) in the artcle John Casey. I don't know how to fix this. And maybe got it wrong with the forum for posting this. Avedon (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC) Avedon (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@Аведон: It just means that the website is not accessible anymore. However, the Wayback Machine keeps archives of websites for us to refer to, and luckily a snapshot of that website exists here: [8]. I'll update the reference.
"It just means that the website is not accessible anymore." Yes, 404. I just didn't understand out how I can fix this. Now, I understand. "Do come back if you have any more questions" Thanks. Avedon (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@Twnkies: Welcome. Click the red link in your signature and it will let you create your user page. After that, just use the edit button as with editing any other page. RudolfRed (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
inactive WikiProject question
I am looking into reviving the inactive WikiProject Colonialism. While I have been a casual editor for over a decade, I am not as familiar with the administration, markup, and template aspects of Wikipedia - I have looked through some tutorials and guides but wanted to confirm how best to proceed since it is all still a bit new to me. My main question is related to my attempts to revive the project (in part) by adding the WikiProject Colonialism template to the talk pages of relevant articles as well as the Category:Colonialism. However, the WikiProject template shows up as inactive on the talk pages and the categories show up as empty - would it be better to wait until the project is "officially" revived before adding these templates to articles? Behemothing (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Behemothing, Hi, that would not be better - a Wikiproject is automatically marked as inactive if there has no significant WikiProject activity for three months - this means:
"no significant editing of the Wikiproject page or subpages" and/or "no meaningful posts on the talk pages (circulars, notices posted by non-members of the WikiProject don't count);". So the only way to change it is to be active working on it. "Only" adding the Project template to the articles talk pages of matter will not bring a Wikiproject back to the state of being active. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I there such thing as to many citiations. Do they want you to use all you can find or will that clutter the page? does it depend on article size? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
LightningComplexFire, I would imagine they would be verbally warned to stop. If that didn't help then they would probably be blocked, and inevitably something would pop up at ANI where there would then probably be a discussion and one or both of the edit-warring admins would be reprimanded. Unless it's a recurring theme in either of the admins' behavior, I don't think any further action would be taken. Giraffer(talk·contribs)17:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm having trouble locating specific guidance about the length and/or amount of detail that is acceptable in an article, specifically BLPs. I attempted to add some information about a person, it was removed by another editor who then added the template "This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience." This particular editor has said that they are done with that page, which is great by me as I didn't find them particularly pleasant, so I can't discuss with them. I would like to work towards getting the template removed so I need to know what, if anything, needs to be changed. Thanks. AnnieBee3 (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I was directed here by @Robert McClenon:, who rejected my articles for creation submission at Draft:TigerGraph. I am a little surprised because Robert said the draft focuses on what the company says about itself, but all of the citations are to what independent journalists or analysts said about the company. Any help would be appreciated. DRonald0412 (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
User:DRonald0412 - I said that the draft was about what the company says about itself. To establish corporate notability, a draft or article should tell the reader what third parties say about the company. Most readers do not plan to read the references. The references are required, but the article itself should summarize what reliable sources say about the company, not just what the company says about itself.
Also, as a technical matter, I did not reject your draft, but I declined it. That means that you are welcome to resubmit it after you revise it appropriately. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Youtube video like a Realiable source
my YouTube cite was banned
I had have argued with a member (JavaHurricane) that take off a cite needed filled by my. And when I reply he claims that YouTube videos has no place as reliable source. But that isn't actually true. If that kind of videos was forbidden we never would need ramndom guys that erase cites from YouTube. Is as simple as using a scrip at the wikipedia editor that don't allow you to put some YouTube links.
The video that I used was from a official channel if an international organization (National Library Mariano Moreno). And the video is a personal interview. I was cited the words said by the man (in flesh) at that interview. And the cite was because a Parrafrased quote about himself. So I argued but JavaHurricane don't bend his position at all. ROBOTECHH (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
ROBOTECHH, Well, the majority of YouTube videos are not reliable sources and cannot be used because they are user-made (much like how you cannot cite claims or data from Twitter, Fandom, Facebook, etc.), but in your situation, I believe you are correct, and probably can use it as a source. If the video was made by a reliable source then you would be able to cite it. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs20:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi ROBOTECHH. The editor in question is certainly incorrect in the broad brush edit summary statement: "YouTube is not a reliable source". I suppose it may be easy to get this impression given that there are a number of polices and guidelines that are violated or implicated by many attempted uses of YouTube videos (e.g., WP:ELNEVER, WP:UGC and WP:PRIMARY) that are properly reverted, but which are not applicable here. I've set out some extended discussion as to that below.
Extended content addressing YouTube not being a reliable source
To expand on the reasons many YouTube videos are problematic, and properly reverted—that might have given you the impression we can't accept any citation to YouTube videos—it's true that a huge number of YouTube videos people attempt to link to are copyright violations – some random person taking someone else's copyrighted content, e.g. a television program they've recorded, and posting to YouTube. This is not to mention the staggering number of YouTube videos where the main content is not itself a copyright problem, but the music added by the YouTuber very much is. This is covered by WP:ELNEVER. We cannot normally ever link to copyright violations.
So, BBC News posting on their official channel one of their news broadcast = not a copyright violation, and is usually a reliable source (I say usually, because whether a source is reliable is always contextual; a BBC news story that otherwise would be considered reliable, is not for, for example, involved medical content.) By contrast: apparent random YouTuber recording a BBC news story and posting it = still the same usually reliable source, but one we cannot use as a putative copyright violation.
Second is just as Bop34 indicates above: some random person's musings on some subject, user-generated content, is usually unreliable for obvious reasons. Third is that a large portion of YouTube videos are primary sources, where we prefer secondary, independent sources for most content. (For that reason many users actually have the impression we can't use primary sources at all, or that primary sources are always inferior, which is not correct either).
The general limitations on use of primary sources are that, if reliably published, they be used only for "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" (and not for any analysis). (There are additional limitations of their use with respect to living persons).
One very good use of a primary source is to verify that a subject said what the subject is being described in an article as having said (if such statement belongs as a matter of Editorial discretion), which is the apparent intended use here.
The video here of the subject himself speaking, being from the Argentina National Library: is not a copyright violation; is perfectly reliable for verifying that he said what he is quoted as saying (**if indeed it contains the quotation; if it doesn't fail verification**); and is ostensibly well within the permitted uses of primary sources. For those reasons, I was going to revert and restore the edit. However, I didn't because your edit summary, ROBOTECHH, does not indicate that the source actually verifies the quotation, thus the reason for my starred parenthetical above. Instead, the article has a quotation, marked as such in quotes, that says one thing, and your edit summary says the source says something else. Can you address that please?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Draft Review
Is there a way I could get someone to look over my article draft and make sure I am not reference bombing. Most of them I believe to be useful and connected such as oral history and articles supporting facts. Is this possible? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for the help. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@Gandalf the Groovy: Wikivoyage is not a reliable source, since it's a wiki. There are 5 places where you have 3 or 4 references supporting the same fact, which seems excessive (although I did not read each reference to try to determine the value of each reference). With so many references, is there more valuable information you can extract from the references to add to the draft? When you submit your draft for review, someone will review each reference and make that determination. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
May not meet Wikipedia's user page guideline because
Noah states that my page might not meet user page guidelines. Then goes into saying 'because' with no addition of information. JohnnyJEdwards (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@JohnnyJEdwards: You have a lot of biographical info on your user page. It doesn't belong there. As WP:UPNOT says "you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia". See WP:UP for what can go on your user page, it should be about you as a Wikipedia editor. RudolfRed (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
JohnnyJEdwards, what you have written on your user page is an autobiography, which is strongly discouraged in general, and inappropriate on your user page. As RudophRed says, your user page is to write about your plans and accomplishments as a Wikipedia editor. Cullen328Let's discuss it22:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi
I'm editing my first article, in my sandbox.
I'm using the source-code of a 'good' article as a template and editing it for my subject.
I haven't got to the Categories bit yet, but don't want to delete the markup as it helps me understand what's going on/what to do. Hostbot has suggested I disable Categories, while they are not relevant. Can someone guide me as to how to do this please?
Many thanks Buckland1072 (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Buckland1072, best would be to use the nowiki template - put it like this:
Feedback on whether notability requirement is met in article, please
Hi,
Re. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Peter_Byck
In January 2021, in response to the banner invitation to help improve the article linked above, I edited it quite substantially and my inexperience ultimately resulted in it being deleted. I wasn't aware of the issues I caused (COI and lack of sources,) as I didn't return to it for over a month. By the time I revisited it, the discussion had ended and resulted in deletion.) I feel terrible about getting the article deleted, as it had been on Wikipedia for over a decade, without any threat of deletion. The article is now a draft and my submission was declined recently, because I did not include adequate proof of notability. I have since edited it further to include secondary sources supporting notability in the first paragraph. Would it be possible to get feedback on whether the article in its current state with secondary source citations, provides adequate support for notability? I really appreciate your help. Thank you! Bib123456 (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Bibl123456, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please don't feel bad about helping improve the quality of Wikipedia by removing articles that shouldn't be there. In WP:Articles for deletion/Peter Byck, five different editors asserted that Byck was not notable by Wikipedia's standards, and they wouldn't (or, at least, shouldn't) have based that conclusion on the article at the time, but on their own searches. This means that you need several solidreliableindependent sources containing significant coverage of Byck. I haven't looked at your draft closely, but I see that the first paragraph contains nine citations to substantiate his appearance in various places. You do realise that not one of those nine contributes in any way to his notability in Wikipedia's sense? If an independent person wrote about his having appeared somewhere, that might contribute, but those are all primary sources. Remember that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. No appearance of the subject, in print or on media, can contribute to that directly: only if it is reported independently. --ColinFine (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Maybe there are some references in there somewhere that help to establish Byck as notable. But you're asking a lot if you expect a reviewer to wade through all those reports of interviews with him. If you can't find good references, you should give up. If you have found some, you shouldn't hide them among all that garbage. Maproom (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@Fluggydog: I assume you're asking if there is a limit to the number of editors that can register to edit, or edit at a time? Not that I'm aware of. The infrastructure is pretty robust and scalable. TimTempleton(talk)(cont)23:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
If on the other hand you're asking about the number of edits that an editor can make, then similarly, there's no limit that I'm aware of. Incidentally, I notice that you're already working on an article in your sandbox. You should be aware that Youtube is seldom usable as a reference. Also, if there is any relationship between your biographee and yourself, you should describe this in User talk:Fluggydog/sandbox. -- Hoary (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Probably I should waste less time editing on Wikipedia
How can wikipedia be implemented with information if someone deletes what I discovered and edited under Moscow Narodny Bank? If a Bank was built in Beirut in the '60s because Lebanon was a rich country back then and I put the name of the architect Maurice Hindie as author, how can his name be cancelled by mentioning it is not constructive? 89.96.28.185 (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@The great Jay: I'm glad you asked. If you haven't already, I recommend completing The Wikipedia Adventure, which is a tutorial for learning the basics of editing Wikipedia. Help:Getting started has a lot of useful links to read as well. Then, you should start editing about your interests, which you probably have more knowledge about than other people. Remember to be bold and make the changes you think should be made! If another editor comes along and disagrees, go to the talk page and find consensus; the best articles are made through collaborative efforts. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 00:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Why my draft article was rejected? ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yashita_Yashpal_Sharma (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC) (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
The reviewers who rejecteddeclined your draft placed explanations of the page Draft:Yashita Yashpal Sharma. The most common reason for rejectingdeclining drafts is because the subject has not been demonstrated to be WP:NOTABLE enough: and that's what seems to be the problem here. Wikipedia has very strict criteria for notability or it would be swamped by articles. We only have about 6 million articles to cover over 6 billion people on earth (and that's assuming we had no articles on any other subject at all!). Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Marshmallo3535: What do you mean "info from there"? Be careful that Wikipedia should be free of original research, that is, your own personal observations and opinions. Instead, everything should be verifiable to reliable sources. Just because you see two Chinese guardian lions in front of the building's entrance does not mean you can write "there are two Chinese guardian lions in front of a building" in the article; however, if a reliable book says the same thing, you can include it in the article with a reference. That being said, visiting the location you're writing about is a great way to learn background information the place before you start writing the article. Also, consider taking good pictures and uploading it to Wikimedia Commons while you're there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganbaruby (talk • contribs) 00:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
How to change the article title from italics to normal?
I've tried to figure it out by myself but I am stuck. So this is the first time ever I am asking here in the teahouse. :-) How can I change the title of this article from italics to normal?: Climate change in the Netherlands. Thanks in advance for your help. My only idea would be to do a round robin swap and basically delete the article and start afresh. But round robin swaps have the problem that one has to wait for an admin or page mover to delete the page to make room for the swap. I am having the same problem here where I am waiting for someone to delete the article to make space for a swap: Climate change in India. Maybe there are other ways of round robin swaps that don't have that page deletion step which can delay things? EMsmile (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks so much GoingBatty! I just couldn't figure out where that italics was coming from and you have solved the mystery for me now. Big thank you! EMsmile (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi RealShivaaa. I agree with what Marchjuly has written above and have deleted this again, under section CSD G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, as blatant advertising, which it very much was. Also, having searched and being unable to find a single useful reference for the company that could be used to support an article with non-promotional content, I doubt that any suitable article is possible for this company, since notability cannot be demonstrated. There are many places online where you can advertise this company. Wikipedia, though, as an encyclopedia, is not one of them. An encyclopedia is a compendium of knowledge about subjects that the world has already taken note of by reliable publication about them in reliable, secondary, independent sources , and is never the place to first announce things. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)
Scattered section
Hello, I don't understand why this section of this article is always scattering whenever I edit it, even after fixing it. If you check it now as an editor, you'll surely find something not okay on it to edit.
What can be done about this?.
Josedimaria237 (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC) Josedimaria237 (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@Josedimaria237: Could you please help me understand what edits you're trying to make, and what you mean by "scattering"? Is there an old saved version we can view that shows the "scattering"? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: Check the MFM positions on that section, even after when you remove the repeated positions, it'll still show when you re-check it.
@Josedimaria237: I removed the repeated pos14, but still don't understand what you mean by "scattering". Please provide a detailed description of the problem you see and what you want to see instead. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Josedimaria237. I too am having trouble understanding what you mean. At first I thought maybe the view of the table when viewing the article was somehow "scattered" for you, but looking at what you wrote more closely, it seems more likely that you're talking about the view after you click edit. Anyway, I can report that when I view the article, the table is displaying perfectly, and when I click edit (source editing) I also don't see any obvious problem. Are you possibly referring to the fact that in edit mode, some of the table code has some line breaks between sections? (If it is a display issue, though, it might be useful to tell us what device and browser you're using.)
By the way, when you say "...it'll still show when you re-check it", that sounds like you might be describing a caching issue – where something has been changed but still displays as if present, because your device has saved a portion of the page and displays an older version. If I might be on target as to that, see Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, the table displays perfectly when you view the article only because the repeated pos14 (MFM) is not necessary since there's a complete pos14 but whenever I want to edit, I still see that repeated pos14 (MFM) at the edit box despite having removed it.
I only experience this problem whenever I edit league positions by round sections and some few articles, that's why I am asking. It's not a display issue.
@Josedimaria237: Did you bypass your cache like Fuhghettaboutit suggested? Are you still having the issue? If so, could you please detail each step you're doing? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: Yes, thanks. I'm no longer having the issue, I'll also change my browser.
Hi Marchjuly Oh, I should have been more specific! To create a Meetup page, should I be using my own sandbox, user space, or creating a page similar to how I create a Wikipedia bio page etc.? Soulsinsync (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Soulsinsync, Marchjuly has already recommended WP:MEETUP to you. This is very helpful. Two of the many things it tells you are: (i) if you're hoping to go ahead, then "Use or create a sub page of Wikipedia:Meetup to organize the meeting"; but (ii) "The Wikimedia Foundation have reviewed the current global public health landscape and we ask all grantees to postpone or cancel all in-person public events and activities until the World Health Organization declares the COVID-19 pandemic over." -- Hoary (talk) 05:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
00the0, if you can answer questions accurately and in a friendly manner, then you are welcome to answer questions here at the Teahouse. But you only have ten edits so far, and on that basis, you are unlikely to have the necessary experience unless you had a previous account. If so, can you please reveal that old account? Optional question. Cullen328Let's discuss it05:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Good point, I should probably gain some more Wikipedia experience before answering any questions. :) 00the0 (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
@Firestar464: If the other editor indicated that they want to but don't know how, then sure, help them out. If you only suspect that there's a paid relationship without proof, then no. You may instead ask them to make the declaration with Template:Uw-coi. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 05:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I received an email saying my posts re: Darbyville had been removed . WHAT POSTS ???? I have never posted to Wikipedia . I live some miles from Darbyville, Ohio? but have never posted anything. What the H is this all about ??????? Who are you people ??? I don't know anything about URLs or whatever you want me to reference. I have no ida what is going on here . Have you hijacked me??? 74.113.40.72 (talk) 06:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello IP editor. You are using an IP address that can be shared among multiple people in your area. On February 1, 2021, someone using your same IP address engaged in some minor vandalism of Darbyville, Ohio. It probably wasn't you. If you want to avoid these messages, you may want to register a free, anonymous Wikipedia account. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
They would see it (not actually an "e-mail") the same way you did, by looking at User talk:74.113.40.72. Like it says at the bottom of that page, "This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
We want to delete the page that was published about us without our consent
How can we delete the page that was published without the company's consent? We cannot contact the administrator nor the author, the reason why we are stuck with this page with false information. Please help us fix this concern, asking for your quick solution on this. Thank you. 2001:4451:77C:B100:614E:FD61:D0A6:88CD (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not a vanity site or a directory. Your company's "consent" isn't needed for an article to be published about it here. Any information which can be reliably sourced may be included in the article about the company. If there is proprietary or incorrect information in the article, request the removal or correction of that information using the article's Talk page. Do not edit the article yourself; see WP:COI. General IzationTalk 02:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Your ONLY recourse is to open a discussion on the Talk page of the article. There, state that you work for the company, the propose specific changes to the article. 'Specific' means stating desired additions - with references. If proposing content that has references be deleted, then references confirming that the parts to be deleted are in error are required. A non-involved editor will decide to incorporate proposed changes or deny the proposal. David notMD (talk) 07:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Help to trim down the content based on your expertise for page name Sonu Goel, well known public health professional
Thank you for your reply, may I request you to trim down the content based on your expertise for the Sonu Goel page which I have recreated, but unfortunately not accepted!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakeshsipher (talk • contribs) 11:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Example: Dr.Goel chose the noble and prestigious medical profession as a medium to gratify his burning desire to serve the community. Try Goel decided to become a doctor. It's unlikely that anyone other than yourself, Rakeshsipher, will want to bother to do all the needed "trimming" (wielding of the editorial machete). Incidentally, what's your relationship to Goel? -- Hoary (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I see walls of text, excessive promotion, unreferenced claims, and unsuitable references. It'll be easier to start afresh, following Wikipedia's policies this time, than to transform the current version into an acceptable state. Maproom (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I took an ax (cut close to 1/3) from Draft:Sonu Goel, but it still needs a lot of work. Please do answer Hoary's question about the nature of your relationship with Sonu Goel. David notMD (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
And I then took an adze to it. However, I soon tired: I should have used a larger implement (and really, I think that Maproom's solution is best). ¶ One thing I noticed, Rakeshsipher, is that a substantial percentage of Goel's many achievements are "sourced", as we say, to papers written by Goel. As a humdrum example, let me quote:
As a Bloomberg Initiative to Reduce Tobacco Control grantee (2018-2020 and 2020-2022), he is strengthening institutional mechanisms and supporting enactment of state-level policies for FCTC Article 5.3 in four focused states of India (Odisha, Meghalaya, Telangana and Puducherry)[1] along with developing an accountability system to monitor and stop tobacco industry (TI) interference and documenting it in peer reviewed journals.
Note that the reference is to a "Project" of Goel's (not even a paper) at Researchgate: "The objective of the study is to strengthen the policy and institutional framework of National tobacco control program in states of Odisha, Telangana, Meghalaya and Puducherry in India through capacity building, MPOWER policy implementation and enactment of FCTC Article 5.3 policy in these four states." Note how an objective of strengthening such-and-such has, in the Wikipedia draft, become the actual strengthening of it. Such "sourcing" is utterly unsatisfactory. ¶ Incidentally, David notMD and I are still awaiting your answer to my question above. -- Hoary (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I am drafting an article on Gilbert Academy, a former Black prep school in New Orleans. One of my information sources is a two-page flyer I have titled A History of Gilbert Academy, New Orleans, with a bibliography, authored by Jeanne B. Green (Gilbert Academy Class of 1947, now deceased). Since this work is not published or posted on the web anywhere, I don't know how to cite it. Is there a place within Wikipedia to upload documents of worth? Or some other way for me to use some of the info from it? Queen Kitty Cat (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
One possible way forward, Queen Kitty Cat would be to try to get a local newspaper (preferably but not necessarily with a web edition) to take an interest and publish some or all of the flyer as part of a new article on the history of the academy. Then Wikipedia could use that source. Note that you will need several such WP:SECONDARY sources to pass Wikipedia's guidelines on schools, I wouldn't get too hung up on that one source: if you can't get the article accepted based on other sources, the information from the flyer may not help much anyway. Good luck. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
After that I added a dozen of references to the article, submitted it for review, but the submission declined with the explanation «This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject»
I am not sure if I am able to add anything to the article now. And as far as I understand, the new article on Wikipedia should not be perfect in the very beginning of it's creation. Me or another people will come later and make it better.
This would seem to be a relatively rare case where political notability is clearly satisfied, but general sourced notability is not (clearly). I personally would have sent it through to the Community who could then decide if it warranted retention, but the reviewer is looking for a non-primary source (newspapers, books, etc). I've found a couple of interviews, but struggling to locate anything that is about (as opposed to by) the subject. As a native language speaker, perhaps you can help? Nosebagbear (talk) 11:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Just added three more published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject that show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject [11] Is that enough? --Perohanych (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Articles on a government site are inherently non-secondary and unlikely to be independent, though there certainly is enough depth. The 1st and 2nd sources you added may just be enough. I'm going to allow the draft into Mainspace and have a new page patroller take a look for a second opinion, or any other member of the Community for that matter. Published media, or coverage in a book, or, less likely, an academic review, are the types of sources most likely to prove successful. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Nosebagbear, I added also some news-related sources. It is worth mentioning that Zhmerenetskyi was ranked 28th in the ranking of TOP-100 promising Ukrainian politicians in 2021. So the article is also promising :) --Perohanych (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Is it acceptable to cite biographical material found on family history websites such as Ancestry?
Hello - in a biography, is it acceptable to cite as a source of information documents from Ancestry such as census information, baptism and burial records? Is it acceptable to cite a family tree on Ancestry - these are trees which have been created by a member of the public and which are accessible to anyone with a subscription to Ancestry? Ruthhenrietta (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Ancestry.com is a genealogy site that hosts a database of primary source documents including marriage and census records. Some of these sources may be usable under WP:BLPPRIMARY, but secondary sources, where available, are usually preferred. Ancestry.com also hosts user-generated content, which is unreliable. More here [12]Theroadislong (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Understood. Is there any fill-in-the-blank template where I can fill out information such as "summary","personal life", etc., or does all of that have to be entered manually?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmelikyan (talk • contribs) 06:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Gmelikyan There isn't, as articles have different sections depending on their scope; an article about a person is structured differently than one about a chemical element. You can peruse similar articles to get an idea of how the article should be structured, but that would depend on what reliable sources you have on hand. Infoboxes should be used to summarise and note key points that are stated in the article. If you are going to create an article about your father, please read Your first article and understand that you have a conflict of interest due to your relationship, which can hamper your ability to edit it if it makes it into articlespace. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Gmelikyan, you can use {{subst:Biography}} in your sandbox and go from there. The template, of course, is a guide and not a rigid set of requirements. Honestly, the key is the sources; as long as the prose is not atrocious, the article will stand regardless of structure. (On the other hand, a properly formatted article whose sources do not prove the subject meets inclusion criteria won't survive.) Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs) 13:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
How to ask for a page with a notability question to be reviewed
Hello,
I have been updating the page François Picard (journalist) and have been adding references to ensure that they are external, reliable sources. I have a conflict of interest so cannot remove the notability template. I have asked this on the talk page, but not sure if that is the right area? How do I get this checked again in the hope that the template may be removed? Many thanks for your help. Factelf4 (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Factelf4 I've fixed your link. Yes, the talk page is the correct place to ask. You will draw more attention to it if you make your comment a formal edit request(click for instructions). 331dot (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Can you point out, say, two or three that provide significant biographical coverage? It doesn't matter how many passing mentions they get and I don't want to check 56 references. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
@Factelf4: I'd remove any references that are redundant - and only keep ones that back up unique content, so the number of references is minimal, but everything is verifiable. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
You appear to be using an IP that belongs to a school (maybe a high school?). There's a fair amount of vandalism coming from that IP, and it's probably going to be at least temporarily blocked at some point. If you have and use your own account, you can avoid being blocked. Ormewood (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I am Koton Koala! The intelligent koala!
um, hi! I am Koton! ehh, I am new so yeah
am nervous
Status of an article submission (new to WikiPedia and I am not sure that I did everything correctly)
Dear WikiPedia Team,
I hope you are doing well. I have a question regarding an article SpinaliS chair that I published on 1 January 2021 and I am not sure what is happening with it. It was first declined on 14 December 2020, because it was not adequately supported by reliable sources. I added many sources later and re-submitted article for approval on 1 January 2021.
I am new to WikiPedia and I am not sure if I did everything correctly - I only see Review waiting, please be patient. message. Could you please check if article is submitted correctly? I would really appreciate your help.
Due to the large number of drafts submitted for review, it can be days, weeks, or (sadly) months before a review is conducted. Meanwhile, your refs #4 and #7 are to the SpinaliS website, which is not allowed. Either replace the refs with an independent reliable source ref or delete the content. Health claims require that refs be WP:MEDRS. That means a review article of multiple clinical trials, not the opinions of doctors paid by SpinaliS. 14:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
It was a how-to guide, and it was rejected (not merely declined) for being a how-to guide. However, it's no longer a how-to guide. Well, that's an improvement. However ... it starts off with the noun phrase A grant proposal videos (singular? plural?), which, it says, utilizes multimedia communication capabilities, whose meaning eludes me. (I think of a video I know pretty well -- Monty Python's Life of Brian -- and ask myself if this utilizes multimedia communication capabilities, and decide that in a way of course it does; it could hardly not do so, and therefore some other meaning must have been intended -- but which meaning, I have no idea.) And there are other confusions. So I think a lot more work needs to be done on this draft (if the subject is promising). -- Hoary (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Still "No." Your first three refs are to Doran et al, (2014) who propose that grants for science research include electronic media rather than just print. No mention of whether this change has become accepted protocol. The 4th ref is about crowdfunding requests. There is not enough here to suggest that you can succeed in making an article out of this. David notMD (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I recently added a few paragraphs to a stub article, and I also added various references, There's a reference error that shows up on 3 citings repeatedly even though I changed and corrected them according to the Citing help pages. Did I miss something? please assist me.
I edited this page: Michael KindoG0d0 2019 (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
You just need to define each ref once and then re-use it by adding <ref name="whatever"/> whenever it is needed again. VelellaVelella Talk 16:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
@G0d0 2019: While Velella responded here, I have yust fixed the red error messages for you. There are still some error messages with regards to param values in the {{cite web}} template, but I think you manage those. Feel free to ask if not. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, since I've been subject to some criticism, mostly to top members of Wikipedia, I am slowly turning away from Wikipedia again. Any help on learning to edit? Blue Jay (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
@The great Jay: Being a new editor means you will make a lot of mistakes. That is OK. It also means that other editors ("top members" or not) will point out these mistakes, with a more or less diplomatic tone. Learn from that and keep editing, even if it means making new mistakes. (If you do the same mistakes again and again because you cannot or you do not want to improve, that is another story, of course.)
If you are talking about this, I understand how you might feel like a child caught out doing something bad by the parents, but frankly that is absolutely not a big deal, and for the editor who left the message it was probably just another Tuesday. TigraanClick here to contact me16:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
The great Jay, I suggest starting small, like making less controversial edits like spelling[a] and grammar changes. Wikipedia tends to have a steep learning curve, so take your time reading links that other editors are giving you. Many editors who have been here a while have seen this many times, so they tend to do away with the niceties. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Need Suggestions & Help to Improve My Article Draft
Hi All,
I have created a Wiki page on a renowned personality in the pharmaceuticals industry Dr. Saurabh Arora, who has helped in the betterment of the pharmaceuticals industry for the past few years. I have tried my level best to citing reliable sources and now seeking further help from experienced editors to improve my article draft.
Hello, Rwadhaawa, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry, but if that is your level best, then Arora does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Judging from your comments above, it sounds as if your thought processes are "Dr Arora is a wonderful person and has done wonderful things, so he deserves a Wikipedia article". I'm afraid that it doesn't work like that. Wikipedia doesn't care whether a subject is wonderful or not - we have articles on serial killers, murderous dictators, killer diseases, great tragedies, as well as on philanthropists, scientific progress and sublime works of art - and nothing and nobody in the entire universe "deserves" a Wikipedia article because nothing and nobody has a Wikipedia article: Wikipedia has articles about people and things, but these are not for the subject, (or against it), but only about it. Pretty well the only thing Wikipedia cares about in deciding what to have articles on is what has been independently published about the subject, because almost the only thing that can go into an article is what independent published sources have said about the subject. You need to find sources which are not written, edited, based on the words of, or published by, Arora or his company or associates, and contain substantial material about Arora, (not just about his company). Your first source is based on an interview or press release, and so does not contribute to notability. Your second is by Arora, and so does not contribute to notability. Your third source hardly mentions Arora, and quotes from him, so that does not contribute to notability. As I say, if those are the best you can find, then I'm afraid he is not notable in Wikipedia's sense. --ColinFine (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
You seem to have taken my suggestions from earlier and I've now expanded one of the URL references to include author and work. We like to give full credits where possible. I think you can go ahead and submit this for review now. That will trigger a more experienced editor to consider, and maybe accept, it. To prompt the review add {{subst:Submit}} at the very top. Good luck Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I just wanted to mention that because I am a new user, I can't edit this page, but it'd be great if someone who can could fix the discrepancy on Chanyeol's songwriting credits. Both he and his fellow EXO member, Baekhyun wrote the lyric for the song 'Lucky' for the album Growl, but it is not listed in the credits. I fixed that for the page for the XOXO album, but this page is protected. It'd be nice if someone could fix this! If not, I'll end up fixing it at some point when I can. Thank you! Berry6104 (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Berry6104, You might want to look into edit requests. You can add a certain template to the talk page of the article and other users looking at the article can see it and help you out, as the Teahouse is not the place to do this. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs18:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, just want to confirm the process for shortening Google book ref urls--one can lop off everything after the, for example, PA224 part? As in, starting with the "&lpg=PA224&dq= etc..." part? Hope that's clear! Thank you. Caro7200 (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse Caro7200. Using Google books is very versatile and it depends what you want the link to do. For example, today I added on the "Further reading" for Vinervine using the URL https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KBmGUvmCOU8C&q=Vinervine&pg=PA1&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=Vinervine&f=false. That has the effect of highlighting the word "vinervine" in the snippet that Google shows when using the link. Hence readers could confirm that the book might be worth looking at, although my intention was that the book be used for much more than just this specific item. So, I suggest you use whichever version of the URL you find does what is most useful and check it by Previewing and trying out the actual link first before "Publishing". In the case here, truncating everything after "COU8C" would have reached the book, as you implied in your question. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
@Caro7200, Finnusertop: Seconding the recommendation above (I have used that tool a lot; a wonderful time saver [though I always tweak its output]), I would add that very recently, Google switched to a new format, but always provides as a link: "Back to classic Google Books". The URLs provided in the new view do not work with the above tool (to my great annoyance), and you must access the classic view.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to be able to autosign posts like at the Teahouse (e.g. the text that shows up at the bottom of your post when you create one here). Is there a way for me to do this for all of my messages in talk pages, or to set this up in settings? Thanks in advance! Tyrone Madera (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
@Tyrone Madera: There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.
Tyrone Madera, I think this thread structure gives the script trouble. Try replying to some other threads? If the problem persists, you'll need to more specifically describe what you're clicking and what you see after you do so. Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs) 13:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
@GoingBatty and Ganbaruby: Is there a way to do this withoutout clicking on any buttons at all? Like a setting I can create that puts four tildas at the bottom of any post I create without me having to do anything but write the rest of the post. That way I never have to worry about forgetting to click the button or sign. Tyrone Madera (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
@Tyrone Madera: If you're replying from mobile, it will automatically sign for you, but I don't recommend editing from mobile at all because a lot of the functionality is lost. If you're ok with a bot (User:SineBot) signing for you when you forget, place {{YesAutosign}} anywhere on your user page. I'm going to intentionally not sign to show you what that looks like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganbaruby (talk • contribs) 01:15, March 9, 2021 (UTC)
Asking for help in creating a more balanced Jefferson Starship article.
I recently opened a dispute resolution case in regards to the Jefferson Starship article. I've been trying to add a more balanced perspective to the article, but have been running into ongoing resistance in my attempts to do so, by another editor for several years. A neutral editor offered his suggestions, Ritchie333. He thought the article didn't say much about the band's musical contributions to music history and offered little information about other original band members, and I agree. Are there any editors out there that can help me break the logjam? Are there other editors familiar with music articles that can offer assistance? I would be most appreciative of any advice. Regards, Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@Cheryl Fullerton: It appears that there has been some progress with the lead. I recommend in the future that you archive the old discussion and try to summarize the current issue in a short paragraph. Uninvolved editors may not have time to read the massive text contained in the past discussions. In the meantime, while I was trying to figure this out, I noticed a couple of errors in the Jefferson Starship member timeline. The name "Starship The Next Generation" at the top left is cut off, and the index is corrupted. Any timeline experts here who can take a crack at fixing it? TimTempleton(talk)(cont)23:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Hurricanestudier123. I've done a few things to fix your userpage, some of which is noted in the edit summary of the diff. Note that I closed a table by adding an ending "|}" and fixed a variety of template calls that only started with one curly brace ("{" instead of "{{"). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Please note, Hurricanestudier123, that a user tagged you page for speedy deletion under CSD U5, which is directed at "misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost". I have declined that nomination, as I did not find your userpage to be a blatant example. Moreover, as I should have noted in the edit summary (mea culpa), I would not characterize you as someone who has made "few or no edits outside of user pages", so the criterion was inapplicable on its face. But I would say that your userpage does go a bit "afield" as I put it in the decline, of WP:UPYES, i.e., as noted at the companion policy section of the user page guideline at WP:UPNO, "[g]enerally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia." Please keep this in mind. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)
That was me that tagged it. I do think that you are right overall, but the majority of this user's edits were to their userspace. I left a recommendation on their talk page though. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs18:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey Bop34. The CSD are generally strictly construed as to their inapplicability (I say this despite that I am among those who will perform a speedy deletion under IAR, on the infrequent occasions doing so is protective, or avoids pure process for processes' sake). Putting aside whether this was a blatant example or not, I'd just note that the fact that a "majority" of a user's edits are to user pages is not equivalent to having only a "few" edits outside of to user pages – which distinction I think is made conclusive by observing that this user has approximately 100 edits outside of user pages, which simply could not accurately be described as a "few". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Can anyone here add the artworks to Cher Lloyds singles "M.I.A" and "One Drink Away" it would mean a lot! thank you! FarisLloyd (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
An IP has been removing a section from Gentoo Linux, without proper reasoning. First, they say it's "too narrow, nothing to do with the distro itself". Then, after being reverted by DoebLoggs, they remove it again with the same edit summary, but adding "genkernel has never been the main feature, so nothing to do on the top of the page". I told them they were trying to edit war, unsure if that was the right move. Next, "no historical value for the distro itself", I asked them why it has none, and got no response. Another revert by different IP but same guy, got reverted by JPxG, and the IP reverted again, saying that genkernel has it's own article, but I'm sure a redirect doesn't count. Neither of us happened to break WP:3RR. CanadianOtakuTalk Page20:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
How do I make an article?
~question~
How can I make an article? I would be very grateful if someone told me! :D
Kevspez Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Successfully creating a new article is the absolute hardest thing one can do here on Wikipedia. It takes much time, effort, and practice, and many people fail in their first attempts. Often, they become frustrated and get hurt feelings as they are attempting something that they don't understand and see their work mercilessly edited and deleted by others. I don't want you to have bad feelings, so 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 get some experience under your belt, you will be better equipped to take the bigger step of creating an article. It would be a great idea for you to use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia.
If you still want to attempt to create a new article, you should read Your First Article, and then use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by another editor who can determine if it can be formally placed in the encyclopedia. It's better to get someone to look at it first, instead of afterwards when it will be treated more harshly. Good luck, either way. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I have a question.
My Question.
how do you make your own article? i wan't to make one about my school. so can anyone tell me how? thank you! :D Rag8minos (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Look at articles about schools in places near you. Those are your models. Using WP:YFA, you can model a draft about your school on what those other articles contain. Don't submit until you have references in place. Oh, and "Publish" at the bottom means Save, not Publish. David notMD (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Biased Page?
Well, the Gamergate page is so biased that even Jimbo Wales mocked it, it is clearly from biased sources and gamer gate is not a negative thing like Wikipedia makes it out to be. Could you explain why this is the case.--2600:1004:B098:98FB:81FE:F476:B973:EC8D (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Concerns about any article should be discussed on its article talk page. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources state; any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias. The sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias. 331dot (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
@Gandalf the Groovy:(edit conflict) No, you don't need to be certified in some way, you don't even need to be a registered user, though, you should have a greater amount of experience on how things go here. For example, it will not help you when somebody aks about corp notability If you don't know how the rules are for that. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Anyone is allowed to but it is best only to do so if you feel confident that you have a very strong answer with no incorrect information (though we all make mistakes!), as someone else will always get around to answering if you don't. You could always look at a question, think of an answer but not post it, and see what somebody else says first before adding to it if you have something new to say. — Bilorv (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Where is the best place to ask for formatting help
Where is the best place to ask for other editors to help with formatting for a draft article? If this is the best place, then here is the draft. I am struggling to think of new sections to create and if the current sections should be split or formatted differently. Thanks for help in advance! Elijahandskip (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Elijahandskip. I would recommend starting with reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section (shortcut: WP:LEAD). The lead section is an overview of the topic, that introduces it, and summarizes what's already in the body, in more detail (essentially, there should be nothing in the lead that isn't in the body). Here, the lead is not functioning as one. I think if you focused on that, the draft's "formatting" would be improved. Seeing an example for a similarly situated topic often helps; maybe take a look at method acting, which you linked in the draft. See how its first two paragraphs function as an overview of what's written later?
By the way, the draft has an essay-like, original research quality to it, with what reads as improper evaluation in Wikipedia's voice, e.g., "...is a wonderful display of how his method transcribes to the screen..." A Wikipedia encyclopedia article could quote someone saying that. It would never convey such an evaluative gloss itself. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the tips Fuhghettaboutit. I am slightly confused why you said I linked the method acting article to the draft as it isn't. Also, could you maybe leave me a tip here or on my talk page on why it sounds like original research. Every part of it is sourced with a news article and at least to me, it reads similar to how the other articles I started sounded. Granit, most of the stubs I had started were current events that had little information, but it is similar to them in this case as the robbers haven't been caught and there isn't much info on it (Which is why it is a draft article at the moment). So any tips you have is greatly appreciated. Thanks again for the tips! Elijahandskip (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
This appears to be about your draft Draft:Piggy Bank Bandit & Back Again Bandit. I don't see how "team" applies, as your first ref states that there were/are three bank robbers, each acting alone, one already arrested. The other refs are about the PBB. Nicknames or no, I do not see how any of this rises to notability. David notMD (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
@David notMD:, I just moved the draft to Draft:Piggy Bank Bandit so it is just about the PBB. Also, notability hasn't been fully established yet, hence why it is a draft. Another editor recommend I keep it in draft space until I can firmly say notability is established. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
@Elijahandskip: Jeeze. Okay, so, I opened up the wrong draft. Don't ask me how I did that (certainly having too many tabs open is involved), but it's from a post higher on this page, at #Help with Draft, by Elvisisalive95. Everything I wrote above regards my viewing of that draft, thinking your post was about it. . Maybe I didn't get enough sleep last night?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Ah. Lol. When a major current event happens, for example like a big tornado event, and I am the one creating the article that I know will end up being ITN in a day or 2, I have dozens of tabs open to Wikipedia articles, the editing article, and news articles. I know the feeling. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Need a bit of help, am new!
Hey guys, just a quick question I hope you could help me, after having troubles fixing the size of the image (which I managed now) I would need help on the English Wikipedia page of "Ferdinand Feldhofer", the picture is there and its the right size but I need help removing the bit of text below the picture (I used it from wikimedia commons) could anyone help me?
@IronThumb3000: I took a brief look at it, and I think your draft is pretty close to be published. I'm not an AfC reviewer though, so I suggest reaching out to AngusWOOF and ask what specifically they would like to se improved. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 00:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi IronThumb3000. Just for reference, Wikipedia:Notability is the term used when assessing whether a stand-alone article can be written about a subject. Most experienced editors will probably get what you mean, but it's probably best to use "notability" when participating in any discussion about this kind of thing just to avoid any confusion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
An insert song for an episode isn't enough to satisfy MUSICBIO #10. It would have to be something major like the series' main theme song. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 04:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Gkalsi23546789. It's not clear what you're asking. Are you having problems adding a file found on Wikipedia Commons to a Wikipedia page or are you having problems uploading a file to Commons? If it's the former, please provide the name of the file you want to add and also the name of the Wikipedia page you want to add it to. If it's the latter, you should (as suggested by GoingBatty above) seek assistance at c:Commons:Help desk. Even though Wikipdia and Commons are sister projects, they are separate projects with their own policies and guidelines as well as their own community of editors; so. problems with Commons generally need to be resolved on Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Gkalsi23546789. If you're asking how an editor becomes a Wikipedia administrator, you'll find that information on page mentioned above by GoingBatty. If, however, you want to know how you can do the things that an administrator can do, then whether you can depends on what you actually want to do. Regular editors can do most of the things that an administrator can, but some things require special user rights that need to be requested. You can find out more about these "special user rights" at Wikipedia:User access levels. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
@Wikiaddictcommo: thank you for your interest. A good intro guide is at Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol - you can do both of those by going to the Recent Changes list (link on left of the screen) and just looking at edits and undoing vandalism. It is worth spending a few minutes on the page I linked that notes what is and isn't vandalism. When you've had some experience (and I'd also suggest making some content edits, just to get an idea of the other side of the fence - Help:Introduction for good tutorial) then you could apply to the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy which will give a detailed grounding and work you towards using more powerful tools to combat vandalism and similar more effectively. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Draft:Tony Jazz TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Done! GoingBatty (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
--Rosiestep (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Jacob_Teitelbaum
Fixed by removing {{italic title}} from the State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation article. The title of that article get italicized from the infobox, so {{italic title}} was superfluous, and now doesn't come across through the {{Excerpt}} template in the Climate change in the Netherlands#State of the Netherlands versus Urgenda Foundation. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Elvisisalive95 (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
located above the edit window.
. Maybe I didn't get enough sleep last night?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
5.jpg){kind=link}
