Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1111

Archive 1105

←

Archive 1109

Archive 1110

Archive 1111

Archive 1112

Archive 1113

→

Archive 1115

Self-proclaimed Page Control of Kingdom of Jeypore

Hello, I am a new editor in Wikipedia. I have knowledge in the field of history, particularly my regional history. Therefore, I do edits on Wikipedia and also have an article on submission.

Recently, I came to the page of Jeypore which is a place of historical importance in my region. I thought of improving the article which was very badly written and paraphrased. The page said it needs improvement with sources. Therefore, I did some edits, added some information with the relevant sources as per the guideline of Wikipedia. However, one user named RegentsPark deleted my entire work and reverted it back to the old version. I tried asking him about the reason for deletion but he was unable to give a valid answer.

I looked back at the edit history of the page and found out that RegentsPark frequently deletes the work of other users and reverts it back, which raises suspicion about his conduct in Wikipedia which is contributed by so many voluntary and knowledgeable users from all around the world. I also came to find out that one of the mates of RegentsPark called RexxS was also involved in some quarrel and faced trails in Wikipedia board.

Can you please look into this matter or advice me what is best to do in this situation. Should I re-edit it or wait for administrators to take action.

Kind Regards. RudolphHitz (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC) RudolphHitz (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@RudolphHitz: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. When you asked RegentsPark and RexxS why they did what they did, what was their response to you? It would help to know what they said in response to your inquiries of them, so that we can better help you resolve the situation. --Jayron32 14:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Hello Jayron32, thank you for showing concern and replying.

I did not have any talks with RexxS but I found in the edit history of the WP:Kingdom of Jeypore and it’s talk page that RexxS was involved in a quarrel with some user.

My personal concern is regarding the attitude of RegentsPark. I edited the page yesterday after seeing the Wikipedia label that the article needs better sources and edit. Therefore, I spent a few hours in editing the article and added relevant sources as per wikipedia guidelines. However, in a few minutes my work was deleted by RegentsPark without any proper reason. He just said that I need to publish it on the talk page. I even asked him the same question with my public network username Rodotype but he didn’t give any reason behind the deletion.

This attitude of RegentsPark raises suspicion about his conduct which is clearly not as per Wikipedia policy.

Please look into my work in the page Kingdom of Jeypore and if you consider it fit for Wikipedia then please let me re-upload it. Thanks again. RudolphHitz (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

You and RegentsPark are having a discussion in the correct place, which is the Talk page of Kingdom of Jeypore. Continue there, and keep the discussion about the content, not about editors' conduct. Consider proposing text and references on the Talk page, and asking RP if acceptable. The goals is consensus. David notMD (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: To my surprise, I have not seen this rule apply in other wiki pages that editors have to first upload edits on the talk page and debate with some random user. Could you clarify, where does it say on Wikipedia policy? If my content is well sourced as per Wikipedia guidelines then why do I need to do this? Thank you. RudolphHitz (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia recommends BRD: Be Bold in your edits, but if Reverted, Discuss. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I was not saying FIRST upload at Talk, as you and RegentsPark are already past that. The goals of BRD is to avoid edit warring, wherein two editors go back and forth inserting, reverting, inserting... This futile pattern can lead to editors' being temporarily blocked. The dispute here is you believe your content is well-sourced, while RP disagrees. If consensus cannot be reached, then there are avenues to ask for arbitration. But start by assuming good faith. David notMD (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: Thank You so much that was really informative & helpful. I will follow this from now on. RudolphHitz (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Sam Virtual Assistant

•  Courtesy link: Draft:Sam Virtual Assistant

Hello, why would you decline my article? It's a big news. The internet is flooded with it. SAMsohot (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@SAMsohot: Welcome to the Teahouse! The draft was declined because you didn't actually provide enough sources to show that it's a notable topic. Try adding some more sources and details and resubmit. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 21:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

What about my other article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Florida_Transgender_Female_Athletes_Bill

Is that not enough for a Wikipedia page? It's a signed bill. @Bsoyka: — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAMsohot (talk • contribs) 21:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@SAMsohot: Unfortunately not – multiple reliable sources are typically needed to prove verifiability of content and notability of subjects. This is something that you can easily improve, though. (Also, make sure to always sign your messages.) Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 21:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bsoyka: I just added a few more references. Two of them are very official. The Governor's verified profiles on Twitter and Rumble. Please check. It seems like the proper name is "Fairness in Women's Sports Act" SAMsohot (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Long on refs, too short on content. When was the bill first proposed? When was it passed by the state legislature? What were the votes? When does the bill take effect? Are legal challenges expected? What regulations existed prior to the law? What other states have been considering or passing similar laws? Why now? David notMD (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi SAMsohot The draft on the transgender bill actually seems like something that another editor will (if not already) add to Wikipedia either as a stand-alone article or as part of another already existing article. Perhaps you should try asking about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies because that's where you're probably going to find editors who are particularly interested in the subject and who might be willing to help with the draft. Finally, I also see you've created Draft:Sky Pool and think it's great that you seem so enthusiastic about creating new articles. Wikipedia, however, isn't the same thing as the news and not everything that appears in the news is something that a Wikipedia article should be written about. Sometimes it's actually better to wait awhile as explained here before trying to create an article about a recent news item to see whether the coverage it receives is sustained and wasn't simply something just being reported on because it was interesting at the time. There are lots of ways to help improve Wikipedia that don't involve creating new articles; so, perhaps there are other things you could try doing in addition to or instead of trying to create articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Who to talk to regarding bias via omission and subsequent deletion of criticism?

Hello. I have edited some articles for Wikipedia on and off over the last few years but only recently created an account to try and see if I would have better luck (either with successful edits or reaching out to the community). I wish to hold Wikipedia to some of the standards it professes and have become quite aggravated with some of my edits on legitimate criticism (or correctly some illegitimate criticism) being deleted. It seems incredibly unfair for some articles to have paragraphs upon paragraphs of criticism or controversy but others are listed as completely free of it (which honest researchers would realize is a load of bunk). I wanted to know if there are like-minded individuals out there who are willing to put Wikipedia's feet to the fire in that regard, even if it deals with individuals that someone has a preference to or something. I think of Wikipedia as a place that strives to be an even-handed journalist, getting to the facts and seeing all of the story with an article. The good and bad. I appreciate any assistance :) PS: Since I am relatively new, I am still trying to work out the talk feature and figure out how to send individual (person-to-person) messages. And help or advice on that front would be appreciated as well :) Updatewithfacts (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Updatewithfacts, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, although your question isn’t particularly precise, the answer is articles on Wikipedia are summarized versions of what has been reported by reliable sources, to maintain a WP:BALANCE both positives and negatives are added to an article if multiple reliable sources have reported it. We add the negatives with a neutral tone. Please If you have a particular article in mind you may link the article here. Furthermore, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a space to prove a point, see WP:TE. Celestina007 (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

A more precise question would be: is there a forum where I can talk with like-minded individuals on combatting bias or pointing out misinformation by the "reliable sources"? :) My experiences have been that even the reliable sources will get things wrong from time to time but will still have their articles listed as a resource without any accountability or subsequent editing. Appreciate you taking the time to talk :) Also, is there a person-to-person messaging system on Wikipedia? I haven't found it yet.Updatewithfacts (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Updatewithfacts, Thank you for being more precise. Your question are actually “questions” all of which I am happy to reply, On this collaborative project forums aren’t allowed, let alone one that discusses a bias, that is an archetypal example of what we are WP:NOT. Now, to your second question, Wikipedia is about what is verifiable and not what is true, we summarize what has been reported by reliable sources. There are off wiki websites that criticize Wikipedia all of which you can search for and find via a google search. Lastly, there isn’t a person to person messaging system, but you can send private e-mails to co-editors. But if you want to chat generally(not person to person as far as I know) There is WP:DISCORD as well as WP:IRC which are similar in nature. To be honest, If chatting about an alleged bias about Wikipedia is your primary goal then unfortunately this is not the appropriate website for such. Thank you for your time. Celestina007 (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to read over my questions :) While I am striving to combat bias and misinformation on Wikipedia, I am honestly looking at improving pages and articles with my researched edits. Just wanted to let you know and not accidentally give a false impression to you that I was trying to cause mischief :) While I am saddened to hear that there isn't a person to person messaging system, I appreciate you telling me about direct emails and the discord chats :) Thanks again Updatewithfacts (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Updatewithfacts Um, there is of course Talk. Each editor has a Talk page. Click on Talk. Click on New section. Create a title. Write stuff. Messaged editors may chose to reply on their Talk page, on your Talk page, or not at all. Editors can also deleted content from their own Talk pages. David notMD (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

As to your edits, you added a section to The Gravel Institute with two references. The section and refs were deleted by an editor who deemed those as not reliable sources. The proper next step would be to invite that editor to a discussion on the Talk page of the article, to hash out what is and what is not reliable. David notMD (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Updatewithfacts, Allow me make emphasis on this, as stated by David notMD, there is a talk page of an editor where you can leave messages for them and they reply you, it is in no way intended for the purpose of “chatting” nor a forum. Every now and again there can be friendly exchanges, but it is in no way a chatting platform or a space for forum-like discussions in the manner you may be seeking for. Celestina007 (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for the information. I reached out to the person that edited my changes in the hopes of having this resolved. I asked what would be deemed as reliable sources, with the desire to eventually have my edits put back on there if I can provide what is considered a reliable source. I am also thankful for the integrity shown by the editor who did not disagree or argue with the facts that I presented. I completely understand if people wish to have my person use different sources but at least everyone is in agreement that those sources did state factually what occurred. I once again appreciate both of your assistance in this matter and hope to continue making factual edits into articles in the future :) Updatewithfacts (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

How I answer to a message

Fellow wikipedians! First of all thank you for accepting me in your community. I have already received so many answers from wikipedia members but I don't know how to answer them back. I already started reading the Introduction guide but I cannot find how I can reply to a message through a wikipedian's talk-page. Obviously, it is not similar to Messenger and Viber) Antonis Theofanous (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Antonis Theofanous: If you want to reply to someone on a page, you can ping them with a template like {{re}} or {{U}}. Just remember to use a colon to indent your reply so that it's easier to follow along. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: I think I did it correctly? )))

@Antonis Theofanous: You need to also sign with four tildes for the ping to work. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Antonis Theofanous: See Help:Talk pages for more info on how to use talk pages. You can also go to your Preferences → Beta features and enable "Discussion tools", which will make it easier for you to reply to talk page comments. Kleinpecan (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

1963 image PD?

Hello. I need help. This image coming from this source was taken in Yugoslavia in 1963. The author is unknown. Is it in the public domain? I'm not an expert so I need help. I tried looking on Template:PD-Serbia on Commons but I have a hard time figuring out whether it meets the criteria. Could someone help me? Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Paul Vaurie. Please note that I am not sure which picture at the Google search link you provided is the one you are pinpointing as being taken from the second link you have provided. Anyway, I often do my own research when copyright is involved. For this analysis, I am stating the proviso that I am assuming the following premises are correct: That {{PD-Serbia}}'s statements as to the underlying copyright law is correct, as well as your statement that the author is unknown; that the image is from Yugoslavia, and dates to 1963.

There is one piece of information you have not stated that is actually important to any analysis, and it is when the photograph was published. Because you have not stated that, and I have not seen how to easily determine that myself, unfortunately, for the moment we have to assume the adverse condition obtains.

Under that understanding, the image is putatively copyrighted, not in the public domain, and accordingly cannot be uploaded to the Commons, nor used here as a free work. This is because either: 1) it falls within the ambit of (b) at the template page, an anonymous work, and does not (could not) meet the condition of being taken before 1954; or 2) it falls within the ambit of (c) but was published after January 1, 1973.

For purposes of going forward, the seeming critical take away is that if you can determine (verifiably, with a source), that the publication date was before January 1, 1973, then it would seem to meet condition (c) and could be claimed PD, but this must be on the basis of affirmative evidence. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for that. If you have time, could you help me find the publication date? I'm struggling to find anything. The Wikipedia article of the subject is Zivko Lukic. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Paul Vaurie. The article says that Lukic died in 2015. If the image cannot be verified as public domain, then the policy on use of non-free images criteria #10 allows for use of a low-resolution non-free image of him in that article only. In that case, it should be uploaded here to English Wikipedia, not to Wikimedia Commons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Paul Vaurie. Just to add to what Cullen328 posted above, a non-free image of a deceased person is often allowed; however, it will only be OK to use such an image as long as a free equivalent image capable of serving the same encyclopedic purpose can neither be found nor created. WP:NFCI (which Cullen328 linked to above) is technically just for guidance and item #10 just describes a type of non-free use that is often considered acceptable, but it isn't actually a "criteria" for non-free use. There actually are ten non-free content use criteria and you're going to have to meet them all for whatever file you upload to be considered acceptable. For obvious reasons, you can't really take a new image of someone who is deceased, but an older image could possibly be relicensed or found which could serve as a free equivalent; so, if you've made a reasonable attempt to find such an image but just haven't had any luck, then using a non-free one might be OK. Just make sure you clarify that in the non-free use rationale you provide for the file. If you have further questions about this, it might be better to ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions because that's where you're likely to find editors more familiar with file licensing matters and non-free content use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

False edit on Frank Kameny?

Hello! Due to the popularity of Kameny due to his recent Google Doodle, I think somebody has decided to edit his Wikipedia article with defamatory motives: his cause of death has been changed from arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease to AIDS. NoahIsHereToday (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the report, NoahIsHereToday. The vandalism has been reverted by another editor, and I have blocked the vandal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Reverting a personal attack

A user wrote a personal attack against me, accusing me of bigotry without warrant. I reverted the person attack per WP:RPA, but an administrator (who was on the same side as a polemic discussion as the user) reverted my revert. Is there anywhere I can go to appeal this/have a broader discussion? I was thinking of posting to WP:ANI, but I wasn't sure if that was appropriate. Benevolent human (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC) Benevolent human (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Benevolent human, is it about this? I believe it's not a personal attack against you (as what I interpret RPA as), but merely a far-left comment, which I expect on a political page. It's definitely stupid but doesn't warrant a revert. Usually, I would just ignore it or clarify things to him. GeraldWL 02:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for mentoring me on this! Here's the sentence from that post that had me concerned: "That is, Trump gets a pass because he's a strong supporter of Israel, dislikes Muslims, and even moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem." It states that my user dislikes Muslims, which isn't true. Benevolent human (talk) 03:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, I posted to ANI. Benevolent human (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

surname adding??

I thought it was really simple to add to the page info here, info here characters here like the others'

now after it was added it was supposed to have the URL clickable due to the being a long URL maybe it was saying some discrepancies

but overall even if its just a black and white thats ok

but obviously we have to get rid of this red thing that showing up

also they said not to waste time sending screen shots but in case your curious

Direct Descendant of Wang Shenzi The real deal, Ong Politician

hailed from many different countries as stated verbatim in the context the Ong spread over to many parts of the world over 700 extended family members 1900"S ERA

WAng hence the name Ong Then additive of Sing they even stated the relations to the polotician

obviously

the pi then transfered to others such as United STates and so on

but overall no matter what country they derive

there exact is actually fuian, china in case your curious 2603:8001:1C00:A962:F431:F09C:53D:943B (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

IP-hopper has attempted four times to add variations of the apparently non-notable entry: "Kyle Ongsing, USA NCO Ret, EDM Music Composer DJ Seraphim" to Wang (surname). Has already been pointed to WP:WTAF

We don't normally add people to lists of notable people unless they have a Wikipedia article to show their notability. There are very limited exceptions, but there is no evidence that they apply to this person. An NCO is not presumed notable, and neither is an EDM music composer (even if these claims were sourced, which they are not). Meters (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Does someone else want to try explaining this? Not much point in posting about this to the TeaHouse only to ignore the explanation and make the edit a fifth time today [1] Meters (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

We attempted to in #wikipedia-en-help and he went straight to attacking everyone else listed on the article. The IP's been given a week of vacation time, but I'm doubtful this will help in the slightest; this seems a combination of a language barrier and crab mentality. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 04:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Removing categories

How do I remove categories in Talk:Ingenuity (helicopter)? I want to remove some categories but I can't find the source code that actually added the categories in the first place, so I can't remove them. K1401986Talk with me 20:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@K1401986: Welcome to the Teahouse! The categories were added by the banners at the top of the page and can't really be removed without removing those boxes. Why do you want to remove them? Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 21:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I want to remove the category "Spaceflight articles needing attention to referencing and citation" because I think the article has enough citations now. K1401986Talk with me 22:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@K1401986: Ah, that looks to be part of the B-Class checklist in the WikiProject Spaceflight banner. When that is filled out, those categories should go away. (Considering that 5,047 other articles have the same issue, it's probably not a huge deal.) Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 22:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

How do I fill out the B-class checklist?K1401986Talk with me 23:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@K1401986: I added more parameters to {{WikiProject Spaceflight}} on Talk:Ingenuity (helicopter) for you. For instructions on how to fill out the parameters, see Template:WikiProject Spaceflight. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Question about page protection against changing Ip's

(I was thinking this may be an ANI issue, but considering the constantly changing IP's and even blocks not seeming to stop them, I don't know where else to put this. Plus, this is more of a curiosity question than an urgent one, because I have had issues with persistent disruption and only made the situation worse for an entire year, and I don't want that situation to happen again)

I noticed that there has been a slew of IP's repeatedly adding the phrase "any body can get on wiki and type liesssssss Bye Barney b" to a number of pages. Some example IP's include this, this, this, this, and likely more that I can't find because they vandalize a wide range of pages (though I did notice a lot of dabbling in pages related to the Fire Emblem video game series). Whenever a page gets protected, nothing stops when the protection expires.

Now, I haven't really edited most of the pages that have been vandalized by these Ip's, but I can tell that even long temporary protections will stop them, such as with this page that has been a target since January, was temporarily protected, then re-protected until next year. Is there any discussion on how Wikipedia plans to deal with these specific IP's beyond constantly having to revert the same edit multiple times a day? Some of the more recent IP's weren't blocked immediately despite clearly being from the same person, and WP:VANDAL doesn't state anything about constantly changing IP addresses as far as I can see, so I'm curious on how to deal with this situation if I ever have to experience it firsthand. Unnamed anon (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Unnamed anon, that sounds like you might find WP:RPP useful. You can request protection there. GeraldWL 01:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis, The issue is that many of the target pages have already been protected, had their protection expired, then re-protected for a temporary time despite it being clear that the vandal would return upon re-expiration. For example, the page Edelgard von Hresvelg (not the only target, but the one that looks like the most long-term target) has recently had a protection applied until May 2022 instead of indefinite. Should that protection be changed to indefinite since its most common vandal constantly changes IP addresses, or is the 2022 expiration good enough? Unnamed anon (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Unnamed anon. One year semi-protection is pretty long, and community consensus is that this is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and so indefinite protection is used rarely and only in the very worst cases. Speaking as an adminisrator, I try to select the shortest protection likely to stop the vandalism/disruption, always knowing that an article can be re-protected easily if the first, second or third try isn't effective. In most cases, I will double the length of the previous protection if the disruption starts again promptly after the protection expires. Changing IP addreses can sometimes be dealt with by a rangeblock. It is possible that an Edit filter can be written to determine this vandalism. Those last two options are highly technical and, personally, I have different skills. But those options are worth investigating. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, question. If the IPs edit the same phrase all over again, it means it's the same person right? Is it possible that the device is tracked and be blocked from editing? Cause I remember a page where it says admins or CheckUsers can track stuff... GeraldWL 02:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis, some devices such as desktop computers tend have stable IP addresses while others such as some mobile devices shift IP addresses frequently. And there are work-arounds. Clever vandals know what to do. So, an IP block is an attempt to block an individual, but skilled IP hoppers can cause ongoing disruption. There is no way to forever block most of the devices used to edit Wikipedia. It takes ongoing anti-vandalism work. Fortunately, a lot of vandals lose interest when they are just reverted and blocked, without any of the attention and the drama that they crave. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I want to publish Biography of a Film Producer

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

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

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

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

wikipedia policy on bullying and disruptive editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uploading more information on an existing table on Wikipedia article

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

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

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

Deletion of Article : Virtue Clan

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

Draft:Virtue Clan courtesy link!

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

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

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

Need help to edit my rejected article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notability

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

Other feedback

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

Nitpicky things

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

Sources broken down

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

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

爱思想(aisixiang): Written by subject in article

4 non-website: I can't check them

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

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

SinoBook: Not really significant coverage.

The Simpsons

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

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

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

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

Collective Questions

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

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

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

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

GNG and BASIC

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

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

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

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

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

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

Valid Television and Author references

Hello there,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can I use Bold Italic in an article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested link to reset my password

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

Thanks much & stay COVID safe -- Ed

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

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

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

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

Identify plagiarism Content

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

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

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

Hard Rain SoloistEnsemble

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

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

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

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

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

Reference a b c, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rich and famous

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crop an image in the infbox?

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

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

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

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

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

Vincent van Gogh

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

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

Copyright violations

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

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

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

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

Antifa

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

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

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

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

Signature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

how to resolve citation issues in the page?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paid-contribution disclosure?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• For those interested, Iamthekanadian has now publicly described the nature of their position, and they are unambiguously a paid editor. 331dot (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  Given they've publicly admitted it, I agree. However, this would not be the case had they been who they tried to claim to be prior to this, and I think all the respondents here should re-evaluate how they handled this - because had this been an editor who did not meet the definition of PAID, this would be a horrible way to treat someone. The fact this person was misleading does not make it okay to treat them the way they were treated. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  I'm always willing to reevaluate- as everyone should be- but as this thread is lengthy I'd suggest doing so, if desired, on the talk page. 331dot (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Constructing a draft for AfC for Mary Setrakian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assistance with an article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evocazione e shinigami

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

Sono seria plz rispondete

This is the English language Wikipedia, please ask in English. Or, try the Italian(?) Wikipedia help desk [3] RudolfRed (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Difficulties with my first article

Good afternoon wikipedians. I carefully read the notability criteria for a new wikipedia article and inevitably few questions have arised (I am totally new here so please forgive my ignorance).

Based on my understanding whether a topic deservces a separate article or a section in an existing article is partly subjective. Personally, as a financial adviser I was planning to write an article about Multimedia Liability Insurance, which is a fresh challenging topic in my professional sector. Wikipedia does not have an article and many colleagues (actuarials, insurance underwriters) or college students want a reliable information.

But I don't know whether this topic deserves a page!

In Google as an exact match it has about 6,000 searches. Does this play any role? Is this considered a worth-writing topic? My first concern was that my main source of information are the terms of the insurance company contracts. The terms are not confidential but I cannot find them in internet. So how I can cite something that is not mentioned in the internet? I have the pdfs with the terms of great underwriters of AIG, Lloyds' etc. But I cannot use them. Or can I?

So inevitably I must rely on what the insurance companies write on their websites and blogs.

But I don't understand based on which criteria I can choose from all these great companies which one I should cite/refer.

In addition, in some countries this insurance is part of another insurance called Cyber Attack Insurance, which has an article in Wikipedia. So some fellow Wikipedians, experts in insurances, might believe that Multimedia insurance should be part of Cyber Attack insurance. An opinion that I cannot share since this is not the case in many european countries).

Who will decide whether a topic deserves a separate page or not?

I am really overwhelmed) Antonis Theofanous (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Antonis Theofanous: You need to find reliable, published sources that discuss the topic, otherwise it is WP:TOOSOON. Blogs and unpublished contracts don't count. The number of Google hits does not count, you want quality not quantity. Take a look at WP:YFA, it will walk you through the steps of how to find and cite sources and help you create a draft article for review. RudolfRed (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: I was a little bit pessimistic in my initial research. I really wanted to cite AIG or Lloyd's since are the biggest globally, but as I can see there are other pretty large companies that have the terms of the insurance online e.g. https://www.hdfcergo.com/documents/downloads/policywordings/Multimedia-Liability-Insurance-Policy.pdf. As you can see is in pdf form. Are their any restrictions with citing a pdf? Thank you for the helpful material I will certainly read it Antonis Theofanous (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Antonis Theofanous, You've stumbled onto one of the edge cases here. Companies who sell this type of insurance are generally not going to be held to be reliable sources about it, as their marketing language might be very different than the language used in the contracts. And the contracts will absolutely not be seen as reliable sources because they're not published (and might change from party to party).

What you'll want to look for is trade journal articles (they don't have to be online) which aren't ads or press releases on the subject. So if you're subscribed to any financial or insurance magazines that have stories about this kind of insurance, that's going to be your best source. Another place you could look is in college textbooks.

If you can find a couple good sources, and can get a good overview of the insurance from them, then you'll know it's worth writing an article on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Antonis Theofanous: I think this topic may qualify for an article, but you'll need to do some digging to pull up good sources. Google books has some hits in reputable publications. Other sources I see that deal with this topic:

• Covering intellectual property risks needs thought: Speaker. Unsworth, Edwin. Business Insurance. 04/26/99, Vol. 33 Issue 17, p32. 1/3p. (available via EBSCO)
• A Practical Look at E-Commerce and Liability Insurance. Connecticut Insurance Law Journal, Vol. 8, Issue 1 (2001), pp. 87-96. Richmond, Douglas R. (available via HeinOnline)
• Evolution of Insurance Coverage for Intellectual Property Litigation. Insurance Coverage Litigation, Vol. 30, Issue 1 (Winter 2020), pp. [2]-[14]. Kalinich, Kevin P.; Grabouski, Laura J.
• Chubb unveils copyright, trademark infringement ins. Esters, Stephanie D.National Underwriter, Property & casualty/risk & benefits management ed.; Erlanger Vol. 101, Iss. 43, (Oct 27, 1997): 9. (available via ProQuest)
• Potential Liability Arising Out of the Use of Trademarks in Web Site Meta Tags and Ensuring Coverage of Meta Tag Trademark Infringement Claims under Commercial Insurance Policies. Catholic University Law Review, Vol. 50, Issue 4 (Summer 2001), pp. 1009-1044. Johnson, Jennifer D. (available via HeinOnline)
• Risky e-business. Bick, Jonathan. The Daily Deal; New York (Sep 18, 2002). (available via ProQuest)

Most of these are available in big databases that your local library may subscribe to. Good luck! Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: This is another question I have. Yes as an underwriter I have access to these journals. But they are are not free for the public. Therefore, can I refer an article from Google Scholar (i.e. use the url), that requires subsciption to be read?Antonis Theofanous (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Antonis Theofanous, readily available sources are preferable, but sources behind pay walls are acceptable if nothing else is readily available. WP:PAYWALL says, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives." Thst's OK if it is necessary to improve the encyclopedia, as long as you are scrupulous about not misrepresenting the source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

How can I edit on Wikipedia?

How can I edit on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjkhhhh (talk • contribs) 17:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hjkhhhh: Welcome to Wikipedia. It can take some learning to get the hang of things. Check out the learning game at WP:ADVENTURE and also the WP:TUTORIAL, that will get you started on the basics. RudolfRed (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hjkhhhh: You can also see Help:Editing to get help about editing wikipedia. Vhhhhjhgy (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Question on Copyright for Pictures

An organisation is made up of members who pay membership fees. The organisation is there to serve its members interests. At various times it publishes a magazine which is given to its members for free. There are photos inside it including of members. Who owns those photos for the purpose of copyright and uploading photos from it to Wikipedia? 2Safe (talk) 06:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, User:2Safe. There are two obvious possibilities with many variations. Usually, the photographer owns the copyright for as long as their copyright lasts, which can be up to 95 years (or less based on specific circumstances). The copyright will be held by their heirs if the photographer has died. Sometimes, the photographer had signed a legally binding contract assigning copyright to the publication or the publisher. If so, that company holds the copyright. If that entity is defunct, then the copyright status may be murky, and evidence may be lacking. The presumption is that the image is copyrighted if published less than 95 years ago, unless there is clear evidence otherwise. This is a complicated area of law, I have simplified, and caution is advised. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

where to evaluate if a certian topic warrants notability?

Hello there. I am planning to open an article about a certain issue but I am not convinced that it warrants a page on its own. Where can I lay out the sources in which the topic I am planning to create is covered and take feedback on whether it warrants a topic on its own? --81.213.215.83 (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

At this page for example. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Show us your 4-5 "best" that are at the same time reliably published, independent of the topic and about the topic in some detail. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Writing an article about a public figure

Hello wikipedians!

As I mentioned and in a previous post I am new here so I apologize for my ignorance. I read carefully the notability principles and I really try to figure out what deserves an article and what not. As I understand there are many subjective criteria and I still didn't undestand who decides whether a topic deserves an article or not.

Therefore, please help me to create a road map through a simple example.

Mr. Roman Abramovich is a Russian billionaire and he has an article in wikipedia. Mr. Loucas Pouroulis is a South-African Cypriot billionaire and he has not an article in Wikipedia.

Their main difference is that Mr. Abramovich is also a celebrity since it is a russian oligarch, he is the owner of a famous football club. Obviously he is widely mentioned in the media.

Mr. Pouroulis is a more quiet businessman since he does not have a flamboyant lifestyle. He is mentioned in serious media Bloomberg, Reuters, Financial Times etc.

For example: This is about an investment he made in Zimbabwe after the fall of the dictator Mugabe published on Reuters

By the way did I cite correctly?))

Does Mr. Pouroulis deserve and article in wikipedia? Antonis Theofanous (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Antonis Theofanous. The source you linked to devotes two brief sentences and an earlier passing mention to Pouroulis. Perhaps if there are many, many similar sources, he might scrape by on WP:BASIC, but if that is the best you have, then the answer is "no". Wealthy people who try successfully to be "quiet", as you put it, are not notable and therefore are not entitled to a Wikipedia biography. We lack the raw materials to wrote an informative biography of them. One business deal is a very weak skeleton to hang a biography on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

As to your ref creation, needed date=22 March 2018 and access-date=3 June 2021. David notMD (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Can't submit article for review

I'm trying to submit an article for review but the button to do so isn't there. I'm not sure what to do to fix this. Iwis97 (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

From looking at your contributions, it appears you have created twelve drafts of articles about poets, and have submitted eleven of them, leaving Draft:Shazea Quraishi not submitted. Is that a correct description of the situation? David notMD (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Iwis97 UPDATE: An editor has added a 'submit' button to the Quaraishi draft. A reviewer has Declined three of the eleven submitted drafts: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article." Given similarities in referencing, it is possible that all of the drafts will be Declined for the same reason. If that becomes true, I suggest you select one of your drafts to see if you can find and add references to address the criteria for why it was Declined. If successful, you can then work on the other drafts. Please do not waste Reviewers' time by trying to advance all twelve drafts at the same time. David notMD (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Call Me Kevin

Will the Kevin O'Reilly (Call Me Kevin) article still be posted? Like, will someone else make any changes and put an an article up about him? I would really love to see an article about Call Me Kevin on Wikipedia 209.42.147.6 (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Kevin O'Reilly (YouTuber) has not been submitted for review. If it were submitted for review in its current state, any reviewer would fail it within seconds. You are welcome to improve it, though NB improving it to a point where it might qualify as an article would be a major task. (Incidentally, I know nothing about this person and therefore have no idea if reliable sources about him are available. If not, no article can be created.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@209.42.147.6: Thanks for visiting the Teahouse, adding on to Hoary, this article might have major copyright issues, in short, please don't copy and paste text from your sources, read Wikipedia:Copyright violations for more information. Also, cite your sources, use references (sometimes called citations or footnotes) to support your claims in the article. -- Justiyaya (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

How to get consensus on a topic

I am debating with another editor how a page should be treated, and we are not getting anywhere. I took the debate to the article's Talk page in the hope of engaging other editors and building a consensus, but it has been over a week and nobody else has joined in - it is still just the two of us. I mentioned the discussion at the relevant WikiProject, but still no response. Can anybody suggest a way to get some broader engagement? In case it helps, the link is Talk:Epping, New South Wales#Region(s) of Sydney for Epping.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Gronk Oz, WP:3O is a potential option that may help break the stalemate. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done@Calliopejen1: thanks, I have listed it there.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Friedrich Ebert Foundation / wrong link

Hello! I have noticed that in the article Friedrich Ebert Foundation in the sub-section "Chairs since 1953" the link of Alfred Nau (German politician) leads to the wrong Alfred Nau (French fencer). I could simply remove the link, but if I was to make a new page for the German Alfred Nau, do I need to add a description, for instance Alfred Nau (politician)? And do I need to change the other Alfred Nau as well, for instance Alfred Nau (fencer)? Thank you! I.Ariza (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@I.Ariza: Hi, welcome to the teahouse, in this case, if there is no article for Alfred Nau (German politician), I think it's best to simply remove the link for now. If you wish to make a new article for Alfred Nau (German politician) read WP:1ST. Justiyaya (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Justiyaya: Thank you! I removed the link for now. I.Ariza (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I.Ariza, you might consider creating an article titled Alfred Nau (politician). If so, leave Alfred Nau as it is, other than for adding a hatnote to it, directing interested readers to your new article. "Alfred Nau (politician)" will perhaps soon be greatly superior to -- and demonstrate that its subject has more [Wikipedia-style] "notability" than the subject of -- the sad little stub "Alfred Nau". (See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.) When (if) you're quite sure that you have achieved this, then suggest on Talk:Alfred Nau a renaming: "Alfred Nau" to "Alfred Nau (fencer)", and "Alfred Nau (politician)" to plain "Alfred Nau". Wait a couple of weeks for responses before making (or asking for) any page moves, and offer to do the necessary link-fixing yourself. -- Hoary (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

A previous instance of getting agreement to take over the top spot. -- Hoary (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I have added an interlanguage link template. —Kusma (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Where I did a mistake in this citation?

Dear friends, I inserted a new section in this article and a citation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_insurance - Ambiguity in Terms. But obviously I have done a mistake with the citation that I don't understand where. My citation has the number 15. . Antonis Theofanous (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Antonis Theofanous In the citation, it had the date as Newsroom, rather than a date. I have fixed it now. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Joseph2302 I apologize. For a reason I saw the word data and not date?Antonis Theofanous (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Accidentally accepted something I didn't mean to

Hey, I accidentally accpeted Renjit Shekar Nair. I misread and thought that he was a producer. But he is an actor (My mind mixed it up with another article I was going through). I can't undo it now. Can someone help and put the AFC script back? My bad. Apologies! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nomadicghumakkad: It happens – good thing you noticed it immediately. I have draftified it again. --bonadea contributions talk 16:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Ezequiel Matthysse

Hello, I do not understand why the draft Draft: Ezequiel Matthysse has not yet been published, I have reviewed it and the article is fine with all its references, and the sports notable in this article is that he was amateur world champion of the WBC.

(I already know and understand that the article is waiting for the review and you have to be patient, but what I go to is that they review it and they always say that it is wrong, and I reviewed it lately and the article is good. Also in the Discussion page Draft: Ezequiel Matthysse is clear that there is no relationship with the subject of the article and no conflict of interest, along with the explanation of sports notability. Emat20211 (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

You are not a Reviewer. Your opinion that the article is good does not matter. The draft has been Declined four times, and resubmitted on 2 June 2021, after major editing (removal of content and refs not relevant to Matthysse). In time it will be reviewed. Teahouse hosts are not Reviewers, so asking here that it be published can have no effect. However, if you have specific questions about why the draft is being Declined, ask. David notMD (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

This iteration of the draft has been declined four times. There is also Draft:Walter Ezequiel Matthysse Bianchettin, Draft:Walter Ezequiel Matthysse Jr., User:Boxingboxeo2012/sandbox, and perhaps some other versions, as well as a whole drawerful of different accounts creating and re-creating them. @Emat20211:, you have already had one short block for repeatedly asking for preferential treatment of this draft. You need to stop doing that. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 14:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Emat20211 - You have already been blocked once for disruptive demands to review your draft, again, ahead of thousands of other drafts. You are risking another block by your demands. Pause. McClenon mobile (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

SteamPal

Would it be considered notable now, or does it fail WP:NOTNEWS? CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 16:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@CanadianOtaku: Definitely too soon. All the links you have in there are rumors and unconfirmed reports. Wait a bit longer before working on it more. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

CanadianOtaku, I do not think it is notable. I see that it is mentioned in the article Valve Corporation, which seems appropriate. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, CanadianOtaku. At this time, this appears to be a rumor in trade publications. Rumors are not notable unless they have real world impact. That's my personal opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Help with making artist's wiki

Hello! I am new to Wiki publishing. I am looking to publish a Wikipedia for an artist. I work for a high-end art gallery and we have a lot of information and references to make our wiki page credible. I'm wondering if anyone can help me get an idea of what is needed to get a page successfully published? Are there certain sections/headlines that are needed, i.e. Education, Early Life, or Early Work? Things along those lines. Any other help would be great!

Thank you! SamRomero95 (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@SamRomero95: Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. I think most users here will agree that editing/making articles you have a conflict of interest with is a bad idea, but it still can be done if the article its self displays no WP:NPOV issues, such as not having an impartial tone in the article. You might want to read WP:1ST, make sure that your article idea is notable enough, see WP:GNG, generally you have to have 2 or more reliable sources that provide significant coverage to your topic. Also, please disclose your connection to the subject, WP:DISCLOSE goes into detail about that. -Justiyaya (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, SamRomero95, and welcome to the Teahouse. First, please understand that a Wikipedia article is not in any way for the benefit of its subject. Of course, many people and organisations do benefit from there being an article about them, but if you write an article with even a little intention to do it "for" the subject, then you have misunderstood what Wikipedia is for. Secondly, while the layout of the article is important, of course, it is much less important than having appropriate and adequate sources: if creating an article were building a house, then getting the sections right would be painting the windows, but getting the sources would be building the foundations. Please read your first article if you haven't already. --ColinFine (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions and Remarks

Dear friends, I would ask from an experienced editor to tell me any remarks regarding my addition of a section in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_insurance I inserted the section "Ambiguities in Terms". The content, the language and the format do they seem correct? Antonis Theofanous (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Antonis Theofanous, the section you added essentially says "most CFOs expected their cyber insurance to pay up for things it covered but not for things it didn't cover". I don't know why this is worth mentioning, nor why "ambiguity" is involved. Maproom (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Maproom: Excellent question. From my perspective as an underwriter it is unfair that cyber attach insurance policies do not include basic coverages. CFOs seem to agree with me. A cyber attack inevitably will cause brand devaluation and profit decline. Insurance companies unfortunately do not cover this inevitable damages (which are included in other similar contracts such as professional indmenity). So as an underwriter I had to stress the importance of adding this coverages. I will agree that the word ambiguity is more accurate for those who have knowledge of the issue. I must correct it. Antonis Theofanous (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Antonis Theofanous: Thanks for coming to the Teahouse, when you added the section, you checked the minor edit box, the minor edit classification is for edits that "could never be the subject of a dispute", mainly correcting grammatical mistakes, formatting issues and obvious vandalism, I don't think your edit counts as a minor edit. Also, I would question the reliability of your source, FM Global describers themselves as a property insurance company, so maybe there is some reliability problems with the source. -- Justiyaya (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Justiyaya: I don't want to do any mistake at this early stage. I just considered that a research is the most objective thing I can mention to improve this article. Practically, if someone does not agree with an addition/alternation, how he can challenge it? If I am correct anyone can delete anything except from articles that are protected due to their sensitive nature. Correct?Antonis Theofanous (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Antonis Theofanous To answer your first question, if I don't like someone's edit, there are many ways to challenge the edit, if I think the text added is probably a mistake, vandalism, or I think most Wikipedians agree that it should be removed, I would simply revert the edit. If I think the added text has bad sources or no sources, I would add a template or a template similar to that. If I think the information added is questionable, but the editor who made the edit is more experienced than me, I would leave a message on their talk page.

To answer your second question, to put it simply, yes, anyone can delete anything from Wikipedia if they have the rights to do it. Although I would strongly discourage anyone from being disruptive or reckless about their deletions, being bold is encouraged when editing. -Justiyaya (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Justiyaya: I always believed that there is a team of administrators managing Wikipedia) It is nice to know that our work here is based on mutual respect and we all strive to promote universal principles and values.Antonis Theofanous (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

There is a team of admins managing Wikipedia, they are community elected by the WP:RfA process, their jobs are to ban users who edit disruptively, protect pages, delete pages, grant user permissions, and many more. Justiyaya (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Be patient and learn

The first days of working on Wikipedia was very challenging and sometimes discouraging, especially when I received comments that required me to pay more attention to details and study every rule of Wikipedia. But I must say if one is patient enough it becomes fun and refreshing most importantly for people willing to learn, volunteer without any expectation of compensation. Working on two articles Draft:Elijah Chinezim Onyeagba and Draft:Sanusi Mohammed Ohiare has taken me through a complete university session of writing that has affected everything I write now. Thanks to this community. Just though to share this with people faced with seeming discouragement like I was, don't give up. Keep at it! Bibihans (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bibihans, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, I am a host here and we are happy to see you happy. However, the Teahouse is a place where questions pertaining to Wikipedia and editing are asked. If you choose to make a philosophical statement which is not WP:POLEMIC, you may do so on your userpage. If you have questions pertaining to editing we are always here to answer you and ensure you have a pleasant experience. Celestina007 (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: My deepest apologies. Thanks. Bibihans (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bibihans, no worries you are on the right path, keep it up! Celestina007 (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Fixing broken links

I recently encountered a broken link to a news article on a Wikipedia page, searched up the title of the news article and saw that its link had been changed. (The citation in question is citation 10 of this article.) How do I go about fixing the link? Should I just replace it with the one I found, or is something else I should do, as there is always a chance it might be another news article? (another thing to note is that archive.org has blocked that website from being archived, so I can't just replace it with an archive.org link) StolenStatue (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

If you sure that it is the same article, you can just replace the link yourself. Ruslik_Zero 19:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Alright StolenStatue (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

IP address removed

Hi I would like to have my IP address removed from edit history on a wiki page please 70.130.79.72 (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you should stop vandalizing, then. BEACHIDICAE🌊 18:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

It's possible that someone used this person's computer. Or it's more likely that they didn't realize their vandalism would display their IP address. I'll let them chime in again and explain. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Pretty irrelevant if you ask me. BEACHIDICAE🌊 19:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

karma TigerScientist Chat > contribs 19:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

This is what you deserve for vandalizing. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 19:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of what someone may or may not deserve, the correct place to remove IP addresses would be WP:OVERSIGHT. Zoozaz1 talk 20:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

How to delete a new article draft

I have made a mistake in the title of a new article (Bangalore A.R Ramani Ammal) I have started writing. I could not find any direct references on how I can delete this page and start with a new one with the correct name. The right name should have a full stop after :R: -> Bangalore A. R. Ramani Ammal. Syntex error. Thanks for showing the way. JediOne (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

If you complete the draft, submit it, and it is accepted, the accepting Reviewer can fix the name at that time. David notMD (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Verified Foreign Reference List | Design in English

Russian Sources in English Article (verified)

Hello everyone, thanks for having me here. I know the rules on posting non-English sources in English articles but my question is more about the design of used sources. How can I para-translate Russian sources TITLES for reference list just to show what is it about, so it would be possible to read either using the Latin alphabet (but still meaning would be Russian) or make the equal translation in English next to Russian original title? I'd need a technical example of coding. If it's the right clue |trans-title= then how can I use it on this example:

Thanks beforehand! Happy to be a part of the community and learn from you. Katyborsh (talk) 08:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Teahouse! In this particular case, the page you linked to has a link that reads "Read this article in English" between the article sub-title and the first image. If you click on it, you will land on this article in English 30 under 30: Moscow's young power list. Anton.bersh (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, to answer your other questions: no, transliteration is not translation, please do not use transliteration on Wikipedia; to learn how citations work, you can refer to Template:Citation (also, please specify the source language via language=. If you have any more questions, ask! Anton.bersh (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Katyborsh! Looking at the template docs,[4] trans-title is for the translation. And I see you're already using "script-title=ru:". Including a transliteration in addition is probably overkill for Cyrillic, though it might make sense for other scripts like Chinese or Arabic. Compare: ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) – (07:22 Fri 04, AEST) 21:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Correct Signature

Good afternoon. Did I sign correctly this question? I just choose the sign icon near to the field below right: Sign your posts on talk pages? By the way what is the use of signing? Antonis Theofanous (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Antonis Theofanous, yes you did! Signing helps other Wikipedia editors recognise who is saying what as well as helping bots that archive discussions. You can also simple type 4 tildes ~~~~ instead of pressing the sign button, if you want. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Great question, also, welcome to the teahouse. You signed this question correctly, to sign a post on a talk page, type ~~~~ after your message, sometimes there are buttons that help you sign your post. Signing a post is important so that we can see who posted the message and when they posted it, for more information, read Wikipedia:Signatures. Justiyaya (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Justiyaya I was with the impression that it was signed automatically. But perhaps is singed automatically when I start a question and not when I answer to a question. Antonis Theofanous (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Antonis Theofanous: You are correct, when you start a new post on the teahouse, the teahouse automatically signs your post for you. I don't think this happens anywhere else. There is a bot called SineBot, its job is to automatically sign posts for you. It's still good practice to use ~~~~ mainly because SignBot will add a "Preceding unsigned comment added by [your username here]" and not your normal signature. I will now intentionally sign this reply with a template that you will get from SignBot if you forget. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justiyaya (talk • contribs) 13:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I believe automatic signing only happens when you start a new discussion thread using the "Ask a question" button at the top of the Teahouse page; if you create a new thread any other way or add a new post to an existing discussion thread, your posts won't be automatically signed. In some cases, a bot or another editor may come along later on and add the missing signature, but this too doesn't always happen. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Yep, you're right, by start a new post, I meant start a new discussion thread. That was bad wording on my part. Justiyaya (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Antonis Theofanous: Another reason to sign: pinging users only works when you sign your messages. So, for example, I assume you didn't actually receive a notification from Justiyaya when they mentioned you at the start of their message above, but you should have received one from this reply. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 14:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Antonis, you might also be interested in Discussion Tools (Preferences — Beta Features) which does sign for you. Though I find after having used that convenience, I might then forget to manually sign when posting a comment via section-edit. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) – (07:41 Fri 04, AEST) 21:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Chris Gartner

Hello, I was going to create an article for Chris Gartner, who meets NGRIDIRON ([5]), but the page is protected from creation. What should I do? Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11: Create it as a draft. If the draft is approved, you can ask an admin to move it to main space. RudolfRed (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, did it at Draft:Chris Gartner. Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I have a question

Hello, I discovered the page Special:CentralAuth and while browsing a few users I saw that something is wrong, for example Special:CentralAuth/Itti says that the user has on test2.wikipedia.org only one edit, but if you look at https://test2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Itti you can see that the user actually has a lot more edits. Is the Wikipedia software broken? 46.114.144.145 (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The other edits were imported. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Why is no one replying to my query?

Hello, I posted a query a few hours back but got no answers. Newer queries were answered, though. Raceto999 (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Raceto999, we are sorry about that, could you please re-ask or tell me what the problem is? Celestina007 (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Raceto999 Volunteers answer the questions that they know the answer to; questions are not necessarily answered in order of posting. 331dot (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: It appears it was #Infobox Help. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu, thanks for the clarification. Celestina007 (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Please help me understand how this article is promotional in any way

This article was flagged as promotional, but it is quite literally the same format as an approved page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_Botts

It seems entirely factual to me with no promotional words at all. Please advise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jackson_Walker JWTexas (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@DGG: I see you draftified this and blocked the author. I don't think this article was that bad at all. I'm not sure how WP:CORP is applied these days to law firms, but this seems like a fairly significant firm in Texas with a long history. In terms of promotional content, it seems like a reasonable first draft (though being the largest firm is a very odd thing to list among awards....). Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1, you could as well have replied the question the user asked instead of mentioning DGG. Celestina007 (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: I don't think it's promotional, so that's why I pinged DGG... Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1, that’s precisely the problem, the Teahouse is for answering questions. You ought to have replied the question they asked and not ping DGG, in any case I would reply the question. @JWTexas, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, I noticed you made mention of an existing article that looked like yours which just got deleted, hey, that an article A exists on Wikipedia and looks just the same as the article B of yours that got deleted isn’t a valid reason to query the deletion neither is it a reason to create the article in the first place. Celestina007 (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: Obviously we are both trying to be constructive; we have different views about how to go about that. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1, of course, I understand that, it’s all love here. Celestina007 (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate being pinging in instances like this. If I make an error, I want to know about it.. As for coi, the editors name pretty much indicate it, and at the least, they need to pick another username.. As for the article. they may be notable, because of the many notable partners.(It's not a question of NOTINHERITED: A person does not become notable for working there, but a firm that has many notable people in key positions is at least a partial indicator of notability--especially in the case of law firms, where the importance of the firm does in fact pretty much depend of the reputation of the partners.) But the article consists of otherwise a list of a great many practice areas, and a list of promotional awards. And there seem to be no 3rd party sources for notability . I declined it for improvment, not rejected it.

The other article is from a firm with a longer and very much more substantial history, and considerably more sources. DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks User:DGG. I agree that there were obvious COI issues here, and yes Baker Botts is a more significant firm than this one. I'm not from Texas so had never heard of this firm and expected it to be a big nothing, and so was pleasantly surprised when I saw national Chambers rankings. Per WP:CORP I assume that more significant write-ups (as opposed to mere rankings) are required, though with those rankings I wouldn't be surprised if there were significant coverage, or at least sufficient coverage to merit a discussion about whether the firm is notable. I think the OP was mostly confused because s/he noticed the admonition to remove promotional material (which I don't think really existed) and didn't focus on the notability issue. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Oops -- looking back at this, these are the pretty local rankings... I guess we'll see on the notability issue! Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@DGG, @Calliopejen1, I’m no system operator so I appreciate the work you system operators do but since I’m no admin I can’t see the now deleted article but I however can say this; if an account's name bares semblance to what they are creating that should generally fall under G11 and should be speedy deleted accordingly. I mean it’s obvious they aren’t here to build an encyclopedia but for the sake of promoting whatever it is they are creating. Celestina007 (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: G11 is judged by the content of the article, not whether the user creating it has a COI. (Certainly, there is a correlation between the two!!) If you want to see what the draftified (not deleted) article looked like, you can click the URL at the top of this section. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1, Generally speaking, In my experience in AFC, that is not necessarily true, If my name is ABC and I’m creating an article titled “ABC”, content or not, it’s clear where it is headed to. From my experience at AFC, I have seen un-submitted blank drafts with just the editor's name and the article name correlate and the article speedy deleted per G11. I don’t see the need for any article to be full blown disruptive promotional gibberish before applying G11 when it’s invariably headed there. it is rather counter-intuitive to say the least. Celestina007 (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: If those are standards you're applying in AFC, you're applying the wrong standards. There are separate rules about usernames, but acceptance of drafts is based on the content of the draft, not the username. It is possible to write an acceptable article even if you have a COI, and that is one of the purposes of AFC -- to permit COI editors' work to be vetted before potential acceptance. I agree that COI editors who write acceptable articles are the exception rather than the rule. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1, I said “I have seen such occur” secondly, I can’t apply those standards because I can’t technically speaking apply those standards, non sysops cannot delete articles. This is getting rather moot. DGG has replied, I have answered the question the user asked, shall we move on? Celestina007 (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: Certainly! I think I misunderstood your prior post to be in reference to your actions as an AFC reviewer as opposed to what you happened to observe re G11 while acting as an AFC reviewer, in any event.... Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-Protection for Wikipedia article on "Dream"

I look at "Dream" as an important article, very poorly composed and poorly constructed in its current form. I would be happy to collaborate with others in order to improve the article. My research continues at this time, but, over and above extensive copy editing, here are four changes I propose: (1) Remove Freud content from the lead and place it within a Freud sub-section (article currently has a "Freud's view" sub-sub-section). (2) Re-position the physical science content of the article (now principally in "Neurobiology" section and in "Neurology" sub-section of "Theories on function" section) ABOVE the "Cultural meaning" section. (3) Link Hobson (activation-synthesis theory), Solms, and Zhang content from "Neurology" and "Psychological" sub-sections of "Theories on function" section to Wikipedia's article on "Left-brain interpreter" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-brain_interpreter (4) In the "Ancient history" and/or the "Classical history" sub-sections of "Cultural meaning" section, introduce content from "Dream Pattern and Culture Pattern" (Chapter 4) of E.R. Dodds's The Greeks and the Irrational. Question: May I be authorized to edit this article, either individually (using Talk page to preview proposed changes) or in collaboration with others similarly inclined to work on this article? Thank you. Canhelp (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Canhelp Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please make an edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page, Talk:Dream, detailing the changes. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Canhelp: What do you mean by "Semi-Protection for Wikipedia article on 'Dream'"? Semi-protection only prevents editing by users that are not autoconfirmed. You are extended confirmed, so you can edit the article without restrictions. Kleinpecan (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll proceed. Canhelp (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Making a notice

How do I make a notice on an editing page (like the one up above)? Kayree kh (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kayree kh. Can you clarify what you mean by "notice"? Do you mean a section heading? Do you mean a maintenance template? Do you mean an edit notice? Perhaps you can given an example of a page which contains the same type of notice you want to make. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

How to become host

How to became host? Wikepedia note (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wikepedia note. You don't really need to become a host to answer questions. All you really need to have is a good overall understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the desire to try to help others in a friendly way. Generally, the best way to be a good host is to learn by doing, which means learn how Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines are generally applied by actually spending some time editing articles, etc. The more experience you have editing, etc. the easier it will probably be for you to answer Teahouse questions. You don't really get anything special (e.g. special editing priviledges, special status) from being a host, but you can find out more about how to become one at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host start.

Just an observation, but this edit you made to the above discussion is a bit confusing. You seem to have just randomly added your signature to an ongoing discussion. Perhaps, you were just making a test edit? Perhaps you meant to post something more, but couldn't figure out how to do so? Whatever the reason might've been, such an edit probably indicates that you probably need much more experience as an editor before you try to become a Teahouse host. You account is only a few days old, and there are lots of ways to gain experience as an editor that don't involve becoming a Teahouse host. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Wikepedia note, MarchJuly answered you in a theoretical manner of which I applaud them for. But to be pragmatic, you simply cannot become a host after three days of joining the collaborative project, to be honest, you are better off asking questions here than providing answers. Celestina007 (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

On your user page, you say: "I am also a teahouse host". No you aren't. -- Hoary (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Notability Guidelines - Music

I am trying to add a page for an a capella group and had my article rejected due to a lack of notability in the music field. This same group is mentioned on five other pages, but a capella groups (other than Pentatonix) don't get much press coverage or charting.

Wouldn't the fact that this group is mentioned on 5 separate pages on Wikipedia qualify as an aspect of notability if other references can be found to support an article? Nosbig14142 (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nosbig14142! No, sorry, being mentioned elsewhere in Wikipedia doesn't contribute to notability. I assume you have already had a look at WP:NMUSIC, but that is the relevant policy. Unfortunately, significant press coverage is generally required. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Nosbig14142, when we say "notability" on Wikipedia, we don't mean it in the convention sense, but rather in the sense of "meets our particular definition for worthy of having a page". And that definition is at WP:MUSICBIO, so anything beyond that, including mentions on other Wikipedia pages, unfortunately doesn't count. If you can find two reviews in the media of this group's singing, present those to the reviewer (or here) and that might be enough. Otherwise, the main option is to cover the group as part of a larger page and redirect the group's name to that page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  ​​Actually, looking at the specific page you're referring to, Draft:Voctave, the sourcing for notability appears fairly solid. Pinging reviewer Berrely, is there any reason [6] and [7] don't qualify for GNG? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Oh, I see that the Sentinel article was added after the previous decline. I'm going to go ahead and accept the draft in my capacity as an AfC reviewer. This isn't a guarantee of notability, as it's always possible others will disagree and challenge the page, but my personal opinion is that the group is notable. Thanks for your work on it! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

New Article For Review

Would someone please look at my article and provide feedback for improvement? Url:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ina_Dillard_Russell AdricJ2021 (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @AdricJ2021:! This is a great start. I have a few recommendations:

• Explain within the first couple of sentences why Russell was important.
• Remove inline links (like what you have for Palmer Institute).
• Since you're not citing multiple different pages from the same source, I would merge the citations and works cited sections (put full bibliographic info in footnotes). The advantage of having the sections broken out is when you need to refer to multiple places within a large work.
• Russell 2002 footnote doesn't match any source listed in the works cited section.
• Add footnotes for every fact listed in the article. If you don't have a source that supports the fact, remove it from the article.

I hope this is a good starting point! Let us know if you have more questions. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, AdricJ2021. I will be frank with you. I do not think that this person is notable as Wikipedia defines the term. Yes, she was married to a prominent judge and one of her sons became a governor and U.S. senator. But notability is not inherited. Your draft contains a major error. It says that her husband Richard Russell Sr. served on the U.S. Supreme Court. That is incorrect. He was the Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: She apparently was the acting first lady of Georgia, and flags in Georgia were lowered to half mast when she died. An edited book of her letters was published, and she merits entries in third-party Georgia encyclopedia/biographical dictionaries. That sounds like someone who is probably notable to me. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I also just checked Newspapers.com, and her death was front-page news in the Atlanta Constitution. I added two articles about her from the day after her death to a further reading section. The death notice is pretty comical in that her actual name is not used until about 1/3 of the way through (yay sexism). Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

 Wikepedia note (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Calliopejen1, I am dubious about the reliability of a source that describes a hard-core racist segregationist as a "productive citizen" but one thing that I know for sure is that an external link to it does not belong in the lead section of the draft. I am not aware that "acting first lady" of a state is a claim of notability, but I notice that the error about the U.S. Supreme Court remains in the draft. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Infobox Help

Hello, I need help in deciding which infobox suits the best for my page @https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raceto999/sandbox, if something is wrong with the content, please correct.

Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#YouTube, I have used YouTube as a reference. It comes from official verified channels.

Lastly, how do I convert it into a proper article? Raceto999 (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:Raceto999. I recommend {{Infobox person}}. The bigger problem, however, is that the article subject probably does not qualify for an article -- see Wikipedia:Notability (people). Could you let us know what the three most in-depth, high-quality, independent, reliable sources are that discuss the article subject? That will help us assist you in assessing whether it's worth investing any more time in this draft, or if it is a futile project. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, Raceto999, what you've written is somewhat obscure. Sample: "Riaz Meghji is a Human Connection Expert." We need a reliable source before saying that anyone is an expert in anything; but just for now let's make a working assumption that yes, he's an expert in "human connection". What is "human connection"? -- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hoary, I got my university degree in Human Relations and Organizational Behavior. Does that count? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Cullen, "organizational behavior", yes of course. "Human relations" had me stumped, but thanks to your thoughtful provision of a link, I was able to educate myself. Somehow I doubt that you'd call either or both of those fields "human connection". The context brought the suspicion that it just meant "interviewing", but a little investigation showed that it's closer to winning friends and influencing people: not a subject area that thrills me, as it happens; but I am fascinated by the man's choice of background image; more specifically, for its depiction of a Zenit E (I think). -- Hoary (talk) 06:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Paris

Is Paris Located In France Ykqkwywkrh (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Ykqkwywkrh Hi, welcome to the Teahouse, I think you are in the wrong place, the Teahouse is for questions about editing Wikipedia. Try the Wikipedia:Reference desk if you need direction to a Wikipedia article, but I'm sure a question like "Is Paris Located In France" is already answered, before asking a question, try using a search engine or searching the reference desk archives to see if the question is already answered -- Justiyaya (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

To answer your question, yes, Paris is located in france, it is also the capital of the country max20characters 🇺🇸 17:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. Paris, Ontario exists, but not many people talk about it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Ykqkwywkrh, Paris is also in Hilton, it's a pretty underrated country. GeraldWL 06:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Doubts regarding pdf

Hlo there!,
I am new to Wikipedia and I want to contribute a lot to this site through editing, however I am having some issues regarding the reference materials for my article most of them are in PDF form and the wiki does not allow pdf containing links to add as an reference,is there any way to resolve this problem? Thanks! Helios007 (talk) 07:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Helios007:, you can copy links from pdf and use them as a reference. Vhhhhjhgy (talk) 07:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Helios007: welcome to the Teahouse! In the article Arjun (tank), it looks like you have added pdfs which you have downloaded from the source, and then uploaded to Commons (for instance File:Arjun APFSDS.jpg). What you need to do instead is cite the source, in this case https://tdf.drdo.gov.in/technology_updates/index/7 which is what you provided as the source of the file when you uploaded it. I haven't looked at that source and I don't know whether it is a reliable source for this particular fact in this particular article, but if you use it, you need to add a reference pointing to that source, instead of downloading the document and then uploading it to Wikipedia or Commons. Here is a guide to citing sources. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Another thing: please don't remove questions that have been answered. All question threads are archived when there has been no new posts for a couple of days. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 08:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Two drafts of the same thing

When I was browsing Wikipedia, I found two draft pages about the exact same subject, with slightly different titles. One of them was created in September 2020 and the other in May 2021. Can this happen on Wikipedia? And if not, what should be done in this case? Philosophy2 (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Philosophy2, welcome to teahouse. Can you give the exact titles of the two drafts. Vhhhhjhgy (talk) 07:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The drafts that I am referring to are Draft:Tubbo and Draft:Tubbo (Toby Smith), about a Twitch streamer. Both of these at one point were submitted to become an article and both got declined. Philosophy2 (talk) 08:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

It can happen, yes, when two people simuntanously or one after the other try to create a draft about a topic under different names without searching beforehand if one exists. Since neither draft is particularely good (the first one is unreferenced, the second one only to user-generated content that might meet WP:ABOUTSELF, I would say whoever wants to improve these shall pick one of them and improve that one. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Assistance in Nabhit Kapur draft

Hello:

I submitted the draft of draft:Nabhit Kapur, a famous psychologist from India three times. It was rejected in the first time then I changed the content and made some modifications as mentioned by the editor, it was accepted second time but one of the editor deleted the article again.

I have put all the media sources. Moreover, I deleted all press releases, brand post, promotional content but still according to editors, he is not a notable. He is a famous psychologist from India. He was invited for Ted Talks, have done conference with former president of Mauritius. If you can help me with this then it would be grateful for me, it will help me to know where I am lacking.

Thank you. Rajveer90 (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Actual history was created in mainspace, moved to draft, Declined, Accepted, Draftified, nominated for deletion, survived, Declined again, not yet resubmitted. David notMD (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Teahouse! To have an article on Wikipedia, a subject has to be notable, and if it is a living person, even stronger requirements apply. In short, reviewer determined that the draft does not have a sufficient number of reliable sources. As a rule of thumb, any sources authored by the subject himself (TED talks, interviews, podcasts he participated in) are not considered reliable. It's OK to use self-authored sources for basic info like gender, date of birth, citizenship, etc.; but editors prefer independent sources to ensure objectivity. Also, such self-published and non-independent sources do not count towards notability. I see that the draft has many non-independent sources and it's actually very close to this notability threshold (hence it was approved, then drafted, and nominated for deletion). If you have more questions, ask! Anton.bersh (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Some existing conversations from my talk page here [8]. I am happy that the creator listened to my advise and came here to have a more informed view on this. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Ferret Coat Colour Book

 HIlde Wischinka (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I need help with submitting my contribution in the proper format ('the Ferret Coat Colour book' It is my work. But I wonder can I upload files or do I have to type the text in the space available. And how do I upload photos and drawings?

HIlde Wischinka You asked this at the AFC Help Desk; please only use one method at a time of seeking assistance, to avoid duplication of effort. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Your draft (Draft:The Ferret Coat Colour book) has been Rejected, which is more severe than Declined. The decision by the experienced Reviewer means that there is no potential for his to become an article. David notMD (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

HIlde Wischinka:Your Draft:The Ferret Coat Colour book is not at all suitable as a Wikipedia article. I strongly advise you to make a backup of it somewhere before it gets deleted. Maproom (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Now deleted. Anyone interested can just read the book. -- Hoary (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

This link works better: The Coat Colour Book. David notMD (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Article Decline for 4 times

Why Your user declined the review of my articles? Theabhiak (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Are you talking about Draft:Marathi Speaks? This whole draft contains just a single sentence and a list of social media accounts and other similar things. It is not an article. Also, please note that this company might not qualify for a dedicated Wikipedia article because Wikipedia only has articles on notable subjects, like notable companies. Anton.bersh (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Theabhiak! The reasons were stated when the draft was declined – your draft needs to prove that the subject is actually notable enough to be included in the encyclopedia. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 15:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

How many words required in a single article for approval?

How many words required in a single article for approval? hope you will give me the answer of my question Thank you.... Theabhiak (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Theabhiak! There's no set minimum word count for an article. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 15:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Theabhiak, articles have no minimum or maximum word count. See WP:ARTICLESIZE. "Stub" articles can be as short as 3 or 4 sentences, while articles of a higher quality could have thousands of sentences. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Theabhiak, if you are referring to Draft:Marathi Speaks, personally, the main issue with the article is that there is not enough sources for it to be meeting WP:GNG, you probably need two more independent sources that present significant coverage to the topic for it to be notable enough. Before you continue working on the draft, I would strongly advise you to check if it meets WP:GNG. Justiyaya (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello again, Theabhiak! Your article needs relable sources, not length to meet notability requirements. Frankly, I do not think that article has even a single reliable source. The Google News link is just an agregation of content published by the subject of the article itself, so is not independent. The second thing listed in "References" is not even a reference, it is just a footnote. Anton.bersh (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

help resetting a password

Hello, I think my account is linked to an email I no longer use/own. How can I reset it? 67.83.192.200 (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

If you no longer have access to the email account, I am afraid that a lost password could only be "recovered" if the acocunt was oversighter, Steward or a similar high-end user right. Otherwise, you can only create a new account with a different username. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

An elementary proof

For the eqn. [math] ab + c = t [/math] where [math]a,b,c[/math] are three consecutive numbers. show that [math] t [/math] will never be a perfect power? Rajesh Bhowmick (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Rajesh Bhowmick: try WP:RDMA but we dont answer homework questions RudolfRed (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Rajesh Bhowmick, the Teahouse is for asking questions about editing Wikipedia. Please ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Bold text?

When should I use bold text, apart from when the title is mentioned? The Tips of Apmh (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@The Tips of Apmh: in articles almost never, see MOS:BOLD. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@The Tips of Apmh: You can also bold alternative names that redirect to the article. Deor (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Question about searching ANIs

Could someone tell me how to search ANI archives for a specific discussion? I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi I enjoy sandwiches. The easiest way would be to search for the name of the thread; so, if the ANI was titled "Question about searching ANIs", then that's what you enter into the serach window. Unless that are lots of ANIs with the same "title", you should find the one your looking for fairly quickly. If you don't know the name of the thread, then the next best thing is probably the name of the editor being discussed because that almost certainly going show up in search results. Again, unless the editor is someone who is constantly ending up at ANI, you should find what you're looking for fairly quickly. Just for reference, the search window in the archives box on the ANI page covers all of the AN pages; so, even if you search from the ANI page, you will get results from the other AN noticeboards mixed in. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I enjoy sandwiches. If you know the username of one of the participants, especially one who does not comment at ANI frequently, then enter that name in the search box. Otherwise, try entering the type of keywords that describe this discussion. Keywords like "Trump " or "Serbia" or "Palestine" or "caste" or "transgender" or "yogurt" can help narrow things down, especially if you know whether the conversation was about three months ago or about six years ago. Check the dates. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Do I really want to know what the horribly acrimonious yogurt-related conflict is? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: If you should want to know, have a look at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Spelling, capitalization, and punctuation#Yoghurt or Yogurt. Deor (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Brand Extension

Goal: Improving the Wikipedia listing of brand extension. I invented the concept and named it in 1979 in a published paper that I gave as a presentation to the Association of National Advertisers in NYC. I have been upset over the years at the lack of accuracy in the reporting about the history and accuracy of the concept in Wikipedia. To practitioners, this article is at best deceptive and at worst useless. I am retired and have no vested interest in the article other than just accuracy and relevance for the reader. I made some changes to the introduction to clarify the history and the purpose of brand extension. Your editor TOL deleted it claiming we needed diverse opinions. There are many still present. But brand extension is a concept, a definition, a type of new product. Why not allow me to make that clear at the start. Afterwards, you can post all the academic nonsense. P.S. I was a tenured professor at USC and edited a journal so I understand academic research. Brandextension (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Brandextension Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would suggest that you visit the article talk page(Talk:Brand extension) and start a discussion there about changes you feel should be made to the article, so you can arrive at a consensus with other editors. You may wish to read the guidance for expert editors. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

If I have a question about the subject of an article, where may I ask it?

 Existent human being (talk) 11:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Every article has an associated "talk" page which you can get to by adding "Talk:" before the title of the article. For example, for Monday the talk page is at Talk:Monday. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Also why does the switch editor sometimes say that the Visual editor is not available? Existent human being (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Existent human being: Some namespaces (like Talk:) don't support the visual editor. If you want to get something similar, try enabling the Discussion tools beta feature in your preferences. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Existent human being (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Existent human being, help and welcome to the Teahouse, The tp as suggested by Anton.bersh is good but you can also ask general questions here, what question do you have in mind? Celestina007 (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

In fact, Existent human being, I'm afraid that talk pages are not for asking about the subject of an article (as suggested by Anton.bersh) unless the question has the aim of improving the article. See Talk pages. --ColinFine (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, are any pages that are for asking about the subject of an article? Existent human being (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Existent human being Probably the Reference Desk. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Existent human being (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Existent human being. ColinFine is correct. I was posting my response while he was adding his, but I think a bit a clarification is needed about article talk pages. An article talk is a place where you can ask questions or discuss an article, but the context should about things related to the Wikipedia aspects of the article. For example, if you notice a factual error in the article or think of way to improve an article in a Wikipedia sense, etc., then it would be perfectly OK to discuss such things on the article's talk page. An article talk page, however, isn't intended to be a forum for a general discussion of the subject of an article like might take place on other types of discussion boards or online forums. You might post a comment like that on an article talk page, and you might also get a response. At the same time, another editor could also simply decide that what you ask goes beyond the scope what an article talk page is intended to do and collapse your post or even remove it outright. So, please try to keep that in mind if you do decide to post something on an article talk page. If you've got a general question about the subject of some Wikipedia article or about something else, then you might be better off asking at one of the Wikipedia:Reference desks instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Existent human being (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Help with creating a page for my new school

Hello! I have started a new page, which is now draft, for my new secondary school called Houlton School. I used the template of another local school already on Wikipedia and modified it to reflect my school. However, I’m not expert when it comes to Wikipedia. I wondered if there were any more experienced wiki-contributors who would like to support/collaborate on ensuring my new page meets Wikipedia’s expectations. My first attempt was rejected for not being referenced enough. PageBuilder (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Your draft is just blatant advertising for the school. Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything said or published by the school. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with them have chosen to publish about them: the article should be limited to a summary of what such independent sources have said about them. Theroadislong (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, PageBuilder. I'm afraid you've done what new editors often do here. If you were building a house, you are going "I like that house, I think I'll build one like it", and knock up some bits of wood that look like the other house. Unfortunately, unless you start with the foundations (find the independent sources) your house will fall down. Please read your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Houlton School nominated for Speedy deletion, meaning an Administrator may act soon to delete it, leaving no record of the attempt in your contributions. Among reasons, school does not exist yet, as first year starts this fall. David notMD (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Changing red highlights to blue?

How do I change red highlights to blue?

Thank you Asig15317 (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Asig15317 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. A red link means it goes to a nonexistent page, a blue link goes to an existing page. If you are referring to your user page, User:Asig15317, you may simply click on it and edit it. Your user page is for telling the Wikipedia community about yourself as a Wikipedia editor or user; see WP:USERPAGE for information on acceptable (and not) user page content. 331dot (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

At Johnny Hartman, which you have been editing, you put double brackets around names of things that are not yet the subject of articles in their own right, hence appearing red. If you think it is unlikely those articles will ever be created, you should remove the double brackets. Separately, do not tag all of your edits as minor edits. David notMD (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

How's my draft doing?

This is the first time ever I wrote a full draft on Wikipedia and I would like to improve it.

Here's the link: Draft:Massacre in the Rue de la Paix. I made sure to check as many sources as possible including both French and English sources. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@MarioSuperstar77: I did some copyedits. I'm confused, though... The Rue de la Paix massacre seems to be something different, and your sources refer to a Rue Haxo massacre. Are you conflating two events, or have you mixed up the names? Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The latter. I mixed up the names. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Is notifying people about my MediaWiki Project against the rules?

Hello everyone! Recently I have been working on my MediaWiki Project, and I am thinking about showing it to my fellow Wikipedians. However, is it against the rules and guidelines to show a MediaWiki Project? Pink Saffron (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Pink Saffron! Yes, that would most likely be against WP:PROMO. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 12:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Depends, Pink Saffron, what kind of project is it? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) – (07:51 Sat 05, AEST) 21:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Pelagic For literature and writing. Pink Saffron (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

How can I create a wikipedia page with a template?

Help, please? How can I create a wikipedia page that already has a references section and a ex ternal links section? Tommy Turnbull (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Reference section is added automatically at the end of the article if the article has at least one reference (unless you specifically add tags which disable this feature). Anton.bersh (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tommy Turnbull. This code makes the sections:

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==

See more at Help:Section and Help:Referencing for beginners. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

'constructive'

Hello I recently had one of my changes removed on ground of it not being constructive, and I wish to know what this means. Thank you 80.4.245.57 (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If your edit was reverted as not constructive, it means that the other editor felt that it did not benefit the article in question. If you feel your edit was valid, please discuss it with the other editor involved. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

80.4.245.57I see that none of your edits so far has been deleted. It appears that the editor was mistaken, and I've asked them on their talk page to please remove their message from your talk page.----Quisqualis (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

That's been corrected by the editor. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) – (08:37 Sat 05, AEST) 22:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

When can I have my life back?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

OP has been indefintiely blocked; so, there's not much that can be done here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Help... when can I have my life back? CarbFreeCrumb (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@CarbFreeCrumb: Take a break. See Wikipedia:Wikibreak. RudolfRed (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Have a Kitkat... Zindor (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The account was created eight minutes before the post and all they have done is ask that question repeatedly. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Aggressive, Intolerant, Condescending Admin Issue. Please Help. :(

Hey Everyone! I am just trying to determine if I have a chance of becoming an editor on this platform, when there seem to be a very aggressive, intolerant admin quashing draft article and edits with no warning. I was wondering if anyone can check out my talk page to see if I am in the wrong, and if i even have a chance of editing without getting deleted again by this admin, and what i should do next. I want to get back to writing a draft article, practice formatting, citations, writing style, etc. and get things perfect with an admin approval before posting. But from the conversation that has occurred, i feel this admin may just keep deleting my content just to be vindictive. The admin seems extremely bitter due to whatever history they have experienced as an admin, and they are taking it out on newbies like me. Any advice on how to handle this would be appreciated. When trying to openly communicate with the admin to find a resolution and basic guidance, but the admin just responds with aggressive, controlling, condescending and snide statements. I want to contribute to wikipedia, and become a better editor, but not if the experience with admins is going to be this aggressive and my hard work is going to keep getting deleted with no warning and disrespectful admins. I was hoping to become a part of this community, but it sure does not feel like a very welcoming "community" at all with this kind of behavior. Please advise. AspenDecker (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@AspenDecker: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. The admin in question says on their talk page that they are "deeply disturbed by the governance at Wikipedia and the WMF", which could be the reason for their aggressiveness. You may want to leave them alone. littleb2009^{Have a chat?} 16:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

AspenDecker: Hello, welcome to the teahouse! I'm sorry about your experience with our admins, and I agree with you that Wikipedia can be quite a challenging place to start. But keep trying, and you will eventually make extremely useful contributions to the project. Anyways, I would recommend reading a bit before making your next edit to see how you can better contribute, I would recommend articles such as Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:EDIT and Help:Introduction to anyone starting out as a Wikipedia editor. You might also want to read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Links to minimize the possibility of mistakenly adding bad external links to articles, and WP:1ST if you want to create a new Wikipedia article. Remember to always assume best intentions when communicating with another editor, and be civil when doing so. Sorry about including so many links, I really can't adequately summarize these articles. -- Justiyaya (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, the reason why your edit was reverted is because of inappropriate citation. This page may be helpful. Wingwatchers (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

AspenDecker, I have talked to the other administrator and left a message on your talk page offering to help. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Wingwatchers. Your two attempts to add content to Swimming pool sanitation were with a ref to a Specific business, i.e., promotional spam. I see that you also had an article (draft?) deleted. As a non-Admin, I cannot see that, but it appears that on your Talk page an Admin explained what was wrong. David notMD (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@AspenDecker: Aside from the interpersonal issue that I see Cullen/Jim is helping with, if you did want to write a full how-to manual of pool maintenance, Wikibooks hosts "Textbooks, manuals, and other instructional texts". I don't have experience there, but I was just looking at b:Using Wikibooks/What Is Wikibooks ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) – (09:05 Sat 05, AEST) 23:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

References

I edited the following page --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Ubeda --> Kickboxingrecord --> References 6 + 7 are mine --> But I wonder how to get some text in the references at the bottom --> Like the references 1 to 5. Nobody again (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nobody again. You can find out more details about how to add references to articles and how to format citations better on this page. Unfortunately, there was a problem with them and they needed to be removed. Generally, it's not a good idea to try and add links to YouTube videos as citations as explained here and here because much of the stuff you find on YouTube has been uploaded by someone other than the original copyright holder of the content. Wikipedia advises to not add links to anything uploaded to video sites like YouTube when there's a reasonable doubt regarding the provenance of the content. The fight footage uploaded to the YouTube channels most likely was created by someone other than whomever operates the YouTube channel, which means Wikipedia can't really link to those videos. Just for reference, a source cited by a Wikipedia article doesn't necessarily have to be available online as explained here. So, if you're unable to find a different but acceptable source to cite in support of those two fight results, then you probably can cite the original broadcast of the fight as explained here without adding links to the YouTube videos. There's a way to cite TV broadcasts, movies, etc. using a citation template like Template:Cite AV media which might work in such a case. Using a citation template isn't the only way to cite a source, but doing so (if done correctly) will add the "text" you're asking about to the citation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding a line break to a table

Hi, I am working on an article in my sandbox.

First, I would like to add a line break between the Berglund and Søndergård entries, to aid the reader in recognizing the difference between the two types of incomplete cycles. How would I do this? Here's the link to that section.

Second, in the list of references, I am including both OCLC numbers and publisher recording identifiers. But, the OCLC number is occurring between the name of the publisher and the publisher's ID number. For example:

Jean Sibelius: Symphonies 1–7 (CD booklet). Sixten Ehrling & Royal Stockholm Philharmonic Orchestra. Finlandia. 1999. OCLC 47069132. 3984-22713-2.{{cite AV media notes}}: CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes) (link)

Clearly, this causes unnecessary confusion, as it orphans the the ID (3984-22713-2) from its attendant label (Finlandia). Is there a way to fix this such that the OCLC number will appear at the end of the citation? Here's the link to that section.

Many thanks! Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Silence of Järvenpää. What do you mean by line break? You may be using a wrong term. Berglund and Søndergård are in separate rows so they already have a line break and a border between them. Do you want an empty row between them? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, I mean and empty row. Also, any thoughts on the OCLC situation? Thanks! Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Silence of Järvenpää: This will make an empty row:

|-
| colspan="13" |

PrimeHunter (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Learning more advanced Wikipedia writing and reviewing skills

Hi, I am an educator and have written several Wikipedia articles. I feel confident with basic editing, and in teaching my students to do basic editing, but would like to learn more, including how to review articles, and more advanced coding. Is there a place or forum where I can participate in tutorials or training sessions of this kind? CallMeBarcode (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi CallMeBarcode! There are a lot of tutorials but they tend to be specific to different types of tasks as far as I know. (I'm not sure of a generic intermediate/advanced Wikipedia tutorial.) What do you mean when you talk about "reviewing"? And what sorts of things would you like to code? If you can give us a bit more information about your goals, we'll be better equipped to help you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants describes qualifications for being a Reviewer of submitted drafts. Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions describes what is needed to be a reviewer of Good Article nominations. David notMD (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

By reviewing, for example, I was thinking of learning how to assess unrated articles on the quality scale. Is there a place that explains that process clearly or gives tutorials? Thanks for any advice you can offer.CallMeBarcode (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Content assessment. From Stub to B-class, an editor can decide. GA and FA have a formal review process. Articles can also be downrated. David notMD (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Information on a sportsperson's national titles

Good morning. For the most part I follow the athetics artcles, where in the MOS it is recommended to insert this section. Request for Comments (RFC): how should one behave with articles from athletes from other sports? Without this information, many articles by athletes, who are also encyclopedic for participation in the Olympics or world championships, have stub articles, so it would be logical to add at least the national titles. Wikipedia in my opinion shouldn't be the stub festival. What does the community think about it? --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kasper2006. I think that if you want to discuss Wikipedia:WikiProject Athletics/Manual of Style/Biographies that the best place to probably do so at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Athletics because that's the WikiProject which covers that particular guideline. Generally speaking though, if you feel that adding such information to an article would be an improvement and perhaps flesh-out the article a bit, then you can be WP:BOLD and do so. Just make sure that whatever content you add is written in an encyclopedic tone in your own words and is supported by citations to reliable sources. If then at some point another editor reverts (either totally or partially) some of the changes you make, then you should try and address their concerns per WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION.

It's very hard to come up with a specifc format that works for every article, and MOS guidelines like the one you cited above are only intended to provide some general guidance for the most common cases. Such guidelines aren't intended to cover every possible case and sometimes the only way to find out whether something is "incorrect" per a guideline is to just to be WP:BOLD and do it. If you make a serious error, you'll most likely find out fairly quickly by someone reverting you. At that point, you at least will have something specific to discuss and at least see whether a consensus can be established either way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Kasper2006. I am not exactly sure what you are asking. Well-referenced content about an athlete's national titles should, of course, be added to their biography. As for stub articles, they are allowed if the topic is notable but the goal is to improve and expand stubs, not to leave them that way. If by "other sports", are you referring to sports without national titles or sports without a specific notability guideline? I write and expand articles about a sport, mountaineering, that lacks national titles or a specific notability guidelines. A mountaineer is notable based on a record of first ascents and similar accomplishments, expedition leadership, awards from major mountaineering organizations, and in-depth coverage in mountaineering journals and the broader major press. Some local newspaper running a story that says "Local man visits Switzerland, climbs the Matterhorn" is not good enough because about 3,000 people climb that mountain every year. It is not that difficult for an experienced editor to understand this type of issue, but experience takes time and effort. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

First of all, thank you both of you for your reply. I say thanks to MJ for pointing out DR, but I went to ANI a couple of times wrong. I tried to be bold, but with some users it's just plain impossible and that's why I wouldn't even want to go to the DR, because I would need to continue the waredit that I had interrupted instead, and in any case that is a user with whom, not only I don't want to fight anymore, but I don't want to deal with it anymore. Going to projects is useless, there is the desert, that's why I tried here. Anyway, thanks again, should I come across another one of those unpleasant episodes, from today I know a little more. --Kasper2006 (talk) 04:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Remove stub template from Beth Meyers?

I have added to the article on Beth Meyers. Is it now long enough for the "This article ... is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." template to be removed? 73.195.249.93 (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP, thanks for expanding the article - It's no longer a stub so I have now removed the template and updated the banners on the talk page. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The two deaths of King Canute

If you read the article on King Canute you will see that the editor has said he died in Denmark and he also died in England - plainly impossible. The editor also says that he had only one daughter - Cunigund. but that is not true as his 8 year old daughter is buried at Bosham. Please can this page be amended? 88.145.182.120 (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Assuming this is Cnut the Great you're talking about, you should bring this concern to the article's talk page. I'm not seeing the discrepancy: the infobox states that he died in Shaftesbury, England, and in the body of the article it just says he died on 12 November 1035 in the first sentence. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@88.145.182.120: The article states: Cnut died on 12 November 1035. In Denmark he was succeeded by Harthacnut, reigning as Cnut III, although with a war in Scandinavia against Magnus I of Norway, Harthacnut was "forsaken [by the English] because he was too long in Denmark" It's two different sentences. Hope that helps. Princess Persnickety (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

New article moved from my sandbox

Gentlemen,

I have moved a new article entitled "Chiral drugs" from my sandbox. I find the message "This sandbox is in the article namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template". How do I resolve this. Looking for help.

Valliappan Kannappan (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC) Valliappan Kannappan (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Valliappan Kannappan welcome to the Teahouse, the issue has been resolved by Victor Schmidt in this edit. Next time, simply command/ctrl f (in edit mode), and search for {{User sandbox}} and delete it to resolve the issue on your own. Also, it's best if you address us as Teahouse hosts instead of "gentlemen", thanks. Justiyaya (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts,

Thank you so much for resolving the issue.

Valliappan Kannappan (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Contradictory rules?

I am confused by what looks like contradictory rules about deleting comments on a User Talk page. On one hand, WP:TALKO says "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." On the other hand, WP:BLANKING says "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages." So what's the story - can a user delete other users' comments on their User Talk page or not? Gronk Oz (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gronk Oz welcome to the Teahouse, that is a great question. I think there is a difference between changing a comment's meaning and removing it, therefore, there is no contradiction in the rules. In other words, if I removed a message on my talk page, that is not changing the meaning of the message. Justiyaya (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Aha - thanks, Justiyaya! Philosophically, I think that removing a comment also changes the meaning, but I can see what they are getting at.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: Another reason (see my comment below) is that removing a message signifies that you read the message, so it makes sense to allow that on your own talk pages. Justiyaya (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

So to summarize, changing the meaning of a message that is not your own is strictly prohibited. Removing a message on any talk page that is not your own without good reason is probably not allowed, but removing messages on your own talk page signifies that you read the message and is allowed, but it's probably better to put it in an archive. Justiyaya (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

There are some more guidelines at WP:OWNTALK, Gronk Oz. Personally, I don't have a large user talk page and I don't archive anything. Even if I started archiving, I wouldn't bother to keep stuff such as bot messages from suggestbot, minor insults or plaudits from other users etc. Note that there are some items that you must not delete. As with everything on Wikipedia, the page history of User Talk Pages keeps everything forever, so archiving is not strictly necessary, although it can help future searches. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Bio deleted

 Courtesy link: Draft:SILA ESER Violist

Hi They deleted my bio just because its same as my own website biyography :))) that I also wrote it too.. SO its a bio basicially If I write there I played there as a performer how would you say it different to be approved in wikipedia just wondered.. Its my own copyrigt and this is my own page as well :))) Im sure they are having fun deieting them easily so plz help me then where would you want me to not go and delete.. like where shall I not go or play then I would write it differently.. how would wiki prefer me to say when I wrıte the places concert halls or cities or teachers this is all I need to write it down.. plz wouldnt make that difference its alllm my bio my info my writign :D so noone can sue wiki :) wiki should write maybe in that case wouldnt be perfect :) I mean who can help me to write then plz let me know thanks ! zobodoc (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Zobodoc Your draft, Draft:SILA ESER Violist, is not deleted yet, but it is about to be deleted. Most of it is a copy from a website. Yes, you say it is your website, But Wikipedia has no proof of that, and it is copyright protected. Second, Wikipedia discourages but does not prohibit people from trying to create an article about themselves. What is essential is having as references what people have written about you.

I suggest you go to List of female violinists and sort the list be birthdate, so the youngest are listed first. Your draft should be modeled on these. The process of creating a draft is explained and guided at WP:YFA. The site Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines may also help. When you think your draft is ready, you can submit it for review via Articles for Creation. David notMD (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Zobodoc. Like many inexperienced editors, you have come here and tried to create an article immediately: that's like trying to perform a concerto after your very first music lesson. Please undersatnd that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Violation

Isn't this page's Objectives section a violation of WP:NPOV or WP:PROMO. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 14:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article, ExclusiveEditor: you're welcome to take it out. If you can find an entirely independent source which talks about the Council's purpose, something based on that source would be ideal to put in its place. --ColinFine (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

autoconfirmed user

I tried to edit the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minorities_in_Greece but was told that "Note: This page is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. If you need help getting started with editing, please visit the Teahouse."

As this is the first time I encounter that could you please tell me what I can do to be able to contribute with editing it?

Thanks

Panayote

}} Παναγιώτης Δημητράς (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Παναγιώτης Δημητράς welcome to the teahouse, the page is semi protected to stop vandalism. Semi protection means that only users that are autocomfirmed (at least 4 days old and have 10 edits) can edit the page. I believe you already gained the Auto Confirmed verification, therefore you should be able to edit the page like normal. -- Justiyaya (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

When you click edit on a semi-protected page, there is a warning saying "Note: This page has been protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it...." However, you should still be able to edit. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

coordination / canvassing on another Wikipedia

/ Do editors who clearly canvass / coordinate their actions on another Wikipedia and even get ArbCom-blocked there bear any responsibility or at least get closer scrutiny in English Wikipedia? And does it matter when it happened - yesterday or 10 years ago? Thanks. --Armatura (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Armatura. Are you trying to indirectly ask about a specific editor? Each Wikimedia project has it's own policies and guidelines, but inappropriate notifications and meat puppetry are not considered OK on English Wikipedia. Now, the way to deal with such a thing, may depend upon how serious of a problem it is. Something that happened 10 years ago that stopped happening 10 years ago is probably not as serious as something that happened yesterday. So, if an editor was warned or blocked for something that happened 10 years ago and they are still doing the same thing as of yesterday, then they don't seem to be listening very well and administrator involvement might be needed. Administrators and other editors, however, are unlikely going to start monitoring the contributions of other editors just for the fun of it; they usually do so only when they feel there's a reason to do so, and usually this reasons have do to with past cases of disruption or other types of problematic editing. Administrators are unlikely going to take strong action against first-time offenders, unless it's a pretty serious first-time offense; they're looking for patterns or other indications of a behavioral issue which show that the "problem" isn't simply a one-time lapse in judgement. So, if you have a particular editor in mind (there's no need to go into specifics here), and have had little success resolving things in other ways, then perhaps you should seek assistance from an administrator or from other editors at an appropriate noticeboard. Before you do that, however, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:ANI advice, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages and Wikipedia:Drama because there's a reason that someone created the short-cut link WP:Dramaboard. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks, Marchjuly, for clarifying. --Armatura (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Archive of YouTube video

I cited a source ([9], for this article) that includes an embedded YouTube video; following WP:PLRT, I tried to archive it, but found that the embedded video was broken in the archived page, showing the error message "An error occurred. Please try again later." when I tried to play it. Is there a way to archive a YouTube video using the Wayback Machine or something similar, or should I just include a quote in the citation? 73.195.249.93 (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi IP 73.195.249.93. If the YouTube video you're trying to cite is OK per WP:YOUTUBE and WP:COPYLINK, then you can add a link to it to the citation. A cited source, however, doesn't need to be available online per WP:PUBLISHED; so, you can still cite the video or original content as long as you believe it's a reliable source and is used in proper context. Just try and provide as much information about the original video as you can. FWIW, you could possibly find a print secondary source to also help support the same content of that particular article; so, that way, there will be something besides the video (which is a primary source) also cited in support. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Removal of protection!

Please remove protection from page Rajendra Mahato as no risk of vandalism seen there. Curious boy np (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Curious boy np and welcome to the teahouse. You have already requested this at the right venue by posting at WP:RPP. However please contact the protecting admin Utcursch on their talk-page first. Also, this article might not be affected by vandalism specifically because it is currently protected.

Looking at your contribution history I wonder though why you request unprotection. May I ask what you are planning to edit on Rajendra Mahato?

You could also use the {{request edit}} template on the article's talk page or simply make use of the edit request wizard, and then someone else will implement your edit. – NJD-DE (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Were you also "Curious boy km", now retired, last post on 28 May? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 01:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Where Can I get input on a proposed article change?

I created Talk:Marcus_Aurelius#Replace_Marcus's_with_Marcus' on Marcus Aurelius' article talk page, and I was wondering how to get broad community input. Should I start an RfC or copy-paste a certain formatted message to related wikiprojects? Thanks! Tyrone Madera (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tyrone Madera: the page has more than 700 watchers, and you just a few minutes ago posted your suggestion, so give it some time for interested editors to reply there. According to MOS:POS the 's ending is the Wikipedia style. RudolfRed (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

RudolfRed, Yeah, I kinda goofed. I'll check the watcher numbers next time. I kind of assumed that the response time was latent without looking into it. I'll strike my comments. Thanks, Tyrone Madera (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Poll: What is your favorite car, vintage or modern?

Poll: What is your favorite car, vintage or modern? 99.147.14.39 (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP, as much as I like cars too, this is not the place for questions like these. The Teahouse is meant for questions specifically about editing Wikipedia. Do you have such a question? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Ganbaruby, this says it all. -- Hoary (talk) 09:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Translating an article

Hi wikipedians! One more question for today) What happens in case we have an existing article in English with many citations that we want to translate in another language, e.g. Greek. But in Greek there are not any available online references or citations? Can I still translate this article? Antonis Theofanous (talk) 08:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia of each language has its own policies and preferences. I think that you are asking what to do in order to create or augment an article in gr:Wikipedia. If this is so, then the place to ask about it is gr:Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear Hoary This brings me to my next question) I was editing an article in Russian and I noticed that the alerts were different as if I have a different account for English, Russian and Greek. So I must conclude that in essence for each language I have a different account)?)Antonis Theofanous (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Antonis Theofanous, you have posted many questions here, and contributed a paragraph to an article. Perhaps consider adding more paragraphs to more articles? -- Hoary (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear Hoary to be honest with you I am still afraid to do big changes in articles. I don't want to do mistakes. But there are many things that I would like to improve step by step) Thanks! Antonis Theofanous (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Antonis Theofanous:. as Hoary mentoined, each wiki has its own policies, and their own alerts as well. But you have one global account, that can be used to log onto Russian, Greek, and English Wikipedias. When translating an article from one Wikipedia to another, see WP:TFOLWP. Mathglot (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Creating article

Hi! Can anyone tell me how much old Wikipedia account should be to create new article without going into the procedure of drafting etc.  Indusstar (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Indusstar: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. See Your first article for how to create a new article sucessfully. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) hi! I believe you should be able to create an article directly to mainspace now, but I'd recommend articles to go through the drafting process first instead of going straight to mainspace, as this allows other editors to provide feedback to your article. additionally, drafted articles that do not follow guidelines such as notability do not get deleted outright and instead get advice to help the editor improve it. (although draft articles can and will still be deleted if they're blatant promotion, attack pages, etc). guidelines to creating an article can be found over at WP:Your first article and WP:Biographies of living persons if you're writing about a living or recently deceased person, but in short: see if they're notable by wikipedia's standards, find reliable sources, and avoid creating articles which you have a conflict of interest in. ◎ | melecie | t 09:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Indusstar: It is worth mentioning that there is a new pages patrol group who will review your new article even if you create it straight into Main Space. They sometimes treat more harshly articles that are borderline (for example regarding notability) than articles accepted by the WP:AfC process, so as a new editor I'd stick to the drafting mechanism. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Album Covers

Hello, I'm curious if whether album covers require specific permissions or are under specific copyright laws I need to follow and what I need to do to make sure I have the right to upload it to wikipedia. Thank you. HeyHiHelloGreetings (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi HeyHiHelloGreetings. If you have to ask this question, then you probably don't have the right to upload the album cover. I'm not trying to be mean, but you need to be the copyright holder of the album cover to have the right to upload it; so, if you need to ask, then you're probably not the copyright holder. Generally, the copyright holder of an album cover is either going to be one or some combination of the following: the record company that released the album. the artist or band who made the album, or the artist or graphic designer who designed the cover. There maybe cases where the copyright could possibly be someone else, but the copyright holder is pretty much never somebody who simply purchases the physical album or a digital version of the album.

Now, Wikipedia does allow certain types of copyrighted content to be uploaded as non-free content, and one of these types happens to be album covers. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, however, is quite restrictive; so, it's hard to say whether it's OK to upload a particular album cover without knowing a bit more. Non-free album cover art is usually considered OK to upload as long as it's being used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone Wikipedia article about the album itself. The non-free use of album covers in other articles or in other ways (e.g. discography sections in articles about bands) tends to be much much harder to justify. Moreover, non-free album covers can only be used in articles; they can't be used in drafts for possible articles, and they can't be used on userpages or on any other pages outside of the article namespace. You appear to be working on a draft for an article about an album in your sandbox; unfortunately, you can't add a non-free album cover to that page. If you try to do so, it will only be removed and eventually deleted. My recommendation to you is to finish working on your draft, and forget about the album cover for now. Whether your draft is accepted as an article will not depend on whether you're using an album cover in it, but rather whether the album itself meets this guideline. If your draft is someday accepted as an article, then you can upload the album cover. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

By mistake I have two accounts! How can I delete the old one?

Dear Wikipedians hi) I noticed that I have two accounts in Wikipedia) I didn't remember that I created an account few years ago. How can I delete the old one? I still have the password and access to this account. Can the administrator help me with this issue! Antonis Theofanous (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be deleted. Simply ignore the old account; and say on User:Antonis Theofanous that you previously edited as such-and-such. -- Hoary (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

... and preferably also, at User:such-and-such, that you now edit as User:Antonis Theofanous. This will help to avoid any risk of suspicion that you might be abusing two accounts. Maproom (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. -- Hoary (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Maproom Good idea. I will enter in the account and in its page I will write that I am writing now as Antonis Theofanous))Antonis Theofanous (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Antonis Theofanous. I don't know if you have yet edited that other User page (you haven't yet put this on your current user page). But if you haven't, note that there is no need to login to that old account to edit its user page. In most cases it is not considered good etiquette to edit other editors' user pages, but there is no technical impediment to doing so, and in a case like this, it would be normal. Just go to User:(whatever the user name was) and edit there. --ColinFine (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Are opinion pieces and tweets considered credible citation source?

While browsing through several Wiki pages, I noticed that the personal life section of Sadhguru's (Jaggi Vasudev)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaggi_Vasudev page cited several opinion pieces (Citation 113) and tweets (Citation 114) as credible citations to support edits. What are the rules to be considered for citations? Thanks Jebyxp71 (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Some of the advice is given at WP:TWEET. The information can be used in limited ways. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Mike for the response. I read the WP:TWEET page and it seems that the citation is in violation of the rules that are mentioned there. What can we do to remove the citation and the associated text in the Personal Biography page?

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;

it does not involve claims about third parties;

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and

the article is not based primarily on such sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.185.178.39 (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jebyxp71: as a new editor, you won't be able to edit that page, which has "extended confirmed" protection to protect it from vandalism. However, there seem to be plenty of people interested in it, so I suggest you express your detailed concerns at Talk:Jaggi Vasudev, quoting the relevant policy if necessary to say why certain items need to be removed. The rules for biographies of living people are quite strict. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

References/Citations from Different Languages

Hello Wikipedians) As I mentioned in a different post I was thinking to write a neutral article about a public figure before diving into more scientific articles. Experienced editors explained me that in order to write an article I shoulde have reliable secondary non-promotional sources (e.g. large on-line newspapers such as Financial Times, or scientific articles published in scientific journals). The notability criteria.

But what happens if a complete English-language article requires sources also from other languages, except from English. These references will be accepted? Antonis Theofanous (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if those other-language sources are reliable. -- Hoary (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Antonis Theofanous: Editors aren't barred from using non-English sources as covered by WP:NOTENG. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Page keeps getting declined even though I found pages with little to none citations for artists that are lesser known

Hi Wikipedia editors, I would like to know how the publication process works. I want to create a page for the Italian Producer Alex Pizzuti, and I had my page rejected two times. I found out in Wikipedia that there are lesser known producers with fewer informations that got accepted. How this works? I would like to create other pages for Legendary Deejays like Flavio Vecchi & Richy Montanari.

Thank you, Antonio Antonio Laccetti (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:WAX Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Antoniolaccetti Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read other stuff exists. That other inappropriate articles exist does not automatically mean that yours can too. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. We can only address what we know about. Article standards have also changed over the life of Wikipedia, and what was once acceptable may not be any longer.

If you are interested in helping, you are welcome to identify these other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action.

The good news is that your draft was only declined, not rejected. This means that the reviewer thinks that it is at least possible for this person to meet the definition of a notable musician. Please review that definition. You may also want to read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies, I will check the Your First Article page and see what I can do about it. Not that it's a matter of life and death, but I think electronic music artists that made charts and international collaborations should be available on Wikipedia, Thank you again! Antonio Laccetti (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Move

How do you move a page to a target page name which is already a redirect page? I am finding it difficult to move Pratas island to the original and real page name Pratas Island which is a redirect. Josedimaria237 (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Please place a technical request at WP:RM. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Taken care of. Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Question

Am I going to trigger an edit filter every time I add a welcome message? Michael-Moates (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Michael-Moates, welcome to the Teahouse. That edit filter logs edits by new users, so once you accumulate some more time on Wikipedia, it won't do that any more. As a friendly note, I noticed that you've been welcoming accounts before they've made their first edit. This could be potentially confusing to them since your welcome message says "I noticed your contributions", when they haven't made any. I would recommend not giving that welcome message until they've made at least one edit. DanCherek (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Michael-Moates: To add to what DanCherek has already written, many accounts never get active on Wikipedia, meaning welcoming them is both a waste of time and server resources. Also, when welcoming users with edits make sure that you check them first for obvivious problems - welcoming a PR account or an LTA with the default welcome message is counterproductive. Once your account is WP:AUTOCONFIRMED, you might also enable Twinkle, which makes welcoming, warning, reverting and reporting users considerably easier. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Michael-Moates: Equally, don't bother reporting inappropriate usernames to WP:UAA unless they, too, have actually already edited. This would waste administrator time, which is even more unecessary. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

How to combat narratives

How to combat narratives with facts when people keep editing your facts out  please also look as I did cite them , and when I did the same user said I committed plagiarism FactsNotNarratives (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI

 – Courtesy link: George Floyd protests in Minneapolis–Saint Paul

@FactsNotNarratives: Please stop your disruptive editing. Any information added to an article, especially a contentious one, must be cited to a reliable source. Everyone has their own perspective on an event, so to eliminate individual biases, Wikipedia chooses to summarize what's written in those reliable sources in a neutral point of view. Also, content disputes are fairly often here, but the proper way to deal with this is to go onto the talk page and engage in discussion. You've started a thread there, which is a good start, but do not edit the page any further unless the community agrees on your changes. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Corporate notability

Hi, my draft is being rejected due to notability reasons. In my opinion, I have addressed these issues by adding more references by independent sources, but it doesn't seem to be enough. Unfortunately, most of the sources are in other languages than English. Could this be the reason? Surely there must be a way of checking the independence and reliability of sources in other languages? Should I explain the sources/references further in the comments on what I have changed? I'd love some more help forward! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hanza_(company) Kajsac (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Welcome to Teahouse! Your whole draft is extremely short (barely 8 sentences), even the review comments draft received are longer than the draft itself. Since many of the sources are in Swedish, it might be easier to write a decent stub article in Swedish. Then, it could be expanded and translated into other languages. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Does this mean that a longer article would improve the chances of the subjuect being considered notable? There is already a longer article in Swedish, and it would be great to have that translated instead. However, I have only found instructions on how to get a translation of a page in English, not the other way around. Grateful for tips on that too! Kajsac (talk)

Hello, Kajsac. Wikipedia:Translation provides instruction on how to translate articles in other language Wikipedias into English. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) if you have not yet done so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually, w:sv:Hanza (företag) is also 3 paragraphs and has fewer references than the draft. But it's not necessarily a question of length: as a reader, I would want to know what is different or interesting about the company. Are its "manufacturing clusters" widely regarded as an innovative approach? Does its size put it in the top x Swedish companies? (Citation needed for any such claims, of course.) ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) – (07:20 Sat 05, AEST) 21:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Oops, forgot ping @Kajsac. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) – (07:21 Sat 05, AEST) 21:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kajsac: I have looked at most of the the sources in your draft, and I'm afraid they don't actually show that Hanza is notable according to this policy. Nya Wermlands-Tidningen and Värmlands Folkblad are locked so it is not possible for me to evaluate whether the articles there are independent, or whether they discuss the company in any depth, but since both newspapers are regional, they do not weigh that heavily in terms of notability. NWT is considerably larger than VF, but even so, one article in NWT with a heading that consists of a (promotional) quote from the company itself is not very promising. Dagens Industri is a more weighty publication, but the three references to it include one listing with basic facts about the company, and one press release which is not a secondary source; the third DI reference is perhaps OK (it is behind a paywall), but one such reference is not sufficient. Other references include brief notices about new acquisitions, an interview in evertiq.se with the company CEO, and somewhere around there I stopped evaluating the sources. Please read this information, and in the draft, identify at least three sources that would meet those requirements. Another thing: after reading a few sources and the Swedish Wikipedia article, I could still not quite identify what the company does. The Swedish article talks about "outsourced electronics manufacturing" (which is not very explanatory), the interview in evertiq mentions the company's factories without saying anything about what kind of factories they are, and the notice in etn.se mentions the acquisition of manufacturers... And finally, the information and the sources in the current draft have a rather narrow focus – there are notices and press releases about acquisitions several years ago, but much more recent notices such as this, about downsizing and the closure of one of their manufacturers/factories, are conspiciously absent. This is not an in-depth text about the company, but it is certainly independent and much more recent than any of the other sources, and if (it is a big "if") Hanza is in fact notable, that kind of critical evaluation should not be left out. --bonadea contributions talk 16:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Page name and approval

Hi, I have just created a Wikipedia page, and I had 2 questions:

1- How will I know it has been approved? 2- The page name has my username in it. Is it temporary? or is there a way to change it in order to put the real page name?

Thanks in advance for your help. Hardtofinduniqueusername (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Hardtofinduniqueusername and welcome to the teahouse. I have moved the article from your sandbox to the draft space. You can find it at Draft:Jalal Eddine Ramdani. There you can continue editing on it, and then submit it for review.

Before you do that, I would recommend you to have a look again at the references used in the draft. A lot of them would not qualify as independent and reliable sources.

Once you submit your draft for review it may take up to 5 months. Whenever someone reviews or comments on it, you will receive a message on your personal talk page. Finally, when the draft is accepted as an article it will be moved from draft space to the main article space and won't have your username or the word "draft" in it any longer. – NJD-DE (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

This may be WP:TOOSOON in his musical career. David notMD (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Sri Krishna Goshala Darveshpur Uttar Pradesh

i can find my old dreat i want to create and write new draft--Goshala (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC) Goshala (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

--Goshala (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Goshala: You created a redirect to itself, so it's going to be speedy deleted soon. You've also created Draft:Sri Krishna Goshala Darveshpur Uttar Pradesh; work on that draft first, and read WP:YFA carefully to see what we expect in a Wikipedia article. That being said, I notice that there's a huge number of accounts recently trying to create articles about this "Darveshpur" place. Have you previously had another Wikipedia account? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

For the record, the redirect to itself is at Sri Krishna Goshala Darveshpur Uttar Pradesh. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Goshala and welcome to the teahouse. I am not sure what you tried to do, but it resulted in kind of a mess where your user talk page ended up in article space. Anyways, there's also a draft at Draft:श्री कृष्णा गौशाला दरवेशपुर शिकारपुर बुलंदशहर उत्तर प्रदेश. Please note that this is the English Wikipedia, so only English content can be accepted. From online translation that draft looks promotional to me, but I will leave that to someone else here who can actually understand Hindi. – NJD-DE (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

References

is it allowed?

Can i start a blog here? Deborah Jenkins (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Debbie J Deborah Jenkins (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Deborah Jenkins Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a free webhost that can be used for any purpose such as hosting a blog; this is a project to write an encyclopedia. You may find a place to have a blog at one of the alternatives listed here. 331dot (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

How to resolve edit wars?

As a new Wikipedia editor, I was involved in an "edit war" with an individual who was vandalizing an article in bad faith and making ad hominem attacks against me. How do we resolve situations like this? I did not want to go back and forth with this person but felt like I had no choice because he or she kept repeating the vandalism. Then I was rebuked by other Wikipedia editors for engaging in an Edit War. It felt like I was being punished simply for being a new user acting in good faith to fight against vandalism but not understanding the full range of tools at our disposal to fight against vandalism. AsianAmericanAdvocate (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@AsianAmericanAdvocate: I cannot see the edits between you and the IP at Eugene Gu since they've been deleted (and I'm not an admin). However, I can see that you've removed significant amounts of content at George Takei and Andrew Yang. While being bold is encouraged, for major changes on highly-viewed articles, it's better to get consensus on the talk page before making the change. The content dispute process is known as bold, revert, discuss, and I don't see any discussing at Takei and Yang's articles at all. You are involved in a discussion at Gu's page; that's good, keep doing that, but respect community consensus even if it's not in your favor. Remember that edit warring is never okay, and many experienced editors choose to never revert second time. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The edit warring warning is basically a "plague on both your houses." Right or wrong aside, Wikipedia prefers disputes being done on article talk pages. Also, what you consider vandalism, an Administrator may have seen as good faith edits. In this instance, perhaps not, as IP 47.150.243.192 has been warned, and an account created to repeat the same edits as 47.150 had made has been indefinitely blocked. At Eugene Gu you've properly continued at Talk. David notMD (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments and constructive criticism here. I actually did not know what the concept of an edit war even was until I was admonished for it. After being admonished, I began to discover how to engage in discussions in the talk page. Just a quick question. How do I sign my signature after my comments? It is not straightforward about how to properly do the formatting for the talk page comments. I feel like I need to learn a new computer programming language lol. AsianAmericanAdvocate (talk)

@AsianAmericanAdvocate: Well, you did it correctly here and at Talk:Eugene Gu, but just in case you're unsure, just put four tildes (~~~~) after your comment. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Ah, perfect thanks for the tip! Will try the 4 tildas here to see how it works! AsianAmericanAdvocate (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, indent with one more colon than the preceding comment. David notMD (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, AsianAmericanAdvocate. I've looked over your involvement in those three articles and I encourage you to read carefully the policies on edit warring and vandalism. They are interrelated because reverting vandalism is an exception to the prohibition on edit warring. However, vandalism has a narrow and precise definition on Wikipedia, briefly, edits that are deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia . . . To be clear, if two good faith editors disagree about a content matter, then neither is vandalizing. If you repeatedly revert an edit because it is vandalism, then the edit must be of a type that every single productive good faith editor would agree without hesitation is actually vandalism. Otherwise, the matter is a content dispute that should be worked out on the article talk page, at least initially. Report ongoing vandalism to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and report edit warring to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I also want to comment on your username. I am very sympathetic to the underlying sentiment, but I want to draw your attention to the policy language at WP:NOTADVOCACY which says, in part, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise., and the policy specifically mentions usernames. So, my advice is without any hostility because I think that you clearly have the potential to be an excellent editor. Please consider changing your username. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the tips and constructive criticism. I did not know that usernames are subject to policy language issues. How do I change my username to something more neutral without making a completely new account? Thanks! AsianAmericanAdvocate (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

AsianAmericanAdvocate, please see Wikipedia:Changing username. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

is it not allowed to point out that one think "senior" editors break with wikipedia rules?

Quondum is in my view violating the NPOV rule in his claims on wikipedia: "every time I try to read a paper by McCulloch I am freshly appalled. [...] it needs to fit the reality: QI is horribly audacious pseudoscience, so we can't present it in a way that it could be perceived as believable. —Quondum 21:46, 4 June 21

This claim abut "horribly pseudoscience" he comes with about a theory (quantized inertia) that has more than 20 peer reviewed published papers behind it. Quondum only backing seems to be some critical blogs, and one or two papers with some critics of QI, one oof them with constructive critics mostly. After I mentioned that I think this was violating the NPOV rule then Quondum got aggressive also against me. Please advice, as I only want to contribute to wikipedia, but it seems like some established editors are bullying their personal views, please advice what you think. Look up the quantized inertia page, the talk page, and the talk page off Quondum. ChrisCalif (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link for rather incoherent comment above Quantized inertia. Theroadislong (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

ChrisCalif You need to discuss this on the article talk page. If you have independent reliable sources that consider this topic a legitimate field of scientific inquiry and/or part of mainstream thinking, please build your case there. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and if the breadth of them call this theory pseudoscience, then we do too. Wikipedia does not give equal time or consideration to all points of view, it depends on the sources.. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

When discing it on the talk page this same editors hide it and say it is not relevant for the talk page. This I find strange as they are calling the theory on the page " horribly audacious pseudoscience" without any backing, but it is not allowed to criticize them and ask them to back it up. This is one of the pages Quondum comes with his claims that is not backed up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Conundrum ChrisCalif (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Notofications

I dont seem to get a notification when edits are made to pages on my watchlist. How can I ensure I get a notification? Heesxiisolehh (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Heesxiisolehh Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There are not specific notifications for edits to watchlisted pages; your Watchlist needs to be monitored for changes to pages. There are notifications for edit reversions, emails, and thank-yous. Someone merely editing an article does not trigger a notification. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@331dot @Heesxiisolehh I believe RedWarn has an 'alert on change' feature for pages, and I'm sure there is a user script for this. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 20:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl Thanks, I am not familiar with that tool. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@331dot It 's similar to Twinkle, though primarily counter-vandalism. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 20:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Heesxiisolehh Try Wikipedia:User scripts/List#Watchlist for Watchlist -related User scripts. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 20:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding a Picture

 Shah 512S (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC) How to add a picture to a page

@Shah 512S see Wikipedia:Pictures and Wikipedia:Uploading pictures ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 20:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Qwerfjkl: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shah 512S (talk • contribs) 20:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Handling disruptive editor

Methods to deal with very disruptive editor An article I watch has been impacted by an editor that seems disruptive to Wikipedia. Because I found the editor's edits to demonstrate a lack of regard for Wikipedia policies, I have followed their edits to see if they were similarly disruptive. As it turns out, their edits are more often than not disruptive/worsen the edited article (the rest of the edits I would say are in a grey area). This editor's edits are commonly reverted. Their edits are mostly made without sources (come to think of it... I don't recall ever seeing any source given). Furthermore, they don't seem neutral. The editor seems to follow an agenda. Frankly I think this editor should be banned, but I think someone with more experience should look at their contributions. Is there a way to open an inquiry into an editor who might be able to claim "ignorance" and flout policies with no repercussion if the totality of their edits are not considered? Many thanks for any help! Shoestringnomad (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Shoestringnomad Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you have a user conduct issue to report, that isn't specifically vandalism, edit warring, or promtional editing, you may start a discussion at WP:ANI(for which you must notify any relevant users of its existence). Be advised that the conduct of all will be examined as well, you cannot limit the discussion to only one editor. 331dot (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

331dot Thank you! It does seem then like the onus is on me to build the case to make it as easy to process for a busy admin as possible. The way I have seen these go before can be hit-or-miss, perhaps depending on who takes on the incident. Shoestringnomad (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished. David notMD (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Problem!

I've been eleven or more days started editing/writing on Wikipedia but I still not have that power to edit semi protected articles, why? 197.156.122.183 (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

If you registered an account, you are not using it atm, that could be it. IP:s can't edit semi protected articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Log into your account, and go to WP:AUTOC. It now has a nice box that shows if you are autoconfirmed or not. It normally happens automatically when your account is at least 4 days old and you have made at least 10 edits, but in some cases it takes longer. As noted above, you are not currently logged in. RudolfRed (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you want accurate information?

Hi,

I discovered yesterday that there is a Wiki page about me and my writing. I submitted several corrections and additions to the sight, but all of them seem to have been rejected. If you want Wikipedia to be a source of ACCURATE information, please restore the changes I made yesterday. If you cannot do that, then please contact me so I can tell you which pieces of info on my entry are entirely wrong.

Thanks, John R. Fultz www.johnrfultz.com 2600:1700:D250:24D0:6912:2B1C:203C:5D89 (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is less concerned with what is true than with what can be verified from reliable sources. If you're able to provide those, please submit an edit request at the article's talk page. You are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, as you have a conflict of interest. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

All changes to John R. Fultz require references. Given you claim you are JRF (Wikipedia can't tell), then on the Talk page, propose changes, with use of existing refs or new refs. Do not attempt to add stories that have not yet been published. David notMD (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, 2600:1700:D250:24D0:6912:2B1C:203C:5D89. I recommend moving this article to "draft" status. That way, you can edit the article directly, perform much-needed improvements (correct factual errors and expand it), and only then ask someone without conflict of interest to review the whole article in one take. I believe that right now John R. Fultz does not have a sufficient number of good sources to meet Wikipedia notability requirements (neither WP:GNG not WP:AUTHOR). If you want to discuss sources, I can explain why I consider each individual reference in the article is not sufficiently in-depth or not independent or not reliable enough to count towards notability. Given the lack of sources, it's a matter of time until some other experienced editor will delete this article under WP:PROD or WP:AfD. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Moving pages

I haven't moved many pages in the past and I was unclear what some of the rules are. I was under the impression that Art Napoleon (artist) should be moved to just Art Napoleon while Art Napoleon should be moved to Art Napoleon (film director) because the first person has many occupations and has a more filled out article that suggests he is more notable than the film director. I went ahead and moved the film director's page and then realized that I need to delete the redirect before moving the other page. Is it okay for me to do a speedy deletion? Did I totally screw up and should my original move be undone? TipsyElephant (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, sorry your question has gone unanswered for a while, you could read WP:MOVE for guidance on page moving or better still, you could go to WP:RM and make requests there instead of unilaterally making a move. Celestina007 (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Wrote / edited lot of Space and Rocket articles, how to manage deadlock between editors

Hi Team, Been writing / editing articles in Wikipedia for over 10 years, there are some instance with deadlock between editors on acceptance, how do we solve it? Also, how to do review and get permission etc, kindly also give some information on that. Chandraprakash (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Frozenprakash. Does WP:Dispute resolution help?

As for your second question, there are several different kinds of reviewing. Have a look at WP:Reviewing. --ColinFine (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

How to delete a page I created

Hi. I requested that a page I created be deleted, because my abusive ex-partner made me create it. It contains misleading information, some of which has already been corrected, but the co-organizers of the march, whom she refused to credit on the page, have complained to me personally about not being given credit. They are not credited in any of the media surrounding the event because she wouldn't let anyone else speak to the media, but trust me: She did not do this alone, and I don't want to be bothered by people who are upset that she's taken credit for the entire event.

This is partly an issue about my own safety. I want the page deleted. If someone else wants to create an entirely new one, they are free to do so. Tling2 (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tling2: Is this about We the People March? That article was created by a different editor, and has had several other editors including yourself contribute to it since then. I'm not sure it would qualify for deletion, if it is a notable event. If you know someone who is unhappy with the article contents, invite them to discuss it here on Wikipedia. Any information that would be added needs to be supported by citations to reliable sources. RudolfRed (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Tling2 (ec) This page is more for new users to ask about editing Wikipedia, you may wish to bring this to WP:ANI. If there is an immediate threat to your safety, you should contact your local authorities. This situation sounds like it involves more than just this Wikipedia article. I doubt very much that an article could be deleted on such grounds. Once you create something on Wikipedia, it belongs to Wikipedia and is no longer yours to exclusively control. As noted, others have edited it. You could request a vanishing. 331dot (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Tling2, you tried to delete the article under WP:G7, but that applies only when the only substantial content of the page was added by its author. It does not apply in this case because you are the #3 contributor and those other two editors contributed much more content than you did. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

William Weaver spacing problems in text but not in preview

William Weaver's Wikipedia entry has something weird going on with spacing. I could not discuss it on Weaver's talk page because "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography." I don't understand that, so I'll explain the spacing problem here. In the "Biography" section, there is no space between "Service" and the comma following it. There is an extra space before several of the superscript footnote numbers. But it seems impossible to fix them. When you go into "Edit Source" and click "Show preview," the spacing problems are not there. That's what is weird.Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Bypass or purge your cache. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

What does that mean, or, rather, how do I do it?Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus: What Jeske means is WP:PURGE. It's an option in the "More" dropdown menu near the top of the page. Wikipedia does get rid of extra spaces when rendering code; maybe that's what you're seeing? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

regarding this, it's a feature of the gadget Purgetab, which is not on by default so you may not see it, but can be activated through preferences > gadgets > "Add a "Purge" option to the top of the page, which purges the page's cache" ◎ | melecie | t 00:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) alternatively, use this link: purge article William Weaver. it can be obtained through this link: //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=page_title&action=purge where you replace page_title with the article's name. ◎ | melecie | t 23:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I think Jéské actually meant Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. If you still see spaces then what is your browser, what is your skin at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering, and do you see spaces here? Please give a specific example where you see a space. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

To answer your question, Do you see spaces here?, I still see the problems I mentioned above. In the "Biography" section, there is no space between "Service" and the comma following it; that is in the second line of the second paragraph. Also, the superscript footnote numbers after "childhood," after "1949," and after "New York" have a space before them that should be eliminated. The superscript number after "Calvino" does not have a space.Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC) Also, in the bottom line, there is no space between "Rhinebeck" and "New York."Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

"Council of Education" Social Consolidation

 Courtesy link: Draft:Council of Education Social Consolidation

Hello. How can you help me edit this article? This organization has not worked for hundreds of years. It was re-created in April and is currently being updated, so there are no references from reliable sources--Gülnar82 (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC) Gülnar82 (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Gülnar82, if you cannot find any coverage in reliable sources, including books and older periodicals, why would you think it is possible for other English Wikipedia editors to do so? Perhaps the Azeri Wikipedia has editors who could help you.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

State Bank of India Chairmen pages

I am seeing a series of pages that are from the List of chairmen of the State Bank of India. Some are R. P. Goyal, Vishwanath N. Nadkarni, D. N. Ghosh. I don't think they are presumed notable but the citations used might not justify articles for all of them. Also running with assumption of good faith on the creator and don't want to discourage them by nominations. What is the ideal course of action? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomadicghumakkad, How about a single nomination? Being prompted to find better sources ought to inspire them, rather than discourage. --Quisqualis (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

in preparing to change University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign response to the COVID-19 pandemic into a Redirect (preserving, I hope, a record of its History) I am first attempting to update Redirects to that article.

Using "What links here" I have found 8 Redirects to here: University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign response to the COVID-19 pandemic. I changed 2 of these Redirects to this: "#REDIRECT COVID-19 pandemic in Illinois#University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign response". For example, one of these 2 is UIUC response to COVID-19 pandemic. When I type "UIUC response to COVID-19 pandemic" in the "Search Wikipedia" window the redirect goes to the COVID-19 pandemic in Illinois article, but to the wrong place within that article (i.e. it does not go to the section titled "University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign response") -- but rather (on my laptop) to a location about 7 screenfuls earlier in the article. Am I formatting the "#REDIRECT ..." incorrectly? CWBoast (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@CWBoast: Welcome to the Teahouse. I did exactly what you did (typing "UIUC response to COVID-19 pandemic" in the search field) and it brought me to the relevant section. It's working fine on my end. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

It's working for me too. Perhaps it's something on your end? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Tenryuu: & @Ganbaruby: It still didn't work on my machine, so it seems that there is a problem with my machine. I then saw (in Wikipedia:Redirect) an alternative tactic: using an "anchor" -- and I tried that, with no better results on my machine. With my change to the "anchor" strategy, is "UIUC response to COVID-19 pandemic" still working on your machines? CWBoast (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@CWBoast: Yup, still working for me. Maybe the people at WP:VP/T can help you? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@CWBoast: The change still works for me. I'll echo Ganbaruby's suggestion that you head on over to WP:VPT. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, thank you @Tenryuu: & @Ganbaruby:: After failing on a laptop, on a desktop, and on an iPad, it worked for me on my phone. What devices did you two use? Knowing that might help me to pose the question at WP:VPT. CWBoast (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@CWBoast: Just using a laptop, Windows 10, Google Chrome. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@CWBoast: Chrome user here too on MacOS Mojave, so I tried Safari for the heck of it and BAM! Sent me to the references section for some reason. Definitely bring it up at VPT. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: & @Ganbaruby:: I just now submitted this Village pump query. CWBoast (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello!

I'm new here, and I want to say hello to you guys. Alright bye~~~~^^ Kittiy0403 (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kittiy0403: Hello! Nice to meet you, and thanks for coming by the Teahouse. Feel free to swing by if you have any questions about editing. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

My edit count

Please help me with the number of edits I've done Shdjaoalxmx (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Shdjaoalxmx! You can use XTools for a fairly reliable count. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 12:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Shdjaoalxmx! Please consider that edit count is not a good metric of the value of user's contribution to Wikipedia. Don't stress about your edit count and instead focus on quality over quantity. Anton.bersh (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Many of your edits, especially today, were small changes to wording that made the sentences read worse rather than better, and so have been reverted. Please stop inserting or deleting a word or two or three from existing articles. David notMD (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

You also appear to be in a slow edit war at List of political parties in Tamil Nadu. The proper step there is to start a discussion on the Talk page of the article rather than re-adding content you changed and another editor changed back. David notMD (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shdjaoalxmx: Also, please use edit summary field to explain what the edit you are making is trying to acheive. You have one of the most non-transparent and in-descript edit logs I have ever seen. Anton.bersh (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shdjaoalxmx: Please note that majority of your edits were reverted or required another follow-up edit to fix. These edits are not helpful to Wikipedia, they can be outright disruptive. Please do not worry about your edit count and do not try to artificially inflate your edit count by making lots of small edits which are actually making articles worse. Instead, please focus on making articles better. Thank you, Anton.bersh (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shdjaoalxmx: Once again, I'm writing this here in hopes that this message will reach you. Please consider this:

1. Once again, please don't stress about your edit count and focus on quality over quantity. Your edits are still being reverted (every single one except Talk page edits).
2. If you are trying to reach 500 edits to become "extendedconfirmed" user to edit some protected pages, then I want to let you know that other "extendedconfirmed" users will still be able to revert your edits as they do now. Most likely, your "extendedconfirmed" edits will come under extra scrutiny precisely because your past edits attracted the critical attention of other users. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Autistic Pride Day

Upcoming 18th June is Autistic Pride Day. Can wikipedia celebrate that day, such as by showing an infinity badge on the front page? Where is the right forum to discuss this proposal? Regards. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@RIT RAJARSHI: Welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for your question about the main page logo. I know there are have been some changes to the logo for anniversary events and few milestones for article counts, but I'm not aware that we have done any for specific days of the year. I'm not exactly sure, but I would guess that proposing the idea on the village pump for non-policy proposals could be a good place to start. Does anyone else have any other suggestions? I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a nonstarter, unfortunately. Wikipedia doesn't show any sort of overt support for external holidays, and the only time the logo or front page has changed is for Wikipedia milestones or in responce to SOPA (and that one is still controversial to this day). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 04:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: ,@I JethroBT: I missed the fact this article was featured on the front page several times, and we can do it again.

@RIT RAJARSHI: That might be a good alternative approach here. Is there a Did you know? fact or other front page content that could be prepared for 18 June? I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I JethroBT It's not DYK eligible. But if the article is sourced better, maybe it could be added to WP:On this day again. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

In search of: Good, Featured, or other instances of Impressive Timelines

I am looking for examples of quality timelines on en.wikipedia or any site of the wikimedia foundation. I am looking for timelines that are:

• highly rated
• personal favorites
• otherwise appeal

to your (subjective) measure(s) of quality

Though I hope I am wrong, I am pretty sure there aren't any interactive or dynamic timelines.

Looking forward to replies, CmdrDan (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

There are loads of timeline articles in Wikipedia. Just type "Timeline of (etc)......" into the search box. One of my favourites would be Timeline of chemistry (a featured list) but I don't suppose that would suit many people. I'm not sure whether you'll get a meaningful reply here at the Teahouse, which is mainly used by newcomers to ask simple questions about editing: I note you are not such a person. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, CmdrDan, since you said any Wikimedia site, I’ll mention that results of Wikidata queries can be displayed on a timeline. (I can’t remember the syntax right now.) They look quite nice with items that have images, e.g. timeline of paintings by your favourite (pre-20th-century) artist. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) – (20:22 Mon 07, AEST) 10:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Cannot Redirect a Page(Malavika Sharma)

The Page of Malvika Sharma(Indian actress) i.e Malavika Sharma should be redirected to Malvika Sharma because of the typo in the article name. But its not redirecting so help me. Either delete Malvika Sharma or merge it with Malavika Sharma with article name as ""Malvika Sharma"" Siddartha897 (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

At present, Malvika Sharma (her name, as confirmed by all the sources cited) is a redirect to the erroneous Malavika Sharma. Someone needs to delete the redirect and move the article. To the best of my knowledge, a non-admin is unable to do that. Maproom (talk) 10:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Siddartha897: and @Maproom:. I have fixed that. Thanks. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 10:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help @Maproom: and @TheAafi: for fixing the problem so fast.Siddartha897 (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Guidelines on types of sources required to reference notability

Hello, I've recently had a page on a person rejected due to notability criteria. In particular the comment was "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)".

I included a number of interviews in international newspapers with the subject about their life and their recent book, as well as some newspaper articles about them and lots of articles which quote the subject. I understand the latter may not be significantly substantial, but do interviews with a subject about their work in international newspapers not count as substantial, secondary sources that are independent of the subject?

I'm happy to provide more context and the original references if that's helpful.

Thanks for helping me understand this. Tim Lancaster (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Tim Lancaster Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Interviews do not establish notability, because they are the words of the subject themselves. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a subject, not what one says about itself. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

"Page does not exist"

Often I see a phrase in red because an editor has gone to "Edit source" and put double brackets around the phrase, like this, but the phrase does not link to a Wikipedia page. Therefore, when you hover the cursor over the phrase, it says "Page does not exist." Sometimes, when I'm editing an entry, I remove non-linking double brackets. Should I, or is there a reason to keep them? If there is no reason to keep them, then why are they there? Is it just sloppiness? I find the red distracting.Maurice Magnus (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Wikipedia:Red link discusses this exact topic. In short, if there is a reasonable belief that someone will eventually create a page with that exact name and make that red link actually go there, then it makes sense to leave it so that the page can be discovered when it is created. In practice, though, most red links do not fall in this category and should be removed. Do you have a specific red link you would like to ask about? Anton.bersh (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I have no specific red link in mind, but I've seen some (I can't remember a specific one) in which almost every item in "Further reading" or some other list is red.Maurice Magnus (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC). This is amusing, but I just noticed that the word "this" in my first line is not red, as I expected it would be, but links to a Wikipedia entry for "this."

I sometimes see red links to foreign Wikipedias, as at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietro_Aretino, which has red links to [it] and [de].Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Those links to foreign language Wikipedia use the template {{ill}}, where you will see an explanation of the process. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Devayush M Chowdhary

Not understanding why my submission for page creation was rejected. Reason stated is references do not show 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. But I have provided links to articles from mainline news outlets like The Times of India (timesofindia.com) that clearly speak about the subject and their notability in the article. Kindly advise. Prm111 (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Prm111, welcome to Teahouse! I agree with the user who declined this draft. If you have questions about a particular citation, please ask on Draft talk:Devayush M Chowdhary, not here. Feel free to mention/ping me in your posting there. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Non-free file

Hello, is there any bot that can upload a small version of this file? If so, how can I request it? Patrik L. (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Patrik L. Please take a look at Template:Non-free reduce since there are bots that can reduce the size of files so that they are more in accordance with WP:IMAGERES, and adding that template will help make that happen. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Help with licensing

Hello, I just need help with licenses and how to use them with different file.

}} Shabib (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Shabib20, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's hard to advise you when you are not specific about what you need. I'm guessing this is about the logo you uploaded for Among us?

Part of Wikipedia's purpose is to make information available for anybody to reuse for any purpose: almost all text is automatically licensed in this way, and where possible, images are as well. Ideally, all images used are licensed under CC-BY-SA or similar, so that anybody may reuse them freely; and where the copyright holder is willing to license an image in that way, it should be uploaded to Commons so that all Wikimedia projects can use it.

Unfortunately, most images (and in particular, most images you find on the internet) are not licensed in that way: logos, in particular, are rarely licensed in that way, because their owners do not want to give the whole world the right to reuse or alter them. However English Wikipedia does allow non-free content to use in certain circumstances (Not all editions of Wikipedia do allow this, but English Wikipedia does). This facility is often used for logos and cover art - and indeed the image in Among Us is uploaded in this way. You tried to upload the logo in the same way; but to upload non-free content, you are required to justify doing so explicitly, showing how the way you propose to use the image meets all the criteria in the non-free content criteria. You uploaded it without providing such a justification, so it was deleted. You could try again, giving the justification; but assuming you were intending to add it to Among Us, I think it would fail criterion 3 "Minimal usage", since there is already a non-free image in that article. And if you were planning to use it somewhere else than an article, that would fail criterion 7: "One article minimum".

You can read more about all this in Image use policy. --ColinFine (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

List of articles with several red links

Hello, I found it very interesting to remove red links from articles. Do we have any list where the articles with plenty of red links are kept for reference.? Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 12:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla! Check out Category:Wikipedia red link cleanup – it contains articles that have excessive red links, but I think that's the closest we have. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 12:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla. A "link" doesn't necessarily need to be removed just because it's red; in fact, red links can actually lead to new articles being created as explained here. For sure, there are many cases where red links are excessive and inappropriate; however, as a relatively new account, you might want carefully read through Wikipedia:Red link and Wikipedia:Notability before setting off to remove as many red links as you can find because there's a chance that doing such a thing might lead to unexpected and possible even unpleasant responses from other editors. As for your question, there is a maintenance template called Template:Cleanup red links which can be added to articles in which someone feels that the use of red links has gotten out of control. Articles tagged with that template are, I believe, added to Category:Wikipedia red link cleanup. So, that might be a good place to start if you're looking for articles tagged for red link issues. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla, welcome to the Teahouse. There is actually a use for red links, seen in this guideline, basically saying that if a topic is notable enough, and an article should be created with that name, a red link should be added to encourage editors to create an article with that name and to prevent articles from being an "orphan" (basically means no articles link to it). The guideline says, "Only remove red links if Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject." so be careful about removing red links. Justiyaya (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Justiyaya, Marchjuly and Bsoyka. I will be more aware from this moment. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 13:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Vansh sayani draft

I made a Wikipedia page about Indian child actor Vansh Sayani a few days ago. Today, I have added sources to it. Please accept that. Tellyring (talk) 09:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Vansh sayani has been Declined three times. And now resubmitted. Tellyring has repeatedly asked at Teahouse that this draft get immediate review and be accepted, despite being told that asking here will not get preferential treatment. David notMD (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Teahouse! As noted above, you can ask for another review on that page. Also, I glanced over the sources you added. I can't say anything about most of them because they are in Hindi, but two English sources look neither in-depth nor reliable. As is, this article will most likely be declined again. I would recommend first finding good sources and only after that writing an article summarizing those sources. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tellyring, you have now submitted Draft:Vansh sayani four times, and it still doesn't cite even one source that would help to establish its subject as notable. If you can find some reliable independent sources with significant discussion of him, you should cite them in the draft before submitting it for review. If you can't, you are wasting the time of everyone involved. Maproom (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Given that Draft:Vansh sayani is the major effort by Tellyring since creating an account in mid-May, asked on Talk to describe relationship to Vs: Family? Manager? No reply. David notMD (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Tellyring indef blocked on 7 June 2021. David notMD (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)