Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1131

Archive 1125

←

Archive 1129

Archive 1130

Archive 1131

Archive 1132

Archive 1133

→

Archive 1135

Editors war

Hi, i am being called "disruptive" for proposing 2 changes in the tennis pages. The first was the introduction of Order of Play whose related discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines#Order_of_Play spawned a thick wall of hostile requests from 2 editors that i voluntarily let the proposal drop, to the big detriment of the users who could have benefitted from more informations.

About the second change i would call it more aptly a check, in fact i happen to notice that there are some very specific articles entirely based on one and only one type of links ( the Draws) which are not working (they are dead url not even opening a new page). I found 4 pages of this kind, and thus i put them up for deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2021_Upper_Austria_Ladies_Linz_%E2%80%93_Singles where the wall of editors is clearly showing up, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_WTA_Finals_%E2%80%93_Doubles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2021_WTA_Finals_%E2%80%93_Singles ( this page comments is egregious, some unsigned editor stated that the proposal for deletion is ridiculous because there's in fact a link provided. Only problem is he didn't take the time to open the link, otherwise he would know the link is dead ), and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2021_Upper_Austria_Ladies_Linz_%E2%80%93_Doubles ( i put up a 5th https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2021_WTA_Finals by mistake). Now editors have posted than i am "disruptive in spite of the previous rejected proposal", which as you can check i drop out of my will to the point i myself deleted the related example i had uploaded https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2021_Open_International_de_Tennis_de_Roanne_%E2%80%93_Singles&diff=1054432283&oldid=1054424416 (to my knowledge no other editor has been doing that, and for sure that stands up for my good faith on that issue).

Now i am being called out also on my talk page, "for possible ban", because i proposed the deletion of these 4 articles above, which the editor in question mis-called "several". So here i am. I am a new contributor, so please be frank because i need you to speak truthly about what editors are here for, if for maintaining the status quo and never make any improvement or change (even if they are blatantly contradicting the macro-view the guidelines and the policies of Wikipedia state, which i've read and been following by to the best of my abilities), or follow the micro-consensum of a group of 2-3 editors who threats with ban newcomers? Because what i thought was a collaborative effort where i can offer my multi-years expertise, it appears now as a disparaging place where seniority and undercurrent agreements between editors is the untold law. So, recapping my experience on Wikipedia so far: i added specific surfaces and those were reverted (then reinstated when i pointed out other did the same in the past), added Order of Play links (one per tournament) rejected (it was deemed "unnecessary addition", still that), checked articles rejected as well (the most common comment is the article is "notable". Wrongly so, but agree it's notable for the absence of the only link offered to verify the info). I think either i don't know what a newcomer is here for or i knew too well and this is cause of "disruption" among senior editors who want nothing more to do and not a change being made: the apotheosis of the status quo. So, i would like to know if there's someone who can solve this issue with senior editors, and have a last word on it, or not, because i am not going to be dragged in some sort of war every edit i make, it has been already too long, and quite honestly this hostile environment is simply ridiculous by Wikipedia's guidelines. Sorry for being so long in the comment, but i think i needed to write it down explicitely and in a clear way. Mandraketennis (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

It's you. Since you started your account earlier this month you have had a very, very high percentage of your edits reverted because you did not yet have a clear understanding of Wikipedia guidelines. Then, you wanted to insert Order of Play into every article. Most recently, you are nominating existing articles about obviously significant tennis events for deletion, wasting other editors' time to enter "Keep" statements at AfD's that never should have been started in the first place. There is an old joke, wherein the wife calls her husband on his cell phone to warn him that there is a car going the wrong way on the freeway. His reply, "What do you mean, 'a car,' there must be hundreds of them!" It's you. David notMD (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Mandraketennis: I'm trying to follow this chain of events, and it appears that you proposed adding order of play to the articles, tried to get consensus, didn't, and then started nominating articles for deletion. As a newcomer, that's considered disruptive, and you haven't established an editing history that shows you to be a productive contributor. I recommend you retract the nominations - they are all WP:SNOW keeps - and instead see how you can be more productive. Also, if you can be more succinct with your proposals, you'll have a greater chance of getting people to help and agree with you. We're all volunteers, and reading a lot of text can be more work. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mandraketennis I'll just add in the point that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, which means we all have to work with everyone else - from newcomers to experienced editors. I agree that not only can it seem very daunting at first, but also be frustrating not to get one's way when one clearly feels one is putting forward the 'right' solution, which nobody else sees. But when everyone starts telling you that what you're doing is not the right way, it's time to stop and think about your approach. Continuing on against CONSENSUS eventually gets regarded as disruptive - hence the warnings about being 'blocked' from editing. See also this essay on the topic. I do have sympathy with you and anyone else who comes up against this, as its easy to feel one has had ones 'nose put out of joint'. But key to this is listening and learning. Wikipedia is a big place and you may simply have dived in at the deep end before learning to swim. Slow down; down take things personally, and come back to the Teahouse whenever you need further advice. We try to be as helpful and friendly as possible here. I hope this helps, and I'm sorry you got off to a shaky start. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Timtempleton: Hi, thanks for answering. As you can notice, hostile editors are following me even here, on the Teahouse, the place for newcomers who need to understand how Wikipedia works, which is what i asked. I'll try to be less expansive in my writing. I am disappointed that you asked me to ignore Wikipedia guidelines and don't put 4 articles for deletion because they lack links (joke is half of them were reverted and still have no correct links! Do you think a wiki user will think "oh, well, that guy was trying to correct it but he could have appeared resentful" or "well, Wiki is lacking in reliability on this"? I strongly think the second one.) because I may appear resentful of my previous proposal rejection. I already said that i retreated that proposal on my part and i did it willingly not in anger, otherwise i would have started an editing war, isn't it? And before making that proposal i added if i'm correct over 100 editing into tennis pages, essentially introducing the specific surfaces and their history for every major tournament, so i think i had already established my positive contributions in here, and didn't jumped the gun as it might have appeared on the outside. So, just to be clear, senior editors' war against my every move isn't going to stop, as long as they have "consensum" right? I need a claque to beat their claque to put my expertise on Wiki?? This sounds like some bad organization plan to me, but i am the one wrong in here, as the stalker editor above said. Well, then, bitter truth is still the truth. Sorry to have troubled you. Well then now i know what to do, and where to get my expertise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandraketennis (talk • contribs) 00:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mandraketennis: Please assume good faith, and don't disparage other editors by calling them "hostile" or "stalkers", unless you are capable of backing up those accusations. All three of the people (including myself) who have answered your post are well-known regulars at this help forum, and haven't "followed you here". Who are you referring to? Is it me? As both a long-standing Teahouse Host and an administrator here, I did indeed follow you to your talk page (because you asked for feedback and I needed to understand what was going on) and, yes, I left a message for all parties to try to work together. Does that make me hostile in your eyes? I fear that I sense a degree of belligerence which suggests your approach to collaboration might not be best suited to the environment of true collaboration that we actually seek here on Wikipedia. I repeat the gist of my message on your talk page that we do not put articles up for deletion simply because the sources could be better. We do remove contentious, uncited content from articles, and then discuss it on its talk page. And we do 'tag' articles if we feel sources need improving. We also find it best to try to lower the temperature of discussions, rather than raise them with accusations of bad faith editing. I hope this helps you better understand the way we try to work here. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.) or click the 'reply' link to automatically insert your signature. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Of course i was not referring to you but to the belligerant above, i thought it was clear from the content of the message. Rest assured i don't make assumption, i react to other messages though, and they weren't helpful or comprehensive toward newcomers like me in their answer. They were rejecting and after a while perpetrating this behaviour, hostile. In fact i think your very good reply to me on my talk page is well-posed but badly directed. A quick survey of any of the links i offered will show you istantly the correct diachronic view of who jumped the gun, and that was not me, not in the articles deleting proposal, not in the order of play proposal (where i was even too propositive, planning future projects following that one, and making even a visual draft of how the procedure and the uploading should be made, taking away any possible toll from the shoulder of other editors already too wary of uploading brrr.. 5 links per weeks, so they opposed my proposal, yeah even so. I think you are on the good side but slightly asymmetric in your reasoning, presuming too good faith in the senior editors and less toward newcomers, which in your view should adapt to the senior editors and not also the other way around, that is senior editors should help and take in more content from newcomers. I mean just taking a look to the main contributors by articles tells it itself, they are mostly the same, article over article, with very few and occasional additions. It's a safeguarded place, with walls, and watching towers.Mandraketennis (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mandraketennis Thank you for replying. I suspect you are right in your feeling that some new editors may feel unfairly treated by us 'older hands', but we do what we can here to support, encourage and teach inexperienced editors. With so many new users pushing personal agendas and not taking the time to gradually 'learn the ropes', it is easy for others to respond curtly to poorly-judged edits. I still think you were not acting in good faith by accusing the other respondent (David notMD) of being 'hostile' and a 'stalker' for the same reason that I guessed you were referring to me. Similarly, he is an experienced editor and Teahouse Host, and you did say "...so please be frank because i need you to speak truthly about what editors are here for", and I feel he rose to meet your invitation and gave you a blunt but fair response to your request. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Well. well, what a 180 switch. You came a long way from advocating the collaboration principle in here to condone, even call it "fair", when harsh judgement is passed onto newcomers, which is not what i asked (i was talking about the role of editor in general not to pass judgement over people they barely know ). I knew that under the facade of politically correct there's more ( there is always more, there's the real thinking of that person) i just needed to let you talk and talk until you revealed your (radical) thinking. You didn't even last 3 hours, lol! Well, i'm not interesting in talking to flip-flopper. So long. Mandraketennis (talk) 12:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Cheerio. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Reason of decline

Hi, I've recently posted which got declined. Wanted to know the reason, is it about the sources i've attached or the language used in the draft, since I'm new to this and i really want to expertise in contributing to this community. Godisawoman1 (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Godisawoman1, Hello! Welcome to the Teahouse! The sources of the draft are reliable, secondary and independent but not in significant coverage. That's why the draft was declined. Thank you. Richard M William (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Godisawoman1: Per WP:TOI, "The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable." Also, interviews are not considered independent, as they are people talking about themselves. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

FYI

 – Merging with above. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey, how do i make my draft from significant coverage to insignificant one? Godisawoman1 (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Significant coverage is about the sources used to discuss a subject. Sometimes a source will mention something but it isn't really discussing it primarily; an example might be a review of a concert tour for a major band, which might mention a local band as the warm-up act but doesn't go into any depth on them. That means a source has mentioned them, but has not given them significant coverage. This might happen with actors, too, if a film or programme is being discussed and they are mentioned in passing as featuring in it, but they are not the subject of the article. It's important to find sources that describe the subject as their main focus rather than incidentally. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

What is uranium site?

Uranium site changed my edits even though they were accurate. What is uranium site? Pinkpuppies26 (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Uranium Site (talk · contribs) is another Wikipedia editor. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 19:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

What happened here is that User:Uranium Site reverted Pinkpuppies26's edits to Rai Bular Bhatti. David notMD (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I have responded on the Pinkpuppies26 talk page.--Uranium Site (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

question about my article being linked to spam/suspicious article page

Hi! I'm slowly learning the ropes here and have recently been checking out "What links here" a lot. I noticed that an article I made (as a very new editor before fully understanding that I really should have drafted the thing first!!) links to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam but I'm unsure why or what this means. I understand there may be issues with the article but I'm not sure what is so wrong that it was deemed suspicious or possible spam! I'd like to learn from this and avoid generating anything spam-like in the future! The article in question is Club Quarantine. Thanks for your time. Pteridaceae (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

It probably means little. It is just a list of article that need to be manually checked for spam. Ruslik_Zero 20:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Using Twitter as a source

Hi, could I use this tweet as a source to remove the citation needed tag in Bhuvan Bam? The source which was added earlier is now deprecated and there is no other source for the same. Eevee01^(talk) 11:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Eevee01, the source for an assertion made about the subject of an article must be independent of the subject. A tweet by the subject is of course not independent of the subject. And therefore no. -- Hoary (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary Thank you for your reply. Eevee01^(talk) 12:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Pretty much the only time we would cite Twitter - or really, anything that a given subject writes - is in a "THIS IS WHAT (foo) ACTUALLY BELIEVES/ARGUES" fashion. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 17:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, there isn’t any close ended answer to your question, no, you may not use Twitter as a source to verify notability claims as it is pretty much user generated, and yes you ca use Twitter as a source in order to verify minor details, if in a tweet a person claims “ABC” as their real name, you may use Twitter as a source to verify that information. Celestina007 (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

"COI template removed"

I've noticed "COI template removed" in the tags of some of my edits (I think "tags" is the right word - the spot where "visual edit" or "section blanked" or "newcomer task" or whatever goes). Why is this happening? I've never knowingly deleted a conflict of interest template from an article, and I wouldn't! Is it possible that removing another unrelated template (eg "tone", "underlinked", etc) is causing some automated tag script to misfire? Or am I misunderstanding what "COI template removed" means? I don't think I've even seen a listed COI on any of the articles I've edited, and I do always check the Talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC) asilvering (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Curious indeed, here is an example [1] I don't know what would be causing it though! Perhaps more esteemed users will be able to help us all here. Theroadislong (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Asilvering and welcome to the teahouse. The tag "COI template removed" is added to edits by users who have made less than 500 edits and in case one of the following templates is being removed from an article or draft: Undisclosed paid, Paid, UDP, UPE, COI, Advert. In your case the tag was added due to removing the Advert-template. Tags on edits do not necessarily mean that you are doing something wrong though. For those wondering how I found out: Special:Tags has a list of all tags, and indicates that filter 878 is responsible for tagging "COI template removed".– NJD-DE (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Aha, thank you! I'm relieved to hear I haven't been accidentally breaking anything. -- asilvering (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

WP Essay

Looking for the essay that details the fallacy of using citations within an article to build a bridge to another topic. Thanks! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC) PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@PerpetuityGrat, you may be looking for WP:WALL or WP:CONTENTFORK, WP:REFSPAM, WP:LINKFARM. If unsatisfied please reach out to me. Celestina007 (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

General References

Would anybody be so kind as to offer help with doing general references. I've been editing Wikipedia for some time, but it's not something I've done before. A link to any guidelines or example page where general references are used would help. WP:GENREF explains what they are, but not how to do them. Amirah talk 21:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Amirah talk 21:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I've personally only used them in lists before, where a table is perhaps using one reference multiple times throughout, and it can avoid making 50 or 60 inline citations to the same source. Do you have an article and source in mind to see how best to implement it? ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@AmirahBreen, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, are you trying to reference a book? generally speaking general referencing should appear under the Reference section of the article, when you create the Reference section in any article and you affix {{reflist}} all in-line Citations would automatically appear under the reference section(which is ideal) I’m not sure why you want to use general referencing, but in any case, if you click on the reference section it shouldn’t show you any sources, then you can proceed to manually insert the following; <ref> / </ref> and manually create the reference which is just tiresome I might add. Have you seen WP:REFB or WP:CITE? Celestina007 (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. It's because I'm working on a draft for a new article. I have a list of references, but not test yet, so I want to list the references and incorporate them into the text as I write the article. Amirah talk 22:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are saying I need to create them manually. Amirah talk 22:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Because your question wasn’t clear enough & you didn’t express your concerns in a precise manner. So I replied based on what I presumed you were trying to ask, like I said, using WP:CITE is a better way of referencing. Celestina007 (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I have created a list in the References section, but the [1][2][3] etc shows up at the top of the list, I am just not sure if this is the right way to do it. I don't think it matters too much because it is a draft page, and by the time the page is published they will be incorportated into the text or removed. Amirah talk 22:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, looking at your draft I think I had assumed you were speaking about something else. A general reference is something which is used to support an article more broadly and isn't used to cite a specific piece of information; most references on wikipedia are the opposite of this, and are inline references which each support a specific statement. Since you've collected a series of sources for the article, the best thing to do now is to build the article's text from them; take some information from each and rephrase it in your own words, adding a reference to that each time. The [1][2][3] etc are the places where the reference is invoked, and if you're not adding it to specific text then they'll just show up at the place in the page where you've written the citation out. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 22:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, yes that is how I was hoping to do it. Amirah talk 22:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

AmirahBreen, as you put in the information from a reference, move that reference to be immediately after it. The number will appear at that point, and the software will list the reference in the References section. All statements in the article need to be referenced. See User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I have been editing Wikipedia for 7 years. It is just that I have not done general referencing before. I was wondering if there is another way to do it without the [1][2][3] appearing in the reference section. Amirah talk 22:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever asked a question in the TeaHouse before either. I come from a computer programming background in which if you asked a question it would have been seen as a sign of not knowing your job, you just had to sit and figure things out for yourself. I came across an article once, which had general referencing in it, and I'm sure it was done in such a way that the [1][2][3] did not show up, but that article has now been edited so there are no general references in it any more. I just wondered if anyone could show me a link to an article which does have. Amirah talk 22:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

If you want to avoid the inline refs (the [1], etc) you need to avoid using <ref> tags. You can use a CS1 citation template for the reference and manually place it in a reference section but you need to avoid wrapping it in those tags then. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful, thank you! Amirah talk 23:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

where to find help to write article

where may I find resources (people) to write Wikipedia articles please? FlockMeister (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@FlockMeister: Welcome to the Teahouse. The go-to page everyone recommends people hoping to write articles is Your first article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@FlockMeister: Welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately, there is not a group of editors we can recommend to write articles for you. WP:Requested article is a place you can post a suggestion, but there's no guarantee any editor will choose to do so. If you are contacted by anyone who wants to charge you money to write an article for you, it's likely a scam. Help:Your first article is an excellent guide to learn how to write an article yourself, but it's one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. It's extremely helpful for someone to learn how to edit existing articles first, and we recommend Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure if you'd like to learn editing. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Related project to Wikipedia:WikiProject NPOV

Hello! I'm looking for a project similar to the now defunct Wikipedia:WikiProject NPOV. Any suggestions? Thanks! DaxMoon (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

How to cite a downloaded PDF

How do I cite a PDF of weather data downloaded from https://www.weather.gov/wrh/climate?wfo=ewx, there doesn't seem to be any specific url for it. I am using data from https://www.weather.gov/wrh/climate?wfo=ewx for a snowstorm. However the data from the site can only be seen embedded in the webpage or downloaded as a PDF. As far as I can see, there is no specific URL that links to the specific data range that I need. Is there any way to link the specific data or should I just cite https://www.weather.gov/wrh/climate?wfo=ewx? EnzoTC (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@EnzoTC: Welcome to the Teahouse! You could cite the URL you provided, and then add a note explaining what the reader would need to click on to see the PDF. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Copy-paste plagiarism

Hi Teahouse,

Could an experienced editor please leave a message on a particular user's talk page about WP:RS and how direct copy-pasting onto WP is not ok? They've done it at least twice on the same article. (Look at my edit history to find the article and the user will be obvious. I don't want to put them on blast by name in the Teahouse!) I don't think this should come from me because I am new here. If there is anything else editors are supposed to do in these sorts of cases, please tell me. I tried to look on the various editor guide and dispute resolution pages and quickly got bogged down in unrelated policy. asilvering (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Asilvering: The editor in question hasn't been active since September, but I left a copyvio warning on the editor's talk page. You can refer to WP:WARN for a list of user talk page warning templates you can place. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Contesting Speedy Deletion

I am currently contesting speedy deltion on one of my articles, and I have left my reasons for the speedy deletion being false. However the person who left the speedy deletion notice, didn't resopnd for a long time. What should I do? JohnSmth1982 (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

JohnSmth1982, by "my articles", are you referring to your watchlist? You appear not to have created any articles so far, and I cannot find where you left your reasons for contesting the speedy deletion. Do you ever edit while not logged in? What article are you referring to?--Quisqualis (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

And JohnSmth1982 has no extant edits to any article or user talk page.

It's not required that a person who nominates an article for speedy deletion respond when the speedy is contested. That information is for the admin who will evaluate the nominated article. Meters (talk) 03:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

They're presumably talking about Cleanup.Pictures, which has already been deleted. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Then recreated as Cleanup.pictures, just after the above message was posted. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 03:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thought you'd be interested in this conversation. GoingBatty (talk) 03:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks to me like the sole reason for the existence of the article was to use Wikipedia as a publicity platform. In that sense, it was promotional. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

JohnSmth1982, please stop recreating the article. It's now been created and tagged for speedy deletion under three different titles. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 04:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Biased statement

I found this addition to the police state article which is controversial at best and doesn't fit at worst. Should it stay, or what would you cite to revert it? Thanks Among the trees (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Honestly it's probably best removed entirely. One of the articles cited isn't about Austria at all, although it does use the term "police state", however this is the sort of thing that really should be attributed to who is saying it and not given in Wikipedia's voice. More troubling though is that one of the articles used to cite a statement about COVID lockdowns is from 2018, before the first case was ever reported, which seems less slipshod and more deliberately disingenuous. WP:BRD applies, you can revert and have the adding editor raise it on the article's talk page if they wish. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 04:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Among the trees (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Rejection and resubmission

Hi I'm not sure that I'm using this correctly. But here goes. My article about a mural in Oaxaca Mexico was rejected. I've made a pile of revisions. It's almost ready to resubmit. I checked out some sources to learn how to do this without success.

Can you please help.

Thanks Brooke Broadbent ArbyBB (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@ArbyBB There is some strange clutter at the head of the draft. I will try to tidy that up for you so you can see a blue submit button. Give me a few minutes and then refresh it Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@ArbyBB I'm not sure how you achieved it, but one or more of your edits corrupted the top of the draft. It is now corrected, and, as soon as you are ready, you may resubmit it. I am an AFC reviewer, but I have not reviewed the draft. I may or may not do so once you submit it Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@ArbyBB: Hi there! I did a little bit of cleanup for you. I suggest you change your references #1-4 so they match the format of the 56 footnotes. There are also a few references that need tweaking to remove the red errors. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Declined, which is not as severe as Rejected. I also did some clean-up, including parking those four weird non-refs in a temporary section "External links?" David notMD (talk) 05:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Help

Can someone help me with preventing copyright problems by writing the text in own words. I find it very hard as I haven't got a high proficiency in English. Thanks. Peter Ormond 💬 20:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The text:

(Administrator note: This text has been removed as it is evidently a copyright violation, and should not have been published here)

Peter Ormond 💬 20:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Peter Ormond! It's not going to be very useful for anyone to just rewrite this exact block of text. That's going to be close to plagiarism no matter how good someone's English is. What you need to do to avoid plagiarising someone else's words is to report only the key idea that you want to place in the article you're editing. I don't really know what that key idea is for you, because I don't have the context. Is it that the queen was an 'honorary man'? That it was important to reassure Saudi Arabia of UK support after the Iranian Revolution? Something else? -- asilvering (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Peter Ormond Unbelievable! You know this text is copyrighted, yet you felt it was ok to publish it here? That, too, is unacceptable. I have deleted it and left a note above. Nick Moyes (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Notifications from talk pages

You're notified anytime someone leaves a message on your talk page, but is there are way to be notified if someone responds to something you wrote on an article's talk page? I could not see anything in Preferences. — Dave12121212 ◎ 08:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC) did Watchlist help? Leomk0403 (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that does help. The only problem is I have a lot of pages in my watchlist, and I don't always see everything that comes through. — Dave12121212 ◎ 09:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

how to use colorsin film lists in years side

 Pakistani cinema films (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pakistani cinema films: You can color this by using style="background:". If you want to color the year 2021 in the list, you can use | style="background:" | 2021. Richard M William (talk) 10:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft Review

I have submitted a draft 10 days ago and it still hasn't been reviewed> I've added tags for a faster review but nothing has happened ever since! Can someone help me please? Reem Kopti (talk) 11:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Reem Kopti Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As noted on your draft, "This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,207 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient. There is no way to guarantee a speedy review; drafts are reviewed in no particular order by volunteers. It is not a queue. Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 11:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

User created pages

Hi, can anyone please tell me how I can find all the pages created by a particular user in an organized manner? I am really in need of it. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 12:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

This tool will do it, just insert the username in question. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 12:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Reverts

Die <- (Personal attack removed) --Johannnes89 (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC) macht gerade alle meine Bearbeitungen in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia zunichte.--Helmut Hoppenstedt (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I try to explain it in English: <- (Personal attack removed) [people] --Johannnes89 (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC) delete my whole work in the english-speaking Wikipedia.--Helmut Hoppenstedt (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The deletions in "State of Minnesota v. Derek Michael Chauvin" and "Death of Oury Jalloh" have no reason in no way. The only reason for the deletions is the political aim of the "Alternative für Deutschland", nothing else.--Helmut Hoppenstedt (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

hi Helmut Hoppenstedt and welcome to the teahouse! seems like the revert in Death of Oury Jalloh is due to being considered original research and non-neutral, both of which are considered major guidelines in wikipedia, so no the reason for the deletions is not due to political reasons, although i believe Johannnes89 could explain better than me. for Trial of Derek Chauvin, the removal seems to be due to not being relevant to the subject (bringing up a german case in an article about a trial in the united states doesn't really show relevance, even if some details match up).  melecie  t - 14:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

No, you´re wrong: I know Johannnes89 from the German-speaking-Wikipedia. His aim is always purely political, nothing else.--Helmut Hoppenstedt (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Melecie: Multiple sockpuppets of this user have been blocked in deWP for Violations of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR or WP:NPA, see de:Benutzer:Gustav von Aschenbach/Trollinsel#ErwinLindemann.

@Helmut Hoppenstedt next time you insult me or other deWP Users again by falsely calling us members of a far right political party [2][3][4] I will report you for violations of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Johannnes89 (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)--Helmut Hoppenstedt (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Helmut Hoppenstedt: to be clear, this is not the forum for these kinds of accusations, especially without evidence. If you have evidence, you can take them to the Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents(where you should be advised that you will be required to provide your evidence, in the form of diffs, and your behavior will also be examined. But do not repeat them here, or I will block you. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

not sure what the relevance here is -- Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Nicht zuletzt auf der Grundlage der neuesten (Brand-)Gutachten ist die überwiegende Verurteilungswahrscheinlichkeit gegeben, so dass es richtig ist, Mordanklage gegen die beiden beschuldigten Polizeibeamten der Wache in Dessau zu erheben. Aber dazu muss zunächst vom BVerfG die angefochtene Entscheidung des OLG Naumburg im KlEV aufgehoben und die Sache zurückverwiesen werden. Ich halte es sogar für prozessual vertretbar, dass das BVerfG selbst entscheidet und selbst die StA dazu verpflichtet, Mordanklage zu erheben. Denn ich denke auch, dass die Ermittlungen mittlerweile bereits bis zur Anklagereife fortgeschritten sind, so dass von einem weiteren KlEV vor dem OLG Naumburg kein zusätzlicher Erkenntnisgewinn zu erwarten ist. Ich halte es sogar für möglich, dass beim BVerfG nur noch die beiden Alternativen erwogen werden, ob die Sache noch einmal zum OLG Naumburg für ein weiteres KlEV zurückverwiesen werden soll, oder ob das BVerfG die StA bereits selbst zur Anklageerhebung anweisen sollte. Im Rahmen der Erwägungen werden sicher auch die wiederholten Stellungnahmen von Tobias Singelnstein zum Fall Oury Jalloh eine nicht ganz unerhebliche Rolle spielen: Tobias Singelnstein hat sich mit dem Fall Oury Jalloh sehr eingehend befasst und sich wiederholt im Lauf der letzten Jahre für eine Anklageerhebung ausgesprochen. Ich habe mich an Pascal Schellenberg, Pressesprecher des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, gewandt mit der Bitte, die für das Verfahren 2 BvR 378/20, Oury Jalloh, zuständige Kammer auf die vorliegende Diskussion aufmerksam zu machen. Es könnte sich nämlich eine Änderung der Rspr. des BVerfG betreffend das KlEV und das EEV ergeben, als Astrid Wallrabenstein an Stelle von Doris König neu in die Kammer eingetreten ist, die nach der Geschäftsverteilung des BVerfG für sämtliche Fälle des KlEV und des EEV zuständig ist. Es wäre nicht das erste Mal, dass ein Besetzungswechsel zu einer Änderung der Rspr. führte. Meine Argumentation können Sie auch in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia nachlesen unter "Talk: Tod von Oury Jalloh →Bundesverfassungsgericht, Verfahren 2 BvR 378/20, Oury Jalloh". Im Anschluss an die angeregte Diskussion um die aktuelle Entscheidung des Sächsischen Verfassungsgerichtshofs wollte ich Ihnen noch die Grundlagen des „Anspruch auf Strafverfolgung Dritter“ nahebringen: Den Wikipedia-Artikel „Anspruch auf Strafverfolgung Dritter“ legte ich seinerzeit am 25.9.2015 neu an. Insbesondere arbeitete ich darin ein die Entscheidung "Münchner Lokalderby" des BVerfG vom 23.3.2015. Diese Entscheidung firmiert auch unter der Chiffre "Blocksperre". Während eines Lokalderbys zwischen den 60ern und den Bayern war es zu Zuschauerausschreitungen gekommen. Die Polizei schritt ein, verhängte eine sog. "Blocksperre" und verletzte dabei einige Fußballzuschauer leicht. Die Fußballzuschauer erstatteten daraufhin Strafanzeige wegen Körperverletzung gegen die Polizisten, das BVerfG bejahte den „Anspruch auf Strafverfolgung Dritter“. An diesem Beispiel sieht man, dass es für den „Anspruch auf Strafverfolgung Dritter“ bereits ausreicht, dass Amtsträger überhaupt irgendeiner Straftat verdächtigt werden, die sie begangen haben sollen. "Der Beschwerdeführer rügt eine Verletzung des Art. 38 Satz 1 SächsVerf. Das Oberlandesgericht habe durch ein zu enges Verständnis der Antragsbefugnis aus § 172 Abs. 1 Satz 1 StPO die verfassungsrechtlichen Wertungen des Grundrechts auf effektiven Rechtsschutz aus Art. 38 Satz 1 SächsVerf verkannt. Dabei gewähre Art. 38 Satz 1 SächsVerf selbst keine materiellen Rechte, sondern setze deren Bestehen vielmehr voraus. Ein solches subjektives Recht läge hier im verfassungsrechtlich verankerten Anspruch auf effektive Strafverfolgung aus Art. 3 Abs. 3 SächsVerf. Zwar wirke das Rechtsstaatsgebot grundsätzlich nur objektiv, jedoch mache das Bundesverfassungsgericht in ständiger Rechtsprechung für die vergleichbare Vorschrift des Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG für die Fälle eine Ausnahme, bei denen der Vorwurf im Raum stehe, dass Amtsträger bei der Wahrnehmung hoheitlicher Aufgaben Straftaten begangen haben. Insoweit habe das Bundesverfassungsgericht das Rechtsstaatgebot „subjektiv-rechtlich aufgeladen“ und für die Erstatter von Strafanzeigen gegen Amtsträger ein eigenes Recht abgeleitet. Die Geschäftsführung der ZEV GmbH durch die Oberbürgermeisterin von Z. stelle sich als Wahrnehmung hoheitlicher Aufgaben durch eine Amtsträgerin dar. Dem Beschwerdeführer als Erstatter einer Strafanzeige gegen die Oberbürgermeisterin wegen Handlungen als Aufsichtsratsvorsitzende der ZEV GmbH stehe daher ein Anspruch auf effektive Strafverfolgung zu." Tröstlich immerhin, dass der Sächsische Verfassungsgerichtshof in seiner Entscheidung vom 9.9.2021 2021_027_IV.pdf (sachsen.de) dieselben Entscheidungen des BVerfG heranzieht, die ich auch schon vor sechs Jahren in meinem Aufsatz herangezogen habe, vor allem die Entscheidungen in den Fällen Tennessee Eisenberg und Unfall auf der Gorch Fock. Ach, vielleicht war mein Aufsatz doch nicht so schlecht gewesen, was meinen Sie? Und dann gibt es natürlich Fälle, in denen ein Gericht, in diesem Fall der Sächsische Verfassungsgerichtshof mit seiner Entscheidung vom 9.9.2021, den Anspruch auf Strafverfolgung Dritter mit Füßen tritt: 2021_027_IV.pdf (sachsen.de). Es würde mich nicht wundern, wenn auf diese Nachricht hin bei den wenigen verbliebenen Wikipedianern im Bereich Recht eine hektische Betriebsamkeit hinsichtlich der Überarbeitung des Artikels "Anspruch auf Strafverfolgung Dritter" ausbrechen würde. Ich denke, es kann auch nicht lange dauern, bis der bezahlte Troll hier aufschlägt und mein "völlig fehlendes Rechtsverständnis" rügt. Und vom Sachverhalt her scheint das eine Geschichte nach dem Strickmuster gewesen zu sein: Die Öffentliche Hand hat gepfuscht, das wurde mit vereinten Kräften unter den Teppich gekehrt, schließlich hat auch der Verfassungsgerichtshof seine schützende Hand drübergehalten, das Übliche, überhaupt kein Grund zur Aufregung. Aber zurück zum Fall Oury Jalloh: Die Tatsache, dass Oury Jalloh von Polizeibeamten, also von Amtsträgern, ermordet wurde, sollte für den "Anspruch auf Strafverfolgung Dritter" der Hinterbliebenen reichen, was meinen Sie? Sagen Sie mal, Herr Kollege, im Auskunftserzwingungsverfahren gibt es doch auch eine Mündliche Verhandlung und richterliche Hinweise, so wie in jedem anderen Prozess auch? Ich frage Sie, weil, wissen Sie, da gibt es eine Parallele, rudimentär geregelt in den §§ 172 ff StPO, mit der ich mich schon länger beruflich beschäftige, da kann man als Antragsteller auch etwas "erzwingen", nämlich alternativ (weitere) strafrechtliche Ermittlungen gegen einen Beschuldigten oder sogar eine Anklageerhebung gegen einen Angeklagten. Deswegen fände ich es ganz interessant zu wissen, wie denn die Parallele im Auskunftserzwingungsverfahren prozessual ausgestaltet ist. Der Beschluss des BayObLG, 20.09.2021 - 101 ZBR 134/20 - dejure.org gehört zu den zur Zeit meistgesuchten Entscheidungen des BayObLG. Ich gehe davon aus, dass dieses Auskunftserzwingungsverfahren auf einer gesetzlichen Grundlage basierte und die Richter des BayObLG nicht nur auf der Grundlage eines "pflichtgemäßen Ermessens" prozessierten. Das gerichtliche Verfahren, in dem ein Auskunftserzwingungsverfahren ausgefochten wird, wird bei "Rechtsbehelfe im Auskunftserzwingungsverfahren - (goingpublic.de)" instruktiv erläutert. Es ist eben, im Gegensatz zum KlEV und zum EEV, ein rechtsstaatlich korrektes Verfahren auf einer gesetzlichen Grundlage, wie es sich eben für einen Rechtsstaat gehört. Was ich mich schon länger frage: Das KlEV und das EEV gibt es seit 1877 (KlEV) bzw. seit 1980 (EEV). Beide Verfahren sind nicht ganz so entlegen wie das Auskunftserzwingungsverfahren. Der Beschluss des BayObLG, 20.09.2021 - 101 ZBR 134/20 ist auch ganz brav nach einem korrekten gerichtlichen Verfahren auf einer gesetzlichen Grundlage, dem FamFG, ergangen. Dann frage ich mich, wieso es noch niemandem sonst, außer mir, aufgefallen ist, dass das KlEV und das EEV, das ohnehin nur eine Instanz lang dauert, seit 1877 bzw. seit 1980 bisher noch nie auf irgendeiner gesetzlichen Grundlage durchgeführt wurde, sondern immer nur auf der "Grundlage" des "pflichtgemäßen Ermessens." Ich stelle drei Fälle vor: 1) Das KlEV am Beispiel des Falles Oury Jalloh 2) Die Wiederaufnahme des Falles Manfred Genditzki und schließlich 3) Mein eigener Fall, meine Schadensersatzklage gegen den Freistaat Bayern vor dem Landgericht München I. Ich gehe davon aus, dass Henning Ernst Müller lesen kann. Dann liest also Henning Ernst Müller, dass hier die Fälle Oury Jalloh, Manfred Genditzki und mein Fall abgehandelt werden. Was haben diese drei Fälle gemeinsam? Nun, es handelt sich in jedem der drei Fälle um einen handfesten Justizskandal. Nun wird sich Henning Ernst Müller vielleicht fragen: Was geht mich das an? Nun, Herr Professor, ich finde schon, dass es Sie etwas angeht, wenn es um einen handfesten Justizskandal geht, und das auch noch sozusagen im Dreierpack. Da finde ich es, wenn Sie mir die Bemerkung untertänigst gestatten wollen, Herr Professor, ein ganz klein wenig unfein, derart angestrengt wegzugucken, wie Sie das, im übrigen schon seit Jahren, tun. Über ein neues Gutachten, das zum wiederholten Male unter Beweis stellt, dass den beiden beschuldigten Polizeibeamten der Mord an Oury Jalloh nachweisbar ist, berichtet die taz in einem aktuellen Artikel. Auf diesen Artikel hatte heute auch schon die LTO-Presseschau verlinkt. Der Fall Oury Jalloh scheint sich also allgemeiner Popularität zu erfreuen. Das kann man im übrigen auch aus den dauerhaft hohen Einschaltquoten des einschlägigen Wikipedia-Artikels ablesen. Vgl. im übrigen auch Fall Oury Jalloh: Neues Gutachten nährt alte Zweifel | tagesschau.de.

--Helmut Hoppenstedt (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Support for editing and resubmiting a declined article

Hello Sir, My article submission has been declined on 1 October 2021 by by User:Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla and when I was trying to discuss the issues with User:Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan I was again blocked chatting with User:Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan by User:Extraordinary Writ.

I am looking forward for support in re-editing and resubmiting my declined article. Kindly see the link of my article Vishuddhalive (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anand_Bal

Thank you Vishuddhalive (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Although KBP's account has been indefinitely blocked, the reasons for the Decline may have been valid. You had done only a minor edit to Draft:Anand Bal since the Oct 1st Declined. Much of the content lacks references. David notMD (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Talk pages

How are you supposed to reply to them? Einheit947 (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Einheit947: You can reply a message by clicking the [reply] button normally. But in source mode, you can use colons (:). See WP:TPG for more. Richard M William (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Pruning edit history to a specific section of a Wikipedia Article

I am trying to learn techniques that will allow me to figure out who wrote/edited specific sections of an article. For example before I make modifications to: Orson Scott Card#American politics I need to see how and why that section got to be there in the first place.

Any help would be appreciated. Annette Maon (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Annette Maon By going to View history of any article, one can look back at chronological changes. Editors' edit summaries and size of their additions (green numbers) can indicate when a new part of an article appeared. This can be checked by clicking on dates within View history to confirm when the text in question was added. This is a blunt force approach, as it does not address your request for a filter that would identify edits pertaining to one section of an article. David notMD (talk) 12:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Using the method I described for your specific question, editor Rachel Helps (BYU) created the Themes section in February 2020. On Nov 9, 2020, she created the subsection American Politics. She added to it during the (failed) Good Article nomination review in Jan/Feb 2021. She may be the only editor majorly involved with the Themes section. David notMD (talk) 12:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Annette Maon there is a tool called WP:WikiBlame that's available on the top left of the history tab of any article, where it is activated with the "Find addition/removal" link. Read the documentation carefully before using it and then you'll discover it can be a rapid way to seek out specific edits: much faster than going through the edit history manually in articles with a long history. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Michael D. Turnbull Thanks, this looks like what I was asking for

David notMD User:Rachel Helps (BYU) rearranged the whole article when she attempted to bring it to GA status but I doubt that she wrote the actual text for two reasons:

1. The quality of her own contributions is usually much better than that section.
2. Some of the discussions in the talk page archives indicate it was even worse before she got involved.

Your response highlights the problems I am having beyond this specific example. I am trying to develop skills that allow me to go beyond the limits of the blunt force method which is the reason I am looking for a filter or other tool(s) that will allow me to follow the evolution of the text. Annette Maon (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

26 February 2020, Rachel's Edit summary "added themes section" 9 November 2020 "moved two paragraphs from "views" to "themes"; added paragraph on homosexuality in Card's works." That includes the creation of the American politics subsection. David notMD (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone. If I remember correctly, the section of American Politics under "themes" used to be included in the discussion of his views. I remember it being a bit longer. Without going back to the edit history to check, I'd say that I condensed the existing summary of the controversial essay and put it in with "themes" (since it was about his writing). I didn't want other editors to feel like I was silencing them, so I didn't want to remove that part altogether. If you look back on the discussion of the page, you can see that slimvirgin, an editor who has since died, was really unsatisfied with my work there and wanted more discussion of the speculative essay where Card described Obama as "articulate." I added the paragraph on Empire because it was a a work that had strong political themes. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Use of image in an article

Would a screen shot of a page from an 1890s trade catalogue (https://archive.org/details/waltermacfarlaneco.vol11890s/page/n237/mode/2up) be acceptable?BFP1 (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC) BFP1 (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

From a copyright perspective, yes: it was published before 1926, so it's public domain in the United States, and while the author isn't specified, given that it was published in the 1890s the illustrator has almost certainly been dead for 70 years, so it's safe to assume that it's in the public domain in Scotland too. Whether it's appropriate in context depends on the article you wish to use it in. Vahurzpu (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@BFP1: The URL you linked confirms that the copyright is Public Domain 1, so that's fine. However a screenshot may not be a good idea as the resolution won't be very good. As far as I can see, the options for a proper download include an enormous .tar file (over 2 Gb) but the best may be the 7.8 Mb ABBYY .gz file, provided you have the correct software locally to unzip this. For upload to Commons, you'll need to convert to .jpg (or .png) somehow. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Contributions reverted

Hi. I made 100 contributions and they have almost all been reverted and I do not understand the reason why? There doesn't appear to be an explanation. Could someone please advise to me why this has happened and why this is okay? I have spent a lot of time making these changes and it doesn't seem at all right as the information I have submitted is valid and fact checked. Thanks! Theoutside29 (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Theoutside29: I am not an expert in the subject area, but the reverts seem to be related to the addition of a "tyre" column, which SSSB has called unnecessary on your talk page (click here for link). —AFreshStart (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@AFreshStart: Thanks AFreshStart - do I have right of reply? I saw SSSB's advice but took heed of it and did what he suggested so I am confused. (click here for link). —User:Theoutside29 (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Theoutside29: Yep, you can reply to their comment if you want to ask any questions about the advice they gave (or you can reply to simply acknowledge that you will heed their advice and thank them for it). ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: Thanks The Wolf - to reply to SSSB's comment do I just "Edit source" next to it? Also, I don't know SSSB is the individual who undid my work. It just says an IP address next to it and I am not sure how to send this person a message? (click here for link). —User:Theoutside29 (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Theoutside29: _{I'd prefer to be called Blaze but it's your choice} Yep that's exactly what you do. To ensure they're notified you can use the {{ping}} template by writing {{ping|SSSB}} and it'll notify them of your reply. With an IP you can leave a message on their talk page, however there's no guarantee that they'll see it due to IPs appearing to not receive notifications about talk page messages. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: Thanks very much Blaze - I'm very new to this but you've been very helpful :) (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Theoutside29: Glad I could help! _{Also just a reminder but it's only 4 ~ to sign. 5 only adds a timestamp.} ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I see on your talk page you pinged them, but also added the one with no wiki and code tags. Those aren't necessary to ping them, although I think I understand how you got them (you copied how I wrote it and it said that there was Wiki markup and asked if you would like it to be applied and you said yes, but don't worry it still appears to have worked). ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Article issue

Hello, I have an article waiting in the AFC queue, where I´d like to use a picture under the fair use- policy. When I incorporate this picture in the article, it gets deleted by a bot because I can only use this picture in articles. But I can´t let it stand as an orphan, because then it gets flagged for deletion. What can I do to break out of this vicious circle? Andde14 (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Andde14 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Non-free images cannot be in drafts; this is why it was removed. Fair use images are not "free" images. Your draft must be accepted as an article before such an image can be placed in it. You will need to wait until then. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Will it possible to reupload the picture when it gets deleted before my article is accepted? Andde14 (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

It should be, yes. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I have to disagree with 331dot, Andde14. Non-free images may not be in Wikipedia unless they are used in at least one article (NFCC criterion 7), and may be used only in articles (criterion 9). It follows that if it is a non-free image, you should not upload it until your draft has been accepted as an article. --ColinFine (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

ColinFine is correct, I did not write my post correctly. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

How to secure data in Live mode from error in editing and with the possibility of withdrawing without saving every few seconds?

I want to edit a complex table in Wikipedia with dynamic data, I do not want to save her every 5 seconds to have the opportunity to return in case of errors .. In another situation, one error is enough in one cell and I can lose all data .. :-(

Is it not better to do it on the source code? In the text editor, which work better than the Live mode of the edition.

As you advise you, it's serious wikipedia restrictions ..

regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 17jugi (talk • contribs) 12:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, 17jugi, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean by "live mode" or "dynamic data", so I don't understand what your problem is. Please give more information, or at least tell us which article you are talking about. --ColinFine (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

First Article Review/Publish

Hello!

I submitted this article back in July:

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

I was curious if this is still in the queue to get reviewed, or if there's something else I need to do before it can be reviewed for publishing on the site. Please let me know, thank you! Stokeslahoma (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Your draft Draft:A Township Tale has not been submitted for review, you need to click the submit button. Theroadislong (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Stokeslahoma: you didn't submit it for review, though I have added the appropriate information to allow you to do so. Please be aware of 2 things: 1) The "publish changes" button should be understood as "save changes", not "publish this to the encyclopedia". It was renamed to this a few years ago to remind everyone that everything here is public, if one knows where to look. 2) AfC submissions it not a queue, but more like a pool, which reviewers review in their (sometimes rare) free time. It could take anything from a couple seconds to (sadly) months, so please be patient. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I had no idea I hadn't officially submitted, thank you for posting instructions! Just sent it in, and I understand it could take a bit before someone reviews.

Thanks again!

Stokeslahoma (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Stokeslahoma: The article was declined (not by me), because it doesn't have any reviews. Don't get discouraged. Simply go through a few of the reviews and collect some general info to start a "Reception" section at the bottom. There are some good and bad reviews - strive for balance. You can use this section as an example of tone and content Halo (franchise)#Reception and critical response. Good luck. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

repeated sabotage of a page

hello everyone recently a user has tried to add a controversy section to the page: Our Lady of Fátima

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_F%C3%A1tima#CITEREFDe_Marchi1952a

the problem is that the sources they are using are flimsy at best, a book written 40 years after the fact through here say interviews, and to add insult to injury the editor does not faithfully relate what is in the book, for example the book states that the children of Fatima practiced fasting and contrition, so the editor changed that to "the children committed suicide by starving themself" and that summarizes every point in their controversy section, it is no more than cherry picking, personal opinions and taking statements out of context, in fact no a single authority on the subject ever claimed such points as controversy in the last 100 years or so, i tried to reason with the editor but they are being very stubborn and childish. please help with this issue Fadi153 (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Talk it out on the talk page. I've sent the article to WP:RPP to stop the edit-war. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 16:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The user has been given a final warning for WP:NOR. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie

why would i receive the final warning?i tried to reason with Spyrazzle, point by point, his editing of the page page is no more then personal opinions and interpretations of some flimsy sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadi153 (talk • contribs)

@Fadi153: Reason of reverting your edits has already been given. But do not do this edit war again. Otherwise, you'll be blocked without further warning. Richard M William (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

i have written this in the talk section, i believe my points are very reasonable, if the editor Spyrazzle does not make the changes would you all be kind enough to step in???

the controversy section is very misleading, all of your points come from de marchi's book which IS a flimsy source and to add insult to injury you add your twist and interpretations to his words, you are not dealing in good faith, only interested in adding your personal displeasure of the apparitions and make it seem as a legit controversial points when they are not, fasting becomes suicide, a nightmare becomes demon possession, acts of contrition becomes self harm, and finally and unsubstantiated claim about an unfulfilled prophecy about ww1 taken from de marchi's book, and never ever mentioned in the thousands of other sources on the subject, i tried to explain to you that people faith and beliefs are issues that you should not troll, but you still show your deep bigotry. to summarize, unless you can find another respectable source beside an out of print book written by here say accounts after 40 years from the events then you need to drastically change the controversy section,all entries frm de marchi's book ned o be scraped or at least do the following: change the language, don't write the statement as matter of fact, write de marchi wrote in his book that people he interviewed claimed so and so, keep in mind he never interviewed any of the children even lucia who was almost impossible to get access to her during her life, and yet you claim de marchi as a close friend of hers which is not true. you can keep the entries from lucias memoirs about the blood on the penitence cords, keep it word for word and do not add your spin to it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadi153 (talk • contribs)

Courtesy notice - both edit warring parties have been temporarily blocked. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Large changes to an article -- better to break up by section, or include in one talk post?

I am looking to make some requested edits to the solar simulator article, and have a large number of suggestions. My question is whether or not I should make all of these requested edits in a single talk page post, or if I should break it up into sections or other logical breaks so they are easier to review / discuss / approve piecemeal. FreshAlien (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd create a main (:L2) section (==(megathread)==)on the talk page, and then have each change under its own :L3 subsection (===(subject)===). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Great suggestion, thank you! FreshAlien (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Deletion Template

I have corrected a typo in a copyright tag of an image. How do I remove the deletion template for this image entitled 'Railing design No 830 as shown in the Illustrated Catalogue of Macfarlane's Castings published in the 1890s' in the article entitled 'Saracen Foundry'. BFP1 (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC) BFP1 (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Saracen Foundry § Piece dispersal and commons:File:Railing design No 830 as shown in the Illustrated Catalogue of Macfarlane's Castings published in the 1890s.png

It looks like you have correctly added the {{PD-US-expired}} licence information to the file in Commons so you should be able to remove the template in Commons. (But I am not an authority on Commons or copyright.) ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 23:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Adding online source accessed at different times

Hi there, I'm considering adding a website citation twice in one article, referencing that it showed different information at one time than another.

For context, this is LARES (satellite), and I'd like to cite a website, https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/ that previously (as accessed by another editor for the article in September 2020) listed the LARES 2 spacecraft as being launched in 2021, but on May 13th, 2021 was updated to indicate it's updated launch schedule of early 2022.

How would I go about including this information (as the cited website does not list previous revisions)? Should I include an archived link to the article? Would this create a duplicate citation?

The initial launch date has another citation, so I'd be comfortable dropping the launch schedule webpage for the first date if need be. Goshawksonlyfly (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Does the Wayback Machine or one of the other WEBARCHIVES have copies of the launch schedule for these dates? If so, I think you can use {{Cite web}} to reference unique archive dates for the same web source. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 23:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

How do I check that my article has submitted correctly and is on the list for review?

I'm very grateful to those who advised me that my draft article did not appear to be on the list for review, ie not correctly submitted. How can I check that submissions have made it onto the review list? Thanks NeilWells (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

NeilWells Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As indicated at the top of your draft(Draft:Signature (typography journal)), you have successfully submitted it. 331dot (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I must confess that looks no different to what I saw previously. NeilWells (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The Categories box at the bottom also shows it as submitted again. David notMD (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

It's only now that I'm seeing this question for the first time, NeilWells. Having (a little reluctantly) declined your first submission of Draft:Signature (typography journal), I was happy, an hour or so ago, to notice that it had been much improved. I thereupon accepted it. Welcome to Wikipedia! But do note that the article still has "citation needed" flags. See if you can provide these citations. -- Hoary (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of bio page

How do we delete a page? Alan H. Fein (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

What page? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Alan H. Fein, live biographies on the Wiki are generally not deleted unless there is a very good reason for doing so (for example, if the subject is non-notable or it is an attack page). Specifying which page would be helpful. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 21:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

As to the process, articles can be nominated for deletion via several paths, but for all, the decision rests in the hands of an Administrator. David notMD (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion explains how to start the process of deletion. Be sure to read it very carefully. -- Hoary (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Tool for finding all archived links?

Is there a tool that will search through an article and insert an archived link from Wayback Machine for each citation? Platonk (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Platonk: You might find some good info on this page Help:Using the Wayback Machine#Browser add-ons and apps TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot may be what you're after. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 23:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, ClaudineChionh, that was just the tool I was looking for. It seems to have a few quirks in the results, but nothing that couldn't be cleaned up easier than looking up a whole page of citations at archive.org/web. Thank you. Platonk (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Platonk: Yep, it's definitely a time-saver, but like most automated tools, still needs to be checked. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 00:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Close Connection Message Issue / Resolution

Hello, I am new to the Teahouse. An article on Byron Adams for which I was a major contributor has been flagged as potentially having a non-neutral point of view. The only thing I could see in the article that may have flagged this was the description of his professor rank, which is called distinguished professor. I have edited this for clarity. Other phrases I have used, such as "Equally appreciated for his work as a musicologist" I believed were supported by the referenced and cited honors, awards, and offices Adams has held. Could an editor have a look at this article to see if any issues have been rectified, or point to any outstanding issues that should be resolved? I would like the article to be improved so that the template can be removed. Thank you in advance for any assistance. Vivwest (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Vivwest: The tag on the article is COI, not NPOV. The question you must answer is, what is your association with Byron Adams? You need to disclose that publicly, preferably on your user page. You have already claimed to be his photographer in the image file, so there is an association. A conflict of interest (COI) must be declared. And editors with a COI should generally avoid editing articles on topics with which they have a COI, if the article is in article space (in Draft space, it's fine). ~Anachronist (talk) 01:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Thank you for your reply. The image file must be tagged incorrectly, as I was not the photographer. I'm not sure how to change this but I will look into it. I do know Mr. Adams; I contributed to the already existing article as it lacked a significant amount of information and performed all of the research to properly cite the information. I will look up how to declare this on my user page. Please feel free to advise further, I appreciate your assistance. Vivwest (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Vivwest: The page File:Byron Adams.png says the source is "own work". It also says the author is Byron Adams. It can't be both, and I suspect it's neither, because it seems unlikely that Byron Adams is the photographer. It doesn't look like a selfie. Generally the subject of a photograph doesn't own the copyright, the photographer owns it. Either the photograph must be deleted or the copyright holder (the photographer, not Byron Adams) must release the photo to the Wikimedia Foundation under an acceptable free license. See WP:CONSENT to learn what communication needs to happen. If the photographer transferred the copyright to Byron Adams, then Byron Adams would need to furnish documentation.

To declare a conflict of interest, simply write a sentence or two on User:Vivwest describing your association. If you are being paid to write or maintain that article, see WP:PAID for disclosure instructions (particularly if you are being paid, the disclosure is mandatory as you entered into a legally binding agreement to disclose any paid editing when you created your account on Wikipedia). ~Anachronist (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: thank you for your continued help as I want to correct any issues with this article under me. I have added a statement to my [page] under disclosures. Would you be so kind as to see if I have done what is necessary? I am also working to resolve the issue with the photo so the correct information is displayed. Would an email from the photographer stating that all copyright permissions are released to Mr. Adams suffice? Am I allowed to upload a new photo with correct information if necessary? Thank you I appreciate your guidance. Vivwest (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Vivwest: Your disclosure on your user page is fine. You can correct the information in the picture and have the copyright holder follow the instructions in WP:CONSENT. Do you know who took the photograph? Or, you can upload a photograph that you created yourself. If you take the picture, you are the copyright holder, and you can then release the photograph to the Wikimedia Foundation. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Thank you so much for taking a look at the disclosure. I do not know who took the photograph and I think Mr. Adams was under the impression that he owned it but cannot confirm. I can remove it, and there is another photo that he is the copyright holder of for sure that can replace this. To make sure this is done following proper procedure: can I take care of releasing the rights for him on his behalf using the Wikimedia Commons VRT release generator, upload the new photo through Wikimedia Commons on his behalf, and replace the photo in his article to rectify this? I have his written permission to do so - I just want to ensure I am not doing something that goes against the integrity of the process. Thank you so much for your help. I am happy to be closer to resolving any concerns with the article. Vivwest (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Vivwest: Again, if he is the subject of the photograph, he likely didn't take the picture unless it's really a "selfie". Otherwise, unless he has documentation from the photographer who did take the picture showing a transfer of copyright, he is not the copyright holder. The communication has to come from the copyright holder or an authorized agent. If you have written permission to use the picture, that doesn't mean the Wikimedia Foundation has permission. The permission you were given means nothing without a release under a license. The photograph cannot be used with a notification of "permission to use on Wikipedia", it must be released under an acceptable free license or declared as public domain by the copyright holder. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Yes - the picture was taken by a friend of Mr. Adams who has now given Mr. Adams written consent of copyright, so Mr. Adams does indeed own the copyright to that particular picture now. Since that is the case, would I able to now give the Wikimedia Foundation permission on Mr. Adams's behalf? Vivwest (talk) 07:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Vivwest: Yes, that should be fine. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Thank you - I have uploaded the photo with ensured ownership and replaced the questionable photo (can this be deleted?) with it on the article page, and Mr. Adams is sending the release consent email to the Wikimedia permissions address. Is there anything else that needs to be done before the COI template could be removed? Again, thank you for your ongoing efforts to assist in resolving the issues with this article. You are appreciated! Vivwest (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Byron_Adams.png

Requesting a new article

Hello, thank you for taking the time. I really appreciate Wikipedia and I use it all the time. My question is how to submit an article to be written about a notable person? I am completely lost here, otherwise I would try to write something myself however, I believe it would be a conflict of interest anyway. I'm not even sure if this is the correct place to ask this question and I do apologize if this is the case. Thanks again. Real1penny (talk) 03:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, @Real1penny. I'm happy to hear you use Wikipedia, and even more happy to hear you want to contribute! Here's the steps for requesting an article on Wikipedia.

1. First, check that the article you're looking for doesn't already exist:

• Search Wikipedia (or use a search engine) for existing articles. If an article exists, but not at the title you expected, you can create a redirect.
• Check your spelling.
• Articles generally use the most common name for the subject. This may not be the official name, scientific name, or another name you have in mind.

2. Next, be sure the article is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Articles must be about notable topics: those that have received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. We have a fairly precise definition of what is considered a "reliable source", as well as detailed inclusion guidelines.

3. Next, search the existing article requests at Wikipedia:Requested articles to make sure your subject is not already listed.

4. Now choose an appropriate general topic area from the list at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Choose the best sub-topic that fits your subject, and use that link to go to its page. Add your request there by clicking "edit" at the appropriate heading. Give a brief description, with links if possible, for the proposed topic, to aid others in understanding your request.

If you have any questions about this process, please feel free to ask! ––FormalDude ^talk 03:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

MOS related questions

Article link: Tulsi Gowda. I have two questions related to the said article. 1- Recently someone added that she is also know as the Encyclopedia of forest. Can this be said in Wikipedia's own voice or should I add double or single quotes (I'm not sure) to it? 2- It is also added in the Title parameter of the infobox, which is incorrect per template docs. Can this be added in some other parameter? Eevee01^(talk) 17:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Eevee01: For #1, I just changed it to match the sourcing. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Eevee01: For #2, you can use the parameter other_names. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Timtempleton Thank You. I've changed the parameter to other_names. Eevee01^(talk) 04:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

How do I find citations?

I want to help with finding citations, but I don't know where to find them. Any help? HelixxUnderscore (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Find sources offers some general advice, and if the article you're working on belongs to one or more WikiProjects, those can be helpful places to find or ask about more specific sources. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 04:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Inquiry about pending article list

hello everyone! i hope you all are having a nice day as its children's day today. i am Stobene45 I have a small question, where can I find the list of pending article topics? And please tell if there are any errors in my format. thankyou Stobene45Stobene45 (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Stobene45 (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Stobene45, Hello. You can find the list of pending article list in Category:AfC pending submissions by age. Thank you. Richard M William (talk) 06:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

thankyou soo much Richard M William. Can you also tell about the requested article list? thankyou 9Stobene45 (Stobene45) — Preceding undated comment added 07:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Stobene45: there is a list at Wikipedia:Requested_articles. Unfortunately potential new articles can linger on that list for ever, because no one is obliged to write them. If you want to have a go, there will be plenty of grateful people! Elemimele (talk) 10:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Elemimele thankyou soo much for help. I will try to help as much as possible :) Stobene45 (Stobene45) — Preceding undated comment added 06:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Sebastian Mikosz

Hi. I want to get a clearer understanding for the eligibility criteria for a Wiki entry. I have submitted an entry on Sebastian Mikosz, who is the EVP of Environment at the International Air Transport Association. He is a former CEO of Polish LOT airlines and Kenya Airways. He has been credited with helping return both airlines to profitability. The sources I quoted were interviews and news articles in the Financial Times, Reuters and the Associated Press. I also work as a consultant for IATA so it is part of my job to try and establish a Wiki page for him. Before IATA I was a journalist for more than 30 years including 18 years at CNN. I believe that he is a worthy enough candidate for a Wiki page, with strong media coverage to back it up. The last comment was that the subject (Sebastian) was basically not worthy of an entry. I respect the editor's decision but would like to know why. Kind regards. Andrew Astevens888 (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC) Astevens888 (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Astevens888 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you have not already, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures you must make.

Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". This is a subtle but important distinction. Interviews and press releases do not establish notability as Wikipedia defines a notable person. What is needed are independent reliable sources that are not based on the subject's own words or any other materials put out by them(or their organization). Company CEOs are often notable, but not always- there must be significant coverage of them in independent reliable sources. Your draft was rejected, meaning that it won't be considered anymore, because the reviewer felt that the likelihood of such sources was low. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Astevens888. Please also consider the fact that if at some point Wikipedia has an article about Mikosz (whoever writes it), the article will not belong to him, will not be for his benefit, will not be under his or your control, will not necessarily contain what you or he would like it to contain, and should be almost entirely based on what people unconnected with him have chosen to publish about him, good or bad, not on what he or his associates say or want to say. --ColinFine (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Astevens888, the references in your draft that display properly as online references are bare URLs, which are unsightly, confusing and make verification difficult. Some of your references are formatted in such a strange way that they do not even show URLs. Please read Referencing for beginners, and reformat your references so that each and every one of them displays correct bibliographic information and links to websites when they exist. This is especially important for the references that would verify that he was the CEO of LOT and Kenya Airways, since those positions are his most plausible claim of notability. As for your long career, that is very nice and congratulations. But it means very little here on Wikipedia. What matters here is the quality of your contributions to this encyclopedia, and to be frank, your references are all botched up. Please fix them and then ask here for another look. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

How to create an archive of my talk page?

 Excellenc1 (talk) 07:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: Ask and you shall receive. Please see Help:Archiving a talk page. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Notability question, academic/lawyer Draft:Priti_Krishtel

I submitted this article for review Draft:Priti_Krishtel

I stated that I think she is notable in the normal way, but also notable due to criteria 7 of WP:ACADEMIC. If I am correct about the former, I may be over-complicating it by mentioning the later. There is a short discussion at Draft_talk:Priti_Krishtel where the reviewer and I discuss and they suggest I write here to get more experienced reviewer's eye on this. CT55555 (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@CT55555: A quick glance at the sourcing suggests that your draft would benefit from having one or two more in-depth profiles of Krishtel. The sources you added appear to be more about her initiatives than her. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Declined entry

_{Added header ― Blaze The Wolf^TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)}

Can you explain to me why the entry I submitted "Historical Bioarchaeology" was declined as not worthy of being a separate article, while for example the entry "Medieval bioarchaeology", is sufficient for a separate article?

Thank you in advance! Anna karligkioti (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Historical bioarchaeology Karenthewriter (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Anna karligkioti: There was an earlier discussion to merge Medieval bioarcheaology and bioarcheology Talk:Bioarchaeology#Proposed merge with Medieval bioarchaeology, but the consensus seemed to be to do nothing. I think there's just too much content specific to the medieval branch, so a "fork" was justified. Perhaps start a discussion at Talk:Bioarchaeology, or see if you can merge your draft into the main article. If it doesn't work, then a fork will make sense. BTW - many of us are OCD pedants here, so I went through your draft and fixed the title headers and fixed the order of the punctuation and ref tags. Ref tags come after punctuation. Good luck! TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much Tim! I will try to do my best! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna karligkioti (talk • contribs) 08:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Question

There is a draft of an article in the English Wikipedia (see this [5]. It was declined previously because it was in Bengali language. I am a Bengali, and my native language is also Bengali. It is someone's article, but I want to translate the article, and then resubmit the article in AFC. What is the most correct and legal way to do the same? Itcouldbepossible (talk) 07:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Itcouldbepossible. Although this specific situation is unusual, the general principles described at Wikipedia:Translation apply. You are responsible for proper attribution, for checking that the cited sources actually verify the content, that the topic meets the English Wikipedia's notabilty guidelines, and the accuracy of the translation although you can make justifiable changes to the content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible, Hello! It is perfectly "legal" for you to edit drafts like these and submit them for review when you think they're ready. "Draft:" drafts are open for everybody like articles, but "User:" drafts are not. However, it could be polite to ask the creator of draft first, but there is no guarantee they will see your question soon or at all. WP:BOLD is fine.

My advice is to first collect the sources that would make this topic meet WP:GNG, without them the article won't be accepted in mainspace. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Well can I move that draft to my sandbox, and then edit it?Itcouldbepossible (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible No, just edit it where it is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Ok, thank you for your suggestion. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Status of resubmission

I added a citation to my article on Shmuel Goldin and resubmitted. Where do I check the status of this resubmission? Thanks. Lcurchack (talk) 09:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Lcurchack: Draft:Shmuel Goldin was unsubmitted, but I've now submitted it on your behalf. You can check the draft page anytime to view the status of the review. ––FormalDude ^talk 09:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Bot

How can I create a bot, and help Wikipedia, in keeping vandalism out of sight?? Itcouldbepossible (talk) 09:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: First have a look at the anti-vandalism tools that are already available. Then determine whether you are ready to be a bot operator. If you think you are, then thoroughly read through the bot requests for approval and discussions, and really think about whether you are ready to nominate yourself for this huge responsibility. There are many ways to fight vandalism, most of which don't require advanced privileges. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 10:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Beginner's Query

Hi. I'm completely new to the world of Wikipedia (although I have been watching it with a somewhat passive interest) and I wanted to ask a question based on an 'if'. If I were to create an article and I make sure that it's notable, will it get rejected or accepted? or is there any other policy (There are seemingly a lot of them) that I might not uphold

I will appreciate all ResponsesGuyForceOne (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC). GuyForceOne (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

You mean, if the subject were notable, GuyForceOne? No, that wouldn't guarantee acceptance. Please see Help:YFA. -- Hoary (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Hoary.GuyForceOne (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, GuyForceOne. Determining that the topic is actually notable is the most important first step in creating a new article, but not the only necessary step. The reliable sources devoting significant coverage to the topic need to be converted into informative references, and those refences need to be added to the draft article in the right places . The content of those references needs to be summarized neutrally in the prose that you write, and the summary needs to exclude copyright violations or other violations of policies and guidelines. When all of those factors are taken into consideration when writing a new article, it is highly likely to survive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, GuyForceOne, and welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia. To use an analogy I employ increasingly often, your question is a bit like "I am new to the building trade. If I build a house will it stand up or fall down?" The answer is that if you try that today, it will either fall down, or cost you a lot of pain and more experienced builders a lot of effort, in making it solid. My advice to new editors is always to put aside the idea of creating a new article for at least six months while you "learn the trade". I remember when I was a new editor, and I desperately wanted to "make my mark" by creating a new article; but that is not the only way to add value to Wikipedia, and until you have learnt the trade, it is a particularly poor way to try and do so. --ColinFine (talk) 11:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the response,ColinFine but I feel like you answered my question thinking that I 'WILL' make a new article whereas I based my question on an 'if'. Still, thanks.GuyForceOne (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I think if you are fairly confident that you have a notable subject, you should go ahead and create your article. I created mine when I knew nothing about Wikipedia but there’s many helpful people in the teahouse who helped. I’ve learnt so much writing my first article. Unless you get your hands dirty, you’ll never really learn. I’ve learnt more from my mistakes than what I read up. Unless you’re the kind who can spend a few months taking a course on wikipedia and start right. Elenatina (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I am going to slightly disagree.

if you can accept that your work might disappear [(https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/3/16226038/wikipedia-deleted-wiki-titles-articles 400 articles of all ages are deleted for 800 articles created)] and you think even if it does you will learn things then it's worthwhile. (I can't find the stat or Wikipedia:Articles for Creation stat). Your first articles will take about 4 hours. If you can create a page ,and you don't choose to go through Articles for Creation, then it could be marked for deletion within 5 minutes. After 10 to 20 minutes of AfD editors' times spread over a few days, it could then be deleted in 7 days.

.

Now, if you still want to go ahead, and you have no connection with the subject, then read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion current discussions for awhile, so you can understand how they work, and why they are so distrustful because of the amount of effort some people put into scams and spam.

Good Luck Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Elenatina Can you advise what courses there are on Wikipedia? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response,Elenatina. Your advice has been carefully noted and I also have the time to take a course.GuyForceOne (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_Wikipedia_Articles_course @Wakelamp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elenatina (talk • contribs) 10:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank-you. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Page Statistics

Once I had made the settings, but now I have forgotten it. I had turned it off for some reason. When I used to go to a specific page, it used to give me all the information about that specific page, like who created the page, when was it created, page visits, and more on the top of the page. But now I have forgotten how to make that setting again. Please tell me how to get back that setting. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

That's XTools in the Gadgets panel. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 11:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hi! My question is that after reading the queries on Teahouse, I want to know how do I find the 'substandard' articles. Do I have to manually search for them, or is there another way?( I know this question sounds silly, but responses are appreciated GuyForceOne (talk) 05:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@GuyForceOne: Hello and Welcome to the Teahouse. I have a good news and a bad news about your question. The good news: Many articles with problems are already tagged and appear in subcategories of Category:Wikipedia article cleanup. The bad news: there are still thousands of substandard articles out there that haven't been tagged or improved. Those are a bit trickier to find, as you pretty much have to stumble across them. Victor Schmidt (talk) 05:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi GuyForceOne. Not a silly question, but also not one to easily answer without knowing what you mean by substandard articles. I'm not sure a perfect article exists, but there is a general way of assessing articles as explained here. So, you could look for articles which have a low assessment and then then try and improve them. These assessments (outside of WP:FA and WP:GA articles), however, can be quite subjective and perhaps an article with a low assessment is actually not all that bad at all. There are also lots of article which have been tagged with maintenance templates because someone feels/felt such articles have problems that need addressing, You can find these articles listed in categories like Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month, but you might also try looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors since the members of that WikiProject seem to keep track of articles that need attention. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@GuyForceOne Also, if you want to find an article that has the same kind of problems as one you were just working on, look at the "hidden categories" that are shown at the bottom of the "edit source" page for each article. -- asilvering (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome @GuyForceOne,

I am going to guess and think that you are looking for an area to concentrate on. Personally, I have spent a lot of time randomly reading articles that interested me and correcting them. That made me happy, and now I am off trying to understand why some errors and that made me happy.

I saw on your user page that you are skilled in grammar and you speak a second language. You could have a look at the area below - and if it doesn't work out try somewhere else BUT always try to be doing at least two different things and if you don't like it, or feeling yourself getting upset, then move or stop for awhile

Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English#Translated pages that could still use some cleanup

Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses @Victor Schmidt,@Marchjuly and @Asilvering.GuyForceOne (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@GuyForceOne: One definition of "substandard" is "questionable notability". These would be in Category:All articles with topics of unclear notability or more specifically for this month, Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from November 2021. Article topics with doubtful notability should either be deleted (propose for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) or improved by adding citations to reliable sources that are independent of the article subject.

Another definition of "substandard" might include articles that have been modified by an editor with a conflict of interest (COI), or worse, by an undisclosed paid editor (such editors need to disclose they're being paid, or get blocked). Articles tagged with COI are in Category:Wikipedia articles with possible conflicts of interest or a dated category like the notability one above. Articles tagged with paid editing are in Category:Wikipedia articles with undisclosed paid content or a similar dated category.

I'd consider articles with notability, COI, or paid-editing problems to be a higher priority for cleaning up than articles with cleanup templates. And there are thousands to choose from. Good luck! ~Anachronist (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, User:Anachronist.GFO (talk) 03:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Link to the german-language Wikipedia

Please can you tell me, how can I set a link to the german-language Wikipedia? Thanks a lot.--Helmut Hoppenstedt (talk) 10:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Helmut Hoppenstedt, is Template:Interlanguage link what you're after? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, but only a part of the links to the german-language Wikipedia work as I want them to do.--Helmut Hoppenstedt (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Helmut Hoppenstedt: what do you want to do and what isn't working? ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 11:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I want to put some links to 24 articles in the german-language Wikipedia, which I wrote since 2015. All these links are on my Wikipedia-Homepage. These are all articles concerning german law.--Helmut Hoppenstedt (talk) 11:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Instead of {{ill|Beck-Blog|de| Beck-Blog}} you can just put the direct link de:Beck-Blog and so on. The reason the links are currently showing as red is, of course, because English Wikipedia doesn't have the corresponding articles, so the inter-language link only actually links from the [de] part. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much, I try to do so.--Helmut Hoppenstedt (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Helmut Hoppenstedt@Michael D. Turnbull That is a feature, not a bug. Beck-Blog shows that there is no en-WP article, like a normal redlink, and that there is a de-WP one. If an en-WP article is created, this automatically turns into a normal-looking WP-link. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I did as Mr. Turnbull told me to do and it worked. The other way, see the official side, didn´t work.--Helmut Hoppenstedt (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Most Vandalised Pages

Which pages are the most vandalised on Wikipedia?  Damianlewis21 (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Damianlewis21. Unsurprisingly, that information can be found at Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that page is up to date considering it's a historical and non-functional page. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

What to do about users with promotional or vanity userpages?

Hi,

I've been browsing the user creation log recently, looking for vandalism, and I have come across several users like User:TopViralTrending and User:Exoticanimals1, whose only edits are the creation of a promotional user page. This really seems like it's against the rules. At the very least they are obviously not here to build an encyclopedia and using Wikipedia as a web host, but what do I do about them? Do I report the user on WP:ANI? Is this enough to get them blocked by itself? Do I request speedy deletion of the user page? Do I do both? Do I just not care since the user page won't show up in searches and takes up basically no storage space, so the admins time is better spent on more destructive vandals?

Thanks for any advice! Knuthove (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Knuthove. You are correct in both cases. In the future, promotional usernames should be reported to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. The shortcut is WP:UAA. Please read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion to learn how to tag inappropriate pages for deletion, and the shortcut is WP:CSD. In these cases, G11 is the appropriate tag. I am an administrator and have blocked both accounts and tagged both pages. You may wonder why I didn't just delete those pages. I think it is best to have another administrator involved in these cases, just in case I may have misunderstood the situation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Knuthove. Both of the pages have already been deleted or tagged for deletion by an administrator; so, there's not much to be done with respect to them. For furture reference though, all user pages are expected to comply with WP:UP and those which fall under WP:UP#NOT are generally not considered appropriate. So, the simple answer would be to follow WP:UP#On others' user pages: (1) try and explain the above to the user in question, and then (2) tag the user page for speedy deletion or "fix" the page yourself if the user in question doesn't respond or otherwise does nothing to make their user page policy compliant. However, things aren't always so simple and users are generally given a bit of leeway when it comes to their user pages. For example, more experienced editors who are clearly WP:HERE for reasons other than mucking around on their user page might be given a little more slack when it comes to UP#NO unless the page is really really problematic, whereas the deletion ax tends to more readily fall with respect to newer editors who have very few edits in the WP:MAINSPACE who appear to be more WP:NOTHERE than anything else. Such user pages tend to be more readily tagged for speedy deletion per WP:U5 than perhaps the user pages of more experienced and established editors. Bascially, you sort of have to do a little self-assessing to see what type of editor you're dealing with and then go from there. Such discussions about user pages (particularly user pages of established editors) can become contentious quite quickly and end up creating lots of drama which in the long run might not be to anyone's benefit; so, sometimes simply asking an administrator to take a look first might be a better approach than jumping in with both feet and tagging pages for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for both your replies and the quick blocks! I guess these were pretty obvious, but what about users like User:Ayazayoob.96, User:Systemandpain or User:Dj Banx? My guess is that I should request CSD for the user page of the first one under "A7. No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events)", and explain a bit to the user, but not report him. Perhaps link to WP:YFA and WP:BIO? And do I do anything about the last two? Knuthove (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an adminstrator, but in my opinion I don't think any of the three cases you've mentioned above require that anyone be reported. Each of these people appear to be new or newish editors who simply might not be aware of relevant policy regarding user pages. Honest good-faith mistakes are often made by editors simply because they don't know any better, not because they're intentionally trying to create problems or otherwise cause trouble. In addition, I don't think it would be appropriate to try and apply WP:A7 in the first case simply because that criterion applies to the article namespace and not the user namespace. Perhaps you could argue that WP:U5 would apply here, but again that might depend on what you think the intent of the editor in question really was. Many people mistake Wikipedia for a type of social media site and think their user page is like a profile page. Many people mistakenly try to create new articles on their user page because they thinks that's what needs to be done. These are just misunderstanding that can often be resolved through talk page discussion per WP:BITE without needing to have any pages deleted or any editors reported. My guess is that the editor in the first case probably just is mistakening his user page for a social media type profile. The account has only made a couple of edits so far and probably just doesn't no any better. So, perhaps adding a welcome template to their user talk page would be a good place to start. You could then add {{uw-userpage}} or a more personal message advising them about WP:UP and the other things you mentioned above if you want. Then, if they respond in an unfavorable way or don't respond at all after a reasonable amount of time, you could tag the page for speedy deletion per WP:U5. As for the other two editors, they two appear to be quite new with only a couple of edits; so, you can do the same thing for them as well. However, the content on their respective user pages is basically just a few words which is probably not worth deleting the page over. If they start to add more and more inapprorpriate content, then perhaps something might need to be done at that time. Right now, however, both pages seem to be pretty minor violations of policy not really requiring that further action be taken. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a good course of action. I'll read WP:UP and write User:Ayazayoob.96 a message. Thanks again for your advice. Knuthove (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

page edit not accepted

User talk:24.52.202.85 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search November 2021

Information icon Hello, I'm DuncanHill. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

A few comments: 1.) What does "do not appear constructive" mean? My update is true, but not constructive? Does sharing truth so that people can perhaps one day be brought to judgment not matter at Wikipedia? 2.) "please use the sandbox". Are you trying to be non-confrontational? If you don't allow facts to be added to web pages, then say it, don't add a deflecting clause like that, you come off as weak. 3.) I don't have any real questions, these are rhetorical. Now go lock my account like a useful idiot. BigdogNova (talk) 05:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia has to be referenced to a reliable source. Wikipedia's definition of "truth" can be thought of as: "someone in a reliable newspaper said it". If you posted something that you considered true, even if it were self-evidently true, it will have been removed if you couldn't back up your statement by pointing to some reliable newspapers who said it. Wikipedia also adopts a neutral point of view; it's not the place to campaign, or to right great wrongs. In this instance, your comment appears not only to have been deleted, but to have been suppressed from normal view, so I can't judge. But I'm guessing you wrote something highly negative with no source. That's the Wikipedia equivalent of finding someone guilty without a trial. We don't do things without evidence. I'm sorry that it's caused you disappointment, but I hope this explanation helps to provide background. Elemimele (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Content added to Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild by IP 24.52.202.85 was deemed to be such a serious violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons that it needed to be Wikipedia:Revision deleted by an administrator. As for your questions, non-constructive is basically an edit that isn't considered an improvement or helpful and it can cover various things. Generally, it means a edit made that doesn't comply with one or more of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Sharing the truth is fine, but Wikipedia content needs to be verifiable in addition to being true. Furthermore, it's not the purpose of Wikipedia to bring people to judgement. This doesn't mean that negative content about persons cannot be added to articles, but it does mean that any such content needs to be written in a neutral tone, reliably sourced and not be undue. Facts can be added to articles, but they need to be verifiable facts which reflect what reliable sources are saying about something. The template added to the IPs user talk page was just a general user warning template designed to cover a broad range of situations. Its intent isn't to deflect, but rather to inform an editor that some of their edits are problematic and provide with information as to why. Since the content the IP added was deemed to be so bad that it needed to be revision deleted, it's no longer visible to anyone other than administrators. If you're the editor who added it, then you should know what it was and thus understand why it was removed. Wikipedia may be the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but it's not a free for all where anything goes. Content which is deemed to be a serious violation of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines can be removed by anyone at anytime; this is particularly true when the content is about living persons as explained here. If you want to edit Wikipedia and be WP:HERE, then great and there are lots of editors who can help you figure out how to best do that. If, however, you want to be WP:NOTHERE, then you're going to find yourself running into problems non-stop and perhaps even eventually ending up with your account locked. The choice is yours, but Wikipedia isn't like social media where you can pretty much post whatever you please. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@BigdogNova: I can't see what you added, but DuncanHill felt it was worth removing forever. Other than that, this query is the only contribution associated with your account. After a long yet productive day helping others who truly want to make this encyclopedia a better place for everyone, I can only read your comment and think WP:NOTHERE. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, BigdogNova. The unreferenced and therefore unverifiable edit in question to Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild was made by an IP address, presumably you based on your comments. You are accusing, without providing any evidence, that this living person is responsible for starting a war that has led to hundreds of thousands of deaths. I hope that you can see that such a claim requires very solid evidence in the form of coverage in impeccably reliable sources. Your confrontational comment, Now go lock my account like a useful idiot is quite pointy and really quite ridiculous. You have now been informed that adding unreferenced attacks on living people is unacceptable, no matter how much you believe conspiracy theories about them. So, you can either follow Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines, or be blocked if you choose to violate them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@BigdogNova: I am the editor who reverted your edit and posted the warning on your talk page, as well as reporting it for oversight or revision deletion. I did this because 1) it was an uncited addition to a biography of a living person, 2) it was a gross libel on that person, and most disturbingly 3) it repeated a hoary old anti-Semitic conspiracy theory in an article about a member of probably the most famous Jewish family in the world, an article which has been subjected to repeated anti-Semitic vandalism in the past. I would have absolutely no hesitation whatsoever in doing the same again. I am happy to explain my actions here, but they are something for which I shall never apologise. DuncanHill (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Large list of suggested edits not showing up on talk page?

I just made a large list of suggested edits here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Solar_Simulator&redirect=no

However, it appears that any link to this list of suggested edits is not found in the talk page of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Solar_simulator

Can someone help me figure out what I did wrong, and how can I get the list of suggested edits onto the appropriate talk page so it will be visible and reviewed appropriately? FreshAlien (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It's a capital letter thing. Your huge block of proposed content is at Talk:Solar Simulator, whereas the redirect to Talk:Solar simulator does not carry that content with the redirect. David notMD (talk) 03:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Moved (with attribution) FreshAlien's edit request to Talk:Solar simulator#Large update and expansion suggestions for Solar Simulator Article per suggestion at contested technical move requests (permalink). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Funk art

 Jack Leissring (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Jack Leissring Hello and welcome. Do you have a question about the funk art article? 331dot (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I suspect he is wondering why Fyrael reverted some of his recent additions. According the message placed on his Talk Page, Fyrael suspected the additions were self-promotional. As I'm not an expert in the topic, I don't know whether WP:SELFCITE applies. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Fyrael is willing to discuss the edits with you, however you have not responded to their comments on the talk page. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Question from K5gproWiki (15:59, 16 November 2021)

anyone pls teach me how to make professional stuff K5gproWiki (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Added heading. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are volunteers, i.e., not paid. As to how to get better at editing, see links at Help:Introduction. David notMD (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, K5gproWiki. If you're asking about editing Wikipedia, please see my reply to #Hi above; if you're talking about something else, then I'm afraid that this is not a place that can help you, as this page is only for questions about using and editing Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a question about my sources whether they are independent or primary.

I was told by a reviewer that all my sources appear to be primary. when I checked the first three, I saw a lab's work that was contracted much like we contract Quest labs to do our urinalysis or bloodwork. The 2nd and 3rd are links to the FDA where it lists the company as bonafide and one of its researchers that does clinical trials. My company does not control what these other three put out, especially the FDA. So I'm confused why they would be considered primary sources. Before I take the time to put up what I consider further independent sources, Like from clinicaltrials.gov, I need to know where I stand, so if I can get some guidance from someone, I'd appreciate it. The product PPP001 is very significant and the first cannabis flower plant to be in a Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trial as a drug. Each pellet of it is made to exact specifications. They even have a synthetic version. No cannabis plant has ever gone through Phased FDA and Health Canada clinical trials to become a prescription drug before, so this is a first in the field.

I checked my first three references. One is another company's output on PPP001, their analysis. They objectively analyze data from a Tetra Biopharma clinical trial done under the FDA and/or Health Canada. Then I showed two references at the FDA US Food and Drug Administration showing that the company, TBP, is indeed registered with them as a recognnized organization (SRO) etc. But the editor considered those to be primary, if I read correctly. I'd like a quick review of the page and also of my additional sources I collected to add. I can cut and paste from my Wordpad when you are ready to see those: a number are from clinicaltrials . gov. I think a cursory glance would suffice on those to tell. Thank you.

Thanks. MightyMaven (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

MightyMaven, Hello and welcome to the teahouse! The source you've mentioned isn't

• Reliable, which means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline.
• Secondary, which provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event.
• Independent, which means excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.

You mentioned a website clinicaltrials.gov which is a website of governmental agency. But it is not regarded as reliable source. More at WP:GNG. Thank you. Richard M William (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Richard. The first source is a bonafide research organization which provides their own thinking, composition and analysis of the research done by Tetra Biopharma. The work is Alta Vista's own thinking and it is based on the clinical trial data at the FDA or Health Canada or both, so the article is not the work of Tetra BioPharma but it scientifically covers it. It is also independent since that means it's not the company in question's advertising, press release, autobiography or website.

I will check about clinicaltrials.gov not being reliable. So FDA and Health Canada and NIH database are considered all not reliable? this is very strange to hear. Are you certain the FDA and these other government agencies are not considered reliable? I will look at the reference, but that makes no sense to call FDA, HC, clinicaltrials.gov not reliable, if you ask me. They are the ones who approve the drugs our doctors recommend. If there is some nuance I am missing, I will try to grasp it. Thank you for your reply and reference for me to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MightyMaven (talk • contribs) 15:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I got this from your Reliable link. It says, and I quote, "Scholarship WP:SCHOLARSHIP: Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MightyMaven (talk • contribs) 15:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

MightyMaven, Yeah, you're right now. Newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals' website are considered as reliable, secondary and independent. Richard M William (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

That's why I confirm with FDA, Health Canada, NIH, and clinicaltrials.gov.

To quote Wikipedia on reliability where you sent me... "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. (So to know for certain if a company's claims of conducting clinical trials Phase 1-3 are true, rather than quote the company itself, I quote FDA, HC, clinicaltrials.gov to prove it, not a company PR.) The Wikipedia guideance also states that "Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, (such as FDA and clinicaltrials.gov which gets its information from the FDA as to what trials are being conducted, all independently from the company claiming to be in clinical trials) as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.

So I don't see what the problem is using FDA, HC, clinicaltrials and AltaVista (an independent company that's published it's analysis of Tetra Biopharma's research. I'm also going by what Maggie Dennis says about it. She's Interim Chief of Community Engagement, Wikimedia Foundation, and the company expert on what Wikipedia considers a reliable news source or source of information and what criteria go into making that determination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MightyMaven (talk • contribs) 16:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Reliability page also states that "Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." This is exactly why I quote the NIH database of peer-reviewed articles on the pharmaceutical pages I contribute to. That Altavista publication is capable to be listed in the NIH database. It also refers to NIH dataased articles in major journals. I kinda think people are thinking that marijuana is totally void of notoriety, therefore FDA Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials must be bogus and not for real. I assure you they are for real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MightyMaven (talk • contribs) 16:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

You have a tendency toward walls of text (your User page!!!) which makes it difficult for volunteers here at Teahouse and elsewhere to wade through and then offer advice. Your recent interests are Draft:PPP001 and HU-308, which appear to be related. The first was declined in June and you have not edited since. The reviewer identified refs as being primary sources. I will add that many do not meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS. At HU-308 you increased the length of the article by more than 10X by adding large amounts of content and references that do not meet WP:MEDRS. By that, I mean all in vitro research, all animal research and all individual clinical trials. Subsequently, editors have made large deletions, but much remains that has no valid reason to be in the article. Lastly, given that both relate to cannabis, I will ask if you have conflict of interest or paid relationship to this topic? David notMD (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Given that the OP's fourth sentence above begins My company does not control..., it seems there is a COI. @MightyMaven: you should read WP:COI and make a declaration of any conflict of interest on your user page. CodeTalker (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

MightyMaven, all biomedical information in a Wikipedia article must be based on sources that meet the high standards in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Your first source was co-authored by people employed by AltaVista and Tetra Biopharma, and therefore is is not an independent source, and cannot be used to establish notability. The fact that clinical trials are underway does not make a drug notable. Please read Wikipedia: WikiProject Medicine and its associated standards and Manual of Style. When you write My company does not control what these other three put out, especially the FDA. So I'm confused why they would be considered primary sources, that indicates that you are confusing "primary" with "independent". The FDA is a primary source here, and the first source is primary and not independent. Independent, secondary reliable sources are always preferred. Your statement also shows that you have a conflict of interest and must comply with the required Paid contributions disclosure. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

At Draft:PPP001 I have left a recommendation that the draft as written be rejected. Speedy deletion is also a consideration, as content appears to have been copy-pasted verbatim. possibly representing a copyright violation. Consider also that this appears to be WP:TOOSOON. Only after clinical trials are complete, published in peer-reviewed journals (not conference abstracts) and then covered in reviews written by people with no connection to the company could this be reconsidered. David notMD (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

In addition to making a User page paid contributions disclosure for PPP001, do the same for HU-308. In the interim, I have tagged HU-308 as being contributed to be an undisclosed paid editor. David notMD (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

If you were stating "My company..." as to how your company operates, but there is no connection between you/your company and PPP001 or HU-308, state that clearly and succinctly on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Movember

Movember

A very new editor is adding un-cited references to this page and writing in an informal tone. I'm not skilled enough to kindly directly them to stop. Can anyone more skilled give them some kind words? CT55555 (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@CT55555: Could you possibly tell us what user you are referring to and what their edits are? The most recent edits to the page appear constructive (except for the one referring to No Nut November which is unsourced but still constructive) so I don't see why they would need to be warned. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: Indeed it's the one about "no nut november" which wasn't cited and also the explanation of what it meant didn't seem formal enough to me for Wikipedia. Likewise the next edit about video games isn't sourced. So both edits lack sources. In the context of it being new editor, I felt it would be appropriate to say that things need to have sources CT55555 (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@CT55555: The editor isn't necessarily all that new (their account is about 2 years old), however I think it would be best to mention it to them on their talk page in case they simply forgot to add a ref. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, it's not just a matter of citations. I'm more concerned that the only link between No nut November and Movember is that someone who wanted to go viral decided the best way was to hijack a widely popular movement and pick a name that looked like Movember, even though there is no other common factor between them. No nut has nothing to do with men's health or moustaches. There are a couple of other links there that seem decidedly irrelevant too. What's with play-off beards? Is this going to be a repository of random links to anything that mentions facial hair? Elemimele (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Citations

I was reading WP:Cite and I realized it said parenthetical citations were depreciated in Sep. last year and the article I’m working on, Woody (Toy Story), might have parenthetical citations. For example one of the citations is Price 2008, p. 126 is that considered a parenthetical citation or a short citation? If it isn’t how can you tell the difference between them? Kaleeb18 (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: The section of WP:CITE that you're referring to says that what's deprecated is "short citations in parentheses placed within the article text itself, such as (Smith 2010, p. 1). This does not affect short citations that use <ref> tags, which are not inline parenthetical references." So, no, the short citations in the Woody article aren't what's deprecated; they would have to be changed only if they had been inserted in parentheses in the article text itself, rather than as footnotes. Deor (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Deor: Oh Thank you, that makes a lot more sense now. Kaleeb18 (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Difficulty understanding Wiki's definition of notability

Hello, I can't seem to understand what significant coverage means for a Wiki article to go up. I used references that are not biased and that show significant coverage about the subject. Could someone help me? Ernestoche0 (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ernestoche0: WP:GNG says that sources should show "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." To be independent, a source must not have been created with the help of the subject, which means that self-written pieces or interviews are not okay (that's refs number 1, 2 3, 6, 7, 8; also see WP:PRIMARYSOURCE). The rest don't show significant coverage because they're mostly trivial mentions of Miller within the context of his company. Those sources could potentially be used to write an article about the company instead. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up to Repeated non-acceptance of a Wiki Page Need A Reviewer who is Knowledgable about Gospel Music

Hi, we've had the page submission denied twice for 'Vicki Mack Lataillade', "You indicate that the articles references only mention Vicki in "passing". How knowledgeable are you in the Gospel Industry? I think there should be a more knowledgeable reviewer. Vicki is a huge force in the gospel industry her record label GospoCentric records already has a wiki page. Leonzaigirdar (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I know nothing about gospel music but you have used a number of press releases, these are not considered reliable or independent, so will need replacing. Theroadislong (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

They would likely tell you the same thing. You cannot use the existence, absence, or condition of another (tangentially-related) article to argue for yours. If your sources don't discuss her at length, are not editorially independent of her, or have no professional editorial control, then the article is going to be declined. We will NOT budge on this in the slightest. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Please also note that undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Question regarding copyright

Hello! So I have a bit of an odd question regarding copyright. Now this is all theoretical (except for the image as the image does exist) but, say I have an image of a character that an artist made for me and they told me that I can use the image as much as I want as long as I give them credit and I want to use the image of Wikipedia. Would that count as being public domain or would that be some other type of copyright? As I said it's purely theoretical as, although the image I'm talking about does exist, I have no plans on using it on Wikipedia for the time being. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: try WP:MCQ, that's where the experts for this stuff are. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Will do! ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Adding a footnote citation to top of a Wikipedia entry that already has other footnote citations

Not sure how to add a new citation to the top of a Wikipedia piece I created in the sandbox so it shows up as a footnote citation at the end of the article. I previously used the Reflist template for other references on this piece. Is there an easy way to do this? JhallCORE (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@JhallCORE: I'm confused as to what you're trying to achieve. Footnotes will show up wherever {{reflist}} is, and we always put that at the end of the article under a header titled "References". Could you elaborate on what you're trying to do and why? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The first (newly added) citation needs to start with <ref>, not </ref>. It is currently appearing in the lead of the article rather than the References section. 173.49.228.131 (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Como editar uma página da wikipedia

 Anapaulacosta71 (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Google's Translation from Portuguese: How to edit a wikipedia page? ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Bom dia, Anapaulacosta71. See Help:Introduction - unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an equivalent in Portuguese, but if you find Spanish easier to read than English, then try es:Ayuda:Introducción. --ColinFine (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Dear whoever is going to read this.

I'm trying to make a wikipedia article for my teacher, most of the information was actually collected from the man himself so it can be hard to find ways to site it. Yet I still tried my best and managed to get around 5 websites. I would very much appreciate it if the article could be accepted for around a week or even just a few days to show it to him. I understand if this is not possible but instead could you teach me how to make my article acceptable instead since I am still new here.

Thank you for your time. Riverbank333 (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Riverbank333 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a place to memorialize or honor someone. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources say about a person that meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Wikipedia does not summarize what people say about themselves. There are other websites in a wiki style with much less stringent inclusion requirements if you just want to post something on the internet about your teacher. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand, thank you for responding and have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riverbank333 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Unfair deletion of an article

Hello I had an article about a famous person on Wikipedia and I wad editting expanding it day by day when I suddenly faced with its deletion and following up the matter the user: JBchrch who had put the speedy deletion on my page said because it "seemed like" I was a fan of him!! This could only be out of cruelty and unfair to delete a page just because a person is famous and popular and the writer of his article might like him especially when nothing was against the Wiki rules and guidelines! I wonder if anyone out there in Wiki headquarters could help me retrieve my article or say what should I do for this injustice going on? R30591 (talk) 08:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

courtesy ping: JBchrch  melecie  t - 08:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

failed that first courtesy ping. JBchrch  melecie  t - 08:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Shahab Moradi

You need to provide reliable, independent sources that show that he is indeed notable. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 09:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@R30591: The article has been deleted once, and I can't see the history of that version, but the present article is not nominated for deletion at all. As far as I can tell, JBchrch is trying to give you good advice on your talk page. From your phrasing it's evident that you're too attached to Moradi, making it hard for you to stay from a neutral point of view. I would also suggest you to try editing other subjects, and if you haven't already, complete The Wikipedia Adventure to get a crash course on how things work around here. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 09:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Per action minutes ago, now at Draft:Shahab Moradi. Because it appears that an earlier version was Speedy deleted, that version is not visible to non-Administrators. The advice about learning more about how Wikipedia works before returning to work on the draft is good advice. David notMD (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to say, thanks a lot @Ganbaruby: for helping me out with my article too, haha. (I'm writing my article for the same reason as R30591) WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Delete discussion

I nominated a specific article for delete discussion. What are the next things that I can do??? How can I attract wiki uses attention to the delete discussion? And who will decide if the article can be kept or deleted?? Itcouldbepossible (talk) 09:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Itcouldbepossible, and welcome to the Teahouse! The AfD has been listed at the appropriate categories to attract attention from other editors, so all you need to do now is wait for others to take a look and share their thoughts. After a week or so, if enough people comment, a consensus may form, and a closer, typically an admin, will evaluate the discussion and determine the consensus, if any. ––FormalDude ^talk 09:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

FormalDude Ok thank you,for your suggestion. Also I want to know, how I can list delete discussions in appropriate XFD pages???Itcouldbepossible (talk) 09:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude, @Itcouldbepossible has already asked a question at the Teahouse, so I don't feel saying "welcome to the Teahouse!" is necessary. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I suggest, Itcouldbepossible, that you read up on when articles should be nominated for deletion before you make another nomination. -- Hoary (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

My Gill Stegall article

My article on Gill Stegall is easy to find, since it's my only article. The first person to review it was helpful and I followed his/her advice on referencing.

Now I've had it denied two more times, one by someone saying it's "just not a newsworthy person" or whatever (I didn't realize everyone has to be the Queen of England), and then the next person denying it simply came back saying the references weren't good enough. Really? United Press International articles are not adequate references. Maybe this person is too young to even realize what the UPI was.

I would like someone to look at it again and be fair about it. Hubdb39 (talk) 06:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Devonian Wombat, TipsyElephant, and Gpkp for their thoughts. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you make a good point about UPI, now sunk so low. (But I haven't looked at either of the two UPI sources that are cited.) However: someone saying it's "just not a newsworthy person" or whatever. I don't see this. Just what did the person say, and where did they say it? -- Hoary (talk) 06:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Hoary:, It seems to me that the content in the denial-tag: ′This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article' is interpreted as 'non-newsworthy' or 'non-notable'.
  @Hubdb39: Here are few concerns over the draft:
  *The draft is still lacking inline citations, which is necessary as a proof for all the content mentioned.
  *The references are mentioned as plain links, on which WP:REFB and WP:RS can be referred.
  *There is a useful guidline on press-release sources: WP:PRSOURCE.
  --Gpkp [u • t • c] 07:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Gpkp, you or I may believe that every assertion in an article ought to come with at least one clearly identifiable reference, but English-language Wikipedia does not demand this. Inline citations are not "necessary as a proof for all the content mentioned". -- Hoary (talk) 07:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Hoary: do you agree to accept and publish the draft to article, without having a single inline-citation? --Gpkp [u • t • c] 07:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Gpkp, I'm not going to accept it or reject it. American team sports are a complete mystery to me; thus for example "professional football wide receiver and slot back" (in the very first sentence) makes no sense to me. It's obvious that a great number of Wikipedia editors have at least some understanding of (American) football, so I'll leave this to one or more of them. -- Hoary (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Hubdb39: @Hoary: and @Gpkp: I've cleaned up the article (improving wording, adding in-line refs, etc.) and moved the page to mainspace, as he meets the notability criteria. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you search the The Atlanta Journal-Constitution as they may have a number of references to him Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 13:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hey Hubddb39 ! I've just visited the draft and i've added to some relevant WiKiprojects to get more help, and reorganized it. There is one problem though, you haven't linked the references to where you used it. It makes verifying content a lot harder so please match it!

i am not a bot , and just sounded like one in this comment. This action was NOT made automatically. Leomk0403 (talk) 08:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, look at articles for other American football athletes to see how to incorporate the refs into the body of the article. Help:Referencing for beginners may help. David notMD (talk) 12:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubdb39 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Ingleside (Amelia Courthouse, Virginia)

This particular historic landmark is in the utter boondocks, easily a dozen miles on narrow, twisting country roads away from the post office that serves its address (and from the court house). To add to the potential for confusion, the farms directly across the lane are served by a different PO, also miles away on back roads. The title of the article is technically correct, but it's quite misleading for anyone not familiar with the area, and not the way local residents would refer to the spot either.

In any case: Traditional and still-preferred rendering for the seat of Amelia County is "Amelia Court House", not "Courthouse".

I suggest that the title be changed to Ingleside (Amelia County, Virginia). I would change it myself, but I hope it's acceptable that I'd rather not set up my own account, for a variety of reasons. 2603:6081:8004:DD5:497E:E054:AD55:9B4E (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It's unlikely that anyone volunteering at the Teahouse will be familiar with this building. Even so, we need reliable sources, not hearsay. You might start a discussion on the article talk page and ping the creator and others who have edited this in the past. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. You might have a point, but it's very hard to tell from the dead citation links. Personally, I'd fix those first and then propose it is named according to what the National register of Historic Places entries call it. If you think that's wrong, it's either a case for approaching the register managers to point out the error of the entry, or finding other sources which talk about it and presenting those as evidence of a better name.

It took some searching, but I found this register link which doesn't mention any use as a courthouse, nor in the additional supporting PDF. So I think you're on strong ground, and a bit of more research by someone could be helpful. (I'll add the link to the talk page for someone to insert). If you happen to work in a field related to historic buildings, you're not barred from editing the article, though it could be helpful to note in any edit you make that you're connected in some way. See WP:COI for more help on this. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I've now left a note about these issues on the article talk page. See Talk:Ingleside (Amelia Courthouse, Virginia). Nick Moyes (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Popularity of any one particular article

Hi all!

So I edit all over the place, and have even taken a recent interest in helping to revert vandalism and other good things I can get myself into. Wikipedia has proven to be my "stress outlet"... believe it or not. .

On to my question... I was curious if there is any tool to tell the "page views" or "popularity" of any ONE particular specific article. Lets take Philadelphia as a random one I've done some work with in the past. I'd like to know what gets more visitation and less visitation so that I can understand if my efforts are being viewed by 1 person, 100 people, or 1,000 or some other random number in between (on a daily, weekly, or annual basis, makes no real difference). I am no technical expert, so my only gauge for these sorts of things is to use amazon's Alexa chrome extension which tells me that 80 million people visit the MAIN wiki page each day, but that does me no good for knowing the popularity/visitation of the specific pages that I've worked on and contributed to.

Thanks for humoring my random question of the day! Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 21:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Th78blue: Hello Th! You can see the amount of times a page is viewed at pageviews.toolforge.org and all you have to do is type in the name of the page. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Th78blue Welcome to the Teahouse. Seeing how your contributions have been viewed by others is a great way of getting feedback for all one's efforts. Blaze was typically brief in their reply. So here's a bit more help for you: One good route to the link your were given is simply to click the View History tab of any article, then look for the Page Views link towards the top of the page. That takes you to the toolforge link that Blaze mentioned (see here). But you can add more than one article to that page and compare the difference in views that they get, and also change the time period displayed. By looking at your user 5,222 contributions to date (see here), I can see your a couple of your other most-edited pages, and can add these to the pageview tool. So, here is a set of your most edited articles, totalling 3/4 million page views over a 5 month period. Pretty impressive to know that even a tiny addition has been viewed so many times. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding to biography page

Hi, I have created a biography article of a Zyple Owner "Shanmugam Vaithiyalingam". But the page has been deleted from Wikipedia team. Please help me how can we publish again.

Best Regards Zyple team ShanmugamVaithiyalingam (talk) 05:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@ShanmugamVaithiyalingam: The comments on your talk page tell you why this draft article was deleted, namely that Wikipedia is no place for autobiography or promotion or advertising. A Wikipedia article can be created for a person who is notable, that is, if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 05:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Userpage

Can I create a new userpage after an admin deleted my previous userpage? —It'sCtrlwiki • talk • 00:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes you may, unless of course you do so in a way that breaks some rule or other. Previously, you used your user page for drafting an article. You're not supposed to do that. (You're welcome to do it in your "sandbox".) So feel free to restart your user page, for informing others about yourself as an editor. -- Hoary (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. But I want to clarify something, I never use my userpage for a draft article, when did I do that? But I have a draft article in my sandbox, I actually requested to delete my own userpage, but thanks a lot.—It'sCtrlwiki • talk • 00:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, Ctrlwiki: I must have misread something. The content of your userpage was indeed deleted at your request. -- Hoary (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Is there a place that's not as drastic as AfD for getting a second opinion on an article?

I've been looking at Stephen_Jolly_(academic). I really don't know what to think. The article certainly looks as though he's super-important, and a quick Google-search turns up a lot more similar stuff, about how he's widely considered to be the most important commentator on things military ever to have existed. But currently all the references in his article here, bar one, are alumni/staff entries from institutions where he works/has-worked, and his LinkedIn profile. There's nothing independent to speak of. The article feels very promotional: stuff about serving two distinguished vice chancellors. I'm seeing one named fellowship, but otherwise just a lot of academic seat-hopping and popping up in think-tanks. The article has a lot of external links embedded in the text (to his start-up company, to his employer). And it also lists a publication that hasn't yet been published. The article has been written by one IP editor and one other editor, the other editor having only edited Stephen Jolly and the Barony_of_Stobo whose current holder is " The Much Hon. William Jolly", where William Jolly actually links to Stephen Jolly, sort-of suggesting this might all be a bit of an in-house edit-job. I don't feel confident to drag this to AfD because military commentary is not my area of expertise, and I think he might be terribly important. But I also get the heebie-jeebies from this article that it could also have a lot wrong with it. Is there a way to get a 2nd opinion? Elemimele (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Elemimele (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Elemimele: You might consider starting a discussion over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, where they have more experience with these types of articles. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: thanks, I'll give it a try. Elemimele (talk) 06:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Maximum

What is the maximum number of questions I can ask on Teahouse? I have already asked many. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

hi Itcouldbepossible! there is no limit, feel free to ask away! happy editing!  melecie  t - 08:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hmmmm. There have been instances in the past wherein a new editor asked question after question at Teahouse, but otherwise was making no contributions to existing articles nor attempting to create a new article. WP:NOTHERE (as in NOT HERE) states that editors may be warned or blocked if clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia. David notMD (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

In other words, as long as you are asking questions and also making helpful contributions (possibly using what you learn from asking questions) then there's no limit. But as David said above if all you're doing is asking questions then NOTHERE can apply and you can be warned/blocked. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf I feel like it's also unfair that users who get blocked from editing can't ask questions at the Teahouse. Because I feel users have the right to still ask questions even when edit-blocked. It's sad. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

They can ask questions about their block on their user talk page, unless they abuse that right. --bonadea contributions talk 07:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

What to do with blank pages?

I've been trying to cleanup Category:All uncategorized pages , but metTemplate:Di-conflicted license-notice. This template has no content, so i've nominated it at WP:TfD. So my question is, what to ex with blank pages, in all namespaces, in general exept for nominating it for WP:AfD/RfD/TfD? Leomk0403 (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Leomk0403, in case of article, you can move it to draft instead nominating by using this script. Richard M William (talk) 08:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Richard M William ! You're talking if the subject meetls the Wp:N guidelines right? Leomk0403 (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Leomk0403, Yeah, if the article doesn't meet with WP:N guideline then you should move it. Richard M William (talk) 08:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Leomk0403 @Richard M William Before considering moving to draft please study WP:DRAFTIFY. The Draft: namespace is not intended as deletion by the back door. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

After hearing your comments , i think treating it like a vandalized article would be the best (e.g reverting to the last constructive edit) or add more data to it is one of the best solutions P.S is there any guidelines for this problem? Leomk0403 (talk) 08:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Richard M William Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me Guys, this guy actually has no idea what hes doing with GA articles. He nominated this [6] without contributig to the article, second he instantly failed Talk:Pale mountain pigeon/GA1. 112.163.180.40 (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@112.163.180.40 please WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Leomk (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 09:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

hlep me in publishing new article on laxminiya Youth club

Dear sir/mam,

I want to publish a new page on wikipedia. An NGO called Laxminiya Youth Club situated in Morang District of Nepal in 2018 AD is not listed in Wiki page. So i request the team to help us in publishing the page. Niteshshah24 (talk) 06:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Niteshshah24, and welcome to the Teahouse. The question is whether the youth club meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability: roughly, have several people, unconnected with the club, chosen to write about it in some depth in reliably published sources? For most youth clubs, the answer is, No, and so no article about them is possible.

If the club does meet the criteria, then it is possible that there could be an article about it; but the next problem is getting such an article written. There is no "team": there are thousands and thousands of volunteer editors, who work on what they choose. In theory, you could make a request at requested articles; but in practice, the likelihood of an editor picking the request up is small. It is possible that if you posted at WT:WikiProject Nepal there might be somebody interested in working with you; but no guarantees.

Your best chance of getting an article written (assuming the club is notable in Wikipedia's sense) is to write it yourself. But writing an article is much harder than it looks, and I always advise new editors who are thinking of creating an article to put the idea aside for at least six months while they "learn the trade" of editing Wikipedia, by working on improving some of our six million articles.

Finally, I need to point out that if you have any connection with the youth club, then you have a conflict of interest: this doesn't forbid you from writing an article about it, but it makes it even harder, as you are likely to find it difficult to write in a neutral way. (Remember that Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say, but only in what unconnected people have chosen to publish about it). If you are in any sort of paid role in connection with the club, then you must make formal declarations as a paid editor.

To summarise - if you have come here to help build Wikipedia, you are welcome. If you have come here to tell the world about your youth club, you are better off doing it somewhere else than Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 10:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Experimenting With Country Data Templates

I apologize if this was the wrong place to ask this question, but I did not know where else to ask. So, you know how there are sandboxes for users to experiment? What if I wanted to experiment with Country Data templates? Like, say I wanted to change the flag that would show up for a country when using the flag template(s) (Just as an experiment, not a permanent change to the actual template page). Is there a way to go about doing that, and if so, how would I go about doing that? Karl Malone the Mailman (talk) 07:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Karl Malone the Mailman, you might find useful information at Help:Template. --ColinFine (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

You would use the Sandbox associated to the template. Any changes made would be reflected in the testcases page for that template. - X201 (talk) 10:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up to How to write about a "Group of companies" in wikipedia

How to write about a company in wikipedia. Marytwist (talk) 10:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Marytwist: Is there already an article about the company on Wikipedia? If so, you can usually edit the article, but make sure you understand the basic rules of Wikipedia, including the conflict of interest rules, if they apply to you.

If the article doesn't already exist, does the company meet the criteria for notability? If so, then see the advice on writing your first article. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 11:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The archive link already has general advice. Do you now have a specific question and, if so, please tell us which draft or article you are referring to? Most of your actual additions to Wikipedia articles so far have been reverted. Please read carefully the links supplied above. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Image size

Hello. How can I size an image in percentage? I want to size an image 100%. Thank you. Richard M William (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

See H:PICTURE for the general guide on images. Make sure you preview the page you are editing before saving/publishing it, so the effect is as you intended. If you still have problems, repost here with a link to the page and image filename you are working with, Richard M William. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

BPL

How can I find BLP articles that does not have a talk page. I want to create a talk page for them. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 09:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

You probably don't need to! The idea of talk pages isn't to talk about the subject of the page (i.e. the talk page for Boris_Johnson isn't there so people can express their views on Johnson, his politics and life). Talk pages are there only as a venue for editors to discuss changes to the article. You will see that Boris Johnson's talk page is a mish-mash of discussions of protection against vandalism, whether to capitalise Prime Minister, complaints about unreferenced text, and discussions about whether certain events should be mentioned in the associated article or not. This is quite typical. So there's no point in having a talk page until a couple of editors have something to talk about - at which point it will be created automatically, as soon as the first editor decides to post to it. Elemimele (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Problems with submission

Goodmorning, I wrote an article about Microwave Barriers & Sensors (here there is the link to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bistatic_Microwave_barrier) and was rejected because it "reads more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia" and it doesn't express a neutral point of view. I am writing here to ask to someone more expert than me, if could please help me understanding this problem and what I need to change: as sources I used official papers and documents from National Institutes and Departments and I have no connections to it, so from my point of view I believed the article is supported by reliable references and sources. Could an editor have a look at it and help me finding any outstanding issues that should be resolved? Thanks in advance for your time and suppor Annaas98 (talk) 10:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Annaas98. There are some significant problems here. The first is that from reading the introduction, I have no idea what your draft article is actually about. It might be helpful for you to read MOS:LEADSENTENCE. I also see lots of sentences that aren't supported with references, and recommendations (such as "For a better and more reliable detection the zone should be free of obstructions, bushes, and the grass should be kept cut. It is recommended to use a gravel surface since water is better drained than in the grass."), which don't belong in a Wikipedia article, per WP:NOTGUIDE. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

For another concrete example, the very first sentence of that draft (as of now) is The anti-intrusion systems based on microwave are the most reliable. That is absolutely not a sentence that should be anywhere in the article, let alone the introduction, let alone unsupported by any reference whatsoever. Would you imagine the sentence "X was the most patriotic of US presidents" in a biography of a politician? No, because "patriotic" (like "reliable") is quite a vague word; and further, such a statement would need to either be supported by the consensus of reliable sources (unlikely) or attributed ("according to their vice-president, X was the most patriotic president"). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your advices!

I understood what I was doing wrong and updated the draft following your suggestions but it got rejected.

Could you help me in better understanding what i need to edit/implement in order to make it suitable for wikipedia?

Than you! Annaas98 (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Corrado Maria Saglietti

Hello. I submitted the Draft page: Corrado Maria Saglietti and the page has been deleted. If I understood correctly, the reason for the cancellation was that the bio was too similar to that of the website of the same name. Furthermore, the review of the page led to this result: "Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KylieTastic were: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. I would like to ask if I can try to publish the same page again with the following changes: inserting more reliable sources/ references and changing the biography and the photo. Thanks! Corrado57 Corrado57 (talk) 09:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Corrado57: The message on your talk page explains that the original draft article was a copyright infringement, as you obviously realise. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and the only way to get an article about Saglietti approved will be to rewrite it from scratch using your own words, based on the sources. Please read WP:YFA and WP:BLP. The new article will have to show that he is a notable musician by Wikipedia's definition. Note that photographs do not help to illustrate notability and I would suggest you ignore that aspect until the article is accepted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I see that there is an article about Saglietti in the Italian-language Wikipedia at it:Corrado Maria Saglietti but even there they say the sources are inadequate. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello Mike, thanks for your message! I have read notable musician Criteria for composers and lyricists: I think points 1-2-4-5-6 are satisfied. I would like to say the reason for submitting this draft: the works of the composer Corrado Maria Saglietti are very appreciated and performed above all outside Italy (60 different States between the US and the rest of the world). So apart from the satisfaction of being on an English Wkipedia page, I think finding a reference for this composer can be useful for those who do a search using Wikipedia from other countries and not from Italy. I have no problem writing the biography differently and using another photo and I can insert references to repertoire books citing works by C.M. Saglietti. If that's enough I'll send another draft, if not thank you anyway. Corrado — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.51.171.121 (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Notability of Troom Troom

Is Troom Troom notable? I'm wondering if it is or not. I've previously been told my article does not have enough sources, but also that Troom Troom could potentially warrant an article. It definitely impacts the culture of YouTube, reacting to content in a similar vein has been a trend on the platform for quite some time now. Could anybody who has heard of Troom Troom give their input? Thanks. KawaiiManiac (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The general consensus for YouTube content creators seems to be "no". Please read WP:NYOUTUBE and you'll see why. There may be exceptions but the challenge will be to meet the notability guidelines. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Cultural Appropriation Not Right!!! From an Indigenous Lens

Hot tea for you

Here's a hot sandwich, too, fresh from the press.

I like Wikipedia...it gives a good base of knowledge. But...as I research topics attributed to Indigenous knowledge and healing, I come across people who are making their very well endowed non-Indigenous livelihood from the riches of Indigenous knowledge...this is not right! It annoys, irritates and frustrates me that they purport to be Indigenous Chiefs or Leaders or Businesses...and really it is their thirst for the almighty dollar that leads them...this is so rampant and so...blatantly there - that these "white-privileged" people can ride on the backs of us Indigenous people!! Arghhhhhh!!!!!! What can we do about this? What is the best way to call them out and effect a positive change? Dene Woman (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dene Woman, welcome to the Teahouse. I know it's frustrating to see injustices on Wikipedia. Please enjoy some calming tea.

Could you link to the Wikipedia articles that you're referring to, so that other editors can take a look?

Some things to keep in mind are WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS–Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. If there is WP:BIAS in articles, that's something else, and we can address that. Maybe you could specify what your concerns with certain articles are exactly. ––FormalDude ^talk 04:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

thanks the tea Formal Dude...ahhhh...just what I needed to cool down...

so was researching https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Phil_Lane_Jr.

and then found this source

http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=2731.0

that's gives a different perspective

perhaps it's possible to add the additional perspective?

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ::Dene Woman (talk • contribs) 05:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dene Woman: The source you gave is an online forum, which is one of the most unreliable types of sources that exists, so it's not suitable for Wikipedia (see WP:UGC). Do you have any reliable sources that provide other points of view? ––FormalDude ^talk 06:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of appropriaton — MOS:HON suggests that honorifics such as "chief" should not be used in article titles. Maproom (talk) 09:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The article Chief Phil Lane Jr. dates to 2013, and has had many contributors. If there is a controversy about his ancestry/background/activities that could be added, but it would need reliable source references. David notMD (talk) 11:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Disclaimer: I have about zero knowledge of Native Americans (demography, history, culture etc.). This being said, I read the linked forum thread and I think there is a few intertwined questions here:

1. Whether there should be an article about Phil Lane Jr. on Wikipedia. This asks whether that person is "notable" which in turn depends on the existence of reliable sources talking/writing about him at length; while I am not impressed by the current references (non-independent sources for the most it seems), I do not have the inclination to do the required check before thinking about nominating the article for deletion. Notice that one can be notable despite, or because, one is a fraudster.
2. Whether Phil Lane Jr. can legitimately claim to be a Native; and whether he can legitimately claim to have some rank or status (chief? medicine man? I have no idea what those terms mean) within the relevant NA community. That is not a question for Wikipedia editors; however, if there is a sourced consensus within the relevant community that he should/should not be called "chief" or whatever, this ought to be in the article. Conversely, he should not be called a "chief" or anything else without a reliable source, and "chief" should probably not be in the page title as Maproom indicated above.
3. Whether Wikipedia should make claims pertaining to what medical practices Phil Lane supports and/or sells. For any medical claims, the heightened standard of WP:MEDRS should be followed (which likely kills 99% of medical knowledge alleged to stem from Native American practice). For claims about historical authenticity, we should still use reliable sources, which definitely excludes people trying to sell such practices (see the so-called "Tibetan singing bowls" in our article Standing bell for an example of modern fabrication).
4. Whether Wikipedia should "call out", or otherwise take action against Phil Lane, whether as retaliation for having had a misleading/glowing article for years, or to do justice to Native Americans. Most definitely not. Even if the wrongness of one individual could be clearly established (which does not seem clear to me here), we are not in that business.
5. Finally, what sources would be acceptable for topics pertaining to Native Americans. The potential problem is that if a fraudster is an expert at playing the Western/Anglo-Saxon media, it is easy to have "reliable sources" putting them down as a chief or writing other stuff, which would be rejected by a clear consensus within the oral tradition culture of which the fraudster claims to originate. (I count forum posts as "oral tradition" here since they are rejected as unreliable all the same). That question goes well beyond this instance, and it is hard to see what a proper fix would be. (See also Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#Availability_of_sources_may_cause_bias even though the case of oral tradition is not mentioned specifically there.)

Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Teahouse Archive

Some hours ago, a bot came on my talk page and told me that one of my question had been archived. I see that there are many archives in Teahouse. I am in need of the conversation I had in that question, but I cannot find it. Please tell me a way, to find archived questions in Teahouse. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Below the Table of Contents box is a list of the most recent archives, and a search box. If you type your username in that box, it should find all discussions you have been involved in (unless you forgot to sign!) --bonadea contributions talk 13:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Itcouldbepossible, there isn't a way to continue a discussion that's already been archived, but you can continue the discussion again by making another post here. Remember to link to the post so we know what you are referring to; you can do so with this special hyperlink below:

[[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive (X)#(Name of header)|link]]

I do believe I found your question though. It's helpful to know when searching that archived questions are most likely in the most recent number or the one before it. If not, you can search for the name of your questions in the "Search Archives" box:

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1131#Edits

Panini!^🥪 13:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Actually, the bot notification includes a link to the archive and precise section. The most recent such notification for the OP points to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1130#Reliable_Sources. The fact that the OP read the archival notice but failed to see the link makes me think that the notification template is defective; I will ask for feedback at their talk page. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

In the notification from the bot, it said "You can still find the archived discussion here"; in that sentence, the word "here" is in blue, indicating that it is a wikilink to the thread in question. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@David Biddulph When a link is piped to a short word, "here", it is quite easy to miss, I believe it could be improved by piping the phrase "archived discussion here" just like you did with "notification from the bot". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

PLEAS HELP ME, i cant not publish my draft

 Warnerbrok (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I have added the appropriate information to allow you to submit the draft for review. New users cannot directly create articles. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

But I do not believe that User:Warnerbrok/sandbox has any chance of being accepted at present, Warnerbrok, because most of the references do not meet the criteria of being reliable sources, independent of the subject, and having significant coverage of the subject: several of them do not mention him in any way. Please read WP:YFA carefully.

Have you a connection with Cartier? If you have, you should declare your conflict of interest, and if you are in any way paid to create this article, or it is part of your job, then you must declare your status as a paid editor. Note that I have also tagged the image as not having a satisfactory source (the es-wiki article is emphatically not the source of the picture) and I am dubious whether it has been validly licensed. --ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Citing Muckrock for government materials

Hi, I'm repairing some dead links at Elan School, and one specific citation to a report by the Maine Department of Education seems to be a completely dead link. I could not find it on a web archive or the current Maine DoE website. However, I did find a list of the reports on Muckrock. I was wondering if it's kosher to substitute the dead link with a link to MuckRock and how I should cite that, since I couldn't find precedent for this. Thanks! LatakiaHill (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@LatakiaHill: It looks as though that particular report—number 90302—is here at the Muckrock site (scroll to top of that page). To cite it, I'd just use {{Cite web}}, filling in that URL, the title "Basic School Approval Report Pertaining to the Elan School", and other relevant fields. If the reference is just to show that Elan's program was a year-round one, that bit of info can be found on page 3 of the report. Deor (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Deor:! I appreciate it.

Efn template not working properly

Hello! So I'm working on changing the template for the map DLC on Euro Truck Simulator 2 and I'm trying to add an efn to explain the reason for a country being listed as being part of a DLC it technically wasn't released in, however when I try adding it the efn character displays however what's inside the efn doesn't display if I hover over it and it's not below the references section like it normally would be. It's in User:Blaze The Wolf/sandbox 2. What exactly am I doing wrong here? ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: You need a {{notelist}} to make the efn notes work. I added one here. DuncanHill (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks DuncanHill for fixing it! I swear sometimes the efn would automatically add the notelist but I could be wrong. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Adding entries to authority control template with wikidata

How do I add an entry to the authority control list on my article using wikidata?

Thanks Trillkat (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

new round of discussions regarding the controversy section in the "Our Lady of Fátima" page

I have started a new round of discussions with Spyrazzle regarding the controversy section in the "Our Lady of Fátima" page i hope senior editors will keep an eye on the talk page arbitrate fairly between us, the last time i was banned unfairly for 36 hours by herecomesjamie for adding material not sourced, which is ironic because in fact i did source the material i added and it is the same exact sources Spyrazzle used to build his controversy section, if they were good to build the section why are they not good for a rebutel? anyways please help keep this fair and professional, Thank you all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadi153 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Our Lady of Fátima ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 10:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Fadil53. Dispute resolution explains the steps you should follow to try to resolve disputes. These steps do not include posting repeatedly at the Teahouse. --ColinFine (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Repinging Fadi153 --ColinFine (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

If you cannot resolve the dispute through discussion with the other editor, you may request participation from uninvolved, interested editors to build consensus for your changes. Several venues are available, listed below, to find editors who may be able to assist.

Participation in dispute resolution is voluntary and no one is required to participate. However, discussion can still proceed and consensus may be reached without the non-participating editor's input. Administrators and the community may take into consideration the degree and nature of an editor's participation in dispute resolution when deciding if an editor's activities are productive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadi153 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Fadi153: That text is a quote from the Dispute resolution page, and I'm not quite sure how it is relevant. The Teahouse is not one of the "several venues" listed on the page. Starting one Teahouse discussion about the article, to get advice on the situation, would have been fine, but this is the fourth thread started by one or another of the editors involved in the dispute. What you need to do is discuss the topic and the sourcing, but not the other editor(s) or their beliefs, on the article talk page. This is done to arrive at a consensus about the article content. If you don't get a consensus (either for or against what you, personally, think is the "right" version), the various options for dispute resolution are outlined on the page Colin Fine linked. Previous Teahouse threads about the article Our Lady of Fátima over the past few weeks: here, here, here, and this thread. --bonadea contributions talk 13:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy fact: the admin who blocked Fadi153 was actually Ohnoitsjamie, not "herecomesjamie". Bishonen | tålk 19:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC).

Can a short blurb selling a book be a source?

For the article Robert Fraser (art dealer) I was considering using https://pallantbookshop.com/product/groovy-bob-the-life-and-times-of-robert-fraser/ as a source for his being promiscuous homosexual. Greg Dahlen (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

How would you be using it? In general, I would think a controversial statement such as that in a person's biography article would need much more than marketing copy from a publisher. But the book itself could probably be used as a source for elements of his character such as that, when relevant. I think we need more information on what you're hoping to add and where. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Probably not. Such a blurb establishes no useful information other than that the book exists. --Jayron32 17:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

A blurb is not written by the author, so cannot be reliably credited; and it may change in different editions (or be lost altogether with the dustjacket) so it cannot be reliably verified. And I would never trust a blurb to reflect a book's content accurately; they are a marketing tool designed to sell the book, not summarise it.--Verbarson (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Article for Creation: Van Romaine

 Courtesy link: Draft:Van Romaine
I have been working on and editing an article for creation on the subject, Van Romaine. The original author's submittals, and now mine as well, focus pretty clearly on notability as the primary reason for rejecting the work. The article is biographical of a living person, and I do understand and appreciate the higher standards applied per Wikipedia's Notability article. I am both frustrated and confused, for a few reasons. I hope someone can address my questions in regard. First of all (and perhaps a bit ashamedly, as it seems somewhat juvenile), I have reviewed many published articles, under the same category (drummers) that have either dubious references, minimal references, or the same reference sites that I cited in my article. I am struggling to understand how some articles are accepted with so little substance, while my efforts are being denied. Is there any value to be gained by noting the articles I found that have these inferior references? Secondly, because the subject is of an age where the available references themselves are in a transitional phase; many having been originally published in print and archives online may not be available, and access to hard copies may be inaccessible due to cost, how should I proceed? Is it my obligation to spend money for access to reference material that may not even be accepted by the editing cadre? Thirdly, as the subject is a musician, his notoriety, impact and importance is subjective by nature. There are no metrics per se that define how or who is "worthy" of biography; other than the body of work that can attributed to the subject. We can not use words to define the unique styles, technical prowess or creative processes incorporated by an artist better than presenting available recordings, both in audio or video. All the words in the world can not do justice to describing a painting by Van Gogh; but one gaze (especially in person) transcends all that can not be described. In this subject case, there is a wealth of available audio and video of performances online. Does this trove carry no weight in establishing notability? Thanks in advance for your assistance and direction as to how I should re-examine this article. Terre Hominum (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Terre Hominum! You are asking questions that relate to the most fundamental principles of Wikipedia, so no doubt others will also want to address aspects of them. I'll try to get the ball rolling by responding to your points briefly.

Firstly: a great many Wikipedia articles do not match up to current standards. Some were first created years ago when the standards were lower, others were created directly as articles without going through a Draft stage requiring independent review before becoming articles. Our essay sometimes referred to as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS discusses why one should not rely on existing, possibly substandard articles to justify a similar one; where possible, only take as exemplars articles that have been rated as at least GA, if not FA. It is quite acceptable to flag up articles that you perceive as substandard, either by adding templates such as to unsubstantiated and contestible statements, by mentioning them to other editors, or by nominating them for deletion; however, the initial aim should usually be to improve articles (for example, by finding better references) rather than getting them expunged.

Secondly: no, neither you nor anybody else are obliged to spend money, because this is a 100% volunteer project, but Wikipedia has a great many active editors, and no deadlines, so between them they can usually collaborate through Wikipedia Projects or other means to access most reference sources. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and no praise accrues to an individual for having produced a new article solely by their own efforts.

Thirdly: Notability is never measured by a subject's subjective "worth" or by the size and/or "quality" (who judges) of their body of work in itself, but almost solely by the extent to which reliable sources, independently of them, have published material of substantial length about them. For specific types of subject, there can be additional guidelines that lay down measurable metrics to aid assessment; those most applicable here can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (music).

Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.225.31 (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Terre Hominum To add a bit about notability in the sense that we mean it here. To use the example of Vincent van Gogh that you mentioned, he is not considered notable because of the brilliance of his paintings or the exquisiteness of his brush strokes. We have an article about him only because many people (who mostly never met him and were not even born when he cut off his ear) have written at great length and detail - enough to fill entire libraries - about him and his work. This is what we mean by independent and reliable sources. Now of course we don't expect every article subject to be the topic of whole libraries, but we do require that a few such sources do exist. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Terre Hominum: I will add a few points to the other good responses above.

First, brevity will aid your readers and correspondents, both in talk pages and in articles. In particular, breaking up your "wall of text" into separate paragraphs for each point would have made it much more readable. Who knows how many readers scrolled past your post because it looked too intimidating?

Second, we unfortunately cannot (usually) cite or include audio recordings made by living musicians, both because they are primary sources and because we do not include copyrighted non-free content.

But, third, many volunteers such as myself do have professional expertise in locating good secondary sources, and are willing to help locate or provide sources under fair-dealing conditions for the purpose of improving Wikipedia articles. Visit the resource exchange to learn more. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 22:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Citation vs link

In this sentence "The United States operated a command missile system known as the Emergency Rocket Communications System (ERCS)." I could cite this page or I could put a link to it on "Emergency Rocket Communications System". Which would be the right approach? Wagsters (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Wagsters. A citation should contain bibliographic information to allow a reader (anywhere, anytime) to be able to obtain the source, and ideally also to evaluate the likely value to doing so. What's needed for this is things such as title, date, author, publication. A link to a copy of the reference is a convenience, not usually an essential part of the citation. So the answer that you should cite ie (eg using {{cite report}}) providing the URL as one of the parameters. --ColinFine (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Accidental creation of a page

I accidentally created a Wikipedia page, how can I delete it or ask for it to be deleted? Michaelocow (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Michaelocow Welcome to the Teahouse. To delete a page you have created that nobody else has significantly edited, you can request 'speedy deletion' under criterion G7. To do this, click 'edit source' and place the following text at the very top of the page: {{Db-self}} and publish your changes. This should display the speedy deletion template and call the attention of an admin, such as myself, to delete it for you. (Make sure you don't include any extraneous 'nowiki' words that you might see in chevron brackets. I've only used that here to ensure that this page doesn't get deleted!) Nick Moyes (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Any advice on editing?

Hello I am more used to welcoming new users however yesterday I was told by an admin I should not welcome new users due to be being new to wikipedia, I have done other edits such as spell checks but other then that I am not really a good editor does anyone have advice on editing? The furret lover (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@The furret lover: Thank you for wanting to help Wikipedia! I'm sorry you were given a bit of a scolding, but welcoming new users who have not edited articles really isn't one of the higher-priority tasks. TASKS gives you a range of general tasks, in order of difficulty; make sure you read and understand the policies, guidelines, and methods in the "More information" column before diving into a task. You may find it useful to add articles and topics that interest you to your Watchlist and reading the Talk/Discussion pages of interesting articles to see the process of improving articles. You also say you are in school, so it would also be a good idea to read Guidance for younger editors. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 22:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay thanks! The furret lover (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Question about Draft:Ezekiel Clark

Can someone take me on a step-to-step guide on fixing the problem for Draft:Ezekiel Clark and Draft:Jelle Sels? I just want to make sure my article is accepted, with all the problems fixed. (Both are declined, of course) Also, the article I submitted did not qualify for an article.  Severestorm28 (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Severestorm28: welcome to the Teahouse. Both drafts are about tennis players, and both of them were declined for not showing that the person is notable, as Wikipedia defines notability. A person is considered to be notable, in general, if there is significant coverage of them, that is, if multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the person have written about them (not simply mentioned their names, but written in some detail). Tennis players may also be considered notable if they meet the criteria that are outlined here. In both Draft:Ezekiel Clark and Draft:Jelle Sels, the only sources are their pages on results/rankings websites, which means that you have not showed that there is significant coverage about either of them. Unless they meet the criteria for tennis players, it is very unlikely that they are notable. That is not a problem that can be fixeed, I'm afraid. More information here about notability for tennis players. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 12:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea: If so, then how did my Draft:Brandon Holt get published? I don't get the differences for each draft I wrote. Severestorm28 (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the best person to discuss that with would be Greenman, the reviewer who accepted the draft, on their user talk page. Maybe the draft about Holt simply showed more clearly that he is notable – I don't know very much about the special notability requirements for tennis players, that's why I linked them above instead of trying to summarise them. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 13:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Thanks for your responses. This is very useful, and will solve my problem. Severestorm28 (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Who are the authors? AFD and step 4 trying to bundle article

Hello, first time nominating AFD, i'm at step 3, where i should let the authors know, do they mean the creator of the article or someone else?

Step 3 @Wikipedia:Articles for deletion  Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

If there are any major contributors, they would be the relevant parties. You can use the article's edit history to see if anyone has been making significant contributions to it and let them know. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The page history tool gives you statistics about how much various users contributed, and when they did. I would then visit the user pages of the biggest contributors and notify those who are currently active (have edited anything within the last year). ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 23:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh: Thank you! Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I quote: most of the articles in relies articles rely on deprecated source (Atlas of the humanitarian situation) is specific to each particular incident. I can't parse this, Dawit S Gondaria. Perhaps there's something wrong with me, but I suspect that this needs rewording. -- Hoary (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for pointing that out @Hoary:, Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

most of the articles in rely on deprecated source (Atlas of the humanitarian situation): this still baffles me. I first understood it as "most of the article relies on a single deprecated source (Atlas of the humanitarian situation)"; but as I wasn't sure, I thought I'd take a look. The previous AfD talks of application to 107 articles (I think it was), yet doesn't seem to list the other 106. It's all rather confusing. Particularly surprising is that you're starting this AfD just one day after the previous AfD closed. This is understandable, given that the previous AfD was closed on "procedural" grounds; however, you're likely to get impatient reactions. You'd be wise to reword your nomination to make it easier to understand. I think you're free to do this until it gets its first comment (quasi-vote): once it gets any comments, you shouldn't continue to tamper with the nomination but should instead use additional comments (but you should be sparing with these). -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: another user launched the first AFD and included a dozen articles that have wide coverage in the media, this is why it ended in a procedural keep, but there seemed to be a consensus that Atlas is a unreliable source, so i'm making sure to add articles a batch of 25 first(after doing a before check) that relies on the Atlas. Thank you, after the first comment, i won't be tampering with nominations. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 May Kado massacre (2nd nomination) i have not transcluded correctly, is there something i must do, or is it fixed by the bot? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It's fixed. -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Citations

Sorry that im asking a question about the same article again. in the section other films section in the Woody (Toy Story article are my uses of the IMDb citations inappropriate, because I saw some WP article that said it is not a reliable source sometimes. Also can I use this as a citation for the whole part where the article talks about how woody appears in the short films? Kaleeb18 (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: Citing IMDb is generally discouraged because it is user-generated content; Citing IMDb and IMDB-EL have suggestions on when IMDb might be an appropriate source. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 05:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

How to link up/bundle AFD deletion discussion with related pages

Help!, on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 May Kado massacre (2nd nomination) i added the related pages, but the related pages for example Megab massacre doesn't show/link with the deletion discussion page of the latter. What do i have to do to link related pages to the deletion discussion page? I tried to do step 3, then show preview, it doesn't link to the deletion discussion page, then i tried afdx then preview, doesn't come up right either Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The markup for a template starts with two consecutive "{"; it must also end with two consecutive "}". -- Hoary (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: i know i couldn't do it here, but if i follow the guideline, and change or replace the current Afd message in Megab massacre, it will show an error. Can you please link it up to the deletion discussion page, so that i can learn from the diff? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Dawit S Gondaria, Megab massacre is linked properly to the AfD. A number of other pages are also to be discussed in that AfD; I clicked on one of them at random (Addi Esher massacre), and found that it too is linked properly to the AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Shortcut Button for reply

It is very disgusting to reply to long conversations, by using edit source. I have heard that there is a button beside the last reply labelled as'reply', and on clicking that one can easily add the reply. Please tell me to make that setting. And thanks again, for answering so many of my questions. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Wow, "disgusting" is a rather strong word! But I think what you're looking for is Discussion Tools, in Preferences > Beta features. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 13:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionhThanks a lot, you helped me a lot. Yes 'disgusting' is a bad word, I know, but it sometimes gets irritating when I have to scroll all done the edit source section and then add equivalent (:::::) and then write what I want to do. By using that beta feature, I can easily reply. Any suggestions on auto signing, I sometimes tend to forget to sign. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: Discussion Tools will also sign your replies automatically. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 05:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

How to give warnings with Twinkle tags

I asked this question to the editor, who gave me welcome message, but he is not answering it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HiLo48#Tag_Twinkle --ZebraaaLounge (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC) ZebraaaLounge (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@ZebraaaLounge: Those are given with the tool called Twinkle, however I recommend you don't use it until you've gained a bit more experience and you resolve the edit war you are currently engaged in. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@ZebraaaLounge: it is absolutely unacceptable for you to falsify another user's signature, as you did in this edit. I don't know what you were trying to do, but please do not ever do that again. CodeTalker (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

CodeTalker, Where did I falsify their signature. Wikipedia was having lots of page loading, problem, and server error. I wrote their names instead of pinging them. I was replying to one user mentioning another user's name. And in the whole edit, only my signature has links to my user page, talkpage. They are obviously watching their last edits, and that's why I did not ping them at that time.ZebraaaLounge (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I checked again and saw I ended the comment with my signature only. And page history will show who made what edit. ZebraaaLounge (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@ZebraaaLounge: I think you messed up with that edit. If you look what happened in the diff, not only did you add a comment of your own, correctly signed, but you also changed someone else's signature from a comment 4 paragraphs higher so that it read [[User:NarSakSasLee|Echo1Charlie]] instead of [[User:NarSakSasLee|NarSakSasLee]]. This would have presented the text Echo1Charlie (while linking to NarSakSasLee, who actually wrote the paragraph so signed). You can see how this would create a very bad impression, as it looks as though you are trying to put NarSakSasLee's words in Echo1Charlie's mouth. Best avoided! Elemimele (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Elemimele: @CodeTalker: I understand what happened now. Their names NarSakSasLee are uncommon words, jumbled letters, so not easy to spell. I was copy-pasting their names to write my own comment. Instead I copy-pasted another's name in other's signature. Their signature has spelling. Bbb23 name is easy to remember. ZebraaaLounge (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

hi

hi,Anyone? Athena-en (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Athena-en: Please don't remove the COI template from Xian Jun Loh without a discussion. And please see WP:COI. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Timtempleton:，received.07:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand why a New York Times reference has been flagged as an unreliable source. Help?

 Courtesy link: Martha Nothmann

The source is: "A Nazi Legacy Haunts a Museum’s New Galleries", url https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/11/arts/design/kunsthaus-zurich-buhrle-collection.html

The message I received was:

"Ways to improve Martha Nothmann Hello, Eli185,

Thank you for creating Martha Nothmann.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Many of the references are unreliable, such as the one from The New York Times

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with @Qwerfjkl:. Remember to sign your reply with Eli185 (talk) 07:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC). For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Qwerfjkltalk 07:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)"

What am I supposed to do if a reviewer does not like the content of a NYT article about Nazi art looting in a Wikipedia article about a Jewish art collector?

Eli185 (talk) 07:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Eli185, Qwerfjkl actually specified the NYT in their comment in your talk page. You responded by politely asking what was wrong with it. That was a good response. Now wait for the answer. (If no answer comes in a couple of days, then you'd be welcome to bring up the matter elsewhere.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Ginger?

Hi, on the current Ginger wiki page, it really doesn't have any clear distinct info on the actual variety of ginger out there or the positive effects reported by systematic reviews. Is that meant to be normal and is it acceptable to add them in including systematic reviews that explains the positive found effects? From sources like https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7019938/? TheUntamedBig (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

References

@TheUntamedBig: Welcome to the Teahouse! The best place for this question is the talk page of the relevant article, which in this case is Talk:Ginger. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 02:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. But I was also hoping you can answer a more general question in that is it okay to add in info about research from systematic review sources like https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7019938/ to Wikipedia articles? Are they solid enough sources? TheUntamedBig (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Academic consensus does say that Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus, and this would include systematic reviews. But I think the reliability of the specific journal and researchers would also be important in determining whether a specific sources is appropriate. I don't have the expertise to say whether the article you linked or the journal Nutrients is reliable – this is something that would be best taken up on the article talk page or one of the WikiProjects listed at the top of the talk page. As for the "Product Blue Book" source, that looks like an industry/commercial website, which may be less reliable. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 03:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh thanks for the detailed explanation. Appreciate it and I think that answers my question :).TheUntamedBig (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

TheUntamedBig The article does have a Research section that touches on putative health benefits. I have not checked the references to see if they meet the WP:MEDRS criteria of being reviews, systematic reviews or meta-analyses. You might also look at the other "G" dietary supplements Ginseng, Garlic and Ginkgo biloba to see how medicinal and traditional uses are described. David notMD (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikitampering: One chart, 52 weeks

There may be other Wikipedia pages with this peculiar little bit of tampering but this is the first one I've found. Every one of the links at the bottom of the page listing the Billboard Hot Dance Club Play number ones of 2005 – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Billboard_Hot_Dance_Club_Play_number_ones_of_2005 – goes to the Billboard chart for March 28, 2020. I'm afraid to look at the pages for 2004 and 2006! Thomps2020 (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Thomps2020: It looks like what used to be unique URLs for those dates are now just redirecting to Billboard's chart for March 2020. I think this is something that changed on Billboard's website, not on-wiki vandalism. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 01:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Thomps2020 I'll echo what Claudine said - Doesn't look like any malicious intent, and the page history doesn't show any vandalism :). I'm updating that article's references right now with archive links, so hopefully nobody else will get confused! Either way, good eye catching that. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 02:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Thadeus, for going to all that trouble. If someone from Billboard really did redirect all the links, why use a chart from March of 2020? Why not have the links go to the current week's chart? Not being in the "link redirecting" business, I have no idea. Thomps2020 (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I just checked the links on the page of Hot Dance Club Play number-one singles of 1992.....and 1993.....and 1994.....and 1995 – and every link goes to that same chart of March 28, 2020. Yeah, Diana Ross' "Love Hangover 2020" was number one. We know! We know! Who redirected the links – and why? Is there any way to find out? Thomps2020 (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Thomps2020: You would probably have to ask Billboard. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 05:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Thomps2020: Chipping in here, it's because as it stands that chart from March 2020 is the most recent one (the Dance Club Play chart has been suspended since that date due to COVID). So they probably changed all the links and the no-longer-working link format redirects to the latest chart, which in this case is 18 months old. Hope that makes sense..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Thomps2020: Organizations and companies often rework their websites for a variety of reasons, and older content gets overwritten by more recent stuff or moved to some new url address as part of that process; so, when you click on the old link, you end up getting redirected to some other page. Sometimes you can find archived versions of the old webpages via sites like the Wayback Machine and this is what ThadeusOfNazereth has gone and done; so, everything should be fine now. You can do the same as well the next time you come across a similar problem if you want, or you can use templates {{Citations broken}} or {{Dead link}} to let others know about the problem. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

How to move articles from sandbox to the main space

kindly help me to move an article from my sandbox to the main space. User:Ngangaesther/sandbox Ngangaesther (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Please, see Wikipedia:So_you_made_a_userspace_draft#Ready!. Ruslik_Zero 12:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Editing the content of a page

Good day,

As the communication team of Societe Generale de Banque au Liban, we have noticed some wrong information in the presentation of our bank on Wikipedia. Can you kindly help us through the best procedure to amend the content without violating the page? i.e. an "allegation section" contains erupted information that we are seeking to remove. As for the introduction, we would like to bring some modifications reflecting the current description of our bank.

Awaiting your kind feedback in order to bring the required amendments as soon as possible.

Best regards,

Christelle Feghaly Head of Press & Media Relations Cfeghaly (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cfeghaly. Before you or anyone of your fellow team members try to edit the article about your bank, I strongly suggest you and they take the time to carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide because they most certainly would apply to you or anyone else connected to the bank based upon what you posted above. Then, you probably should also take a close look at Wikipedia:Ownership of content because it's important for you and your fellow team members to understand that your bank doesn't not have any type of editorial control over what's written about it on Wikipedia. This doesn't mean that anyone can simple write whatever they want (good or bad) about the bank on Wikipedia, but it does mean that all content about the bank is going to be assessed in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and may be considered acceptable even if it's not something the bank likes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Strong warnings have been placed on your Talk page about declaring paid situation and ceasing to edit the article directly. Same applies to User:Elite Moussa. David notMD (talk) 12:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

That said, I did look at the article and to be frank, all I see is mention of an uncited allegation made by an unspecified "local newspaper", with two reasonable-looking sources denying that the allegation was incorrect. It makes me feel that the entire two sentence allegation section is quite possibly not appropriate in the article, and was done for POV purposes, and that it should be removed until better sources are found. The Press & Media Relations Team in the form of @Cfeghaly is advised to make an WP:EDITREQUEST on the talk page, detailed explicitly what changes they would seek other editors make for them. They can then investigate what, if any Reliable Sources have been published and make the changes accordingly. Declaring their Conflict of Interest in that edit and also on their Userpage would be important things to do, too. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Edição

Como editar um artigo? Artajeiro (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Google's Translation:

Header: Edition

Text: How to edit an article? ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia. Perhaps you are looking for the Portuguese Wikipedia? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

List of countries

List of countries with their first National Hockey League player - Chris Chelios was born in GREECE (please add this to the list) Cheers, Pat Reid  2001:1970:4CDD:200:2934:2AEC:4C57:DE2 (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please direct your comment to Talk:List of countries with their first National Hockey League player. There, the editors that follow that article will see it. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Not according to Chris Chelios. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Notability References

Where and how do I enter notability references in my new Wikipedia article? CorpTool (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC) CorpTool (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@CorpTool Welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for declaring your COI with regard this article. You need to find in-depth sources that are independent of the subject and which are not part of the insider news community (ecosystem) that this company works in. Use only the factual statements in those sources as the basis of the article. Right now, it's seems pretty obvious you are probably being paid to promote this article on Wikipedia because the marketing speak oozes out of every single sentence. See WP:PAID to explicitly declare who is paying you. To be frank, it's wholly unacceptable as an encyclopaedia article right now. So, cut out 9/10ths of the article's current content and present facts that establish Notability based purely upon just those key sources. Read WP:NCORP to learn more. If you feel you've already included the best sources, just link to the top three in any reply you make here and we'll take a quick look at them. I for one am not prepared to wade through dozens of probable press releases and trade magazine links to attempt to ascertain notability. I hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, CorpTool. I'm afraid that your question is like "Where and how do I build foundations for the house I have just put up?" If you write a single statement without having a reliable source wholly independent of the subject for the information in that statement, you are probably wasting your time (and other people's). In respect of Draft:Confiant Inc. I would say on a quick scan that at least three quarters of the draft should be removed, as it is pure marketing copy. 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. When you have found these independent sources, you then need to forget basically everything you know about Confiant, and write exclusively from what those independent sources say (and don't forget to include any substantial criticisms they have). An even better use of your time would be to put this project aside for at least six months while you "learn the trade" of editing Wikipedia by working on improving some of our six million articles unrelated to your COI. --ColinFine (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability is a good essay on some of the related problems here. --Jayron32 13:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. CorpTool (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit to Atom (software)

Can someone approve of my edit to atom (software) MCBOiS1210 (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, MCBOiS1210, you have neither edited Atom (software) nor put a request on Talk:Atom (software). What are you trying to do? --ColinFine (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Evidently, I mean Talk:Atom (text editor). --ColinFine (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Declined Article due to notability

How do I make my subject notable, if i have added reliable sources? Jasminbrown1202 (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Jasminbrown1202 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume this refers to Draft:Tonesa "FirstladyofBMF" Welch. You cannot make the subject notable, but you can demonstrate their notability with independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the person. Much of the draft is unsourced(see WP:REFB for assistance with citations). 331dot (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Notability is something that the subject has, not the article. You need to demonstrate that the subject is themselves notable by citing sufficiently in-depth, independent, reliable sources where you got the information for writing the article from. See also WP:42 for a concise explanation. --Jayron32 15:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

So is the problem I need to add more sources inside of the article? The subject is notable. She was the head of the biggest drug trafficking and money laundering organization in the country. Everyone knows who BMF is. Big Meech and Southwest T. She is the longtime girlfriend of Southwest T and was on the indictment. She has had tv shows casted behind her role as well as a Documentary done on her through BET. I am not sure what else I should add. Perhaps those clips inside the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasminbrown1202 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Jasminbrown1202, and welcome to the Teahouse. The points you mention in your last paragraph are all relevant to notability in the world, but not one of them is directly relevant to Wikipedia's criteria for notability, which are mostly to do with "is there enough independent material reliably published about this person to base an encyclopaedia article on?" Remember that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Cleaned up, and added Wikilink to Black Mafia Family. See Help:Referencing for beginners on how to convert URL refs to properly formatted refs. A suggestion: work on refs in your Sandbox, then move to article only when those are in good shape. Up to you to demonstrate that existing or additional refs are about Tonesa Welch. David notMD (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Vin Gupta

Help with AfC for Dr. Vin Gupta

Hello! I've had two experienced editors provide excellent feedback for an AfC for Vin Gupta, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vin_Gupta

They've both independently said they had hoped for one last editor to weigh in to ensure an "unbiased outcome" and since its been a few weeks, I was hopeful you might be willing to assist. Thank you again. Caroline grossman23 (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It says: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,397 pending submissions waiting for review." Remember that there is no deadline. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Did You Know

Can anyone here please tell me how I can find yesterday's DID YOU KNOW (17th Nov, 2021). I had seen about someone breastfeeding in the nursing room, in front of some males, and she was also a politician. Actually that is not the case, I want to find yesterday DID YOU KNOW. I cannot find it in the page history?? Cannot understand why. Please assist me in the following matter. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: Here's the DYK archive for the current month, with links and search for the whole archive. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 05:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionhThanks a lot for helping me again. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh Yeah it was Susan Catania. I wanted to read about her. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: Just so you know - the reason you couldn't find it in the history of the front page is that the Did You Know section is a template, rather than an article. So you'd have to check the history of the template rather than of the front page itself. DS (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit reversion

FYI

 – Separated from above section. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 19:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

So this user reverted my edit to Sir Keir's talk-page and I saw red and added in the link I posted on the talk page on the mainspace (along with an edit summary basically slandering him) which I'd added in the hopes of generating some kind of discussion.

Obviously I feel a little foolish about this and wish I hadn't done it.

What can I do to make amends? Phil of rel (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Need help to re-edit page to remove a content problem panel.

Hi there. A panel has just appeared on my wiki page saying that some of the wording on my page is self-promoting for want of a better word. Could anyone help me go through my page and edit it so I can meet the guidelines and get this panel down? thanks!

Page link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johanna_Spinks 107.185.204.212 (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems Njd-de is already working on cleaning up the page (thank you, Njd-de!). If you have further concerns or questions, there's always the article's talk page: Talk:Johanna Spinks. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 20:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Permission for a photo

I want to add a photo to the article on my father, mathematician, Beresford Parlett. The original photographer of the photo is now deceased. Just to make sure, I contacted his widow and asked permission to use the photo for the Wikipedia site. She said "yes" to me verbally. However, when I tried to post the photo to the site it was later taken down. How do I get official permission to post this photo? SlamDunk2000 (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@SlamDunk2000:: Instructions are available at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission; there's a optional form letter for the copyright holder to complete and an email address to send the permission to where someone will verify the proper release of copyright. If you have more specific questions on how to navigate that page, please let us know. --Jayron32 18:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi SlamDunk2000. What Jayron332 posted above is correct, and I've gone into a little more detail about this on your user talk page. I've also added some information about Wikipedia:Conflict of interest to your user talk page as well for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

David Leigh Clark

I have been asked to add info for my present Wikipedia reference (David Leigh Clark). I have used online instructions since computes became common but I cannot understand how to add a biography to my name. I registered for an account but need some help. I don't know what a TILDES is?  Pleh15 (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

For information on not writing an autobiography, see WP:autobiography. To find out about a tilde, see tilde. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: David Leigh Clark Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 18:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

"Tildes" is the plural of "Tilde". One tilde: ~ Two tildes: ~~ End a post to a talk page with four tildes, and the system will expand that into your signature plus a timestamp. DS (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The article needs references that are ABOUT DLC. Referencing to journal articles he authored or co-authored does not confirm his notability. David notMD (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Tips on creating a user page

I need help on what I should add to my user page. I've created it, but I'm not sure what to do with it. Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WaterflameIsAwesome WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

oh shoot I forgot my signature provides a link XD WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@WaterflameIsAwesome: you could add what you first edit was. You could add userboxes based off your interests; something maybe like sports. You can also add userboxes that say how many edits you have made etc. you can also look at my user page for an example and my userboxes that you might want to use. Kaleeb18 (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks! I'll check it out. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

How is everyones day

 Dsmi3939 (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Uh I think this is not the right place to say this. The Teahouse is to ask questions about Wikipedia, not ask how everyone's day is. But, to reply to your message, I am fine. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Citation help needed

Hey there! Looking for some help navigating a citation issue. I have been adding content and thus additional citations to the page on Catherine Parr (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Parr). However, my citations are not automatically populating in the reference list as they should. I am wondering why this is happening and if someone could assist me. I have done every tutorial and read every article on wikipedia citations and I sought help on Teahouse but am still stumped. If someone is able to help by explaining it to me like I'm five, I would really appreciate it! Thanks. DrMichelineWhite (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi DrMichelineWhite. It looks like you asked something similar before at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1130#Citations not populating in reference list. Did you see the replies you received? Did the suggestions given not work? It appears that you've made a number of edits to Catherine Parr since August and that , you might have unintentionally damaged the syntax of citations previously added by others with this edit. That is probably why there are now "error" messages are visible in Catherine Parr#Citations since there were no such messages visible in the version prior to your October 1 edit. Adding citations to an article can be tricky to do in some cases when a complicated citation style like WP:SFN has been previously adopted. It's not generally a good idea to try and use multiple citation styles in an article per WP:CITEVAR which means you might've have to figure out a way to incorporate the citations you want to add into the article using the already established style. Perhaps the the best thing to do would be to ask for assistance at Talk:Catherine Parr because that's where you're likely going to find editors who might be able to help you do so if you're unable to figure things out yourself. Finally, please also take a look at WP:EXPERT and WP:CITESELF as well for reference since they might also apply to your situation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Can I start my own newsletter?

I was just wondering, is it possible for me to create my own Wikipedia newsletter? (It sounds like a fun project reporting what's going on in Wikipedia, but also difficult. And, I don't know if I even can.) WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

WaterflameIsAwesome, this is an encyclopedia. Fun is incidental. I suggest that you make a thousand or so substantial improvements to existing article -- improvements in the judgment of other editors, who build on your edits rather than reverting them. Then you can decide whether or not you want to create a newsletter. And if you still do, then after those thousand improvements you'll know what you're writing about. -- Hoary (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, good idea. I just thought it would be something else to make Wikipedia worth my while. Because I'm not gonna sit around Wikipedia just editing articles all day. I just thought it would be a good break from doing my duty, but I'll try and get 1,000,000 edits before I start a newsletter. :/ WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Nobody expects you to edit articles all day. Your fellow-editors hope that the edits that you do make are improvements. (If one in fifty is mistaken, OK. If a substantial percentage are mistaken, not OK.) To take a break from improving articles, there are many possibilities, many of them away from your computer (or phone). -- Hoary (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I meant like other things on Wikipedia, not including away from WP. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

WaterflameIsAwesome, I think it's good to approach Wikipedia as a reader, and then, while you're reading, to encounter some kind of deficiency or irritation or other kind of problem -- and then not to rush in but to think about it: "Do I really know what's going on here? Am I sure that what I have in mind is an improvement?" When you are pretty confident that you can answer "yes and yes", improve it, carefully. This may take rather more time than you want to spend on it, but when it's done you'll be more confident of what you're doing. Look for opportunities to make similar improvements elsewhere. Soon you'll be pretty good at this, and fast, too. That will bring a feeling of satisfaction. (Just one thing: Avoid looking for "grammar mistakes". A certain kind of editor cites something written in an underinformed, silly book about grammar -- there are plenty of these, many of them from respected publishers -- and wastes lots of time inflicting some so-called "grammar rule" on perfectly good prose.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

To @Hoary: WP:LIGHTENUP.

To @WaterflameIsAwesome: check out Wikipedia:Department of Fun. ––FormalDude ^talk 02:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Bah, Hoary (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Getting to 1,000,000 edits is a reach. According to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, only 13 people have surpassed that milestone. David notMD (talk) 09:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

To WaterflameIsAwesome: if you're planning to write your own Wikipedia newsletter, and send it out to a mailing list that you maintain yourself, that's fine, I doubt anyone here can stop you. If you're planning to publish it using Wikipedia itself, you may encounter difficulties. Wikipedia has its own monthly newsletter, The Signpost, which used to have interesting articles about the running of Wikipedia, but has become anodyne since the Wikimedia Foundation starting influencing its contents. If your plan is to compete with The Signpost, I wish you success; but you're going to need some good high-level contacts to supply your information. Maproom (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily thinking about trying to compete with The Signpost. In fact, The Signpost is the whole reason I'm asking this question, lol (I hadn't heard of a newsletter until I discovered it). It wouldn't really have any other purpose than just discussing Wikipedia, and maybe a short "how-to" section or something like that. I might just merge multiple Wikipedia newspapers/newsletters into one, stating each story in my own words, with maybe some minor help from others. Just a fun project that I could work on for some free time on Wikipedia. For now, I think I might settle for putting some stories on my user page, as a starter. IF that's doable, of course. ;) WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah, also @David notMD, I didn't literally mean one million edits. Also, am I the only one here who has a sense of sarcasm? WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

"spamming"

You asked me to "stop spamming my book." I will comply. However, I defend all the changes I made as factually accurate and documented in the University of Chicago Archives, where I did most of the research for my book on Amos Alonzo Stagg. David E. Sumner, PhD Indiana Author (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Even if there was nothing wrong with the additions, hopefully you can understand the conflict of interest, and that Wikipedia edits should be made by people independent of the subject. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

For context, I am the user who called his edits spam. user:Indiana Author wrote the autobiographical article David E. Sumner without disclosing his conflict of interest, and then mentioned his recent book in something like 30 different articles at his "publisher's suggestion" [7]. Meters (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Indiana Author. Please understand that WP:CITESPAM and WP:BOOKSPAM are problems that the Wikipedia Community is dealing with on a daily basis. It's not impossible to cite one's self in a Wikipedia article, but it is a form of conflict of interest that needs to be done carefully. If the content you're referring above can be found in the University of Chicago archives, then it might be possible to simply cite the archives itself instead of your book. This might not be what your publisher wants, but it might be the best thing for Wikipedia and that matters more. Please take a look at WP:CITINGSOURCES and WP:RELIABLESOURCES for some more general information on this or try asking at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you've got any specific questions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Meters. STOP adding your book to articles. EVERY ONE had been reverted. David notMD (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you to all the authors and editors who work or volunteer with Wikipedia to make it reliable and accurate. I use it regularly in my research for a quick reference source and will continue to do so. - David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiana Author (talk • contribs) 00:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Visual editor creates bugs in refs

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T296044

I have noticed that since a few hours, my edits using the Visual Editor create some bugs in the references, both in the English and French WP, e.g. here, here, here. It happens wherever I edit in the article. Is it normal or is it just me? Veverve (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Veverve, it's a known and recent bug associated with VisualEditor; see discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#VisualEditor duplicating named citations and the Phabicrator task at phab:T296044. DanCherek (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism on page Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham by anonymous user ip

An anonymous user 117.223.250.19 has deleted entire intro and writes propaganda. Pls help. Where should I report?Kannadiga kanmani Kannadiga kanmani (talk) 09:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I see only one edit (a large deletion) by that IP address, which you reverted. I suggest you put the article on your Watch list, but do not bother to warn or ask for a block on the IP unless this is repeated. David notMD (talk) 09:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually, this has gotten worse. The IP may have edited as 117.153.68.63, 117.249.143.61, 117.251.229.138 and 117.223.266.69. Peopel with disputes should discuss in Talk page of article. David notMD (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Revision history

Yes, I just wanted to know, what's the actual point/benefit of having an articles revision history publicly available going back to the creation of the article, doesn't it just take up more space? And also, what's the oldest revision of any article that's still available on the en.wikipedia.org database? Are there any still accessible publicly going back 20 years ago to 2001? Thanks Hgh1985 (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

hi Hgh1985 and welcome to the teahouse! simply put: transparency and proper attribution. while it may be hard to find due to how it works, you'd technically be able to figure out who contributed which to the article even back to edits made back in the early years of wikipedia. happy editing!  melecie  t - 01:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hgh1985: Special:Diff/908493298 is the oldest edit to Wikipedia, from back on January 15, 2001. All the revisions do take up space, but the usefulness of having old revisions outweighs the small-in-the-grand-scheme-of-things cost of keeping them around. Vahurzpu (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Hello, Hgh1985. The text of each Wikipedia page is both copyrighted and freely licensed for re-use by anyone. The copyright is not held by Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. The copyright is held by the individual editors who wrote the article. The free license requires attribution to the authors, and one of the functions of the revision history is to provide that attribution. Another function is the ability to correct articles which have become severely damaged by things like copyright violations, libel or threats of violence. An editor can go back through the revision history, find the last undamaged version, and revert to that version. An administrator can hide the damaged versions. So, all of this has legal implications, and data storage is dirt cheap. The software used to run Wikipedia in its early months did not track the revision history but the overwhelming majority of edits are available for review. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hgh1985: (edit conflict) Our license legally requires that contributions by individual editors to a page can be found. MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning is displayed above the publish button. The database only stores diffs for the revision history. mw:Manual:MediaWiki architecture#Database and text storage says: "The compression ratio achieved on Wikimedia sites nears 98%." It's also useful. I often look far back in page histories to for example see where a problem started, who started it and what else they have done, and whether there is a good earlier version to partially or fully revert to. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

How many edits?

What is the easy way to determine exactly how many edits ANOTHER editor (other than yourself) has done lifetime to date? I know how to find my own edits, but another editor is the question. Should be an easy one.

First to answer gets a cookie. cookie ♥ Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 21:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Th78blue: You can go to that user's contribution page and then click the edit count link at the bottom. That will lead to a page like this: [8] with various edit count stats. RudolfRed (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Th78blue Hi there. Go to that persons User page or Talk page and (in desktop mode) look on the far left side of the page in the section headed 'Tools'. Then click 'User contributions'. At the page that appears, scroll right to the bottom and click 'Edit count'. This displays a very helpful page summarising all of the edits made by that user in various parts of Wikipedia. In your case, you've made 5,666 edits at the time of posting this. (See here). Once you have the url for xtools, you can replace your own username with that of any other user - assuming you can remember the link. E.g. https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Th78blue; https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Nick_Moyes; https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/RudolfRed etc.Nick Moyes (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

You're both getting cookies! Thanks! Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 22:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, one more follow up question for @Nick Moyes: actually (since you're so detailed too!) ♥, can you tell me what are "deleted edits? I see in peoples "edit counts" both "Live edits" and "deleted edits"? Thanks! Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 00:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Th78blue: If you enable "Navigation popups:" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets then you can see the edit count (and many other things) just by hovering over a linked username. Deleted edits are edits to currently deleted pages, and edits which have been hidden in the page history (revision deletion). PrimeHunter (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

User Rights

I want to know all about user rights, and know how many of them are there, and what are they. Any assistance. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Itcouldbepossible! Wikipedia:User access levels is a pretty comprehensive source of information about the different user rights on the English Wikipedia. Feel free to ask any follow up questions you have here! DanCherek (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@DanCherek Thanks for your help. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@DanCherek Should I also read the sub-pages, like

Further information: Wikipedia:Administration § Human and legal administration

??? Itcouldbepossible (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

That depends on how much time you want to spend reading and how much detail you want to go into If it looks interesting to you, go ahead. You shouldn't feel like you need to read every single information page to be a good editor, though. I don't think that Wikipedia:Administration is one that I myself have read before. DanCherek (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@DanCherek Thanks I would try and read everything, if I can. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Capital punishment in the Bible

i am a professor of Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament at Duke. how can i go about editing this page, correcting many of the deficiencies noted? marc brettler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.43.54 (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

You may make an edit request(click for instructions) detailing changes you feel are needed, on the article talk page, Talk:Capital punishment in the Bible. 331dot (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could create an account (there is no need to use your real name) and when it is autoconfirmed you'll be able to edit the article directly. It is protected from direct access by IP-only accounts because it suffers from so much vandalism. Whether you edit directly or via an edit request, please be sure to supply reliable sources for any change. However expert you are, we do not allow original research in Wikipedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

As an fyi, here's what "autoconfirmed" means if that didn't mean much to you: Autoconfirmed users. -- asilvering (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The artice is currently under protection (WP:SEMI) but that expires in a couple of days. WP:TUTORIAL and WP:EXPERT can be of help to you. Also: PLEASE improve that article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Click on Talk (upper left) to see if some of what you have in mind has been subject of past or current debate. David notMD (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Someone deleted my comments on a talk page

I'm still a new editor but someone has reverted my talk page comments[9], is this permitted on wikipedia? Thanks in advance. SmolBrane (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@SmolBrane As far as I see, your issue has been addressed. See this diff ([10]). Maybe it was an accidental removal. Actually you see, those who do this reverts, or rollbacks, they sometimes make mistakes, because they have to look over so many things, and they sometimes tend to make mistakes. Hope that helps!!!. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Ahhh that makes sense, thank you! SmolBrane (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Is this allowed or not

Am I allowed to produce an article without any citations? I have been trying to improve the draft [ Draft:Mall of the North ] with reliable sources but I can't seem to find any although the shopping mall is a notable place in the Southern Africa or more specifically South Africa, I have seen few articles with in the main space without any citations and I asked myself if I'm missing something or not (and some with only one or two cites), for an example check out Tsunade, the article has absolutely no source. I was wondering if I would be penalized (blocked or something) if did the same since I cannot find reliable sources to cite Mall of the North. Motlatlaneo (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Motlatlaneo! All articles need to be supported by citations to reliable sources. Notability itself is generally determined based on the amount of significant coverage that a topic has received in reliable, independent secondary sources. Yes, there are some existing articles with poor or nonexistent sourcing – the solution is not to create more unsourced articles, but rather to improve those unsourced articles (or delete/redirect them if necessary). You're unlikely to be blocked for creating a single unsourced article, but it might be moved back to draftspace or nominated for deletion if there are no references to demonstrate its notability. Hope that helps. DanCherek (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Motlatlaneo I Googled Mall of the North to see if I could find some references for you, and discovered that the first half of your draft article was copied from the Mall's website, the only change being that you wrote "The offers" instead of "Our offers". Once you find good sources for your article it's important that you not copy and paste other's writing word for word, but instead use your own words to tell what you have read. It may be helpful for you to read Wikipedia:Copyright violations to learn more about the importance of not violating any copyright laws. Best wishes on improving your draft article. Karenthewriter (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Karenthewriter I have studied the wiki rules and yes I have to admit that was wrong. I'm willing to use my own words so what hoping you'd tell me is that you found something to cite of which you didn't, which means the really isn't anything out there but the mall widely notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motlatlaneo (talk • contribs) 03:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I would like to add people on Merseyside people on that Wikipedia page need to be guided through it?

 ACtiling (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The relevant page is List of people from Merseyside. As you can see, ACtiling has made many edits to the page, with good intentions, but many have had to be reverted as they also removed people without any reason, and were misplaced. Any guidance from editors here that can be offered to this enthusiastic editor will, I'm sure, help. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

ACtiling Please read the policy at WP:LISTPEOPLE.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

What to do about unsourced, promotional, biographical articles?

Hi,

I recently came across the article Fayez Barakat while browsing recent changes. The article has mostly been edited by users that only write about Fayez Barakat, has no citations, and the two references with ISBNs seem to be published by a company that has only published books on Fayez Barakat. It contains plenty of unsourced direct quotes, and passages such as:

"He is best known as one of the world's most important collectors and dealers of ancient art"; "At the age of 14 Barakat was offered a Fulbright Scholarship to study medicine in the United States on account of his remarkable aptitude for absorbing and understanding information" [seems extremely unlikely]; "Barakat remarks that 'our mind cannot penetrate the mystery of the Universe. We know that the number of galaxies is endless, and we try to listen with the ears of our soul the music they make moving across the infinite skies'. He looks at the universe and at the multitude of galaxies and constellations with a subliminal and telepathic telescope, seeing those eternal lights moving across the infinite through the intuitive eye of his heart. He tries to evade the boundaries of this galaxy through the intuitive dimension, breaking through the limits of space and time, and see the entirety of the infinite and of the eternal. In doing so, he fuses himself into the quantum field, into the energy moving the universe on a sub-atomic and global level. The energy the artist impresses on the canvas is the one that permeates his soul, intellect, senses and instincts, and merges into the energy which animates and moves the universe."; and so on.

What do I do about this? It seems to me that the entire article should be deleted for a complete lack of sources or anything establishing notability. But how do I proceed to do this? Do I just start a proposal for deletion? Should I post on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to get someone more experienced to look it over, or is there something else that would be the best course of action?

Thanks in advance for any help! Knuthove (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Knuthove (talk) I looked at Fayez Barakat and see it is now tagged as having multiple issues. In addition, the talk page has a new Conflict of Interest tag. Thank you for bringing this to the attention of other editors. Karenthewriter (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Knuthove, Never be afraid to remove unverified info, especially puffery of this kind. - hako9 (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Knuthove Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that a number of editors have now tagged the article with their concerns, and I have personally removed swathes of uncited trivia and promotional text, and warned the IP editor about declaring a conflict of interest Assuming you are motivated to take action yourself, you could look for online sources yourself to decide whether or not this person meets our Notability Criteria for living people. The page called WP:BEFORE outlines the steps one should take prior to putting an article forward for deletion. I note there are various sources listed, though the one I did search out (see here) is clearly a self-published gallery catalogue. Maybe others are too, though some of the claims in the article (if true) do suggest he might well be notable. So some further investigation would be helpful, and then perhaps a post at WP:BLP/N could be merited if its still not clear. I hope this helps, and thanks for raising your question here. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It has now been stripped down to a mere stub, citing three sources. This may look promising, until one realizes that all three are only interviews. (I'm surprised that WP:RS doesn't mention interviews; all that I can find in a hurry is Wikipedia:Interviews, which is merely a somewhat waffly essay.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I looked for Fayez Barakat on Google and found his Wikipedia article and numerous Fayez Barakat generated cites. Then I went to newspapers.com and found one article (https://www.newspapers.com/image/148931789/?terms=%22Fayez%20Barakat%22&match=1) about the art dealer allegedly buying stolen items. He does not seem to have much media coverage. Karenthewriter (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments and editing! I see that the article now is just about what I would have made it if I had removed the unsourced parts myself rather than ask about it here. The reason I didn't do that was because I thought the article might simply be deleted instead. Reading your comments, it seems to me that the question is whether the interviews now listed as sources are enough to establish notability, and if any other sources can be found. I am skeptical that these interviews are independent enough, and seeing how hard finding other sources appears to be, it doesn't look good. I'll go through the steps in WP:BEFORE and see about starting my first AfD discussion eventually. Knuthove (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Interviews themselves are never considered independent, although some published interviews can contain a blurb or other critical commentary that is itself independent.

This looks like a decent source. Possibly the Barakat gallery might be more notable than its owner. If the article is kept, there are probably sources to be found about the "looted art" angle (for instance, see here is a blog post about a procedure that Iran won against the gallery, blog post but by a law professor so probably usable for the claim that a trial was held) - my layman understanding after a cursory search is that the gallery makes a decent try to avoid buying art registered as stolen, but will still buy stuff "found" by amateurs which surely encourages dubious collection methods. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Contributions to Signature

I have seen many who have a contributions section along with their signature. I also want to enable that settings. Can anyone here assist me, on how I can add a contributions tab in my signature?  Itcouldbepossible (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: Sure – WP:SIG § CustomSig tells you how to customise your signature in preferences (please read the policies and guidelines before trying anything too fancy) and you can link to your contributions using [[Special:Contributions/Itcouldbepossible]]. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 06:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh Thanks I will read and do the necessary. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Why is my Talk Page post in italics?

Hi there,

I recently made a new post/section on a Talk Page, and I was wondering why the entire thing is in italics? I tried looking through a few documentation pages, but couldn't seem to find any answers.

The post in question is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ulrich_Kutschera#Kutschera_2021_article_-_%22Sex_and_Covid-19%22_%28ref._34%29

Thanks for your help! NeuroJasper (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

User:PrincessPersnickety fixed it. David notMD (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:NeuroJasper. The post above yours on the talk page used italics, but was missing the code to change it back to normal. Princess Persnickety (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, User:PrincessPersnickety! I've checked out the revision history to see what you changed, so I can hopefully avoid similar problems in the future. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for angled brackets as one possible cause, the next time I encounter something like this. :) NeuroJasper (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome :) I only know because I encountered the same problem myself a while ago when all my text came out tiny and I couldn't figure out why. Princess Persnickety (talk) 13:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

If a user requests that something is added on a talk page and I (or someone else) has done it, can the request be deleted? Is not, what should be done?

I have noticed some talk pages have sections such as "can x be added to this page?", "y is missing, can it be added?", etc. If I or someone else adds the requested bit of information, what is an acceptable action to take regarding the user's section? I feel that too many redundant and outdated sections can clog up the page, but I'm not sure what is acceptable to do in this case. ReidMoffat (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@ReidMoffat: WP:TALK has the general guidelines on talk pages; it's generally better to archive rather than delete discussions or requests that have concluded. Many talk pages are automatically archived by bots; these can be identified by a box at the top of the page indicating that it gets archived. There is also a range of icons that editors use to mark whether a task is done or in progress – {{Done}} shows you the available icons. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 06:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@ReidMoffat: You should find some information in WP:ERREQ and on the documentation page for Template:Request edit about this. The template {{Done}} is OK for many cases, but it's probably better to follow the instructions at Template:Request edit#Response options because of the peculiarities of that particular template's syntax and how edit requests made using it are categorized. Regardless, you shouldn't remove or otherwise modify the posts made by other editors from talk page as pointed out above by ClaudineChionh, except in some certain specific cases like the ones listed in WP:TPO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Sumner bio

It's okay with me if you delete the biography I wrote of myself. I am not a "notable" person and don't meet your guidelines. Indiana Author (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Indiana Author: The article was proposed for deletion shorty after you created it, but another editor stepped in, deprodded it and tried to improve it. Wikipedia generally tries to discourage people from creating articles about themselves as explained here and here because they often don't realize what it means to have a Wikipedia article written about them. If you're considered to be someone who doesn't meet any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines like WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:NPROF, then that would be a valid reason for the article to be deleted. If you just want the article to be deleted because you feel you made a mistake in creating it and are concerned it may somehow have real world implications, then you might also be able to request a courtesy deletion. Otherwise, it might be hard to have the article deleted at this point if other editors are actively working on trying to improve it and feel you actually are Wikipedia notable enough to have an article created about you. The best thing to do might be to seek further assistance at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

If you think it should be deleted, see WP:G7. ― Qwerfjkltalk 15:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

How to create click to drop down segments of an article?

I would like to know how to create one of those click-to-drop-down aspects of an article? I would like to make this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharksploitation) more accessible. People can choose to view the films by release order or alphabetical order or alphabetical for the first film with it's sequels below it. As it is now I need to use Ctrl-f to find what I am looking for Simdude1990 (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean a sortable table? Help:Table has a lot of information about how to create and format tables. Or do you mean "collapsed" content, where you can hide or show part of the content on a page? That's usually not recommended for articles – there is some information about it here. --bonadea contributions talk 16:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Simdude1990: – I didn't manage to ping you the first time... --bonadea contributions talk 16:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I mean the collapsed segments. I am thinking something like the following Films in Alphabetical order (collapsed) Films in Alphabetical and Sequel order (collapsed) Films by Genre/type (collapsed) Films in release order (standard article, non-collapsible) - Although I will probably invert the list and separate it by year (or group of years eg 1980-1985, 2000's etc.)--Simdude1990 (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Simdude1990: Welcome to the Teahouse. Like Bonadea said, collapsible content generally shouldn't be collapsed per the Manual of Style. Perhaps sortable tables would work better for you? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Simdude1990 Firstly, there genuinely isn't enough content in that page to warrant any collapsing/hiding; I can't imagine why on earth you'd think there is? I do, however, agree with @Tenryuu, and feel that a sortable table would allow users to sort these films by year or by title, or by anything else you felt inclined to add. But that would only merit being collapsible were there some other content worthy of bringing to the fore, but I don't see any on this topic. (An example of a very lengthy article that I created which can have its one table hidden to make the whole page more viewable can be found here).

Secondly, I really fail to understand why this page exists under that title. Surely it would be better as a List article (e.g. List of sharksploitation films). Nick Moyes (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, a sortable table seems like the way to go, I didn't know they existed. I intend on including a lot of other films that are missing from the list, when they are included I'm sure it will be quite large. I may change it to a list page, however, myself or others may add other information that would make it no longer just a list. Some of the films to add don't have Wikipedia pages, they all have IMDB pages or foreign wikis see here for an example. Is it ok to link to those from the movie title? or would it be better to have this (IMDB) next to the corresponding film? or no link except for in the references?--Simdude1990 (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

List articles on Wikipedia should contain items that still abide by Wikipedia's content policies, particularly verifiablilty and notability. Generally that means that each film should have its own English Wikipedia article (I specify English because other languages tend to have less strict content policies and guidelines); IMDb and foreign wikis aren't acceptable as they are for the most part user-generated, which trashes verifiability.
Lists aren't expected to be exhaustive. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

"IMDb and foreign wikis aren't acceptable as they are for the most part user-generated" Literally so is this English version of Wikipedia..... I can always build the appropriate pages later and link them in properly, just in the interim, a link so someone can look into the film beyond the list. I will only add films that I have seen, at least then I won't add anything that does not exist--Simdude1990 (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Literally so is this English version of Wikipedia. That is correct, which is why editors are not allowed to cite Wikipedia itself. There's no deadline to have any article "finished", so I'd focus on establishing films' notability with high-quality reliable sources and creating articles for those before adding them onto the list. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Adding well-referenced negative facts

Hello, I would like to know whether my edits are applicable or not. They are well referenced and I have tried my best to have a neutral tone. Factually, the edits state bad facts, but are rewritten from third-party sources, including major publications like The New York Times. Please vote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marcelo_Claure#Controversies%2FNegative_Facts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ottobock#Controversies%2FNegative_Facts Centrereded (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC) Centrereded (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Centrereded I have only checked the second article. When your edit was reverted you were told about WP:BRD and asked to form consensus on the talk page. Instead, you asked there, and here, "What is wrong with my edits?"

The answer is that there may or may not be anything wrong with them, but you have been asked to build consensus. So please seek to do that. That does not mean asking what is wrong, it means putting the case for your edits. There is a huge difference. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Centrereded Note, please, This COIN discussion Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@User:Timtrent How do I reach a consensus? I asked people to vote. What's the official way?Centrereded (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You started discussions on the Talk pages of those two articles on 19 Nov. For both, you should invite the editors who reverted your repeated attempts to add Controversy sections to the articles, as their Edit summaries were critical of your content and/or referencing. There is no rush. I also have a concern, in that on the Talk pages, you wrote " The words are originally not mine, but from the referenced." Does this mean you are copy/pasting content from the sources? David notMD (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Centrereded What we are aiming for is a friendly, balanced discussion. Usually, these are informal, with one set fo views holding sway. This builds a simple consensus. We may not agree with a consensus, but we must honour it.

If you find that consensus goes against you, and it can, but you feel that your arguments have validity, you can take it further to seek to reach a formal consensus. This is, generally, frowned upon if one has not attempted a simple consensus first.

All editors have the right to seek to have their views prevail. No-one of us carries more clout than another of us. One editor equals one opinion, however, consensus is not a ballot, not a beauty pageant. It is the arguments that build consensus, not weight of numbers. Therefore one may ask for an uninvolved editor to "close" any discussion, not necessarily admins. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Adminstats

Hello I placed administats Template on my userpage 2days ago still not created by the bot. २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC) २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The bot will not process the template on your userpage because you are not an admin. Polyamorph (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

New page

how to write a new page . Thanks Lelemera (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Follow the instructions here. Polyamorph (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Lelemera, and welcome to the Teahouse. I will add something to what Polyamorph said: new editors who try to create encyclopaedia articles before they have learnt how Wikipedia works often have a disappointing and frustrating experience, and end up wasting a lot of their own time, and other people's time. My advice to new editors who want to create an article is to put the idea aside for at least six months while you "learn the craft" of editing Wikipedia, by making small improvements to some of our existing six million articles. --ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Can someone tell me how my draft is looking please?

Hey all,

Sorry, first time here and still trying to get used to the Wikipedia layout.

May someone please check my recent draft? I've tried to follow all guidelines possible but just want to make sure I'm on the right page.

Many thanks Southpointmusic (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Southpoint (Record Label)

Hi @Southpointmusic! You've successfully submitted your draft, so someone will come along to review it. We have a backlog, so it might take a while, but check back periodically. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

See your Talk page for explanation for the draft being nominated for Speedy deletion, and the path open to you to appeal the indefinite block of your previous User name. David notMD (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

What to do if wording does not reflect cited source?

What to do if wording does not reflect cited source? I'm trying to help clean up some parts of the feminism article that have been changed/added since it received GA status 10 years ago. The second sentence of the article cites a source which, upon checking, does not say what what was written. It seems (to me) to reflect someone's own opinion rather than the source, and I'm also aware that what's on Wikipedia shouldn't copy verbatim. How should I address this? (I've already posted on the talk page about several issues, though not this one in particular, and have received limited feedback). Pernicious.Editor (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pernicious.Editor: Welcome to the Teahouse. If something appears to be editorial opinion, you can boldly remove it. Alternatively, if you would like readers and interested editors to be aware of the problem, you can add a {{failed verification}} template right after the contentious passage. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Would you like to review my draft on "Autism in China"?

Dear all,

My draft article page on "Autism in China": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Autism_in_China#Diagnosis

I am drafting a Wikipedia article on "Autism in China", a topic which I believe has notability and which should have its own article, since there are few attempts to synthesize information on this topic.

It is my first time ever writing an article though, so may I ask if someone would like to make suggestions on: 1) Organization (Overview — Epidemiology — History and progress, etc.) 2) Grammar and tense (should I stick with present tense throughout?) 3) Sources and citations 4) I tried to upload a poster image of the movie "Ocean Heaven" to the Media coverage— Ocean Heaven section, but it says I don't have the copyright. What should I do? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ocean-heaven-chinese-movie-poster.jpeg (this is the file link)

Thanks in advance!! Ha.susulat (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ha.susulat Welcome to the Teahouse. Firstly, well done on getting as far as you have with a Draft article as a brand new user. That's no mean feat in itself. It's not yet in a form where it could be properly 'reviewed', so I have a mix of general comments which I hope may assist you:

Firstly, I looked to see what other 'Autism in ....' article there were, and only found Autism in india, which then redirects one to Global perceptions of autism. I presume you were aware of that article? If not, you should perhaps ensure that that page is up to date in the relevant section, or add a subsection for China. It is always possible to add a 'See main article' link to then take a user to a more detailed page. And that, I assume, is what your draft would cover?.

It's important not to add general things into a detailed article which ought to have been covered elsewhere. So just use wikilinks to tie these together.

Only explain diagnosis procedures if they are remarkably different from elsewhere. If they are, ensure you use reliable source to demonstrate how those procedures differ. (I did think that section was too lengthy)

Forget trying to use images with special non-free image rationales in draft articles. Images can be added later, and have no impact on whether a page reaches our bar for Notability.

I have now just appreciated that you asked a very similar question a few days ago (now archived here). I can probably add little to what you were told, especially to seek input from editors at WP:WikiProject Autism. I don't think you are wasting your time with this draft, but there is much work still to do before it could be properly reviewed as an article. Seeking feedback or input into the Draft from more specialist editors is probably the right way to go, yet I don't see you having asked there yet.

Finally, and out of interest, are you doing this out of general concern, or for a college project, or in order to raise awareness of specific organisations that you represent? It might be a good idea to introduce yourself on your userpage and explain your interests in editing Wikipedia on this topic. There's further advice at WP:COI for anyone already working inside the autism field to make clear their involvement. That won't stop you editing, but we always aim for openness here. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I remember there's an essay on X about Y and how those articles should only be created when the combination of the two topics is notable. Can't remember though. Sungodtemple (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Copyright issue

Hi,

I am a bit overwhelmed by the huge set of rules on how to report a copyright issue, so I figured I'd just leave it here FYI, and you can do what you will with it. :-)

On the German Wikipedia, we have just had to delete a large number of articles by this user. He contributes in at least ten different languages, and his language proficiency in most of these may be doubted. The German articles at least were machine generated, and some of them were barely comprehensible. Since there were only sources given in Azerbaijani language, this was nearly impossible to fix.

Now for the copyright issue: The user apparently machine translates snippets from this source and turns them into Wikipedia articles. His necropolis articles at least seem to have evolved that way. The source itself includes a copyright sign and no indication of Creative Commons licensing, so I don't see how this would be public domain material.

As the English necropolis articles by this user are nearly identical, I assume that he has used the same method here, maybe - with a little more knowledge of English than German - smoothing things out a little more.

 91.34.32.188 (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

FYI - User:Elmar Baxşəliyev was indef blocked in 2018 for repeated copyright violations, unblocked in Sept 2021. Since then, has created more than 30 articles in English Wikipedia about archeological sites, some as short as a few sentences with 1-2 refs. The unanswered question is whether EB has returned to copy/translate/paste. David notMD (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Definitely. Just throw the appropriate parts from that source into Google Translate, and the result is clear as day. Even though Google Translate does struggle more with the Azerbaijani language than whatever machine this user has been using. --91.34.32.188 (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @91.34.32.188 for bringing this up. If you compare e.g. en:Aratəpə necropolis with az:Aratəpə nekropolu with [11] page 60 Nr. 105 Аrаtəpə nеkrоpоlu its obviously copyvio. I deleted 14 articles of this user in deWP about necropolises as copyright violation from this source. Johannnes89 (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Joe as the admin who unblocked this user -- FYI. --91.34.32.188 (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

FYI: Elmar Baxşəliyev (talk · contribs) indeffed by ToBeFree for copyright violations after a previous indef block for the same issiue. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe someone would care to have a look at the Commons images used by this user, uploaded by another user by the name of Etiunian. I know this is not Commons here, but I have serious doubts as to the copyright situation of those images. Many of them look like scans from books to me. I asked at the Commons "Village pump" about this but didn't get a reply so far. --91.34.32.188 (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Stub pages

I know I might be taking on a project that I may regret doing (lol) but here we go. I've noticed a plethora of stub pages, especially regarding early 20th century and late 19th century baseball players. I was curious if there is an exact list of how many of these are stubs. I have plenty of resources (meaning websites and books) where I can flesh out a great number of these pages. Keep in mind I'm focusing on the above target and stub pages for current and former NFL players only. Is there a page I can use as a guide for this rather large task?  Sportsfan1976 I'm only here because I'm not currently somewhere else. (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Sportsfan1976. Category: Baseball stubs would be a good place to start. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Watchlists of other editors

I have learned how to see your own edit counts, and the edit counts of other editors etc. But is it possible to see what is on the watchlists of other editors? Thanks! Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 00:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Th78blue! See Help:Watchlist#Privacy. You can't see the contents of other editors' watchlists, and other editors—including administrators—cannot view the contents of your watchlist. Developers who have access to the servers that hold the Wikipedia database can obtain this information. DanCherek (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! That answered my question! Do I then delete this from the "teahouse" since my question is now answered? Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 00:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Great! This thread can be left as is, since it might help other editors who have the same question, and a bot will archive it in a couple days. DanCherek (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Which tag to use for page protect?

Which tag to use for page protect? Coolblack4 (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Coolblack4: You can request page protection at the requests for page protection noticeboard, after you have read the instructions at the top of this page as well as the protection policy. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 02:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

DS Alert regarding Arab–Israeli conflict

Hi, I have received a DS Alert regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, but I have made no edits regarding that topic whatsoever. WarKosign who issued the alert previously reverted an edit I made adding Mandaeans to 'See Also' section at the bottom of the Israelites article. I explained to them that scholars see Mandaeans being likely of Judean/Jewish origin and received a DS Alert shortly afterwards regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict. I don't see how the two topics are related. I have left a message on their talk page but have not received a reply. Can you please advise on how to resolve this issue. Thanks. Mcvti (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Mcvti! The idea of something being related to the Arab–Israeli conflict is interpreted extremely loosely, so an article like Israelites would probably qualify. DS Alerts, while they might look scary, mean what they say that you haven't done anything wrong, so there's not any issue that you have to worry about resolving. It's just a "heads up, this is a sensitive topic area, so please be cautious". Feel free to carry on editing! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

PLEASE ACCEPT MY ARTICLE CREATION I WANT TO MAKE ARTICLE WHO POLITICIAN AND CELEBRATIS PERSON

Hi I'm khogendra Rupini i want to create celebrities Article in Wikipedia and i have a one question why Wikipedia decline my article KhogendrarupiniKdr12 (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)khogendrarupini

See the explanation at User_talk:KhogendrarupiniKdr12. You cannot use Wikipedia for promotion. RudolfRed (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

And please don't shout. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 02:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

OP has been blocked as a sockpuppet. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@KhogendrarupiniKdr12 please be more mature in your Teahouse questions. Shouting is a big no-no as well. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Archived URLs

How do I know if a website URL has been archived or not? Kaleeb18 (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: You could always go to archive.org and search for the URL. In the context of references on Wikipedia, there is a tool to automatically add the archive URL into the citation temple. Go to the "View history" tab on any article and click the "Fix dead links" button to access the tool. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Thank you so much I found exactly what I needed; that tool saved me a lot of time and work I would've had to do. Kaleeb18 (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Logo Update Not Appearing in Article

I recently have been updating Major Arena Soccer League and tried to update the league's logo by uploading the logo's .svg as a new version of the existing logo. It seems to work, but the thumbnail of the current logo in the file history and it's representation in the article itself seem to be the old logo. The non-free use rationale and the licensing should be identical as the existing logo, so I'm confused at what I need to do to make the logo on the article update.

Logo in question: File:Major Arena Soccer League logo.svg 
Packerfan213 (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Packerfan213: The logo seems to be appearing in the article now, but a couple of other things for reference.

1. Please don't display non-free content anywhere other than the article namespace per non-free content use criterion #9. If you want to discuss a non-free file, provide a link to it instead as explained here.
2. Please don't overwrite a file like you did in this case except for only minor changes like a size reduction, straightening, minor coloring change, etc. When a logo completely changes like what seems to be the case here, it's better to upload it as a completely new file altogether. Another reason for doing this is related to #3 below.
3. This new version of the logo seems like it might actually not need to be licensed as non-free per c:COM:TOO United States and wordmark. All-text logos tend to be considered too simple for copyright protection in the United States; so, you actually might be able to upload this to Commons instead of Wikipedia under a license of c:Template:PD-textlogo. You might want to ask about this at c:COM:VPC just to make sure, but I think it should be OK for Commons.

— Marchjuly (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thanks for the quick reply! Is there any way for an admin to delete the file history of the old logo to keep it at just the original then? I'll go to Commons and make a new file upload with the proper licensing info; I made a similar upload for the text based logo of the Milwaukee Wave.

Packerfan213 (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Just revert back to the original version and add {{furd}} to the top of the file's page. The will mark the unused revisions of the file for speedy deletion per WP:F5. — Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again! Sorry for making a mess out of that file's history, but everything should be sorted now I hope.

Packerfan213 (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Repeated requests for logins

In the past 30 days, when I enter Wikipedia each day, I notice that I'm not logged in even though each day this appear, I login and check the block "Keep me logged in for 365 days".

I'm using a password that was NOT automatically generated by either the Wikipedia software nor by my browser (Chrome).

I'm running an iMac under Apple's OSX 10.13.6 and using Google Chrome as a default browser Version 96.0.4664.55 (Official Build) (x86_64) as I have been for several years without this problem.

Any suggestions? "What fun would there be if we already knew all there is to know?" 07:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magillaonfire (talk • contribs)

This has been answered at the Help Desk. Magillaonfire, please limit your question to either here or the Help Desk to prevent redundant editor effort. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the not-so-very-helpful reply. I did that hoping that someone in either location would have an answer.

Nothing has been changed in either my OS or in my browser settings but I guess I'll just have to take your gentle slap-on-the-nose-with-a-rolled-up-newspaper and go back and check something I've already checked at least twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magillaonfire (talk • contribs) 23:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you still don't get a suitable reply by the time that question is archived, try asking at WP:VPT. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Shyam Sunder Jyani

FYI

 – Removed leading spaces – ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs)

Hello there, I am new with Wikipedia community. When I made first edit on a Wikipedia article, I was on cloud nine. After that, I made few other minor changes.

I submitted an article to publish. The page url is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shyam_Sunder_Jyani . Unfortunately, it has not been accepted and declined.

The person whom I wrote article has a significant coverage on print media, online media and with few Govt. official websites.

Could you guide me how should I provide accurate and reliable information so that if it get approved if it meets with wikipedia guidelines?

I also want to learn best practices of wikipedia.

Best,

Jakhar Jakhar Singh (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jakhar Singh: The links in the decline message tell you what you need to do to show that the subject of this article is notable – provide reliable, independent, secondary sources, and cite them using Wikipedia's referencing methods. Verifiability tells you why it's important to add sources to articles and how you can identify reliable sources. Your first source, a faculty profile from the professor's college, would probably be considered a self-published source, and besides, it doesn't say why he is notable. I am not certain whether India Today would be considered reliable (see discussion at § India Today or IndiaToday.com) but even if it is, you would need more than one good source. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 07:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

FYI

 – Fixed indentation per WP:THREAD – ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs)

Thank you ClaudineChionh so much for your prompt response and teaching me about reliable sources. Yes, there are few reliable sources are available. Below are the few sources where about him and his initiative is covered in this year. Could you help me out if these are the reliable source?

https://www.unccd.int/actionsland-life-programme/land-life-award-2021-healthy-land-healthy-livesBe

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/rajasthan-women-vow-to-nurture-green-family/article34862254.ece

https://www.dw.com/en/familial-forestry-in-india-caring-for-trees-like-theyre-family/a-59215321

https://www.unccd.int/news-events/2021-land-life-award-winner-familial-forestry

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgYwtwGedxg

Thank you and I patiently waiting for your further guidance.

Jakhar Singh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakhar Singh (talk • contribs) 09:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jakhar Singh: Please keep replies threaded by indenting your reply with a colon at the start, and sign your reply adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end. You can enable the Discussion Tools beta feature to indent and sign your replies automatically on talk pages – look for this in Preferences.

As to your sources: WP:RSP is a good place to start looking for discussions and consensus on the reliability of many sources.

The Hindu: generally yes

Deutsche Welle (DW): It's not in the table but archived discussions suggest yes

United Nations agencies: It depends on the topic and the agency (see discussion at § Is the United Nations a Reliable Source?) – specific sources should be discussed on the article/draft talk page.

YouTube: usually no

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaudineChionh (talk • contribs) 10:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you ClaudineChionh for teaching me.

I will look for the sources you suggested.

For a new article, Would it be good if just brief about the object in few lines (e.g. 3-5 lines) so it can be approved easily and then subsequent edits can be made? The article which I am writing, he is a Govt. college Professor and apart from his teaching job, he works for environment and society so could I use the phrases like environmentalist and social worker?

Could you teach me what needs to keep in mind while writing a first article for best practices?

Best Jakhar Singh (talk) 06:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jakhar Singh: Every fact or descriptive phrase you use must be supported by reliable sources. You can read about the steps to create an article, though as I am not an article reviewer, I am not the best person to ask for advice on this process. You are strongly advised to read your first article as well, and it's also a very good idea to spend some time on other tasks here before creating a new article, which is one of the more difficult tasks in Wikipedia. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 07:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jakhar Singh: Everyone has a slightly different style of articles and word choices - and in this case, one set of phrases you can use is "Shyam Sunder Jyani is an Indian environmentalist and academician". Looking at a glance from google news, I would say Mr. Jyani here does pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines - I hope you don't mind if I stir the article draft up a bit. Juxlos (talk) 10:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Minor point: an academician is a member of an academy; it can be used about an academic in general, but academic is a much more common term for a person who works as a professor, lecturer, or researcher at a university. --bonadea contributions talk 10:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Regardless, article has been extended with sources ranging from 2009 to 2021 - fairly sure it's good to go, if a bit stubby. Regardless I'm not familiar with the reviewer side of AfC so I'd let other editors do it. Juxlos (talk) 11:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello Juxlos, Thank you so much for drafting the article of Shyam Sunder Jyani. As I am new with wikipedia hence in the learning phase so I started this Teahouse help talk with ClaudineChionh then you came in and did a great job. The voluntary continuation of wikipedians to humanity is really commendable. I really admire your voluntary services. Bless you. I will keep enhance my learning and give my best to this wikipedia community.

P.S. Juxlos, there are minor phrases or grammer tweaks that need to be corrected in the article. I think I am now able to do this...

Jakhar Singh (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I need help...

 User98207252129 (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I have a question, where can I report a Vandalism I saw in an article from Sinterklaas? If you go to this link and see the left side of the revision. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sinterklaas&type=revision&diff=1056159685&oldid=1056159438 by 184.16.185.34 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), Thanks!

@User98207252129: nothing to worry about. As evident from the Difflink you gave above, the edit has already been reverted by Acroterion. See Wikipedia:Vandalism to learn more about vandalism and how to combat it. Please be aaware that not everything unconstructive is nessesary vandalism. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Make sense. Thank you for your response! — Preceding unsigned comment added by User98207252129 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

How to cite this

I want to cite the management plan for the Hidden Christian Sites in the Nagasaki Region world heritage site. It can be found here however it doesn't open the management plan just the link to open it, how can I cite the file directly, Thank You. Tai123.123 (talk) 06:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tai123.123: Instead of linking the listing, you can use the document URL instead, which appears to be https://whc.unesco.org/document/160504. A cite to this would look something like this:. When citing a PDF as large as this, please do not forget specifying the page number. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tai123.123: I've tweaked Victor Schmidt's example above to include the year of publication and an example page number for you. I agree that a 351 page document, 191Mbyte download is far too large to use as a supporting citation without giving a page number. Because it is likely that such an extensive reference might be used multiple times throughout the document, I've used the REFNAME feature to give it a name so that you can call up the citation two or more times without having to re-enter the details. Thus, five uses of that source across a long article would link to just one entry in the 'References' section, which is much tidier than repeating it five times. Your can use the {{rp}} template to insert the exact page number after each use of the reference.

Thus: Hidden Christians passed on their faith from one generation to the next. Most elements are found along coastal areas and remote islands. Plans have been prepared to build renewable energy facilities in both the suburbs and on some of the remote islands. This will include solar, tidal and wind energy generation.

I hope you might find that useful. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Need Help

I really need help finding the real names of two esports players in the 2019 MotoGP eSports Championship. There gamertags are XxBoMbeR_45xX and Rllorca. If you ever find their names include them in this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_MotoGP_eSports_Championship MickeyD's234 (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@MickeyD's234 I have moved the page you created to Draft space as it is uncited and probably not notable. I suggest you focus on addressing that, rather than worrying about the real persona of two video gamers. You should submit it through Articles for Creation process when it eventually is. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I keep getting "you need consensus" but when i reply i get no response back.

I keep getting "you need consensus" but when i reply i get no response back. what does it means and why aren't those who post this answering me? I wish to include a solar time-lapse on the "sun" article. can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBmLER08Ryw Daviddayag (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I see the issue at Talk:Sun, I think the responder (ScottishFinnishRadish) to your edit request wanted more information about where you want the image placed in the article, what you want as the image caption, why is the image needed? They also wanted to see if you can get input from other users to make sure the image is suitable for inclusion in the featured article Sun (one of wikipedia's highest quality articles). It is better to open a new discussion at Talk:Sun, outline your case for including the image, and see if any regular editors there agree. If so then either they can help you to add the image or you can submit a new edit request. If you have trouble finding someone to respond (perhaps not many people are watching that page), you can try asking at the astronomy wikiproject here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy. Polyamorph (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate in the sunspot article, but there are already several good videos there. Also, you have already been told that you should not be adding links to your own YouTube channel.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Sun - arcs of plasma

They're not adding links to their youtube channel, they have uploaded the video to commons. Polyamorph (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello @Daviddayag, and welcome to the Teahouse. I can see you've taken and already uploaded to Commons some pretty cool images, and I'm sorry you felt you'd hit a brick wall. I can see why, though it's really down to a simple misunderstanding I think.

You made a 'protected page edit request' and were asked to get consensus to add it. The reason for that was that the editor who responded to your edit request would not necessarily have been one experienced in the article, so they advised you to seek CONSENSUS. Unfortunately, I don't think you appreciated that you were expected to initiate that discussion yourself, and that's why nothing has happened, thus far.

My advice is to start a new section at Talk:Sun, headed something like 'Proposal to add plasma arc'. Then embed the image as I've done here, with the caption you would propose to use (it doesn't have to be the default one you see here). Most importantly, explain your rationale for inserting it. Would it replace an existing image, to which section would it go in, what textual statement would it support. Sign it and then wait for comments. Then, if there is no response after a week or so, you could be justified to WP:BEBOLD and add it yourself. If the majority view of responders is that it would be a bad idea, then you could discuss further, but eventually be prepared to accept that consensus is against you. Having 'been bold' it's possible your addition might be immediately reverted, and then you can start a discussion on the merits of having yet another image in that article.

Now, when I started this, I assumed you did not have the 'auto-confirmed' status to edit semi-protected articles, but you do. So, the choice is yours whether to be bold and simply add it, or start that discussion first. I strongly advise the latter course, and I hope my response has given you a path forward and not discouraged you in any way. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Daviddayag You have exhibited a pattern of adding your own telescope photos to articles when perhaps one more image is not useful, and worse, inserting your name and other unnecessary information in the image captions. Please return to the articles and remove your name. David notMD (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree with this, you shouldn't add your name to image captions - it is already credited in commons where you uploaded the file. Polyamorph (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Good spot. I've now removed the credit from two articles as it's easily findable in the Commons link, and goes against our policies for crediting pictures within articles. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:Uw-redirect-kept

This template would be used when a user created a redirect that was under discussion, and the result is to keep it. It would display:
Hello! A redirect you created, {{{1}}}, which redirected to [[{{{2}}}]], was under discussion, and the result was to keep it. Please use the sandbox for any tests, and consider using the Article Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. If you are unsure whether a redirect fits our redirect guidelines, it's probably best not to create it. Thank you.
 Faster than Thunder (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

see question above. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Rootsweb.org/shelby does NOT exist - replaced with https://algenweb.org/shelby

How do I remove the old rootsweb.org/shelby from Wikipedia and add the new and correct link replacement https://algenweb.org/shelby ... they are sometimes listed in outside related links and/or links on Wikipedia. Thank you. Bjseales (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bjseales: When asking for assistance, it's helpful to mention the name of the Wikipedia article you're referring to. Your three attempts to include yourself in the Thompson High School article have been reverted. "Notable alumni" sections include people who meet Wikipedia's definition of notability and Wikipedia articles exist about them. It is not a place to list everyone who graduated from the school. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Users only edits are to add spam links to their own websites. Theroadislong (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hi, I'm new to all this, and trying to write an article about a social media personality and youtuber. For this type of article, the usual obvious reliable sources like journal articles and books are few and far between. I have tried to use the best quality sources I can find, like published articles. However, sometimes there is no independent secondary source, so I was wondering:

Is using the primary source acceptable (e.g. the YouTube video I refer to, or the about page that states the view count of a channel)? If so, should it be cited as a source or linked to in some other way? Twdavies (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Not for notability, and YouTube, as a rule, is a very dodgy source in the first place. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 13:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Twdavies Welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, as was hinted at above, our Notability criteria means that we ignore views or follower counts on YouTube as a measure of notability. We focus instead on whether independent media or other reliable sources have written about that person in detail and in depth. Unless those sources are available, it's unlikely that there would be any article accepted about them. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Thanks for your reply, I was thinking more in terms of whether a source is reliable as a source of information, rather than whether it is adequate to demonstrate notability. I believe I have some other sources for other parts of the article that show some level of notability, whether or not it is enough is another issue that I will tackle separately if need be. So the views and follower count were just included as pieces of information, rather than as evidence of notability.

I have also found, in the link to the reliable sources page above "For example, even extremely low-quality sources, such as social media, may sometimes be used as self-published sources for routine information about the subjects themselves." And I believe this answers my question of whether some of my sources are adequate. If I am mistaken, please let me know. Twdavies (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Twdavies No, I think you're right. I'm sorry I didn't quite appreciate what you're asking. We generally trust the person's own SM feeds on trivia, but not on key factual statements about them. Thus, we gave TV presenter, Chris Packham's, birth date based upon one of his Facebook posts, if I remember correctly. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Thanks for your help Twdavies (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

As the declining AfC reviewer, the user reached out to me on my talk page, here was my response:

• Youtube/Reddit/Twitter/Twitch - Most social media stuff is going to be considered unreliable (even if it came directly from the person's mouth, unfortunately). With user-generated content, anyone can say they are a big deal or make outlandish claims and give no information to back it up. Additionally, sites like that are often filled with people who are self-promotional and using those promotional sources in an article to try and paint a good PR picture about themselves on Wikipedia.
• Apple Podcasts/Spotify, etc. - These sources just show that the podcast exists. They don't really tell us anything about the subject. If they do, it is often written by the host themselves, and that brings us back to the user-generated content situation above.

At its core, Wikipedia is a bunch of nerds, and so the site still looks at sources like you would use for an essay in school (newspapers, TV, reputable websites, etc.) For example, let's look at Gus' Wikipedia article (Just because Gus has one and not Eddy does not automatically mean that Eddy should have one, BTW. See WP:OSE): there are definitely some similar issues with the sources there, but Gus also has coverage from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and the Burnett County Sentinel. (Note that Gus' article doesn't mention his recent controversies, which is talked about on the talk page for the article. Basically, they can't find a reliable source that gives a shit about Youtube Drama. In closing, I want to thank you for wanting to put a good article together. Making articles for YouTubers is super difficult, because the guidelines of who is notable enough are not well understood. For more information on reliable sources, you can look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources or at one of my favorite lists on the site Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which looks at many well-known sources and whether or not Wikipedia would consider them reliable. Happy editing! Bkissin (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

7M Pages

About when would Wikipedia reach 7 million pages? We're currently almost at 6.5 million pages, and by the looks of it, Wikipedia looks like it could either reach 7M by early-mid 2022, or late 2022-early2023. How long did it take for Wikipedia to get from 5M to 6M? WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@WaterflameIsAwesome: Welcome to the teahouse. To date, we've reached 6.4 million articles, and so far I'm thinking we can reach to 7 million articles by mid, late 2022. But if article creation increases rapidly, we can reach 7 million by mid 2022. However, if it goes slow, (which I don't expect) we will reach at this point by 2023.

Also, for the 5-6M, we aren't sure about this one. But, if wikipedia was made 19 years ago, (19 divided by 5-6 =3-4) I'm estimating to reach either 3 to 4 years. Severestorm28 (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

English Wikipedia reached five million articles on 1 November 2015, and six million on 23 January 2020. --bonadea contributions talk 23:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea: That would take 5 years. Severestorm28 (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so if we're going at the speed of 5-6 million, then I'm guessing maybe 3 more years? lol. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Severestorm28 that would actually take a little over four years. November 1st of 2015 is closer to January 1st 2016 than same date 2015, so it's a little over four years, rather than a little under five years. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@WaterflameIsAwesome: That's true. Severestorm28 (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

SUGGESTION(actually): A small idea for improved understanding....

I don't want to spend a bunch of time one this, as I'm virtually certain it will be wasted... HOWEVER, having said that, hopefully it will make it to someone that knows how to use Wikipedia, and is willing and enthusiastic about navigating through the warren of minutia to make it a slightly better tool over time for everyone.

I was reading an article here (which I occasionally do), as this seems to be a helpful tool for the most part, AND... I noticed when reading the following excerpt (keeping in mind, this suggestion has ABSOLUTELY ZERO TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT MATTER):

QUOTE: "On 19 August 1958, a West Berlin court fined the former xxxxxxxxxx leader 35,000 marks (approximately £3,000, or US$8,300) (equivalent to €81,248 in 2017),"

OBSERVATIONS:

=======

1) You'll notice the author of that statement went to some considerable length to try and enhance the understanding of the reader, by taking an otherwise objective monetary value and translating it for the reader into a currency the reader was likely to understand, AND.... adjusting it for inflation so the reader would have some idea as to the relative value/scope of the amount of money that is being referenced.

2) GREAT! The point of any encyclopaedia is to increase the understanding of things for actual human beings. LOVE IT!

3) This method of translating a continually shifting value (virtually no currency's value stays the same over time, ever! Right?) is not unique, it is often used here and in other places that I'm aware of, to help readers understand a relative amount of currency/money/wealth over time. Often I've seen historical values expressed as "a year's worth of wages in today's money" for example. Very useful in producing human understanding by comparison within a contemporary context, and one with which almost every human being on the planet can relate!

4) If you'll notice, the quoted excerpt mentions "2017". Well, that is a couple years old already and time (in so far as I know) is not going to stop, it's going to keep going, and going, and going, and going... AND... that number including what it means/represents is going to continue to slip further, and further, and further away from it's once accurate translation??!?!? It's not going to get MORE ACCURATE, it's going to continually get less accurate, defeating the whole purpose for which it was intended, understanding it's relative value.

5) Since it would not be very efficient to go back and adjust every one of the attempts to create monetary translations that make sense, by manually recalculating them and adjusting them for inflation periodically, and almost impossible to do considering the number of pages and locations where the technique is used over Wikipedia, it occurred to me that there really ought to be a better way.

SUGGESTION:

=====

(AND,... sorry it took so long to get here, BTW)

WHY NOT CREATE SOME SORT OF PROGRAMMABLE, INLINE, WIDGET YOUR WRITER/EDITOR COMMUNITY COULD DEPLOY THAT WOULD CONSTANTLY SHOW THE READER, WHAT THAT ORIGINAL VALUE IS WORTH TODAY, RIGHT NOW... AT THE TIME OF PULLING THE PAGE?

Computers are GREAT at repetitious calculation that would put humans to sleep! This looks to me like a perfect use of the kind of things computer excel at, and would benefit the readers and the writers a great deal, I would think.

If you can have a little widget that translates the definition of words inline, so... the reader can hover and get the definition of a word, or the relevance of a name, or... whatever the editor thinks could use enhanced understanding, why not have the same kind of widget for historical monetary translation and adjustment?

Inputs:

---

Historical Amount(i.e the original number), Historical date being referenced, and Original Currency.

Calculation:

---

Depending on the Historical date/era.... reference the correct table(dataset), probably Gold or CPI.

"Boil" the Inputs down to an objective, un-adjusted universal value.

Read in the language of the user's browser to get the correct currency with which the user is likely to be familiar.

Output:

---

Take the objective, un-adjusted universal value and adjust it for inflation.

Convert the adjusted value to the currency likely used by the reader based on the language lookup.

Present the relevant number in the Hover.

(AND... it's obviously going to be more complex than that. The point here is that it is doable with some effort, enthusiasm, and concern for the reading audience.)

Thanks for any time and effort expended on behalf of the reading public. DoNotShootAtMe (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hello, welcome to the teahouse. I apologise, initially I thought this was spam, thanks to Theroadislong for letting me know it wasn't. What you are describing sounds very similar to a template that already exists described here: Template:To USD. Similar templates exist for other currencies, e.g. Template:To EUR. Polyamorph (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

See also Template:Inflation, Template:FXConvert and related templates listed there. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Also note that the article that was originally quoted seems to be Artur Axmann, and the line in question does not have the converted value €81,248 hardcoded in the source; it already uses the {{Inflation}} template to convert 35,000 marks in 1958 to current Euros. If you edit the page you will see that it says {{Inflation|DE|35000|1958|fmt=eq|cursign=€}}. So this will automatically adjust for inflation as time goes by. CodeTalker (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Request for feedback on draft of article

Hi, I have recently started editing Wikipedia and I noticed a red link for Sisir Kana Dhar Chowdhury. I made a draft here and I tagged some projects that looked relevant but I have not received any feedback yet. I wanted to know if I had done something wrong with the tagging or if there is anything I missed while marking the draft as needing approval. Also, some feedback would be appreciated, since it is the first article I have written. Autumn astronomer (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

"Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,468 pending submissions waiting for review." David notMD (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

How do I remove a picture from my sandbox?

 Kabkabkab (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Using Visual Editor, tap/click on the image to select it, and instead of hitting the Edit button in the pop-up, press backspace or delete on your keyboard. (There is no visual affordance for deleting the image that I can see.) Hope that helps! ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 20:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Can I add another editor for my own sandbox?

 Kabkabkab (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Kabkabkab! Anyone has the ability to edit your sandbox, it's just a social convention that we don't. (Except to address issues like copyright problems and so on.) ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 20:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Kabkabkab User:Kabkabkab/sandbox Declined 11-20 and resubmitted with only a minor change that did not address the reviewer's comments. Unless you and/or someone else improves it, will be declined again. Minimally, delete Variations, Other recipes and Virals sections. David notMD (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I feel that the History, International Distribution, and Marketing sections have promise. Drop value judgements like "delicious" and "succeed ... perfectly". The short description should be changed from "Famous Thai Instant Noodle" to something like "Brand of instant noodles". If you are employed by or contracted to the company, you will need to declare that (see WP:COI and WP:PAID). We get both Wai Wai and Mama brands here in Australia, so as a reader I find some relevance in the nascent article. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 21:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Clarification on dispute resolution

I am headed toward dispute resolution with another editor and, as a relatively new contributor/editor, I want to be clear on the procedure. I had initiated the discussion with him on our individual talk pages because looking at the article talk page there was nothing like a previous us of the page for dispute resolution, nothing much on the page at all. I thought that we could do best talking with each other directly, which we did civilly and thoroughly through the deletion of my original edit, my following his advice in a second edit which was then immed. deleted, etc. ( won't further litigate it here). I see that dispute resolution instructions say "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill." - which this has come to.

This has not been on the article talk page, I see no way of productively putting it there at this point. Can I take it to dispute directly from our already existing discussion? I intend to follow the problem to its resolution by a third party or parties. Thank you in advance. Vabookwriter (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC) Vabookwriter (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

More on dispute question

My confusion is in part because of this kind of inconsistent instruction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution There are many methods on Wikipedia for resolving disputes. Most methods are not formal processes and do not involve third-party intervention. Respond to all disputes or grievances, in the first instance, by approaching the editor or editors concerned and explaining which of their edits you object to and why you object. Use the article talk page or their user talk page to do so; be civil, polite, and always assume good faith. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/request?withJS=MediaWiki:DRN-wizard.js&withCSS=MediaWiki:DRN-wizard.css Has this issue been discussed extensively on the article talk page? (If you don't know what an article talk page is, answer "Not yet".) Thank you Vabookwriter (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Vabookwriter. Disputes about article content should always be discussed thoroughly on the article talk page before beginning other forms of dispute resolution. Other editors interested in that article will not know what has been said on two editor's talk pages. So, have the conversation in the correct place first before trying anything else. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Vabookwriter, to kick off a new section in the article talk page you can add a statement of the situation so far, and add links to the discussions that are on other pages. That way anyone else coming along to the article can follow the cross-links and see what's been said. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 21:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Never mind, in this case it looks like another editor has already copied the discussion text instead of linking to it which is also a valid approach. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 22:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Trying to create a list of beastars characters article.

Hi there. I need help submitting an article about list of beastars characters. Garfield Cat & Lasagna (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:List of Beastars Characters. Declined once. Beastars exists as an article and includes a list of main characters. David notMD (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Garfield Cat & Lasagna I'm sorry, but you've sourced that page to the exisiting article, and none of the characters are deemed as notable in their own right. So, as List articles are there to list notable topics, this draft is a non-starter at this time. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

List formatting

Is there any way to make List1 below have the same formatting (centered, numbers aligned) as List2, which uses the standard # syntax?

List1	List2
1. D. Budge =2. W. Sabin =2. B. Riggs 4. F.Kovacs 5. F. Perry 6. D. Skeen =7. B. Barnes =7. W. Van Horn	D. Budge B. Riggs W. Sabin F. Kovacs B. Barnes J. Nogrady R. Harman H. Peterson

Thanks, Sod25 (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sod2500: Welcome to the Teahouse. Your 'equals' signs push the text over to the right, so my not especially elegant solution would be to add two non-breaking spaces to the beginning of each line without an equals sign to 'pad out' the space, and then to left-align the text. You can use the template {{nbsp}} to add a single space. But, without making a table with position numbers in one column, flag icon and name in another, I can't see a better solution. But maybe someone else can.

List1	List2
1. D. Budge =2. W. Sabin =2. B. Riggs   4. F.Kovacs   5. F. Perry   6. D. Skeen =7. B. Barnes =7. W. Van Horn	D. Budge B. Riggs W. Sabin F. Kovacs B. Barnes J. Nogrady R. Harman H. Peterson

Hope you find this helpful, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Question

what is the one question you would ask the universe? 87.115.124.185 (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP user. This is a help forum for folks encountering difficulties editing Wikipedia. It is not a chat forum. So your question is off-topic and not appropriate here, nor, indeed, anywhere else. That's what social media is best used for. Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The article that I want to create already has a draft.

The article that I want to create already has a draft. What should I do? Happykrcheese (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Happykrcheese Welcome to the Teahouse. You did not say what the draft is, unfortunately. It's not Draft:Countryballs Show - Into Space by any chance, is it? When a draft already exists, it's a good idea to approach the editor already working on it and ask to collaborate with them. There's no point two people creating two drafts on the same subject. In the case of the draft I linked to above, it hasn't been touched since June, contains no content, and will probably be deleted soon. So there'd be no problem you working on it. It's always important to ensure you have good sources to work from, and also that the topic will meet our Notability Criteria. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The Future of Wikipedia

Firstly, thank you for the invitation.

Due to Wikipedia relying solely on Donations - would it be a possibility that Wikipedia would ever close?

I have donated and will donate to WikiMedia, but I think a fundraising option would be great, to advertise Wikipedia's need for donations internationally in person, in the streets.

Just a couple of thoughts,

Best Regards,

StrawberryFieldsChorley StrawberryFieldsChorley (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your donations. Wikipedia needs donations, but I haven't heard that it's particularly pressed for money. So if you have more and are feeling magnanimous, consider one of the various alternatives. (Médecins Sans Frontières seems good.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@StrawberryFieldsChorley As Hoary says, 'thank you'. The Wikimedia Foundation actually raises a lot more money than is required simply to meet technical support and server costs, not to mention the 12GW/h of electricity needed to meet the demands of being one of the top most-visited websites in the world. Very large amounts of money are spent in educational and outreach work, especially in the less developed parts of the world where education and access to information is so needed. So, to answer your question as to whether any of the multiple language versions of Wikipedia would ever close, on a purely funding basis, I think the answer is "no". Though, were it ever to spend, year on year, more than it brings in annually, then it could find itself having to 'draw its horns in'. The people who have actually written the content in the 6.2million+ articles on English Wikipedia are all volunteers - just as they are in the myriad of other language projects. So rest assured that your donations never end up in the pockets of us editors. We do it all for the enjoyment and the satisfaction. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

All that said, though, of course Wikipedia will end one day, as will everything humans have created. "Ever" is a very long time. DS (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Can't disagree with that one iota! Nick Moyes (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes is right. Given the fact that Wikipedia is the 13th most visited site in the world, and the largest encyclopedia in the history of the world by more than nearly triple the amount that the second largest has, the likelihood of Wikipedia or any other language variants closing is not very great. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

"Too big to fail" is not a waterproof argument. Megaupload had fifty million daily users when it was shut down (and Wikipedia is more illegal in some countries than Megaupload was in the US). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @StrawberryFieldsChorley: - Wikipedia (specifically, the Wikimedia Foundation) publishes their financial details here. The gist of it is that:

• They currently get more from donations and grants than they spend,
• They have around $170 million in cash in their bank account(s),
• They spend around $2.5 million a year to keep the website running - the rest is for employees, projects, outreach, scholarships, etc.

So in case donations suddenly stop entirely, I’m fairly sure they’d be able to cut off a lot of expenses and be able to make do - maybe for 10 years. Of course, 95% of internet users and big tech companies would prefer to not have Wikipedia suddenly disappear, so I’m sure something will get figured out. Juxlos (talk) 10:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I would like to add that maybe non-English Wikipedia sites may close at some point earlier than the English Wikipedia, due to those sites not being as popular as the English Wikipedia, and having less pages, and albeit less contributors, but let's not focus on that, XD. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

WMF or no, Wikipedia will continue to exist in some form or other for as long as humans have relatively unfettered access to the internet. People will host their own copies of the database, and eventually someone will make their copy updateable, and other people will do the same, and eventually one of those copies will become so much more popular than the others that it crowds them out, and Wikipedia will exist again. DS (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Rows and Columns

Hey guys! How do you edit rows and columns to Wikitables in the source editor? I screwed up trying to do this and had to use the visual editor. Thanks! BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@BubbaDaAmogus Tables are fiendishly hard. Help:Introduction to tables with Wiki Markup/1 is a good place to start. Use your sandbox and play Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 18:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@BubbaDaAmogus I think Visual Editor's only really useful feature is its handling of adding rows, columns and data into tables. Far better than source editor for small tables - though I've never used it on really big stuff. I'd stick with VE to begin with. Otherwise, tables certainly are 'fiendish', and I always copy existing wikimarkup into my sandbox and attempt to edit it there. Only once I'm successful do I paste it in to a live article. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, guess I can save myself some thinking and stamina there! Thanks!BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Article name problem

I recently moved an article to change its name but the article does not show up on the Wikipedia search box when I type in its new name. Can someone tell me why this is happening and how I can fix it? Person077777777 (talk) 03:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Person077777777: Did you type in Competitive Pokémon Battling? It must be exactly the same as this. I guess you didn't use the "accented e"? If so, you can fix the problem by creating a redirect page named Competitive Pokemon Battling --Dragoniez (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

How do you use gadgets on other languages' Wikipedias?

Hi, I'm from the Japanese Wikipedia, and I'm looking for a way to import the strikethrough-blocked-users gadget (jawp doesn't have a setting for this in the preferences). I guess this is a matter of CSS, but I have no idea where I can find the original script. I would appreciate any help. -- Dragoniez (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dragoniez: Special:Gadgets lists the gadgets installed in a wiki. The source for this one is at MediaWiki:Gadget-markblocked.js, and it has instructions for importing it into another wiki by adding the code in lines 3 and 4 to your common.js in jawp. I haven't tried this, though. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 06:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh: Thanks a lot! It worked like a charm. --Dragoniez (talk) 06:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dragoniez: Oh, good to know! ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 07:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)