Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1136

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 1130

←

Archive 1134

→

Diffs

How can I generate a Special:Diff instead of a normal diff? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: Diffs are "hosted" on Special:Diff, "Special:" indicating it is a special page. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 07:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@AssumeGoodWraith Thanks...but how do I find the revision id of a page? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: You find it by clicking on a diff and looking at the url. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=913873043. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: depending where I click/tap, the URLs I get are slightly different:

Note that sometimes the revision number you want is oldid= and sometimes diff=

The corresponding Special link is:

Special:Diff/1061200350

Diffing over multiple edits is done thus:

. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 19:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Pelagic Thanks, for the detailed explanation. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 02:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible, User:Enterprisey/diff-permalink script adds Special:Diff links to normal diff pages. Hemanthah (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hemanthah Thanks. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 06:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@AssumeGoodWraith@Hemanthah@Pelagic Hey, but what is a perma link and what is the use of it? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: A permanent link to an older revision. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 07:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@AssumeGoodWraith How may I generate one? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: WP:PERMALINK – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@AssumeGoodWraith Does the link of older revisions change? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

And what is the difference between a special link and a permanent link? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: Special link? Where did you get that? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

A special link looks like this Special:Diff/1051183990 ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: That's a diff. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@AssumeGoodWraith Yes, but what is the difference between a diff link and a permanent link? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: diff, compares a revision to another, permalink, shows an old revision – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@AssumeGoodWraith Ok so now I understand. A difference shows the changes made, while a permanent link shows the old version of the page right? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: Exactly. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@AssumeGoodWraith Thanks for clarifying all my doubts. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft

Please tell me what kind of details I have to add to get the Draft:BKTPP Prabir Sengupta Vidyalaya published. Please, this is my first project. Michri michri (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Michri michri, you need to add more reliable sources that have substantial content about the school. At the moment it does not have enough sources. See WP:NSCHOOLS for more specific criteria. Sungodtemple (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Michri michri: I also suggest you review Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article advice. For example, the list of teachers is not appropriate for the draft. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your invaluable advice. As the draft is entirely single-handed and my first one, it may contain flaws and errors. If Sungodtemple and GoingBatty, you two can correct those, please do so, please. Thank you in advance.Michri michri (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Creating subpages

I am new and could not find direct steps to add a subpage to Wikipedia. I added an update to ' Don't Look Up but can not see the steps to add the reference page. Can someone guide me on steps for new editor and how to create subpage. I have ADHD so I was unable to follow all the redirects to get this information. Thank you!

Wpsarhel (talk) 11:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Wpsarhel (talk) 11:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Wpsarhel: Hello and Welcome to the Teahouse. Your userspace consists of User:Wpsarhel and everything starting with User:Wpsarhel/. To create a subpage, you would add a name for the subpage after the /, so for example User:Wpsarhel/Subpage 1 or User:Wpsarhel/Subpage 2. You can generally create as much subpages as you want, as long as they are part of improving the encyclopedia. If you don't want to manually constrcut the URL's for subpages each time, you can use the form below.

Note that if you want to propose an update to an existing article, its often better to leave a message at the article's talkpage, such as Talk:Don't Look Up for the disambiguation page Don't Look Up. Merry Christmas, Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Wpsarhel: Welcome to Wikipedia! If you're referring to this change that was reverted, what you need is not a subpage but a reference (citation) saying where the information came from. You add a reference after the information in the article, not in a subpage. Referencing for beginners is a simple guide to what sources you need and how to add them. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 11:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

No questions here, but I wish everyone a Merry Christmas. I would also like to thank every volunteer for contributing to this evergrowing encyclopedia. Cheers! Galacticitis (talk) 09:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Galacticitis: Thanks and Merry Christmas to you too! ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Denoting school accounts?

How do you show that an IP address belongs to a school? 14.238.83.146 (talk) 06:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Try {{Shared IP edu}}. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You can see the output of that template at User talk:81.145.212.114, for example. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty@Michael D. Turnbull Hi, sorry to interrupt on someone else's post. But how did you determine which school's ip is 81.145.212.144. What's the technique? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 11:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't, Itcouldbepossible, but anyone can by using the "Whois" link at the bottom of all Talk Pages for IP addresses. In this case this is the link. That's why we recommend that editors create accounts. The ones who don't can potentially reveal much more about themselves than those who do. However, many IP addresses are only temporary, depending on the Internet Service Provider. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Well, I did not really know who did it. I only pinged you because, you said the following. Thanks for letting me know about WHOIS. I already knew about it. But never knew that the organization name can also be revealed. And one last question here. When and why do we guess that it is a shared IP used by a particular organization? I mean, we won't just be searching each and every ip, to find out if it belongs to an organization. Isn't it? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 11:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

No, I certainly don't bother to look up random IP addresses to see whether they link to organisations or not. The only reason I went to that particular talk page was because I had reverted vandalism on one page I was watching. When I discovered the IP was for a UK school, I sent them an email to point out that the school perhaps would not wish to be associated with vandalism of Wikipedia, in this case by adding childish swearwords. That IP address has subsequently been blocked at times for repeated vandalism. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull No, I am not asking about that. I am asking, whoever added that tag, why did they suddenly suspect that IP address to be a shared IP address, that too by a school. I mean, we won't just be searching each and every ip, to find out if it belongs to an organization - I meant, that we won't surely be looking at each ip and see if it is shared or not. What are the conditions, or symptoms for which can check ip addresses to determine if they are shared or not? I have to deal with many ip addresses too. It would be great if, I knew the trick and could disguise the shared ip addresses, and watch out for their contributions. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no "trick" that I'm aware of, Itcouldbepossible. The tag was added to that particular IP address because an editor had noticed vandalism and took the trouble to find out via WHOIS that it was associated with a school, which they named when adding the template to the talk page in 2015. As I said, my reason for visiting that talk page was the same, after noticing more vandalism this year. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Ok no problem. Thanks for trying to help me. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 13:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Auto Ping

Whenever I write something to someone, or reply to someone, I always ping them, except when I am posting in their talk page. But there are some people who forget or don't ping me in their replies or in follow up comments. How can I tell each and every editor here, to ping me whenever they write something to me? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

You can't guarantee it unless you say "ping me" in each of your messages. Usually when replying, it notifies people of their reply if they are using the reply feature. Most editors also use {{u|HeartGlow30797}} or some other template that will notify that user when they post. You can always put a notice at the top of your talkpage (ex: {{Usertalkback}}) or an editnotice on your talk page. Hope this helps and happy editing on Wikipedia! Heart ^(talk) 07:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

You may want to look into using {{pping}} at the end of your comment, but be aware that it is only a request, and users do not necessarily have to listen to you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: I'm afraid there's nothing you can do to change another human's behaviour. You could perhaps add a note like "(please ping me)" to your signature – I have seen at least one other user do this. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 07:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

If you're using Discussion Tools (Preferences → Beta features), you can subscribe to a section, and then people won't have to ping you. (But then you get the other problem, of people pinging you when you'll already get a notification perfectly well... a fine problem to have, and I'm sure it'll be solved once enough people start using Discussion Tools.) Enterprisey (talk!) 11:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey@ClaudineChionh@HeartGlow30797@Tenryuu Thanks everyone for trying to help me out as much as you could. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit Summary Pinging

How can I ping someone in an edit summary, to draw their attention there? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Just add an internal link to their userpage: [[User:Itcouldbepossible|Itcouldbepossible]]. --Thibaut (talk) 07:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: To ping someone, or have a notification sent to them, you can use these template {{ping|put username here}} and {{U|put username here}} and more ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Kaleeb18, those templates don't work in edit summaries; using the format [[User:Example|Example]] is required to ping in the edit summary field, as in Thibaut120094's response. DanCherek (talk) 13:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@DanCherek Thanks DanCherek. Please confirm that if you get the ping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itcouldbepossible (talk • contribs) 13:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I got your ping. DanCherek (talk) 14:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@DanCherek Thanks Dan for confirming. Yes, I again forgot to sign. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Can I use a screenshot from social media on this context?

I want to use a screenshot from social media as an "example" for certain phenomenon. Now since the screenshot contains a meme which is not created by me; can I upload that image? Or there would be some copyright issue? notably my objective is not to claim that image as mine. my objective is to show example for a phenomenon. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 13:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Most memes are someone's work at some point and would run into copyright problems. I think you would need to be more specific before anyone would have enough information to really give you advice. Britmax (talk) 13:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Britmax: I want to upload an example of Inspiration porn RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 13:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

If that is part of a campaign using work from a commercial company, it would probably not be compatible with our free licensing requirement. Britmax (talk) 14:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Britmax: Thanks. Probably the image isn't from a company ads, seem to be from Reddit and facebook. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 14:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

RIT RAJARSHI, it makes no difference whether it's an international company or a teenager in their bedroom. Unless the creator has explicitly released the meme under a compatible licence, it's copyright and may not be used in Wikipedia unless the use meets all the criteria in the non-free content criteria: I can imagine that might be possible in an article specifically abnout the meme, but not otherwise. Note that if the meme is based on a copyright image, it's probably already a copyright violation, and Wikipedia does not even allow links to copyright violations, never mind uploading them. --ColinFine (talk) 14:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Thank you I will not upload it then. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 15:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

submitting an article

could your remind me of the code I use to submit my article for review? Gregorywall (talk) 16:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Gregorywall: Welcome to the Teahouse. You can click the blue Resumbit button in the lower-left corner of the decline message. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

How do I make an article a "good article"

How can I make an article be a "good article"? Thanks for the help. XxxorBBroxxX (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

XxxorBBroxxX, please read Wikipedia:Good articles. Cullen328 (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, Ah! Haha! Cullen! they are barely 1 day old here I believe creating “Good articles” should be the least of their worries now. Celestina007 (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

XxxorBBroxxX, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, whilst my colleague has given you a very direct response to you direct question, but I would be honest with you, i believe creating good articles should be concerns for later, please can you start by reading WP:ADVENTURE, WP:TUTORIAL, WP:5P, WP:GNG, some of our polices and guideline which I’d send to your TP now, practice a little in your sandbox then after a while you then read WP:YFA, you should learn how to create any article at all before thinking of making a good article. Celestina007 (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, I wrote my first article very shortly after registering my account and it still exists. That is because I paid attention to the policies and guidelines here and did my best to follow them. I have been a major contributor to seven Good articles. Every edit I make to an article is to make it better, and that applies equally to articles I started as well as to those started by other editors. And if a new editor wants to put the work in to significantly improve any article, then they have the right to try to take it through the GA process. Cullen328 (talk)

Still the account is too new. You need to learn how WIkipedia works. Start by reading the pages already linked here. Don't forget to sign your comments by adding four tildes at the end. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@XxxorBBroxxX, please listen to Alexf, they are correct, forget about making good articles for now, your priority and focus right now should be to get acquainted with this collaborative project, In-fact, I see you are having trouble with signing your comments which is indicative of the obvious, slow and steady always wins the race. Celestina007 (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Deleting photos

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and just posted two photos I made back in 2019 of some landscape. I deleted both photos on the page, but it seems both are still on Wikipedia. May I request for both photos to be removed, please? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Banja_Kovilja%C4%8Da_spa.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%C5%A0umadia_meadows.jpg Thank you. Serbia Economy Geek (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Serbia Economy Geek you are going to have to request deletion on Commons at c:Commons:Deletion requests as the files are hosted there. Nthep (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nthep Thank you for the fast response. I did as you instructed. Thanks again. Have a pleasant day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbia Economy Geek (talk • contribs) 18:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

What to do if a brand-new article has copy-pasted a vast amount of text from a single source?

I ran across Cousteauvia just now. It appears that most of the text is directly lifted from a copyrighted source. I found these three places that have that text:

What does one do in this situation? Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

So I went ahead and removed the offending text while I wait for a response here, seemed prudent. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Fred Zepelin. That's a good start. You can find instructions at WP:CV101. --ColinFine (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Pancho villa real name

Pancho villas real name 2600:1011:B038:BF36:0:2B:397B:6701 (talk) 23:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

It was José Doroteo Arango, but is better known as Pancho Villa. -- Alexf^(talk) 00:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Am I WP:NOTHERE?

Teahouse hosts…

Throughout my wiki career, I was concerned that I would be indefblocked for being WP:NOTHERE.

This may be because this month, I have been editing more in the user talk space, rather than the mainspace (Have a look at my XTools and you’ll see that I’ve made 174 user talk space edits this month, compared to 172 mainspace edits, as of 17:22, 25 December 2021). When I see a counter like that, I feel a sudden urge to edit more in the mainspace, to not give off the impression that I’m WP:NOTHERE.

I also felt as though I have gamed the system; I only have 339 total mainspace edits, and some of my total 942 edits were sandbox edits, because, earlier, I had felt the urge to get extended confirmed quickly.

I don’t know if this is just my paranoia, but I ask you: Do you believe I’m WP:NOTHERE? — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 17:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@3PPYB6, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, read both of them and ensure you always abide them. If you are abiding by them you won’t need to worry about being a NOTHERE editor or an editor who games the system, better to be safe than sorry. Celestina007 (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@3PPYB6: if you have read it and realized that you might be NOTHERE, then just change yourself. It's never too late to change for good (unless you're indef-banned from Wikipedia, but please don't worry about that.) The edit counter is not anything more than an edit counter. If you make small amounts of high-quality edits, that's better than large amounts of vandalism. (Speaking of which, vandals tend to have a very large percentage of their edits in mainspace, because they're not part of the community.) Back to being NOTHERE, if you're abiding by all of the policies, don't worry about it. --67.183.136.85 (talk) 19:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, 3PPYB6. If you look at my edit counts, you'll see that 78% of my 20 000 edits are in the Wikipedia namespace, and only 12% in main space; but I am definitely here to build an encyclopaedia. What I spend much of my time doing is answering questions here and on the Help Desk: I regard that as a valuable part of building an encyclopaedia. --ColinFine (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@67.183.136.85: I didn’t think there was anything that would make me NOTHERE, except for “interest in gaining user rights” since I had rushed to get 500 edits (to become extended confirmed).

As to @ColinFine, if that is the case, then I’m probably here to build an encyclopedia since my user talk space edits are mainly user warnings, user welcomes, and WikiLove. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 21:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@3PPYB6 I spent just 20 seconds looking at your User Contributions. You are definitely 'HERE'!

Anyone who spends time doing behind the scenes janitorial work like you do is definitely an asset to this project. It's just those new users who only ever mess around making fancy user pages and doing absolutely nothing else here who we regard as NOTHERE. Happy Christmas! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Change my marital status- I am now divorced. I would also love to update my headshot. Thank you!!

FYI

– Removed image titled New headshot.jpg. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Tarastrong2021 (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

This must be about Tara Strong. We can't just take your word for it that you're divorced, we'll need a reliable published source. (For one thing, we don't know that you are Tara Strong, anyone can post here and pretend to be her.) Can you provide a reference to such a source, e.g. a newspaper article mentioning the divorce? As for that photo, I see you uploaded it claiming that it's your own work. Is it really a selfie? Wikipedia is very fussy about obeying copyright law. Maproom (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tarastrong2021: Welcome to the Teahouse. As has been mentioned at Talk:Tara Strong, you're going to need to prove that the copyright holder has waived the rights to the image for use anywhere (not necessarily just Wikipedia); most of the time the photographer retains the rights, not the subject. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hi. You are Tara Strong. Well, as to your marital status, I'm looking at sources. [not allowed to post URL] I've got MediaMass which was updated tommorow (!), describes your driveway as "miles long", and speculates that you might be single as you were seen walking alone. And the article is marked "UPDATE 26/12/2021 : This story seems to be false." And MediaMass describes its remit as thus: [not allowed to post URL] "The website mediamass.net is the medium of our satire to expose with humour, exaggeration and ridicule the contemporary mass production and mass consumption that we observe". I think the basis is the cover of Come On magazine which doesn't appear to actually exist (they don't have a website, only accounts on Facebook and Instagram which don't seem to have anything to do with anything). And all the other sources I found (none really reliable) say that you're still married.

So I mean what do you expect us to do? We can't take your word for it because we don't know for sure that User:Tarastrong2021 is really Tara Strong. Anybody can create the account User:Tarastrong2021 and since a troll could do that you wouldn't want us to take their word for it would you?

For the marital status, I'd suggest just waiting til its described in a reliable source, the request (on the article talk page) for the change and point to the source.

For the image, you'll need to submit a Wikipedia:Ticket with proof of identity, just as did with the current photo in the article. Sorry it's so complicated! Herostratus (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tarastrong2021. You don't really need to email the Wikimedia Volunteer Response Team (i.e. Wikipedia:Ticket) as suggested above, and proof of copyright authorship is going to matter more than proof of identity when it comes to uploading a photo. A photo can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by its copyright holder as explained here or here without necessarily having to email anyone. As long as copyright holder consent can be formally verified in some way (e.g. posting it on an official website or social media account under an acceptable license), there's no need for that person to email anyone. "Proof of identity" would most likely only matter if you wanted to be formally verified as being the subject of the article "Tara Strong" and plan on continuing to edit under your current username as explained here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Saving a draft?

How do I save a draft without publishing it? Andyjcmrdn (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

By clicking "Publish changes". All this does, Andyjcmrdn, is save (but in such a way that anyone can see it). If you really don't want anyone to see it, then save it to your hard drive. -- Hoary (talk) 04:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Andyjcmrdn There is no way you can save a draft. Saving means you will have to publish it. However the draft will not show up in Wikipedia as an article, until it has been moved into mainspace, which will be done by some new article reviewer, or maybe you yourself, if you have created a number of pages. Thanks. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 04:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

"There is no way you can save a draft." Strange, as I save them all the time. Let's try that again. You click "Publish changes". This saves. It is publication in the sense that anyone can see what you've saved if they know where to find it. It's not publication in the sense that Google and the like will be nudged away from it. (Google and the like will be invited in if the draft is turned into an article.) ¶ I notice, Andyjcmrdn, that your user page says "I created this account to create a Wikipedia page about my father who was a prominent neurosurgeon from America." Thank you for your candor. You have a conflict of interest here. You are welcome to continue to work on Draft:Orlando Joseph Andy and to submit the result for promotion to article status; but if it does become an article, you should refrain from editing it thereafter. -- Hoary (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Can I write an article about a band?

There's a band I really like and they have a very strong presence on YouTube (we're talking hundreds of thousands of views), but there is very little information on them anywhere (except for very basic one you could get on bandcamp etc). I found that many people were looking for a wiki article on them (if you enter their name in google, the first suggestion is "<bandname> wiki". After a lot of searching, I finally found an interview with them, which I thought I'd convert to a wiki article, so other fans could find it as well. The problem is I don't know if this covers "notability". As I said, they are well-known name in industrial music, but there's not much literature on them. The only sources I could quote are the article and whatever info can be scavanged from music sharing sites. I mean, I could probably try to get in contact with them, but I still don't know whether that would cover the notion of notability. Could you please guide me? TheLanceMan (talk) 16:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@TheLanceMan: what's the name of the band? Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, TheLanceMan, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid the answer is, Almost certainly not. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. Nothing said or written by the band or their associates will contribute to notability, wherever it was published; nothing on blogs, forums, wikis, iMDB, or social media, and almost nothing on YouTube, will contribute to notability. See GNG and WP:NBAND for the gory details. --ColinFine (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers! I'm afraid then I have no clue what on Earth could contribute to it. I doubt there will be independent research papers on any industrial electro bands :/ They are, without a question, well known on the scene, but I honestly have no idea what could contribute to their notability then. In any case, before giving up completely, Fred Zepelin, their name is Aim to Head, and this is the article I wanted to transcribe here: https://petesrocknewsandviews.com/aim-to-head/ At least this way it will remain on the page for other fans to find. I gotta say, I'm kinda disappointed that a communal information collector is so restrictive in what it publishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLanceMan (talk • contribs) 14:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Translating a Wikipedia article

I'm a new Wikipedia contributor and was wondering if I could take an Italian WP Article (I'm Italian) and translate it to English, ofcourse with the correct spelling, punctuations and grammar.

Would it be a problem since I'm basically ripping off another contributor's work? Kuroen110 (talk) 20:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Kuroen110 and welcome to the Teahouse! Maybe. The first hurdle is if your subject meets the demands of WP:GNG. If you can't cite the sources demanded there, your article will be deleted sooner or later.

If you conclude "Yeah, I have those sources, no problem!", then go ahead, guidance at WP:Translation. Basically, it's ok to rip off Wikipedians as long as you state clearly that you are doing that, also known as CC BY-SA 3.0. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kuroen110:, that is absolutely allowed and encouraged! It's great when a bilingual editor steps forward to this important and very useful work! It's not a ripoff at all, rather the opposite: The material in the Italian Wikipedia is donated under the same license as here, which allows almost unlimited re-use, and, far from being a rip-off, editors are assumed to be quite happy to have their work spread forward.

The only thing you have to do is put this template on the talk page of your article here, which satisfies the need to attribute the work of the editors on the Italian Wikipedia: {{Translated page|it|Italian-name-Of-Italian-Article}}. Again, this goes on the talk page. (It's also encouraged but not required to state something like "Create article via translation from Italian Wikipedia article Italian-name-Of-Italian-Article" in the edit summary of the creating edit.

As to notability, yes, but the existence of the article in the Italian is a very strong indicator that the subject is notable enough to have an article, so I wouldn't worry about that much, just use your common sense. Again, we are delighted that you are offering to do this work! I do it myself except from Russian, so message me if you have any questions. Herostratus (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Herostratus, according to Help:Translation you got the "have to"/"encouraged but not required" bits mixed up. I disagree on very strong, but what'll happen will happen. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, be aware that standards of notability vary enormously between the different Wikipedias. If the article you're proposing to translate is backed up by good sources indicating notability, then you're doing good work by translating it. If it isn't, then you're wasting your time. English WP is very dependent on secondary sources, which means that if a newspaper or book hasn't written about the subject, your stuffed, no matter how influential their work might have been. Hence English WP is full of articles about Bollywood films (and Moths) but very weak in industrial chemists, for example. In terms of translation, German WP has an article on the illustrator Bruno Bergner, whose works still litter e-bay, and routinely adorn retro car conventions and museums, but the matching article in English WP was (correctly) deleted because only one newspaper journalist had actually written a full-blown, in-depth article about him. If I'd done the translating, I'd have been mildly miffed. So check your subject is notable by English WP standards, and then happy translating! Elemimele (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Tip of the Day

Sorry for bothering the Teahouse again. I want to know how I can find the archives of the Tip of the Day. I searched the page but could not find the section titled Archives. Can anyone help? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: They're all linked at Wikipedia:Tip of the day. Each tip gets recycled every year. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (talk) 12:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby yes, but I am talking about past tip of the day. For example tip of the day of 21 March 2019, like this. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 12:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: What I meant by "recycled" is that the same tip is displayed on that day of the year. That means that 21 March 2019 is the same one as 21 March 2020; it's just transcluding Wikipedia:Tip of the day/March 19. I think they revise the tips from time to time, so you'll likely have to dig through page histories to see the exact text. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks Ganbaruby. You helped me a lot. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

ClueBot III vs lowercase sigmabot III

I have read WP:AUTOARCHIVE "Choosing a Bot", but still cannot decide which bot I will use to archive my talk page. There are pros and cons for both the bots. For example lowercase sigmabot III requires another bot for generating an index of archives, while cluebot can do it alone. This question would not have risen, if the pages on which cluebot III is used would have been greater than that lowercase sigmabot III, which makes lowercase sigmabot III more famous. I would have used cluebot III without further questioning. But it seems that lowercase sigmabot III is better. And also we can see that this bot also archives teahouse and other discussion pages, while I have never seen Cluebot III do any archiving. So, I would like some suggestions from experienced users, regarding which bot is better, and which one to use. Thanks. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 13:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why you say that you've never seen ClueBot III do any archiving; see Special:Contributions/ClueBot III. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@David Biddulph Ok, I never saw the contribution of ClueBot III. Thanks. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 15:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Is there a list of Newsletters that are published here at the Wikipedia? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I know there is a template, but except that is there something else? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Newsletters , Wikipedia:News Dege31 (talk) 11:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Dege31. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 15:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible See the entries at Category:WikiProject newsletters ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Shushugah for the category page. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 15:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi I accidentally published my draft page with Draft: in the title. I'm not sure how to remove it.

Statecraftdaily (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Statecraftdaily: Welcome to the Teahouse. (Almost) everything on Wikipedia is publicly available to everyone. Your draft is currently in draftspace (as denoted by the Draft: in front of your title), which doesn't get indexed by search engine crawlers and isn't considered to be "part of the encyclopedia" where it is. Unless someone's specifically looking for your draft or browsing draftspace, they won't find it.
Looking at your draft, Draft:Statecraft.co.in, you must declare any paid relationship you have with the subject and pick a different username, which contravenes Wikipedia's username policy, specifically on company names.
Well, that was a fast block. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Communicating with WikiProjects

Hi all, I’m new and would like to request help with cleaning up an article. I assume the appropriate place to do so would be at an associated WikiProject, but I don’t know where/how to request this help. Do I simply leave a message on the WikiProject talk page, or is it okay to ask specific active members of the Project, or what? Thanks for your help. :-) postleft on mobile! 18:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you can simply ask on the WikiProject's talk page, or on one of the member's talk page of that Wikiproject to see if they are interested, and you can even ask on the articles talk page. Happy editing! ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 18:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Twinkle Citation Helper

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Twinkle Citation Helper

– ― Qwerfjkl talk 21:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Not using edit summary when reverting

Is it ok to not leave an edit summary when reverting and warn the editor instead. I think there is nothing wrong with it. What do you think? Ctrlwiki • 14:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I think edit summaries are really helpful. If, for example, you're reverting vandalism, and someone asks for page protection, the admin granting page protection needs to see evidence of vandalism, and edit summaries in the article's history are a useful indicator. Or if you're reverting because of lack of citation, a third editor might see your revert, and think "but that's true! That shouldn't have been reverted!", so they will do the wrong thing (revert you) instead of seeing a clue that the correct thing would have been to check the fact and insert a citation. Warnings will only be seen by the reverted editor, not by anyone else who's looking at the article. But opinions will no doubt differ! Elemimele (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Ctrlwiki The advice (not policy) at WP:ES says Wikipedia community strongly encourages editors to provide meaningful edit summaries. Given the small amount of effort it takes I would strongly recommend it always be done. I've set my preferences at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing so that if I don't provide an edit summary, I can't save/publish my addition and that has stopped me doing stupid things on several occasions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok. So basically, providing edit summary and in the same time warn the editor, is it good idea? Ctrlwiki • 17:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ctrlwiki: WP:REVEXP is a quick read which starts with "Edit summaries, always a good practice, are particularly important when reverting." Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

error in citation

Can anyone tell me where I went wrong with regards to the error message in the second citation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Toronto-Addis_Ababa_Academic_Collaboration CT55555 (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@CT55555: Welcome to the Teahouse! It looks like the issue was that the reference named ":3" had different values, which was kindly fixed by Victor Schmidt. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Is Maria Strong notable?

I don't know enough about the US administration system. Looks to me like a civil-servant/lawyer doing her job. The current references are useless (just press-releases from her employer). But I don't want to PROD if the post itself is sufficiently important to confer notability without sources. Any thoughts? Elemimele (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Based off those references I do not think the article is notable, but their could be other sources that could replace those references. The article might be a WP:FAILN. you can see further instructions on notability on that page. Happy editing! ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 18:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Elemimele, as an American, I do not believe that her job is at a sufficiently high level that notability can be presumed. I share your concerns about the notability of this person. Cullen328 (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you; I've added a couple of possible citations, but have also added a notability-tag as recommended in WP:FAILN (thank you, Kaleeb18). I've already prodded one article and AfD'd another today, and didn't wake up in a destructive frame of mind; I couldn't bring myself to AfD this one too. I'll keep an eye on it, and if nothing happens, reconsider in a day or two. Elemimele (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Elemimele: No problem, and before you put/if you put the article for deletion just remember to see it has any good sources if not, you can move on with the process and put it on AFD and vote on it/discuss it. Happy editing! ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 22:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Best way for a newcomer to flag a potential error?

Hello, I'm building towards offering my first edits to some Wikipedia pages in near future (with a focus on Mathematics and Science), but for now I would just like to flag a simple formatting error that I noticed on this page: Orthogonal matrix.

If this is appropriate, what is the best way to do this? thank you CJ7903 (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@CJ7903: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, you can look at a list of templates that you might want to use in articles at the Template index cleanup and here is a general list of all templates. If you want to use the template make sure you are in source editor and place it at the top of the page. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 22:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, CJ7903, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you think you can fix it, then you're welcome to do so. If you're unsure, then start a discussion on the talk page Orthogonal matrix. If that talk page doesn't get much traffic, you could also post on WT:WikiProject Mathematics, directing people to the discussion you have started. --21:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance. I used "add section" to add my comment to Orthogonal matrix, hopefully all in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ7903 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Why are disclaimers protected?

Why can only administrators edit disclaimers? Damianlewis21 (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Damianlewis21: Welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have any examples that you're talking about in particular? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Which disclaimer do you wish to edit? You may make an edit request on the associated talk page. 331dot (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Damianlewis21. I'm going to guess that you're asking about WP:Editnotices. Is there any reason that you need to edit one of these yourself? Most pages that are protected on Wikipedia are usually done some for a fairly good reason. When things are protected to the degree that they only can be edited by administrators it's often because either of the following: (1) there's been a lot of serious disruption in the past or (2) the potential for serious disruption is great. For example, some templates are strongly protected because they are used so on so many pages that even an accidental syntax error can cause lots of problems. Most pages on Wikipedia have a corresponding talk page and changes can be requested on them when they're protected. So, you can make a edit request and ask someone to make the changes you think need to be made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

As in Wikipedia:General disclaimer etc? Basically it's a bad idea to have people mess around with those. The "goldlock" is placed on "Articles with persistent disruption from extended confirmed accounts; critical templates & modules". What's in the disclaimers probably have legal significance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Where to go for Notability advice?

I just got a question from Khudaeidadkhan, asking for advice on whether a proposed subject is Notable. I'm flattered but not sure why he is asking me. He supplied some links to potential sources, but I have a couple of reservations about them. They all talk about how exciting it is that these young folks have set up a business, how they overcame obstacles, and how bright their future looks. This all makes me wonder if they are all re-hashing some media releases from the business. Secondly, I find it hard to put my finger on any actual achievements that make me wonder it it is TOOSOON. Or maybe it's okay - I am really torn. Is there somewhere I can go to discuss it with somebody who has better perspective? The details are at User_talk:Gronk_Oz#New_Article_creation,_please_check_his_eligibility_and_give_your_advice? Gronk Oz (talk) 10:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz and Khudaeidadkhan: Yeah, the sources are pretty terrible. Perhaps it's syndicated, perhaps its autobiographical, but I too have no idea what this guy does for a living. They read like what an "entrepreneur" would write (air quotes intended). This is a hard call; I'd say that WP:GNG is met, but what's actually usable in terms of content probably boils down to a stub. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

These guys have persuaded newspapers to describe them as "entrepreneurs", who "come up with solutions". But there's no evidence that they've ever done anything useful. Not notable, unless they can provide independent evidence. Maproom (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

The sources linked at the top of the list says of the company: "It is a digital marketing company that has been working with different brands for quite some time and has been working with companies for better marketing of their products online; both Mehran Khan and Haris Baloch market these products on their social media platforms and explain to people the benefits of those products." That linked at the bottom of the list says of the company: "This commonly is one of the well know social media marketing companies in the whole Balochistan province." Somehow I'm reminded of those very many attempts (energetic, though not competent) to market products on Wikipedia, regarded (no, not by you or me) as a social media platform. That matter aside, the two sources I looked at are mere puff pieces. If those I didn't look at are similar, there's no notability. -- Hoary (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby, Maproom, and Hoary: - thanks for giving me your views, and affirming the concerns I have. Hoary, yes all the newspaper articles were very similar.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Admins

How Can I help the Admins Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC) Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

By not making more work for them: by making carefully researched, referenced and written improvements to articles; and, whenever you disagree with one or more other editors, discussing this coolly, concisely and courteously on the relevant article's talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

How long should it take?

About 4 days ago, I proposed an edit to the semi-protected page of Neo-Nazism. I checked the page again this morning and my request is still unanswered. How long should I expect to have to wait for? I feel like it's ignored intentionally because my proposed edit maybe isn't popular. In that case, what can I do alternatively to expedite the process? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neo-Nazism#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_22_December_2021_(2) WesternChristianitytestballi (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@WesternChristianitytestballi: Welcome to the Teahouse. I wouldn't jump to conclusions about wait times at this time of year, seeing that many of us are travelling or spending more time with family. Just speaking for myself, I have not been rushing to respond to requests on heavier topics such as Neo-Nazism as I'm giving myself a bit of a mental holiday for a few more days. You have provided sources and wording, which does make it easier to evaluate and act on your request, so hopefully someone will be in the right frame of mind to action it soon. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 23:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi WesternChristianitytestballi. Before automatically assuming the worst of others, try and remember that all editors are WP:VOLUNTEERs and sometimes get WP:BUSY, particularly at this time of the year. You can always try posting a Template:Please see on one of the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed at the top of Talk:Neo-Nazism, but it just might take some more time for someone to get your request. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I will wait a bit more. It's just that my first request was answered rapidly in less than 2 hours. It got rejected for being too ambiguous so I replied back and pinged the person who responded. But no response after a while. So thought maybe I should create another fresh request perhaps as my First request was already considered "answered". And then waited 4 days with no response. But maybe you are right about the holidays. People are busy and volunteers don't get paid. My apologies and I will wait and check back in a fortnight or two. But my question was more on how long should I typically expect to wait for a response? What's the normal waiting period for these things? I just wanted to know that. WesternChristianitytestballi (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

WesternChristianitytestballi, there simply isn't any normal waiting period at any time of the year. Some edit requests are very easy to either implement or decline, and tend to be processed promptly. Others may require a significant amount of analysis and/or subject matter expertise, and it can take weeks for someone to take them on. Cullen328 (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Just for reference, Template:Requested edit currenlty states "The requested edits backlog is high. Please be very patient. There are currently 153 requests waiting for review." Of course, it's possible that an easily to implement request will be answered fairly quickly, but a lot may depend on which editors are online answering requests and how much time they want to devote to a particular request. More difficult requests may be left for the next editor to try and sort out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Why can't I upload a JPG snippet of a Wikipedia article to "Talk" to assist in explaining the issue?

I tried to upload a small snippet image to the "Talk" section of this Wikipedia article Orthogonal matrix to include in my explanation of a formatting issue that needs to be fixed. But I was prevented from uploading it. Given the article is already published it's clearly not a copyright issue so I'm not sure why it would not upload?

Is there a workaround I can use for this in future? CJ7903 (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

CJ7903, you haven't said where you tried to upload the snippet image to. Anyway, a simple workaround would be to upload it to some public free-to-use site, and give a link from the talk page to your uploaded image. Maproom (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi CJ7903. The Given the article is already published it's clearly not a copyright issue so I'm not sure why it would not upload? is a bit unclear, but in general things tend to be more complicated than that. If the "article" you're referring to is a Wikipedia article and the image is an one being used in said article, then you can add the image to the talk page by simply adding its syntax to the relevant section on the talk page. You do, however, need to be a bit careful here because non-free content isn't allow to be used on talk pages as explained here. If, on the other hand, the image you want to add is something found on an external website (i.e. one that hasn't been already uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons), you will need to upload it first and then add it to the article. In that case, the copyright status of the file really does matter and it might be a good idea for you to take a look at c:Commons:Licensing before uploading anything. Now, if all you want to do is show an image that supports whatever point you're trying to make on the article's talk page, you don't really need to upload a file; instead, you can simply add an external link for the webpage to the relevant section on the article talk page. Once again, though, you do need to be careful and avoid linking to any content which might be considered a copyright violation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

In need of a help to edit a biography draft article

Greetings hosts, We would like to humbly ask for help in editing a Biography Wikipedia draft article. As we have tried to write and submit the article a few times, but we are not knowledgeable enough in writing skills to have the draft approved and published. We also don't quite understand the comments given by Wikipedia about the draft

May we know the procedure of asking for this type of help, please?

Here is the link to the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Eugene_Pook

Thank you so much for your time. Sso.ssyo (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC) Sso.ssyo (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sso.ssyo: The "Education" section needs references. I made some edits to the draft and the references for you. Hope this helps, and good luck with your draft! GoingBatty (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Stop with the "we." Accounts are for individuals. On your User page you have declared your COI with the orchestra. This should be changed to paid, and add a paid declaration for Draft:Eugene Pook (the conductor of the orchestra). David notMD (talk) 08:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

GoingBatty David notMD Thank you so much for the advice! I have now edited the article and added paid declaration. May I know if the article is now ready to be submitted? Thank you! Sso.ssyo (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I think not. Too much of the content is listing places he has played clarinet. Is he being proposed as notable as a musician or as a conductor and music director? If the latter, delete all the clarinet stuff. David notMD (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The photo was submitted to Commons as your own work. Did you in fact take this photograph? If not, is the photographer willing to create an account, and then post the photo at commons with the understanding that this surrenders all control over use of the photo, including commercial use? David notMD (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: The conductor actually owns the copyright of the photo, and I am uploading it in on behalf of the organization. Will that be okay? Sso.ssyo (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Correct phrasing for graduating with a degree

Would you say: "John Smith graduated with a PhD from Oxford University", or "John Smith was awarded a PhD from Oxford University", or would some other phrasing be preferable? Ficaia (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ficaia, I don't see a problem with either usage, though I personally tend to go with "earned a [degree] from [school]". I don't know if differing national varieties of English are at play here. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 19:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Ficaia Given you specifically mention Oxford, then I'd say that the first expression is definitely wrong. A PhD is a postgraduate degree according to how that expression is used in the UK. One would usually already have an undergraduate degree before starting it and so would already have graduated. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ficaia: Also, technically it's the University of Oxford, not to be pedantic at all. YorkshireExpat (talk) 11:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the phrase you want is "John Smith was graduated from..." 73.127.147.187 (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

First, Oxford does not award a PhD. It awards a DPhil. Second, I think the correct expression is "John Smith was awarded a DPhil from the University of Oxford", not graduated. They will already have graduated, if at Oxford most likely with a BA, even if they studied science. Note also that after 21 terms from matriculating, the BA automatically becomes a MA. This used to apply until fairly recently to all Oxford students. There are now a few other degrees that are awarded to a very small proportion of Oxford students. I spent 6 years at Oxford studying chemistry back in the late 1950s and early 1960s and I can put "M.A., D.Phil." after my name. --Bduke (talk) 03:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

link my translation with the original text

How can I link my English translation with the original Arabic text. A message appeared that the page could not be found on enwiki. Thank you in advance. Hanan Al-Dhaifi (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC) Hanan Al-Dhaifi (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Hanan Al-Dhaifi. I guess that you are talking about User:Hanan Al-Dhaifi/Morning and Evening Remembrances. Your translation is not yet an encyclopedia article. It needs references and wikilinks. It contains non-neutral religious language. I suggest that you follow all the advice at Your first article and use the Articles for Creation process. Cullen328 (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

And as for the link: [[:ar:title of article]]. If on the other hand you're asking how to get Wikipedia to add a link from the article in one language to the article on the same subject in another language, you don't need to do this (and cannot do it either within English-language or Arabic-language Wikipedia); instead, the process is (if I may simplify for now) automated. -- Hoary (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC) corrected Hoary (talk) 05:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Difference between user and ping templates

{{u}} vs {{ping}}

What is the difference between these two? And what are the other types that are available?

the difference ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: First, I enclosed the two templates in {{template link}} which helps us to use the templates as examples and refer to the template documentation without activating the template and possibly causing errors.

{{u}} is just shorthand for a user link. {{ping}} (which I used in the previous paragraph) adds a @ before and a colon after the username so it looks more like a reply. Either of these will notify the named user if they have enabled notifications. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 07:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Itcouldbepossible @Itcouldbepossible and ClaudineChionh: be aware that the ping template allows you to name mutltiple editors, all of whose names get shown, whereas the {{u}} template only displays one of them (check out the source code of this post). NM Demo (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@NM Demo Thanks Nick. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@NM Demo I learnt the difference between {{u}} and {{ping}}. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@NM Demo And also, may I change the spelling of "mutltiple" to "multiple"? You have written it Itcouldbepossible @Itcouldbepossible and ClaudineChionh: be aware that the ping template allows you to name mutltiple editors, all of whose names get shown, whereas the {{u}} template only displays one of them (check out the source code of this post). ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: It's best to let editors correct their own mistakes on talk pages if they want to, though little spelling mistakes like this are not a big deal if the meaning is clear. See WP:TALKO.

Also note that it's now Christmas day in at least half the world, so many of us may be away from Wikipedia for a while and won't be responding as quickly as usual. (We have our family gatherings a few days before and after Christmas day this year, so today is a quiet day at home for me.) ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 01:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Merry Christmas. I know many will be celebrating. We will be also doing the same. Just a bit latter, because my time zone is +5.30 GMT. Thanks ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh Thanks Claudine. I understand the use of {{u}} , and {{ping}} But as you may have already guessed by now, the more I know new things, the more questions I have.

So, first of all tell me why did you use {{tl|template link}} ? Why did not you use [[Template:template link]] ? Are the two different? When should we use "tl" and when should we use "nowiki". I always thought that "nowiki" works when we want to just display the code, and not want the code to work. What is the difference between {{ping}} and nowiki {{ping}} ? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 11:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: Using the {{template link}} template displays the template's text label without executing the template code, and it also provides a link to the template documentation. But if you were looking at the source code of my reply you would see that I have a habit of using the short versions of templates if I don't need to spell it out.

So, in case this is getting confusing and self-referential: {{tl}} and {{template link}} are the same template. This template displays the text of the "linked" template without executing it (same effect as nowiki) and also provides a link to the documentation for that template (same effect as [[Template:Template link]]). ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 11:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh And also what is the use of {{tlx}} and {{tlg}} ? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 11:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: {{tlg}} is the most general template link template, with many variations including tl and tlx. The documentation for {{tlg}} has usage and examples for all the different template link templates. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 12:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh Thanks Claudine for clearing all my doubts. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh And by the way, did you change my question heading? I could not find it in the beginning. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: Yes, I changed your heading because you called the templates without parameters so they broke the heading display. That's why nowiki and the tl templates are useful. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 01:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh Ok, please do so, whenever I make mistakes. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

To add on to what others have said, {{yo}}, {{re}}, {{ping}}, {{reply}}, and {{replyto}} are all redirects to {{Reply to}}. In addition, you can ping multiple users using this: {{Reply to|Itcouldbepossible|Example|Example2}}, which gives this:

@Itcouldbepossible, Example, and Example2: Blah, blah, blah, blah...

Due to a limitation in the system, this only goes up to 50 users. --67.183.136.85 (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but what is blah blah blah? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The actual ping is caused by a wikilink to the user page like User:Itcouldbepossible which will ping you. No template is needed but any template which makes such a link can be used. Templates usually pipe the link with code like [[User:Itcouldbepossible|Itcouldbepossible]] so "User:" isn't displayed. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter Thanks Prime Hunter. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@NM Demo, PrimeHunter, and ClaudineChionh: I have decided to experiment with the template link and all the associated templates in my sandbox. Thanks everyone for helping me so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itcouldbepossible (talk • contribs) 14:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Please remember to sign your posts, Itcouldbepossible, otherwise notifications won't be triggered regardless of which template you use. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry Sorry, I forgot. But mine is auto signature. Why did it not sign then? I don't use the ~~~~ . It automatically adds it to my reply. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry And by the way, how do you add the unsigned comment tag? Please don't bother to answer my question quickly. Merry Chirstmas. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, now I understand, where I had gone wrong. I always use the reply tool to reply. And it auto signs my replies. So, I have completely lost the habit of putting a ~~~~ for signing.

I did not know that I could use the {{outdent}} using the reply tool. So, I went to edit the source of this section, and use the outdent function. And thus, I forgot to sign, as I thought that I was still using the reply tool. So foolish of me. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 04:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too, Itcouldbepossible. The unsigned comment template is at Template:Unsigned. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry Thanks for the letting me know about the {{Unsigned}} template. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 12:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh@NM Demo@PrimeHunter From all the above discussion, I have come to the following conclusion.

The {{nowiki}} template can does not display the template documentation, it only stops the template from acting. While the {{tl}} or {{tlx}} or {{tlg}} or whatever, stops the template from acting and also displays a template documentation. And thus, the {{nowiki}} template can be used for guiding editors who has been here for atleast some time and knows hoe to find the required template documentation, while it is best to use the {{tl}} template for guiding complete newcomers, who would like to get a clickable link and view the template documentation. I hope I am right? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 04:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: It's almost always better to use {{tl}} instead of <nowiki> tags, as it helps anyone else who reads the conversation, and makes it easier in general to navigate to the template documentation. ― Qwerfjkl talk 21:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Qwerfjkl for your opinion. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 05:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The criminality of the Weston oligarchs.

My edits to the article on G Weston Jr attracted this censorship: "I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Galen Weston Jr. have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox." Exposing criminality by oligarchs is always 'constructive'. Your article on this junior one is a whitewash. Are the contributing a lot of money to get this treatment? 2001:569:BF62:F400:F46F:CFFA:E12C:6ED4 (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Donations do not determine content. You should discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Your edits contained language that was both non-encyclopedic and unsourced. "Exposing" things is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Feel free to take your suggestions to the Talk Page. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

IP editor, you seem to be here only to argue that this Canadian Weston family are a bunch of very bad people with ill-gotten gains. Donations or lack of donations by you or by the Weston family have exactly zero impact on the content of these articles. Experienced Wikipedia editors take great pride in ignoring anyone who mentions donations in a discussion about article content. Donations do not matter. Cullen328 (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Historic U.S. 6 Route signage on all potions of the old alignment

Wikipedia should add: However, the State of California currently recognizes the decommissioned portion between Bishop and Long Beach California as being Historic U.S. Route 6. The State of California approved the placement of Historic U.S. 6 Route signage on all potions of the old alignment; RE: State Concurrent Resolution No. 26 as filed with the Secretary of State on July 3, 2007.

Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 26 RESOLUTION CHAPTER 67 Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 26—Relati ve to Historic U.S. Highway Route 6. [Filed with Secretary of State July 3, 2007.] legislative counsel’s digest ACR 26, Sharon Runner. Historic U.S. Highway Route 6. The measure w ould request the Department of Transportation, upon application by an interested local agenc y or private entity, to identify an y section of former U.S. Highway Route 6 that is still a publicly maintained highway and that is of interest to the applicant, and to designate that section as Historic U.S. Highw ay Route 6. This measure w ould also request the department to determine the costs of appropriate highway markers or signs showing that special designation and, upon receiving donations from nonstate sources covering that cost, to erect appropriate highw ay markers or signs on the portions of former U.S. Highw ay Route 6 that are part of the state highway system. WHEREAS, U.S. Highway Route 6 began in the 1920s as a short route between Provincetown, Massachusetts, and Brewster, New York; and WHEREAS, Thereafter, U.S. Highway Route 6 was extended westward and, in 1926, ended in Denver, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Around 1937, U.S. Highw ay Route 6 became a transcontinental highway when it was extended to Long Beach, California. The route thereby stretched a distance of 3,517 miles, making it the longest highway in the country; and WHEREAS, U.S. Highw ay Route 6 has been called the Roose velt Highway and is no w officially named the Grand Army of the Republic Highway; and WHEREAS, In 1964, California renumbered its state highw ay system and truncated U.S. Highway Route 6 at Bishop, California; and WHEREAS, U.S. Highw ay Route 6 no w stretches 3,249 miles and is recognized as the second longest highway in the country; and WHEREAS, U.S. Highw ay Route 6, in addition to its importance in transportation, has outstanding natural, cultural, historic, and scenic qualities; and WHEREAS, Ov er the years, U.S. Highw ay Route 6 has con veyed commerce and pleasure tra velers whose needs were met by nearby cities and counties; and 96 WHEREAS, Though largely supplanted by other state highw ay routes, segments of the original U.S. Highway Route 6 remain, although many are no longer identified as such; and WHEREAS, Former U.S. Highway Route 6 served as the main street of many California cities and to wns along its length and, though no longer designated as former U.S. Highway Route 6, these segments represent both state and local historic significance; and WHEREAS, Without formal designation, the history and contribution of these segments of U.S. Highw ay Route 6 to the de velopment of the state would remain less known; and WHEREAS, Recognition of these se gments will foster the economic health and cultural preserv ation of small communities and to wns located along the highway; and WHEREAS, It is fitting that a means to designate these historic sections of former U.S. Highway Route 6 be established; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California, the Senate ther eof concurring, That the Legislature hereby recognizes the remaining segments of former U.S. Highw ay Route 6 for their historical significance and importance in the development of California; and be it further Resolved, That the Department of Transportation is requested, upon application by an interested local agenc y or private entity, to identify an y section of former U.S. Highway Route 6 that is still a publicly maintained highway and that is of interest to the applicant, and to designate that section of highway as Historic U.S. Highway Route 6; and be it further Resolved, That the department is requested to determine the cost of appropriate highway markers or signs consistent with signing requirements for the state highw ay system sho wing the special Historic U.S. Highw ay Route 6 designation and, upon recei ving donations from nonstate sources covering that cost, to erect those highway markers or signs on the portions of former U.S. Highway Route 6 that are part of the state highway system; and be it further Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the Director ofTransportation and to the author for appropriate distribution. O 96 — 2 —Res. Ch. 67 GuyRCook (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The place to make such a proposal would be on the talk page of the relevant article, supported by a reference to where the source is published. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

You can create the article with a redlink, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/(Insert desired link here). There are also a variety of Wikipedia tools to help you out when creating pages. Urban Versis 32 (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, GuyRCook. Your post is pretty much a classic example of Too long, didn't read. And I have driven parts of the historic Route 6 highway and find it interesting. But we do not rely on primary sources like resolutions by state legislatures. Secondary sources are always preferable. Imagine a poor editor from Australia or the UK trying to make sense out of your exceedingyly long post! The Teahouse does not exist to make decisions on content matters. It is instead to ask and answer questions about how to edit this encyclopedia productively. Accordingly, my advice to you is "be concise" and realize that your goal is to persuade other editors, not to rhetorically hammer them over their heads. Cullen328 (talk) 06:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft article: Gleneagle Hospital Medini Johor

Hi, I posted my question before but it's now gone. Can I confirm if the reference from their official website are strictly not allowed? Wcsneel (talk) 07:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC) Wcsneel (talk) 07:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Wcsneel, the question and answers are here. You can use a hospital's website as a source for information that doesn't describe the hospital's achievements, excellence, or significance. This means that it can't be used for much. -- Hoary (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The Simplest steps to make a article.

Hi! Please help me with writing my first article in wikipedia. It's something I'm struggling with. Please help me with it. By telling the shortest way to write a article and get it published. Mr cosmic king (talk) 08:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The shortest way is to, in order:

Find sources first;
Write your article based off the information provided by the sources, without extrapolation or editorialising,
Forget about images and infoboxes, as they're at best window dressing

That help? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 08:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Mr cosmic king (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know if there is a simple answer, as successfully writing a new article is probably the hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. It is usually recommended that one edit existing articles first, to better understand how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Diving right in to creating articles can lead to disappointment and frustration as things one does not understand happen to something they worked a long time on. Using the new user tutorial is also helpful.

Your draft was rejected because it did little more than tell about the app involved and it was only cited to the Apple Store where the app is available. Wikipedia is not a place to merely document the existence of something. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. You should gather at least three independent sources that have chosen on their own(not based on any materials put out by those that make the app) to write about it, and then summarize what they say. If you cannot find at least three such sources, the app would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time.

You have also chosen to edit in a contentious area, nontraditional medicine. This has special rules, which you were notified about on your user talk page- please review that if you haven't already.

If you have an association with this app, you should review conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Citation for the plot of a novel

If an article about a novel (or any other work of fiction) contains a summary of the plot, what would be an appropriate citation (if any) for that summary?

I'm asking specifically in connection with the article on Lockdown (novel). The original article (written by myself) contained a summary of the plot, without any citation. This was on the basis if WP:PLOTCITE, which I take to mean that the novel itself is the source of the information and does not require any further citation.

However, another editor (@Lakex:) has removed most of the summary, because of the lack of citation. I have reverted that change, but I am not sure if that was the right thing to do. What is the correct approach here? I am anxious to do the right thing. Thanks in advance. Mike Marchmont (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Marchmont, Hello! Per MOS:PLOTSOURCE it's fine to write a plot without inline citations, however they are sometimes considered necessary for "tricky" bits. Slightly below MOS:PLOTSOURCE it says "Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work." MOS:PLOTLENGTH may be relevant. Hope this helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello @:@Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Thanks for your very helpful reply. Based on what you said, I feel justified in reinstating the plot summary in the above-mentioned article. I also checked MOS:PLOTLENGTH and am happy with what it says. I have left a note on the Talk page of the editor who deleted the plot summary to explain what I did. So, once again, the Teahouse proves its value. Best wishes, Mike Marchmont (talk) 09:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I am the tech guy and decided to start contributing to technological articles and help with the first article would be greatly appreciated

Hello,

I am Python software developer working as a web scraping freelancer on various platforms and found some broken links on that article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_scraping I found a great source for #13 broken reference link to make it - https://datamam.com/web-scraping While I keep looking for others, please let me know how can changes be made, Thank you SGuvi (talk) 08:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Your link isn't to the same document as ref 13. In this edit I have added an archive URL for ref 13. You'll find advice on how to do it at WP:DEADLINK. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@SGuvi Wikipedia is not the place to WP:Promote your commercial services/tools. We are all WP:VOLUNTEER editors and would have no way of accessing your service anyways. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

How does it work?

How does it works? Rui Vítor Costa (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello Rui Vítor Costa. Welcome, and thanks for posting your question after doing The Wikipedia Adventure. The Teahouse is simply the name for a friendly help-forum for new users to ask questions if they have difficulties editing Wikipedia. We offer support, guidance and the occasional cup of tea to new editors like yourself. We have 'hosts' who are experienced editors who can usually solve most problems. Drop by again and ask a question whenever you have need. (Oh, and feel free to delete the repeat Wikipedia Adventure messages on your talk page - you get one of these every time you log back in to continue with it.) Regards from the UK, NM Demo (talk) 11:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you undone it ? 223.235.21.133 (talk) 11:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello ip user, and welcome to the Teahouse. The reason (left by the user who reverted your edits) is "Non Notable". So the edits you made maybe not notable according to the notability guidelines. Thanks. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 12:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@223.235.21.133: As per reasons given by Nkon21 and me in the edit summary, the awards added are non-notable awards with insufficient significant coverage by reliable secondary sources neither is Wikipedia an indiscriminate collection of information. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Reply Link

I sometimes cannot use the reply link to reply to comments. It says The "reply" link cannot be used to reply to this comment. To reply, please use the full page editor by clicking "Edit". What is the actual reason behind this? I use the normal editor when this error occurs. But is there any other way to avoid this? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 11:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible I have wondered the same thing. The reply-thing is still "beta", so it may still have some bugs. If you don't get a good answer here, try Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Itcouldbepossible Gråbergs Gråa Sång bugs aside, when you are about to edit a reply in one thread, it disables the reply button in other threads, which is a JavaScript client/browser behaviour. I’d definitely prefer if it didn’t bother disabling reply button for this reason. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Never noticed that, but it seems you are correct. I don't see it as much of a problem, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Shushugah But I am not talking about that. I already know that. What I am saying is that I cannot use the reply link for given some replies. Consider the talkback message on my talk page. You cannot reply using reply link? Why? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Unregister

Please can you advise how I unregister from the site? Mwrigh17 (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mwrigh17 Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no way to unregister from here. If you don't want to edit from here, then don't. Log out from the account, and never log back again. And for security purposes, you can also place the {{retired}} tag on your userpage, which will tell other users on Wikipedia, that you have left wikipedia, and don't edit from that account. Its as simple as that. Thanks Itcouldbepossible^Talk 12:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mwrigh17 PS:- A friendly suggestion. Why would you want to unregister from Wikipedia? It is such a nice place to spend your leisure time. There are so many editors to help you out, and you can also create articles of your choice here. So why unregister? Please stay here, and help us build the encyclopedia. Thanks. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 12:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mwrigh17:, you've leapt in at the hardest end of things, trying to write an article, and had it declined, which is heartbreakingly crushing, and I feel for you. Can I suggest that rather than giving up on WP, you stick around, and look at articles in your general area of interest, and see if they can be improved? There are loads of bits of Wikipedia that aren't well-referenced, and loads of little things that need improving. Over time, you'll find you get a better feel for what people expect here, and will be in a better position to do handle writing a complete article. Your presence will improve Wikipedia. Elemimele (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mwrigh17 Please don't leave Wikipedia, because your draft has been declined. It happens many a times. Even for me, if you go to my talk page, then you will see that many of my submissions has been declined, and one page had been also moved to draft space, though it was my fault. But I did not give up. I tried creating another article, and started doing other kinds of tasks. For help regarding creating an article, you can obviously go to WP:Your First Article and read the documentation that is available there. Alternatively, if you want to learn why your draft did not get accepted or how you can make your draft better, you can learn about the Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I am not asking you to read all this in one day. Take some time, and read it. Your draft was not accepted because it lacked reliable sources, and sources are required to verifiability. You might be thinking what is all this stuff? What is the need of reliable sources? Won't they believe me? See, this is not a matter of believing. Wikipedia's policy states that verifiability is more important. For example I may have 4 children, but there are sources that state that I have 3, so Wikipedia would regard 3 as verifiable. The fact that I may have 4 sons would not be considered verifiable, until and unless the source corrects itself. And Wikipedia depends on the verifiability, and not what the fact is. You can read more if you want. You can also read about reliability to know what type of sources are considered reliable and what are not. You can also find the list of all wikipedia policies and guidelines here. However, you must read the most important policies at the beginning. You can see {{welcome menu}}, or if you feel it is too tough for you to understand, then you can as well read the welcome message left on your talk page. Well, if it strains you too much, then you can as well do other types of job. And the Teahouse is always there, it is a great place for asking questions. Experienced editors are always there to answer you questions and help you out. So, don't bother to ask questions at the Teahouse.

So, please don't leave Wikipedia. Enjoy the place, communicate with other editors, ask questions, and help us build a great encyclopedia. Who knows, in the future you might be one of the best editors at Wikipedia. I hope this encourages you, and motivates you to stay here. Thanks. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

A proof of Fermat's little theorem.

Good afternoon,
Is there a mathematician that can review my work.
Who can tell me if my proof is valid and correct, can withstand the rigour of time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofs_of_Fermat%27s_little_theorem#An_analytical_proof_of_Fermat's_little_theorem
An analytical proof of Fermat's little theorem.
I’ll be ever so thankful.
Yours sincerely, Wim Coenen.
Wim Coenen (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC) Wim Coenen (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Wim Coenen, this page is for questions about editing Wikipedia. You could try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics or Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted your addition to Proofs of Fermat's little theorem because Wikipedia does not publish original research (see WP:NOR). You must publish such work elsewhere, preferably in a peer-reviewed and reputable journal before we can consider adding it to any article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Can a editor please add a source to my article and a couple of other things?

Hello Wikipedia. I posted a request to add a source two days ago and it somehow got missed. Is there a way an editor can go get the source link off the article talk page and add it where they see it fits? Also I noticed the there is a clarification tag on the career section that can easy be fixed if the editor replaces it with "Sledge released his song Seen It All in 2021.

That should fix the clarification issue. I'm a COI editor so I can't touch the article. Also I noticed the musician category was removed from the page? The artist produces and composes his own music so he is a musician. Let me know if anyone can help the page is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AJDaGuru

Also one last request I have is can the editor add a picture to the article? https://ibb.co/jM4j8Wd Godsentme1 (talk) 08:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC) Godsentme1 (talk) 08:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding the image is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 08:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano Can you help me understand what does that mean about the Titanic does that mean no you can't add the picture correct? And what about the other request? Godsentme1 (talk) 08:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I mean that adding the image wouldn't help the page at all. No comment on the source because of your well-established history of refusing to listen to honest criticism. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 08:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

You have communicated on the article talk page, which is where these requests belong; you suggested the source 24 hours ago, not two days, and the fact that it has not been added to the article doesn't necessarily mean that your request was "missed". The source, which was created two days ago (maybe you confused that date with the date you posted to the article talk page) is no better than any of the other sources in the article, and you have not provided any information about which information it's supposed to support.

Re the category, Category:Musicians_from_Connecticut was removed, because the article is a member of Category:Singers_from_Connecticut and Category:Rappers_from_Connecticut. Both categories are sub-categories of Category:Musicians_from_Connecticut. More info here. --bonadea contributions talk 08:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Bonadea I may have gotten the dates wrong. Apologies for that, also I did mention what it's should support. It should support the career section of the article. It can support the intro section as well. I've put that on the talk page. Thank you.Godsentme1 (talk) 09:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The fact you mixed it up with the time the source was written doesn't strike me as innocent coincidence, given the history of sourcing with this article. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 09:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Godsentme1: You may post your suggestions on Talk:AJDaGuru with the {{edit request}} template, or use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Eduard_Grossman

FYI

– Added section header. GoingBatty (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia, My Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Eduard_Grossman) article Submission declined because its not supported by reliable sources. On my References list i had posted books and catalogues from writers that wrote on specific pages about artists including Eduard Grossman. I would like to know why my draft is not supported by reliable sources. Thank you looking forward for your reply 87.68.183.29 (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! There is a lot of information in the draft that is not tied back to one of the references you supplied, such as the first 10 paragraphs of the "Life" section, and many of the exhibitions. I also recommend you review WP:EASYREFBEGIN to learn the proper way to format references. Hope this helps, and good luck with your draft! GoingBatty (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

How to submit draft

I thought I had submitted my draft back in October but apparently didn't do it correctly. So any ideas on how to do it? Thanks.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarkcoan (talk • contribs) 19:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Clarkcoan: I have added the necessary code for you. If you don't use the WP:AfC process at the start, it isn't intuitive how to add your proposal to the queue. I hope Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk will be useful going forward if you have further questions. All the best, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Why is my article marked for notability

I wrote Osaka movie theater fire, this was a horrible mass-murder in which sixteen people were murdered and nine injured. It is one of Japan's worst mass murders. But it now has a big banner on top say that it may not meet Wikipedia standards. Why? Fulmard (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Fulmard, it looks notable to me, but you could do more to establish its notability in the article. It has only three properly-cited sources, and nine direct external links. You should convert the latter to proper citations. Maproom (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I expect you'll have enough good sources cited by now. But you may find more (if they're not all duplicates) at https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Fifteen_killed_in_apartment_fire_in_Osaka,_Japan Maproom (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Fulmard the banner states "Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources...." The section about the manager turning off the alarm has no citation, and is now tagged as Citation needed. One of your sources is Aljazeera.com, and some of its content is considered to be unreliable. Can you find a good reference about the manager and the alarm? Can you replace the Aljazeera.com citation with a more reliable source? Also, the last sentence in your first paragraph has 5 citations. If you have one reliable citation, do you really need to list all five?

Your article does seem to be on a notable topic, and a little editing to improve your citations should solve the notability concerns. Best wishes on your editing updates. Karenthewriter (talk) 20:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Karenthewriter: Just a query about your comment about aljazeera.com. WP:RSP says that Al Jazeera is considered generally reliable, except perhaps regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict. Since the Osaka movie theater fire article is unrelated to that topic, what concern would you have about using Al Jazeera as a source in this article? CodeTalker (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@CodeTalker I was trying to figure out what the notability problems were, so I was Googling all the sources I was not familiar with, asking if they were reliable. I don't recall which cites gave the opinion that aljazeera.com was not always reliable, but 3 or 4 came up with that verdict. I felt if an editor was slapping on banners stating the article might not be notable, and upsetting the writer, it would be wise to replace a source that might cause a reviewer problems. That was the concern I had. Karenthewriter (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I think I will just quit. Someone just went by the article and nuked an hour of my work and gutted it completely, removing many details I added. They were claiming I added external links, but I added citations, links to relevant news articles. They just popped on by into this article I made, rollbacked everything I did today, and posted on my talk. Hats off David Biddulph, hats off David, what a fine way to improve an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fulmard (talk • contribs) 20:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't lose heart, Fulmard: your work is not lost, it's still there in the article's history. And in fact I see that Gene93k has reverted David Buddulph's edit, and has been cleaning the references up, converting them to proper citations. You would probably have had slightly less heartache if you had created the article as a draft, and submitted it for review when you thought it was ready. --ColinFine (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the notability tag and added some content referenced to the New York Times. I wrote a similar article, by the way, 1973 Miami Beach firebombing. Cullen328 (talk) 22:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

And just like that, we lose a potential contributor. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 00:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Gene93k. But what is wrong with my citations? Why aren't they proper and need to be cleaned up? I put square brackets around the news links, and they show up in the text just like the other citations, they all have numbered brackets like [4], just like other citations. What is wrong with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fulmard (talk • contribs) 05:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Fulmard: The issue is that they're rendered as external links, which virtually never show up in the body of articles. If you haven't, I strongly suggest you read Easy referencing for beginners. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Fulmard: Do citations like this: <ref>{{Cite web|url=https://example.com|title=Example}}</ref>. See WP:REFB; your citations were incorrectly formatted.

Also, add ~~~~ to the end of your messages to sign it. For example, my signature: – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 05:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Fulmard: - if you look at this permalink it shows the refs as you left them, having little stylised arrows (which should not be there) adjacent to the number; these are called embedded links. Refs are not easy for new editors. I've cleaned up the ref entries at List of massacres in Japan and also restored the content you deleted. Please use edit summaries particularly when deleting existing sourced content.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC) (I am not a Teahouser)

Fine. I read the links on references and edit summaries. I will try.Fulmard (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Editing

I tried to creat separate sections for Films and Television in Akshay Kumar filmography but not able to do that, and messed up to the dagger thing, if your a editor go on and fix that article, make to seperate sub-sections for Films & Television. Holland Tok (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Holland Tok:

Fixed! GoingBatty (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

start a wiki page for Bassy Stacy

Hello, Can anyone help me to start a wiki page for myself? I have been in multiple bands and still do radio. Thank you 2600:1702:30A0:96A0:4C8E:B12:DAD6:913A (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! WP:AUTO explains that Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographies. Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, especially when you have a conflict of interest (COI). To learn how to edit, you could view Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure. I suggest then spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. When you're ready to create an article, you would gather independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of you, and determine whether you meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could create an account and declare your COI on your user page. Then follow the instructions at Help:Your first article, and be prepared for a process that may include months of waiting, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created. If you are successful, then you could never edit the article directly due to your COI, but could submit edit requests on the article talk page. Hope this helps. GoingBatty (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing? You may find it to be of interest. Best wishes. Karenthewriter (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:June 18-19 floods

Even though I am a teahouse host, I am asking this question: Is there anything wrong with my draft? Draft:June 18-19 floods Severe storm 28 22:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

First reaction: "Where? (Burma? The Netherlands? Abkhazia?)" But I clicked on it anyway, and there read the opening sentence: The June 18-19 floods was a flooding event taking place in the Midwest, mainly in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. The event occured in Mid-June in 2021. "Floods" (plural) "was" (singular)? And perhaps it's down to my lack of imagination, but I can't imagine either a flood not being a flooding event, or June 18–19 not occurring in mid-June. So I'd say: needs a bit of work. -- Hoary (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: Thank you for the advice. I will work on this after the holidays. Severe storm 28 01:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Severestorm28: I changed it to "The June 18-19 floods took place in 2021 in the Midwestern United States, mainly in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio." Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

GoingBatty, how about Areas of the Midwestern United States, particularly in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, were flooded on June 18–19, 2021? (Note MOS:FIRST: "if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text".) -- Hoary (talk) 05:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: Go for it - it's less awkward than my edit. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: @Hoary: Thank you for further advice. This will also help on my draft. Severe storm 28 15:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Severestorm28: I have been watching you draft for a while now and I have some quick comments. Since you mention the tornadoes in that article, it is common to add some infoboxes about them similar to how the December 2021 Midwest derecho and tornado outbreak has them listed. List of United States tornadoes from April to June 2021 is where you can find that tornado information. Also, once the draft is moved to mainspace, it will qualify for the Weather of 2021 list article, which doesn't mean anything directly for the article, except possible "extra" traffic. So instead of the article getting maybe 100 views in 30 days, it might get 500-600 in 30 days, just being on that list article. All that means is you might want to work to get the article to start class instead of stub class, so notability wouldn't be questioned as easily. Hopefully that helps! Elijahandskip (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: Yes, this helps. Thank you very much! Severe storm 28 22:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Should I make a new page or edit an existing one?

I notice there isn't a page for the experimental electronic artist Lauren Bousfield, but searching her name redirects to the page for her previous project Nero's Day at Disneyland. I'd like to make a page for her since NDAD is no longer active and hasn't been for some time, but I'm unsure of the best way to do this. Should I create a brand new page for her, or should I overhaul the NDAD page and use it for her biography instead? AphelionsGhost (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@AphelionsGhost: Is NDAD a band with multiple noteworthy members? If so, then Bousfield should get her own article documenting her individual work. If NDAD is not a band, or if the band's other members aren't public, then improve the NDAD page. I can't tell which is the case here because the article uses the word "band" throughout, but only mentions one person. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article with a deleted image

Hey there, folks. Recently I came across the TFA for July 6, 2017 which uses a now-deleted image. commons:File:Samantha Ruth Prabhu on the sets of "Eega".jpg was apparently deleted for lacking sufficient permission for usage. What should be done about this? Should it be replaced by another image from the article, removed altogether, or should it just stay the way it is? Alternatively replace it with some kind of note that the image has been removed from the site? What do you folks think? ArcticSeeress (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@ArcticSeeress: Just leave it. That page is left for historical reference, so knowing which image (even if deleted) is useful. It's also highly unlikely that regular readers will stumble across it. Plus, things are never actually "deleted", but are just hidden from public view; this is why undeletion works. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for the quick reply, Ganbaruby. ArcticSeeress (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Zenon Mariak

Hi this man is pretty famous in my city in Poland. I don't know why it says it's not written like an encyclopedia entry. I think it's straightforward and unbiased. He's a scholar and neurosurgeon, even in the national academy of sciences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zenon_Mariak 62.122.119.223 (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, What it means by the article is not written like an encyclopedia entry is that the article is promoting him. In the article it seems there are a lot of peacock terms, those need to be removed. Hope that helps clear up any confusion if not just reply back here. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 18:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Seems kinda weird, what peacock terms were used? "Zenon Mariak is a Polish neurosurgeon, researcher, and professor who is currently head of the Department of Neurosurgery at the Medical University of Bialystok.[1][2] He previously served as the Deputy President of the Medical University of Bialystok.[3][4] He is a member of the Committee of Neurological Sciences at the 5th Faculty of Medical Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences.[3] Mariak was awarded an MD at the Medical University of Bialystok. He obtained his Ph.D. in 1995 from the Medical University of Bialystok.[3] Since August 2021, Mariak has served on the Council of Health Needs as a representative of the Podlaskie Province.[5] "

That's all the text aside from research. Reads like something out of a book or webpage entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.122.119.223 (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I could not see any significant problems with the draft so I moved it to main space. Cullen328 (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

AP World History: Ancient

Does the topic "AP World History: Ancient" count as notable? Brian+urmom (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Only if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link to a related topic, AP World History: Modern, which itself seems to need some work; it doesn't even explicity state what country it relates to, though that can be discovered via the first link in the lede. I wish some (US) editors would keep in mind that this is a global encyclopedia. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.195.175.140 (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk Pages

I decided to put this question up at the Teahouse, so that I could get opinions from many editors, and then make a consensus. I want to know which is better - Archiving talk pages, or removing content from talk pages. I would really be happy, if many editors comment on this topic. Thanks. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 13:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

You can do either (or both) for yourself. If you're talking about establishing a consensus to enforce on other users, please don't. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu No, I want to make a consensus, so that I can take a decision for me. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 15:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

For an article talk page, you shouldn't usually delete content without archiving, see WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE. For your own talk page, you can (if you wish) delete content except for certain exceptions, see WP:OWNTALK. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@David Biddulph Thanks for the suggestion. (please

mention me on reply) ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 15:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

For my Talk pages, I delete the trivial comments and replies, and archive the rest. David notMD (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Need to move to draft

I've made a serious of compounding, arguable funny, errors. Sorry. Seeking help.

I accidentally created this page in the main space, instead of the draft space: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_classification

I realized shortly after that I'm wasting my time, as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_class exists and does it better.

I tried to move it to draft, but instead (accidentally) moved the talk page into the draft page. Sorry.

So I fixed that. A redirect remains.

And that redirect prevents me from moving tttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_classification to a draft version.

It might be best to just (speedy?) delete the article, it's probably going no where.

All help/advice is welcome. CT55555 (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@CT55555: You can request a speedy G7 yourself. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 01:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @CT55555: Looking at Wikipedia:Speedy deletions, you could add {{Db-author}} to Talk:Fire classification and Draft:Fire classification if your goal is to then move Fire classification to Draft:Fire classification. Or, you could add {{Db-author}} to all three pages if they're of no value now. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both, I've requested speedy deletion. That was easier than I expected. Problem Resolved CT55555 (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@CT55555: If you think there's merit in Fire classification redirecting to Fire class, then we can easily create that WP:REDIRECT for you. Just let us know. NM Demo (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi @NM Demo That's a good idea, it does have merit. The starting point in this was someone else asking for an article that already existed, so such a redirect would have prevented that error. CT55555 (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@CT55555 and NM Demo: Fire classification redirect created. GoingBatty (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

In-depth sources struggle

Hello, I am having trouble finding more in-depth sources for my draft about microbeats that were used on Bjork's album Vespertine. I have only found one that goes into depth about what they are, (citation 3 - Howe, Blake; Jensen-Moulton, Stephanie; Lerner, Neil; Straus, Joseph), and am having trouble finding more. How can I do this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Microbeats_(music) Jmaxx37 (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Jmaxx37. If you are unable to find enough significant coverage in reliable sources to create a freestanding article about microbeats, then perhaps you can create a section in Vespertine where this topic can be discussed in greater detail and in a more systematic way than in the current version of that article. Cullen328 (talk) 04:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi. I think I've found a sockpuppet case (I knew about sockpuppetry after reading WP:SOCK). They are editing in same articles. I think their country is same. And their name is also same! What can I do now? Thanks. Firebanana (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Firebanana: The hatnote at the top of WP:SOCK instructs us to "Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations for how to request investigation of possible sockpuppetry". Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

GoingBatty, thank you very much! Firebanana (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Sandbox to public wiki page

I would like to know how to move from a sandbox article to a public wiki page where people can view my article? Do I need to autoconfirmed user? How many days does it require? How many edits need to be done? I need to publish an article.Thank you Ddayoungest (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ddayoungest: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see your draft at User:Ddayoungest/sandbox. If you were to move it to Draft:Plugbite and submit it through the Articles for Creation process, it would be declined because it has no independent sources. I suggest you review the guidance at Help:Your first article and rewrite your draft to reflect what has been reported by independent reliable sources. If you work for Plugbite or have any other conflict of interest, you must declare it on your user page. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ddayoungest if Plugbite was just founded on December 21, 2021 it will likely be a matter of Too soon for there to be coverage by independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a social media site, so if you "need to publish an article" as a means of publicizing Plugbite, you'll have to do so elsewhere, and then come back here when you have several good references – published articles written by someone with no connection with the new business you have written about. Best wishes on rewriting your draft article when the time is right to do so. Karenthewriter (talk) 05:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Word count

How can I find the word count in a specific seciton of an article? Pete Best Beatles (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Pete Best Beatles: You could copy the text and paste it into a word counting website, such as https://wordcounter.net/ Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Template code syntax

Hi, folks! Where would I find instructions for the syntax of variables, parameters, defaults, booleans and other logical expressions, etc., for Template coding? (Tag or Ping me) Eewilson (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Eewilson: Hi there! Help:Template would be a good place to start. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Eewilson Well you may learn about syntaxes on WP:Markup and you may also read the guide template guide as an extra support. There is also a simpler one available. If you want a complete documentation then you can go and visit H:T. Additionally you can go and see the coding behind some templates, for example consider Template:Unsigned and there is a whole bunch available. You may also visit the template project page if you are really interested. Once you have read all this stuff, then I hope you would be able to make your own template. I hope this helps. Thanks. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 05:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

You all are fast! Thank you, and I'm sure these will help. Eewilson (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Eewilson Thanks...I am happy to help. Thanks. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Found minor

... problem, at Muktainagar (Vidhan Sabha constituency), Chandrakant Nimba Patil is MLA of Shiv Sena but is shown as he's from BJP, it is wrong. ^[1] Holland Tok (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.tv9marathi.com/politics/jayant-patil-assurance-may-lead-to-shivsena-chandrakant-nimba-patil-vs-rohini-khadse-khewalkar-399145.html/amp

Hi @Holland Tok, the article is not protected, so you can make the edit to correct it yourself. Let me know if you'd like more assistance. ––FormalDude

^talk 07:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC) @FormalDude: I don't know how to edit tables.Holland Tok (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Holland Tok: I made the correction with this edit. ––FormalDude

^talk 08:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Actor names in plot summaries

It clearly states in the Manual of Style/Film (Primary content:plot) "Do not include actors' names in plot summary...", so can I assume it's ok to summarily remove such names, as long as I leave an edit summary? Pete Best Beatles (talk) 03:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Pete Best Beatles, yep! Ideally, put a link to WP:FILMPLOT in your edit summary. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

No. WP:STYLEVAR applies here and local consensus can override a guideline like the MOS. You can bring it up and suggest a change but it's not as black-and-white as summarily removing it from anything you come across. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 03:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

In this case, the MoS only gives "one acceptable style" and does give "specific guidance." @Sdkb, how would I insert such a link? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Pete Best Beatles: I think you should be a little more careful here as suggested by Grapple X, but for slightly different reasons. You may be totally in the right per relevant guidelines in removing the names, but any kind of mass removal of content across multiple articles is likely going to attract attention and things might end up being quite contentious. Maybe before you start doing anything like this, it would be first wise to start a discussion about it at WT:FILM and see what others might think. If you can clearly show that not only the relevant guidelines but also at least a rough consensus of the primary WikiProject that deals with film-related articles supports such removals, then things will probably be easier to carry out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Image (and other issues) at Cédric_Gerbehaye

Hi, weird things are going on at Cédric_Gerbehaye. Specifically, a new editor has put an image there, which they've claimed is "own work", but simultaneously identified as "Portrait of Cedric Gerbehaye by Stephan Vanfleteren", listing the copyright as Vanfleteren's. So unless the editor is Vanfleteren, something's not right. It's also a somewhat unhappy situation because yesterday an IP editor changed the text extensively, claiming to be Cédric_Gerbehaye. I reverted and tried to explain conflict of interest (but it's hard to communicate with a dynamic IP) - they put it back, Discospinster reverted on grounds of it being promotional, and the entire text is back again now, from the new editor, who doesn't claim to be Gerbehaye. I was tempted to re-revert (there's no sourcing at all), but the picture needs removing from wikimedia if it's copyright, and I don't know how to request that, and I don't want to edit-war. I've left everything as it is at the moment. Elemimele (talk) 10:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Elemimele: Sorry for the later response! Your judgment is correct, the text is incredibly promotional especially for a BLP, so I've replaced it with a former version. The image on Commons is at deletion requests and will likely be gone soon. I appreciate your efforts to communicate COI with the editor (no plural intended); keep an eye on it, and if necessary head to WP:RPP. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see this. And surprised, too. Though I hadn't noticed that Gerbehaye had an article here, he certainly merits one; and I'm also surprised that he doesn't already have one in French- or Dutch-language Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Ganbaruby and Hoary, and for your sympathetic approach. Hopefully there will be a good outcome. I've added a comment for Myriam03 clarifying the situation with the image, and suggesting they find another that's definitely copyright-safe. Elemimele (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

donating to Wikipedia

Can people securely donate to Wikipedia via bank account instead of credit card, so Wikipedia can keep more (like 100%) of the donation? or is this not an option or can’t be done securely? thanks, - sri 108.45.155.49 (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you can also donate money via bank account. You can go to the donation site and choose the amount, and then you can press netbanking and then follow the procedures there. Thanks. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

It also depends from which country you are. My country, that is India allows netbanking, but your country may not. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Aha.. you are from Virginia, US. Your country does not allow net banking. It supports credit cards, paypal and amazon pay. You can choose which one you want. Thanks... Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I operate a small business in the United States and process electronic payments through PayPal. The commissions that PayPal collects are small enough that they should not be of any concern. Plus, the Wikimedia Foundation is rolling in excess cash. Do not worry about any hinted financial crisis which does not exist, and if you want to donate financially, do not worry about the commissions. The best donations are your edits to this encyclopedia because your brainpower is far better than money. Cullen328 (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and interest in making a cost-effective donation. You can make a bank transfer to the accounts listed here. However please be aware that some banks may charge their own fees for transfers. Generally we have negotiated the lowest possible rates with payment service providers, so our main payment methods such as credit card and PayPal have very similar processing fees. If you wish to donate, you can simply use whichever method is most convenient for you. Peter Coombe (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 10:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators RFA questions

Hello, I will like to put a question when I really want to go further my scope of learning in Wikipedia, which is leadership. I was wondering how to become an admin in Wikipedia and how to apply for RFA as I will like to give this a try on going forward. If I become an admin, I will like to share some of my experiences (including some of my mistakes and etiquette) when I am promoted and will do my best of my abilities to make Wikipedia a difference. Sculture65 (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Sculture65 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that having the administrator tools does not necessarily make you a leader. Administrators have no higher status than any other editor, it's just extra buttons that would be irresponsible to give to the entire community(like deleting pages). You can do 95% of tasks here without having the administrator tools. You aren't a new user, so you do have editing experience- but in short, admin candidates generally need to show a need for the tools, such as if you currently participate in a lot of AFD discussions and want to take the next step of actually assessing them. Please read more about the process at WP:RFA, and you may also find it helpful to read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, and also the Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates page. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

331dot I see. I really want to give this administrator a try, but I do not know where to start. Thank you. Sculture65 (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Sculture65 Being an admin is not something you "try"; to reiterate the response above, you must demonstrate a need for the tool. So ask yourself, why do you want to be an admin? Is there a certain area of Wikipedia you want to help out in that you cannot already? Or do you just want to be an admin just for the clout? If you're not sure, keep contributing to Wikipedia, and someday you might find your why. Keep writing and improving content, engage in AfD discussions, or help clear a backlog or two. It'll help you become a better editor, but it'll also demonstrate to others during your RfA about what kind of editor you are. Sincerely, a non-admin who knows they don't want to be an admin. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sculture65 You have been given two useful links which you should read through to start with! May I suggest that you don't set "becoming an administrator" as your goal, but simply to make it "an all-round understanding of how to keep Wikipedia running". Once you understand some of those elements (and assuming that you enjoy it), then someone might suggest you seek the additional administrator controls. But you certainly won't need them to start with. Ask yourself what do I care about and enjoy doing here?

Does it annoy you when other people vandalise articles? If so, consider monitoring Special:RecentChanges. Here are my favourite settings to only show the most likely troublesome edits. You could revert bad faith edits and gain experience of the different levels of warning other users, or reporting them to WP:UAA. Consider using WP:TWINKLE to make these tasks easier.
Does it annoy you when people put up articles for deletion unnecessarily? Visit some of the articles listed at WP:AFD and find things that you might be able to research and improve, rather than simply piling in to say delete - which is the easy way out. You will gain a lot of experience of our notability policies by doing that.
You could lurk at the Teahouse a lot more, perhaps answering the odd question you know the answer to. Simply by reading what other users ask and seeing the replies to them you will find you learn an awful lot. Then you might feel ready to sign up as a 'host' here and help out even more. Engaging with other users in a friendly, helpful manner is especially important for Teahouse hosts and for administrators like myself.
Maybe if you like writing articles, you could find an existing page that interests you which is only a short stub or start class article. Set yourself the task of bringing it up to Good Article status. Doing that with just one article could take weeks or months, but you will gain detailed knowledge of the content and the formatting ((see WP:MOS) that makes an article of that quality.
It took me about 3 to 4 years for me to feel ready to be an admin after someone first suggested it to me as a possibility. So don't rush it. You might do it faster - who knows? I then set about ensuring I had the skills and understanding of our main policies and procedures to do the basic admin tasks here - and I'm still learning today, and there are many things I do not yet know how to do.
Once you've gained that understanding, you could perhaps assist at WP:PEER REVIEW, WP:AFC or WP:NPP.

It's all about depth of knowledge and understanding of how things work. That doesn't happen overnight, but the more active you are here, the more skills you will obtain. It's not about leadership, but it is about learning, following policy and setting a good example to others. When you feel confident in that, you will probably then go back to the two links 331dot gave you above and you will re-assess your new skills against those admin requirements and decide you now have enough abilities to help out in an admin role. But you will find yourself doing less work in mainspace, and more time keeping the place "ship-shape". That itself is a satisfying reward, though it may not be for everyone. I would not want to put off anyone like you who wants to be an administrator, but you'll know when you're ready because you'll then be able to give answers like this one to other less-experienced users and be content that it was probably time well-spent. Good luck. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Ganbaruby and Nick Moyes, I have seen your replies. I will try to actively contribute more, but I also have to juggle between real-life activities and Wikipedia, so I take this as practice to balance both. Sculture65 (talk) 11:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Video

I want to ask if you provide me with the video that I asked to see them Loago Abotseng (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Who did you ask, and where? The above was your first edit on Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Advice to protect myself

Hello,

I have been editing Wikipedia in multiple languages (although few) since around 2018 or so, but I honestly did not contributed a lot, and I still consider myself as a novice in being a Wikipedian. My problem here is not limited to English Wikipedia.

Ever since I noticed the disruptive edits and edit warring behavior on the Jun Matsumoto page around August 2021 or so, I offered some contributions to the said page. At the same time, I noticed that the said page also has the same problem in different languages' versions, so I have also attempted to make contributions to the page in 2 different languages that I know. During the process of contributing to the pages in the English and other languages' Wikipedia, I have also been receiving strange messages from IP address users on my User's talk page regarding the said page on the versions of Wikipedia that I edited in.

To elaborate on my problem with strange edits on multiple User Talk pages:

My English User Talk page has some few strange messages asking me to stop editing on Jun Matsumoto. My Talk page here has never been protected but I have stopped receiving those strange messages here.
My Japanese User Talk page received repetitive messages asking me to stop editing on that page. It was semi-protected for 2 weeks until late-November. I recently received strange messages again, but the content this time contains spiteful statements about the concerned living character and their related parties, as well as that user's irrelevant personal opinions.
My Vietnamese User Talk page received messages written in Japanese claiming that the admin of the Japanese Wikipedia suspected that I am one of User:名取の納豆's sockpuppet (although I am genuinely not related to that account, never heard of such name, and have completely no interest in some certain topics that that account has edited in) and hence issued a global block on me, as well as ramblings on the page I have been talking about. My User Talk page there was then, and still is, going into infinite extended protection.

As I have been receiving constant strange messages about the same topic, I am considering about leaving this Wikipedia account and create a new one, as I very much want to continue providing contributions to Wikipedia, but I am still worried that I would still get such strange messages. Please let me know of any helpful advices regarding this matter.

Thank you. Suuuuuuzu 07:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Suuuuuuzu Well, there is no need to create another account. You can seek your talk page protection using Twinkle, and also can link the diffs of the strange messages. An administrator will protect your talk page, so that no ip user can edit the page. I hope you get my point. If not, don't bother to reply to this answer. Thanks. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. However, I noticed that Twinkle is not available in other languages, so if that is the case, should I manually request for protection on the Japanese Wikipedia (where my User Talk page is not protected)? Suuuuuuzu 08:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't previously heard of Jun Matsumoto, and haven't looked at any edits that aren't still on display in either your English- or Japanese-language talk page. But some comments all the same. First, the IP writes [Such and such] is what is written in Japanese Wikipedia. Please don't write anything that's not on Wikipedia. There is not music career written in Japanese Wikipedia. Why did you write it down? The notion that you may not write something in en:WP if it's not already written in ja:WP is very odd. I'll be charitable here and guess that the intended meaning was something like Matsumoto was/is Japanese and the article about him in Japanese is comprehensive and good. It's therefore safe to assume that what's not described in it didn't happen. And so you shouldn't write in English Wikipedia what's not written in Japanese Wikipedia. However, there's no policy or guideline that says this. Secondly, you respond by saying that [a] user talk page is not an appropriate place to discuss contents [of a Wikipedia article]. Please go to [the article's talk page] instead[.] I understand your point, but you exaggerate. In future, please write something like "is not the best place to discuss the contents of a Wikipedia article. Please raise the point at [the article's talk page] instead." Thirdly, your IP interlocutor last wrote something on your English-language talk page as far back as 21 August. Fourthly, other languages: Unfortunately I can't read Vietnamese. As for Japanese, here's the latest comment, and it is recent. This person is giving his opinion on this tarento agency. I don't know why he's doing this: the comment seems unencyclopedic and superfluous, but it also seems inoffensive. If there is something offensive and you want something done about it, then you'll have to bring up the matter at Japanese-language Wikipedia, not here. -- Hoary (talk) 08:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC) amended Hoary (talk) 09:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary I can help if you need to, in Vietnamese. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Suuuuuuzu, Your last message basically said "Please ban me" instead of "Please lock this page". CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Suuuuuuzu, CactiStaccingCrane, if somebody complains (whether in Vietnamese or in Japanese) in Vietnamese-language Wikipedia about edits to Japanese-language Wikipedia, I think the best thing to do is say briefly that such complaints should be posted in Japanese-language Wikipedia (if they merit posting anywhere), and that you will ignore them if they're posted anywhere other than Japanese-language Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 09:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your help!

@Hoary Not that I find the message on my Japanese Talk page offensive or anything, it's just that it's odd to receive a weirdly opinionated message on my Talk page despite myself stating that I have stopped being involved in any entertainment topic on Japanese Wikipedia, so my issue isn't about the content of that one message, but the fact that I am constantly receiving messages about that one topic across multiple Wikipedia versions. However, I realized that perhaps Meta-Wiki would've been a more appropriate place to discuss my problem across multiple Wikipedia versions. Also, I did say that I have stopped receiving strange messages on the English Wikipedia but my apologies for not specifying that I have stopped receiving them from a long time ago, so it may not be concerning. Regarding the Vietnamese Wikipedia, a seemingly experienced user who stepped in as well as myself did notify them that such issues should be discussed in the Japanese Wikipedia rather than Vietnamese Wikipedia. Finally, thank you very much on giving me advices on giving reminders to other users about Wikipedia!

@CactiStaccingCrane Do you mean the one on the Vietnamese page? About that one, I assumed that they are going to semi-protect the page, as my Japanese Wikipedia User talk page received such protection before, so I indeed played myself there and now I think I'll just work myself up all the way to become an extended user. If it's about my most recent edit on the Japanese page, I intended to vaguely asked for help and advice. Suuuuuuzu 12:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject

Hi, how can I add the wiki project banner to article talk pages? Is there a specific tool. I have seen many new pages without talk page banners stating which Wiki project it has come from. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: There is a tool, the Rater user script. It provides a dialog interface to add, remove, or modify WikiProject banners, including class and importance assessment. Accessible from either the page itself or its talk page. After installing, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes–see instruction at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.

WikiProject banners are not just for labeling the project the article came from though, they also label any associated WikiProject that may have an interest in the article. ––FormalDude

^talk 07:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude Well thanks. I already have the Rater tool. I was only thinking if there was an easier tool. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

You may like to be aware of the helper script at WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Add WikiProject tags, Itcouldbepossible. Note that the link I supplied expects to be invoked from an article draft page with a "Review waiting" box at its top and automatically fills the draft's title into the script. Many of the Project tags get added while an article is being drafted and that's mentioned as one way to get an article reviewed more quickly than it might otherwise be. You could think of this as an author saying "these are the projects that should be interested in my draft" rather than (as you expressed it) "which Wiki project it has come from". Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Thanks for your additional help and support. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 12:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

making a new wiki page

How does someone make a new wiki page on here? MaxineJP (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@MaxineJP: Creating a new article (not mere "page") is one of the hardest things one can start in this encyclopedia, it requires much time and practice. That being said, if you are sure you want to do this, head over to Your first article. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@MaxineJP: Building on the previous answer... To learn how to edit, you could view Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure. I suggest then spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject, and determine whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article, and be prepared for a process that may include months of waiting, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article from scratch is extremely challenging, and new editors are strongly recommended to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works, by making improvements to some of our existing six million articles before trying it. When you do decide to have a go at a new article, you are highly encouraged to read WP:Your first article. If you haven't already also check out WP:TUTORIAL; it's a lot of fun! Happy editing! ― Qwerfjkl talk 13:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Kiing36

Kiing36 Deletion

So how do i get my wiki page cause apparently i'm not allowed to create it myself? any help is greatly appreciated. Kiing36 (talk) 13:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

By providing multiple third-party sources that discuss you in depth, are editorially independent of you, and have competent editorial oversight. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 13:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello Kiing36! It is best not to create a page about yourself here on Wikipedia because you have a conflict of interest. If you are notable enough for a Wikipedia page, someone else would create a Wikipedia page about you. Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Just a small note, creating an autobiography on Wikipedia is allowed but discouraged. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Kiing36 is indef blocked. The block can be appealed. Only if successful, can Kiing36 attempt to draft an article about self, but via WP:YFA. One's User page is NOT a place to create a draft. David notMD (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Adrian Nelson-Daniels

I would like to add Music Video Awards won to the page and need assistance in editing the page correctly AnnieTruth (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@AnnieTruth: Before adding this to Adrian Daniel, you must make sure that the award is notable enough to be included. For example, does the award organization have its own Wikipedia article? In this case, no, so it doesn't appear to be notable enough for inclusion. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@AnnieTruth: I see that all your work on Wikipedia has been related to Adiran Daniel. If you work for him or are related to him or have any other conflict of interest (COI), you must declare the COI on your talk page. If the award is notable, then you can ask for help at Talk:Adrian Daniel with the {{request edit}} template, or use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

How do I become a member so I can post something on Wikiedia?

50.254.130.186 (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

You can create an account by clicking "create account" on the top right corner of the screen. You don't have to create an account to edit most articles on Wikipedia, but there are other benefits to doing so. If there's anything else you need help with, feel free to come back here and ask! Clovermoss (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Mark Jenkinson

Theres an IP editor who has included twitter as references for Mark Jenkinson, does WP:NOSOCIAL allow twitter? Don't want to start a edit war, would someone review this + give their views. Regards Devokewater ^(talk) 17:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

At the top of WP:NOSOCIAL, it says: "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject ..." --David Biddulph (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks David Biddulph (talk), so in this case it's OK to use twitter, there are three tweets included in the article, does this not go against WP:ELMIN? --Devokewater ^(talk) 17:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Devokewater: The references in that article use {{cite tweet}}. The documentation at Template:Cite tweet states: "Tweets are usually unacceptable as sources. Tweets and other self-published material may be acceptable if the conditions specified at WP:SPS or WP:TWITTER are met. For further information, see the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources guideline." Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: thanks --Devokewater ^(talk) 19:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

History related article

In Tanaji Malusare, infobox - unit, service brach written, I think it just lie 'cause in 16th century there was unit or service brach ? I don't know. Their is no citation behind these things. We have to remove these things or keep it. Holland Tok (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with that. He lived in the 17th century (not 16th). The Maratha Army was active from 1650 to 1818.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Shantavira: But unit, service branch, where it is written ? No source provided.Holland Tok (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Reference 15 seems to cover it. Which other army could it have been? However I know nothing about 17th century Indian history. I suggest you start a new conversation on the talk page of the article, but please keep continuing conversations in one place.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

My first draft article has been rejected :(

The primary aim of my contributions is to increase the awareness of significant Canadian public pension funds and their growing importance to beneficiaries and society in cost-effective pension fund investment management. My aim is not commercial in any respect. My draft attempts to introduce essential governance and client information for one of eight significant Canadian pension funds engaged in global intuitional investing. BCI's clients are all BC government agencies, boards or commissions, and many of the pension funds plans whose funds BCI manages are jointly-sponsored with public sector unions. The sources of my information are from BCI's annual reports and relevant BC laws. What other sources can one rely upon for the info I've posted? The draft contains a small amount of basic governance framework information, common to all public pension pages, and an important anatomical framing for other operational functions to be built upon. Admittedly, I could put the matter more succinctly. But, the information and presentation are similar to other Canadian public pension fund pages. MalpequeRoadie (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC) MalpequeRoadie (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@MalpequeRoadie: Just as there are billions of people who don't merit an article in Wikipedia, there are legions of companies that don't either. This encyclopaedia uses the concept of notability, specifically company notability to decide which ones to cover. Notability in the Wikipedia sense comes from third-parties writing about such subjects in reliable sources where readers can verify what was stated. Sadly, what people or companies write about themselves, for example on their website, is usually biased and not neutral in tone, hence not encyclopaedic. In summary: no sources, no article. Why not spend some of your time improving the articles on those other funds which have been deemed to be notable? Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi @MalpequeRoadie: and welcome. Thank you for your efforts, I encourage you to keep at it. I think some success is possible here. Here's my suggested roadmap for success:

1 - learn how to cite as per the Wikipedia software. It's easier (in my opinion) if you use visual editing. 2 - Articles go up if the content is "notable". Shorthand, if it appers in the Globe and Mail, Toronto Star or National Post, that's notable. Get three news references, and you're good. You need to focus first with the specifics of what is notable, what appeared in the news articles. So, google :he company in quotation marks and then filter to see "news", ignore all the "press release" and "newswire stuff and seek out the mainstream news coverage. For exaple:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-watchdog-raises-concern-about-canadian-pension-investments-in-china/

I'd guess the big pension companies all made the news at some point and therefore careful time on google will get you there. CT55555 (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:British Columbia Investment Management Corporation (BCI), Declined once for no references. BCI's own annual reports are considered primary sources. What is essential are secondary sources - content in articles independent from BCI. David notMD (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, MalpequeRoadie. Whenever I read a question from somebody who says "The primary aim of my contributions is to increase the awareness of" something, I become concerned. Wikipedia is about summarising and disseminating information which has already been independently published. "Increasing awareness" of a particular topic often looks like SOAPBOX. If the information which you want to bring to people's awareness hasn't been written about by independent reliable sources, then it is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. 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) 00:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft: D.c. space trying to improve

Hello and thank you for the input on one of my first articles. I'm working to try to improve it and have added a number of citations. I'd love any feedback. Thanks. Scratcher34 (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

STATUS Draft:d.c. space Declined once 28 Nov, Scratcher34 has doubled length and number of refs since then, has not yet resubmitted. David notMD (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

How to create other language for a topic and get approval

How to create other language for a topic and get approval. May I know what document is needed for the approval. The page in chinese is https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E8%B3%BD%E9%A6%AC%E6%9C%83%E7%A6%81%E6%AF%92%E8%B3%87%E8%A8%8A%E5%A4%A9%E5%9C%B0

JCDIC (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@JCDIC: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see you have created an English version at Draft:The Hong Kong Jockey Club Drug InfoCentre. You'll have to have enough reliable sources to demonstrate notability, per the gray box at the top of your draft. You'll also need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Translation. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Watchlist woes

I'm confused about my Watchlist. In mid-December, four of my early edits (three minor) were highlighted on my Watchlist (and on my Contributions page also). Nothing happened to the edits at that time, and I think the highlights were automated. However, on Dec. 27 somebody tinkered with one of those edits (which is fine) but nothing appeared about it on my Watchlist at that time, although that page is definitely listed to be watched. I wonder how many other changes to my watched pages have been made that I've missed. Does this have anything to do with the Watchlist filters? Pete Best Beatles (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Pete Best Beatles: Maybe. It might help if you mention the pages in question and the filters you have enabled. GoingBatty (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, do you think it's possible that your text number/email listed in your Wikipedia preferences is different from the one you actually use? Have you received email/texts from Wikipedia before? If not, you should check what's listed for typos. If not... there may be a certain setting that disables email/texts from Wikipedia. Check your email options in your user profile. Urban Versis 32 (talk) 03:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

What is the workaround for Less-than sign in article title?

Curious question as I was bored and reading on WP:NCTR and under WP:FORBIDDEN, it stated that to substitute for < or any other characters that conflict with wiki markup or HTML syntax, alternative title should be used, often by replacing or removing it. But what if, removing it changes the meaning completely, such as with <3 (meaning heart), should Heart/heart be used in the article title or is it permissible in terms of guidelines/policies/MOS to swap out < for ＜ (U+FF1C; Fullwidth Less-Than Sign) as I know the software won't have any issues parsing the Fullwidth Less-Than Sign. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: Do you have a specific issue that you have in mind? For your example, <3 is mentioned at Heart symbol. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby No for now, just curious in case I came upon title that included such forbidden characters in the future when creating articles, if similar characters are permissible as workaround or should it be substituted as word. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: It's a case-by-case decision as to which title to use, but from my experience I've never seen the "similar character" approach that you're proposing. I'd imagine that's problematic because most readers will have a hard time typing out the Unicode characters instead a description: people are much more likely to look for "heart symbol" than "＜3" (fullwidth used here). I don't know of anywhere in the MOS that says you can't, but descriptions seem to be much more intuitive. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (talk) 12:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

It seems to have been done at ﹤. ― Qwerfjkl talk 13:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: It can be done in redirects like ﹤ where the special character has a similar meaning to the wanted character. Don't do it in article titles. It causes confusion when trying to link or search the article. Don't do it in redirects if the special character has a different meaning. For example, ᐸ appropriately redirects to Canadian Aboriginal syllabics, not Less-than sign. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby, PrimeHunter: Okay understood. Thanks a lot. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 03:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

nina dobrev.

hello. ive been trying to edit the nina dobrev page regarding her nationality. and someone does not like to change the nationality, what i mean is that she should be bulgarian-born canadian actress because she is mainly born in bulgaria but raised in canada so that does not make her 100% canadian she has roots from where she came from. with that said. it should be bulgarian-born canadian actress and not canadian actress. thank you Agent11 (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Agent11: Welcome to the Teahouse! Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, the proper place to discuss this is at the article talk page: Talk:Nina Dobrev. Note that there are already a couple of discussions there about her nationality. Please read those first before deciding whether to post there. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

nhl attendence 1999-00 season

looking for nhl attendence for the 1999-00 season 216.121.220.33 (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! The Teahouse is intended for asking questions about Wikipedia, and the normal reply to questions like yours is to refer you to the Wikipedia:Reference desk. However, I went to 1999–2000 NHL season#External links and clicked the "Hockey Database" link and found this page which has attendance stats. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 05:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Iann Lopez

I need help writing my autobiography, I think it is bias and I need help from an outside perspective. Iannlpz (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Iannlpz Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves; while not forbidden, writing about yourself is strongly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. A Wikipedia article about you would need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. It is usually very difficult for people to set aside what they know about themselves and only write based on what others say about them, and not based on any materials put out by the person. Please understand that the overwhelming majority of people on this planet do not merit Wikipedia articles, because independent sources do not choose to write about them on their own.

If you truly feel that you can summarize what others say about you, please visit Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by an independent editor. You should also read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Your draft about yourself was Speedy deleted, meaning that a reviewer saw no potential for it to become a valid article. As I am not an Administrator, I cannot see it, but I can guess that you provided no references in support of you being Wikipedia-notable. That you have released two songs and have a webpage is not enough. David notMD (talk) 10:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

There were indeed no such references. -- Hoary (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Iannlpz:, please understand 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) 11:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I am grateful for Wikipedia I am informed (12/29/21) that I, Virginia Bullock will receive $27,000,000 when I complete payment of remaining funds requiredWill contribute required g

2600:1700:8C93:1D0:9DA5:6A5A:1B6A:46B (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

This sounds like a hoax. But don’t get your advice here - this is a site for helping with Wikipedia editing questions. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Need help in writing articles

Hello,

I am a new writer, writing about personalities who are well known and done considerable amount of work. Can you help me on how I should write the articles and what details should be included in order to get the article verified ? Shcr96 (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Shcr96 Welcome to the Teahouse. First rule - never, ever copy and paste content you find online, as you did for Draft:Nidarshana Gowani. I have deleted it, and need to warn you that should you repeatedly do that, you could have your editing privileges withdrawn. Secondly, creating an article when you've no experience of editing Wikipedia is like trying to build a house with no idea of how houses are made. I suggest you put some time aside and read through Help:Introduction. Work through it step-by-step, starting from the big blue button.

You see, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of Notable things, where content is based upon Reliable Sources that have been published about them. It writes in a neutral tone and never, ever idolises or paints subjects in glowing colours. It should includes nothing that cannot be Verified from independent sources. We expect anyone connected with or paid by a subject to declare their Conflict of Interest on their userpage.

I suggest you try out The Wikipedia Adventure and maybe, when you're ready, read this guide on creating your first article and our rules about notability of living people. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Shor96. I would echo all tnat Nick says. The key to the (difficult) task of writing a Wikipedia article is sources. Not "how you write it", or "what details should be included" - these can easily be corrected if they're not satisfactory. But if you have not got enough high quality sources, you are building your house without a foundation, and it will fall down.

Start with finding sources - several places that have significant coverage of the subject. Then discard any sources which are not reliably published - discard any social media, anything user generated (forums, almost all blogs, iMDB, any wikis - including Wikipedia). Discard any newspapers which are just gossip sheets, or have a poor reputation for accuracy (see WP:RSNP). Discard any self-published or vanity-press books. Then discard anything which originates from the subject or their associates, including bios from organisations they are associated with, articles based on press releases, and most articles based on interviews. If after all that winnowing, you have enough sources (generally at least 3) containing enough information to base an article on, then is when you start thinking about writing the article. Forget everything you know, think, or believe about the subject, and write your article based only on what those independent say. If that makes a worthwhile article, then you can add a few uncontroversial items like locations and dates from non-independent publications (never unpublished information). --ColinFine (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Blavatsky Blasters

This would be a short article about a rock band that is represented on Spotify, Apple Music and other platforms. It gets quite a few hits on Google, but as far as I know it doesn't exist on Wikipedia. Would this topic be notable? Anna Logi (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Anna Logi welcome to Teahouse! Popularity is not a criteria, please read the guidelines in WP:NBAND. Creating a new article from scratch is extremely challenging, and new editors are strongly recommended to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works, by making improvements to some of our existing six million articles before trying it. When you do decide to have a go at a new article, you are highly encouraged to read WP:Your first article. If you haven't already also check out WP:TUTORIAL; it's a lot of fun! Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Creating a "random article" button on my talk page

I'd like to create a "random article" button on my talk page (or use wiki-markup rather to just replicate what is in the upper left hand corner of my screen). I know that that button already exists, but I would like to replicate it if this is possible on my own talk page where I specifically call it out as being a really neat little button (or "trip" as I call it on my talk page). ♥Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)♥ 07:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Generally possible in various ways using the different button templates.

Example: {{Mw button|1=[[Special:Random{{!}}<span style="color:white;text-decoration:none">random article</span>]]|2=progressive}} becomes random article

Example2: {{Blue button|link=Special:Random|text=random article}} becomes random article

Example3: {{clickable button 2|Special:Random|random article|color=blue}} becomes random article Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Th78blue Check this out. For the styling part, you can ask our friend Levi_OP, who is experienced in Wiki Markup, coding and designing user pages, and elements. I hope this helps. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I so love the Teahouse because, despite being around for some time here, I still learn new cool stuff almost every day. I went to WP:RANDOM and learnt that any user can call up a random article in Chrome or Firefox using the keyboard shortcut: Alt-Shift+X. Neat - I never knew that! Nick Moyes (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Th78blue @Nick Moyes Yes and more such examples can be found at the keyboard shortcut documentation. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 13:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Thats another great option. What about for Mac/Apple computer users? We don't have an "Alt" button.

♥Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)♥ 14:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Th78blue: For MacOS Users, the equivalent should be Control+⌥ Option+X according to the information at Wikipedia:Keyboard shortcuts § Using access keys. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Is bundling 4 or 5 citations into one inline citation through the refn template allowed?

I wish to incorporate this into an article for a subject that has numerous rich academic sources to back the subject matter up but I dont want to flood the article with citations. Is it okay to use the refn template to bundle the citations into one inline citation kind of like this [2] (note: those titles and quotes are random and were just used for testing). Thanks Aleena98 (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I recommend you give this page a read, if you haven't already. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

WP: TOOSOON - How to improve?

Courtesy link: Draft:Rapid7
I'm a first time contributor and my draft article was rejected saying WP: TOOSOON. When drafting the article, I cited independent sources including newspaper articles. How can I make it more robust to be approved? JVJD (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@JVJD Welcome to the Teahouse. Rather than being 'rejected', as you thought, your draft has actually been 'declined' at this time until issues are fixed. The explanation at the top of the page said: This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies).

I suspect the sources you supplied are all either local newspapers where the company is headquartered, or insider business newspapers (often based on press releases) which are not enough to show significant coverage by "the world at large". There are innumerable businesses around the world of this type, and it's only those that stand out because they've been written about in detail and in depth in independent sources that helps them meet our Company Notability Criteria. I hope this helps a bit. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Acqusition references do not contribute to notability. David notMD (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit to fix some issues and ignore others?

Hello! I am a new editor (account has existed for a while, recently decided to actually use it) and am starting out by doing some basic copyediting. I've been trying to work on some articles from the list of articles needing copyediting on the community portal and have been tidying up some of the spelling and grammar, but some of them seem to have a ton of other issues (for example, Mata Bhani -- no inline citations, reads like a speech or a story, not NPOV). I'm wondering what I should be doing in this situation when I don't feel up to the task of fixing all these issues -- do I tidy the grammar as best I can and move on? Do I notify someone/add a new template to the top? I'm invested now in having these articles fixed but honestly some of them seem to need to be scrapped and rewritten and I don't feel experienced enough yet to do that. Thank you in advance! RDvor (talk) 08:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@RDvor Yes, you can tidy as much as possible, and for the rest of the job, you can add relevant tags using Twinkle. I hope you know how to do it. If not, please don't ~~bother~~ hesitate to ask me again. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC) (Adminstrator/Host comment: I believe the reply meant to say 'hesitate' so I have amended this out of courtesy to all) Nick Moyes (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@RDvor: it is the eternal challenge, especially when copy-editing. Where do you stop and move on? You are not under any obligation to do everything, in fact it will never be perfect - even Good Articles are still being improved. You need to draw the line somewhere, and feel comfortable doing that. If you have noticed something specific that would improve the article, you can add a tag so somebody else might do the job later. But be conscious that you don't want to over-tag the article, to the extent it distracts the reader. It should just have the most important item(s) tagged. There are tools such as Twinkle that make this faster, but it's not hard to do just with the editor. Alternatively, you can put your suggestion on the article's Talk page. And you can add the article to your watchlist so you can keep in touch, and make improvements to it later on as well.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible, thank you so much! Not to worry, I figured you meant to write "hesitate" instead of "bother". Thank you to @Nick Moyes, @Gronk Oz, and you -- I will look into using Twinkle so I can (judiciously) tag pages and not get overwhelmed with how much needs fixing! RDvor (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hello, the draft for an article (Saulo Oliveira S.) has been declined to be an article because the rewier insist that it is paid promotion when its not. The content that covers the subject is legit. How to get the draft turned into article with a situation like that? He is just assuming that the coverage is not reliable when the artist did not paid for that. Princeofrockcontact (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Princeofrockcontact: There should be a section about his music career, showing how he meets WP:NMUSICIAN with independent reliable sources. I've made some minor updates to the draft. I noticed that your username is similar to the nickname for this musician. If you work for him or are related to him or have any other conflict of interest, you must disclose it on your user page. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

STATUS Draft:Saulo Oliveira S. Declined five times, not yet resubmitted. David notMD (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Now moved into mainspace by the subject of the article. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Destructive editing

Several IP addresses from a similar location seem to be deliberately and repeatedly trying to reduce the quality of the article Squirrel Scouts (The Scout Association) Llewee (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Llewee Welcome to the Teahouse. I took an (admittedly quick) look at the article and a few earlier versions of it and, to be frank, I think at least one of the active IPs is doing their best to stop this article becoming bloated and promotional. In fact, I'm minded to trim out quite a few bits of WP:TRIVIA myself, or even WP:REDIRECT it to another article. Sometimes 'more is less' on Wikipedia. If you want to improve it would be good to focus on independent sources writing about this brand new arm of the Scouts, and less on internal documents produced by it. There is a discussion on the talk page, and this is where you should engage with other editors. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

indiannavyofficialfanpage

indiannavyofficialfanpage This is the best indian Navy Fans Page on instagram and other social media's Can Wikipedia accept it and upload to search engines. Arjunvarmaina (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Arjunvarmaina Fan pages and social media links are not normally listed on articles, particularly when the subject does have its own official website. See WP:ELNO for more specific guidance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2021

@Arjunvarmaina: Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for web content is at WP:Notability (web). Note that trending on social media is not one of the criteria. Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, especially if you don't have a lot of experience editing Wikipedia. To learn how to edit, you could view Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure. I suggest then spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject, and determine whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article, and be prepared for a process that may include months of waiting, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty Thank You For Your Suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjunvarmaina (talk • contribs) 23:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Celebrity

If I am a famous celebrity and I have a Wikipedia page and evidence that I am the subject of the article, can I edit it if I see mistakes that I know for sure aren't true about me? What are the etiquettes of this scenario? Hgh1985 (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hgh1985 See guidance at WP:COIEDIT, WP:COIADVICE and WP:BIOSELF. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hgh1985 Welcome to the Teahouse, famous person! Thank you for asking your question - it is appreciated. If you find something in an article about yourself that is unsupported by any reliable citation and which is clearly offensive or damaging or patently untrue and unsubstantiated, you may remove it immediately yourself as a violation of our policy on biographies of living people. If, however you want to lesser correct errors (and they do occur, of course!) we would much prefer it if you would make an WP:EDITREQUEST by posting your concerns on the talk page of that article.

Obviously, at this point we don't know who you are, but there is one thing you could do for us to improve an article about yourself, and that is simply to upload a self-portrait photo of yourself to Wikimedia Commons that could be added to the article if there isn't already one there. If that interests you, we can guide you on how to do that. (We can't actually do it for you as only the copyright owner can release such an image for use - under what we call a 'Creative Commons commercial re-use licence.' Alternatively we can supply a special email address to which that person can send in an image and a release statement for one of our team of volunteers to authorise and upload for you).

I'm sorry if this all sounds a bit complicated, but we'll try to help you out whenever we can if you have concerns. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Libation formula

Hi, I wish to add a new topic named Libation Formula, and created a draft. However, someone erased it. Should I give a more specific name? Thanks, Jan Jangpbest (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Your draft hasn't been deleted. It is still there at Draft:Libation Formula. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jangpbest Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. No one "erased" your draft. It is here. It has been declined because it lacks reliable sources. Thanks. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 13:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Jangpbest, one of the Greek transcriptions at Draft:Libation Formula reads "εἶσι אשרים". There's some Hebrew in there. Maproom (talk) 08:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

True. The divinity, according to the paper is Semitic, and corresponds to Ashera pole. I will add it.Jangpbest (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Nothing seems to be happening. Jangpbest (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

If you're talking about draft review, you've submitted it, but the queue is quite long. If there is anything you can do to improve the draft in the meantime, by all means do it. A better draft is more likely to be accepted. Do look at the instructions under "How to improve your draft" in the top "Review waiting" box, and I advise you to peruse Help:Referencing for beginners, and/or look at other articles for examples of what to do. I've taken the liberty of fixing your image formatting, following the instructions at Help:Pictures.

In particular, I'd warn against referencing blogspot, since self-published sources are generally not considered reliable. See the link for more information about our policies; it's best to use sources that have passed through some sort of editorial review. Even if you think this person is reliable, a reviewer is likely to be doubtful about any blog. Basically, make it easy for the reviewer to believe your sources' reliability. – Anon423 (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Wotsehstry,murningory

Wotsehstry,murningory Wotsehstry,murningory (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Wotsehstry,murningory Welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia that we can help you with. I've left a welcome message on your talk page, and have removed the copy of the article you pasted there from mainspace, as we don't use talk page to work on article content. Your sandbox is the right place for that. Do try out our The Wikipedia Adventure where you can head off into space on our interactive learning game. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Wot is indef blocked for Not Here. David notMD (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Is "thepeerage.com" a reliable source for wikipedia?

Is this considered a reliable source? I can't find some biographical details mentioned on this website anywhere else.

https://www.thepeerage.com/p44639.htm Ficaia (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Ficaia, good question! That appears to be a WP:BLOG, and as such, it is only going to be permittable if it the author is an established subject matter expert. It appears the author is historian Darryl Lundy, so that may be the case here. What article are you wanting to use this website as a source for? ––FormalDude

^talk 02:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude, I wanted to make an article for this classicist and translator [1] Ficaia (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ficaia: I'd say you should probably look for a non self-published source if possible. Policy recommends exercising caution when using self-published sources, as, if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. If you do want to use that source for sure, you might try asking about it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. ––FormalDude

^talk 05:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

How do I report an apparent hoax?

I have identified what appears to be an intentionally false statement within an article. Reading about handling of hoaxes, it seems to indicate that an administrator is needed to take the appropriate action (which is fine with me). I've written the hoax up at Talk:Sagebrush lizard § Apparent hoax How do I request an administrator to process it? Fabrickator (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Fabrickator The 'fact' you dispute has been tagged as Citation needed since 2015. If you are sure there is no reference to be found that supports the lizard as 'playing dead,' then be bold - delete the sentence yourself. All editors have the power to improve articles - including removing wrong information. David notMD (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Fabrickator, I agree with David notMD. I know nothing about this particular lizard but I notice that many assertions in Sagebrush lizard are unreferenced, not just this one. Playing dead is a type of behavior usually given a less colloquial description in scientific literature. Have you read all of the most referenced scientific literature about this lizard, and can you personally verify that none of this literature describes this behavior, even if expressed in different words? Summarizing and paraphrasing are encouraged on Wikipedia, after all. If you are confident that this is a genuine hoax instead of a paraphrasing issue, then go ahead and delete it. Be prepared to defend your edit on the article talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 04:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

As for reporting the issue, there is no need to report it any further as long as you are confident about what the reliable sources say. Just fix it. If you encounter pushback, discuss it further at Talk: Sagebrush lizard. If you can't work it out there, then try various forms of Dispute resolution. Cullen328 (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I've dealt with it. DS (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Message another user

I know Wikipedia isn't a social media network, but isn't it possible for me to privately message another user? I've never thought about that, that's why I'm asking. Thanks! Hgh1985 (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hgh1985: Welcome to the Teahouse! All messages posted on Wikipedia are public. However, you could go to the user's page and click on "Email this user" in the left side bar (if the user has chosen to receive emails). For more information, see Wikipedia:Emailing users. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Best practices for editing structural issues in Wikipedia?

Hello, Teahouse hosts! I have an etiquette and best-practice question.

I sometimes do automated processing of Wikipedia (from offline dumps, don't worry, I'm not loading the server).

In the course of this automated processing, I frequently discover slight structural unsoundness in Wikipedia's category labeling. In one example since corrected by another user, the Hungarian Ladies Open used to be a member of Category:Engie and thus transitively a member of Category:Electric power companies of France.

I have fixed a handful of such issues, such as this example of a chronologist being categorized as a chronology, or this case of an article about a particular term being categorized as a glossary of terms. But before I go changing more of what appear to me to be bad categorizations all over the place, perhaps I should ask: is this welcome? Or am I pursuing a foolish consistency? If it is welcome, is there anything I should be cautious of in order to make these edits politely, or to avoid attracting negative attention? Zack112358 (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit: fix category links that inadvertently placed this page in the mentioned categories! Now I see how this happens! Zack112358 (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

If you're concerned that somebody may take issue with your changes, you can make a note on the talk page (of the article, category, or perhaps relevant wikiproject) and solicit feedback. But I think it's reasonable to boldly make changes you think will make things better, as long as you're aware that your edits may be reverted, and you're open to discussing them. We call this the bold, revert, discuss cycle. – Anon423 (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

How can I efficiently monitor for vandalism (without rollback privilege)?

I'm interested in helping monitor for vandalism, but have found the tools available to me lacking:

Special:RecentChanges requires a lot of mouse clicks and page loads. The diff pages have a lot of context at the top I don't need to see right away, so I need to scroll to see the changes. If I find candidate vandalism, then I need all of that info to evaluate it, but sifting through all the changes to find candidates is the problem. This approach to monitoring is slow and tedious.
DoubleCheck has a reasonably efficient UI for quickly reviewing a given edit, but I don't understand how it chooses which candidate vandalism edits to present, the selection heuristics are not as good as I would like, and don't appear to be configurable. Plus, DoubleCheck insists that I explicitly judge each candidate, even if only to say "I don't know", whereas I want to quickly scan for changes that I feel competent to judge in the first place.
Wikipedia:Recent_changes_patrol lists Huggle, RC Patrol, and SWViewer, all of which have promising descriptions, but require rollback privilege to use. From what I gather, I would not qualify for rollback privilege due to not having made enough edits, and anyway I don't want rollback privilege, I just want to efficiently monitor changes! I'm content using some other tool, or no tool at all, to actually fix vandalism when I find it.

I've done a fair amount of reading and searching, but can't seem to find anything that just lets me browse and filter recent changes with an efficient UI for quickly stepping through those changes in order. How do other people do this? Smcpeak74 (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Smcpeak74, welcome back to the teahouse, looking through your contributions, I believe that you have not tried WP:Twinkle or WP:Redwarn, installing these would greatly reduce the amount of clicks needed when recent changes patrolling (both of these tools can be used without rollback permissions).

Using filters when patrolling Recent Changes can be really helpful, using filters with settings like this [Beware: this link sets "group results by page", which affects page layout; see discussion below. --Smcpeak74] can reduce the amount of diffs you actually need to check.

Hope this helps, Justi yaya 14:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I looked at Twinkle and RedWarn, and installed Twinkle just now, but unless I'm missing something, these tools appear to be meant to automate the response to vandalism (among other things), rather than helping to identify it.

Separately, that Recent Change filter link looks potentially useful, but I still have to click on and wait for each diff. I guess I can live with that, but I'm surprised there isn't a better way. Smcpeak74 (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Smcpeak74 I'm a bit confused, because 'Rollback' is a response to vandalism, not a way of finding it. You do get that with Twinkle, if I remember rightly. As well as ensuring you use the best filter settings to screen in only the most likely troublesome edits, you should also enable Navigation Popups in Preferences. Then it's just a simple mouseover on the word 'diff' to display the edit you want to scrutinise - similarly with other information about the user. (I find I can't manage without it now). Nick Moyes (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm confused too. Huggle and friends say they require rollback privilege in order to be used at all, even for just browsing changes. I tried launching SWViewer, but it says, "Sorry, to use this application local or global rollback is required." I didn't get very far with the other two since it seemed like they weren't going to be happy either. I do not understand why these tools require rollback even to start using them. Like I say, I'm content to use a different tool if and when I actually want to respond to vandalism, but I'm hoping one of these might provide a more efficient way of finding it.

Thanks for the tip regarding navigation popups. I've turned it on, and perhaps that will help. Smcpeak74 (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Smcpeak74 I'm really sorry that I can't offer you any experience of Huggle or SWViewer (whatever that is). I really suggest you stick with WP:TWINKLE, and remember that Ctrl-mouseclick will open a new Tab each time you cliock 'diff'. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Smcpeak74 Yuk! Having revisited Special:RecentChanges after quite a gap, I'm horrified that the layout of the page seems to have changed since I was last active there. Previously, I'm sure the the diff and hist links were to the left of the article titles, in a nice neat row below one another. Now it's hard to have to keep moving one's mouse around to find the 'diff' and review the edit with a Navigation Popup mouseover. I doubt there's a user-alterable setting to change this (which I'd love to know if there is), so it seems to be a hugely retrograde step which in my view makes the job of a change patroller far more difficult and time-consuming. Perhaps others hosts can comment here? Nick Moyes (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Huh, my dif and hist links are to the left. I don't think I changed a setting here, because I don't remember them ever being to the right. Rusalkii (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Rusalkii Oh - that's really weird. I'm now seeing (from left to right, and on both mobile and PC, and in default skin) :

The ORES coloured dots; edit type(i.e. D N n m b); Timestamp; Article title; Diff link; Hist link; Byte change; Username; usertalk; user contribs; userblock; Edit summary; rollback; and finally, Tags. If it's changes at my end, I'm curious to find out what I did and how to fix it. I've just left feedback on various layout issues and suggestions here. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

When I log out, I see the something like the following: "(diff | hist) .. Article title .. Timestamp .. (+969)‎ .. ‎User (talk | contribs)‎ (Edit summary.) (Tags)". I have almost the same when logged in, except with a rollback link at the end. Do you still have the weird layout if you log out? Rusalkii (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Rusalkii Yes, I've just logged out and back in again. It's the same layout as I described above - not like yours. (I've just confirmed my Skin as Vector, and with both legacy skin enabled and disabled, I still get no change) I'm seeing the same unusual layout in iOS mobile, too, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

That's incredibly weird. Rusalkii (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Rusalkii OK, so I'm replying to you on my alt-account which I use for testing and teaching, and which just uses Wikipedia's default settings. Here, I'm now seeing what I was expecting to see. Like you, I'm getting ORES dots, diff, hist, article title and timestamp etc. So there's something different about my main account (i.e. User:Nick Moyes) which is causing that aberration. I don't see any difference in the way elements display if I use default fitler settings, or my own personal favourite, as shown below

I think I might have to go to WP:VPT for some extra input on this! NM Demo (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC) (alt-account of Nick Moyes]])

@Rusalkii I'm not sure if this url will be blacklisted, but here's a screenshot of the layout issue I was seeing: https://ibb.co/27H4yvb NM Demo (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Uncheck "Group results by page" under the option menu that has the gear option on the right. I've also been befuddled by this in the past but when you click the link that Justiyaya provided above, it's changing that setting for you. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Alyo: Well, knock me down with a feather! You've solved it - I wasn't even aware of that tick box, but it sorted it out. (In fact, I can't see exactly what good that option's doing) But, yes, I think I did click the link that Justiyaya posted - not that it's their fault at all - and thank you so much for guiding me. I'm still convinced there are some small improvement that need making to the way links at RecentChanges should open new tabs, but I'll go back and modify my post at the RC talk page. Like I said to someone earlier today- I find I'm still learning new stuff every time I come here! Thanks, again. NM Demo (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@NM Demo: no problem! I'm also a little unsure what grouping benefits, but you're certainly right that the UI of that page could use some TLC. Alyo (chat·edits) 22:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Just an overall comment: there is no replacement for the human brain, and for going to the trouble of checking that an edit was correct. The most insidious forms of vandalism aren't people inserting obscenities or their girlfriend's name; it's people modifying dates by a year, or sneaking in some sentence that looks plausible but is utterly untrue. To find this sort of thing, you either need to know it, or you need to go away and google. In my view, every editor who takes one such edit and goes to search is worth 100 of the sort who merely try to out-do ClueBot at what ClueBot does best. So if you're not the fastest anti-vandal fighter, don't panic! Careful, time-consuming editing is worth it too. Elemimele (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Self-trout Oops I was not aware that I had that option selected (as in I thought it was an update that caused the change)... Sorry about that Justi yaya 02:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks all for figuring out that layout mystery! I had noticed that things looked different for me too but had not connected the dots. I added a little inline warning to Justiyaya's comment above, I hope that's ok. Smcpeak74 (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Smcpeak74 Seems alright to me, thanks for adding that :D Justi yaya 03:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Closing the loop on my original question, the suggestion by User:Nick Moyes to enable Navigation popups (Preferences → Gadgets → Browsing → Navigation popups) mostly resolves my issue, because one can then mouse over the list of diffs one at a time to quickly review them. Each popup only takes about a second to appear, has a concise display of the change, and disappears easily too. However, note that the Recent Changes page has an option (in the gear menu) to "group results by page", and that option affects whether the "diff" links are in a consistent place on the page horizontally, and hence easily mouseable in succession. Thank you all for the help! Smcpeak74 (talk) 07:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Public Domain

Hi, user Rusalkii wrote a note on my page Draft:Jean Vigoureux about how some of the pictures are probably Public Domain. I believe she is correct about the three family pictures from 1915, 1920, and 1925 but when I was uploading pictures I was so nervous about making mistakes that I thought I was making the “safe” decision by picking “own work” so that I would be connected to the pictures. But Wiki Commons won’t allow you to make changes - so now I don’t know what to do. (UTC) Vigartjam (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Vigartjam. You need to ask at Commons:Commons:Help desk. --ColinFine (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

*she, please Rusalkii (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, @ColinFine for your advice. Vigartjam (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC) Sorry, @Rusalkii, I’ll change it to “she” - and thank you so much for your help! Vigartjam (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Vigartjam. "Own work" in this context means that you are the photographer, or personally created the non-photographic image. Never use "own work" unless that applies. Please get this straightened out at Commons. Cullen328 (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, @Cullen328. I shall do so. Vigartjam (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Deep Rising comic a notable topic?

Deep Rising is a free digital comic I helped finance 5 years back. It was created by professionals, but financed by fans and released for free. My question is, would this be deemed notable, so it is worth creating an article about it?

Reasons it may be deemed notable:

It is set between the first and the second games in the renowned XCOM computer games series.
The story and the music & audio was created by professionals involved in the original XCOM games (Dave Ellis and John Broomhall).
The art was created by well known movie concept artist Jon Mccoy.
The covers and concepts were also created by very skilled artists.

Tweets from Julian Gollop (creator of XCOM) and the official 2K Games XCOM Twitter account.

The comic can be viewed or downloaded here: http://comic.strategycore.co.uk/

I notice commercial comics series has entries in Wikipedia, but since this was a one off project and not commercial, I would appreciate your guidance. Iolalog (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Iolalog. Unfortunately, none of those factors you've listed have much to do with notability in the sense that that term is used on Wikipedia. What's required to establish notability is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject - see WP:GNG. Has the comic been the subject of published reviews, profiles in newspapers, or any other form of independent coverage? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Iolalog: as an additional note to the correct point above, if there are some reliable secondary sources about it, but not many, then it might be possible for it to be placed in one of the currently existing XCOM articles. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: @Nosebagbear: Unfortunately the comic were largely ignored by games- and comic media (despite the many XCOM fans amongst them).

The only mentions beyond the tweets, a few quotes from the likes of Jake Solomon and some fan sites were these:

The Sound Architect did an interview with John Broomhall and us.
Norwegian media NRK did an article (in Norwegian) and a TV spot (only available in Norway), but those were primarily focused on a Norwegian involved in a project like this rather than the comic itself.

So, based on this, what do you think? A minor mention in the existing XCOM article, or not notable? I just think it is a shame that the awesome work or such great artists is seen by so few. Iolalog (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

If the work is as awesome as you say, then getting interest by the media should be possible. Start pitching media or talking to tech/pop culture journos. Then Wiki can in the future have sources to build an article around. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it sounds like you need to wait for more significant coverage before an article can be written, Iolalog. Note that the coverage doesn't need to be in English, so the Norwegian piece counts and could perhaps be cited in support of adding a mention of the comic to an existing article. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I improved my declined article, now what?

Hello, I wrote a draft of an article last year on a Georgian-era school for girls in Sunderland, UK. The article was declined because it lacked a diversity of sources and notability. I have improved the article in my sandbox and would like to resubmit it. I'm hoping someone could advise the best way of going about that. I am not sure whether I should talk with the editor who declined the draft or whether perhaps someone here could take a look? Thanks. Tenuous tree (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tenuous tree, just resubmit the draft again for review. The Living love ^talk 09:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Em-mustapha (talk • contribs)

Thanks, I will try it. Tenuous tree (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I took a look, Tenuous tree. Some tips:

The paragraph starting "Founder Elizabeth Donnison was married to Sunderland businessman James Donnison" seems out of place. (The section is more or less in chronological order, but then this comes as an odd jump backwards.)
You should remove inline external links. Thus the obvious fix to your "the 'Rebel Women of Sunderland Project', an exhibit commissioned by Sunderland Culture and created by novelist Jessica Andrews and illustrator Kathryn Robertson" is plain "the 'Rebel Women of Sunderland Project', an exhibit commissioned by Sunderland Culture and created by novelist Jessica Andrews and illustrator Kathryn Robertson". (If you think that any of the four merits an article and is at all likely to get one, you can redlink it.)
References go immediately after commas, etc, not immediately before them.
Is there perhaps something of use in the relevant volume (if it has yet been published) of the interminable Victoria County History?

All the best with your draft! -- Hoary (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for these helpful suggestions, I will edit as suggested. Unfortunately the relevant VCH volume of County Durham (V) hasn't yet been digitised, though I could try to track down the hard copy in a local library in case there is anything more than the usual passing reference in it. Tenuous tree (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

error in title of page

hi. i am working on the page for East_Gate,_British_Columbia and noticed that in the title they put a space between the east and the gate. it is acually spelled like eastgate. how can i correct this. i cannot find a wat to edit titles? Edpf06 (talk) 09:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Edpf06: Thanks for pointing this out. I've moved the article to Eastgate, British Columbia. ––FormalDude

^talk 11:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Edpf06 And further more, I see that you are now auto confirmed, which means, you can perform page moves yourself. You can go to any page, and you will see that beside "View History", there is a star (we will not discuss it now), and beside that star, there is a tab called "More". Clicking on it will redirect you to a page, where you will be able to specify where you want to move the page. It is basically renaming. You can correct the spelling of the new page (the page that you want to move to), and then you have to give a reason for the page move. Then you can click Move Page, and you are done. The title of the page will get corrected. However please remember, to use this feature cautiously, as disregarding the page move guidelines can put yourself into trouble. For more information regarding page moves, you can read this documentation. If you have any more doubts, please write back. Thanks. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 11:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Unlock

Hello Dear, Wikipedia Team {{unblock|reason=Hope you doing well, I face some issue. Whenever I make a Wikipedia pages. Here the user deletes again and again.}}

I was learning Wikipedia for a few years. I had made some mistakes while learning from me. Since then they have put my IP in the block. Now I have learned Wikipedia well. Now you unblock me.

I had made 2 movies pages....Now I can't edit. Thank You! Indiasafira (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Indiasafira: Welcome to the Teahouse! I added <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags to your post so we can read your issue, as the {{unblock}} template is not appropriate here. I see that another editor reached out to you at User talk:Indiasafira, and I hope you continue the conversation there. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Indiasafira, you are not blocked anywhere on English Wikipedia. You can edit the vast majority of Wikipedia pages, except those that are protected due to ongoing vandalism and disruptive editing. Which article do you want to edit but can't? If it is your IP address rather than your account that is blocked, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:IP block exemption. Cullen328 (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328 He is now blocked because of using multiple accounts. See his talk page. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 12:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft

The decline of the 'Draft:Sadashib (Fictional Character)' really doesn't make any sense, as I think it is of course eligible for being published as an article, without an iota of doubt. It is well-cited and contain enough amount of information, more of which will be added soon. I would rather argue that only a person with a little knowledge in Bengali literature can understand who this adventure-mongering fictional character is, even others can by searching it through the web. To be honest, it was really astounding for me that this character did not have an article earlier. Anyway, this draft may have some problems in the reference and notes list. If any helpful editor can correct those, please do so. Any kind of advice regarding the draft will be welcomed. Also, if possible, please tell me whether this draft is actually eligible for getting published. More info will be added to it soon.Michri michri (talk) 10:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Michri michri, you say "It is well-cited". These citations -- where are they, and what do they say? Where are the comments (of course in reliable, independent, published sources)? Currently there's a petaiota (or thereabouts) of doubt. ¶ "[P]lease tell me whether this draft is actually eligible for getting published". The submission was declined; therefore in the reviewer's opinion it is not eligible. (And I agree with the reviewer.) The reviewer is not saying that the subject is ineligible (and I'm not saying so either); it's your job to demonstrate that it is eligible. -- Hoary (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Hoary,thanks, but please fix the problems in the notes and reference list.Michri michri (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Michri michri, the problem with those is that the references you supply are inadequate. If you have reliable references, cite them. If such sources can't be found, no article can be created. -- Hoary (talk) 11:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, no other problems?Michri michri (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there are other problems. But unless someone can provide evidence that the subject is notable, by citing reliable independent published sources with in-depth discussion of the subject, it's pointless worrying about them. Maproom (talk) 12:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Question about edit-reverts-rollback, all that goodness (a simple question...hopefully)

My "simple" question relates to "reverts" etc. I am a regular on the "recent changes" page as a "recent changes patroller." Reverting vandalism, along with extensive "gnome"-like work, is really what gives me the greatest pleasure in "adding value" however I can to the great encyclopedia. One thing that I'd like to ask relates to reverts, and when they can and can not possibly be made. You'd think that with 12,000+ edits, I would know this, but sometimes I just like to check my own knowledge too. So what is apparent to me, is that if someone makes an edit to a page/article, whatever, you can revert that edit (or rollback a bunch of consecutive edits if you have that perm and if all the edits were made by the same editor and all made consecutively), but what happens if ANOTHER editor were to then jump in, and vandalize or otherwise even make a POSITIVE edit to the same article before you have your chance to revert. What exactly happens then? I don't think I ever much paid attention to that aspect, or it doesn't happen too often for me. Most of the time, when I need to make an revert, I am either able to make the revert, or someone else "beats" me to it (which is fine of course), but I'm curious mostly if a revert is then not able to be made (and thus needs to be done MANUALLY) in what instances? Also, I'd extend my question to differing parts of a page. If one edit is near the top of an article and in a completely different section from another, would a revert be possible (not referring to manual reverts which are always possible, but the "button" based revert)? Or is it only "blocked" or "not possible" due to a "conflict" if/when ANOTHER editor comes in and edits the SAME section on TOP of the previous vandalizing editor?

Trying to really hone my skills and knowledge. Thank you all! ♥Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)♥ 07:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC) ♥Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)♥ 07:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The standard rollback (and the similar Twinkle functionality) is able to revert a number of consecutive edits by one user, and the undo button can be used to selectively revert bad edits that occur before a good one, but only if the software is able to disentangle the good from the bad. (The linked page describes that you can view a diff spanning multiple edits and undo them all simultaneously.) If the changes you want to undo overlap or are close to an edit you wish to keep, you'll have to sort it out manually. Does that answer your question? – Anon423 (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

But yes, you're right, when someone's making an amateurish mess of editing an article, but some of what they're doing is actually correct, there is really no alternative to sorting it out manually. Personally I hate when half way through untangling the mess, a drive-by reverter drops in with a comment like "Revert to last stable version" and rolls the whole thing back to before the "problem" (or worse, to some random point that they thought was before the problem), because once they've disappeared over the horizon in search of the next target, those of us who were trying to sift the bad bits out of the good bits have to start all over again. The diff tool is pretty good though; it's surprisingly efficient at collecting sets of changes on the same part of an article so they can be selectively cut out. Elemimele (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

On a related note, I somewhat recommend wikEdDiff. It's not magic, but I think it's a useful alternate diff view. – Anon423 (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Article converting to draft

Hi everyone, I am a new user. I have a problem. Whenever I am creating a new article, it is automatically converting to draft after some time. I am making notable article. But it is automatically converting to draft after some time. Please help me. Blue Mango Juice (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

If you look at the history of each of the drafts, you will see that they were not moved automatically, but moved by User:Fram, who left an explanation in the edit summary in each case. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Blue Mango Juice, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that your problem is that you are, in the English idiom, "running before you can walk". Creating new articles in Wikipedia is difficult, especially for new editors, and I always advise new editors to spend a few months working on improving existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works before they try the challenging task of creating a new article. An example of something you apparently do not know yet is that you can look at the history to see that the articles you are creating are not "automatically" converted to drafts: this is something which is done by living breathing editors, because they prefer to give you a chance to improve an unsatisfactory draft rather than deleting it immediately. If you look at the history of (for example) Draft:Infinix Hot 10, you will see that it was moved by Fram, because it is "only sourced to some shops". Please read your first article and Notability before you try creating another article - but, to save yourself much frustration, I advise you don't try this until you have made several hundred improvements to existing articles. --ColinFine (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Confirming that on 22 December you created four articles about phones and on the same day Fram moved those to draft. You then blanked your own drafts and a different editor restored them. You are welcome to improve the drafts and submit via AfC. I recommend that process because you do not have a prior history of successfully creating articles that either get approved at AfC or are not draftified if you bypassed AfC. As an alternative, you can request that your drafts be deleted by an Administrator. David notMD (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

What is the country said with a person's name representing?

On most people's Wikipedia pages, it will say for example;

"Amy Lou Adams (born August 20, 1974) is an American actress"

or

"Stephen John Fry (born 24 August 1957) is an English actor, broadcaster,..."

So are 'American' and 'English' in these sentences representing these peoples nationalities, their citizenships, ethnicities, cultures, ancestries or something else?

I've always been under the impression it was representing nationality, but after a back and forth of edits I'm not sure anymore. NotIranian (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The guidance is at MOS:ETHNICITY, NotIranian. It has most to do with where they are a citizen of. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Mike Turnbull. I'm still a bit unsure how this will apply to my specific problem. The persons page I'm talking about is Ramin Djawadi, he was born in Germany and has lived there his whole life, he qualifies for Iranian citizenship through his father by Iranian law, but dual citizenship is also not allowed by Iranian law. I cannot find any information indicating that he has ever renounced, claimed nor held Iranian citizenship in any way.

I found it interesting that this happens on literally everyone's page who has an Iranian parent, but no other ties to the country, yet almost never when it's regarding a different country. For example, I couldn't find anyone who had an Irish parent, who wasn't born in Ireland and had never lived there, listed as Irish-English, Irish-German etc.

(Sorry if I'm editing/asking this wrongly, first time here) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotIranian (talk • contribs) 13:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@NotIranian: In this case, I'd go by what the article's sources say. I looked at a couple of the references and when they mentioned this aspect at all, the ones I looked at either said "Iranian-German" or "German-Iranian". So I don't think that there's a problem using an expression like that, whatever Iranian law says. While you are working on that article, you might like to tidy up instances of multiple repeated references (e.g. 2 and 6 at present) using the method described at WP:Refname. Incidentally, your alert for me didn't work because you didn't sign your post with four keyboard tildes (the ~ character), which you need to get into the habit of doing on talk pages. Good luck with your editing! Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

If you don't know what it means, there is very little chance of an average reader knowing it (and they certainly won't have read any of Wikipedia's policies or guidance). So in complex cases it might make sense to explain the situation in more depth: "Ramin Djawadi is a score-composer born and resident in Germany, of Iranian parentage" or some such statement? Elemimele (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Looking for Proofreading Opportunities

Greetings! I'm starting to pursue a career in proofreading and eventually copyediting. Would I solicit my services to individual authors or is there another way to find opportunities? Gingerbreadgal (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Gingerbreadgal Wikipedia is a volunteer project where editors spend their own time editing what interests them. If you wish to make Wikipedia editing your career by offering your services for payment, you will have to do that elsewhere as soliciting customers on Wikipedia will get you blocked for promotional activities. Please read the paid editing policy. If you just want to copyedit what interests you, the Community Portal is a good place to find things to do. 331dot (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Gingerbreadgal Welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately there are no financial opportunities for proof-reading on Wikipedia, as everyone who helps create articles in this encyclopaedia does it for love of the project, and no money changes hands. That said, if you wanted to practice and hone your skills here as a volunteer, there are vast opportunities for you to get involved. You'd just need to choose a subject area close to your heart and then look for articles in that area which have been marked for needing further proof-reading/copyediting. You can find out more about ways to get involved for free at WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Alternatively, you could help out at WP:PEER REVIEW where an editor seeks input from others in ways to improve an article. I hope this helps you. If you decided you did want to help out here (and who wouldn't?) you might like to try our interactive tour on the basics of editing, called The Wikipedia Adventure. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Gingerbreadgal This page is for asking questions about editing Wikipedia, but I suspect you are seeking employment as a proofreader in the wider world. Normally you would first need to have a qualification in English and proof-correction, and then you would approach a publisher (not a writer) offering your services as a freelance proofreader. You would be expected to be familiar with that publisher's style and specialities.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I just want to add that if copyediting and proofreading are of interest to you in general, then Wikipedia could be a great place for you to gain skills for your career, while helping Wikipedia, too. I highly recommend the training materials provided by The Guild of Copy Editors on this page. Feel free to reach out anytime if you have questions. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Reversion due to edits not being referenced and username (signature, 4 tildes) being included in mainspace edit

If my edit doesn't have my username, how can people know who was responsible for it? I put nothing additional in Talk, since the edit, only 2 sentences, said it all. Also, there were no references, since the logic was so simple no reference should be necessary, or perhaps even possible; the logic of my edit basically was "A must have property B for C to be true, and C is necessary for the proof to be valid, but later A was changed to not have property B, but C was still assumed to be true." The article the edit was in is "Original proof of Gödel's completeness theorem". The exact edit can be found in the article's edit History section. Also, Justiyaya, who told me in an email link the foregoing reasons for the reversion, strongly suggested that I not attempt to add my edits back in, but rather attempt to improve another article on Wikipedia. Why shouldn't I add it back if I omit my username and maybe add, mostly just to please those who removed the edit and partially as a joke, some references to logic texts or, say, Aristotle? (On another site complaining about my lack of references, I did mention adding a particular advanced logic book, and also a set theory book.) I am working in a PC, & not VisualEditor. Dirsaka (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dirsaka: The software behind Wikipedia automatically tracks all edits to a page in the page's page history (so for your case https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Original_proof_of_G%C3%B6del%27s_completeness_theorem&action=history). The reason why signatures are required on talkpages and some other non-article pages is that it can be pretty hard to find out who actually wrote said talkpage comment when the talkpage has many revisions per day, such as the Teahouse (this page) or the different noticeboards. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Original proof of Gödel's completeness theorem is the article link. Karenthewriter (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) : @Dirsaka: As David notMD has already commented on your Talk Page, editors must never sign their names into articles. The "view history" tab shows who made which edit to an article. On the other hand, everyone should indeed sign on Talk Pages, whether of articles or where discussions take place, for example here at the Teahouse. The reversion was made so as to remove your signature: the content may well be worth retaining (I don't know as I'm not a math expert) but if necessary that should be discussed on the Talk Page of the article in question. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please re-review this article?

I recently worked on this article and added citations and edited some stuff. I think now this article should be promoted to C-Class (or maybe b). Excellenc1 (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1:Welcome to the Teahouse, anyone can change the class of the article if it’s from stub to B class, but the only ones that actually need to be reviewed are Good articles and featured article. I have changed the article to C-class and not B-class because a few references are not good and some stuff isn’t referenced, ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 17:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1 Whilst Rater gives a prediction of B, I might stick with a very high C until there's a fair bit little more about the Natural Environment (key habitats, geology and climate). I would also like to have seen the references contain the author names and publication dates - not just the date of retrieval - a seemingly minor point, but it makes any article so much more useful when you can see who wrote a source and when it was published. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

New Draft of Music Blocks article | Advise needed for References

I just recently submitted an article about Music Blocks, a visual programming language for music. Its development began in 2015. The draft is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Music_Blocks

I used the article about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap!_(programming_language) as a template for the Music Blocks article. I am told that Github, Amazon, and YouTube are not reliable resources. As for Github, I find that using it as a reference is unavoidable as the code and the user guide is published on GitHub (and referenced similarly to Snap article). As for Amazon, the article is a scholarly article but is self-published by Gary Stager, who is well known within Constructionism Pedagogy circles. I wish it were made available outside of Amazon, but that is where it is for now. As for YouTube, I could remove it but it does represent the source of the very first workshops and they are by no means "advertising" in nature. Plus the videos are published by the school that hosted the Constructionism conference that year, not by any interested party.

Please advise to how I might be able to utilize the references. The Github and (book sold on Amazon) are, in particular, very important.

Or should I just reference the book the following way (instead of pointing to Amazon)?

Bender and Ulibarri. Number Eleven: Make a Music Box. Twenty Things to Do with a Computer Forward 50: Future Visions of Education Inspired by Seymour Papert and Cynthia Solomon’s Seminal Work. Stager and Pang. 2021.

I would also like to make clear that I do not profit off the sale of that book in any way. In fact, I have been trying to make our article available outside of the book. That being said, it is a peer-reviewed publication, and thus helpful as a 3rd-party reference.

Thank you in advance! Remakemusic (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Remakemusic, and welcome to the Teahouse. In Wikipedia world, promotion is not only about making money: if you come here to tell the world about something you are connected with, your purpose is promotional, and it will be very hard for you to write a suitably neutral article about it. 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. Sources written or published by anybody involved in the creation or distribution of the language do not contribute to its WP:notability, and can be used in an article about it only in very limited ways. The bulk of the article should be based on what those independent people have chosen to publish about it, and only that; and furthermore, they should be published somewhere with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking. --ColinFine (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks ColinFine for the info. I am continuing to edit the Music Blocks article. I added some papers that were written after two years of research conducted by Gakken (of which I am not affiliated). There was some press in Japan, but--other than an article or two--I find the press articles unsubstantial. Basically, I just thought there should be an article about Music Blocks, and that I am qualified to write its first draft. Writing such an article needs some knowledge about music, programming, and (in order to get into the history and reference the relevant documents) Japanese language comprehension. I hope it will be accepted after thoughtful review so that others may save themselves time in their research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remakemusic (talk • contribs) 19:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Not able to publish Wiki article - not adequately supported

Hoping to get some guidance on how to publish an article about Christeena Riggs - a singer/actress who has performed in many Broadway shows. Jdriggs001 (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment at the time Draft:Christeena Riggs was Declined was that many of the factual statements were not referenced. More than half the refs are just name-mentions confirming she was in the cast, whereas what is required are references with significant content about her. Still true. David notMD (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

For an actor, you might want to look for reviews of plays she was in that mention her acting for at least a couple sentences. As a reviewer, I would look for 2-3 sources that talk about her in depth, and reviews are usually the easiest to find. Note that sources that just say "character so-and-so, played by Christeena Riggs" do not count toward notability. Rusalkii (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Harassment by another user - reverting all my edits

Hi all,

Just wondering if there anything than can be done about a user called Mutt Lunker because they are reverting all my edits including those which are undoubtably helpful including additions of local maps to info boxes and such. Not sure what his problem is. Could anyone advise how to get him banned or at least have him leave my edits alone?

Thanks in advance for your help with this matter.

Metrosteve (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Update - He has stated I should appeal a block but I haven’t been blocked so don’t understand!

Metrosteve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metrosteve (talk • contribs)

You mean Mutt Lunker. It looks like there is some concern over block evasion and sockpuppetry with your account, which probably explains the reverts. It appears your account is suspected of being a sock for Politialguru. I would address those issues first. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding on to Pyrrho the Skeptic, you may be edit warring as well. That may be led to being blocked from editing. Severe storm 28 18:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Would you please be able to tell me how I could go about doing this? Wasn’t sure it would be seen as edit warring if I’m restoring my edits which are being removed without reason. Metrosteve (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

It looks like you've been blocked. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

About licensing amedement for File:GSK logo 2014.svg

Can anyone please guide whether GSK's licensing should be changed from non-free to "PD-ineligible-USonly" license to make it usable on other articles like GSK's subsdirectries etc. because entire logo contains only simple coloured oval shape with gsk text in it which can easily fall under fall under this ineligibility requirements. Wallu2 (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wallu2. A better place to ask about this is probably at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions (WP:MCQ). My personal opinion is that this is probably too simple to be eligible for copyright protection in the US but not in the UK (its country of origin), which means {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} is most likely OK. However, some may feel that the oval is a bit more than one which is simply colored because there is a bit of a color gradient that might be considered to create a slight 3D effect. This is why I think it might be good to ask about this at WP:MCQ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete files

Is there a way for me to request a deletion for all files uploaded by a user (blocked one)? All the files were uploaded to Wikipedia and are copyright violations with no fair use rationale. Ue3lman (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ue3lman May I know which editor you are talking about? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ue3lman Then it would be easier to help. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: The user is Wiki person that edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ue3lman (talk • contribs) 18:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Is thi connected to a list compiled by Platonk at User:Platonk/sandbox/pjt1? The articles listed were created by two accounts later tagged as sockpuppetry. Or is copyright violation a separate issue involving another account? David notMD (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

It was not those accounts it's a separate user— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ue3lman (talk • contribs) 18:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ue3lman. I think I found one of the files you're referring to above and posted a comment about it at File talk:Republican Guard protective unit.png#Contested deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

AfC

My AfC -Draft:Summertown Stars AFC- got decline due to a lack of notability. Albeit, there are many articles by the Oxford Mail and other newspapers in that ilk. What shall I do to get it accepted? Peartree42 (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

You need to read Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Peartree42, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, an article is accepted at AFC when it has passed out notability criteria, you show an article is notable via the optimization of reliable sources, you see, coming here was a good move on your part, but I find it helpful also to communicate directly with the editor who has declined your article in this case it would be S0091 perhaps ping them directly? Celestina007 (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Are there any WP guidelines about the relevance of sources and length of summaries?

How do we establish the relevance of a certain source for an article? as I assumed if the soruce is related to the article's context and gives a broader view then it is relevant, however, I got in a discussion with another editor with a narrower idea for what is considered relevant for an article and I was wondering if there are any guidelines for the relevance of a source?

Are there any guidelines about the length of summaries as well? I don't think that we should write an essay but I believe that the more is presented the better, however one should only capture the essentials. And when it comes to oversimplifcation to the point of misrepresntation versus more text I believe the latter is the better. I made an edit of about 8 rows from a single source and was told that is too long. If you could provide me with any WP guidelines related to this I would appreciate it. TheGoldAge (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

TheGoldAge Yes, your Edit summaries are often too long. If you have that much to say, instead just mention that you have started a Talk discussion on the issue. David notMD (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

TheGoldAge, an edit summary should describe the purpose and intent of your edit, clearly and concisely. It should not argue the case. Article talk pages are for in depth discussion of the merits of edits. As for the issue of the relevance of a source, if a source is reliable and contains significant coverage of the topic of the article, then you can summarize that coverage of the topic and use that reliable source as a reference. But you should not add any off-topic content to that article. Such content may well belong in another article but an individual article should be limited to the identified topic. Cullen328 (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

TheGoldAge, you can find more information at Help: Edit summary which says "Avoid long summaries. Edit summaries are not for explaining every detail, writing essays about 'the truth', or long-winded arguments with fellow editors. For discussions, you should use the talk page." Cullen328 (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

TheGoldAge, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, as correctly noted by Cullen328 and David notMD an edit summary is in itself self explanatory, it should be precise and concise. As for the question on you asked about the “relevance of a source” if the source you optimized are sources with a reputation for fact checking, possesses editorial oversight and discusses the subject of a given article with significant coverage as you implied, then you are correct to use the source, having said, some reliable sources may not be reliable depending on WP:RSCONTEXT. Also, an op-Ed source if not expressly attributed to a well established authority or author in the relevant field are equally not considered reliable as it bypasses the editorial oversight. Furthermore, a reliable source may not be “necessary” in the sense that, other reliable sources in the article have already substantiated the claim. Honestly, there’s a lot of modulation I haven’t given because you haven’t shown a diff thus I do not know the context in which I am to expressly reply your question to. If you can expatiate or show a diff then I can explain a lot better. Celestina007 (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi TheGoldAge. The WP:ONUS is, in principle, upon those editors wanting to add content to an article to establish that doing so is in accordance with relative Wikipedia policies and guidelines. WP:NOTEVERYTHING that can be reliably sourced should be added and disagreements about this are typically best resolved on the article talk page and not through edit summaries. If you added content (even content supported by what you believe to be a reliable source) that is subsequently removed by another editor, then the probably the best thing to do would be to discuss things on the article talk page. If the discussion goes nowhere and no consensus between the two of you can't be reached, then there are other steps in WP:Dispute resolution that can be tried; for example, there are various noticeboards where input from others can be sought, but it's a least a good idea to give article talk page discussion a chance to work first. The source you're citing should be pertinent to the content it's intended to support, but the content should also be encyclopedically relevant to the primary subject of the article. As for edit summary length, I believe there is a technical limitation on the number of characters that can be included, which is why you notice there's a bit of a counting down from 100 as you get near this limit. Basically, though, an edit summary should just be long enough to state why your making the edit and what policy and guideline it's based on. Many editors often do this using WP:SHORTCUTS that link to more detailed information. Sometimes the short-cut may be WP:PIPEd like this, but other times it's not. If you feel that the edit requires something more that a brief edit summary (for example, clarification as to why you decided to add a maintenance template to an article), then you can and in many cases should further explain things on the article talk page. In such cases, you can either add a link to the talk page discussion to your edit summary or a boilerplate statement like "See talk page further explanation", "See talk page for discussion", etc. Your edit summary should reflect the edit you've made and sometimes there's no way to do so without writing a bit of a long one, but going too far in the other direction might make things unlcear or might be seen as misrepresenting the changes you've made. So, if you're just correcting a typo, then "fixed typo" would be fine; if you're also doing other stuff in the same edit that involves a lot more (e.g. adding or removing content, sources, images, etc.), then "Fixed typo, etc." isn't enough. Regardless of edit summary length, you should avoid things like the multiple reverting you're doing at Gelou. Even if you feel you're 100% in the right, such a thing is likely going to be seen as WP:EDITWARring and could possibly lead to sanction or warnings from an administrator; so, you need to be careful in such situations because there are very few recognized exemptions to the three-revert rule and disagreements over article content isn't one of them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for the helpful replies! Celestina007 this is the context for my question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gelou&diff=1062477853&oldid=1062298076 we have a talk page about it and the other user asked for a 3rd opinion. It's the 2nd paragraph from "in modern historiography" that he disagrees with, on the grounds that its not relevant (he only expressed doubt of relevance for the part about King Peter, but undoed the whole paragraph rather than that just remove that line, so I don't know what to make of it) and later argued that it's way too long. TheGoldAge (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@TheGoldAge, thank you, I believe Marchjuly has done justice to your question, please do not edit war, secondly if you add something to an article and it is reverted do not re-include it, rather the TP of the article is where you go to build consensus, and if that fails there are other manners of approach, since I haven’t looked at the details of all this with in-depth, I do want to add that, if you are putting important content in an article and substantiating it with RS & it keeps getting removed then the other party might be in the wrong if they are actively or intentionally suppressing information which isn’t in accordance with WP:BALANCE if all else fails go to WP:DRN and formally file a request. Celestina007 (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

What should happen?

I remember that an edit where I deleted a link that violated the MOS, and Asher Heimermann reverted it (And called it "vandalism".)

Then even more users started reverting it, causing a MASSIVE edit war that several other users joined in on, until I was eventually blocked. After my block, however, someone came to quickly remove that overlink.

The page was Miller Brewing Company. What should happen to Asher? He clearly loves violating the MOS. (was back in July (I think) on an old IP) 94.21.147.201 (talk) 14:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP and welcome. The edit war you got into was disruptive and timewasting. Overlinking can be an issue, but arguing over one example is much worse. WP:OVERLINK is a guidance document, not a policy, and I don't think anything needs to be done about those edits back in October unless someone reports a particular user for constantly doing something similar against consensus across a swathe of articles. That would be the point that an admin might wish to take someone aside and point out what they're doing wrong. Personally, I don't care if America gets a wikilink unless its part of an article so chock-full of pointless wikilinks that nobody can find anything at all. I feel this is a "move along please" situation. But thanks for asking your question. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood something, "America link" means to over-link a nationality, specifically to over-link it to a country page. --94.21.147.201 (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Why are you asking about this now? You seem to be asking for sanctions against an editor based on one single edit they made more than two months ago, where you then turned the situation into an edit war against several editors. That won't happen; even if the editor had shown a pattern of problematic behaviour (which doesn't seem to be true), they haven't made any edits for a month. What should happen instead is that if you should find yourself in a similar situation, you take the discussion to the talk page, without aggressive edit summaries, and without accusing your fellow editors of "loving to violate the MOS". --bonadea contributions talk 15:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

It's you. Apparently, as 87.97.21.203 you were edit warring with several editors back in October, were warned, may have also been editing as 91.82.169.34 which ended up as a one month block, and now are picking at an old scab as 94.21.147.201. David notMD (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

ahem. Not me! :-) --bonadea contributions talk 23:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

It's no big deal - but you're trying to make it one. Am walking away now. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Just want to ask. Why did Asher revert it in the first place? Should he have not done it, i wouldn't have been blocked in October. --94.21.147.201 (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The only person who might be able to answer that question is Asher, but by the sound of it that would not at this point be a helpful question. It very very very often happens that two editors disagree about what is best (and yes, sometimes one, or even both, point to Wikipedia policies to support their positions). See BRD for how this works, and DR for what to do if you really cannot reach agreement with another editor. --ColinFine (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The reason you were blocked in October was your own edit warring, not someone else's behaviour. --bonadea contributions talk 23:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Deprecating a parameter

Hi there,

Over on the talk page for Template:Infobox musical artist, I started a discussion about changing the requirements for the "associated acts" parameter, and, after some brief discussion, another user started a separate discussion about removing the parameter altogether. The consensus for that seemed to very clearly in favor of removing it, as there were five Yes votes, three Replace votes, four votes for both Yes and Replace, one No objection vote, and only two No votes. Although consensus is not solely based on a head count, both of the No votes address issues that would be resolved if we were to replace the parameter.

I came here to ask about two things. Firstly, do I have to notify anyone before I close the discussion and conclude that the consensus was to make the "associated acts" parameter deprecated and replace it with other, more specific parameters? Secondly, can I just remove the parameter and put the new ones discussed by editors in the documentation, or is there some separate channel I have to go through in order to do that since the parameter is so widely used? Thanks. benǝʇᴉɯ 22:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Benmite. If you started the discussion, you shouldn't WP:CLOSE the discussion even if there consensus seems overwhelmingly in favor of your position because you are going to be considered to be involved. Most discussions don't need to be formally closed and a change can be implemeted when there's a clear consensus to do so; however, if you would like a non-involved party to assess things and formally do so, you can request one at WP:Closure requests. Since you're dealing with a template that might be being used on lots of pages, the deprecation of even a single parameter question might affect lots of pages in ways that are hard to see; so, it might be wise to request that an administrator with experience with templates to look at the discussion and try to close it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Including translated quotes in reference

I have access to an article published in a journal which is from my understanding, only available in print and is not in many libraries. It's also in Japanese. I assume very few readers of the article would both have access to the journal and can read Japanese. I found WP:FOOTQUOTE, but I'm unsure how to attribute my own translated quotes in a reference. I used shortened footnotes for the page, and it would normally be [Name], [Year], p. [Page]: "A quote.". However, I'm unsure where to insert the translation in this footnote. At the end? Do I need to include some translation disclaimer? RoseCherry64 (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I can't give you a straight answer, RoseCherry64, because I don't know. I'd have thought that if the reference makes it clear that an article is in Japanese and (its abstract aside) only Japanese, the reader who's at least moderately intelligent will infer that an English "quotation" is in fact a translation of the original (and articles such as that on Motoo Ōtaguro will only be of interest to readers of at least moderate intelligence). But I wonder why so many quotations are needed. Normally it's good enough, and indeed preferable, to summarize what others say. Occasionally the precise wording is needed (because its wording is remarkable, ambiguous, or both); in such a case, an English translation is likely to be inadequate. -- Hoary (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Some pages like WP:RSC advice quoting hard to access sources and making sure it's accessible for English readers. I was only going to do this for hard to access and Japanese sources. I'm not going to quote every Japanese source and include a translation, if it's online and machine translation can provide something close to the original for non-Japanese readers, I wouldn't include a quote. However, if non-Japanese readers would have to first locate a print copy and then show a Japanese reader the relevant pages to verify if something is actually in the source, I think it's justified to use quotations.

I'm mostly asking for the technical parts of including translated quotations using sfn style. The script-quote and trans-quote parameters of Cite book generate "Japanese" [English] which I think would be a reasonable format for this as well. RoseCherry64 (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

What I've done in the past is to use {{efn}} to show the original text with a note explaining this, which makes it clear that any quotation is a translation. See for example the Dutch end notes in Laborintus II (album). That way you don't need to include anything with the short footnote citation, and anyone looking through the ref list can skip the end notes if desired. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Where you do want to quote within the body of the article, it seems an excellent idea to put your translation there and to follow the example of Laborintus II (album) in adding a footnote with the original Japanese. If OTOH you want to summarize within the body of the article, and to provide not only the full bibliographical details of what you're summarizing but also (within a reference or footnote of some kind) the original text, your translation of the original text, or both -- I don't think it's necessary (even if the source is hard for many people to access). Still, it could be worthwhile where the original text strains credulity or is remarkable in some other way. And if you've taken the trouble to ready the quotations, don't delete them from your hard drive or wherever: people may and very likely will disagree with me, hoping or even expecting to see these quotations. -- Hoary (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not new, and this isn't about editing Wikipedia, but...

Would I be oversighted if I posted my age on Wikipedia? I don't know many other places to post this. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 12:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Revealing your age is certainly not prohibited but you should read WP:On_privacy,_confidentiality_and_discretion#Harassment_related_to_personal_information first and think carefully why you would wish to do so here or anywhere else. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I should also note that we generally redact/oversight the ages of editors who are minors. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 13:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Assuming that means I shouldn't have userboxes with info like that? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 14:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Precisely. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 08:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Critical Theory article

CriticalTheory

The article Critical Theory is terribly weak yet appears at the top of (my own, at least) Google searches on the subject and is thereby a very bad reference. I am not sure it is editable in its current form. It's weakness seems to stem from the fact that it addresses two things with a very similar name - I am not sure if this is a disambiguation problem as I am not an experienced editor. Some people have made good points on the article Talk page. Essentially, Critical Theory (capitalised) is a very specific thing; it refers to scholars and ideas associated with The Frankfurt School. Using the term uncapitalised opens scope for almost anything to be described as a critical theory. The article tries to cover both but comes completely unstuck as they are two different things (if the latter is really a single thing at all). One solution might be to merge Critical Theory (caps) with the Frankfurt School article but again I am not sure if this is in order according to Wikipedia rules. Emmentalist (talk) 08:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

The lead of Critical theory does make it clear that it's about two different subjects. There's a similar mess at an article much closer to my interests, Game theory. This term originally designated the work started by Von Neumann and Morgenstern, but has become a meaningless buzz-phrase applied to any analysis of any interaction between intelligent agents. Maproom (talk) 09:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this, @Maproom I see what you mean about the Game Theory article. It seems to be a wider problem, where a specific idea gets expanded in the term's usage then the new and much less clear usage becomes commonly employed across the media. I don't know if there's room to separate the specific usage from the other sometimes? Perhaps, as I mentioned with The Frankfurt School, Critical Theory could be merged with that? I'll leave it for now and see if anyone comes into the Talk page too. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello

Are genealogy websites like Geni.com reliable or not. Can I use them as reference or not? NewManila2000 (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@NewManila2000: they are generally not considered reliable as they are based off user generated content and lacks proper editorial oversight to be considered reliable. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 05:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@NewManila2000: Agreed - see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources and scroll down to Geni.com. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. NewManila2000 (talk) 11:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Copyright

File:Sdcapture.png- I have uploaded this file. Please check whether it breaches copyright issues, if it does, please delete it, if not, then also please inform me.Michri michri (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Michri michri: You should have asked the question of copyright before uploading the image. How did you obtain this? It kindof looks likke a screenshot of an undefined (and probbably copyrighted) source for me. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Michri michri, you stated on Commons that this is "own work", meaning you took it yourself with your own camera. Did you? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Nominated for speedy deletion and already deleted by Herbythyme. Uncropped versions of this appear in multiple places elsewhere on the web, e.g. here in an article from 23 October 2020. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Twyford Motor Car Company

I want to add a photograph, showing William McCracken driving the Twyford replica into the Jefferson County History Museum. Ken Burkett, the director of the museum, told me he is willing to give me permission to add the photograph. What does Ken Burkett need to do to let you know he has given me permission? KristonScott (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

KristonScott Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The best thing to do would be for Ken Burkett to upload the image himself, as the director of the museum that owns the image(and assuming his role gives him authorization to grant permission) following the instructions at WP:UPIMAGE. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Finished Athens Proastiakos stations

More a request than a question, but an answer would be most welcome? I have Finished creating (and recreating) all the stations that Athens Proastiakos calls at, and upgraded the existing ones... many had been deleted some years past as they both failed the minimal standards of Wikipedia and were created using sockpuppets, so my 'recreating' statement only stems from the use of the article name, not its content... nonetheless, the stations that also have metro services I have left, as I'm not sure how to approach, some advice, help or someone to take on this challenge would be welcome? thank you The Emperor of Byzantium (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Not completely clear wht your question/request is. Clearly, you have been creating articles on several railroad stations, for example Magoula railway station, all part of Proastiakos Athens, the suburban system for Athens. Are you asking for help on more station articles? Teahouse hosts answer queries on how-to, but are not here to be co-authors. Lastly, you tag almost all of your edits as minor. Minor is reserved for very small changes, such as spelling errors. David notMD (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Academic Reviewer Needed

Hi there,

I was told the draft for Dr Sean Bush was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sean_Bush meets the Wikipedia Notability for Academia by Wiki Admin Jim (Cullen328), however, he asked it to be reviewed by a topic expert and someone in the science and academia group or ask for help through the TeaHouse. I've reached out to several folks but have not heard back. Can someone point me to an editor that could help in this area?

Much appreciated, Nicole Beansalad3 (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Beansalad3. You can try asking about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia since that's where you're likely to find editors with experience in assessing Wikipedia articles about academics. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Beansalad3: Welcome to the Teahouse! I made some minor tweaks, and tagged those statements/sections that need citations. Do you hold the copyright for the photos you uploaded for this draft? Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Hi there, the article was accepted for creation by @JSFarman. I do not own the copyright to those photos but followed the Wiki guidelines for use. I am not sure why those sections you tagged state needing citations. Can you please clarify what needs to be cited?

Thanks, Nicole Beansalad3 (talk) 05:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Beansalad3: Hi Nicole! For verifiability purposes, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources reliable source. Simply provide the place where you read the information you used for the article, and I can help you with the formatting if you like.

File:Dr Sean Bush examines a California kingsnake.jpg says the source is https://medicine.llu.edu/sites/medicine.llu.edu/files/docs/2008_ponder_llu-news_close__and__personal_with_snakes.pdf but the picture there is different than what you uploaded. Maybe they were taken on the same day, since it seems to be the same snake and same shirt. How did you obtain this photo?

File:Dr Sean Bush examines a snakebite victim.jpg says the source is an episode of the Venom ER TV series that was uploaded on YouTube. Which Wiki guidelines did you follow to upload a screen grab from a copyrighted TV show to Commons?

Also, if you are related to Dr. Bush professionally or personally, or have any other conflict of interest (COI), you must disclose it on your user page. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Hi again,

I do not know Dr. Bush personally or professionally. I have an interest in envenomation and have been a big fan of his since Venom ER. I found the pictures online through fan sites, Twitter accounts, articles or from his own accounts that he has open to the public. I then went back to the source of the image as it was listed to use on his Wiki page. The Venom ER image is the image he uses for his Twitter profile but it can also be found in the series. Nicole Beansalad3 (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Beansalad3: I am afraid that I have to tell you that we can't have either image then. The mayority of content you find anywhere, be it images, videos, computer games or other online or offline media, is copyrighted by someone. Copyright is automatic in most countries, there doesn't even need to be a ©-Symbol in most cases. Only whoever holds the copyright to the images can release them under a siutable license for uploading here. I have in addition posted some information about copyright on Wikipedia on your user talkpage, please read it carefully as we unfortunally need to suspend your editing privilege otherwise for both your and Wikipedia's protection. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Bot activation

Greetings to all. Happy New Year and all the best wishes, I wish to know how can I activate BOT control if I wish to add some bibliography or book to an article in case it has some broken links or something like to fix it. Theonewithreason (talk) 31.December 2021 (UTC)

@Theonewithreason: Most Bots on Wikipedia run automatic in the background without the need of activation. In case you mean Citation bot, see this toolforge page. Makre sure you read the guide so you know what to do when problems arise. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 31.December 2021 (UTC)

In the Luverne, MN article, one of the notable people is John Meints. The information says that he was tarred and feathered, but in reality that was only a claim he made. The claim was never proven.

216.16.86.127 (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

If you can find a good published source stating there is no proof that Meints was ever tarred and feathered you can edit the article, and add a reference to the end of your new sentences. Thank you for wanting to help improve Wikipedia. Karenthewriter (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

There is pretty compelling evidence of the tarring and feathering from the National Archives and Records Administration, available here. Cullen328 (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Replying on Teahouse

How do I accurately reply to a message from another user answering my very question on this page in the edit source, I see it says add four tilades in follow-up comments but I don't know exactly what that means, sorry I'm still new to editing Wikipedia and any help will be deeply appreciated. Hgh1985 (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

hi Hgh1985! this means you add four tildes (these: ~) to follow up a comment. you can do that by pressing the appropriate button on your keyboard, or just pressing the "Sign your posts on talk pages: ~~~~" button in the bottom. happy editing! melecie t - 03:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Melecie: Thank you, I figured it out, I guess.Hgh1985 (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hgh1985, it is indeed very simple, just remember to add this ~~~~ at the end of any entry you make. Celestina007 (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hgh1985: You may potentially be interested in the Discussion Tools beta feature, which can auto-sign your comments. You can enable it by checking Preferences → Beta features →

Discussion Tools. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Article protection status and content accuracy

Do articles that have a semi protected or higher editing protection lock tend to have more accurate information since they are as a result less likely to be vandalize edited? Hgh1985 (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hgh1985: I don’t know if you can make that generalization. I think the articles are of equal quality, it’s just that more effort is required to maintain the less protected ones. There are very highly edited articles that are not protected at all, so those would presumably be of high-quality as well. Taking it to an extreme as a thought exercise, if the presumption was that only protected articles are of high-quality, eventually everything would be protected and the democratic nature of the encyclopedia would be gone forever. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

You could view it the other way round: that straightforward articles where sources agree, and truth isn't clouded by emotional arguments and strong points of view, tend not to need protection, and to be quite accurate. Articles get locked because they are being messed up a lot with information that a majority of editors think completely wrong. The minority-view editors would no doubt argue that the locked articles are less reliable and accurate, because they've been locked, specifically to exclude those minority views. In most cases, the minority view will turn out to be wrong, but we don't now that now, and it might not always be so. There isn't an International Standard of Truth locked away in a vault in Paris by which we can test the accuracy of articles anyway. We merely try to reflect sources, and since controversial subjects will naturally have wide divergence of sources, it's very hard to know whether the articles on controversial subjects are "accurate" - they're trying to describe something that's by definition fuzzy. In theory, protecting an article means that it will change only in response to consensus. But simultaneously it reduces the number of people who actually make the final decision, so "consensus" actually gets smaller, not bigger. So overall I'd say that if an article is protected, I'd view the entire topic with some suspicion. Elemimele (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Good points. So bottom line, always consider the quality of the sources, locked or otherwise. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

A request for help with formatting

Please help! :) I corrected a couple BLP, NPOV and factual errors on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mew I explain all my edits, often creating sections on the talk page. In most cases, previous editors had misinterpreted passages from a good reliable secondary source which only discussed some keu details vaguely, and I have supplemental with secondary sources which contain more detail and the definitive primary source for the matter in question. Or course, anyone is welcome to review my work but that is not what I came here for:

The problem is that my device and browser configuration doesn't really work for editing, and in one or two places you will

see the text on the main page going like th

is, and I have been unable to fix it using my device and browser configuration. It should only take moments for a helpful volunteer to fix? Thanks! VorsprungDurchReden (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Done the removal of mid-sentence blank lines. Maproom (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

How to create a ‘stub’-type article so that the community can develop a topic over time?

How can a new article be created organically, if one person doesn’t have the time / resources / knowledge to do so?

Example: There was a gap in information on Wikipedia regarding this topic, so I added whatever information and references I could find over the course of several hours in the hopes that, over time, others would add/improve it a bit at a time and add additional information/references as is done with more established articles.

The ‘Draft’ namespace doesn’t seem ideal for collaboration amongst temporally-separated contributors, for example, since it threatens auto-deletion after 3/6 months and isn’t linked automatically from the main Wikipedia ‘this article doesn’t exist’ page.

[If ‘Draft’ articles had an indefinite lifespan, this wouldn’t be such an issue, but why would a casual contributor wish to spend any significant amount of their limited time on content that may be deleted without being seen by anyone in the future.

Imagine if the ‘this article doesn’t exist’ page contained a list of ‘draft articles previously submitted for this topic’ - if the information existed somewhere, then future searchers (maybe many years later), could easily survey that ‘graveyard’ and perhaps create something useful from parts plucked from various submissions.]

If several experts have a small bit of time over the course of several years to add to a topic, but no one person has the time / knowledge to create a fully-formed article ‘out of the gate’, is that a barrier to enter that will prevent well-meaning folks from sharing their knowledge and energy?

(It can take _hours_ of time just to learn the proper way to license an image or properly redirect a page, for example. That kind of learning curve may be fine for experienced editors, but is off-putting for well-meaning people who might be willing to share tiny bits of their labor over time for the public good.) Jim Grisham (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Jim Grisham Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Drafts in draft space are not deleted as long as editors are editing them; they are only deleted after six months of inactivity. You can collaborate with other editors if you tell them about what you are doing(either on or off wiki) and tell them the title of the draft so they can find it. There are also "WikiProjects" where editors interested in specific topic areas gather together(such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography) where you can potentially gain assistance.

You do not need to submit a fully formed, complete article as a draft for it to be accepted. But drafts do need to summarize at least three independent reliable sources with significant coverage to be accepted. 331dot (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

331dot Thanks for your response. That is exactly one of my concerns, though:

.

“Drafts in draft space are not deleted as long as editors are editing them; they are only deleted after six months of inactivity.”

.

I am not a subject matter expert on the specific topic linked above - I spent as much time (probably much more that appropriate, actually) on compiling the information I did and do not suspect (especially during year three of a pandemic) having occasion to add more. What if the next person willing to add information doesn’t come along for another 8 months, or 4 years? (Many existing articles don’t receive frequent edits.)

.

If 20 people all have 30 minutes of their time to offer on improving a topic, spread over 20 years instead of over 20 days, then do we risk losing all of that deep knowledge, just because the topic, while potentially notable, isn’t ‘buzz-worthy’ or sponsored by someone who has a vested interest (e.g. a hobbyist, company, or media consultant) in having the topic documented?

(Imagine someone possessing reference links but not having time or confidence to write prose, or someone with a good summary but without the research skills to find good references.)

.

(If I had added the content in the linked draft as an anonymous user, I probably never would have discovered it had been demoted to ‘draft’ status or deleted.)

.

P.S. I’ll look into the ‘WikiProject’ thing next time - thanks! (Perhaps in the future abandoned drafts could be redirected there, or someplace similar, instead of simply being deleted.)

.

Jim Grisham (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Jim Grisham That's the nature of Wikipedia. We are all volunteers, and people do what they wish to, for their own reasons, when they have time to do it. All you need to do to keep a draft active is edit it, even if it is just adding or taking away a space. As I said, if you create and submit a draft, it does not need to be fully formed and complete, it need only meet the very basic criteria(summarizing at least three sources). If it is accepted and placed in the encyclopedia, it will be there for others to find and work on at their leisure. If you directly create an article, it also need not be complete, but it must have enough to survive a hypothetical Articles for Deletion discussion- which is also usually the article needing to summarize at least three sources(or possibly even the mere prospect of doing so in some cases). That's just the way it is. I wish I had a better answer for you, because I get that it is unsatisfying. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: Thank you again for your time and comments!

.

(It appears some of the concerns I raised are not unique, and I just discovered there are efforts underway to address similar issues at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts.)

.

Jim Grisham (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jim Grisham: Happy new year and welcome to Wikipedia! In addition to WikiProjects like the Abandoned Drafts one, which are dedicated to "behind the scenes" tasks, there are many, many, topical projects which you can find via the WikiProject Directory. These are where you will find subject matter experts and amateur enthusiasts who may be willing to collaborate on new articles.

Another point: you nearly got the code right to ping 331dot, but not quite. You can use something like {{ping|username}} to reply to a user or {{u|username}} just to mention their username; either method will send them a notification if they have these enabled. Help:Template explains wikitext templates in general. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 23:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Request removal of wikipedia article with my name and bio

I want to have a wikipedia article that uses my name and has my personal BIO removed from the wiki website. I gave no one permission to post my name or my personal information to Wikipedia. How do I get the whole article removed so searching my name does not allow for it to show up on Wikipedia? LGRYTHM (talk) 08:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@LGRYTHM Welcome to the Teahouse, and a happy New Year. Wikipedia simply collates information that is already published and available in Reliable Sources. If it is deemed that those sources are sufficient to meet our Notability Criteria, then we would accept an article about that person, and would neither need nor seek their permission to do so. If someone felt that the topic or person was not, in fact, notable, then they could put that article forward for a Deletion Discussion. The process for that is explained at WP:AFD.

If however you find that someone is putting ‘’unsubstantiated’’ statements into an article about you, then you may immediately remove them. That right does not extend to you simply removing sourced and true information that you happen not to want to see there.

I’m sorry if this isn’t quite what you were hoping to hear, but if you cared to tell us which article concerns you, we could certainly take a look at it for you and check it’s not being vandalised or being edited maliciously, or with UNDUE bias towards certain aspects about you, or ccontains personal information that is not reliably sourced or off-topic. For example, should we find someone had posted your home address or private email there, we could permanently remove it so it was no longer visible to anyone, and could even protect the page in various ways, including requiring every edit to be 'approved' as not being malicious before being made visible to the wider world. I hope this goes some way to addressing your concerns.

As an administrator here, you would be welcome to email me privately (email link on left of page in desktop view when you visit my Userpage via my signature) should you not wish to publicly raise your concerns at this stage. I would still follow policy, but could explain things to you in a less public manner, and would of course respect your privacy regarding that discussion.

Nick Moyes (talk) 09:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Please also see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help and Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

My drafts are declined

FYI

– heading added bonadea contributions talk 11:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Sir, please describe me, why decline my every post. Devendradk (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome, Devendradk. Your getting declined because of issues of notability. Wikipedia has very strict definitions of notability, about which you can read at WP:N. You were quite correct in your draft at Draft:Maneesh Pant to include newspaper articles to back up what you said about the gentleman; but unfortunately merely being written-about isn't always enough. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and not a newspaper, the subject of an article has to be more than a one-off news story. There has to be evidence of sustained notability. If people continue to write about Maneesh Pant, and he continues to do things that get him noticed by the public and the press, an article will become possible. Rusalkii put it very well: "Admirable man, but this is a brief human-interest story that doesn't pass WP:NOTNEWS". Please don't be put off. Elemimele (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Reference external link

In the 7th reference in the article Encanto (film) it says there is a external link in the title, but I do not see where it is. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 14:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18:

Done, see Special:Diff/1063147871/1063151064. For some odd reason, the ref numbers in visual editor and outside of editing mode are not the same. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

thanks. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 15:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

"This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference." Appearing without source

Greetings everyone, I that someone has added the "This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference." template to my userpage. I can't find it in the source of the page, and I can't find the possible edit that leads to the template's addition. Help is appreciated. _Signed,Pichemist ^(Talk) 13:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pichemist: That was a result of recent edits to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Badge/Host made by FormalDude → diff. I have reverted the change and I added here a ping to the author so that they can explain why the change was made. --CiaPan (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pichemist and FormalDude: May be the change should have been done, but it needed some <noinclude> tags...? --CiaPan (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

To be fair to everyone: That particular badge belongs to a parent page about Teahouse Badges which is no longer used, and which I marked as historical some time ago. Perhaps the only one even remotely relevant today is the 'Host' badge. I strongly recommend removing that so-called 'badge' and replacing it with {{Teahouse topicon}} instead.

There is still some minor work to do to clean up what information new hosts see when they sign up, so @Pichemist can be excused for deploying that redundant badge, and @FormalDude can be excused for marking that particular page as historic.@CiaPan I think you're right that it either needs a subst or, more preferably, a noinclude command on that badgge's page, and any others that FD similarly marked as historic for us. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks _Signed,Pichemist ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thank you for the detailed explanation. I am not going to 'fix' things, though, because I neither use badges nor know their history. I just tried to find out and explain the reason of a strange effect, and pinged involved parties. Now I let them to find an appropriate solution to satisfy everyone. :) --CiaPan (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@CiaPan No worries. I've just gone through and marked the remainder of the 'badges' as historic within the 'noinclude' tag. That's not to say we shouldn't use some of them to acknowledge or welcome questioners - but I think they'd need a bit more clearing out of some of the redundant lines first to avoid confusion. I reckon such trivial matters can be discussed over at WT:TH, as necessary. Thanks for your help here. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Chembox validation

Hello! I've been editing the Borax wikipedia page and I am not sure how to get CheMoBot to verify the chembox? Or what frequency if it waits for a period before validating? Thank you! Persona.californica (talk) 02:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Persona.californica: Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest you post your question on the bot owner's talk page: User talk:Beetstra. Good luck, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Persona.californica: If you check the bot's last edit date, you'll see it has not run since 2018. Very many Chemboxes created since then have never had bot validation and many chemistry editors just check things when they happen to visit an article. Thanks for your contributions to borax. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: Where would I find the 'bot's last edit date'? Trying to learn how to navigate this better as editor. Thank you! Persona.californica (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Persona.californica: You can follow the link to any user page, for example the one for the bot you linked above, and then you'll see on the left there is a menu item "User contributions" under "Tools" which takes you to the contributions for that user: bots are in this respect just like other users. I have implemented the navigation popup tool on the gadgets page of my preferences (see Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets) and this tool allows me just to hover over a Username to see quite a lot of information quickly, so I found the date without actually going to the bot's contribution page. Similarly, I can tell immediately by use of that tool in this thread that you have made 23 edits so far after you created your account on 27 December. Keep going! Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Request for proposals from Admins!

Happy New Year, everyone at WP and WMF!! I want to propose to WP Admins to create a redirect template for sponsored names, especially for sports competitions with sponsored names like the EFL Cup, which was previously the Carling Cup, the Carabao Cup and La Liga, sometimes known as La Liga Santander. I want to argue that to me the "alternative name" rcat template is not heping in that regard - which might skyrocket abusive editing and vandalism. And the other one: I want to create portals for the topics which interested me to start my WP life like how the Disney portal got created and has grown beyond grown! I've read the WP Portals but I need more. I asked this on my talk page but a contributor refered me here!! Polygork (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Polygork: Happy New Year, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your first request certainly doesn't need an Admin: you can create redirects yourself. If you go to Carabao Cup you will see that it already redirects to EFL Cup. If you want to see how it does it, you can pick where it says "(Redirected from Carabao Cup)" and that will take you to the actual redirect page. "Edit source" will show you what it looks like, and you can copy it for other redirections that you think are required. redirects has more information.

League Cup is a bit different, because that article already exists, but in my opinion it is misnamed and should be something like List of Association football league cups. If you want to do something about this, I suggest starting a discussion on its talk page.

I'm afraid I don't know anything about setting up portals, but I doubt that that requires an admin either. WP:WPPORT seems to be the place to go. --ColinFine (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

We’re finally here…

Hoo boy…

2021… was a year…

With less than 4 hours left until the new year of 2022, how have you contributed to Wikipedia this past year? For all I know, I joined here and made over 1,000 edits.

Also, if this question is not appropriate here, feel free to revert my edits. Thank you. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 20:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: Looks like this wasn’t reverted, but, I just wanted to say, 2022 is here! Thank you for your contributions, all of you! …aaand you can revert this if you want to. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 00:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

And the edit landed spot on 2022, according to the date signature. Nice! 172.112.210.32 (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Trurays.com

Trurays is shortly become an leading company in organic products and will make an new revolution in the field of Organic products. All the products listed in trurays.com are handpicked and assured quality on each step before packing and delivering. The owner Sukh Sandhu , Navjot singh and Mandeep singh are three hardworking and ambitious person to grow their company within days.They doesn't have any political or buisness background but their way to deliver organic and pure spices and veges to public is simply hats off. Sukhsandhus (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to promote your noble cause. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Sukhsandhus, I see that this company's web site was launched today. Maybe, some day, enough will have been written about it in independent publications that it qualifies as notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Maproom (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, delete what you have on your User page about the company. See Wikipedia:User pages for what does and does not belong on a User page. David notMD (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

If, in time, you believe the company meets Wikipedia's concept of notability, use WP:YFA to create and submit a draft for review. David notMD (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Question about rejected draft

A female musician on my favorite record label (Stones Throw Records) does not have her own Wikipedia page. Many of her male counterparts have a Wikipedia page with much fewer references. I included over 24 sources, most of which are direct interviews with the artist, or articles about the artist herself - NOT passing mentions. Very quickly I recieved the following response:

The article was rejected for the following reasons: This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Can anybody help me out? Thanks in advance! Misskinski (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Misskinski Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has articles, not mere pages. I can say that interviews do not establish notability, because those are primary sources. For a musician to merit an article, there must be signficant coverage of them in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to do so(not based on any materials put out by the subject like interviews, press releases, etc.), showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. You will need to leave out any information sourced only to interviews.

Please see other stuff exists. It could be that these articles about fellow band members are also inappropriate(I haven't examined them). Not every musician merits an article, or even every member of a group, it depends on the sources. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the misuse of pages vs. articles, English isn't my first language and I was using Wikipedia in German originally. There are not only interviews, but articles as well. Press releases were not included in my edits. Interviews, however, are generally not something an artist would put out themselves (ie. if Rolling Stone writes about her as an artist, and includes two questions she has answered, surely this cannot count as something the person published themselves, just because they are mentioned in it?) Misskinski (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Misskinski Interviews are the person speaking about themselves- that does not establish notability. Wikipedia wants to know what others say about her, not what she says about herself. Primary sources are acceptable for some things(see WP:PRIMARY) but not to establish notability. It is possible for a source such as a Rolling Stone article to include both primary and secondary sources; you must use only the secondary source information. 331dot (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not strictly correct to say that Misskinski can only use the parts of the source that are secondary, 331dot; see WP:PRIMARY for an explanation of where and how primary sources can be used. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

In general, I found Draft:Sofie Fatouretchi over-referenced, with a lot of the references confirming her music production, but not necessarily about her at length. Too many weak refs make it difficult for a reviewer to see the key three or four or five that establish notability. David notMD (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Misskinski: in line with this, highlight the three best reliable, secondary, sources (see WP:THREE) for the reviewer. It's easier for all then a more general "the sources are good" argument - 3 good ones is better than 10 questionable/marginal ones. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Misskinski (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC) Thank you so much for the valuable feedback, I mistakenly thought "the more the better", but I will make amends on this, and focus on leaving the most notable references heavy on secondary sources (and leave out more of the interview ones from less notable sites).

Far Right definition and classification is revisionist nonsense and intellectual nonsense.

The Right or Far Right is rooted in the belief that individual has rights granted by their creator and not by a government, which is just meant to protect those rights. The further right you go along the left right spectrum, you get to anarchy or a stateless society. The further left you go, you get to communism, fascism, socialism, where all power is vested in the state and none in the individual. This is why it's laughable to label Fascism as far right considering it is a left wing authoritarian philosophy invented by devout socialists and had little or no meaningful differences to any of the socialist regimes that sprung up at the same time. All were collectivist authoritarian regimes where power was vested in the state and not the individual.

Neo Nazism is also not far right. The Nazis were socialists, as their name details, so how could a Neo Nazi be on the right side of the political spectrum? And how is racism, nativism, or xenophobia a far right belief when you can find it all over the world, even in places like North Korea or Vietnam, which cannot be called Right Wing. These are ideas held by humans of all stripes, so it appears this definition is really just a political smear by left wing editors and not an attempt to share knowledge. StevenBorris (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

StevenBorris Hello. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state; it is not for merely sharing knowledge. If the sources on the fascism article are not being summarized accurately, or there are sources missing, please describe the problems on Talk:Fascism. If the sources are accurately summarized, but you disagree with what they say, you will have to take that up with the sources. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

OP blocked as NOTHERE. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

For the record, threads like this should just be reverted off, not responded to. They're not seeking help, they're seeking a reaction. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 19:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

short desc

Are there circumstances in which a short description is considered unnecessary on WP? Thank you, 184.19.98.82 (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia:Short description states "All mainspace articles should have a short description" and explains that a description of "none" should be used if an article title is sufficiently detailed that an additional short description would not be helpful. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

How to cite search results without url change

If a website has a database search but the results don't have any change to the url, is there a way to cite it?

Example: http://archives.metoperafamily.org/archives/frame.htm Flurrious (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

You don't. Search results are never acceptable sources (too sparse). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 19:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Flurrious: Presuming that the database is a reliable source, I would use {{cite web}} to cite the database, and add a note at the end of the reference to explain to the reader how to get to the search results. For an example, see Georges Bizet reference #131. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Need help editing a new article

My first effort at a new article has been declined [Edit: not rejected]. [[3]] I did my best to make it as objective as possible and provided links to reliable sources (for all but one point). However, I was told it had “peacock terms.” Well, I’m describing a new type of psychiatric emergency room that has been proven to be better than the old type, and have links to reliable sources (published scientific papers and media accounts) to prove it. Would someone take a look, tell me where the problem is, and how to fix it? I’m convinced this topic is notable enough for inclusion. Thanks. PapayaSF (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:EmPATH units, which was Declined rather than Rejected, which is more severe. I did a bit of clean-up, but this needs more eyes. David notMD (talk) 09:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I did not even know that was a distinction. I hope others can help, because I really believe this topic is important. PapayaSF (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback on article draft

Hi! I've been trying to get one of my country's entrepreneur's page published, but it has been thrice rejected for not having references that show "significant coverage". So far, I've added 22 citations which range from podcasts to interviews and news posts, but apparently, that's still not enough. Kindly guide me through this process, as I want this page published in the near future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Muhammad_Nowkhaiz is the draft link. (Entrepreneur's name is Muhammad Nowkhaiz)

Regards. Toofllab (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Toofllab, and welcome to the Teahouse. I haven't looked at your draft, but judging from what you have said here, it sounds as if you are making a common mistake in understanding sourcing in Wikipedia. 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. So interviews with the subject do not count towards notability. Podcasts by or featuring the subject do not count towards notability (podcasts about the subject by people wholly unconnected with the subject might, if they are published by a reliable publisher). I'm not sure what you mean by "news posts" - posts on social media do not count. Articles in newspapers may do, provided they are reliably published, wholly independent of the source (which excludes any article based on press release) and contain significant coverage of the subject.

Putting in more citation doesn't help unless they are high quality (as explained above): in fact, it is often counterproductive, as your draft becomes more difficult to review. Concentrate on the reliable, independent sources.

Your reference to "X's page" and your concern to get the article published quickly suggest that, like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding about Wikipedia. When the article is published it will not be "Nowkhaiz's page" but "Wikipedia's article about Nowkhaiz". It will not belong to him, be under his control, or (mostly) say what he would like it to say. It will not be there to tell the world about him, but to summarise what others have published about him. And in Wikipedia, there is no deadline. --ColinFine (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Toofllab I looked at the comments made by the reviewers and read this: This draft has been reference-bombed. I went to the "blue link" given and read this:

“A common form of citation overkill is loading up an article with sources without regard as to whether they support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic.” Putting in 50 bad references will not help a draft that has serious issues.

I also read this comment from a reviewer: "The reviewer has not checked all of the references and should not be required and is not required to check all of the references. If the author wishes to have some of the references evaluated in review of this draft, please specify, in AFC comments, which of the references are key. Please specify not less than three nor more than five. This draft will not be reviewed further until the author identifies the key references."

Have you carefully read all of the comments left by the reviewers, including clicking on all the "blue links" and reading the help pages explaining the problems your draft article may have? A reviewer has stated that your "repeated resubmissions, without discussions, has been disruptive" and that's not good. I suggest that you read all of the links given you in the reviewer comments, and then return to the Teahouse if you have specific questions about the help that you have been given. You need to understand what Wikipedia considers a good reference, and if your 22 citations do not meet Wikipedia's standards they can't be used.

Do not try to resubmit until you understand the problems pointed out to you, and have corrected those problems. You are writing for an encyclopedia, and not for social media or a company website, and you need to follow encyclopedia guidelines. Writing for Wikipedia is hard work, so it may take a long time before you can get your article ready for the next resubmission. Don't rush before all the problems have been resolved, or your article may be rejected, and you won't be able to resubmit after that. Karenthewriter (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both for the constructive feedback! I must admit I'm relatively inexperienced when it comes to writing new articles, but I'm sure I'll use this experience to learn and improve my shortcomings. I'll also try to craft the article in a way that is in line with the guidelines. Cheers!Toofllab (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Medal of Honor Citations

I need some help. I want to know if Medal of Honor citations are public domain. For example I created the page Edward J. Houghton and the citation provided on the page List of American Civil War Medal of Honor recipients: G–L is incomplete. Would I be allowed to use the citations from [[4]] or [[5]]? I have seen many shortened citations but also many complete citations. Thanks in advance. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Gandalf the Groovy. I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Those sites both claim copyright, so you can't copy material from them; but you can cite them (I haven't looked to see if they appear to be reliable or not: I guess CMOHS may be, but it depends what kind of society it is). --ColinFine (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Gandalf the Groovy, I have a different interpretation. The wording of the medal citation is issued by the U.S. federal government, and all published works of that government are in the public domain. Other content on those websites may be copyrighted but certainly not the wording of those citations. Cullen328 (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Interwiki canvassing

I have been being messaged by an IP (who I believe is 107.127.53.63). The user from this IP has been canvassing me to make edits on the horror film article on the English wikipedia through various wikis including the Simple English one:[6] (where they are banned over several accounts an IPs) example 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Outside me, they have harassed almost anyone they find editing the articles (example here), and asking bots to make changes on other talk pages here. Since then, they have messaged me through other wikis where I can't even report them as I'm not a registered users on those wikis here. I've tried posting about them on the other wiki's they have messaged me on like the Simple English one, and they have been banned there on several accounts, but I can't report them in the Spanish wiki as I'm not a registered user there (I also have little not knowledge of the language!) I've tried suggesting a global ban as well, but that page appears to be locked down. is there anything I can do? I've tried ignoring them but as they spam so much I get about 20 emails a day sometimes from them. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

These are sockpuppets of Jinnifer (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jinnifer/Archive and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jinnifer). They're the reason that the horror film article and talk page are semi protected, and will usually harass anyone who edits that article. Just report them at WP:AIV (simple's equivalent is here) and link one or both of the pages I've linked here and an admin should take care of it. Don't respond or try to reason with them, they just encourages more harrassment. - MrOllie (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

My main issue @MrOllie: is that they harass me over other wikis where I'm not a registered user to make violation notices about them there. I.e: the es.wikipedia, etc.Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Jinnifer changes IP addresses frequently, I don't believe there's is any way to prevent this behavior aside from employing WP:RBI until they find something better to do. MrOllie (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie, wouldn’t an ip range block work? Celestina007 (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

There have been several smallish range blocks, but my understanding is we'd have to block most AT&T customers to really keep them out. MrOllie (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, a space where we predominantly teach editors on how to edit better, @MrOllie is correct when they advise you to report this to WP:AIV, although system operators here may chose to take action, WP:AIV is the more appropriate venue suited to negate actions such as you have described above. Celestina007 (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I've check out RBI which is currently also not allowing me to suggest anything. All apologies If i'm talking in the teahouse about discussion which should/could probably be handled elsewhere. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: See also simple:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:UserKravKsydYdu and simple:Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Niehddydudyd_and_UserKravKsydYdu. GoingBatty (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The fifth window

Where can I find it? 162.72.76.180 (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you referring to the book set around Vancouver by Russell Thornton, the comic by Amara Leipzig (who is a red link in the article List of female comics creators), the online app intended to help "wellness" amongst medical staff, the brand promotion company, or something else? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.120.67 (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The first three windows were the Round, the Square, and the Arched. The fourth was the Triangle. I am not aware of there ever being a fifth. DuncanHill (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it was in the fourth wall. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.120.67 (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I’m doubtful that a Kansas-based IP user would be asking about a UK TV kids program, but the courtesy link to it is Play School (British TV series). Nick Moyes (talk) 10:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Editing based on personal knowledge

The wikipedia page for a family member of mine (Bill Swartley) contains information I know with absolute certainty to be inaccurate, and I would like to correct it, but I don't have any sources to cite. I know that on wikipedia you're generally only supposed to change information if you have a reputable source to cite, but in this case it's very basic information, and the current (incorrect) information on the page also lacks adequate citations. Is it okay to just put in the information I know is correct? I have corroborated the facts in person with multiple family members, and would only like to correct basic information like country of birth (Bill was American, not Canadian). Would that comply with the rules for editing wikipedia? Noah31415 (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is the page in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Swartley

Noah31415, if you feel for any reason that unreferenced information is suspect, it is okay to remove it. The burden is on editors who wish to add or retain information to provide reputable published sources that confirm it, and unreferenced information is subject to challenge and removal at any time. That said, it is not better to just put in more unreferenced information, and personal knowledge is not a source. If it isn't available in a reliable published source, the article shouldn't contain anything about it at all. So feel free to remove it, but unless you have sources of your own that state something else, just leave it gone; don't replace it with something for which your only source is personal knowledge. While you may well be right, there is no way for anyone else to verify that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Noah31415. This New York Times article is not dispositive, but it indicates that he died in Canada and had professional interests there. Can you provide a link to a published reliable source that says he was born somewhere other than Canada? Cullen328 (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

How to add a credit on a movie’s Wikipedia page

Hi I’m trying to add content to pages for movies. For example Adam Stockhausen was the Production Designer on The Grand Budapest Hotel though he is not credited where other roles are. When I try to add it I’m given a warning in red saying,

Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox film with unknown parameter "production design"

Any ideas on how to solve an unknown parameter issue?

I think Production Design should be acknowledged equally to Cinematography, Editing and Music which are already recognised. Production Design and the Art Department certainly contributes as much to a film as these categories.

It is important to note that the Art Department, headed by the Production Designer, is responsible for not only the entire design but also the set decoration, props, construction, scenic painting, greens, vehicles and graphics. Essentially everything seen on screen other than cast. Joetiernanart (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Joetiernanart Hello and welcome, see Template:Infobox film for all the parameters you can use. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 02:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Joetiernanart: You can also search Template talk:Infobox film to find previous discussions about including a production designer parameter in the infobox. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Joetiernanart. I am the kind of guy who sits there in the theater after the film is over, watching the credits until the bitter end. I am always surprised at how many people it takes to make a major motion picture. That does not mean that every single person down to the Best boy and the caterer deserves mention in the credits of a Wikipedia article about a film. In most cases, the list should be limited. If a specific production designer received unusual attention and acclaim on a specific film, then that can be included if cited to a reliable, independent source. Otherwise, no. Cullen328 (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Visual edit diffs for old edits?

When you use the visual editor to change an article, you have the option to view the change with a graphical diff. When changing layout especially, this graphical diff is easier to interpret than a source diff. Is there some way to see this kind of display on any random historical edit instead of just one you're about to publish with the visual editor? Sennalen (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Sennalen, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, I find that your question has remained unanswered for a while now and this may be due to the fact that your question is a little bit difficult to comprehend, can you be so kind as to be more precise and concise as to what you are asking? Celestina007 (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sennalen I don't know if this is possible (the graphic diffs tend to crash my browser, so I haven't gone looking). At the risk of making an annoyingly obvious suggestion you've already ruled out, have you tried opening the two edits you want to compare (via IDs, not diffs, though I suppose it doesn't make much difference) in two separate browser windows and arranging them side-by-side to visually compare them yourself? I do this pretty often to compare translations and it works for my purposes, though maybe not yours. -- asilvering (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sennalen: as far as I am aware, the visual editor (in either wikitext or visual comparisonmode) uses the same algorithm used to generate diffs from the page history. This means that you can generate these diffs as far as Wikipedia History goes (here is an example from 16th January 2001). Note: In order to see visual differences outside of the visual editor, you have to enable the beta feature "Visual differences" in your preferences. This will display two togglebuttons on divs just above the user information (and the twinkle revert links, if you have that one installed) Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Protection

How do I protect a wikipedia page. Wikipedia told that on top there is a protect button but I searched and I don't have a protect button anywhere. Ijick (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ijick. Only certain types of editors can protect pages. You can find more about this at WP:PP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Can't See My Article. The Article was Not Live

Hi, I was in the process of creating one article today in draft mode, but suddenly it disappeared. How can I retrieve it? The article was not completed. Jhrsdu (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

My guess is you navigated away from the window or otherwise stopped work on it before hitting "Publish page", as the edit here is the only edit you have. You will need to restart from scratch if that's the case. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 12:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jhrsdu: It's possible that your work was never saved to Wikipedia's servers. The "publish" button is effectively the save button, but is called that because on Wikipedia, everything you write is publicly visible. – Anon423 (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Big Stove

I submitted a page called Draft:Big Stove and it was declined for not having enough sources. I researched a few other articles for resourses that music artists use, and mine are very similar to some current artist pages like; Ray Cash. I am trying to understand what types of reliable articles are needed for music artists, since the ones that I used were denied credibility? Or is it since the artist article was done so long ago, the rules required has changed since then? M.stoverceo (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, M.stoverceo. You should use the WP:REFNAME coding to consolidate repeated references. Please be aware that references that consist of interviews with the subject are of no value in establishing notability. What is required are references to reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject of the article or draft. Several of your references appear to be dubious to me. Which are your three best references? Answering that question is your best chance to establish notability. Also, your username is indicative of a Conflict of interest. I see that you have made a disclosure. Is WP:PAID appropriate as well? Cullen328 (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

"declined for not having enough sources". M.stoverceo, that is a very common misinterpretation of the decline notice on the draft. What you need is not more sources, it's better sources – reliable independent sources with significant discussion of the subject, that help to establish it as notable. Maproom (talk) 08:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, I will search for more to add to this artists notability. He is still fairly new, but upcoming so there should be more in the next couple months.M.stoverceo (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I consolidated the repeated references. Two of the refs are interviews and a third is just a name mention. Try to find more written about him. As to your initial question, there are tens of thousand of articles that do not meet today's ref requirements, or were created without being submitted for review, and missed being called out by the New Pages Patrol. David notMD (talk) 10:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense, thank you for clearing that up. Being new to the editor scene, I'm starting to understand. But in the end this will make my article so much better since I have to meet the required standards early.M.stoverceo (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Changing username

Hi. Is there any way to change my username? Thanks. Carplet (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Carplet Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes there is a way. See WP:CHANGEUSERNAME for an explanation of the process. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

please add detail about water in kirtipur municipality

103.225.244.31 (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. If you know of proper, published information about water supply in the Kirtipur municipality, but don't feel confident of adding well-researched information yourself, feel free to post your information and details of sources at Talk:Kirtipur in the hope that another editor may add it for you. We also have a formal process you may follow which will get your request seen, and this is explained at WP:EDITREQUEST. What we can't just do is respond to a request to "fix this" - we need detailed suggestion for wording and sources from which any factual statement can be verified. They do not have to be in English, however. I hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Contributing a page about an organization

I need some advice about creating a page about a non-profit organization I founded (Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine). I no longer have any financial ties to the organization, and clearly I have a conflict of interest as the group's founder, but if I don't create the page, I'm not sure who can or who would. I did submit a draft page, which was written from a neutral viewpoint, but the page was deleted, citing the COI policies. I see that there are commercial Wikepedia editors for hire - is this the only route?

I believe it would be worthwhile and important for a Wikipedia page on the organization to exist, because diagnosis and diagnostic error are important issues for us all, and this organization is the only one focused on the problem of diagnostic error in healthcare. This is a quote from an authoritative review of diagnostic error by the National Academy of Medicine (US): “It is likely that most of us will experience at least one diagnostic error in our lifetime, sometimes with devastating consequences.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26803862/

Thanks for any suggestions on how to move forward with this.... Mark L Graber MLGraber (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@MLGraber Please read Help:Your first article. The organisation must pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) or there is no point in starting.

I suggest most strongly that you do not use a paid editor. These are often scam artists. If you feel the organisation passes the criteria, gird up your loins, declare your WP:COI on your user page, and go to it with a will Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The user has tried that before and Draft:The Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine was deleted as blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, first LEARN MORE, and then try again, declaring your COI as founder. Model on existing articles about medical organizations. That is not a guarantee, as flawed articles exist, but its a start. It helps that SIDM is more than 10 years old, but you must find refs that are independent from the organization. David notMD (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Science journal article with most co-authors?

Science journal articles almost always have co-authors, and sometimes the list is lengthy. There is a ref option to not display all co-authors, but the full list is often in the ref, just not displayed. Ever wonder what the record is? I just came across "Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)" PMID No. = 26799652. The guideline has more than 2,000 co-authors. David notMD (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Not even close to maximal. One on the Higgs boson went over 5,000 according to Nature. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Cooyright question regarding government publication

I want to copy text from a publication by the Florida Department of State. This is the page:

https://dos.myflorida.com/media/693491/great_floridians_pdf.pdf

This brochure has no copyright statement or anything concerning needing permission to copy or reprint. I'm pretty sure it is not only public domain but was intended to be so.

If so, how can I avoid it getting bot flagged as a violation. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC) deisenbe (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding copyright status, see Copyright status of works by the government of Florida: "Text, communications, and images produced by the government of Florida ... are consequently in the public domain ...." I'm not sure about the "bot flagged" concern; I suppose that would depend on how and how much you copy. Smcpeak74 (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Wait, scratch that. The Florida Department of State website says, "No material from WWW.DOS.STATE.FL.US or any Web site owned, operated, licensed or controlled by THE STATE OF FLORIDA or DOS may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way, except that you may download the materials on any single computer for your personal, non-commercial use only, provided you keep intact all copyright and other proprietary notices." I don't know how to reconcile that with the information I linked previously, so I retract my claim about the copyright status. Smcpeak74 (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Note that this conflict is discussed in the article talk page, although even after reading it, I don't feel qualified to summarize or draw a conclusion from it. Smcpeak74 (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Deisenbe Rather than get flustered about a document that contains no copyright status (always assume the absence of evidence to the contrary means it is copyright) there is a simpler way: Look at the publication and rework it using your own skills and abilities such that what you write does not closely paraphrase the original, but can be seen to your own words. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggest renaming of an article

The following article has a superfluos "of" in its URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_University_of_Bergakademie_Freiberg

It should be "Technical University Bergakademie Freiberg", see also the article content itself which uses the correct name. As I've never renamed articles before and I'm aware that it might have side effects, I thought I better ask here first. Thanks! MancMay (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

"Renaming" an article is "moving" it to the new name; see Help: How to move a page. To avoid "side effects" (such as broken links), create a redirect from the old to the new name; see: WP:Redirect. I hope this helps. —2603:6081:1C00:1187:C52B:71BF:18B5:9C6 (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

You're quite right, the current title is incorrect. In the external link, someone has called it the Freiberg University of Mining and Technology, but I'm not sure that's quite accurate either. It'd be nice to avoid the German word Bergakademie as non-German speakers will not immediately know the meaning. I wonder about the "Technical University of Mining, Freiberg"?? ("Technical university academy of mining, Freiberg" seems a bit over-wordy). Elemimele (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@MancMay @Elemimele I strongly feel that an English article about a German university should call by how it is know by English-speakers. I agree the current article title is invalid, but also that it should not use the German name for it. It's clear that Freiberg University of Mining and Technology is the best title for it, based upon sources like this, this and this. I also note that a redirect to this bad title was created by Störm a year ago. I propose it should be moved back to where it was, using its more useful/commonly known English title. I will copy this reply to the article talk page and await input from other editors to agree a consensus on the best name change. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Nick Moyes, you are quite right, I was lazy and should have chased the sources. That being what it's commonly called, I agree completely. I'll post to the article talk page too. Elemimele (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Is being called an idiot acceptable?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Little_Aston&oldid=1063353128...ahame it's an anon but is this type of behaviour allowed in edit summaries? DragonofBatley (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC) DragonofBatley (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not acceptable. And neither is edit warring. The IP user should have taken their bold addition to the Talk Page after your revert. I will watch the page. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Pyrrho thanks for the reply here I hope I got it right now is the previous edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1063353128 .

The whole reason for removing it is because both a photo of a sewage works is really not a good representation of a village unless it of course was founded on grounds of water 💦 and two the excessive roads part reads like a journal and has no real significance then there's a lot of private roads but yet its relevant how? Many places have private roads like Nelson Lancashire and Batley but nobody writes about them in detail.

Glad you have stepped in though appreciate it DragonofBatley (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the elaboration. Content aside, the user is not applying the correct protocol for their addition. No Talk Page discussion, edit warring, personal attacks, and multiple IPs. If they continue, there are multiple avenues to pursue, including page protection, if necessary. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@DragonofBatley, @Pyrrho the Skeptic is correct, it is unacceptable and falls under what is considered a personal attack and may warrant a visit to WP:AN/I if they continue the personal attacks. Celestina007 (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The personal attack is definitely wrong. But is there some special controversy going on about the handling of gated communities and ultra-posh hosing in that particular village? The IP editor seems determined to put a controversy into the article, and is probably doing so with far too much weight. They're also including references as bare web-addresses rather than using proper citations, which suggests they're inexperienced. What this really needed was a talk-page discussion, followed by - if appropriate - inclusion of one or two balanced sentences on the controversy, accompanied by a properly-formatted reference. Elemimele (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

[1] ttps://www.tv9marathi.com/politics/jayant-patil-assurance-may-lead-to-shivsena-chandrakant-nimba-patil-vs-rohini-khadse-khewalkar-399145.html/amp

[1]

Diffs

Draft

Creating subpages

Merry Christmas!

Denoting school accounts?

Auto Ping

Edit Summary Pinging

Can I use a screenshot from social media on this context?

submitting an article

How do I make an article a "good article"

Deleting photos

What to do if a brand-new article has copy-pasted a vast amount of text from a single source?

Pancho villa real name

Am I WP:NOTHERE?

Change my marital status- I am now divorced. I would also love to update my headshot. Thank you!!

Saving a draft?

Can I write an article about a band?

Translating a Wikipedia article

Tip of the Day

ClueBot III vs lowercase sigmabot III

Newsletter

Hi I accidentally published my draft page with Draft: in the title. I'm not sure how to remove it.

Communicating with WikiProjects

Twinkle Citation Helper

Not using edit summary when reverting

error in citation

Is Maria Strong notable?

Best way for a newcomer to flag a potential error?

Why are disclaimers protected?

Where to go for Notability advice?

Admins

How long should it take?

Why can't I upload a JPG snippet of a Wikipedia article to "Talk" to assist in explaining the issue?

In need of a help to edit a biography draft article

Correct phrasing for graduating with a degree

link my translation with the original text

Difference between user and ping templates

The criminality of the Weston oligarchs.

Historic U.S. 6 Route signage on all potions of the old alignment

Draft article: Gleneagle Hospital Medini Johor

The Simplest steps to make a article.

Citation for the plot of a novel

I am the tech guy and decided to start contributing to technological articles and help with the first article would be greatly appreciated

How does it work?

Why?

Reply Link

Unregister

A proof of Fermat's little theorem.

Can a editor please add a source to my article and a couple of other things?

Draft:Eduard_Grossman

How to submit draft

Why is my article marked for notability

Editing

start a wiki page for Bassy Stacy

Draft:June 18-19 floods

Should I make a new page or edit an existing one?

Today's Featured Article with a deleted image

Zenon Mariak

AP World History: Ancient

Talk Pages

Need to move to draft

In-depth sources struggle

Sockpuppet

Sandbox to public wiki page

Word count

Template code syntax

Found minor

Actor names in plot summaries

Image (and other issues) at Cédric_Gerbehaye

donating to Wikipedia

Administrators RFA questions

Video

Advice to protect myself

WikiProject

making a new wiki page

Further reading: below references?

Kiing36

Adrian Nelson-Daniels

How do I become a member so I can post something on Wikiedia?

Mark Jenkinson