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.
Hi- this is my third submission and the page was declined again with the same message as the second submission even though i made many changes. Can you please help me? Page is for: Ashley Nicole Moss- User: Manager1393 Manager1393 (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Look at the reason left by a reviewer as to why the article as declined. Only once the conditions of the reason are met, will the same or different reviewer then be inclined to accept the submission. -- StarryNightSky11☎21:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
She was just ranked by Forbes 30 under 30 for her contribution to sports journalism. All of the references can be verified... I'm not sure what else you need. Manager1393 (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I understand... but they are all independaent reliable sources. Can you please give me an example from something that needs to be changed from her submission? Manager1393 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
As I've mentioned the reason a reviewer declined the submission was because independent reliable sources are required, once they're added and a reviewer is satisfied with them then the article will be accepted, I don't have those rights at this time so I can only help you so much, best advice I can give is follow the reason the article was declined and eventually once sorted a reviewer should accept it. -- StarryNightSky11☎22:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
The draft article states that the subject is the host and co-creator for Laces Out, under Sports Illustrated. This means Laces Out, and Sports Illustrated in general, should not be used as references. They are not WP:INDEPENDENT. HerrWaus (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Manager1393. I've only looked at the first three of your references in Draft:Ashley Nicole Moss: the first two are not independent, and the third mentions her in passing. Which three of your references satisfy all three of the criteria of being independent, reliable, and significant coverage? Only sources which do so contribute in any way to establishing that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
I also need to ask: what is your relationship with Moss? You created an account in September, with the name "Manager1393", and you have worked on nothing but your draft about her. Are you her manager? If so, you must make a formal declaration as a paid editor. ColinFine (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes- I'm her manager... i am not getting a fee for creating her page.
Manager1393, since you are her manager, you must make the Paid contributions disclosure with your next edit. This is mandatory and non-negotiable. The first reference is published by her employer Sports Illustrated, and is therefore not an independent source. The second reference is an interview, that consists of her talking about herself, and is therefore not independent. Wikipedia is not interested in what people or their employers or associates say about themselves. Acceptable Wikipedia biographies summarize what published reliable sources that are entirely independent of the person and their associates say about the person. We do not include content generated by press releases, public relations campaigns or marketing efforts. Cullen328 (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Do not think about this as a "page". Think of it instead as a "neutrally written, properly referenced encyclopedia article". Cullen328 (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Again... i do not get paid so therefore I have no contributions to disclose.
If you have never been paid one penny by this person, then please explain why you are calling yourself her manager, Manager1393. Is this a volunteer position? Are you an intern? In any event, I highly recommend that you make a very robust and complete disclosure of your conflict of interest on your now non-existent user page, because otherwise, you are risk of being blocked. Nobody said that you cannot mention Sports Illustrated but rather that coverage of her by Sports Illustrated itself is worthless for establishing notability. Cullen328 (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello Manager1393. If Ashley Nicole Moss is a journalist there’s a good chance she knows that every media outlet has their own rules and requirements for what can and can’t be covered. When writing a Wikipedia encyclopedia article one of the rules is that if someone is writing an article about an individual they know personally the writer is considered to have a conflict of interest. There are also standards for what is a reliable independent reference source. It may be best for you to start a personal website, or create an account on a social media site. That way there will be fewer rules about what can be posted about Ashley Nicole Moss.
I'm not sure why I have to keep having to explain myself... I do NOT get paid for anything... I am not her actual manager- I am an intern just doing a task. Manager1393 is just my user name- that is it. I can have Ashley Nicole Moss' talent manager reach out to you if that will help. 68.74.135.187 (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
IP editor, the account above stated Yes- I'm her manager. It's a bit unclear whether you're the same person as the above or not. In any case, interns count as paid editors per Wikipedia's policies: see here. Please disclose as has repeatedly been requested. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
yes... i have read it. I do not have anything to disclose. And there is no conflict.. I'm only detailing and adding links about her career. How can I move past this? Manager1393 (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
@Manager1393, since you're apparently refusing to abide by Wikipedia's Terms of Use, despite extensive explanation and many requests, I'm afraid the next thing likely to happen here is a block. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Since I'm not getting anywhere. I think it would be best for me to let her manager know what has been going on and let him find another intern or volunteer to continue. Manager1393 (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
She is a well known professional sports journalist who can be seen on all platforms and is all over the internet. What else do I need to disclose? Manager1393 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Manager1393 If you read the policy several have directed you to, you would understand that interns count as paid editors, even if you receive no money, because your compensation is the experience of the work(that you will put on your resume). With your next edit, you should make the disclosure or at least attempt it. See your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I removed another user's link to streaming services, as I considered it to be advertising. However, it got me thinking that it may just be information that's helpful to a reader. Are these kinds of links allowed on wikipedia, or no? Thanks! CivilianArthur (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
CivilianArthur, MOS:TVINTL I think addresses this as it says "syndication can be noted" and also mentions streaming services. However, there is a difference between saying 'syndicated on Crackle' in the proper section of the article vs tossed into the middle of character section with "you can watch on". Slywriter (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
wikipedia è un'organizzazione. non abbiamo davvero un contatto. anche questa è la Wikipedia in inglese, quindi ho dovuto tradurre questa risposta su Google.
(under the assumption this user is italian, i translated this message "wikipedia is an organization. we don't really have a contact. also this is the English Wikipedia, so i had to google translate this response." to italian, i tried i guess)
Hi, I don't want to talk to wikipedia or the staff, I would like to be able to communicate with you personally. How can I do? Can I leave my email here? or other contacts Mrleroy1000 (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not social media. It's function is not a meetup or place to make friends. If you are trying to discuss improving an article, you can use the talk page of that article. If you are trying to reach a particular editor about an article, you can leave a message on their talk page. However, both of these are for improving the encyclopedia, not causal chat. Slywriter (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Orbiting-particle system force that is pulled straight inwardly into infinity
Trying to make a connective path with others using the (talk) page, I am having trouble learning how to do this. I have limited understanding in binary two-point systemizing a talk page, my abilities are some what limited when it comes to operating a computer. I need a better way to... Two & "three-point" systemize a talk page. Is there a blog? Lmreva (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Lmreva, welcome to the Teahouse. Talk pages are not meant to be forums for discussion of article subjects - they are for discussing improvements to the articles. Also, Wikipedia's articles are based on what reliable sources have said about a subject, not on the opinions or research of Wikipedia editors. You appear to be seeking to discuss and include your own original research. This is best done on some other website - see a list of possibilities at WP:Alternative outlets. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that draft is fever dreams, the result of too many psychoactive plant experiences, or an alien from the future come back to save us with his method for time travel, but I'm pretty sure it needs to be deleted. Heiro20:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Inner-space travel... Is infact real, to better help people understand the vectors involved, a different approach must be made to this draft... Orbiting-particle system force that is pulled straight inwardly into infinity has always been in existence... Naturalist physics and or those conventional wisdoms that deal with closed-looped mathematics are what they are, there is nothing that I can do about that. I am learning here, however, kinematics of an orbiting-particle system... Is with respect to the observers "size & time" domain... I cannot change the truth of the matter, it makes no difference to me, but it may for others. Lmreva (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
@Lmreva, Wikipedia is not, in the end, about what is real or true, but only about what reliable sources say is real or true. If you are able to publish your research in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, it can then be summarized and cited here. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
If I understand this correctly, Nikola Tesla's work concerning spliting the positive would be a reliable source, comming under the category of Kirchhoff's loop rule, as well as... Being a "non-reliable source", ( Has not been in a "certain" peer-reviewed scientific journal, of which, can only be accepted by conventional wisdoms)? If I am thinking right, I would then need to look into peer-reviews of scientific journals concerning kinematic engineering? Thank you for your help, it is greatly appreciated. Lmreva (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
@Lmreva, I think the answer to your second question is "yes". You would need to publish a paper in a peer-reviewed physics or engineering journal. As for your first question, Nikola Tesla put forth a great many theories, some of which have received widespread scientific acceptance, some not so much. The widespread acceptance is what's important here. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, If I am thinking Correctly... This one has some critical aspect ratio's ... "widespread acceptance,"(worldwide) in that there is more than one aspect ratio, producing two primary/complex entities of motion that exist in infinity... Being that this motion is particle-mass that moves into the future. This one has it going on... In that there are two complex motions in quantum fluid & quantum particle-flow... The "Spirit of the God of Love," and the anti-spirit of the god of love, and yet "one" cannot be without the other. Which "one" of these two enities are you allowing to operate the human-body machine? The "machine function," comes to mind... Vorticity of a vortex. That "one" differential of which exist's in size & time coordinates producing the force that pushes & bends "outwardly" into infinity is one of worldwide acceptance. However, the force that pulls-straight "inwardly" into infinity is "not" of worldwide acceptance. Also, practicality-mechanics in bio-functions are limited to molecular-size levels... "Not" understanding the function of size & time mechanics, has been a limiting factor do in part, to the crystalline past. Thank you for your info it is greatly appreciated. Lmreva (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Don't know what this edit was for. Are they trying to redirect pages related to video games to the draft? In the meantime, I've declined the draft as too early. TailsWx15:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Appwrkllc, many steps are involved. Here are the first four. (i) As your username is the name of Appwrk LLC, abandon it and adopt and use a different username. (ii) Forget about any ambition of using Wikipedia to publicize Appwrk. (iii) Read and think about some existing articles. (iv) Make minor, well-referenced improvements to existing articles. -- Hoary (talk) 09:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
It would? StarryNightSky11, the username Appwrkllc has made a grand total of four (4) edits that haven't yet been deleted. A user with such a list of contributions can simply start off with a new username and abandon the previous one, thereby saving work for others. -- Hoary (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I would like to start making semi-automated edits (anti vandalism, etc.), but can't seem to find the best tool to use on a mac. Does anyone have any relevant tips? Thank-you in advance. EPIFANOVE(TALK)22:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Echo1Charlie. The answer is, by turning it into something which resembles an encyclopaedia article, by providing reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Deal with the issues that caused it to be moved to draft, and then either resubmit it to AfC, or if you're convinced it's publication-worthy, move it to main space yourself. Remember, if you move it back prematurely, it won't get redraftified, it'll be sent to AfD, and if the problems aren't solved, it will be deleted, which is worse than being stuck in draft space! Elemimele (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
... oh, and looking at the article, you've got a lot of work to do! It will need solid references to people unconnected with the plane writing about it of their own free choice, not using reworded press-releases. I suspect this is WP:TOOSOON. Elemimele (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, the developer of this aircraft, has Wikilinks to dozens of its products, including several fight jets that are currently in development. Your This effort appears to be about a jet project that is too soon to warrant its own article. Consider adding a short mention to the HAL article if you can find one reference about its existence. David notMD (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Note to commenters (including myself): the OP, Echo1Charlie, has not in fact edited this article at alk, though they have worked on other articles on related topics. It was created by a different editor, Flyhigh2020, to whom we should perhaps have addressed all these comments. --ColinFine (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you everyone for responding to my query. I'm planning to revive it with reliable sources. But I was confused how to revive it from draft as I didn't know the policies and procedures associated with. Thank you all for responding and clarifying my doubts. Good day.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Echo1Charlie (talk • contribs) 04:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Copyright License
I am trying to make an article on a video game and I emailed the copyright owners of the game to ask for permission to use the logos and in game screenshots provided by them. But they do not want to post the logo because it is available for anybody to use in a commercial product. Is there a copyright license that does not give permission to use in a commercial product WinningGlory52 (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
@WinningGlory52 I have commented out your logo file from the draft as WP:NONFREE logos can only be used in accepted articles which are in mainspace. Please read WP:LOGO carefully: your file Commons:File:Derail_Valley_Logo.png will be deleted unless the owners were willing to license it as CC BY SA, which from your comment I assume they are not. Placing NC restrictions on the file means it cannot be hosted on commons. It might be hosted here on the English Wikipedia (after the draft is accepted), at a suitably low resolution, as the pages I have linked explain. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
For the moment, omit the Logo. Sort out the existing issues about the article, and if it's accepted into main space, then an image of the logo can be added there, uploaded to en-WP rather than commons, in low resolution and subject to all the requirements of non-copyrighted images. It can't be done in draft space because one of the requirements is that the image be used in at least one published article. The image must be necessary to the article, and not in sufficient resolution to be usable by a 3rd party, except as an illustration of what the logo looks like. The requirement that the image be necessary also limits what you can do with screen-shots. They have to be the bare minimum for an article that makes sense to a reader. Elemimele (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
They are willing to post it as long as it isn't used in another commercial product. Im not that aware of US copyright law but from what I'm reading on the Wikipedia:Logos its saying I can post it as not free and is of lower resolution. Is this possible? WinningGlory52 (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello again, WinningGlory. Unless they are willing to license it under a license such as CC-BY-SA, which will allow anybody to reuse it for any purpose - and, unsurprisingly they are not so willing - it cannot be uploaded to Commons.
When you get the draft in a shape that it can be accepted as an article, you will probably be able to use the logo as non-free material, in the way Elemimele has explained, and their permission will be irrelevant. But, as Elemimele says, your best course is to forget about the logo for now (it will not affect in the slightest whether your draft is accepted or not), and work on getting the draft to meet Wikipedia's requirements.
Just looking at the list of citations, without even opening them, I can tell that the only one that even might contribute to establishing that the game meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability is the Gaming Nexus one. If that is independent of the game and its developers and platforms, has a reputation for editorial control and fact checking, and contains significant coverage of the game, then it could be a relevant source for notability; but more than one is required.
Furthermore, without looking at the text, I can predict that the most of the information which might be supported by the other citations does not belong in the article. Please have a look at BACKWARD: the content of a Wikipedia article should not be based on what you (the writer) know, or on what the manufacturer says or wants to say: almost all of the article should be based on what those independent sources say about the subject. ColinFine (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
@WinningGlory52 About the logo if you get that far, you don't have to worry about low resolution, that is fixed by bots these days. If your article is accepted, go to Wikipedia:File upload wizard, chose Upload a non-free file > This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use > This is a logo of an organization, company, brand, etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi WinningGlory52. Just going to clarify that the Wikimedia Foundation can't really stop anyone from trying to reuse the logo commercially regardless of how it's licensed or where it's uploaded. It's going to be up to the copyright holder of the logo to defend their copyright. What Wikipedia can do is host the logo under a non-free license such at {{Non-free logo}} so that it can be used on Wikipedia. However, as explained above, this can only be done as long as the way the file is being used in a way that satisfies Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. That pretty much the only way this logo can be used on Wikipedia if the copyright holder is unwilling to give their WP:CONSENT and release the logo under a free license accepted by the Wikimedia Foundation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Draft:Yinka Ilori
I've made some significant changes and additions to a previously rejected draft article about Yinka IloriMBE. The draft contains a mixture of newly added references as well as "auto-converted" instances of (some of) those that were used in the previous draft. I am wondering if there is a tool that can help automate clean-up WP:REF to make the wikitext more uniform? The formatting as is seems fairly messy, with ref names like: "ilori-about" and "sunshine", rather than a simply numbered list (i.e., ":01", ":02", etc.). Also, some of refs are WP:LDR, while some are not. It seems better to make all of this more orderly before re-submitting or moving the article to mainspace. (I started to do this manually, but it is tedious and error prone.) Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
@Cl3phact0: I'm not aware of a Wikipedia tool, but you could copy the source code to your favorite text editor, perform a find & replace for the ref names to get them formatted the way you want, and then paste the new text back to Wikipedia. GoingBatty (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! I actually tried this but when I brought the text back into WP, there were "cite errors" that I couldn't eliminate (that's the tedious and error prone part I mentioned above). Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
That makes sense. Following your logic, I'd do better to replace the ":0", ":1", etc. refs with something like an abbreviated code for the publication (i.e., "CNN", "FT", "GUARD", etc.). In either case, I have the same problem in that the refs are currently a bit of a jumble. Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
i like the citations, but im not very sure this would be accepted to Wikipedia. Dittoing the Rejector, this page is written like the "about me" page on a website, it almost sounds like an ad. i feel like large swabs of the page could be rewritten to be a bit more neutral.
Please have a look at the before/after versions. I've re-written it substantially taking out lots of fluff, etc. Any advice on how it could be further improved would be much appreciated. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
The first paragraph ends by telling us what he has said about his own work. And it's not even interesting, it's just vague self-promotional blether. That doesn't belong in the article, let alone the lead. Maproom (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I'll try to get a better understanding of the proper use of quotes on WP and revert back. I'm a tad confused as the examples I've cited seem to be associated with the individuals and have all been quoted in reputable sources by independent commentators. Another example can be found here: Dieter Rams ("less, but better" in particular is commonly associated with the subject), though the other quote too seems relevant to gaining a better understanding of Rams. Cl3phact0 (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Cl3phact0, you're missing an article that was/is flawed but informative and tolerably good -- in my opinion, but obviously not in Athaenara's opinion. Unfortunately, only administrators will be able to view it now and form their own opinions on the matter. It is of course possible that they will agree that the article richly deserved deletion and that I was/am deluded. Anyway, because it's alleged to contain "copyvios of various sources, magazine articles, etc.", undeletion isn't something that I should do unilaterally. See below. -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Thinks: "'Yinka Ilori'? I know that name." I accepted a draft. It did need some work doing to it; I did the work. I then pretty much forgot about it. And I discover today that it was deleted. Please see Draft_talk:Yinka_Ilori#Deletion_of_the_earlier_article. (Oh, and I've just now discovered a further odd twist to the tale.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the follow-up. I guess the point now is really just to get the current draft into good shape for publication. I've taken much of the above advice and commentary into consideration and have made some fairly significant additional edits. Ilori is an important figure in contemporary design, so it seems odd that he's not included in this encyclopaedia. What's the best path forward? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
PS: What's the "twist"?
Notable people
Hi, I want to remove few names from section of notable people from Bhatkal, which is defamatory, which creates negative image among the viewer against the town and are used as propaganda. The page is semi-protected. so, my question is:-
I want to replace with the other name but, there is no wiki page for that, I have reference from news websites. Is it enough to add citation to each name. FakeInfoDetector (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
You can not remove notable people just because you do not like them. Their being there is not defamatory. Names should only be added for people who already have an existing article. If they are not notable enough for an article, then they aren't notable enough to be in the notable people section. If you have enough sources to write an article on them and they pass WP:GNG, then do that first. Afterward, you can add their names to this article. Heiro06:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I didn't mean that I want to remove the section of "Notable People" page. It creates negative image against the town which is not good to add to such people who are declared as terrorist and are used as propaganda. so, it must be removed. FakeInfoDetector (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I knew exactly what you meant. No, do not remove them because it "makes your town look bad", that is not a valid reason to remove information from an article. You will be reverted, and if you edit war over it you will most likely get blocked. That article is already locked down with a semi-protect because of your past actions over this matter.
I have been writing an article about Stephen Neidle who is an eminent Scientist in the field of DNA and RNA structural research as well as the design of anticancer drugs and antibacterial drugs. Even before I had done a full re-edit and put in the references correctly I get an editor telling me that there are not sufficient references. The article is about a person has a Who's Who Entry which is used Internationally for biographical verification (very few people unless they are very eminent have this), a web site at UCL and an edition of a Journal in his honour. I have replied about this and get no response from the editors putting forward this referencing mantra. I even gave them citations of articles which are similar to read about Bill Denny, Stephen D. Levine, Donald Crothers and Ignacio Tinoco. Still no response. Contemporary scientists in my field and I expect many others are supported by references to their work, and if the Editors look these papers are cited in Pubmed and other depositories by many other scientists supporting the work. These biographies are not like the ones for military figure, politicians, artists ... where support is from books and monographs ! I am wondering what it takes to get an article accepted into Wikipedia
Dear Shantaviraj, Thank you for your comment but he meets these criteria. I am very familiar with the people who have accepted articles in this particular field and the Wiki notability criteria. It was not on the notability that it was declined but on 2nd referencing, which he has and on the Notability it says "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." He does in fact has strong supporting references from secondary sources which I mention above. 2A00:23C7:999E:FD01:4BE:D917:3B20:FB62 (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I strongly recommend you remove your AfC submission until after you fix major flaws. Remove all hyperlinks. A few (for example https://iris.ucl.ac.uk/iris/browse/profile?upi=SNEID18 may be used as references. There are several sections with no references, including education, career, awards. Referneces 3-11 are to some of his journal articles; none of these contribute to establishing notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word. David notMD (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Please have a look at the examples of other sites that I have given. There are no references associated
with education (ever), career and awards in the examples of other sites that I have listed. Here the people were educated is stated with highlighting of the institutions where they have gone, same with career and awards. Awards can be checked with the awarding bodies or their posting if deemed necessary ?! I do not find your comment "I strongly recommend you remove your AfC submission until after you fix major flaws" helpful as there are not major flaws. This is what I am taking issue with and the lack of dialogue with the editors - which one has when submitting a scientific paper for instance. 2A00:23C7:999E:FD01:4BE:D917:3B20:FB62 (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
By "other sites", do you mean other Wikipedia articles? If there are biographical articles that lack sources for information such as the person's education history, then that information should either be sourced or removed. See WP:VERIFY on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
First, AND IMPORTANT, always log in before editing. Having an account but also editing not logge in - appearing as an IP number - is construed as sockpuppetry. And fine with me, ignore the recommendations of a Teahouse Host who for years has been here to help people get their drafts approved. WP:BLP clearly states that verification is a requirement for facts in biographies of living people. And yeah, remove all the hyperlinks. Creating a link to an institution's webpage does not confirm that Neidle has any connection. Expect your draft to be declined again. David notMD (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I looked at Bill Denny, as one of the articles you mentioned and its sourcing is adequate and certainly not "no references associated with education (ever)". You may be surprised to learn that Who's Who is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia (see table at WP:RSPS). In addition, the use of in-text external links is not how we cite information (see WP:ELPOINTS). Those that can be converted to citations using {{cite web}} should have that done. Your draft does not just need to show that Neidle is notable (which I'm fairly sure he is) but has to do so in a way that meets Wikipedia's standards for articles, best explained at WP:YFA and WP:BLP. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Naturally I mentions the degrees as in Bill Denny's article as it does in my article for Neidle but the assumption was that this should be further supported with references (what from published University degree lists ?!) Mruthsanderson (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
You write: "This is what I am taking issue with and the lack of dialogue with the editors - which one has when submitting a scientific paper for instance". Editing Wikipedia is a very different process from submitting a scientific paper, but part of the issue appears to be that you're posting comments for the reviewers on your own user talk page. If you want those to be seen there, then you'd likely need to ensure that the reviewers are notified of your comments. See Help:Notifications. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
A website has been posted to your Talk page that provides mention of Neidle's education and career and awards. Cite that. Stop pointing to other articles you believe support there being no need to verify education, etc. "Other stuff exists" is not an accepted argument. David notMD (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
@Mruthsanderson: I cannot stress that point enough. The existence of other substandard articles on Wikipedia is not a reason to create more of them; rather, it's a reason to delete or correct those crappy articles. If you want your draft to be reviewed and accepted, you need to follow the advice of reviewers, who know what they're talking about. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes. It can be helpful to look at other WP-articles for guidance, but one should look at good articles. More at WP:OTHERCONTENT. This is not very obvious to new editors, but we learn the strange ways of WP as we go along. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
This UCL School of Pharmacy Neidle site was used and cited as a link, but the Editor asked me to remove these direct external links, one of which was to this site. Mruthsanderson (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I took out the ELs and added more internal linking to Wiki articles. I do keep the reference 10 to Who's Who (OUP) as contrary to some expression voiced this is a very accurate biographic source, used by Book and Newspaper editors, Embassies around the world, Employees, Government establishments and Civil services. Its long extended usage proves this over many 10s of years proves this. People would not use it, if it was not. It people wish to check biographical details then the UCL Pharmacy wiki link is given and then the person can get the external one. The other references are to the Science and this
See [1] Who's Who (UK) is considered generally unreliable due to its poor editorial standards and history of publishing false or inaccurate information. Its content is supplied primarily by its subjects, so it should be regarded as a self-published source. Theroadislong (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Wikilinking to existing Wikipedia articles does nothing toward establishing notability. Yes, you has UCL School of Pharmacy as a hyperlink, and were asked to remove all hyperlinks, and convert those that were useful to references. Now, you have UCL School of Pharm as a Wikilink, also useless, as it is not about Neidle. Yesterday, I wrote to use UCL School Pharm biography as a reference. Do that and cite that for as much of the content it supports. Referencing researchers' journal articles is common, but contributes little toward notability. David notMD (talk) 09:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
@Mruthsanderson You have been asked to remove direct "external links", that is, URLs which are in the body of the article. Instead of replacing those with inter-wiki links, you need to add properly formatted references (click here). Reading that section on proper referencing should help. David10244 (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I have done that, removing them from the body of the article as they were. They have been put into the references referred to by reference numbers in the same
way as they were in the Don Crothers article so that I have enough supporting biographical material on the subject. Before they
I see what you mean and I have removed the direct URLs and converted the ones which were present with full URLs in reference list. Many thanks Mruthsanderson (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel that we are on the verge of a WP:NOTHERE reason to indefinitely block Mruthanderson? In addition to the stubborness exhibited here, we have the three times Declined Draft:David Dunbar (mathematician) and the recently created Draft: Paul S. Freemont that has the same flaws seen in the Neidle draft: lots of hyperlinks, sections without references, and references only to Freemont's journal articles. Competence is required. David notMD (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Why would you want to indefinitely block me ? For voicing an opinion about the reliability of Who's Who ? I know a lot of people who
See Wikipedia:Competence is required. You have resisted the advice of Reviewers and Teahouse hosts. Unless you show an ability to reference all content in your drafts with reliable source references, you are wasting everyone's time. I am not an Administrator, and thus cannot apply a block, but others at Teahouse are, and I suspect will tell you the same. At the least, do not submit Freemont until fixing it, and add UCL to Neidle as a ref, before resubmitting. These academics may or may not be Wikipedia-notable, but without a competently crafted draft, none will be accepted. David notMD (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Actually I have not resisted the advice of Reviewers and Teahouse hosts. I have removed all the hyperlinks from within the text
and completely rewritten the text for Neidle and put in many connections to articles within Wikipedia. I find your approach extremely aggressive asking people to block me, not what I would expect of any host. Mruthsanderson (talk) 09:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Actually I have not been working further on the David Dunbar article, the Senior Wrangler since it was last rejected as I cannot source secondary references as he did not publish papers in mathematics and dedicated his life to teaching others. I have reached an impasse on this. The same does not hold for Professors Neidle and Freemont
In terms of the format of these articles - you should see that the one on Donald Crothers cites many of his original papers as do others, like that of Ignacio Tinoco where many of his original papers are cited. There is clearly nothing wrong with doing this in an article of this
Obtuseness is not a virtue. The Donald Crothers article has 7 of 17 refs to his published works. The other refs verify content about him. All you have done in your drafts is cite only published works. David notMD (talk) 10:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
David notMD, I suspect you got off the wrong foot with that editor. They might be inexperienced with Wikipedia sourcing requirements, and a bit stubborn, but certainly not in NOTHERE territory from what I can see here and on the draft page. I would suggest getting a good night’s sleep before replying to them any further.
Hello Tjohman. You are ready to try writing a Wikipedia encyclopedia article when you feel confident that you are up to the difficult task. I had been a published writer before discovering Wikipedia and, after starting my volunteer editing, it took me 3 years before attempting my first online article. I read Help:Your first article numerous times, read at least a dozen Wikipedia articles on similar subjects, spent a couple weeks hunting down reliable references, wrote my draft article, and submitted it for review. Being notified that my article had been accepted was a joyful day, for I consider writing good reliable nonfiction to be an important undertaking. Best wishes on your writing projects. Karenthewriter (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Tjohman. I made my first edit to Wikipedia on June 28, 2009 and wrote my first new article, Dirk van Erp, on July 27, 2009, 30 days later. The amount of time is far less important than the seriousness of the study. No article that I have written or significantly expanded has ever been deleted because I took the time to study and fully understand and comply with
One beginner's error is to draft an article, and then try to find supporting references. Better to collect the refs (properly formatted, in your Sandbox) first, and then compose only what you have verifying refs for. David notMD (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
How would I go about requesting a re-assessment of these ratings? I would rate myself based on the established criteria, but I'd rather someone else rate for obvious reasons. EPIFANOVE(TALK)22:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
You doubled length and took if from zero to five refs, but large sections of text are still not referenced. I suggest you work on referencing more, and then raise it to C-class. David notMD (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for changing your signature. (Though since "EPIFANOVE" isn't "Epifanove", I warmly recommend further steps in degimmickification.) I glanced at the article. One section, "Early prospecting", consists of three substantial paragraphs. No paragraph, no sentence, no clause within this comes with a reference. Thus the reader is given no reason to believe any of it. First, focus on making the content of the article credible for the sceptical reader. -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Im working on that and have found 20+ references to add.
The section you are referring to (and any others with no references) are what existed before I contributed to the article, and none of it has any inline citations. Its good info that is actually found in books on the subject, but a pain in the ass to find inline citations for.
When I reply using the "reply" feature, it notifies the editor I'm replying to automatically; but when I want to ping an editor myself, I need to type their name in, and if the signature doesn't match, I will very easily fail to ping them. ColinFine (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Considering that the source describes her as "a tattoo artist, television personality, and entrepreneur" (The Source) and she is the first black female tattoo shop founder/owner in Beverley Hills, I think "entrepreneur" should be included in the opening paragraph of the article. Anneink (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Anneink Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The best place to raise this issue is on the article talk paeg, Talk:Kat Tat. I would say that "entrepreneur" is usually a fancy, promotional way of saying that someone is a businessperson, and we try to have a neutral point of view, but if you have reliable sources that describe someone that way, they should be offered. 331dot (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
@Anneink Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! I believe that TheLongTone might have acted in a way that was inappropriate. the edit summery seems a bit mean-spirited, and the removal of the word entrepreneur because, "anyone can be an entrepreneur. i could if i bothered" does not seem like a proper reason for removal. maybe phrase it a bit differently? (but then again, im not sure, and this might be the wrong thing to do) -a really self-degrading name(speak of the devil)- 16:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Tone of comment aside, no we do not include 'entrepeneur' in Wikipedia articles just because someone refers to themself in that way. Unless reliable sources independently describe the subject that way, it should not be included. Slywriter (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I think the comment is not correct: Joe Biden, Queen Elizabeth, Albert Einstein, many or even most people we write about are not or were not entrepreneurs. She opened a business, not everyone does that. And the sources noticed. So I think it can safely be restored. That's called the Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle; as the third part of that, let's talk about it on the article talk page. Also, have a free licensed image! --GRuban (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Declined article / request for more feedback
Hello! My article was rejected with a comment that reads: "Lead is still poorly written, after 2 declines already. Draft title may not be good for acceptance." I'd be happy to make the appropriate edits, but could somebody please elaborate on this? It would be most helpful if you could specify the parts that could have raised the concern of the reviewer. Is it more about the phrasing of the lead or the external sources I used? Thank you! Here's the article in question: Draft:SUBTLE – The Subtitlers' AssociationNyjja (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Nyjja. Which independent source describes the "aims" of the society? It looks to me as if the references in that paragraph simply report on things that it has done, rather than containing significant coverage of the society, still less discussing its aims.
Which of your references meet the gold standard of sources, viz, being reliable, wholly independent of the society, and containing significant coverage of it? Judging from their titles, I would guess none of them - and without several such, your draft does not even establish that the society meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Given the apparent lack of such sources, it is not surprising that the text reads like an advertisement, as it is presumably based on what the organisation wants to say. 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.
I must also ask, given that, and the fact that you created this draft the same day you registered, and have worked on nothing else since, what is your connection with the society? This pattern of editing is very often that of an editor who has a conflict of interest, but may not be aware of Wikipedia's position on this. ColinFine (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Notes and Notelist
Hello, how do I put a single note at several places in a article? for example please check this page Second N. Chandrababu Naidu ministry, note b and c are one and the same but needs to be put at 2 places sp how do I do that? (putting the note at both places but it should reflect as a single note in the notelist) 456legend(talk) 16:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, 45 legend, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can use the name= parameter with {{efn}} just as you can with <ref> - see the template documentation. ColinFine (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I thought I had. I clicked the 'Preloaded debate' link, which evidently didn't autogenerate correctly, or I did something in the wrong order so it didn't update the correct thing(s). I noticed this problem in the AfD logs that it had been quasi-merged with another AfD, and I wasn't sure how to fix it or if it would auto-fix. AgarWhisper (talk)
I did not, and I obviously didn't follow the instructions perfectly because, if I had, then I wouldn't need help. As mentioned, I followed the instructions to the best of my ability. Nevertheless, thank you, UtherSRG, for fixing. Can I figure out what exactly you fixed from the edit history as not to make the same mistake in future?
Incidentally, the name change is because I'm concerned about offline bullying, which is less paranoia and more that it actually happened during previously AfDs. AgarWhisper (talk)
Sure. Part II include instructions to apply {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ to the newly created AFD page. As far as I can tell, you just put your deletion rationale on that page and didn't use the template. I wrapped your rationale into the template, updated the "PageName" and "Category" per the instructions, and published. - UtherSRG(talk)19:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Marriage template for Nell Arthur
Hello,
On Nell Arthur, the marriage template includes an end date of 1880, which seems odd since 1880 is not in use in the template in the infobox code. It also doesn't appear to link with wikidata anywhere, so I don't know where else that is sourced. Can someone explain the discrepancy? --Engineerchange (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
@199.208.172.35: the {{Marriage}} documentation suggests that {{marriage|Jane Doe|2002}} will make it show up as "Jane Doe (m. 2002)", not automatically know that Jane Doe died in 2004 and make it "Jane Doe (m. 2002; 2004)". Similarly, the current code {{marriage|[[Chester A. Arthur]]|October 25, 1859}} is somehow populating as "Chester A. Arthur<br />(m. 1859; 1880)" (note the extra 1880 and the carriage return). --Engineerchange (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
@Engineerchange, since the documentation says If the marriage ended because of the death of the article's subject, do not provide a date., and since that's how the infobox template shows up in other articles - i. e. Grover Cleveland - I assume this is working as intended. There are links to previous discussions about what parameters to include in case of death. I think it would look better with |end=d. tacked on, personally, as in the second example under Usage; there'd probably need to be a new discussion about all this to challenge the notes. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I see a bunch of changes related to data retrieval were made today, though I don't know enough about the technical side of things to parse them. Reverting seems to have fixed the oddities for now. Hopefully Neveselbert will elaborate on the talk page. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
My "infamous" article/page
I have written and posted an article, about someone that contributions have been many, however it has ruffled the feathers of the many gatekeepers on here.
That was not my intention, I just did not want to see someone's "important" contributions lost to obscurity. And this all confuses me about wikipedia, which I thought was about championing what is right. Preventing information from being lost to obscurity, and sharing it with others.
I provided multiple citations, if wikipedia is only going to accept certain ones from certain sources, then have to ask is that in itself a conflict of interest, and is wikipedia discriminating against certain people or topics ?
Again, im not here to ruffle feathers, but perhaps.. this at least starts a conversation.
This seems to be about the draftification of Draft:Paul Brodie (frame builder). If you're under the impression that it's the meritorious who should get articles, you're wrong. Dictators, war profiteers, quacks, other con-men and other trash get articles, if these can be firmly based on reliable sources. Frame-builders can too, if reliable sources suffice. (They certainly would suffice for Giuseppe Marinoni, for example. I'm surprised that he doesn't already have an article.) There are plenty of reliable sources for information about a great array of subjects that are of no interest to me; but as these subjects are of interest to a great number of other editors, they get written up. Well, all the best improving that draft to the point where it's good enough to be an article. (Incidentally, who called it "infamous", and where?) -- Hoary (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I could be spending my time editing articles, instead there is great interest in my article for some reason.
Ive made a more then valid point about there being a conflict of interest regarding the sources deemed reliable, and not being open to citing other sources.
once again this debating things add infinitum, could spent more productively.
Theres thousands of articles out there, many I have stumbled upon with 1 maybe 2 citations period.
There is thousands of articles out there, with obscure citations, from sources not on the list.
There is many citations, that are no dead links. Ie the source no longer exists.
I do offer praise for the few that first took offence to this article, and later helped edit it, to improve it.
There to me, this is alot more about polictics then sharing information with the masses.
If this is what wikipedia, has become then im highly disappointed.
And yes I agree, there should be an article about mr maranoni, why there is not is a complete travesty.
Hello, Paul in toronto. To be perfectly frank, your bare URL references suck. They are ugly and they fail to convey the bibliographic information that would make it far easier for a reviewer to assess this work of yours. On Wikipedia, excellent references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic are like nuggets of gold. The way you have presented your references is like covering up gold (if it exists in your references) with a deep layer of horse manure. Where's your gold? Let it shine with proper referencing. Cullen328 (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Yep, lets just keep debating instead of doing editing.
if this how you feel, as I sit here wondering if you actually went through all of my citations which I assume is what you meant by urls, then assist me to show the gold in the poop as you so endearingly put it.
Follow my link. YOu can basically copy and paste any of those citation templates (using appropriate one for sources such as a book, website, etc) and then fill in the required fields specific to the info from your source. Make sure the <ref> is at the front and the </ref> is at the end to close it. Heiro09:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
For websites, this is the simplest one: <ref>{{cite web | url = | title = | last = | first = | date = | website = | publisher = | access-date = | quote = }}</ref> First and last are authors names, rest is pretty self explanatory. Heiro09:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I spent a bit of time rewriting the citations for jon favreau
walk of fame, not sure if they get your seal ( arf arf ) of approval, but you can let me know if you wish.
I couldnt get the ref to cbsnews to work, and I suspect that may not be a source wikipedia likes.
I will try to add more citations later, and go back and fix other ones.
Thank you for pointing this out to me, and helping me become a better editor., and thanks for all the tips and references.
Paul in toronto As a former rider (not builder) I completely revised Draft:Paul Brodie (frame builder) to bring it closer to Wikipedia style. That included cutting content that was probably unable to be referenced and not relevant to his potential notability. There is a program in Wikipedia that converts 'naked URL' refs into properly formatted refs. Rather than you trying to make it work (I can't), I beseech any experienced editor here to turn the crank. David notMD (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, im tipping my hat to Sir David of not MD, I appreciatte the assist.
Thank you. I will look into the program and see if I can figure it out.
Wow! For Brodie, someone turned on the Citation bot and all the URLs were converted. It's articles (not pages), and unless you have a PhD in nutritional biochemistry, probably little you can help me with. But thanks for the offer. David notMD (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't believe that this has been addressed, but I'm concerned you're more concerned about bringing "light to obscure topics" than summarizing what has been stated in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not for soapboxing. It is not a collection of whatever random information you find. Now, as I have yet to read the draft, you might have perfectly adequate sources. But be careful. Club On a Sub 20(talk)16:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
It's already an extant page. If you want to make it an article, you will first need to submit the draft. BTW, it will not be accepted in its current state. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 21:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Sungodtemple is right, but perhaps a bit terse.
I have added a header to the draft that will allow you to submit it for review.
But as Sungodtemple says, it has zero chance of being accepted in its current state, because it has no reliable sources, and therefore does nothing to establish that Carr meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Unless and until it has sufficient references (each of which is all three of reliable, independent of Carr, and has significant coverage of him), it cannot become a Wikipedia article. Note that notability, in the way Wikipedia uses it, does not depend on what the subject is or has done, but on what has been independently written about them.
To be clear, oversight is much more stringent than revision deletion. For revision deletion, any administrator can assist you. A much smaller group of highly trusted volunteers have the oversight power. Please be discrete in asking for help to avoid drawing unwanted attention to something that should be concealed. Cullen328 (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, IP editor. There are many ways to present citations, but the most common and widely accepted methods is to create a reference to the cited work, and place it in the body of the article immediately following the assertion that the citation verifies. When the proper reference tags are used, the software creates a footnote as it were, and displays the bibliographic information in a section usually called "References" toward the end of the article. Please read Wikipedia:Inline citation for the specifics and Referencing for beginners for a broader overview. Cullen328 (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Additionally, providing sources within your edit summaries, as you appear to have been doing, is not an acceptable way to add sources. NJZombie (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Wikimedia Foundation
Has there ever been a time, even once, that the Jimmy Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation came down from on high and issued a ruling on MOS style things or rules about Wikipedia more generally? I am curious as to the history there if anyone who has been at this for decades could enlighten me? :) TY —Moops⋠T⋡23:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
There's the Vector 2022 default skin, there is the changing of the Save button to Publish. Fundraising banners. What sort of things are you asking about? RudolfRed (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
@Moops, I don't know of any direct intervention in content-related matters (on English Wikipedia), but apparently some interference took place back in the days of WP:ACTRIAL, and there were also problems with forcing the introduction of Visual Editor over many objections (ANI thread). There was also WP:FRAM. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
In 2005, an IP editor created an article containing defamatory content about John Siegenthaler, which lasted for several months until it garnered negative press attention. Jimbo Wales and the WMF got involved and the ability of IP editors to create new articles was ended. The very important policy on Biographies of living persons was created in the aftermath, and the WMF requires all projects to have a local version of that policy. Please read Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident for the unpleasant details. Cullen328 (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the juicy info I was curious about. I would never have known where to look for such history. This is why I love the Teahouse! You all are a hearty wealth of knowledge! TY —Moops⋠T⋡04:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Confused about the rules
I’ve been trying to sort out all the rules about creating an article. I want to write a page for a framework I created and I would like to pay someone to do it. Is this permitted with full disclosure? Wshaia (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi Wshaia! Welcome to the Teahouse! The rules on paid editing are complex, but yes, so long as the paid editor fully discloses that they are being paid and goes through the "Articles for Creation" process then it is allowed. The biggest problem is finding a paid editor who will be both honest about your chances so that you don't waste your money on an article that won't be accepted, and who is also honest about their status here - the vast majority of paid editors I see working on Wikipedia are banned, so even if they created the article, it would have to be deleted if it is discovered that it was created by a banned editor. You are actually much better off giving it a shot yourself and asking for help on the process. - Bilby (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Wshaia. If you created this "framework", then you have an obvious conflict of interest and need to conduct yourself very carefully. As for hiring a paid editor, I will express my personal but well-informed opinion that a large majority of paid Wikipedia editing services are unethical and fail to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. A very large percentage of the articles produced by such companies end up being deleted. Your money would almost certainly be wasted. The few ethical companies tend to work for corporate clients and are very expensive. Cullen328 (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Wshaia I would add to the excellent advice here that Wikipedia is not interested in what you have to say about your own framework; it is only interested in what others wholly unconnected with it choose on their own to say about it, what we call independent reliable sources. If you just want to tell the world about your framework, you should use social media, a personal website or blog, or some other website where that is permitted. Wikipedia does not lead, it follows- Wikipedia is the last place that should have information on a topic, not the first. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
everything is ok but my article was declined everytime
everything is ok but my article was declined everytime but i use sources which is used on other article which is already published on wikipedia my page link is Draft:GournagarQnique (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Qnique, let me quote the text of your "article" in its entirety: "Gournagar is a village in the Khowai district of Tripura state of India." That's all. No more. It's not something that I'd call a draft for an article. Do reliable sources say no more about the village? -- Hoary (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello Qnique. If you read Help:Your first article you will see that one of the Things To Avoid is: “A single sentence or only a website link. Articles need to have real content of their own.” One sentence is not enough for an article. I looked at your references and learned what the village population is. That’s one bit of information to include. Has there ever been books or articles published that state any of the following: when the village was founded, who founded it, if the village has a school, any elected officials, any businesses?
has gone on a deletion spree abusing the power they hold and deleting multiple pages with no issues. I'm going to ask that an Administrator reviews this user and also the pages they've recently deleted for no reason. On top of that they have deleted the page of a known Australian musician and i want to ask that that page be reviewed and potentially undeleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_KiddAusrapcontributor (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Seems to be part of a PAID (not upe) ring? Ausrapcontributor never created Big Kidd, it was created by Hakimj.
Anyways, to answer your question, I think User:Drmies isn't abusing admin powers. The summary says WP:G5, creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. Might be something related with the above fact that someone else created the article and you are now 'reporting' it at the Teahouse. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
I really think the pages that this user has recently deleted should be reviewed. There have been over 20 that have been deleted by this user in the past 24 hours that are not in violation of the reason this user states. As for Big Kidd
That page was not created by Hakimj
please check again and i want to request a review of Big Kidd and the others recently deleted within the Australian scene. They're not in violation of the reasons stated and an administrator that is not biased will see that. Thanks mate. Ausrapcontributor (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Ausrapcontributor, thanks for your comment, and next time please ping me, OK? Big Kidd was created by User:Medona of Arts, who is one of many blocked accounts by a person who's getting paid for writing up a ton such articles. So G5 is perfectly appropriate, since there are no substantial edits by other editors. Draft:Big Kidd was indeed created by Hakimj, and, eh, it was not good, and they were paid for it, and deleted for all the right reasons. And then it was recreated by User:MT320, who didn't declare a COI, and it was deleted, and then it was recreated by User:Revival938, who is blocked as a sock, and then it was moved and recreated by User:Honesty666, who is also blocked as a sock of Dictations. Shall I go on? I lost track of how many times it got deleted, including once via AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Kidd (Rapper). So rather than undelete it, I am going to WP:SALT it, because this has gone on long enough. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I've created a new article Mehzeb Chowdhury, and although I think it is suitable, I'd appreciate some assistance on the page to make it even better. Thanks. Mobasshir Rahman 06:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xkalponik (talk • contribs)
Xkalponik, we read that this man "is an author, inventor, instructor, journalist, criminologist, criminal law barrister, social sciences researcher, filmmaker, and songwriter." This is a formidable range. Is he really notable in all of these? Cut from the introduction those in which he isn't really notable. It continues: "He is known for his invention of the MABMAT Crime Scene Imaging Rover." This suggests (though of course it doesn't say) that the invention of this thing is what he's primarily known for. Is he? If so, then it's rather odd that MABMAT Crime Scene Imaging Rover is a red link. I mean, Wikipedia is pretty compendious these days; can somebody really be notable if their primary notability is the invention of something about which no Wikipedia editor has bothered to create an article? -- Hoary (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
@Hoary I appreciate ur feedback. By the way, there is indeed an article on his invention.MABMAT (rover) Mobasshir Rahman 11:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xkalponik (talk • contribs)
IP user: You appear to be evading a previous block for abusing multiple accounts, and I have now deleted your repeatedly recreated draft per this discussion. You have been told the page is nonsensical, and that one already exists, so why continue wasting your time and ours? If you have a view you want to express about page improvements, do so on the appropriate talk page of the article please. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Anne.Dimarakis, are there "multiple published sources" about the subject that are: (i) "in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)" and (ii) "reliable" and (iii) "secondary" and (iv) "strictly independent of the subject"? If so, excellent: cite them. If not, give up the attempt to create an article. -- Hoary (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Half the refs are to the company's own website. That does nothing toward establishing notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word, as what the company writes about itself is not independent. David notMD (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
How can I deal with a draft submitted by an unregistered IP?
Good afternoon!
I just wanted to ask a few questions about a draft I've recently run into and expanded by myself, which is about Swedish footballer Taha Ayari.
I think the article could be ready to get moved into the mainspace, as for WP:GNG, or at least in far better conditions than last time (@Eagleash rejected it, and rightfully so). However, it was originally created by an unregistered IP, which is likely subject to switch from a user to another.
If the AfC is ready, can I still accept it by myself? (I should address that I'm not registered as an official reviewer yet)
If yes, should I still send a notification to the IP's talk page?
@JLGM1998 Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for your question. We already have an article on Vehicle identification number, so we do not need a second. Nor do I see how the huge amount of detail you put in your draft relates to your employer, which makes fire-fighting equipment. A VIN code seems overtly trivial for any machines made by this company. I do not recommend you progress with this. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
@JLGM1998 Having looked at your talk page unblock request, I feel you are close to straying into territory you promised to stay away from. I recognise that you had this discussion with User:JBW about this article, but I feel your bosses are unreasonably expecting you to edit Wikipedia as part of your job. My advice is that you explain to them that they have no say in what goes onto Wikipedia, and that you will be blocked again from editing if you try. It would be better to find other unrelated topics to write about, or steer clear of Wikipedia entirely. I'm sorry to be blunt, but this will avoid you wasting your own time and ours. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia has Vehicle identification number, which has existed since 2003. Your draft as written serves no value, and should be deleted. To do that, put DB-author inside double curly brackets {{ }} at the top. As to adding something short about VIN to the NAFFCO article, how would that improve readers' understanding of what NAFFCO is and does? David notMD (talk) 11:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
The existing article does a poor job of explaining what NAFFCO is, which appears to be a company that provides fire-fighting vehicles and equipment, and also installs and manages fire extinguishing systems in buildings. A useful addition would be describing all that - with reliable source references - and also reviewing the existing refs for weaknesses (dead refs, interviews (not considered independent), refs for relatively minor awards, etc. David notMD (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
On the page Twenty One Pilots, the navbox (I think that's what it is called) was broken. I got rid of it as a temporary fix, but I'm not sure how to fix navboxes. Please help me!
Hi Balnibarbarian, I have reinstated, and mended, the infobox, by re-adding }} As for how do you detect the problem? I use the article's history page, looking at different earlier versions, until I find the edit that broke it, (in this case it was [4] this one} then look to see what has been added/subtracted. Broken boxes are very often due to unbalanced brackets, of several shapes, check the number of opening brackets and closing brackets and work out where the missing one should be . Arjayay (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
My draft, Draft:Solidarity_wage_policy, was declined for the given reasons of not citing reliable sources and reading as an essay. I'm uncertain about the second one, which appears stylistic.
The draft cites from two sources, both secondary sources, and draws its information from those. The Description section is a summary of the same information in cited resources. Schulten describes the purpose of a solidarity wage directly as preventing firms from responding to a competitive disadvantage by lowering their labor costs through wage reduction. Erixon also discusses this, along with the broader implications of the Rehn-Meidner model and some history. (I need to update the Schulten reference; it's a draft of DOI 10.1177/095968010282004, published in the European Journal of Industrial Relations, and a peer-reviewed source carries more weight.)
There are a number of things I did not cite, which I believe are in line with Wikipedia policy.
I didn't include sources for comparisons to a living wage because those comparisons are basic and supported by the relevant Wikipedia article itself, which details the several ways a living wage has been examined and described, all of which having to do with basic needs and cost of living rather than overall economic productivity. The article isn't about a living wage, so the wikilink should take the place of sourcing in that case.
The Comparison to a Living Wage section frames the solidarity wage against the living wage and gives basic implications. WP:NOR does not preclude basic calculations, such as comparing the inflation-adjusted minimum wage to a productivity-adjusted minimum wage. The difference in growth is substantial and only conveyed by this comparison. One could imagine a reader who feels that following productivity sounds "more fair," but was thinking more along the lines of $18/hr in 2021, while $25/hr in 2019 sounds ludicrous and, besides, that growth rate is fast. When I make political and theoretical arguments, which are not appropriate here, I propose that this rate of growth isn't "fast" but rather is fast relative to current policy; it is current policy that is slow. Politically, with this imaginary reader, simply not providing numbers is a way to persuade the reader (i.e. advocate for) that this policy which sounds more fair is better, as the suggestion is open-ended and doesn't run up against the degree to which the reader may believe the minimum wage should be higher. Because this omission can be persuasive, such comparisons are necessary as a means to remain objective and NPOV.
Raising minimum wage faster than what amounts to the average increase in total value (GDP) produced per hour worked is similar in nature to raising the minimum value in a set in greater proportion than the increase in the mean of the set (this should be obvious, but we're talking about mathematical reasoning on abstract economic concepts, so it's likely to be obvious in context to an economist but not a lay person). I feel it is valid and encyclopedic to explain clearly that the solidarity wage represents the maximum mathematically sustainable rate of minimum wage increase, and why that is. There are other interesting but not necessarily encyclopedic properties here, for example that any slower rate of minimum wage increase mathematically guarantees growing wage inequality (while this is true and trivially shown to be true, it's also a particularly powerful piece of political rhetoric).
That's information which I don't believe is original research, and which I believe could be left out specifically to shape the article into a persuasive (and thus POV) essay. That being the case, I believe this detail is necessary to retain NPOV; I will concede it is not as well written as I might like, not sure how to address that.
The declining reviewer, User:S0091, said: Most of the content is unsourced. I think the sourcing is necessary. While your calculations seem to be correct, they still might be WP:UNDUE if secondary sources do not explicitly say that. You also need sources for the explicit data you mention.
Sentences like A solidarity wage is necessarily higher than a living wage in the long run, as it explicitly incorporates ..., Such disadvantages can only be addressed by investing in new productive capital ..., The per-hour GDP figures can only be known after the fact, so any solidarity minimum wage policy using this portion of labor productivity would set minimum wage to these levels in the following year or later. are non-trivial and should be sourced. Someone with no prior knowledge of economics might not immediately arrive at the conclusions you have, and you need to incorporate that knowledge into the article. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Teahouse hosts are "how to" advisors, but not content experts, so that huge block of text above no help. And yeah, in the draft, you have a lot of facts you got from somewhere,but not enough references. David notMD (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Bluefoxicy signing as John Moser. You state above that you are trying to write something that is "persuasive" and an "essay". If that is your goal, then I advise you to take your efforts to another website. Wikipedia does not include persuasive essays, with the exception of behind-the-scenes essays about editing Wikipedia. Article space consists of neutrally written encyclopedia articles, not persuasive essays. Cullen328 (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
I think you misread the comment. I stated that if I were trying to write a persuasive essay, I would leave certain things out; and so I included those things to make the article NPOV. John Moser (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough, I got the GDP/H data from OECD and can cite that.
The part about competitive disadvantages is directly described in both cited sources.
As to a solidarity wage being higher than a living wage, I don't think anyone in the field has ever actually made the comparison because it's trivially obvious to an expert in the field. A living wage covers a standard of living; a solidarity wage bluntly just follows productivity, which means it increases luxury. Basically, if for every hour worked on average, 10% more were produced, the purchasing power of the solidarity wage would be 10% higher. That means you can buy 10% more. You can buy fancier food, a faster Internet subscription, more video games. This is so obvious to anyone familiar with macroeconomic wage policy that it's not worth mentioning. It'd be like telling someone that eating more donuts would result in consuming more calories from donuts.
That you can only look at collected empirical data after the fact is also obvious; but also so obvious that it is probably extraneous and I should just remove it. (I mean really, how are you supposed to know in January 2023 how much GDP was produced between January 2023 and December 2023?)
I don't know how often I'm supposed to put a reminder inline reference through the text I guess (blahblahblah[1] blahblahblahblah[1] blahbla[1] blah[1][2] blahblahblah[2] blahblah[1] 4 sentences 17 citations to the same source). John Moser (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Deletion of Page: Need Help asap
Hi, Recently a page for Sean Bielat was deleted based on a conclusion that he does not meet notable wiki guidelines. I tried to contact the admin, and while she did give me valauble advice and direct me here as a new wiki user, she did not respond to me asking about why his page was deemed not notable and if I could restore it.
So I guess I'm just coming here to see what anyone thinks I should do about this? Does anyone have any suggestions on how I can get his page reposted? Should I download the content from his old page and repost it with more citations this time? Or did I contact the wrong admin? I am very confused on what to do about this issue. Thanks so much! Sabrinalehman (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Sabrinalehman, welcome to the Teahouse. Since the article was turned into a redirect as a result of an AfD, the place you need to go is Deletion review, but only if you believe you can meet the third criteria, i.e. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. Do you have new sources, ones which were not already present in the article (you can see an old version here to check)? Have you read WP:NPOL and WP:GNG to make sure you understand the criteria? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "download the content from his old page and repost it with more citations" doesn't sound sensible. References aren't something you can add as an afterthought; they should be the basis of what you write. Instead of trying to create an article backwards, you should start at the beginning. Find several reliable independent sources with extensive discussion of Bielat, and write a draft based on them, citing them as you go. Maproom (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Can Anyone also explain why the sources that were already provided on his page don't fit the Wiki notable guidelines? I'm not a regular user here and am not a writer, I am just tryong to get this page back up for him and could really use some help because this is not my expertise. Thanks so much for all the advice and help! Sabrinalehman (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
@Sabrinalehman, it's probably important to ask: do you have a personal or professional relationship of any kind with the article subject? It's not necessary for you to say what relationship if you'd prefer not to, just "yes" or "no". We have policies around editing with a conflict of interest. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Yes I am his and his wife's executive assistant! I'm sorry I had no clue that there were rules around this. Other professionals had been in contact with me to let me know his page was deleted and redirected. I will stop here if this is a violation of Wiki to try to repost his page. Also sorry I tried to delete the content here, to be quite honest the seriousness that was being imposed on me was kind of making me anxious. I had no idea that this was that serious!
If anyone is interested in rewriting his article that does not have a personal/professional relationship with him, it would be super highly appreciated! (: Sabrinalehman (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
@Sabrinalehman, you would qualify as a paid editor per WP:PAID, and would need to read and follow the instructions on that page; pay particular attention to the bits about making proper disclosures. It's tricky to operate as a paid editor here on Wikipedia, but not impossible. My advice would be to sit on this for a few days and read the various pages you've been linked to, then decide if you have the time and motivation to proceed. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I dont think I have the time for this no. But do you know if any other users would be interested in researching about him and recreating his page? I'm not sure how wiki works, do people just get randomly interested in an individual and then write about them on wiki? Is there a talk thread for asking others to research and write about topics? Thanks again for all the help! Sabrinalehman (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
@Sabrinalehman, believe it or not, that is indeed usually how it works. But groups of folks with similar interests do get together to form WikiProjects, which focus on particular subject areas. If you go to the talk page of WikiProject Politics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, and make a post asking for help there, someone might be willing to look into things. Maybe. We all sort of do what we like around here, and somehow it works.
Hi! Not sure what the proper forum would be but I was looking for any guidance on editing descriptions within the outreach dashboard platform - I found the following example and would love be able to use the bold/header features. As I am editing though I cannot seem to make anything work to get this look. Thanks! (example below, not my work)
Links to websites within text of a page vs. in citations
New to editing. Is it forbidden or generally frowned upon to create a hotlink to a non-Wikipedia page within text, say for example, to youtube or an established website?
I am getting the impression that citations are preferred, but the hotlink would be convenient for readers if it does not violate best practices. LBDon (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi @LBDon, welcome to the Teahouse. That's referred to as an inline external link, and it is indeed generally frowned upon. As it says in the first paragraph of WP:EXTERNAL, External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article. You can read a lot more at the page I linked, but the basic idea is that if an external site contains information which you think is important, but you can't find a good way to include it as a reference, you should place it in a dedicated External links section at the end. But as this says, it's important to make sure Wikipedia doesn't turn into a collection of links - our focus is well-written encyclopedia articles. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks so much for the quick and useful reply. Definitely the impression I got, but felt the need to have a human confirm it. Grateful. LBDon (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Coordinates would not be appropriate IMO. This gold rush didn't happen in one mine, or one city. It happened in the entirety of Free State. If readers want the coords of Free State, they can look at the linked article. For that reason I will remove the coords. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
@Epifanove: For your future reference, the ISO 3166-2 country code for South Africa is ZA, not SA (which is the code for Saudi Arabia). And one indicates a south latitude, for decimal coordinates, by prefixing a hyphen to the numerical coordinate. Deor (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I added a clarifying paragraph to an article and it was placed at the top of the article. I need to know how to move it lower in the article. thank you. CelestialBrightner (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi @CelestialBrightner, welcome to the Teahouse. Your edit has been reverted for several reasons. Before getting to the problem of placement, it's more important to address the problem of sourcing. What is your source for the information you added? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Please help me understand that a lie produced by a vice president of Tiffany is acceptable because a writer and then subsequent writers did not check their facts and published it at face value. ?? And Wiki continues to allow this falsehood? This event is an embarrassment to Tiffany and they are not likely to come clean about it. What recourse do we have? CelestialBrightner (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
@CelestialBrightner, the goal of Wikipedia is to summarize what has been published in reliable sources, not to report what various people may believe to be the truth. If you can convince a reporter or researcher to look into the issue, and they then publish a story in a reputable newspaper or a book through a reputable publisher, then this will come within Wikipedia's purview. Until then, please do not attempt to use this platform to right great wrongs. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Ref #2 names Oscar as the creator of the design. If you can convince th Pro Football Hall of Fame to post a revision in it website - naming you husband - then he canbe creditied, with verification by the new ref. David notMD (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
How long does generally take to "Disciple" and New Christian ?
Working on a draft for an article page, please help in reviewing the page
Hello members,
I've recently worked on a draft, which was declined (with very good insights). So I've tried to update the draft, with relevant sources and other related information. I need your inputs on the same, so that I can work on it and refine it in a better way. Please find the below draft link
Batreweydf, first, the section "Business model" cites no sources. Why should the reader believe what it says? Secondly, the whole thing is written in a rather soporific corporate-speak. As an example, "Simplilearn's business model is centered around the sale of its online courses to individuals and organizations." Couldn't this be "Simplilearn sells online courses to individuals and organizations"? -- Hoary (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
The draft tells us more about its rounds of funding, and its acquisitions, than about its products. The section on "Product and services" is unreferenced. Does it actually have any products? Has anyone ever used one of its products, and written about it? As it exists, the draft gives the impression that the company may be a scam. There was a lot of that, a few years ago: set up a company, arrange multiple rounds of funding at ever-higher valuations, don't bother much with actual customers and turnover, and sell out to Softbank (which loves growth companies) at a profit to everyone. But I think Softbank has wised up to this trick. Maproom (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your valuable feedback.. I'm going to search for the references for the Products and services section, and update the same.. Batreweydf (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Why?
Why don’t you have any information on Rhodesian ridgebacks but have the dogs name up but don’t know anything about them, they used to hunt lions in Africa long ago CourtnieCottrell (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
The number of subscribers a YouTuber has doesn't automatically make them Wikipedia notable. Try asking about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture since one of the members of that WikiProject might be able to better assess whether Durnil meet a relevant Wikipedia notability guideline. For people, this is generally Wikipedia:Notability (people), but there may be a sub-guideline specific to YouTubers. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I visited some celebrity articles to check their movie appearances, but the respective film/tv lists appeared to be heavily vandalized. The table cells were a mess! Upon checking their "View history" tabs to verify, there were about 4 or 5 IP addresses randomly editing and creating edit wars with numerous registered users. I'm not sure if the vandalism is/was being reported, but something's gotta give. Wouldn't it make sense to "convert" ALL wikipedia articles so that only registered users could edit anything?!?! All the wasted time on some of these articles with their long list of random IP reversions is sad, honestly. The "indefinite page protections" don't seem to be enough. Why not just block IP edits altogether in the first place? IP users don't even have a long-standing Talk page to communicate ideas about what they're doing wrong!
@ColinFine: It doesn't seem those discussions went far and did much. What are the chances that the topic could be made into a wikipedia vote? Many wikipedia items get a voting system. Why not this topic? CYAce01 (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
CYAce01 Nothing on Wikipedia is decided by a vote, see WP:NOTAVOTE- decisions are made by consensus. If you were to dig pretty deep you would see this is an often discussed topic. In some ways it is preferable to have vandalism from IPs rather than from accounts. I don't wish to say why for security reasons, but people intent on vandalizing would find ways to do so even if forced to create accounts. 331dot (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
@331dot: Sorry, but "Nothing on Wikipedia is decided by a vote..." is false. For example, the Arbitration Committee does their annual election process. In fact, there's a banner at the top of the screen during the event. There's even an annual announcement on my Talk page that states "...All eligible users are allowed to vote..." Key word: vote! The proposal discussions aren't doing justice! Let's finally put this IP address topic up for vote! CYAce01 (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
As noted, if you want to dive in and do the extensive work required to implement the policy change you want, you will have to do the research to see what objections there are or have been to the proposal, and write your formal proposal in a way to address those objections. This won't be as easy as it sounds, as it would need to have a broad discussion involving many editors. Again, please see WP:NOTAVOTE. Discussions are not conducted through a voting system as ArbCom elections are. 331dot (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTAVOTE also states that a poll is not forbidden. The proposals have obviously been brought up several times, but haven't done much justice. Wouldn't a poll help speed up the process in this never-ending "consensus" cycle? Why not try? CYAce01 (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Because consensus says that policy changes are not enacted through polls, @CYAce01. If you want to change that consensus, you'll need to make a proposal at one of the Village Pumps, where you've already been directed a few times. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't help. Polls are easily gamed as one person could create multiple accounts to participate. Very little, if anything, is ever final on Wikipedia, even through consensus, as consensus can change. I'm not sure what makes you think those intent on vandalizing won't just create accounts, but I don't need to know that. You've been told how you can proceed if you have the time to do the extensive work and research required to formulate a proposal and address the concerns of prior rejections. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
@331dot: It doesn't appear that a poll on the topic has been attempted yet, so nobody knows if it will help or not, technically. The negativity and speedy rejection toward the option, without trying first, isn't helping matters. The fact that blocked IPs has been proposed so many times, by itself, speaks volumes. CYAce01 (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
If you want to try, go ahead and try, but as I said, you should only try if you have the time to do the extensive work and research required to formulate a proposal(which would need to be a formal Request for Comment most likely) and address the concerns of prior rejections. We aren't trying to be negative but what we are trying to say is that it isn't a quick and easy matter of just asking "hey let's ban IP editing", we're just trying to be honest with you. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
@CYAce01, as the page ColinFine linked above says, If you feel you would still like to do one of these proposals, then raise it at the village pump. However, as it also says, you should address rebuttals raised in the past if you make a proposal along these lines. So you would need to do some research into the past discussions around this topic, then make a new proposal which includes a response to past objections. Note that IP masking is coming and may change how we all interact in the future, depending on how it's implemented. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Proposals after proposals...and IPs still getting away with vandalism. I still think a poll could work wonders here after so many years, regardless of what the policy says (still just my 2cents, but w/e). CYAce01 (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
CYAce01 – yes, a relatively tiny proportion of IPs vandalise; so do a great many people who register accounts, because registering an account is very easy. The vast majority of IPs do not vandalise. You may notice that I am an IP: I choose not to have an account for reasons I am comfortable with. I have been editing very regularly on Wikipedia as an IP for approaching 20 years and have never vandalised. Should I be blocked because of the acts of a relative handful of vandals? Some people in private cars drive irresponsibly and injure or kill others – should we ban all non-professional drivers? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.141.181 (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Governments do require people to register and demonstrate competency before being allowed to drive, so that might not be the best analogy for Wikipedia. GoingBatty (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi, i haven’t done this before but my page recently got deleted. I want to know if there is any possible way I can get a copy of it? I was really proud of it and I want to see it. - love, Alistar. Alistarrz (talk) 07:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
@Alistarrz Whilst MarchJuly was right in what they said, your deleted user page was so way off what Wikipedia is about that it's unlikely that Fastily (a fellow administrator) will be willing to email you the contents of what it contained. This is a project to build an encyclopaedia, not a free-to-use platform for you to share information about your boyfriend - no matter how cute Jeremiah may be. If you aren't genuinely interested in improving a serious encyclopaedia, then I feel you would be better off making a personal blog on some other free platform. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi
i need help for complate for my first article "Draft:Tamadon Investment Bank".
Please help me for complate my article for Publish.
Thank you Fsceo (talk) 05:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
@Fsceo Your draft has many issues but the most serious is that a major part of it is a copyright violation as it is taken directly from the bank's own website at this URL, as is obvious from the phrase fully committed to expanding our products and clients’ reach, strengthening our capital resources, and growing our business to create value for our clients. which should never appear in any Wikipedia article. You need to start again, after reading this advice and this advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Possibly, but it is only part of the draft and I'm not an admin, so I leave it to more experienced eyes who will be reading this Teahouse post to decide what to do. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Draftify, or add unsourced BLP banner?
A new article, Eider Mendoza Larrañaga, skipped AFC and was created in mainspace today. It has zero sourcing and is a WP:BLP violation. Should I send it to drafts, or add an unsourced BLP banner? Eider is a real person, and is in (political) office, with lots of search results that should allow for the article to be sourced without much trouble. I also think the article (on my initial glance) shows promise and looks to be well written, so I don't feel that gutting it for unsourced claims is appropriate, and it is not worthy of a del nom. Please advise. Thanks, Zinnober9 (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
@Lemonaka @Zinnober9. There are over 20 sources at the corresponding article in the Basque language eu:Eider Mendoza, so the task is to find someone who knows that language and is motivated to include some of them. I don't know why G943 didn't do so when they created the English version. Also, Gandalf Grisa has worked on the Basque version as well as ours and presumably has the skills to transfer the sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I would have tagged it as unsourced and left the creating editor a comment, but the PROD notice on the creating editor's talk page has the same effect. David notMD (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Josh B Hammer - Infobox Birthday
I was looking at Josh B. Hammer page and see that his infobox says he's 33, even though he just turned 34.
I would have thought it would update automatically but it hasn't done so.
Any idea why and how to fix it? MaskedSinger (talk) 11:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, I've been clicking around and editing the small articles in need of copy editing. I came up on this one on Wilfred Johnson, and I was surprised to see a pretty gnarly image of his murder scene, depicting his dead body. I read the 'FAQ' page on the use of disturbing images, which was largely ambiguous. I was curious if there are any guidelines or rules of thumb that more experienced editors have when it comes to this. I'm not sure, in this specific articles case, the image is certainly relevant, but I'm not sure it's 'educational.'
Hello, MerlinCat2. I do not believe that this gory but non-specific image adds anything of genuine value to the article except for shock value. Wikipedia is not censored but shocking images should be used only when they clearly add to understanding of the topic. The editing guideline most applicable to this image, in my opinion, can be found at WP:GRATUITOUS. Cullen328 (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Just to be sure I haven't misread things. Using as an example a very clearly fictional writer named Mark Rex Woodman. If this guy were to edit his own page, while at least managing to keep the encyclopedic tone, then which of those scenarios would be okay?
Editing his name and profession, because he knows for a fact that his name is not "Fart Sex Woodman (nice >:])", and he's not an "AO3 degenerate", as his article currently says.
Adding info about some deed of his (like donating 300 bucks to Boy Next Door foundation) that hasn't been fully reported by reliable sources (like not discussing the value or when he donated).
Adding info that was made public at around the same time he made the edit, or a while after (like saying he bought the rights to understanding understanding the concept of love right before the interview where he announces it is released).
Adding info about his family, like his 2 year old babychild Regina Rex Smolitzer, that was made public and reported by reliable sources.
Talking about details that someone could get wrong on his talk page, "just in case", but only requesting edits on the case someone misreads info on reliable sources.
In order, I think they'd be...
Okay because removing vandalism is an uncontroversial edit;
Probably not worth mentioning if the news haven't bothered with it, and thus not okay;
Not okay because he did it too early, and most likely wouldn't be okay if he waited either, because of the COI issues;
Okay, but it'd only be worth mentioning Regina by name (or any traits she might have, like respiratory issues) if she herself was notable enough, otherwise who cares;
And lastly, ultimately okay, but kind of annoying.
The only OK thing for that person to do would be to remove vandalism or blatantly false (unsubstantiated) content. All else should be done per an WP:EDITREQUEST, and they still ought to place a WP:COI notice on their userpage. 'Facts' known to the person, but not verifiable by anyone else need to stay well away from Wikipedia, as should WP:TRIVIA. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, @Devokewater. Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, these large scale, unexplained blanking of cited content is concerning. You could have activated WP:TWINKLE via your preferences which allows you to leave standard templated warning messages yourself. These could have been escalated if they continued. However, I have dropped the editor a notice asking them to start using Edit Summaries and have also taken the unusual step of leaving a high level warning to them that repeated unexplained content removal is liable to result in an editing block. Please continue to monitor the relevant articles and report them to WP:AIV if further warnings are not heeded. Reporting should occur after a 4th level warning has been given and only once the damaging activity continues with one or more subsequent edits. i.e. avoid a 'warn and immediately report' situation. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
@Devokewater Just to update you: I have toned down my warning to this editor as it would seem at that they have been trying to work on this article for some months. So, trying to WP:AGF I have asked them to ensure greater clarity in their edits in future to avoid being warned for vandalism. Please keep an eye on the page and communicate with/warn them if you are still concerned about any inappropriate or confusing editing behaviour. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is asking for money from its readers in big, whiny ads on the top of pages. Still, Wikipedia just spent money on changing the layout to something much less readable, doing away with lists of contents and language links and other useful tools. How dare you? Don't ask for money when you just spent loads of it destroying the experience of Wikipedia, which used to be pretty nice. You should be ashamed of yourself. Shame! Shame! 2A00:801:707:A76F:0:0:3DD7:1803 (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Shame on you for entirely misrepresenting and misunderstanding the situation. Two can play the shame game. The volunteer editors who help out at the Teahouse have nothing to do with such controversial software upgrades, and nothing to do with fundraising. All of that is handled by the professionals at the Wikimedia Foundation, and volunteer editors have been struggling for many years to get the WMF to pay attention to our concerns. You just punched the wrong people. Cullen328 (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Plus, if you just spent five minutes registering an account, you would have much more privacy, and you could customize your user experience so that you could view Wikipedia using the old skin (which I prefer and use), and also never see a fundraising banner ever again. All you need to do is click a few buttons in "Preferences". Cullen328 (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse. Please avoid using personal attacks, this is against WP:CIV. No, nobody got or will get money except Wikimedia Foundation, we are volunteers. If you disagree with Foundation's behaviour, such as changing the layout to something much less readable, doing away with lists of contents and language links and other useful tools, please spoil your anger to them, not to us. Lemonaka (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia doesn't have ads, but it still needs money. The Wikimedia foundation has to pay for URLs somehow. the banner method is less intrusive than ads on other similar websites. would you rather have a banner pop up once every 40 minute, or have an ad float around while you scroll? and Vector (2022) is an ongoing debate. If you want to debate Vector(2022), consider registering an account and joining the debate! -Bad At This, The Kneecap Destroyer (yell at me)13:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Welcome and thank you for your question about donations! To hide the fundraising banners, you can create an account and uncheck Preferences → Banners → Fundraising. The Wikimedia Foundation does not track the identity of IP addresses, so it doesn't know your age, income level or whether you donated in the past. None of the Wikipedia volunteer editors here who add and improve content in articles receive any financial benefit. We all simply contribute our time because we care about building a great encyclopedia for you and innumerable others around the world to use. If you cannot afford it, no one wants you to donate. Wikipedia is not at risk of shutting down, and the Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts the Wikipedia platform and is asking for these donations, is richer than ever. You are welcome to communicate directly with the donor-relations team by emailing donate@wikimedia.org. Thank you!and Are you asking about a sudden change to Wikipedia's appearance? It is because the default skin has changed from the Vector legacy (2010) skin to the new Vector (2022) skin. If you would like to change back to the old one, you can, as a registered user, click on the in the top-right corner and choose Preferences. Once there, go to Preferences → Appearance → Skins → Vector legacy (2010). If you would like to leave feedback, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
how do i add notes or footnotes or whatever?
I'm a bit new to using source editor and since footnotes don't work on visual editor I don't really know how to do them properly on source editor (or wikitext or however it's called). SignedInteger (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Wonder what's going on with people randomly pinging me. Anyways, they're trying to invite me to "play" at the sandbox ;) TailsWx18:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
The referencing at Draft:Cybullying is a mess. There are three reference lists, and several error messages in among them. Where there's a link included, it never links to a relevant document. I suggest that you clean up the existing referencing before adding further references. (Also, the entire draft seems to be about US findings, though it doesn't say so.) Maproom (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Help in what to include in article in order to get it approved
Hello. I need assistance in how to proceed in editing the article Draft:Sean Wheeler so that it can be approved. I have been editing it, following the instructions that several editors have suggested since I originally wrote it. On this last try, it was declined because of a lack of sources in the sections "discography", "1981", as well as for the birth date in the info box... so my questions are:
1- what kind of source is valid for the birth date in the info box?
2- the "1981" section does contain an independent source I included, which covers everything mentioned in that section... is this source not enough for that section?
3- will erasing the discography section (until finding the appropriate sources for it) help in the approval of this article?
Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate all the help I can get Cachizalo (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Please provide the source that shows where you read what his birth date is.
The source in the 1981 section doesn't seem to mention The Sciotics, Bouncing Souldiers, Dr. Strangelove, Vein Train, Junkyard Angel, or Cactus Slim and the Other Desert Cities band.
Removing unsourced information - or providing reliable sources - will help.
@Cachizalo Not to pile on you, but editors often ask what kind of sources can be used for certain pieces of information. Or they have written a lot of material, and then they start looking for sources afterwards. As GoingBatty says, it's really very simple: "Where did you find that information in the first place?" If it is from a reliable source, then that's your reference. If it's not from a reliable source, then don't include the information. Good luck! David10244 (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I want to cite an appendix that was included with a newspaper, but how would I go about this? The original newspaper is called Nordlys, and the appendix is called Bilag Nordlys. They also have separate page counts (out of a total of 100 pages, the appendix comprises 40). Right now I have the following: Rein, Marit (25 January 2007). "Giftige rockere satser høyt" [Toxic Rockers Aim High]. Nordlys (in Norwegian Bokmål). Vol. 106, no. 16. p. 28. The problem is that both have a page 28, so how do I go about citing this? ArcticSeeress (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I contemplated doing that, but then the volume and issue don't match up with the work the appendix is attached to. For reference, bilag is the Norwegian word for appendix, so I'm not sure the editors/publishers even consider it to be a separate work from the newspaper itself. ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I suppose that would work, but then "Appendix to" would be italicised, which I'd rather avoid. Is there a way to supress the formatting of specific text within a citation template? ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
@ArcticSeeress: Is it page 28 of the appendix? If so, maybe use the |at= parameter instead of |page=:
{{cite news |last=Rein |first=Marit |date=25 January 2007 |work=Nordlys |volume=106 |issue=16 |at=Appendix, p. 28 |title=Giftige rockere satser høyt |trans-title=Toxic Rockers Aim High |language=Norwegian Bokmål}}
Rein, Marit (25 January 2007). "Giftige rockere satser høyt" [Toxic Rockers Aim High]. Nordlys (in Norwegian Bokmål). Vol. 106, no. 16. Appendix, p. 28.
I'm not unintentionally making it go inside the table myself, am I?
Vostani Serbije (I'm trying to add Modern Serbian to the page, but I run into a multitude of problems when trying. After plugging all the leaks, this one is too strong for me to patch it myself. In my analogy, the leaks are the issues and confusion that came with editing the page, and the patching is me overcoming the issues. I can't figure out how to fix this issue. A little bit of help please? Kxeon (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi, when inserting a draft submission template on a draft article, should I put the name of the creator of the draft page in the draft article submission template username column?? And am I allowed to submit the draft for review when I am a contributor to the article or is it that the person whose name is mentioned in the template username is solely allowed/responsible for the submission of the draft article? 456legend(talk) 18:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
@456legend: Hello and welcome! For the username, it's best to put the username of the person who is shepherding the draft through the editing process. Even if its not the person who created the draft, it's more useful to know "who is going to be responding to questions or taking care of problems". The original creator is not necessarily the same as that person. That being said, we expect people to collaborate, and that includes drafts. No one person is responsible for anything at Wikipedia, and that includes draft articles. If there are multiple people collaborating on a draft, they can all work on it whenever they want. It's important to have at least one person who is taking responsibility, but it can be any number of people. --Jayron3218:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Jayron32 Thank you very much for the detailed explanation. Recently I have been working on improving in a draft that has already been created by someone else and many other contributed on the article but it had got deserted and I have taken up the work in expanding it, so can I add my name to the username after the I completely finish the draft?456legend(talk) 18:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, exactly that. The username is just "who is the reviewer going to be communicating with". It doesn't limit other people from helping, it just gives the reviewer a single point of contact for communication. --Jayron3218:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
On the Climate of the United States article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_the_United_States), there is a section on extreme temperatures. Most of the information in there seems fine, except for 2 things: the June record low of -11F at Anaktuvuk Pass in Alaska is dubious because it seems like that year that the Anaktuvuk Pass weather station was having data errors. The other issue being the August record low of -6F at Snowshoe Lake, Alaska because when I looked at the climate data, it showed the coldest temperature ever recorded at Snowshoe Lake in August was 12.
When you're in the page, there are some more steps you have to take to get to the data:
Single Station -> Monthly Summarized Data
Options Selection -> Output: Table, Variable: Min temp, Summary, Minimum, Year range: por-por (por stands for period of record, it will automatically take data from the first year data was recorded to the last)
Station Selection -> Search -> Anaktuvuk Pass -> Select the Anaktuvuk Auto weather station -> Click Go
This will bring up the coldest temperature recorded in each month (at the very bottom is the absolute records for each month) and you can see that in 1971 the data seems very erroneous. If you go back to the Single Station dropdown and select Daily Data for a Month and put 1971-06, and you'll see that the only data from that month was for a few days at the end of the month. You can do the same for other months in 1971 and most of them will show the same: just a few data at the end of the month. Infact, sometimes they are the exact same days with the exact same number in different months (for example May 1971 has the exact same data, doesn't seem right).
You can also do the same for the Monthly Summarized Data at Snowshoe Lake weather station (same steps as Anaktuvuk pass but different station name).
Click on Alaska, click Anaktuvuk Auto (or scroll down to Snowshoe Lake). Scroll down on the left side of the page until you see Extreme Minimum, which also shows the coldest temperature recorded in each month for each year, as it did in the other page (absolute records for each month are also at bottom), and there isn't even data from 1971 for Anaktuvuk Pass, the coldest temperature recorded June shows as 12F. Similar for Snowshoe Lake: it has data from 1971 but the lowest wasn't at -6F, the record low for August there also shows as 12F.
If someone could find some more reliable sources for the June and August record low for the United States that would be great. So far the lowest temperature I've found for June is 8F at Mount Washington in 1945. I haven't looked into August temperatures yet.
Should the article be left like that until the actual values are found or should I just put in some preliminary data and keep looking? Akamaikai (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Akamaikai, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is much better to have discussions of an article on that article's talk page, where people with an interest in the subject are more likely to see it. ColinFine (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Akamaikai Regarding "it seems like that year that the Anaktuvuk Pass weather station was having data errors"; it seeming like it was an error is insufficient, there needs to be a reliable source that definitively says there was a data error or equipment malfunction that should discredit the information. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
What if the source listed in the actual article shows that it didn't even happen? The source they listed doesn't even have any data for that year. And the other source listed has a different record from a different place. Akamaikai (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Interesting! You definitely should take this up at the article's talk page. Those who are frequent contributors or have an interest in that article will get notified and can respond! SpookyTwenty (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I mentioned it in the talk page. No response yet. I don't think many people look at that talk page considering the last time someone said anything in there before me was in December 2021.. Akamaikai (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
In addition to the IP user's suggestion, which is a good one, I'd say that the talk pages for articles can often go days or weeks with very little activity. My experience is that the parts of Wikipedia that involve interaction can be very quiet, with places like this the exception. SpookyTwenty (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Sourcing Issue
I submitted a draft of an article on a pharmaceutical executive Craig Tooman. I used citations from pharma and finance industry sources, some of which may have gotten their sourcing from press releases. The article was rejected as reading as too promotional and for questionable sources. In retrospect, I get the promotional criticism and I'm working on striping that down. What I don't get is the sourcing criticism. Major media organizations regurgitate press releases on a daily basis: earnings statements, hirings, firings, etc. Nobody says, "Tsk, tsk, New York Times, you are just quoting from a press release." Yet that seems to be the standard here. And if I cited a Times article that was, in fact, a rewrite of a press release, I doubt editors would question it. I'm new here, and maybe I'm missing something (very possible!). But this seems like a strange, inconsistent bias. ClydeIsKool (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
You are mistaken. Wikipedia editors do not automatically assume that a piece in a usually reliable source is independent of the subject: pieces based on press releases are usually identifiable from their style, and their close resemblance to other pieces in different sources. In any case, a given source piece may be reliable or unreliable, depending on what in Wikipedia it's being used for.
As for earnings statements, appointments and the like, such minor and uncontroversial details can even be referenced to the subject's own Website, but while websites and press releases are acceptable to corroborate those specific details, they can never be used to support the Notability of the subject, which is a very different thing.
Note that the above is general advice, I have not and will not look at your specific draft. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.55.125 (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1180. The search field should be at the top of the screen with a . —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Trademark name infringement
Hello, I have a question regarding a trademark name. If the name is used on a Wikipedia article can the name of that article be removed if someone trademarks the name. Wikipedia is known to pop out in all search engines as the first article hindering the brand of that trademark. For example an artist trademarks their name for good and services. A Wikipedia article with that same name keeps popping up in search. Can it be edited? 107.115.227.65 (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi IP user. We follow our style guide at MOS:TM. Wikipedia does not treat trademarks in the same way as other publications (for example it does not use the ™ symbol). The only indication a word is a trademark (if it is used in a context where that is true) will be an initial capital. Article names are not altered just because someone has trademarked some word within it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Not without a good reason other that it being trademarked. If the name is there as a result of being properly cited and being relevant to the article, one would expect the name to be there. If SEO is an issue, I suggest that you deal with it through tinkering with that website and other SEO activities. We are not here to help promote one's good and services. – robertsky (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Having said that, it is reasonable for the Wikipedia article for the person to have a link to their official website, per WP:ELYES. So even if the person using the search engine ends up at the Wikipedia article, it will be easy for them to go to the official website as their next stop. GoingBatty (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
"can the name of that article be removed if someone trademarks the name"... Wikipedia can use a name in an article, and in an article title, even if the name is trademarked. David10244 (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Use of External Link vs. Reference
Appreciate explicit guidance on when it is appropriate to use an external link instead of a reference. My impression is that the links are to places that the reader might use to accomplish something practical vs. a citation that simply backs up information in the text?
@LBDon Please read the guidance at WP:EL. In general, external links are not used in the body text of an article, so are not in themselves citations. Some external links can go in a special section at the foot of an article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I had read this, and actually was referring to the external links at the end of the page, not to inline links to external sources.
While having read the following: "Some acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." I am still unclear, and if more clarity is available I would be greatful.
I do not understand the difference between a citation (which may, indeed, also "contain further research that is accurate and on-topic" with what is pointed to by an external link at the bottom of the page. I don't believe that citations are off topic and inaccurate.
Inline citations are placed within the article text, and generate a superscript number which links to an entry in the "References" section. The "External links" section will normally contain not many entries, and provide information which doesn't support any specific part of the article text. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Michael, another way I might ask the question is: When would I use an external link at the bottom and NOT use a citation? When would I use a citation and NOT use an external link at the bottom? Any answer to those questions would really nail it:) LBDon (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
@LBDon A citation is used to reference the source of information that is stated in the article. An external link is a convenience link to "further information" that is not already included in the article. The most common external link is the subject's own website. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
@LBDon External links are always optional and many articles don't have any. On the other hand, citations are mandatory, since everything in an article has to be capable of being verified, a core policy here. There are edge cases. For example, Wikipedia consensus is that the Internet Movie Database is not a reliable source, so should never be used as a citation (although many creep in!). However, virtually all actors and films have entries there, so a large number of these articles link to IMDB in the external links section. If you have specific cases in mind, ask again here at the Teahouse, or on my Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Editing my personal Wikipedia Page. (MaterialScientist denied changes.
(Courtsy link) Welcome to the teahouse Cameradirector! what page are you referring to? do you mean your Userpage? or a page about the real you? if its about the real you its a COI and you cant edit the page, you could leave a message in the talk page though! update: i checked your edit, and it qualifys as page blanking, large quantities of information have been removed for no discernable reason. if you want, you could include in explanation in your edit summery -Bad At This, The Kneecap Destroyer (yell at me)23:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Cameradirector: Greetings, and welcome to the Teahouse. Assuming that you are John Stuart Scott, this is not "your personal page", but rather an encyclopedia article about you. As such we need to base the information therein primarily on reliable sources which are independent of the subject. In light of this, we strongly discourage the subjects of articles from directly editing these articles for conflict of interest reasons. Instead, it is preferred that you submit edit requests to the article's talk page, where they can be evaluated by experienced editors. --Finngalltalk23:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Cameradirector. When you write my personal Wikipedia Page, that indicates that you have a misunderstanding about this website. Wikipedia does not have "personal pages". Instead, it has neutrally written encyclopedia articles that summarize what reliable independent published sources say about the topic. Because you have a clear conflict of interest, you should confine yourself to making well-referenced , formal edit request at Talk: John Stuart Scott. Please read about article ownership. Cullen328 (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello there! Could someone please tell me if a red minus number in the contributions is a bad thing? I have made some very minor edits as a newcomer, but some have a red minus with a number. I don't wish to make any mistakes and am trying to do things correctly. I understand it has to do with beta, but I'm not sure if it's a positive or negative contribution.
Our company would like to dedicate a page, or 2 depending on what is allowed that highlights and explains what is the difference between financial emigration, ceasing ones tax residency, and how it impacts ones life.
Hi, please disclose your company in your userpage in accordance with WP:PAID, also read the Paid Editing Essay to make sure nothing you write violates NPOV
Are you considering an article about the company, or about these two topics with no mention of the company? Also there is no "our" or "we" in Wikipedia. Each account and non-account IP must represent only one person. Lastly, be aware that Tax residence exists. David notMD (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Because this is an encyclopaedia of notable topics, and not a 'how to do it manual', my first question would be to ask what existing articles you have identified here, and what information gap your proposal would fill? Then I'd ask what reliable, published sources you would base such an article on (but not your company's own website or other promotional site or service). If you genuinely think there is a gap, then the best way to start an article is to dedicate some time (weeks not hours) to learning how to edit Wikipedia and what its protocols are before ever attempting the hardest task anyone can do here: namely, creating an article from scratch. Then I'd point you to Help:Your first article and suggest you begin creating a draft which can be submitted for review and feedback when you think it's ready.
No, LegalSmeagolian: they havet said that they want to create an article about a general topic that their company has an interest in, not about their company, so their company's notability doesn't arise. They will however need to be careful about COI, and making sure that they give appropriate weight to all published sources on the matter, especially the ones that take a different position from their company. ColinFine (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
editing my clubs entry, and then having it undone by Wikipedia
I recently joined the wiki-project Prussia which is marked as inactive, in a bid to revive the project started to wright new articles and asked all the 7 members if they wanted to help me revive the project, none of them answered. Is it ok now for me to take charge and create task forces, recruit new members, and become the leader. I didn't want to read all the policies and go through the bureaucracy so I'm asking here Crainsaw (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
@Crainsaw There is important guidance at WP:PROJGUIDE. I don't think that Wikipedia editing really involves the concept of "leader" but very active editors in a given area will of course become familiar to others interested. I can understand your reluctance to read all the policies but given that you seem happy to take on a bunch of other tasks, I would advise you to read carefully at minimum the page I've linked. Good luck. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Possible correction
Hello. I was reading the article "History of law enforcement in the United Kingdom" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_law_enforcement_in_the_United_Kingdom) and I noticed something in the last sentence of the first paragraph. It says "ninetieth [90th] century" when I believe it should say "nineteenth [19th] century". I could have read or understood this wrong, but it doesn't make sense to me, given the obvious fact that we have yet to reach the 90th century. Abloefefnoab (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I am very new to wikipedia and have recently been updating pages relevant to Sir Anthony Seldon's appointment as head of Epsom College (an independent school in surrey). However, I would like to ask for clarification about how to write certain info, as Seldon is due to start at epsom college in march, and continue until september 2024. Should I retain my current sentence, in the future tense, ("He is due to begin his duties on 1 March 2023, and step aside for a permanent head in September 2024.") or as though it has already happened ("he began his duties on 1 March 2023, and stepped aside for a permanent head in September 2024.") I have seen both examples in different areas of wikipedia, and would love some clarification from the community.
Hi - welcome to the teahouse! MOS:CURRENT recommends that you phrase your statements in a way that will not become outdated. Perhaps you could phrase it as "In February 2023, he announced the appointment to head of Epsom college, beginning in March 2023." SpookyTwenty (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
@Rupdatroop: Review what your reliable published source states, and then write it in your own words for the article without changing the facts. If your source is the February announcement, then SpookyTwenty's suggestion could be reasonable. You would need a source published after 1 March 2023 to state when he actually began his duties. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
thanks - I think I will go for SpookyTwenty's suggestion as my principal source is the email sent to parents by the school. Thanks for the help! Rupdatroop (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
@Rupdatroop An email is not a good source, since it is difficut to verify. I note that the article already contains a much better BBC souce for the same information (which is currently duplicated in the text). Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the recommendation - I hesitated to use the BBC article as I wasn't aware that It contained information about dates. I will update the citation with the article. Rupdatroop (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Fixing the code for Line 1 (Athens Suburban Railway)
Does it determine the Wikipedia principal which says (30 days and 500 edits) for sister to be able to access the service of emails?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MDmulwa (talk • contribs) 22:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Does it determine the Wikipedia principal which says (30 days and 500 edits) for a Wikipedia user to be able to access email services? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MDmulwa (talk • contribs) 22:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Hey Cicadacola! At the top of the page, it states A friendly place where you can ask questions to get help with using and editing Wikipedia. This means you can ask questions about how to use, or edit, Wikipedia, and general questions about Wikipedia as well. We don't forget the tea, of course. ;) TailsWx23:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Where to find articles needing grammar fixes or needing links to other pages?
Hi! I am new to Wikipedia and want to help edit. However, I cannot find articles that have the issues I am good at fixing. I have tried the recommended suggestions, though every one of them seem to not have the issues I am good at fixing. Is there a way I can search for articles such as these to fix them? Cinnacat (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
@Cinnacat: Thank you for your eagerness to improve Wikipedia! To find articles needing grammar fixes, try doing searches for poor grammar such as "They is" insource:/ They is / and carefully review each article to see if it truly needs to be changed.
I'm autistic myself and this is true because of the sensory impairment. The qigong massage technieque works in respect to that boundary and with daily gentle actions this boundaries softens and touch is possible. Even so that the sensory impairment can be reversed and healed. For this daily treatment is necessary for at least 1-2 years. Healing the tactile/sensory impairment makes that selfregulation improves as well. This is honestly a very simple though effective technique which is very child friendly. Ask me more about it or read about it on the web Bieneba (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Could someone help me with these arguments please? Am I stating this correctly and is there a chance it will be accepted?
This page lists the research done and it should also be listed on the Wikipedia article. The list will always be the same and can be found on other websites too.
The text is the official description of the questionnaires used in research done by Dr. L. Silva. I will ask the QSTI (Qigong Sensory training Institute) for approval to use these descriptions as I feel they should stay the way they are. These descriptions were also copied by https://www.acupuncturewithzen.com/qigong-sensory-autism-qsti/
I rephrased the text that was an issue but cannot change the list with research articles as the official article titles need to be in the list. Do I resubmit for review? or do I wait on a reply from you?
Actually, LilianaUwU, Wikipedia neutrally written articles about notable pseudoscientific topics are permitted on Wikipedia, as long as the sources are reliable and the prose makes it clear that it is a pseudoscientific topic. We have articles on every well known pseudoscientific topic from the Loch Ness monster to Big Foot and Piltdown Man and Cold fusion and Astrology and Homeopathy and Dowsing and Ancient astronauts and countless other crank, pseudoscientific topics. These articles require monitoring to prevent kooks and cranks from messing with them, but they belong in the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Oh yeah, Cullen328, I'm aware that there are pseudoscientific topics that are covered, and that wasn't my point, I was referring to people pushing pseudoscience rather than the topic itself in general. Perhaps I should've been clearer. I have to admit, though, that this is a case where it directly involves me - as an autistic person, reading something about "normalizing physical contact" rubs me the wrong way (no pun intended). LilianaUwU(talk / contributions)10:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes I get that. Our sensitivity can make touch really hard. But science evolves and so does our knowledge of the human body. This is a method that has been proven to work positively on healing the tactile and sensory impairment in autosm. It does not heal autism dough, but having sensory challenges improved or or taken away is a very bug deal and a huge positive to many autistic children. I also feel that even if you are sensitive to the topic I would like invite you to dig deeper and investigate the topic. Bieneba (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Not proven. See Qigong for an example of a non-advertising, non-copyright infringement article that incorporates discussion of claimed health benefits and quality of research. As for autism, at PubMed (National Library of Medicine, there is this article:
Ruan H, Eungpinichpong W, Wu H, Shen M, Zhang A. Medicine Insufficient Evidence for the Efficacy of Massage as Intervention for Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2022 Sep 24;2022:5328320. doi: 10.1155/2022/5328320. PMID: 36193150; PMCID: PMC9526643. The conclusion: Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that massage is effective for ASD. Future studies should include large sample sizes, incorporate double-blind designs, employ appropriate outcome measures, and allow for long observation and follow-up periods. Furthermore, consensus must be reached on standardized treatments and additional therapies in order to provide better quality evidence for the treatment of ASD.
WRONG PLACE (yes, I shouted) Twice you have created article-like content at User:RezaulIslamShamim and twice it has been Speedy deleted, as your User page is not a place for a biography or autobiography. You have created it for a third time, today. I ask that an Administrator tag it for Speedy deletion. Before that happens, you should move the content to a draft. WP:YFA explains how to create a draft in the proper place and submit it for review. That said, your content has no references, and so cannot be accepted as an article. All facts about a living person must be verified by references. David notMD (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Oooh sorry I got you, sorry for my interruption poor and misleading statements that I applied which coused the interruption, I hope I will be forgiven for that, something went wrong somewhere, but I will try my best.
MDmulwa (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Please help me
why my website does not summit please don't block it for me cuz I've tried many account if I anyone actually say that I've blocked it was automatic I don't know what is wrong with it Officialdonzil (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello and welcome. Wikipedia is not like social media, this is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, where mere existence allows for inclusion. This is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, which we call notability, such as the definition of a notable musician. If you meet at least one aspect of that criteria, an article about you may be possible, but you shouldn't be the one to write it, see the autobiography policy. If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
If you are asking why your submission at Draft:Zil.xdonzil.x was declined, the reasons were given on the draft itself, and on your user talk page. The words in blue in the feedback are wikilinks to further information about the problems. Resubmitting the draft without addressing the problems might be regarded as tendentious editing. If you are saying that you have previous accounts which are blocked, you should not be editing as this is sockpuppetry; you need to submit an unblock request on the blocked account. - David Biddulph (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
The entire content of Draft:Zil.xdonzil.x is "zil.xdonzil.x was born 11 February 2001 zil.xdonzil.x he was a singer rapping" That is not a valid article. Of greater importance, As David pointed out, you state that you have had other accounts. If true, then this one and others should be indefinitely blocked as sockpuppets, and you are forbidden to create a draft until you get your original account unblocked. David notMD (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
To me, 456legend, it doesn't look anywhere near ready to be published. All we learn is who was in it. What was/is this ministry noted for? What did it achieve? What did it fail to achieve? What (if anything) did it just timidly ignore? But I do read in it that it was the immediate successor to the second N. Chandrababu Naidu ministry, whose article burbles on at considerable length about who was who in that ministry, but keeps shtum about what, if anything, the ministry did. -- Hoary (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
However, 456legend, I should answer your question. Just add {{subst:AfC draft|456legend}} to the top of the draft. This will provide you with a submit option. When you take this option is for you to decide. -- Hoary (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Hoary Okay, I got it. I will consider these points and only submit it after that. But yes I wanted to know how am I supposed to add a submission template. Thanks for that along with the suggestion.456legend(talk) 05:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Hoary Hi, I have another doubt can you please clarify it? The doubt is, Am I supposed to insert the name of the person who created the draft page or is it fine to put my name in the submission template as saod by you in the earlier answer/reply. Just checking bc I haven't created the page but only contributed.456legend(talk) 03:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
456legend, sorry for not having responded earlier, but I've been away from my computer for a couple of days. I think it would have been OK not to put any name in the template, whereupon the name would have defaulted to yours. But I see that what was a draft is now an article, so congratulations on that. (Though I do still wonder what these successive ministries actually do.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Hoary Oh I see, I will ensure not to put any username from the next. And yes I am trying to fetch sources of the important works of the ministries done during the tenure and working on the creation of chief ministership articles. 456legend(talk) 06:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Need assistance Polis University Tirana
Dear Sir/Madam
I am the Rector of Polis University Tirana Albania
we have a serious problem with the content of English Wikipedia about our University. It does not represent our level of institution development. We wrote you via out IT but so far no respond. We are in the process of international accreditation and ranking so we would like to kindly have your assistance to solve the issue. My colleague responsible of IT Altin Sula is ready to provide you detailed info. Please make possible for us to start this process of communication and assistance. We will be very horned to have you assistance. sincerely
Polis University article is in big trouble. It has been nominated for deletion, which will occur on 24 February unless contested. Recently, content added by User: U POLIS and User:U POLIS2023 was removed because names of institutions cannot be used as User names, and also because the names were identified as coming from the same account - a forbidden practice called 'sockpuppetry'. Those accounts are blocked from editing. Whichever of you (Besnik or Sula) were responsible for those accounts should cease editing. David notMD (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Here is a possible solution: Whichever of you not responsible for U POLIS and U POLIS2023 should start a new account with a made up User name or something like Besnik at UPolis or Altin at UPolis. A required next step is to declare on the User page that you are an employee of U Polis and have been asked to edit this article. See WP:PAID for policy for paid. Next step is to Edit the article to remove the Proposed deletion content at the top, AND to start a discussion on the Talk page, explaining your connection to the University and your intent to add referenced content. Step after that is NOT to edit the article directly. As you are a paid editor, you are limited to proposing added content in a discussion on the Talk page, so that a non-involved editor can either implement the proposed change or deny it. All proposed content must have references. See Help:Referencing for beginners for how to create references. I suggest drafting refs in your own Sandbox, and then copying into the Talk discussion only when properly formatted. Good luck in your endeavors. David notMD (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Edit requests for how to request that someone review your edit requests. A tip: better to break the edit requests into separately submitted sections rather than a huge block of content and refs that may dismay a reviewer, or cause the whole thing to be rejected because parts were not valid. David notMD (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Generally I see simple english to english wikipedia as being acceptable in one way but not the other, that is to say simple english wikipedia articles are acceptable on Enlgish wikipedia but not the other way around. I found a few about related topics which all appear to be present on only simple english wikipedia which is a rarity. So I mostly imported them verbatim (giving credit to the original authors). Are there any major issues with them?
Immanuelle, I looked at just one of these, simple:Ancient Meitei language. Its body text consists of just two sentences. In en:Wikipedia (this Wikipedia), Ancient Meitei language redirects to Meitei language. Why should it not continue to do so? If you have more to say about Ancient Meitai, this could be said within the existing article Meitei language, until/unless the latter grows to an indigestible length. Meanwhile, parts of the article Meitei language obviously need work. An example: The culture involved with the Meitei language is rooted deeply with pride and tradition based on having respect to the community elders. I don't know what's meant by "the culture involved with [any particular language]", or by a culture being "rooted deeply with [whatever]. I can guess, but my guess could well be wrong: this isn't good enough. (Or is this instead lucid English, and my lack of comprehension is just my problem?) -- Hoary (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
hi @ANLgrad. Thanks for your work! That does look like me to be a big improvement. The main concern that I can see remaining is the Pitara Kids Network source - not exactly a Reliable Source. But if you remove that source, I think you should be good to go ahead and remove the notice. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello @Tomorrow and tomorrow, thank you for pointing out about the Pitara Kids source.
I replaced the Pitara Kids source with a reliable source below
I have used a sample page of another personality for the template. After completing the editing I am unable to remove the references inserted by the earlier content user. Kindly Help! Nithinragavs (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Nithinragavs. I do not see why you are having a technical issue. I think that the far more important question is why you think that a person described as the "Honorary Consul General of The Republic of Palau to India" deserves a Wikipedia biography. That is by no means a strong claim to notability. Please explain why you think this person is notable, and what is your relationship with this person? Cullen328 (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you @Cullen328 for the note. Firstly, I have resolved the issue by myself. Secondly any person who is working towards a good cause needs some kind of biography which can be looked into at a later date. The position he holds is not a permanent one but his works needs to be told through the page and that is what I am trying to do. I have met this person often at events where he mentors entrepreneurs especially women. He runs an NGO for underprivileged kids. So few reasons to create this page. Nithinragavs (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
@Nithinragavs "any person who is working towards a good cause needs some kind of biography which can be looked into at a later date". Even if that is true, Wikipedia is not the place to write a biography on anyone who is working on a good cause, unless they are notable (click here). David10244 (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
@Nithinragavs Encyclopedia articles are written in a dry, dispassionate tone. Remove phrases like "As a true visionary leader, he is looked upon by many as a guide and philiospher whose presence vibrates positivity, fondly known as "Guru"". David10244 (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thank you for the suggestions. Usually in India second name is not used much to identify a person. These surnames are very common and you will find about many Mr Sharmas' within a same region, hence the first name. I am referring the tutorial for the references section. Thanks again. Nithinragavs (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
@Nithinragavs That may well be true in India, but Wikipedia's Manual of Style says to use surnames after the first mention. It's not likely that within one article the reader would get confused on who is being referred to. David10244 (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse, and i hope you enjoy your time here! im pretty sure the Teahouse isnt the right place to ask to save a AFD page, i recommend reading Help! my article got nominated for deletion, addressing some of the deletion concerns (which were "reads like an advertisement" and "its only TRP stuff") or if it comes to it, accept that sometimes articles get deleted (im sorry if it comes to that). i wish you well in your attempt to save your article. -Bad At This, The Kneecap Destroyer (yell at me)18:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
One thing I see a bit too much of is people blanking their own pages (or at least mass-deleting things) to "hide" warnings or "keep those idiots out of my turf". From what I know, that's something the rules say "isn't exactly sigma male behavior", but exactly how bad of an idea is it?
I ask this because I know of a few examples (which I won't drop) of known vandals having warning-ridden talk pages, and then blanking them once an admin hears about an instance. The cases I've seen have almost always ended with them blocked for unrelated reasons, though, which is kind of funny. cogsan (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi, welcome to the teahouse. The only thing cannot be blanked is rejected unblock request. However, I suggest archive the notice instead if you really don't like them show on talk page, which will be a better way than searching in history. Lemonaka (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
I've seen at least one case of someone trying to do that, and THAT got reverted and ended with them losing talk page edit rights. cogsan (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
My name is Enio de Carvalho Dias and my wife is Ana Celia Carvalho,"Gonzalez" . we met back in 1974 in New York City, and got married on March 22nd 1975. both myself and my wife are the direct descendant of Wlhelm Van der Haegen and his wife Margareth of Savoy, Duchyburgandy (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Every one of us is the direct descendent of many people. Unsurprisingly, reliable sources are rarely interested. But ... is "Burgandy" related to Burgundy? 126.157.80.79 (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Enio, I am a direct descendant of Ivan IV the Terrible. The fame and incessant attention from women is unfortunately our burden to bear for life. Epifanove🗯️21:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, and I wanted to start writing some smaller articles. I was wondering what specifically were the notability requirements for rivers, and the point where it becomes notable, so I could determine whether or not one of my drafts should be worked on or not. I wrote a draft, and it was deleted (which definitely makes sense), so I was wondering if/should I should edit. Thanks. PanzerJagerWolf (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi @PanzerJagerWolf, welcome to the Teahouse. Your article was declined, not deleted, because you failed to show that the river was notable. We do have a notability guideline for such things: WP:NGEO. The key is going to be finding sources about the river which meet our criteria - reliable, independent, published secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject. A database entry is not going to be sufficient. You could look at some of our good or featured articles on rivers to see what sources they use - Columbia River, for instance. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
@PanzerJagerWolf Welcome to the Teahouse. The guidance is at WP:NGEO and, of course, many rivers do already have articles, so check the categories at Category:Rivers and its sub-categories. Writing articles to acceptable standards can be tough for a beginner but one useful essay on this is this one as well as the help pages such as WP:YFA. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, PanzerJagerWolf. How refreshing that someone comes here interested in working on articles unrelated to minor politicians, actors, recording artists or businessmen! Can I make a suggestion to encourage you to stick around? Visit WikiProject Rivers and take a look at what they get up to. The colourful table of 'Quality Assessment' may look confusing, but is incredibly helpful if you want to find river articles to improve. There are currently 33 articles deemed of 'High importance' but which are just tiny WP:STUBS. These are in serious need of improvement, so just click the number to get a list. If you can't find anything there that interests you, there are 33,420 other stub articles you could look through and improve! If you are interested in river tributaries but can't find any sources to make them notable in their own right, don't forget that it might be a good idea to check if its appropriate to mention them in a related article about a linked river, lake or watershed, and to then create a WP:REDIRECT to that existing article. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
HR8799
The "Location of 8799" dark-hued star chart, embedded within the article, displays an ERROR in the name of one of the stars belonging to constellation PEGASUS. Shown is "Schest" - a spelling mistake.
Corrected, it should display as "Scheat". This is an M2.5II-IIIe red giant star that also goes by the name "Beta Pegasi" [Beta Pegasus??]. It seems to have gotten its name from "Giovanni Riccioli" who provided a more expanded original name for it. 2607:FEA8:4D5F:EC1:219B:3143:C612:F669 (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse! I don't see "Schest" on the HR 8799 article, or in any other article on the English Wikipedia. If you're unable to fix an error yourself, the best place to discuss it is the article's talk page (e.g. Talk:HR 8799). Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, you "corrected" the name spelling WITHIN the Wikipedia TEAHOUSE discussion on HR 8799; specifically, the "this image<arrow>" ?cut-&-paste? version. This did not make it to the main body article on HR 8799. 2607:FEA8:4D5F:EC1:6CC6:1138:E2A3:F687 (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Tungatjeta, Shpetim. I think that what is going on is that you moved your draft to User:Luan Muça, which is the wrong place for it (that would be the user page for an editor with the username "Luan Muça", and an admin deleted it.
Hello Bajramishpetim. Before you continue working on Draft:Luan Muca you may want to read Help:Referencing for beginners. You can't just list all of your references at the end of an article, they need to be listed throughout the article, right after the information you obtained from a particular reference. That way, if someone wants to check where a certain detail came from they can look at the correct reference and double check what you wrote. Best wishes on your Wikipedia volunteer work. Karenthewriter (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Tried to edit a brief description
I tried to change an error in the brief description to the "Carmel Point" article. It says "The unincorporated area north of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California". Actually, it is south as the article itself states. I tried to change "north" to "south" and I thought my edit was saved, but when start to type in Carmel Point in the search box it still says north. Did I do something wrong? Carmel PointBunkyray5 (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Bunkyray5 Your edit went through. The issue might have been browser caching or something like that. Always wait a few minutes in case the update is not immediate. Lastly, thank you for helping correct a factual error in a Wikipedia article. These kinds of edits are highly underappreciated. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 04:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Wiki specialist needed
Hi
I am looking for a Wiki specialist to write / edit and publish an article on Sandton, Gauteng, South Africa and Claremont, Cape Town South Africa. DeeJooste (talk) 08:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
@DeeJooste: OK, so probably the best way to request any fix or expansion to those articles is by submitting an appropriate request at their respective Talk: pages (see Help:Talk pages for more info) – Talk:Sandton, Talk:Sandown, Gauteng or Talk:Claremont, Cape Town. Those may be watched by editors involved in creating those articles, or just interested in the subject, so this may be a relatively fast way to reach them.
You can find some hints on requesting edits at Wikipedia:Edit requests. That is a routine designed for editors who can't or shouldn't edit Wikipedia articles themselves, anyway the hints given there may help you to prepare a good, clear request. Good luck! --CiaPan (talk) 09:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
The Talk pages of those articles get few viewers, so posting requests there is unlikely to get a fast response, or any response. David notMD (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Formal edit requests using the appropriate template will get attention from editors, no matter how obscure the page is. Poorly formulated edit requests may end up getting ignored. So, follow the rules, be cogent, be relevant, write clearly and neutrally, and always provide references to reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
You could also ask at WT:WikiProject South Africa, as people there are more likely to have interest and knowledge on the subject. Don't raise the same issue in two different places though: if you make a request on the article's talk page, you can put an item on the WikiProject's talk page asking people to look at that request. --ColinFine (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I have submitted a article for creation nearly a year ago. The article has been declined for notability issues. The subject (Kandiid App) has been featured in Forbes and other tech magazines. Can you please advise?
Curtmarsalis, I quote: "Submission rejected on 17 January 2023 by S0091 (talk)." So not just declined but rejected. You're also told "STOP". This means stop. If you're interested in social networking marketplace apps, how about writing up a different social networking marketplace app? -- Hoary (talk) 06:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Here's Steingruber's design for ⟨W⟩.This is odd. You'd already asked S0091 about it, and S0091 had already replied. Come to think of it, my earlier suggestion about a different social networking or marketplace app wasn't so good: attempting to write about any example that doesn't already have an article can very easily look like mere promotion. A good way to avoid charges of promotion is to write about things or people from the past. Just last night I realized to my surprise that there's still no article here about Johann David Steingruber, now best known for his fanciful alphabet of architectural plans. (NB A search engine will show an array of junk sources for him. Finding good sources will take some work.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
You need to change three letters and remove three others to change from the "Neil Cicierega" to "Nail Cicada". If we wanted to create every redirect that is at most six letter change from the target, we would need more than 300 000 000 redirects for every page. For comparison, the number of articles in English Wikipedia is about 50 times less than that number.
I have a question about how to deal with a politician that has said two conflicting statement to the press (only discovered years after it has been on Wikipedia). This is for Rep. Adam Schiff's page.
This is what the Wiki article stated before I made any edits: He graduated from Monte Vista High School in Danville, California, in 1978, and was both his class valedictorian and the student his peers voted "most likely to succeed".
The "valedictorian" claim came from a 2020 Los Angeles Times profile piece (cited). I've noticed a lot of outlets use this fact since then. However, an Oct. 2022 article shows that the previous information in the article and on Wikipedia has been wrong for at least 3 years--that he was actually never valedictorian. And so I include a brief explanation for clarity:
In 2020, Dan Schiff, the older brother of Adam Schiff, told The Los Angeles Times that Adam Schiff was Monte Vista High School's 1978 class valedictorian. However, in 2022 Schiff walked back this claim in an interview with Monte Vista High School's student newspaper The Stampede, saying "I don’t know whether it’s from Wikipedia or somewhere else, but I was not [valedictorian]". At the time, Wikipedia cited the TheLos Angeles Times story in support of the claim that he was valedictorian.
However, another user quickly did not like what I added, and wrote "Jesus Christ, he was the Salutatorian. Why not just say that instead of including an inane paragraph about "walking back" claims?"
The last edit I made was too remove the LA Times citation to this sentence as it included the inaccurate claim.
Are you able to advise on whether or not my clarification was necessary? Is there ever a time where we add this sort of explanation? I get that "walk back" may have been to harsh. I am good with the change either way, but I did feel like what I added was helpful.
Hello, LowElectrical9168. Schiff's brother and the LA Times made an error, which ended up in the biography. Schiff corrected the error, and accordingly, it was right to also correct the Wikipedia biography. It is completely unnecessary to include discussion of the error in the current version of the article, and the "walk back" phrasing implies misconduct where there was none. Cullen328 (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm a relatively inexperienced editor, but I like to read a lot of Teahouse posts to passively grow my understanding of how Wikipedia works. The advice I always see is that Wikipedia isn't interested in what the subjects say about themselves, it only attempts to summarize what is said independently in reliable secondary sources. When is it preferable to let information from an interview override what was previously reported, as in this case? Are there any good essays on the subject? It seems like a subjective area. HerrWaus (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
HerrWaus, as guidance, WP:ABOUTSELF lays out when it is appropriate to use the subject itself as a source. You could argue that Schiff's claim of him being salutatorian is an exceptional claim; therefore, it would be inappropriate to use himself as a source for this particular claim. As with almost any content, issues like these need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Generally, I'd say whenever the subject and RS disagree as was the case here, either wait for RS to independently verify the claim or leave out the information entirely. Throast{{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 20:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. considering there is also now doubt I am going to delete both and deem them exceptional claims. The only source for his high school years had been him.
Thanks for the feedback. I agree the walk back part was not needed now. I chose to delete both for now as exceptional claims. The more recent source is a student newspaper so i rather wait for a more reputable source to confirm. LowElectrical9168 (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Bubless, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. Thank you for wanting to help improve it.
No, you don't need anybody's permission to create a new encyclopaedia article, but we do have some fairly stringent policies about sourcing, tone, and neutrality, so it's hard for newcomers to write an article which will get accepted. I'd suggest that you start by adding material to the existing article South African Communist Party, and if that expands enough to be a separate article it can be split off. But make sure you understand Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability and neutral tone: a Wikipedia article summarizes what reliably published sources say about a subject, not what you (or I, or anybody else on the internet) think or know about it. ColinFine (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I've created an account because I noticed that no page exists for ferrous picrate. On the page for Picrate, several discussed salts for the base organic compound have their own hyperlinks to their own respective pages. However, ferrous picrate has no such corresponding page, and it's hyperlink is thus red. This is in spite of the fact that this particular salt has played some noteworthy part in fuel additive research in the past (though the cited source on the Picrate page is now a 404). I guess the most important question to be asking is the notability one. Could anyone advise? Drake Weidman (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Not strictly a question: I just erroneously edited the thread from Archive 1180. Apologies for the mistake (I didn't see the proscription beforehand). Measure once, cut twice; Measure twice, cut once. It won't happen again. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I am looking for expert to work with a colleague and I during an edit-a-thon in Iowa towards the end of March. Where can I go to find one or ask one for assistance? Thanks!! Holly sue89 (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
hello , when ever i try to open anything or try to practise editing , page is currently semi-protected , or they ask me to log in when i am already logged in , what shall i do Jaber .w (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Go to the article in questions talk page, explain the edit you want made to the protected article, and ask if other editors agree with the edit and will make the changes requested. Or edit on articles that are not semi-protected. Heiro05:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't think I understand the question. Regardless of DYK rules, you can only make one edit at a time. If you try to make more than one at the same time, you'll get an edit clash. An edit can be as small as replacing "it's" by "its", or as large as adding several new multiparagraph sections. Wikipedia:Did_you_know#DYK_rules specifies that all of the edits for a qualifying fivefold expansion must have been made within a seven-day period. Maproom (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
If you asking about whether the five-fold expansion should be done with only one edit, the answer is no. You just need to expand the article five-fold within one week. Carpimaps (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
@Maproom @Carpimaps Sorry, I didn't articulate myself that well, admittedly...
But yes, I was actually referring about the total period of time I've got to expand the article.
@Oltrepier You don't mention which article you are intending to expand and how long you estimate it might take. If that's longer than a week, then a suitable approach would be to copy the whole of the current article into a personal sandbox (with attribution in the first edit summary) and work on it at your leisure. Then you could add your expanded version back into mainspace when it was ready and you would still have a week to tweak it there and make the nomination. This is the approach that was taken for the recent expansion of Jenin Camp by The Bestagon, which is a current DYK nomination. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm specifically referring to this article: having already made two separate edits, I think I'll be able to add the statistics table very soon, and that should complete the five-fold expansion.
However, I've had some issues with editing tables through the VisualEditor, as I mentioned here, so hopefully I can solve them in time... Oltrepier (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
@Oltrepier See WP:DYKCRIT. The "fivefold expansion" applies only to the prose part, not tables etc. The version of the article before you added to it was so short that you should be OK, I think. Good luck with the nomination. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to change the name of the page to أبراج الساعة instead of أبراج البيت on the Arabic version.
As for the English version we need to add 'The Clock Towers'.
Hello, Salembahamdain93, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you want the English article Abraj Al-Bait, renamed, please place a request at requested moves. It will help if you can show that that is the name most used in English-language sources.
If you are in any way connected with the development, you need to be aware of the policies on editing with a conflict of interest, and if you are employed in connection with it then you must first make a formal declaration of your status as a paid editor.
I saw the draft being brought to AfD and it was deleted after more users voted for it than Ones posted. Plus, admins and moderators deleted it when it has a bunch of detail and sources cited. Would you please always explain why did this draft got deleted on Wikipedia? And how though? Thanks. — 2600:1010:B1A7:5CE1:F888:A176:26F6:1B94 (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
So I play a game called Juke's Towers of Hell on Roblox and I know a lot about it. I play it every day and want to see if people are interested in the game after reading the article but there is 1 question I would like to ask: Is Juke's Towers of Hell worth putting on Wikipedia? I just want to get this cleared up. Yeet 13la (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Yeet 13la, please provide links to three of the best reliable sources that you can easily find for "Juke's Towers of Hell", and then somebody here who knows more about games than I do will probably be able to answer your question. -- Hoary (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
@Yeet 13la I did a cursory search on the internet and could not find any good sources for establishing notability. For a subject to be notable enough to be made into an article, it needs to have multiple reliable and independent subject with significant coverage(i.e. not one sentence). For more information, see the General notability guideline. The best source I found is a TVtropes article, but it is an open wiki without editorial control on quality, so editors in the past decided that it was unreliable. (Try searching up "Tropes" on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) Carpimaps (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Translation
Hi, I want to know when can I remove a translated expand article maintenance tag from a translated article. For example look into this article Oh Se-hoon, now what am I supposed to address and how to resolve this maintenance tag. 456legend(talk) 19:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
456legend, there is no hard-and-fast rule. The tag was probably placed because the corresponding article in Korean is more comprehensive than the one in English. It is simply a suggestion to expand the article. If you choose to expand the article by translating text from the Korean article, make sure to follow the steps laid out on the tag. Throast{{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 21:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
You can remove such tags any time - we have rather too many of them in obvious cases like this. Anyone who can read Korean will know the other article is likely to be much longer. The tag has been there for over 10 years .... Johnbod (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Are a notable person's non-notable children and relatives notable enough to merit mention in a biographical article?
More to the point, are there any Wikipedia guidelines that cover this issue? Sometimes biographical articles keep such mentions brief and just mention the number of children the subject may have had. Other time they will list out full names of children, grandchildren, and other relatives in spite of their lack of notability. I'd be thankful for guidance. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
There's one to your Talk page right here, and some more for other editors' userpages on this page. Can you be more specific about what kinds of redlinks you're trying to find, and why? Some Wikiprojects maintain redlink lists of topics they plan to write articles for, is that what you're after? -- asilvering (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
@MaizeninReignsapark: See Special:WantedPages for a list. There are also some links on the top of that page to other lists. If you are a new user, the usual advice is to work on improving existing articles before trying to create a new article, since it is not an easy task for new users. RudolfRed (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, @Denizaltunel, welcome to the teahouse. Draft can become article through the process of WP:AFC, if you submit your draft, some volunteers will review it and will give you their advice. Please be patient, it may take a lot of time to wait for reviewing. Lemonaka (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Creating a new article | Request help in improving it
Hi everyone,
My name is Aish and I had submitted a new article for creation and it got rejected. I had tried my best to be objective and provide references for all the information yet it seems to have failed the wiki policy. I really want to edit it and send it again for consideration but for that it would be great if I get some help from the editors here.
I've had a brief look, and I would make two quick suggestions:
1. Make sure that the format (categories, specifically) abide by WP:MOS. Look at examples of similar articles.
2. Avoid using any qualitative words, such as when you say "he has held many important positions".
P.S. in terms of references and content, the article looks relatively good, so you're quite close to successfully submitting it. Epifanove🗯️12:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Just took a closer look at the references and Hoary seems to be right. My instinct was to assume the best and encourage. Epifanove🗯️13:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for encouragement. I had read the "notability" requirement for anyone whose wiki article we intend to create. I had read about Dr Garg when he was appointed at National Health Authority of India as the Additional CEO, which is an important position in the Indian government. I had also read the wiki page of his predecessor [Praveen Gedam| . Perhaps, I need to look for more information in terms of his work and rewrite my draft. I will try my best.
Correct process when it's not clear what to do (XPostFacto)
I've had a look at the XPostFacto article. It's linked to by a lot of macOS version pages for releases prior to Tiger (2005), to mention how it can be used to install those releases on older PowerPC Macs. However the page is fairly low quality, it has a couple of notices, no infobox and no references. It would appear on the face of it to be a nice article to try and clean up, however I do wonder if it's notable enough to spend time on; I seem to remember a couple of WP: policies about how Wikipedia is not a tech support database or tutorial and worry that it might get deleted anyway. As well, I'm not sure what the best way to try and get other editors opinions on it; I don't know if talk pages for low-trafficked pages get any eyeballs on them, I'm not sure about the other methods for asking around, WP:RFC said it was probably too heavyweight a process if there was no particular dispute on the page, and I'm pretty sure I should involve WP:WikiProject Computing somehow. Thanks in advance for any help! Small and useless donkey (talk)22:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The article averages fewer than 10 views per day, which is another factor in deciding to put in a lot of effort on a deeply flawed article. David notMD (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
@203.221.189.166 Hello, welcome to the teahouse. However, you English is a little messy and I cannot quite understand you. If you are not familiar with this language, please seek help on WP:Embassy.After reading it again, I'd like to share you with a thought that Wikipedia is based on Wikipedia:Reliable sources, we will check these articles, together with sources and cites regularly to make the article clear and accurate. Lemonaka (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Every Wikipedia article should have citations to reliable sources to show where the information comes from. You should be able to verify any statement in a Wikipedia article yourself, by looking at the cited sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
To enlarge further on that: the citations may have a link to the source if it's actually on the internet, but this is not required; most citations merely give enough information for you to track down the source yourself, for example by going to a public library with a copy of the cited book, newspaper or journal and borrowing or reading it there, perhaps after requesting the library to obtain it by an Interlibrary loan. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.55.125 (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
In short, Wikipedia is only as good as its references. The content is created by volunteers (meaning not paid editors). Other volunteers add or remove content in their efforts to make articles better. The process never stops. Think of Wikipedia as always approaching the truth. Of the millions of articles in various languages, many articles are weak or contain wrong information. Sometimes content may be true, but no editor added references, so the truth cannot be checked yet. David notMD (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Asking for help: jazz musician and poet "David Gonzalez"
I need the collaboration of some editor for the improvement of this article that is in draft format: Draft:David Gonzalez (multi-disciplinary artist). It would be great if it were an editor with musical knowledge, as this is a New York musician and poet who has collaborated with great artists. I think the article needs some distance and a neutral point of view. I appreciate the collaboration and also ask for my help for any other article. Thank you very much for your help. Miskito89 (talk) 09:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
You article is already pretty well written, I'll see if I can help to make it even better. Alternatively, you can ask to the wikipedia reference desk [8] where you can find people that are knowledgeable on the subject. Wish you all the best. Vincent-vst🚀 (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Gonzalez put on a show. We read: It was a mesmerizing show of monologues, music, video, poetry, and sound design, narrated in English and Spanish, in which Mr. Gonzalez delivered exemplary multi-media narratives about immigrants based on their true stories. This comes with a reference. Which critic, in which newspaper, drama periodical or similar can it be, one may wonder, that calls the show mesmerizing, with exemplary narratives? Uh, well, actually no critic. Instead, the voice is that of the theater that's putting on the show, in a page advertising the show as an upcoming attraction. This draft needs a lot more work. -- Hoary (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Refs 3-8 mention him by name as working with these people, but do nothing to confirm his notability. And there are a lot of well-known organizations mentioned in the career section, but without refs. David notMD (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Request for help: Draft article of the EP by TISM: Form And Meaning Reach Ultimate Communion
I've been working on a draft for a work by the band TISM, Form And Meaning Reach Ultimate Communion, and since I'm a newer editor I'd love some help with making it better. The hunt for sources has been tough but I think I've referenced (almost) all the information in the article, currently need recommendations on what to add (new segments, such as reception?), and to rearrange the article. Commemorative1 (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Commemmorative1, and welcome to the Teahouse. Sorry, but, not so far. Looking at your 11 references: 5 are repeats. Please see WP:reusing references. Of the rest, one is to their own site - not independent; 1 is to Wikibin. Since Wikipedia, like most Wikis, is not regarded as a reliable source, and so should almost never be cited as a reference, wikibin - which appears to be a graveyard for material that even Wikipedia wouldn't keep - is absolutely useless as a source. Viciousthreadsttore is presumably a store selling the album, so is not independent. Discogs is not regarded as reliable - see WP:RSDISCOGS. That leaves Rolling Stone, and Beat Magazine as the only possible sources that contribute to notability. I haven't looked closely at the Rolling Stone one - the title made me think it was from a press release, and so not independent, but I'm not sure. The Beat magazine URL takes me to the magazine but not the article, so I don't know.
If those two are reliable and independent and (preferably) you can find a third one, then it may meet the requirements for notability. ColinFine (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
To clear up the record store sources, they're officially owned by DRW Entertainment, TISM's label. Still a primary source, but not a random record store. I'll be looking for more independent sources. Commemorative1 (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello there. The human language is aging and continues to evolve at the same time. So this means more word that are new needs to be continually be used often. I saw those slang words like “hard pass”, “on fleek”, “totes”, “vacay”, “janky”, “hundo”, “convo”, “lewk”, “covidiot”, “chuegy”, “rizz”, “adorbs”, “boujee”, “inspo”, “DM”, “unshop”, “cyberjack”, “cringe”, and “yeet.” Plus I noticed that most of the slang are rarely use in many articles. Slang teaches and guides readers of encyclopedia. So, should I added those slang words in articles in order to make the vocabulary and lexicon diverse? If not, why not? Thank you! — 2600:1010:B1A7:5CE1:F888:A176:26F6:1B94 (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say, and as such the language they use is what we use. This isn't the place to contribute to the development of the English language, by using words just because. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Because of that, we do not prescribe language nor do we share our experiences in the articles. ✶Mitch199811✶18:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I consider myself quite well-read but am older than most of the population. Of the 19 words listed in the OP, I have never heard of 15 of them. It does our readers no service to deliberately use neologisms that they may not understand. WP:TONE says that articles should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner. CodeTalker (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
It's slang to say "that's cringe". The word itself isn't always slang. ("I cringed when I saw that photograph" is a perfectly standard sentence.) -- asilvering (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure editing Wojak's page to say that phenomenon is "the sans undertale of ragefaces, considered so omnipresent it kinda might be more goated with the sauce than that Gigachad Nail Cicada (Baja be his Blast), ngl" would help make it more comprehensible, honestly.
Even if slang like that was suddenly used by everyone ever, it might still vary wildly in definition from person to person, so it'd still be better to not risk using it. And then there's the issue of the however many different types of slang (like gang speak, right/left-wing gibberish, etc.) that would probably alienate anyone not familiar with all of them, and would definitely ruin the entire concept of NPOV.
It's something I think can only lead to wild outcomes, and I'd rather not have to witness the potential implosion of a site because of some forms of language almost exclusive to terminally online speech- ah, dammit, that's slang too.
Either way, it seems OP wasn't here for anything besides shitposting, so none of this was even worth thinking about in the first place. cogsan (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Images in Search Results
Hi, there!
New to editing Wikipedia, and I’m wondering why only some articles have images that appear in their search result, whereas others just have the template article icon?
Is there a way to set the infobox image to appear beside the short description in the search results / suggested pages?
Hi, Pickletitanic, and welcome to the Teahouse. IIRC, the image selection algorithm rejects images that are not of a certain size and aspect ratio. I'm sure somebody will come along shortly and point you at the page that explains this. ColinFine (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I second Asilvering's comment. Sample: Through his work as an editor, Reza has demonstrated a keen eye for talent and a dedication to sharing the works of writers who may not otherwise have had the opportunity to reach a wider audience. These efforts have helped to promote a diverse and vibrant literary culture, both in Bangladesh and beyond. Either (A) prove this, by citing reliable sources (whose content mustn't merely be compatible with this but must instead say it), or (B) cut it. Additionally, if people (etc) are famous (or renowned or similar), then there's no need to say that they're famous; and if they aren't, then of course saying that they are is a falsehood. -- Hoary (talk) 05:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
In a particular poem/book: Reza refuses to acknowledge geographical boundaries and instead portrays the consumerist image of people. This book presents the evolution of modern civilization in a historic-poetic manner, creating a sense of dismay about the world of rulers. Either (A) prove this, by citing reliable sources (whose content mustn't merely be compatible with this but must instead say it), or (B) cut it. Et cetera. Spend at least one week going through this draft, systematically and ruthlessly. -- Hoary (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Ok, I edited this one. I'm new to Wikipedia so I can't catch my mistakes.
What do you mean "edited this one"? The comment was about the entire draft, not just one paragraph.You really need to go over this yourself. I left a comment on your talk page that you haven't addressed by editing the article. There is much unsubstantiated puffery in the article. You have not fully addressed the comments above. It is not written neutrally, it is written to praise the subject. Go through it and find every adjective, and eliminate the ones that aren't substantiated by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Given that this is about you, remove ALL content that you know or believe to be true that is not verified by independent references. Submit it only after that task is completed. Autobiographies often fail to be accepted because the creators cannot bear to leave out saying wonderful things about themselves. David notMD (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Honestly I tried my best to write an unbiased article but I'm still new so I don't know how to write articles in Wikipedia style yet if you can help me by editing my article I will be very much appreciated RezaulIslamShamim (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I would address all the issues in the comments first. 13:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Teahouse hosts are here to advise, not coauthor. You have received lots of advice here, also Comments at the draft, some of which you have ignored. The burden is on you to decide if the draft is ready to be reviewed. Often, and especially often for attempts at autobiography, drafts are Declined. The declining reviewer will identify some - but not necessarily all - of reasons for the decision. Creating editors are expected to address all shortfalls before resubmitting. Each time a draft is submitted, there is a waiting period of as short as days but sadly as long as months before it is reviewed. The wait tends to be longer if most/all of the refs are not in English. David notMD (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
OY veh. If you are not RIS (I am surprised) then as part of your unblock request you must follow procedure for changing User name. David notMD (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Under poetry, the sentence "Through these books, Reza demonstrates his depth of intellect and versatility in tackling contemporary issues in his writing." Can you cite who wrote this? Or is this just you, saying a nice thing about you?? David notMD (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
IP editor keeps adding in unsourced changes to an article, I've already reverted them two times
They keep making unsourced changes to the individual's caste background. I have reverted them two times but they keep adding it back in. I do not want to break the three revert rule of Wikipedia. How should I proceed? ThethPunjabi (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
I just posted a new stub article, Richard Corbin but the links don't work, probably because when I searched for the article, the redirect I replaced (from Richard Corben) was messy and didn't capitalize the surname. Can someone please correct it for me? Thanks. Jweaver28 (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I made an edit to a page, added a family tree that I personally made, but it was taken down as "unreferenced/unsupported." Is there anything I can do? SeanCombsFan1 (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
SeanCombsFan1 The Sean Combs article already has a Personal life section describing in text his relationships with the women who have had a total of seven children with him. Your figure, without explanations for color, etc., and no refs, is not a useful addition, so reverted. David notMD (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I am going to say, basically, no. For most articles about people, the number of children is a valid part of Personal life, but not names nor ages. Given SC's complicated children history and well-publicized private life, plausible for this article. But again, the (referenced) text is sufficient. Is it your thinking that the chart conveys more information than the text? Could this be addressed by adding more text rather than the chart? David notMD (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
How can I help?
Howdy, I am a brand new editor looking for ways to improve/help Wikipedia. I’ve read about and want to be involved with anti-vandalims and new page reviewing here. Can you show me some tools to help me do this, advice on what/how to do, pages/guidelines to read, and your own tips for Wikipedia. I honestly had no idea that everyone can edit!! Illusion Flame (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Welcome Illusion Flame! While I did not start with the same goals (wanting to expand pages more than doing maintenance), I found myself a niche or project for me to work on.
I think joining a Wikiproject is a good way to start. You might also find a maintenance category to adopt - lots of stuff at WP:MAINT. CAT:UP is probably a good one. I patrolled Category:All articles with too few wikilinks when I was starting out, but it looks like that one's clear right now. Eventually you'll run into a topic you enjoy and stick there. -- asilvering (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Does anyone else with experience in maintenance like tasks have any answers to “Can you show me some tools to help me do this, advice on what/how to do, pages/guidelines to read, and your own tips for Wikipedia?” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illusion Flame (talk • contribs) 22:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I review new pages, even though I am not NPP. I do have a high error rate, and I suspect yours will be even higher. I recommend accumulating a few edits/days until autoconfirmed, enabling twinkle, and patrolling Special:RecentChanges, using filters such as "#Possible vandalism" or "May be bad faith". If the contribution is very, very harmful to the encyclopedia, such as shouting, promo, or egregious original research, then it is suitable for an instant revert.
Usually a vandalism revert (with Twinkle) looks like this:
Click on the 'diff' link
Press 'vandalism' or 'rollback' or 'rollback (AGF)' on Twinkle
Enter edit summary/confirm revert
Leave a template warning on the vandal's talk page using TW -> Warn -> select template
Okay, sounds good. I will start patrolling recent changes and using the twinkle once I have some edits/time here. Thank you for the quick reply and answering my question. Another question: How do you add the name thing next to the end of your statements? A bot did it for me last time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illusion Flame (talk • contribs) 23:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The list of things to do in Wikipedia seems endless, Illusion Flame. I've just arrived at a gushing advertisement for a company named Harold Radford. Somebody with time and energy could beneficially drain the gush out of it. (And there are six references within it to "Harold Radford Limited, The Tatler, 10 June 1953", which I'd guess is merely an ad by the company in this seventy-year-old issue of the magazine.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I took a look at this article and... yikes. I've done edits in the past working to remove bias from advertisement-y articles (although I've been editing wiki articles for just a little less than a year, so I am definitely not an expert). But I'll see if there's anything I can do to make this page less biased. A. E. Katz (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Sungodtemple (That’s how you pinged me, so I hope this pings you) I will start learning by doing, not waiting to learn every rule first. (Which I quickly found impossible) I patrolled the recent changes and undid 2 edits I thought were bad. I warned the user too. Can you check my undo and warning and see if I did it right, and give me feedback on what to change to make things easier or correct. Illusion Flame (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Illusion Flame, the reverts you made look good to me. Unless you can write up a good warning message yourself (with links to relevant policies etc.), make sure to use Twinkle. You can also use {{uw-vandalism1}} in cases of talk page vandalism. Furthermore, make sure to use indentation. For example, if you were to respond to my message here, you would use two colons ("::") at the beginning of your response. This makes discussion threads much easier to follow. Throast{{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 13:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks y’all for your help. I am going to start doing a lot of antivandalism/maintenance work now and once I become more qualified, be a new page patroller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illusion Flame (talk • contribs) 11:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
CSS issues
I'm looking at a page on English Wikipedia using the mobile theme and noticed an issue with the layout. Between a picture and a sidebar there's just enough space for a few letters, so the words "Origin and early history" are spread across 19 lines, going well below the image. Not sure where to report this to. It's probably just a corner case, but makes it incredibly hard to read when it happens. This only occurs while I'm logged out, not after I log in. There's a screenshot here, taken with a fresh browser (Firefox beta after wiping app data, to ensure it's not my weird browser/extensions/settings; it shows up same in Mull, my primary browser) ⚠Efreak06:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
@Efreak: I don't believe anyone is going to fix this. There are always going to be problems with narrow screens when the intendation gets to big. A similar problem arises when one attempts to view deeply-intendated comments (e.g.) at ANI on small viewport widths. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
How to put in-text citations in an infobox
I want to update some of the numbers in the infobox for this page. I have sources for the information, but I'm not sure how to put a citation with the text. Do I just type it in the same place as the box for the text? A. E. Katz (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
You'll need more than one source in any case, but PhD theses are ok, yes. Though you generally want to avoid using them in favour of something more widely published. A thesis from 2010 should have a book or article spun out of it by now, if the author is still an academic. -- asilvering (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Reviewers have left several notes on your draft. So far, you failed to show that the subject of your draft meets Wikipedia's notability guideline. Through use of inline citations, you need to show that there is in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent coverage of the subject. Please click on these links, and on the links provided via the decline rationales (red boxes at the top of your draft), to get further information about what these criteria entail.
The fact that the subject has an article on German Wikipedia does not mean that it will pass English Wikipedia's inclusion policy, or even German Wikipedia's inclusion policy for that matter. Throast{{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 11:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
hi @Im Safiqul Islam and welcome to the Teahouse! it seems that you have written an article for an organization very recently established. as such, it is very unlikely that you would have the required reliable sources (for example, mainstream news articles) that are independent (not directly connected to you, facebook and your own side don't count as independent) from you to establish the notability of your organization.
please note that Wikipedia is not the place to tell the world about you or your organization's existence. perhaps it may get an article here, but only once it becomes more firmly established enough to gain mainstream coverage.
even then, there are policies that you have to read since you are likely connected to the company: please read the policies on conflict of interest and paid editing and please disclose your conflict of interest somewhere like your own userpage. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 07:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Im Safiqul Islam. The article in question uses utterly inappropriate terminology such as Our society was registered and We are working on Flood Relief. That style of first person writing indicates that you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. A Wikipedia article about an organization is not at all to replicate what the organization says about itself. Rather, it is to summarize what published reliable sources entirely independent of the organization have said about it. Please read the Neutral point of view, which is a core content policy. Cullen328 (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
After it was nominated for deletion, you twice removed the AfD and it was twice restored. The proper place to present an argument to keep the article is at the AfD. You are also welcome to work on improving the article - specifically the reference weaknesses - while it is at AfD. However, I personally agree with the criticism there and in the above comments. Expect it to be deleted in 7-10 days. David notMD (talk) 12:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Years ago I contributed to the page about Styal Children's home. I lived there with my brothers and sister from the age of 3. Since that time I have been diagnosed with a brain tumour (not cancer). However because it was misdiagnosed, at first, as nothing wrong then a TIA It was allowed to grow till it affected my short term memory then my vision in the right eye. I attempted to log into the Styal page several times but can't do it. Find it hard to follow instructions even though your page isn't very difficult. Can you help me. <email redacted> 2A02:C7F:9866:EE00:88D8:4431:3D6B:A52C (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Beryl. I have removed your email, as we do not usually contact people by email, and this is a very public place to display it.
We do not have the concept of "logging into a page" - we log into accounts, and there is no connection between an account and an article. I observe that the article Styal Cottage Homes was edited a couple of time by editor DMRBTutinclub in 2016? Is that your account? If you have the password recorded, then you can log into it, but if you haven't then I'm afraid you won't be able to login to the account. However, you don't need a particular account to edit most articles: you can create a new account, or edit without logging in.
Keep in mind that you IP address will be shown if edit while not logged in. Making a new account is fine if you don't remeber the password for the old account and your email at the time is no longer reachable. In some cases, it is not sock puppetry. Cwater1 (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
It looks like you can implement the party color template by inserting {{Party color|<party name>}} on the page. If you put it and there's an error that the party name wasn't found, you can request it be added on the talk page for the political party page! You'll need to know what hex code color to use for the party when you make the request!
I am an expert in Machine Learning, in particular weak supervision. I have a PhD in this area. I just noticed that the page on "Semi-supervised learning" wrongfully conflates "weak supervision" with "Semi-supervised learning". While the two are related (e.g. in their motivation), they are distinct areas of Machine Learning that should not be mixed up. They should have two separate pages. Unfortunately, I have no experience with making such changes. 72.182.48.217 (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your expertise and advice sounds like it could be very helpful. The best approach would be to go to the 'Talk Page' of the merged article and express your concerns. Point out what is wrong, cited relevant sources to help explain the issue, and make some recommendations as to what you think should be done. Rather than expect you to understand the ins-andouts of Wikipedia editing yourself, if it's a case of suggesting rewording of a paragraph or two, simply put forward suggestion you feel would be best, and again ensure any factual statement is supported by good citations. Other editors may wish you to expand on your concerns and, if they understand the issues there, they may make the necessary changes (or maybe even unmerging). This does sound a technical area, so I'm reluctant to suggest anything more general than to ask you to expand on what needs doing at the article's talk page. The only caveat I'd make is that, because Wikipedia is generally not targetted at PhD researchers, what might sound like a key distinction to you might be seen as a trivial one to other editors. Making your case clearly and gently is the best way.
I should add that if you wanted to create a free account here, you would be able to benefit by not be revealing your IP address, but would also be able to add specific articles to a WATCHLIST which can alert you to any changes to pages of greatest interest to you, including edits to Talk page discussions. Good luck, and thanks for raising this here to begin with. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Expansion tags
I'm working on this article, which is a stub. When I started on it, almost every section was completely blank, but only a couple sections had a tag about expansion being needed. The most extensive section only has 3 bullet points in it, every other section has either 1 or 2 points. I think the whole article needs expansion, and it seems pointless to tag every section individually. Is there a way to mark the article in general "expansion needed", or is it only possible to put the tag in specific sections? If I can't mark the whole article as needing expansion, should I add the tag under every section? I'm not sure what the best thing to do in this scenario would be. A. E. Katz (talk) 07:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, A E Katz. If you're working on the article anyway, why bother to tag it? The point of tags is to give notice to others that there is some work needed. ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
@A. E. Katz Since I've worked on Year lists of various countries, I did a few updates to the 1940 Bulgaria for you. Searched "1940" for "Bulgaria" to find some. Thanks for asking at Teahouse. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi and welcome to the teahouse! The research is appreciated but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a source for breaking news. The aftermath of a large event can be exciting but it isn't Wikipedia's place to contribute to the excitement. While its not official policy, WP:BNS details the point nicely. If the person is still missing after some time then it will be widely reported in independent news sources.
On another note, will updating the Wikipedia article help locate this person? I believe no, in which case its best to wait and see if they turn up!
Hello, Haroldk12, and welcome to the Teahouse. I for one am not going to plough through a list of URLs to see which of them might contribute to notability. Which three of those, in your opinion, each satisfies the triple criteria of being a reliable source (published by somebody with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking), being wholly independent of Green (not written, commissioned, or published by Green or his associates or agents, and not based on an interview with him or a press release from his team), and containing significant coverage of him? If you can find at least three such, then he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and an article about him is possible. ColinFine (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply.
Below are the most relevant links that meet the criteria. An article in the Washington Post and Major League Baseball sites. He's one of the best prospects in all of baseball and his father played a long career in the NFL.
The first one might do. The second one is from an interview with his father, and so not independent. The third one does not contain significant coverage of him. After that I lost interest in ploughing through a list of bare URLs. Please reread my previous reply. If you have three good sources, you need not waste your time and mine by putting any more here. (Keep them, because you'll want some of them to flesh out the article. But you don't need them to establish notability). ColinFine (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Got it. Below are three legitimate impartial articles in credible outlets discussing this future major league baseball star. Thanks for sharing any other next steps?
Extended content
Elijah Green Drafted No. 5 Overall by Nationals; Father Eric Played 10 Years in NFL
ADAM WELLS - Washington Post
JULY 17, 2022
The Washington Nationals are betting on Elijah Green as their next superstar player after selecting the IMG Academy outfielder with the fifth overall pick in the 2022 Major League Baseball draft.
In a draft class full of legacy players, including Druw Jones (son of Andruw Jones), Justin Crawford (son of Carl Crawford) and Jackson Holliday (son of Matt Holliday), Green also comes from a family of athletes. His father, Eric Green, had a 10-year NFL career as a tight end and made the Pro Bowl twice (1993, 1994).
Elijah has the frame to play football at 6'3" and 225 pounds, but he is one of the best athletes in the 2022 MLB draft class. The 18-year-old has been on the prospect radar for years, with his arrival really coming during the 2020 Area Code Games.
By Lacy Lusk on February 9, 2023
Baseball America
With his combination of power and speed, 19-year-old center fielder Elijah Green has as high of a ceiling as anyone in the Nationals' organization.
Green, the son of 10-year NFL tight end Eric Green, was the fifth pick in the 2022 draft out of IMG Academy in Bradenton, Fla. He signed for $6.5 million and then showed off his talents in the Florida Complex League.
Green hit .302/.404/.535 in 12 games, posting the highest OPS among 18-year-olds with 50 or more plate appearances.
“The skill set is pretty remarkable in itself,” Nationals farm director De Jon Watson said.
The 6-foot-3, 225-pound Green has plus power, speed and arm strength along with above-average fielding ability. In an organization with three Top 100 Prospects who can all play center field—Green, James Wood and Robert Hassell III—he might have the best chance of sticking in the middle of the field.
But there is a lot of development that must come first, particularly after he struck out 40% of the time last summer.
Green was off to a good start at the organization’s early minor league camp in West Palm Beach, where he was among 54 invitees. The workouts were similar to those that would have been in the back half of instructional league last fall, which was cut short because of Hurricane Ian.
If all continues to go well for Green in spring training, he’ll likely start the season at Low-A Fredericksburg.
“Defensively, he has the pure speed, but he’s working on everything that goes into playing the outfield,” Watson said. “He’s had a really busy winter and hasn’t slowed down at all. He’s moving great, and hopefully he can make that club out of camp.”
The righthanded Green drives the ball to all fields. Twelve days after the draft, he hit several balls into the Nationals Park seats during a pre-game batting session with Washington players.
Green played some football as a youngster, but baseball has long been his passion.
“I’m just going to keep my head down, work hard every day, and whenever I get my time, I get my time,” he said on draft night.
Top pick Elijah Green flashes power at Nationals Park: ‘I can do everything’ =
When the Washington Nationals take batting practice, there are typically four hitters in the final group. But there was an extra player taking swings in the last round Friday: Elijah Green, the Nationals’ 2022 first-round pick. Green, 18, spent the afternoon with the Nationals after being selected fifth overall July 17.
“Just meeting all the guys, future teammates, it’s just a great experience,” Green said. “It’s really surreal, hitting [batting practice] with all of them, just talking to them, picking their brains.”
The Nationals are experiencing the expected growing pains in the first year of their rebuild, but progress from their young players, coupled with nailing their draft picks, could accelerate the process. Green, an outfielder from IMG Academy in Bradenton, Fla., was the Nationals’ highest selection since they took Bryce Harper first overall in 2010. A year ago, the Nationals drafted Brady House, a high school shortstop from Georgia, with the No. 11 pick. Green said he knew House before he was drafted and the two have talked recently.
@Haroldk12, please do not copy and paste from your sources into Wikipedia - the result is often a copyright violation. You can either post a link or simply list the article title, publication name and publication date. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
REFBEGIN redirect vandalized
Hi all, requesting folks add WP:REFBEGIN to their watchlist. It was vandalized back on February 17th, breaking the redirect with some non-sense but went unnoticed until today. The first vandalism actually occurred on December 2nd but that did not break anything. Given it is frequently used, more eyes are needed. S0091 (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Ernsanchez00; good question! In Wikipedia lingo, an orphan is an article that is not linked from any other article. We want every article to have at least one incoming link, and preferably at least a few, to help readers find it.
The way to de-orphan an article is just to add links to it from appropriate places in other articles. How exactly to do so depends on the article. the WP:Findlink tool is great for people and other topics that will be mentioned directly by name. For others, you might have to search manually. If you're wondering about List of stage names beginning with numbers or other non-alphabetic characters, I added a link here and removed the tag, so that has been de-orphaned.
Hello, I have been having trouble with making functional templates and would like some help as to how it works. I know their purpose, but I don't know how to make one myself. Any help? Regards, -CertifiedAmazing2 (wanna chat?)Fixed broken userpage link on signature. – dudhhrtalkcontribs (he/they) 21:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi CertifiedAmazing2! Template editing is a fairly advanced area, so I would wait until you gain some more experience in other areas of the project before wading into it. What are you considering making a template to do? We might be able to help point you to existing templates that can help. (Also, as an unrelated note, you should change your signature so that it has [[User:CertifiedAmazing2; [[U:CertifiedAmazing2 won't work.) Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk21:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
@CertifiedAmazing2, rereading your post, are you referring to making new templates, or to using instances of existing ones? I was assuming the first thing, but if it's just the second, that's easier. You just use the syntax {{Template name}}, and if there are parameters (i.e. specific values to plug into the template), those are specified as |Parameter=value. There is instruction at Help:Template. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk22:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I offered some suggestions in "talk" for the stub article "Dusky Peril," but no one responded. Id like some assistance in editing and adding to this short article. Pengles (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Pengles At the talk page, you provided many URLs to articles about anti-Indian discrimination in the US. Are any of these specifically about the topic of the article - what was published in a newspaper more than 100 years ago and the subsequent attack on Indian immigrants? If so, create references formatted like the ones in the article and add content and references to the article. David notMD (talk) 12:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
BananaBreadPie12, if they are reported on by reliable sources, yes. Although I'm sure many editors would take issue with that since IMDb user reviews are notoriously prone to manipulation. Throast{{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 18:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, that's in essence what I already said. If IMDB ratings are the subject of reliable coverage, they may be included. Citing IMDb itself as a source for its ratings is not accepted. Throast{{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 19:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
@Throast, sorry if I gave you that impression. My first reply here would have been an edit conflict in the old days, there was no comment of yours to disregard when I started writing. For my second comment, despite your comment I still wanted to mention the Ghostbusters example. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
In the extremes snow depth line in weatherboxes, it says that the metric unit in parentheses should be millimeters, but in the table the data gets converted to centimeters by default. How could this be fixed? Akamaikai (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi there,
I'm Wim De Hert, one of the two creators of Dungeon Alchemist, a mapmaking tool for roleplaying games (www.dungeonalchemist.com). I would really like to create a wikipedia page on Dungeon Alchemist, but I'm not sure it would be acceptable to do so, so I've come here to ask.
Thanks for having a look! Wimdehert (talk) 06:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
It does seem like you're right. I'll look into another way of getting a wiki page online. Thank you for getting back to me, Hoary! Appreciate it. Wimdehert (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
No. You added lots of content (twice) about possible future trends (which is different from emerging trends) and you provided no references. Your only ref to the general part of what you added was a blog. All content must be referenced to independent, reliable source references. David notMD (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
...to expand on the above, a reliable source basically means things that have a reputation for being good and accurate. usually these would be news outlets with editorial oversight, not stuff like blogs, facebook, and other self-published stuff that one can publish without being reviewed by others (unless the person who published those works are already established and expert in the field who already has a reputation for being accurate). happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 09:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Tag date/time information in Wikipedia articles?
It was suggestion I bring this idea to the Teahouse. I have to admit I started this idea last fall but life intervened and I didn't check back so I'm starting again.
My idea is this: every date and date/time in Wikipedia articles should be surrounded by the HTML tag with the appropriate datetime= attribute. I think this would require some sort of batch edit process to update existing articles and changes to templates and/or editors to recognize date and time patterns to put the tags into the articles when edits are saved nut I am a Wikipedia / Mediawiki neophyte so maybe it's not that simple? In any case the idea is to provide machine-readable date/time information in a standard format. That could then be used for future tools that do calendar-based things ("on this day", timelines, or things I haven't thought of) TimHare (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
And other wikipedia projects still do this. Dates in biographies in both fr-wiki and de-wiki are linked, for example. On fr-wiki they use Template:Date on them all. I'm not sure why. -- asilvering (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Formatting problem
Hi, dear people, 2 questions:
1. If a book on an artist is published by the artist, but contains important articles on him from art-experts, can i use this as a reference when i quote one of these experts? If so, would i have to add a comment like "this book contains texts from experts although it looks as if it didn't" - okay, sounds silly, but you get what i mean. In the German version of the article i did write as a comment "Ursula Teschner: . In: Ingrid Hornef (Hrsg.): . Hofheim am Taunus 1994, S. 4–5, hier S. 5 (Darin abgedruckt Fremdtexte von Erich Fitzau und Ursula Teschner).
2. Second question and this i already have asked years ago but did not really find a solution: If a book contains various articles on one subject... and you want to give the length of the article itself AND additional the page in this article from which you are quoting - in German, we do call this "Sammelwerk" and we can give not only the total number of pages like "Page=13-24" but also with the item "Fundstelle" ("Place of Finding")=page 14 - and in English up to now i only know how to give the overal pages like 13-24 - but there is no equivalent to "Fundstelle"; so i cannot give both info... how do i get this done anyway?
Hi @Naomi Hennig and welcome to the Teahouse! Some interesting questions!
Number 1 certainly seems interesting. It's partially WP:SELFSOURCE because it's published by the subject of the article, even though the author of the essay within the book is partially independent. It's possible that the essays meet the requirements of the selfsource link above, depending on the link. Perhaps you could mention it in line with the summary of the essay (e.g. "in a book published by Teschner, noted art critic Ingrid Hornef said...").
For number two, I think you're asking if you can include in the citation both the specific page for the quote and the range of pages in the same citation?
I tried it on User:SpookyTwenty/sandbox and it looks like the pages= argument takes anything provided, so you could send it pages=14-24, pp 15 and it'll show up fine! See my sandbox for that in action!
@Naomi Hennig The second part can readily be done with the template {{rp}}, to get something like [1]: 36 , where you are highlighting page 36 from a larger range.
References
^O'Neill, Robert (2014). "Coral Bell and Her Mark on Strategic Studies". In Ball, Desmond; Lee, Sheryn (eds.). Power and International Relations: Essays in Honour of Coral Bell. Canberra, Australia: ANU Press. pp. 35–38. doi:10.22459/PIR.11.2014.05. ISBN9781925022124.
Dear Michael D. Turnbull, thank you very much also for your kind help! I'm sometimes a bit stupid on technical issues, please excuse me. But in the reference, when it is formated, i don't see page 36 named at all... it looks like this: O'Neill, Robert (2014). "Coral Bell and Her Mark on Strategic Studies". In Ball, Desmond; Lee, Sheryn (eds.). Power and International Relations: Essays in Honour of Coral Bell. Canberra, Australia: ANU Press. pp. 35–38. doi:10.22459/PIR.11.2014.05. ISBN 9781925022124. - and there i don't see "page 36"... does this mean one would only see the specific page 36 if one looks at the formatting? Kind regards, --Naomi Hennig (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
@Naomi Hennig Hi there! I'll ping Michael D. Turnbull, but can answer your question. While the reference in the References section shows "pp. 35–38", look in the text and you'll see the footnote "[1]:36", which means page 36 of reference #1. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi,
I have tried to write something sensible about 0DTE (zero days to expiry options) with some general and mathematical background (see below) but it was refused. Is the topic so boring? Even if you google for 0DTE you find a lot of hits. According to JP Morgan the notional amount traded is in the region of 1 trillion USD. I have enclosed the text. Please provide some assistance for "repair". Thanks, Frank Draft:0DTE217.24.14.54 (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It's not necessary to copy the draft here, I've removed it and placed a link. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi IP editor. If "boring" was a legitimate reason for declining articles, then about 90% of Wikipedia's content would be gone, I think! However, there is already an article at Option (finance) that might be a better place to put the limited amount you have to say regarding 0DTE. Note that Zero Hedge is a deprecated source that you should not be using anywhere. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
So far, I managed to get the new data to wiki format in my sandbox, but then I realize that I should probably try to update the mapped results picture, too.
No idea where to start. Is there a tool to generate these SVG files based on numbers?
Hello. I created an article yesterday about the tallest buildings in Fort Myers, FL. I was told it was because I did not include enough sources, and I meant to save it as a draft to further finish editing and add more information. Is it possible to still access it in order to better the article and increase the likelihood of it getting published? Papi.gringo23 (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
I wanted to publish my draft but I was denied, I was hoping someone can help with the draft. She has 26 sources for the wiki. If anyone can help I would appriciate it. She is also Adin Ross sister.
Courtesy to Teahouse Hosts: Draft:Naomi Ross. Notability is not contagious, so being the sister of Adin Ross adds nothing to establishing her notability. Same for who she may have been dating in 2021. David notMD (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, SHaunyounai, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are 26 sources, but are there 26 sources which meet Wikipedia's golden rule for sources which establish notability? Clearly not - just looking at trhe titles many of them are obviously not independent. Remember 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.
Hey guys! Would appreciate you guys helping me out with a an athlete's page.
It has been denied due to copyrights issues even though the text has been written entirely by me, not copied. Can this be because some of the information is already shown on the athlete's web page? Do I need to rephrase or cite the website as reference? Also, is it important for an athlete to have international references or is it accepted for him to have local references? I have two Romanian twin sisters who have broken records in international mountaineering. Can you please help me? Thank you! Draft:Iulia and Delia ZanoschiWackwagon (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
@Wackwagon OK, now the draft has been restored, minus the copyright violation, I can give some further advice. At present, all your citations are jammed together just below the Mountaineering section header. By policy explained at WP:BLP, for biographies we insist that citations be inline: that is next to the information they support (see WP:REFB) and each fact needs a reliable source. As all of your current sources are in Romanian, you should use the |trans-title parameter in each {{cite web}} so readers here in the English Wikipedia get some idea of what the citation covers. You could also give a brief (translated) |quote= from them in English or paraphrase their content in the main text of the article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
All edits revereted
Hello,
After having gone through the policy guidelines, I took the leap to make some minor edits to update a Wiki page. However, all the changes were reverted.
Unclear as to why exactly. Some mentions of a citation spam. However, I followed the citation format of existing citations on the page and included citations from published peer-reviewed journals.
May I please get some insight on how to figure out what went wrong?
Here is a comparison of the reverted changes.
Here is a list of my contributions which were all reverted.
Hello, Neeyoy, and welcome to the Teahouse. It doesn't look to me as if those edits are spammy (I notice that one of the authors of one of the papers is Neeratyoy Mallik, which suggests there might be a conflict of interest issue, but that's only one of them). I suggest asking MrOllie, who was the editor who reverted you, why they did so. (You could post on their user talk page, but I've pinged them, so they will probably answer here, or directly to you on your user talk page). ColinFine (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The edit here was made to understand if self-citing is strictly forbidden or there is an issue with the entry overall.
Even if I ignore this issue and look at few of the edits I made on this page, I am not sure what can be done differently and an insight would be appreciated.
As ColinFine mentions, the edits were naive and enhancing already existing information.
Also, regarding the citation that could feature under a conflict of interest issue, though I see the point, the concerned work was already mentioned in the same article with the Github page linked. I simply added the published article to as a source/citation. Neeyoy (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply @MrOllie. We are not doing a concerted effort to add citations. We are following the suggestions of the Wikipedia tutorial to start with small edits in topics which we are familiar with. In future we will refrain from adding citations to works which can cause a COI.
In order to facilitate a transparent discussion and for clarity, I made a minor edit reintroducing one of the citations I had added in one of the reverted edits.
Kindly don't see this as a violation but an attempt at updating the Wiki article with more recent, relevant information and in case of reversion, understand what is wrong.
Reason for this citation:
A much more recent citation than the rest which empirically verifies the text sentence in the article, introduces a new Bayesian Optimization method which is the current state-of-the-art, published in one of THE top Machine Learning peer-reviewed journals, and it is not a self-citation.
I request you to kindly engage with me here and enlighten me on what am I doing wrong here.
As a member of the research community that the concerned Wiki article refers to, the page is vastly backdated and it would be nice to know how to correctly update the information.
@Neeyoy I'm no expert in that topic but WP:SELFCITE specifically says that Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Wikipedia wants to encourage subject-matter experts to contribute provided they do not do so in an way that makes the article unbalanced or parts of it WP:UNDUE. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
@Neeyoy, Wikipedia absolutely does want input from experts, especially to help update articles.
What we'd ideally like to see is you adding sources as much as possible to other people rather than to your own work. As Mike Turnbull says, it's not forbidden to cite to yourself, and certainly if, as someone who knows the current research, you know that a paper of your own is the most appropriate source for a particular assertion or update, by all means use it. But if you're only inserting your own research, and not also inserting that of other current researchers in the field, it is likely to been seen as self-serving and will absolutely attract hostile attention from editors who suspect Wikipedia is being spammed. Valereee (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I am going to revert your most recent edit. Adding a citation with no new information is not adding to human knowledge, it's WP:SPAM. If there are parts of your paper that you think editors should evaluate for inclusion, you can summarize the sections on the talk page using WP:EDITREQUEST with proper references to your work and supporting works. If it is WP:DUE, another editor will add it. Slywriter (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
@Slywriter, it's worth adding a citation with no new information if the citation is supporting uncited content already there. (I haven't checked the additions, just making sure we're all clear on this.) Valereee (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
These have been great advice and I truly appreciate it. As I understand, there is a bit of learning curve in knowing what is an appropriate edit and guess that is the cost of keeping Wikipedia spam free and reliable.
Especially the criteria of no new information when adding a citation is good to know.
@Neeyoy, the criteria of no new information when adding a citation is good to know is not correct. There are plenty of times you might add a citation without adding new information: whenever there is unsourced information, we want a citation that supports that content. Whenever the current source isn't a first-class source, we'd want a better source added.
What @Slywriter was getting at was that if there is already an excellent source for information, and you have nothing new to add or update to the content, simply tacking on another citation isn't all that helpful. But even that's not hard-and-fast; I could see the value in adding a 2022 source to content that has a 1999 source that said the same thing (so no content update needed) but leaving the 1999 source in place because it provided a contemporary account of a 1999 incident, for instance. There might be a gazillion other similar cases. Please don't take that as a hard-and-fast rule, as one thing we definitely do not want you to do is go in and make changes just so you can justify adding a source. Valereee (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Valereee, right adding sources to unsourced is good. Adding a second source to existing sourced content without new information and a COI is bad. Slywriter (talk)
New definition pages
Hi,
My company works in assisting clients immigrate. However, many clients don't have an understanding of what the difference means to financially emigrate, and to completely cease their tax residency.
Would we be able to create and submit those definitions, to then easily refer back to them if clients ask?
In addition to what Michael Turnbull just said--that if you give definitions here, you'll have to provide authoritative and reliable sources for those definitions (you can't just say what you know to be correct, even if you are an expert)--there is this advantage to doing this on your own website rather than here. What you put on your own website is entirely under your control. Not so, here. You write something in a Wikipedia article and anybody can change it--including removing it completely, if the sources are inadequate. Even if it passes muster in that way, it's almost inevitable that SOMEONE will come along and think it could be explained better--and that someone will undertake to do that. And you might not like what they write, but unless what they write is completely wrong ACCORDING TO THE SOURCES CITED (or they blatantly copy those sources, violating copyright), there's not much you can do about it. Your version will not enjoy any precedence over anybody else's version, simply by virtue of your having written it. Uporządnicki (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Draft:Stephen Neidle. He may well be notable but you need to demonstrate that in accordance with Wikipedia:Notability (people). Shantavira|feed me 12:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Fundraising. The Wikimedia Foundation does not track the identity of IP addresses, so it doesn't know your age, income level or whether you donated in the past.
Are you asking about a sudden change to Wikipedia's appearance? It is because the default skin has changed from the Vector legacy (2010) skin to the new Vector (2022) skin. If you would like to change back to the old one, you can, as a registered user, click on the 
in the top-right corner and choose 
Vector legacy (2010).
Fixed the table in this edit. When the References are listed in the table, it's a sign that you didn't properly end the table. See Help:Wikitable for more info. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
so it links to Line 1 (Athens Suburban Railway) can anyone help? sorry to be a pain about this? ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
--CiaPan (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
